Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘EU’

IMF Orders African Governments to Remove Fuel Subsidies


NewsRescue published on January, 1, 2012:

Christine Lagarde visited Nigeria to meet President, Goodluck Johnathan in December 2011

Joining Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad, Nigeria on New Years day removed fuel subsidies in accordance with an order from the IMF (International Monetary Fund). This created a jump in the price of automobile fuel from about 65 Naira per liter to 140Naira per liter overnight, Sunday. This brings fuel/gas prices in Nigeria to about the same price it is in the US, though lower than many European nations.

Nigerians used to pay about $1.51 / gallon, the European average is about $5-6.00/gallon, while the US average is $3-3.70/gallon. While other oil producing nations, like Venezuela, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are about $0.12, $0.78 and $0.91 respectively. This hike in fuel prices was compelled on African Nations by the IMF due to supposedly rising global oil prices and the Europe recession.

Trying to invoke an “African Spring”?

Christine Lagarde ordered the governments of Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad to relinquish fuel subsidies

The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde visited Nigeria to meet with the President, Goodluck Johnathan in December 2011 to drive home this directive. This move invites frustration on African nations which comparatively escaped the “Greed” Wall street recession that has been marauding and collapsing European and Middle Eastern economies, with resulting hardship, riots and Government change, including the popular “occupy” riots still plaguing the United States and other European nations, the August 2011 “Robin-hood” riots of the UK,  the collapse of Greece economy, that likewise affected the Middle East with the “Arab Spring” revolutions. This IMF induced chaos in Africa is like the IMF induced riots in 1997 in Indonesia during the Asian financial crisis.

Related: NewsRescueHow The IMF-World Bank and Structural Adjustment Program(SAP) Destroyed Africa

The meeting with Goodluck Johnathan was not just coincidental. Analysts believe it was predetermined. The IMF has been canvassing for the removal of subsidy among African countries. View Meeting images provided by IMF

This pronouncement has seen governments in Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Chad and Ghana moving to cut state subsidies on fuel.

Yesterday, Ghana cut subsidy and it was learned that the development was due to pressure from the IMF to do so because of rise in the price of crude.

CBN governor Sanusi, Minister of Finance, Ngozi Iweala and IMF boss, Christine Lagarde

The Chief Executive Officer of Ghana’s National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Alex Mould said the cumulative effect of the rise in crude oil prices this year and the about 5.7 percent depreciation of the cedi meant a 25 percent increase in cedi terms in the cost of procuring crude oil and petroleum products since January. For instance, the IMF has urged countries across West and Central Africa to cut fuel subsidies, which they say are not effective in directly aiding the poor, but do promote corruption and smuggling.

Related: NewsRescue- 01/06/2012- Nigeria Targeted For Destruction: Gordon Duff, US

 

The price change will see the cost of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) increase by 30 percent while petrol and diesel will go up 15 percent at pumps in Ghana. Mould said Ghana has spent about 450 million cedis on fuel subsidies in 2011.

Ghana’s Minister for Finance Kwabena Duffour said the removal of subsidies would have a positive impact on Ghana’s economy. Duffour said: “Subsidising fuel is not sustainable. It is the right thing to do so we can sustain our fiscal consolidation.”

This is the same music that the protagonists of subsidy removal in Nigeria, like the Coordinating Minister of Economy and Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala; the Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke and the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Sanusi Lamido Sanusi are singing.

While Sanusi insisted that the economy would breakdown if the subsidy is not removed, Ngozi said Nigerians would be better off without subsidy. Ghana’s subsidy removal yesterday confirmed people’s speculations that Western powers are behind the move to stop subsidy. Development in Ghana has also gone to confirm that the Nigerian government would boycott the public outcry on subsidy removal and go ahead to remove.

There is no provision for subsidy in the 2012 budget proposal submitted by President Goodluck Jonathan. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) has said that from next year they would not pay for subsidy because there is no provision for it in the budget.

Who are the bosses in Africa

The development also negates the IMF’s saying that it does not tailor policies for any country to follow, but only provide technical supports. But during the visit of Lagarde to Nigeria, she said, “I came here primarily to listen to our African members, and to find out how we can better tailor support to countries in this region in the current difficult global environment.”

Nigeria is indeed in serious economic problem. For instance, the value of the currency has been devaluing against major foreign currencies. The official value of naira against dollar is currently 156 to a dollar and at the Bureau De Change, it goes for 165 against the dollar.

The governor of central bank, Sanusi sometime this year faulted the IMF for suggesting that the value of the naira be devalued to protect further depreciation of the foreign reserves. However, the governor bowed to pressure and got the naira devalued. It is the same pressure from the Western powers that is pushing the government to remove fuel subsidy.

In Nigeria, removal of subsidy would necessarily lead to hike in fuel pump and such hike would trigger increment in the price of other commodities and services. It is already been speculated that by next year, when subsidy might have been removed, Nigerians would have to pay as high as N140 per litre of petrol. The price is currently N65 per litre.

What this means is that Nigerians should gird up for tough times next year. This is because any increase in the price of fuel would push the cost of production in the manufacturing industry up.

Also, cost of transportation would go up and even operators of Small, Medium Scale Enterprises would not be able to continue in business because most of them relied on generators to power their machines and generators are powered by fuel. Some civil society organizations and organized labour are urging Nigerians to come out and protest subsidy removal. The question is, can Nigerians occupy the “Three Arm Zone” as Americans “Occupied” the “Street.”

Subsidy removal is turning out to be another Bretton Woods Institutions’ anti-peoples’ policy. It is a neo-liberal agenda developed by those in authority. It is not a popular idea but that of the ruling power. It is becoming a dominant idea because in every political setting, the dominant idea is the idea of the ruling power.

Now that the government is bent on removing subsidy from fuel against people’s outcry, the question to ask is if this is the “Fresh Air” that President Goodluck promised Nigerians during his campaigning? – source

Under IMF Hegemony

Also, Nile Bowie wrote at Global Research on January 6, 2012:
[Lagos Dissents Under IMF Hegemony; Nigeria: The Next Front for AFRICOM
The IMF and US African Command (AFRICOM) Join Hands in the Plunder of the African Continent

On a recent trip to West Africa, the newly appointed managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde ordered the governments of Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad to relinquish vital fuel subsidies. Much to the dismay of the population of these nations, the prices of fuel and transport have near tripled over night without notice, causing widespread violence on the streets of the Nigerian capital of Abuja and its economic center, Lagos. Much like the IMF induced riots in Indonesia during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, public discontent in Nigeria is channelled towards an incompetent and self-serving domestic elite, compliant to the interests of fraudulent foreign institutions.

Although Nigeria holds the most proven oil reserves in Africa behind Libya, it’s people are now expected to pay a fee closer to what the average American pays for the cost of fuel, an exorbitant sum in contrast to its regional neighbours. Alternatively, other oil-producing nations such as Venezuela, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia offer their populations fuel for as little as $0.12 USD per gallon.

While Lagos has one of Africa’s highest concentration of billionaires, the vast majority of the population struggle daily on less than $2.00 USD. Amid a staggering 47% youth unemployment rate and thousands of annual deaths related to preventable diseases, the IMF has pulled the rug out from under a nation where safe drinking water is a luxury to around 80% of it’s populace.

Although Nigeria produces 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day intended for export use, the country struggles with generating sufficient electrical power and maintaining its infrastructure. Ironically enough, less than 6% of bank depositors own 88% of all bank deposits in Nigeria. Goldman Sachs employees line its domestic government, in addition to the former Vice President of the World Bank, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who is widely considered by many to be the de facto Prime Minister.

Even after decades of producing lucrative oil exports, Nigeria has failed to maintain it’s own refineries, forcing it to illogically purchase oil imports from other nations. Society at large has not benefited from Nigeria’s natural riches, so it comes as no surprise that a severe level of distrust is held towards the government, who claims the fuel subsidy needs to be lifted in order to divert funds towards improving the quality of life within the country.

Like so many other nations, Nigerian people have suffered from a systematically reduced living standard after being subjected to the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP). Before a loan can be taken from the World Bank or IMF, a country must first follow strict economic policies, which include currency devaluation, lifting of trade tariffs, the removal of subsidies and detrimental budget cuts to critical public sector health and education services.

SAPs encourage borrower countries to focus on the production and export of domestic commodities and resources to increase foreign exchange, which can often be subject to dramatic fluctuations in value. Without the protection of price controls and an authentic currency rate, extreme inflation and poverty subsist to the point of civil unrest, as seen in a wide array of countries around the world (usually in former colonial protectorates). The people of Nigeria have been one of the world’s most vocal against IMF-induced austerity measures, student protests have been met with heavy-handed repression since 1986 and several times since then, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths. As a testament to the success of the loan, the average laborer in Nigeria earned 35% more in the 1970’s than he would have in 2012.

Working through the direct representation of Western Financial Institutions and the IMF in Nigeria’s Government, a new IMF conditionality calls for the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Olusegun Aganga, the former Nigerian Minister of Finance commented on how the SWF was hastily pushed through and enacted prior to the countries national elections. If huge savings are amassed from oil exports and austerity measures, one cannot realistically expect that these funds will be invested towards infrastructure development based on the current track record of the Nigerian Government.Further more, it is increasingly more likely that any proceeds from a SWF would be beneficial to Western institutions and markets, which initially demanded its creation.

Nigerian philanthropist Bukar Usman prophetically writes “I have genuine fears that the SWF would serve us no better than other foreign-recommended “remedies” which we had implemented to our own detriment in the past or are being pushed to implement today.”

The abrupt simultaneous removal of fuel subsidies in several West African nations is a clear indication of who is really in charge of things in post-colonial Africa. The timing of its cushion-less implementation could not be any worse, Nigeria’s president Goodluck Jonathan recently declared a state of emergency after forty people were killed in a church bombing on Christmas day, an act allegedly committed by the Islamist separatist group, Boko Haram. The group advocates dividing the predominately Muslim northern states from the Christian southern states, a similar predicament to the recent division of Sudan.

Strategic Forecasting Inc. Regional Map of Africa

As the United States African Command (AFRICOM) begins to gain a foothold into the continent with its troops officially present in Eritrea and Uganda in an effort to maintain security and remove other theocratic religious groups such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, the sectarian violence in Nigeria provides a convenient pretext for military intervention in the continuing resource war. For further insight into this theory, it is interesting to note that United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania conducted a series of African war game scenarios in preparation for the Pentagon’s expansion of AFRICOM under the Obama Administration.

In the presence of US State Department Officials, employees from The Rand Corporation and Israeli military personnel, a military exercise was undertaken which tested how AFRICOM would respond to a disintegrating Nigeria on the verge of collapse amidst civil war. The scenario envisioned rebel factions vying for control of the Niger Delta oil fields (the source of one of America’s top oil imports), which would potentially be secured by some 20,000 U.S. troops if a US-friendly coup failed to take place At a press conference at the House Armed Services Committee on March 13, 2008, AFRICOM Commander, General William Ward then went on to brazenly state the priority issue of America’s growing dependence on African oil would be furthered by AFRICOM operating under the principle theatre-goal of “combating terrorism”.

At an AFRICOM Conference held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller openly declared the guiding principle of AFRICOM was to protect “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market”, before citing China’s increasing presence in the region as challenging to American interests. After the unwarranted snatch-and-grab regime change conducted in Libya, nurturing economic destabilization, civil unrest and sectarian conflict in Nigeria is an ultimately tangible effort to secure Africa’s second largest oil reserves. During the pillage of Libya, its SFW accounts worth over 1.2 billion USD were frozen and essentially absorbed by Franco-Anglo-American powers; it would realistic to assume that much the same would occur if Nigeria failed to comply with Western interests. While agents of foreign capital have already infiltrated its government, there is little doubt that Nigeria will become a new front in the War on Terror.]

Advertisements

Operation Sarkozy (Mr Sarkozy and the CIA)


Based on Thierry Meyssan’s “Operation Sarkozy” Robert Thompson wrote at Axis of Logic on July 18, 2008 warning the world and particularly the Arabs, more than three years ago, from eminent dangers which we can see them clearly now in regime change in Ivory Coast, Libya, and the so-called “Arab Spring”:

[A most interesting study dated 14th July 2008 by Thierry Meyssan, entitled Operation Sarkozy, has been brought to my attention on how the CIA managed to place one of its agents, namely Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, as president of the French Republic.

To make his point, Mr Meyssan does not content himself with vague conjecture, but puts together check-able facts relating to the relationship between our President and the CIA (the well-known terrorist organisation financed by the tax-payers in the USA), and the USA establishment in general, with a view to ensuring that French policy should be dramatically re-aligned to serve the interests of the present USA administration (not, of course, the people of the USA).

The links between various arms of the USA establishment and Mr Sarkozy are much closer than I could ever have imagined, although I was aware of a fair number of the facts reported and examined by Mr Meyssan. I had not however thought, and this is indeed my own fault, how closely these links tie up with other links with groups on both sides of the Atlantic allied, or similar, to the Mafia and other conspiratorial bodies based in Italy and neighbouring states as well as being well entrenched in the USA.

Acceptance of the arguments put forward by Mr Meyssan serves to explain many of the otherwise seemingly inexplicable decisions made by Mr Sarkozy since he took over from Jacques Chirac in 2007, as well as giving very personal private reasons (previously totally unknown to me, but then I am not a fan of the gossip columns) for the obvious dislike, and perhaps even hatred, which Mr Chirac has for his successor.

This article should be read by everyone as the implications are extremely serious for the future of the world. I make this claim not because France is still a great power — it is not and most of us recognise this — but it shows a more subtle means of achieving a coup d’etat than using military or other violent means.  Mr Meyssan very carefully tracks the whole story of Mr Sarkozy’s rise within the ranks of the successive parties which have claimed to be “Gaulliste” (as following the broad lines of policy laid down by the General, later President, but many of us still think of him as the great leader during the Second World War from 1940 onwards). It is a tale of most cunning duplicity supported by hyper-intelligent backing from within the USA establishment.

If the conclusions reached by Mr Meyssan are correct, and I can see no reason to doubt his analysis of the facts, then Mr Sarkozy is even more dangerous than he has so far appeared to be, and the poor and the oppressed can expect to suffer almost anywhere in the world from his actions on behalf of his masters in the USA. The Arab world, above all others, can expect to be the victim of highly sophisticated concerted trickery as he does everything that he can to crush any moves which the people may try to make towards freedom from tyranny, wherever such moves might in any way limit the greedy ambitions of those who rule the USA.

Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com]

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

The article in question was written by Thierry Meyssan on July 14, 2004.  It was translated for Axis of Logic from French to English by Robert Thompson and was published on Red Ice Creations (a news website and radio program, hosted by founder, filmmaker and researcher Henrik Palmgren.) The following is this translation:

How the CIA planted one of its agents as President of the French Republic

Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy should be judged on his actions and not on his personality. But when his actions surprise even his own electors, it is legitimate to examine in detail his biography and to ask about the alliances which brought him to power. Thierry Meyssan decided to write the truth about the origins of the President of the French Republic. All the information contained in this article is verifiable, with the exception of two imputations, pointed out by the author who assumes sole responsibility for them.

The French people, weary of the over-long presidencies of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac, elected Nicolas Sarkozy and counted on his energy to revitalise their country. They hoped for a break with the years of immobilism and superannuated ideologies. They have had a break with the principles which form the foundation of the French nation. They have been stupefied by this “hyper president”, every day grabbing hold of another new file, drawing the right and the left to him, thus disposing of all the land-marks to the point of creating complete confusion.

Like children who have just done something very stupid, the French are too busy finding excuses to admit the extent of the damage and of their naïvety. This makes them refuse all the more to see who Nicolas Sarkozy is, which they ought to have realised long ago.

The man is clever. Like an illusionist, he has diverted their attention by offering them his private life as a spectacle and in posing in celebrity magazines, to the point of making them overlook his political history.

Let the sense of this article be fully understood: it is not to reproach Mr Sarkozy with his links of family, friends and professional contacts, but to reproach him with having hidden his links from the French people who believed that they were electing a free man.

To understand how a man in whom all agree they see an agent of the United States and Israel has been able to become the head of the Gaullist party, then the President of the French Republic, one must go back in time. Far back. We must follow a long digression during which we shall introduce the protagonists who are today taking their revenge.

Family secrets
At the end of the Second World War, the USA secret services counted on the Italo-US godfather Lucky Luciano to control the security of American ports and to prepare the allied landings in Sicily.

Luciano’s contacts with the US services passed above all through Frank Wisner Sr. then, when the ‘godfather’ was freed and went into exile in Italy, through his Corsican ‘ambassador’, Étienne Léandri.

In 1958, the United States, worried about a possible victory of the FLN in Algeria which would have opened North Africa to Soviet influence, decided to give rise to a military coup d’état in France. The operation was organised jointly by the Planning Direction of the CIA – in theory run by Frank Wisner Sr.- and by NATO. But Wisner had already sunk into dementia so that it was his successor, Allan Dulles, who supervised the action. From Algiers, the French Generals formed a Committee of Public Safety which exerted pressure on the civil government in Paris and forced it to give full powers to General De Gaulle without any need to use force.

However, Charles De Gaulle was not the pawn whom the Anglo-Saxons believed they could manipulate. To start with, he tried to find a way out of the colonial contradiction by giving wide autonomy to the overseas territories within a French Union. But it was already too late to save the French Empire since the colonised peoples did not believe in the promises from the metropolis and insisted on their independence. After having successfully led fierce campaigns of repression against the independentists, De Gaulle realised what had to be done. Showing rare political wisdom, he decided to give each colony its independence.

This U-turn was seen as a betrayal by most of those who brought him to power. The CIA and NATO then backed all sorts of plots to get rid of him, including a failed putsch and some forty attempts to assassinate him. However, some of his partisans approved of his political evolution. Around Charles Pasqua, they formed the SAC, a militia to protect him.

Pasqua is both a Corsican crook and a former member of the resistance. He married the daughter of a Canadian bootlegger who made a fortune during prohibition. He ran the Ricard company which, after having dealt in absinthe, a forbidden drink, made itself respectable by selling anisette. However, the company continued to serve as a cover for all sorts of deals in relation with the Italo-New Yorker Genovese family, that of Lucky Luciano. It was therefore not surprising that Pasqua called on Étienne Léandri (Luciano’s “ambassador”) to recruit strong arm men and build up a Gaullist militia. A third man played an important role in the formation of the SAC, De Gaulle’s former body-guard, Achille Peretti -another Corsican.

Thus protected, De Gaulle drew up with panache a policy of national independence. While confirming that he belonged to the Atlantic camp, he questioned the Anglo-Saxon leadership. He objected to the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market (1961 and 1967); he refused the deployment of UNO blue helmets in the Congo (1961); he encouraged Latin American states to break free of US imperialism (speech in Mexico, 1964); he expelled NATO from France and withdrew form the Integrated Command Structure of the Atlantic Alliance (1966); he denounced the Viet-Nam War (speech in Phnon Penh, 1966); he condemned Israeli expansionism during the Six Day War (1967); he supported the independence of Quebec (speech in Montreal 1967) ; etc…

At the same time, De Gaulle consolidated France’s power by giving it a military-industrial complex including a nuclear dissuasion force, and by guaranteeing its supply of energy. He usefully separated the troublesome Corsicans from his entourage by giving them overseas missions. Thus Étienne Léandri became the dealer for the Elf group (now Total), while Charles Pasqua became the confidant of the heads of state in French-speaking Africa.

Aware that he could now defy the Anglo-Saxons everywhere at the same time, De Gaulle allied himself with the Rothschild family. He chose as Prime Minister the Director of the Bank, Georges Pompidou. The two men formed an efficient tandem. The political audacity of the first never lost sight of the economic realism of the second.

When De Gaulle resigned, in 1969, Georges Pompidou briefly succeeded him as President before being carried off by cancer. The historical Gaullists did not accept his leadership and were worried by his excessively anglophile attitude. They cried treason when Pompidou, seconded by the Secretary General of the Elyse Eduard Balladur, allowed “perfidious Albion” into the European Common Market.

The making of Nicolas Sarkozy
Having thus described the background, let us come back to our principal personage, Nicolas Sarkozy. Born in 1955, he was the son of a Hungarian nobleman, Pal Sarkösy de Nagy-Bocsa, who fled to France after fleeing the Red Army, and Andrée Mallah, a Jewish lady from Sallonica. After having had three children (Guillaume, Nicolas and François), the couple divorced. Pal Sarkösy de Nagy-Bocsa remarried with an aristocrat, Christine de Ganay, by whom he had two children (Pierre-Olivier and Caroline). Nicolas was not brought up by his parents alone, but passed to and fro in this recomposed family.

His mother became the Secretary of Achille Peretti. After having co-founded the SAC, De Gaulle’s body-guard had pursued a brilliant political career. He was elected Député and Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine, the richest suburb of the capital, then President of the National Assembly.

Unhappily, in 1972, Achille Peretti was subject to serious accusations. In the United States, the magazine Time revealed the existence of a secret Corsican criminal organisation the ‘Union corse ‘ which was said to control a large share of the traffic in drugs between Europe and America, the famous “French connection” which Hollywood brought to the screen. Based on parliamentary hearings and its own investigations, Time quoted the name of a Mafia boss, Jean Venturi, arrested some years earlier in Canada, who was no other than the commercial representative of Charles Pasqua for the drinks company Ricard. The names of several families were mentioned who were said to run the “Union corse”, including the Perettis. Achille denied this, but had to resign from the presidency of the National Assembly and even escaped from a “suicide”.

In 1977, Pal Sarközy separated from his second wife, Christine de Ganay, who then linked herself with the number two of the central administration of the Department of State in the United States. She married him and set up home with him in America. The world being small, as is well known, her husband was no other than Frank Wisner Jr., the son of the previous one. The functions of Junior at the CIA are not known, but it was clear that he had an important role there. Nicolas, who remained close to his step-mother, his half-brother and his half-sister, began to turn towards the United States where he “benefitted” from training programmes in the Department of State.

At the same time, Nicolas Sarkozy joined the Gaullist Party. He there met and had contacts with Charles Pasqua more speedily as he was not only a national leader, but also in charge of the local section in the Hauts-de-Seine.

In 1982, Nicolas Sarkozy, having completed his legal training and having been called to the Bar, married Achilles Pretty’s niece. His best man was Charles Pasqual. As an Avocet, Maître Sarkozy looked after the interests of the Corsican friends of his mentors. He bought a property in Corsica, at Vice, and thought of making his name more Corsican by replacing the ‘y’ with an ‘I’: Sarkozy.

The following year, he was elected Mayor of Neuilly-sure-Seine in the place of his uncle-in-law, Achilles Pretty, stricken by a heart attack.

However, Nicolas did not take long to betray his wife and, from 1984 onward, he had a hidden liaison with Cecilia, the wife of the most famous French television personality at the time, Jacques Martin, whom he had met when celebrating their marriage as Mayor of Neuilly. This double life lasted for five years, before the lovers left their respective spouses to set up a new household.

Nicolas was a witness at the marriage, in 1992, of Jacques Chirac’s daughter, Claude, to an editorialist at Le Figaro. he could not stop himself from seducing Claude and to have a brief affair with her, while living officially with Cecilia. The betrayed husband committed suicide by taking drugs. The break between the Chirac’s and Nicolas Sarkozy was brutal and permanent.

In 1993, the left lost the parliamentary elections. President François Mitterrand refused to resign and entered into a cohabitation with a Prime Minister from the right, Jacques Chirac. His ambition was to become President and thought of then forming a tandem with Eduard Balladur comparable with that of De Gaulle and Pompidou, and he refused to be Prime Minister again and left the place to his “friend for over thirty years”, Eduard Balladur. Despite his dubious past, Charles Pasqual became Minister of the Interior. Even if he kept a firm grip Moroccan marijuana, he took advantage of his position to legalise his other activities by taking control of the casinos, gaming and racing in French-speaking Africa. He also established links in Saudi Arabia and in Israel an became an honorary officer in the Mossad. As for Nicolas Sarkozy, he was Minister of the Budget and government spokesman.

Frank Wisner Jr.

In Washington, Frank Wisner Jr. took over from Paul Wolfowitz as being responsible for political planning in the Defence Department. Nobody commented on the links which he had with the French government’s spokesman.

This was when the tension within the Gaullist Party came back as thirty years earlier between the historic Gaullists and the financial right, in the person of Balladur. The novelty was that Charles Pasqua and with him the young Nicolas Sarkozy betrayed Jacques Chirac to come closer to the Rothschild tendency. Everything went wrong. The conflict reached its peak in 1995 when Édouard Balladur put himself forward against his ex-friend Jacques Chirac for the presidential election, and was beaten. Above all, following the instructions received from London and Washington, the Balladur government opened negotiations for adhesion to the European Union and to NATO of the States in Central and Eastern Europe, freed from Soviet control.

Everything went wrong in the Gaullist Party where the friends of yester-year were ready to kill one another. To finance his electoral campaign, Édouard Balladur tried to get hold of the Gaullist Party’s black funds, hidden within the double accounting system of the oil company Elf. Hardly had the old Étienne Léandri died, when Judges looked into the company and its bosses were incarcerated. But Balladur, Pasqua and Sarkozy never managed to recuperate the booty.

Crossing the desert
Throughout his first term, Jacques Chirac kept Nicolas Sarkozy at a distance. The man became discreet during this long period of crossing the desert. Discreetly, he continued to make links in financial circles.

In 1996, Nicolas Sarkozy having finally managed to end an endless divorce procedure married Cécilia. As witnesses they had the two billionaires Martin Bouygues and Bernard Arnaud (the richest man in the country).

Last act
Well before the Iraq crisis, Frank Wisner Jr. and his colleagues at the CIA were planning the destruction of the Gaullist line and the rise in power of Nicolas Sarkozy. They acted in three stages: firstly the elimination of the leaders of the Gaullist Party and taking over this body, then the elimination of the principal rival on the right and the investiture by the Gaullist Party for the presidential election, and finally the elimination of any serious challenger from the left in order to be sure of carrying off the presidential election.

For years, the media were kept excited by posthumous revelations by a real property speculator. Before dying of a serious illness, he had registered for reasons never made clear a video confession. For even more obscure reasons, the “cassette” fell into the hands of a highly placed member of the Socialist Party, Dominique Strauss-Khan, who passed it on indirectly to the press.

Even if the confessions of the speculator did not lead to any judicial sanction, they opened a Pandora’s box. The principal victim of the successive affairs was to be the Prime Minister Alain Juppé. To protect Chirac, he alone took on all the criminal offences. Putting Juppé out of the way left the way clear for Nicolas Sarkozy to take over the running of the Gaullist Party.

Sarkozy then made use of his position to force Jacques Chirac to take him back into the government, despite their mutual hatred. He was definitively to be the Minister of the Interior. What a mistake! In this post, he controlled the Préfets and the interior intelligence network which he used to put his appointees into the major branches of the administration.

He also dealt with Corsican matters. The Préfet Claude Érignac had been assassinated. Although no-one had claimed it, the murder was immediately interpreted as a challenge made by the independentists to the Republic. After a long hunt, the police managed to arrest a fleeing suspect, Yvan Colonna, the son of a Socialist Député. Without regard for the presumption of innocence, Nicolas Sarkozy announced this arrest accusing the suspect of being the assassin. This news was too good two days before a referendum being organised by the Minister of the Interior in Corsica to modify the status of the Island. However that may be, the voters rejected the Sarkozy project which, according to some, favoured Mafia interests.

Although Yvan Colonna was later found guilty, he has always claimed his innocence and no material evidence has been found against him. Strangely, the man refused to talk, preferring to be found guilty than to reveal what he knows. We here reveal that the Préfet Érignac was not killed by nationalists, but shot by the hit-man, Igor Pecatte, immediately sent off to Angola where he has been taken on by the Elf group. The motive for the crime was closely linked to the previous functions of Érignac, in charge of the African networks of Charles Pasqua at the Ministry of Cooperation. As for Yvan Colonna, he has been a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy for many years and their children are in friendly contact with one another.

A new affair came to light: false listings were circulating which untruthfully accused certain personalities of hiding bank accounts in Luxembourg, with Clearstream. Among the personalities defamed: Nicolas Sarkozy. He took the case to court and let it seem that his right-wing rival for the presidential election, the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, had organised this machination. He did not hide his intention to have him sent to prison. In reality, the false listings were put in circulation by members of the Franco-American Foundation, of which John Negroponte was the President and Frank Wisner Jr. the Director. What the Judges did not know and we reveal here was that the listings were made in London by a joint office of the CIA and the MI6, Hakluyt & Co, of which Frank Wisner Jr. is also Director. Villepin fights back against the accusations, but he is charged, forbidden to leave his home and, de facto, temporarily removed from political life. The way is open for on the right for Nicolas Sarkozy.

It remained necessary to neutralise opposition candidates. The membership dues to the Socialist Party have gone down to a symbolic level to attract new members. Suddenly thousands of young people applied for membership cards. Among them are at least ten thousand new members who are in reality members of the Trotskyite “Lambertist” Party (so called from the name of their founder Pierre Lambert). This small extreme left formation has a history of working for the CIA against the Stalinist communists during the Cold War (it was the equivalent of the SD/USA of Max Shatchman, which formed the neoconservatives in the USA). This was not the first time that the “Lambertists” had infiltrated the Socialist Party.

In particular they planted two famous CIA agents: Lionel Jospin (who became Prime Minister) and Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, the principal adviser to Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Primaries were organised in the Socialist Party to appoint its candidate for the presidential election. Two personalities were competing: Laurent Fabius and Ségolène Royal. Only the first represented a danger for Sarkozy. Dominique Strauss-Kahn became a candidate with the task of eliminating Fabius at the last moment. This he was able to do thanks to the votes of the infiltrated “Lambertist” militants who voted not for him but for Royal. The operation was possible because Strauss-Kahn, of Moroccan Jewish origin, had been on the US payroll for many years. The French were not aware that he lectured at Stanford, where he had been taken on by the Provost of the University, Condoleezza Rice. As soon as he took office, Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleezza Rice thanked Strauss-Kahn by having him appointed to head the International Monetary Fund.

First days at the Élysée Palace
On the evening of the second round of the presidential election, when the opinion polls announced his probable victory, Nicolas Sarkozy made a short speech to the nation from his campaign HQ. Then, contrary to custom, he did not go to celebrate with the militants of his party, but went to Fouquet’s. The famous restaurant on the Champs-Élysées, which had once been the meeting place for the “Union Corse” now belongs to the casino operator Dominique Desseigne. It was placed at the disposition of the elected President to receive his friends and principal donors to his campaign. A hundred or so guests crowded in, the richest men in France were there with the casino bosses.

Then the elected President allowed himself a few days of earned rest. Taken there in a private Falcon-900 to Malta, he rested there on the Paloma, the 65 metre yacht of his friend Vincent Bolloré, a billionaire formed at the Banque Rothschild.

Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy was invested as President of the French Republic. The first decree which he signed was not to proclaim an amnesty, but to allow casinos to be operated by his friends Desseigne et Partouche and increase the number of gambling machines.

He formed his working team and his government. With no surprise, one finds there a very worrying casino owner (Minister of Youth and Sport) and lobbyist for the casinos of his friend Desseigne (who became spokesman for the “Gaullist” Party).

Nicolas Sarkozy relied above all on four men: Claude Guéant, Secretary General of the Élysée Palace. He was the former right arm of Charles Pasqua. François Pérol, Assistant Secretary General of the Élysée. He was a managing partner of the Banque Rothschild. Jean-David Lévitte, diplomatic adviser. Son of the former Director of the Jewish Agency. French Ambassador to UNO, he was removed from his post by Chirac who considered him too close to George Bush. Alain Bauer, the man in the shadow. His name does not appear in any directory. He is in charge of the intelligence services. Grandson of the Grand Rabbi of Lyon, former Grand-Master of the Grand Orient of France (the principal Masonic obedience in France) and former number 2 of the USA National Security Agency in Europe.

Frank Wisner Jr., who had in the meantime been appointed special envoy by President Bush for the independence of Kosovo, insisted that Bernard Kouchner be appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs with a dual priority mission: The independence of Kosovo and the ending of France’s Arab policy.

Kouchner, of Baltic Jewish origin, started his career by taking part in creating a humanitarian NGO. Thanks to money from the National Endowment for Democracy, he took part in operations for Zbigniew Brzezinski in Afghanistan, alongside Osama Ben Laden and the Karzaï brothers against the Soviets. He could be found in the 90s alongside Alija Izetbegoviç in Bosnia-Herzegovina. From 1999 to 2001, he was the High Representative of UNO in Kosovo.

Under the control of the younger brother of President Hamid Karzaï, Afghanistan became the largest producer in the world of opium poppies. The juice is transformed on the spot into heroin and transported by the US Air Force to Camp Bondsteed (Kosovo). There the drug is taken over by the men of Haçim Thaçi who distribute it principally in Europe and also in the United States. The profits are used to finance the illegal operations of the CIA. Karzaï and Thaçi are long-time personal friends of Bernard Kouchner, who obviously knows nothing of their criminal activities despite the international reports which have been made on the subject.

To complete his government, Nicolas Sarkozy appoints Christine Lagarde, Minister of Economy and Finance. She had made all her career in the United States where she ran the prestigious law firm of Baker & McKenzie. Within Dick Cheney’s the Center for International & Strategic Studies, she co-chaired with Zbigniew Brzezinski a working group which supervised the privatisations in Poland. She had organised intense lobbying for Lockheed Martin against the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault.

Sarkozy with Carla Bruni

A new escapade during the summer. Nicolas, Cécilia, their joint mistress and their children were offered holidays in the USA at Wolfenboro, not far from President Bush’s property. The bill this time was paid by Robert F. Agostinelli, an Italo-New York merchant banker, a Zionist and a leading neo-conservative who gives his views in Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee.

The success of Nicolas spreads to his half-brother Pierre-Olivier. Under the Americanised name of “Oliver”, he was appointed by Frank Carlucci (who was the number 2 of the CIA after having been recruited by Frank Wisner Sr.) Director of a new investment fund of the Carlyle Group (the joint management company of the portfolios of the Bushes and the Ben Ladens). Having become the 5th deal-maker in the world, he manages the principal assets of the sovereign funds of Kuwait and Singapore.

The popularity of the President is in free-fall in the opinion polls. One of his advisers in communication, Jacques Séguéla, planned to distract the attention of the public with new “celebrity stories”. The announcement of the divorce from Cécilia was published by Libération, the newspaper of his friend Édouard de Rothschild, to cover up the demonstrators’ slogans during a day of general strikes. Going further still, the communicator organised a meeting with the singer and former model, Carla Bruni. Several days later, her affair with the President became official and the media din again covered up the political criticisms. A few weeks later still and it was Nicolas’ third marriage. This time the witnesses whom he chose were Mathilde Agostinelli (the wife of Robert) and Nicolas Bazire, former private secretary of Édouard Balladur who had become a managing partner at the Banque Rothschild.

When will the French open their eyes to see what they should do?

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com (Translation Copyright)

This Axis of Logic translation is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author, translator and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

Liberal Nationalism against Left and Right Politics in Africa


The National Liberal Party (NLP) (UK) published on January 7, 2012 this article about Nationalism and Liberalism in Africa:

[Over the last year we have been approached by a number of persons outside the UK keen on exploring, even promoting, the ideology of National Liberalism. Given that it first emerged as an active force in continental Europe in the mid 19th century, contacts from there was not surprising. However, we have received interest from further afield in areas with no blatant NL tradition such as Africa.

One person making contact is Tarig Anter, a retired civil engineer based in Khartoum, Sudan. He says his main project is the design of new form of national democracy and system of governance, which he calls “Three Dimensional Democracy”. (XYZ democracy), in contrast to the Western democratic system which he says has corrupted the region’s politicians. He is part of a new breed of African who is trying to understand why his continent is suffering so much. He places much of the blame on the US and the ‘New World Order’ and their quest to control the world’s resources. But, he says he doesn’t “blame the USA or Europe but rather I blame the powers that are controlling them and I feel that Europeans are Americans are either victims or tools, but not the shakers and makers of their systems which are wrongly described as democratic and mistakenly considered models.”

In his/their quest for an alternative, we hope they will turn, not to dictatorship or authoritarianism, but to a creed that seeks to preserve a nation’s meaningful independence and its’ people’s liberties and welfare – National Liberalism. In that spirit he has written a short article about the prospects of National Liberalism (and in particular its’ twin Liberal Nationalism) in Africa.–]

Liberal Nationalism against Left and Right Politics in Africa

Liberal Nationalism in Africa versus Left and Right Politics

[As a prelude for discussing the needs and prospects of Liberal Nationalism in Africa, this personal opinion is trying to define the ideology of Liberal Nationalism in comparison to other forms of nationalism; and its challenges against right and left social and economic politics. Ironically, Nationalism is systematically accused of being leftist and rightist by the both globalist camps at the same time although many experts have found that placing Nationalism on a conventional left-right political spectrum is difficult and wrong.

The opinions stated here are personal and does not represent the NLP; they might be critical and even controversial; but that is why they are liberal.

First, it is important to note that Liberal Nationalism (one variation is also called Civic Nationalism) is a new advanced form of nationalism; while National Liberalism appeared in the West since the 19th century as a variant of liberalism. Liberal Nationalism is about establishing resilient governance based on social and economic justice and solidarity; while National Liberalism believes in a stronger national presence on the international stage, mainly through economic and cultural liberalism.

A constructive form of liberalism first (originating in about 1650–1700) became a powerful force rejecting several practices of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings.

On the other hand, classical nationalism is a very ancient collective identification of a multitude of individuals within or without ethnic and tribal groups that are working together to preserve and strengthen their various essential interests.

There are a number of different types of Nationalism and types of Liberalism. Many of these forms and practices are unsustainable and aggressive while the principles of both ideologies contain many positive attributes. The most famous African and Asian examples of liberal nationalism so far, are manifested by the South African National Congress Party (ANC) and the Indian National Congress (INC). The closest form of liberalism to Liberal Nationalism is National Liberalism; which is fundamentally different from Social Liberalism (classical liberalism with a social welfare tone).

Other forms of nationalism are: Ethnocentrism; Social Nationalism; Pan-nationalism. All forms of nationalism are anti-colonialism; anti-imperialism; and anti-corporate-globalism. Opposition to Liberal Nationalism comes from Communism; Ultra-nationalism; Socialism; Capitalism; neo-Liberalism; Liberal International; Africa Liberal Network; and religious brotherhoods, in addition to international secret societies.

To promote the principles of Democracy and Liberties together with Nationalism on continental and global levels, international organizations need to be established. These networks shall strengthen Liberal Nationalism in Africa and around the world. Liberal Democracy and Social Democracy are penetrating the world as a result of their institutional organization and support, yet Liberal Nationalism has all the qualities and reasons to succeed all over the world. Such a much-needed federation should be tasked with the following:

Coordinating between Liberal Nationalist groups.

Encouraging solidarity among member groups.

Establishing sharing of information and experiences.

I invite you to read and debate on articles at my Tarig Anter blog; such as:
Why Africa Must Trash Western Liberal Democracy?…..& Their Way of Life Too?
Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy”Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy
Three-dimensional Democracy (XYZ Democracy)
Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism
The Swadeshi Movement

The current developments in Europe; South America; and the USA – and in different aspects in Africa and Asia – are good signs (on top of the list: debts and social injustices). But these crises call for greater and coordinated actions and expositions.

Liberal Nationalism has two main fields for engagement in Africa; the first is to expose the failures of the conventional democratic system as being hijacked and corrupted by liberal and social democracy for global hegemony. The second goal is to propose and call for different national genuinely democratic governance electoral systems where truly Africans have “As much government as necessary, as little government as possible.”

I assume that it is most important for Liberal Nationalism to make the public very aware of the fundamental differences between the various ideologies and trends of liberalism on social; individual/community; economic; and political domains.

Let me add few words about yet another brilliant spirit in liberal nationalism uncommonly seen and may be ignored in an Indian humble movement called “Swadeshi”:

Let me tell you about the Swadeshi movement:

“Spirit Of Swadeshi; (Source: Mani Bhavan Gandhi)

Swadeshi is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote. Thus, as for religion, in order to satisfy the requirements of the definition, I must restrict myself to my ancestral religion. That is, the use of my immediate religious surrounding. If I find it defective, I should serve it by purging it of its defects.

In the domain of politics, I should make use of the indigenous institutions and serve them by curing them of their proved defects. In that of economics I should use only things that are produced by my immediate neighbors and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete where they might be found wanting. It is suggested that such Swadeshi, if reduced to practice, will lead to the millennium.. . .”

The hostilities towards any form of nationalism, meek or aggressive, were very strongly coming from financiers and bankers in the USA and their communist twin in Moscow, a deceptive polarity aiming at nationalism from both directions. (Social) liberalism (a vacuum cleaner) and communism were and still are the most racist, anti-human rights and totalitarian systems, despite of all the slogans and pretences.

Tarig Mohamed Mohamed-kheir Anter, Khartoum, Sudan]

The source: The National Liberal Party (NLP) (UK) website.


Date: January 7, 2012

India Wary as Qatari-based Islamist Activist Yusuf al-Qaradawi Emerges as Peace Broker


Written by: Praveen Swami, New Delhi, December 29, 2011; and published by The Hindu newspaper.

Obama Team embraces jihadist Muslim Brotherhood

Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Doha-based Islamist scholar who once called on his followers to back jihadist groups in Jammu and Kashmir, has emerged as a key mediator in secret talks between the U.S. and the Taliban, government sources have told The Hindu.

In 2009, Mr. al-Qaradawi had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, asserting that “the Kashmiris were properly fighting jihad against the Indian army.” The jihad was legitimate, he argued, since mujahideen groups sought to create an Islamic state. Therefore, the edict concluded, it was incumbent on all Muslims to help Kashmiris gain their “freedom from Indian aggression.”

New Delhi, Indian diplomatic sources said, has been warily watching Mr. al-Qaradawi’s emergence as peace broker — fearful that his growing influence could help regional jihadist groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad find new sanctuaries in a rapidly changing West Asia or a future Afghan regime which includes the Taliban.

Road map for deal

Yusuf al-Qaradawi Qatari-based Islamist

Earlier this month, the sources said, Mr. al-Qaradawi helped draw a road map for a deal between the Taliban and the United States, aimed at giving the superpower a face-saving political settlement ahead of its planned withdrawal from Afghanistan which is due to begin in 2014.

In return for the release of prisoners still held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, the lifting of United Nations sanctions on its leadership and its recognition as a legitimate political group, the Taliban was expected to agree to sever its links to transnational organisations like al-Qaeda, end violence and eventually share power with the Afghan government.

Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s President, recalled his country’s envoy to Qatar after The Hindu broke news that negotiations to open a Taliban office had reached an advanced stage — angered, reports said, at the prospect of a deal that would have given Taliban legitimacy at a time when hardliners in its ranks are carrying out a lethal campaign targeting regime supporters. However, Kabul on Tuesday announced it would accept a Taliban liaison office in Doha — as long as the talks were “Afghan-led.”

Evidence that hardliners have increasing influence over Taliban decision-making, intelligence sources say, has been mounting. Earlier this year, for example, Sheikh Muhammad Aminullah — who was placed on a United Nations watchlist in 2009 for aiding acts of terrorism — was given command of its Peshawar shura, or command council. Born in 1973, Mr. Aminullah represents a new generation of Taliban commanders ideologically committed to al-Qaeda’s vision.

His predecessor, Maulvi Abdul Kabir, had only a peripheral military role, and was considered a key player in secret peace talks with the Afghan government and the United States.

Islamists vs. jihadists

The Muslim Brotherhood suddenly has chances

Egyptian-born Mr. al-Qaradawi is seen by both the United States and the Taliban traditionalists as an ally in the battle against the growing influence of this new generation of commanders. Expelled from his homeland for his Islamist views, he has emerged over the last year as ideological pole star of the Muslim Brotherhood — now West Asia’s most influential political movement.

In 1993, Mr. al-Qaradawi issued a landmark edict endorsing democratic pluralism; the Muslim Brotherhood later cast its embrace of electoral politics in Egypt and elsewhere as a form of da’wa, or proselytising missionary work. Even though Mr. al-Qaradawi said he remained committed to “the spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world,” he argued this could be achieved peacefully.

He condemned 9/11 and, in September, 2005, described the Iraqi jihadist Abu Musa’ab al-Zarqawi as a “criminal.” In a 2009 book, he defended armed jihad under specific conditions — Kashmir, Iraq and, later, Libya were among those cases he endorsed — but lashed out at al-Qaeda for a “mad declaration of war on the whole world.”

Mr. al-Qaradawi explained his logic thus to Der Spiegel: “The [Muslim Brotherhood] have tried [jihad], but [jihad] has not been helpful, and we have not gained anything out of [jihad] other than detention, suffering, and victimisation.”

The Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to embrace electoral politics incensed al-Qaeda. In 2008, al-Qaeda’s now-chief Ayman al-Zawahiri lashed out at the Muslim Brotherhood for accepting the Egyptian constitution, rather than God’s word, as a source of law — a fundamental betrayal, he claimed, of the precepts of Islam. In many countries, Brotherhood cadre clashed with salafi-jihadist groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda.

The west’s embrace of Mr. al-Qaradawi for its Afghan negotiations marks the restoration of an old, but little-known, relationship. Key Brotherhood leaders like Said Ramadan, the historian Ian Johnson has shown, were cultivated by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency for anti-communist operations —along with several central and west Asian Islamists who fought with German fascist forces against the Soviet Union in 1941-1945.

Expelled by Egypt’s socialist rulers for his neo-fundamentalist views, Dr. Ramadan received a warm reception — and a radio programme — when he landed in Pakistan in 1948.

The Pakistani-Canadian scholar Tarek Fatah said Dr. Ramadan’s work “was instrumental in turning a secular Muslim country into a hotbed of Islamic extremism.” Dr. Ramadan also visited the White House in 1953, where he met with President Dwight Eisenhower.

The source: The Hindu newspaper (Started in 1878 as a weekly, became a daily in 1889; circulation of 14,66,304 copies (ABC: July-December 2009) and a readership of about 4.06 million)

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).

The new democracy: Goldman Sachs conquers Europe


The Independent published on 18 November 2011 this revealing article written by Stephen Foley.

What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

Goldman Sachs Men in the EU

While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone’s corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation

The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank’s alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund’s European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as “the Vampire Squid”, and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman’s interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren’t “bought and paid for” by corporations, as in the US, he says. “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.”

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy’s most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman’s bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury’s committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country’s financial policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank’s two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman’s UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country’s financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland’s interest rate this summer.

Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn’t be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

The bank’s traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece’s unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: “It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher.”

When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn’t involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a “voluntary” haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent’s big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

“My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?” says Simon Johnson. “It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same.”

So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm’s money that Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent.  Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries’ debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?

EU and Banks are Weapons of Mass Slavery


How to Buy a European Country?

They temp you; they fool you; then the EU vampire sucks each drop of blood and wealth in your nation. If you are lucky and not dead when they are done with you; you will remain in debt bondage and poverty slave for centuries.

People must wonder, not the businesses, not the bankers, and not the politicians, can they really gain from joining the EU. “We must sacrifice for our country and our future generations” that is what they tell your politicians to tell the people to accept “austerity”. They want the people to pay for the debts of fraudulent local businesses; greedy banks; and EU agents. These debts are now considered sovereign debts. Why the billions are now considered national debts if some foreign thieves gave few bucks to local conmen and senseless entrepreneurs? The EU forces the governments to pay back EU bankers; but governments have no body to squeeze other than the people and national assets. Electricity; water; factories; airlines; or anything will go to foreign banksters. This is free market and the price you have to pay to clear your debts; be civilized; and join the rich democratic EU!

Join the European Union; be part of the civilized rich Europe and the West; and Easy loans are actually weapons of mass destruction and very marketable imperial expensive products. Getting any rubbish business plan is the only requirement; of course with some naivety and stupidity. They come to you and give you free advice if you don’t have some extra cash; or they can write it in your debt books as consultancy fees. The marvelous outcome is that “Hurray!!! You are eligible for loans from our banks; don’t worry about collaterals or securities, we just want to help you to become rich and civilized like us in the EU” that is what they told hundreds; but they never tell the people that they are screwed.

Why would banks potentially destroy themselves with such bad loan?

Bad loans are actually toxic loans because they are poisonous. It is a calculated gamble and a secure one with the definite support from the governments of creditors, namely: Germany; UK; and France.

I stated many questions about the initial silence and roles of these governments and their controlled EU institutions. Banks are too big to fail because governments defend them.

Banks and financiers cannot be incompetent, have maladministration, or short-sighted. The same scenario was tried in the US in several bubbles; and who lost? The banks didn’t but the foolish and greedy customers did.

Defaulting countries are now under exploitative control; it also happened in the past many times and in many countries.

Take Egypt for example; it was forced to sell Suez Canal to pay back small debt for a greedy foreign ruler “Pasha” who Britain and France deceived him and made him believe that he is Ismail “the Magnificent”; and he can Europeanize Egypt because he is so great and visionary.

Before him, his brother Saaid pasha was much under French influence, and in 1854 was induced to grant to the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps a concession for the construction of the Suez Canal.

To the British, Said also made concessions to the Eastern Telegraph Company, and another in 1854 allowing the establishment of the Bank of Egypt. He also began the national debt by borrowing £3,293,000 from Messrs Fruhling & Gbschen, the actual amount received by the pasha being £2,640,000.

Egypt financed and built the Canal and produced cotton; then what? They were forced to sell them for peanuts; or a song.

Britain and France in November 1879 re-established the Dual Control in the persons of Major Baring and Monsieur de Blignières. For two years the Dual Control governed Egypt, and initiated the work of progress that Britain was to continue alone. The financiers and their governments tools were the winners and the common people were the losers.

Cutting a just pound of his flesh

Blame Greedy Poor and Not Rich Banks

The core of the problem was most likely irresponsible lending by banks. A credit bubble was created through banks’ lending out money to individuals and businesses to acquire assets that proved to be worth less than the amount of the loans. This was especially true in the real estate sector – something we also saw happening in the United States.

What is called “irresponsible lending by banks” is actually a deliberate act of sabotage for the sovereignty of specifically targeted some European states.

It is a replay of the tragic comedy “The Merchant of Venice”. Cutting a iuſt pound of his fleſh

But can the money lenders take their loot without dropping blood?

These debts were made with evil intentions and they must be either written off or rescheduled by the people without additional usury.

%d bloggers like this: