The UN and Ambazonia: The Case of Missing Files or Misfiling?

Many citizens of the self-proclaimed state of Ambazonia would have been taken aback upon reading a short piece purportedly written by Professor Martin Ayim. Ayim in his write-up claims that all documents sent to the United Nations (UN) by Ambazonians since the 1990s have been shredded, without being looked at. Anyim presents this as a discovery that appears to have been a victory achieved by the Ambazonian Interim Government (IG). He therefore quickly goes on to state that the same IG will soon be reaching out to the UN Secretary General.
La-Republique-and-Ambazonia

As this short write-up made its rounds on social media, I read with fascination as many latched on to the optimistic parts, which provided them with a reason to cling to their hope of having a new nation. The truth is that Prof. Anyim, like many erudite persons from Cameroon, West of the Mungo, have for a long time, excelled in the art of deception. This deception paradoxically has been of their own people.

Let us be clear about something, the UN has no legal obligation to a state called Ambazonia. As far as the UN is concerned, Southern Cameroons voted in 1961 in a plebiscite to join The Republic of Cameroon in a Federation. Resolution 1608 of April 1961 confirmed the results of this plebiscite and in the Foumban Conference, the representatives of both Southern Cameroons and the French-speaking Republic of Cameroon agreed on the form of state they wanted.  On October 1, 1961, Southern Cameroons became West Cameroon.

The contention today, which has some legal basis, is how West Cameroon disappeared in 1972, as the state mutated to the United Republic of Cameroon and what happened to the supposed ‘unity’, when Paul Biya in 1984 changed the country’s name back to The Republic of Cameroon.

Maybe, taking the issues regarding the disappearance of West Cameroon to the UN for discussion might have given them something to talk about. However approaching the UN with the quest for the recognition of a new state, was a nonstarter.

The UN clearly has NO MANDATE to recognise a new state. It makes this clear when it states that:

The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.

The procedure is briefly as follows:

  1. The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
  2. The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.
  3. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
  4. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.

So contrary to what Prof. Anyim and many claim, the UN did not grant independence to Southern Cameroons in 1961, it merely recognised the outcome of a public vote. In the same manner, the UN has no mandate to grant independence to Ambazonia.

So instead of sending papers and petitions to the UN asking for the recognition of a new state, Ambazonians might think of courting at least 9 out of the 15 members of the Security Council, while making sure that the Five Permanent members are among these.

This, of course, would be a herculean task given that, with the apparent exception of the Russian Federation, the other permanent members have been instrumental in different ways in propping up the Biya Regime’s 36 years in power.

Ambazonians have also been known to tender petitions to the Commonwealth, of which Cameroon is a member. Under the same rules of engagement that the UN has with its members, the Commonwealth is under no obligation to respond to Ambazonia, as it is not one of her members.

It is my view that the best way for English-Speaking Cameroonians to get any form of freedom or respect within their country, is to challenge the system from within. It is obvious that elections will never guarantee this, as the rigging machinery is effectively controlled by Biya. Making the case for the Restoration of the State of West Cameroon, which has a legal argument starting with the violation of the constitution in 1972, remains the best option.

A return to a Two-State Federation within Cameroon will give Anglophones, the autonomy to build the right institutions that can attract diplomatic relations with other states. Such can be the start of any talk of independence. Within a federal structure, the people of the English-speaking regions can effectively talk with the UN or Commonwealth, as sections of a Country that is their member.

In a nutshell, English-Speaking Cameroonians will need to gain some degree of autonomy before they can think of approaching the UN. As an organisation of independent states, the UN deals with independent entities, not help them gain independence.

South East China Sea; A Perfect Crisis for the International Crisis Group.

 

Christof Lehmann and the contributors of NSNBC have been breaking the embargo on truth by providing great coverage of happenings around the world; giving well resouced, unbiased and referenced information which is by and large left out by mainstream media. Here is another great piece which he produced in colaboration with  Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, and Alex Mezyaev.

A geo-political analysis of the background for the developments in the South-China Sea, the region, and suggested developments towards regional security and stability.

Subsequent to the dissolution of the USSR, the peaceful transition of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty and the subsequent opening of the Chinese market for Western investors, a superficial analysis may lead to the conclusion that the international community has missed the chance to establish a geo-political climate that could have facilitated the peaceful coexistence of sovereign nations.

However, on closer inspection, it  is evident that it  is  a fallacy to speak in terms of a missed chance. The chance for peaceful coexistence between China, the USA, and to a lesser degree the E.U., has in fact never been given a real chance.

It is also a fallacy to conclude that this chance  depended on a left/right paradigm in US and Western politics.  From neo-conservative think tanks like the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) i , to left or liberal organizations like those funded by the multi-billionaire George Soros, which include Human Rights Watch and the International Crisis Group ii, to global strategists like Zbigniev Brzezinskiiii, national security adviser for multiple US-Administrations, whose declared goal is to engage both Russia and subsequently China in a military confrontation iv, the operand question is not whether a left/right paradigm determines the overall direction of US foreign policy but rather how the left/right paradigm manifests in strategic nuances in overall US foreign policy which has a clear propensity towards a Pax Americana and American, global, full spectrum dominance.

The term “Global”  is to be taken literally. This policy includes ambitions for a re-colonization of Africa and the Middle East,  the destabilization of Latin America, and countering recent developments such as ALBA, UNASUR and MERCOSUR, countering developments within BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization SCO, a presence in Afghanistan until 2025 and beyond, destabilization of Pakistan, the destabilization of Nepal and Burma and an increased military presence in Thailand, Vietnam and throughout the Asian and Pacific region. It includes the destabilization of Russia´s and China´s southern borders, and an increased military footprint, in those regions and support of destabilizing influences, such as militia and terrorist organizations.v It includes the provocation of conflicts in South East Asia and the South East China Sea, an aggressive policy towards Northern Korea and the derailing of attempts towards reunification on the Korean peninsula. It includes denying Russia and China access to resources necessary for the development of their economies and their partnership based trade models that are inherently opposed to Western, imperialist capitalism and denying resources and markets to a system that is far more successful, humane, just, fair and sustainable.

The failing of the  US/EU economies has required the western military doctrine to be adjusted to a return to nuclear confrontation for the containment of unmanageable military responses to NATO expansionism by Russia and China, combined with low cost mercenary warfare with the aid of Al Qaeda,  the Muslim Brotherhood, in fact any militant or terrorist organization that can be utilized in the creation of national and regional crisis which are created to destabilize nations and to justify aggression as “interventions” under pretexts like human rights, security or the the slogan “responsibility to protect”. These two doctrines, nuclear confrontation and use of mercenaries to attack from within are what one could call the post 25th NATO Summit military doctrine of Western powers and both are in violation of the UN Charter.vi

It is necessary to understand the US/NATO strategy of subversion in South East Asia and how a deterioration of national and regional security due to this subversion could be prevented, and in fact, how peaceful regional solutions to the challenge of US/NATO ambitions for global full spectrum dominance can be established. To understand this strategy it is necessary to undertake a brief review of the developments of recent years in global security. This analysis will provide a disturbingly clear outline of what is in store for South East Asia and greater Asia unless such a solution is achieved through negotiation and then crafted and implemented.

Odyssey 2001 – A Wake Up Call.

In 2001 the world was chocked by a globally televised terror attack of unprecedented proportions and audacity. World wide, a shocked people saw the  three towers of the World Trade Center only two of which were actually hit by a plane disintegrate, the Pentagon on fire. World-wide, captive TV audiences saw supposedly hijacked passenger planes crash into buildings, people in their hundreds plummeting to certain death.

Sympathy was outpouring from even the most unexpected of places like Palestine. A visibly shocked,  shaken, and appalled PLO Secretary General, Yassir Arafat expressed his deepest condolences, sympathy and even solidarity with the nation that had for decades financed the Zionist/Israeli genocide on the people of Palestine. It took only minutes after the second plane hit the WTC towers, however, before it transpired that something was not quite as advertized. Re-analyzing the TV-coverage archives vii of the day is in deed a revealing odyssey in mass manipulation.

Recycled TV images were aired and it was claimed that “Palestinians were celebrating the successful terror attack on the USA”. A “terrorism expert” declared only minutes after the initial attacks that the most likely suspect would be a “terrorist organization like the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine – DFLP”.viii

Soon the first planted evidence was “discovered”, like a terrorists passport that was found in almost pristine condition in the street after it supposedly had flown out of the hijackers pocket, survived the plane impact, the fireball, and landed in the streets below.ix The Al-Qaeda / Bin Laden narrative was born.

Those who were awake enough from day one, who realized that something was suspect, soon realized that the attacks were the new Peal Harbor, the catastrophic and catalyzing event which one year prior to the attacks had been described in a white paper of the neo-conservative think-tank PNAC, called  “Rebuilding Americas Defences”.x

Even though expert analysts differ with respect to whether rogue elements of the international Western deep state let it happen on purpose or if they made it happen on purpose, all serious analysts, including high level politicians, diplomats, members of the intelligence communities and scholars world wide agree that 9/11 was the initiation of the Project for Global, Full Spectrum US/NATO Dominance as described in PNAC´s white paper. (ibid.) xi

There were in deed signs enough from day one, and those who were trained enough in recognizing and analyzing social engineering and propaganda strategies would review the news images – without the sound of the talking heads who repeated the new mantra of global war.

Al Qaeda – Al Qaeda – Al Qaeda – Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden”.

When the media images were analyzed without the constant stream of suggestions and when reasonable objectivity was applied one could think clearly,  use analytic skills, discernment, discrimination, and first of all, simple laws of Newtonian Physics rather than a hypnotic stream of words – Al Qaeda Bin Laden……. terrorist….. war on terror…..with us or with the terrorists …..

With a clear mind, and in many cases after getting over the initial shock, pertinent questions were raised:

• How could a passenger plane, even if it was fully fueled, even if it was flying at impossible air-speeds for an altitude near sea level, cause other than a hole in the building, a fire, and eventually a partial collapse ?

• How could two buildings literally be “pulverized” to hundred of thousands of cubic yards of fine dust particles, by a mechanically caused structural failure ? How could a gravity driven collapse ever produce the necessary kinetic energy ? How could a gravity driven collapse hurl steel girders vertically through the air at speeds exceeding 6o miles per second ?

• Studies of original “official” photo images or at high resolution video images clearly shows that the building neither collapsed nor pancaked. Both WTC towers literally disintegrated in front of our eyes into pyroclastic flows that otherwise only can be observed in eruptions of volcanoes and in the most powerful explosions.xii How could a gravity driven collapse produce dust clouds engulfing major parts of lower Manhattan Island ?

• The disintegration of the WTC Twin Towers were the equivalent to a tree that is being hit by a projectile. A brief fire emerges in the cavity that is caused by the projectile. For arguments sake let us say that there emerges a fire of intense heat in that cavity. Shortly afterward, however, the entire tree begins turning itself to the finest possible saw-dust, from the top and down to the roots. Gravity driven collapse ? How could even steel literally evaporate in front of our eyes ?

• How could a passport of one of the supposed hijackers survive the inferno of the plane impact, fly out of his pocket, through the fireball, through the building that turned itself to dust, and how could it land in almost pristine condition in the streets below, where it would be found -when not even a single telephone, not a single filing cabinet, not a single PC survived the disintegration.

• How could two planes cause the collapse of three WTC buildings ? What processes caused the disintegration and pulverization of concrete and steel while all the paper – which does not contain water – survived and littered the streets of New York ?

• How could the Pentagon be hit by a passenger plane ? Even if one is deeply asleep, the mere words “A HIJACKED PASSENGER PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON” should wake one up in “Chock and Awe!  A man in a cave in Afghanistan, so we are supposed to believe, had succeeded at defeating the worlds mightiest, most sophisticated defense systems. Three times within one day! A cumbersome, hijacked passenger plane entering the world´s most jealously guarded and protected air-space at the Pentagon and near the White House unimpeded ?

It would be possible to add a thousand more unanswered and pertinent questions to the ones above. Many of them have in fact been answered by responsible citizens and scholars who dared to risk their tenure in countries where free intellectual inquiry does no longer exist unless the inquirer remains within the guidelines of  politicized science. All, off course, in the name of  the “freedom and democracy” which is being exported on a global scale, so the citizens of Russia and China soon also can be liberated like those poor Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans.

Thousands of questions – but it is not the purpose of this article to answer them nor even to demand answers. The most important question has long been answered by the Bush and the Following Obama Administration. The question is “What Function did the mass murder on 9/11 have?”.

The answer was provided by some of the above mentioned policy groups, PNAC. And it was provided one full year before the events that shocked the world and initiated the the push for global US, full spectrum dominance. A catastrophic and catalyzing event, a new “Pear Harbour” that would facilitate a rapid change in US domestic and foreign policy towards a Pax Americana.(ibid.) xiii

Whether You are with US or not, You are with The Terrorists”.

On 20 September 2001, nine days after 9/11 US-President G.W. Bush addressed the joint session of the US Congress, outlining the new global front-lines, stating: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.xiv Had the USA then intended to wage an honest war on terrorism, it would in fact have had the support of every nation on this world, with maybe one exception, Israel. The government of Afghanistan, in fact, stated that it would render Osama bin Laden to the USA if the USA provided evidence for his involvement in 9/11. xv The USA denied. The true meaning of the words of President G.W. Bush could be described as:

Whether you are with US or not, you are with the terrorists”.

The USA did not at any time suspend its long standing co-operation with terrorists organizations throughout the world for other than cosmetic or strategic purposes, and that included the main pretext for the “War on Terror”, Al Qaeda. As we speak, the USA is co-operating with Al-Qaeda brigades in the ongoing subversion attempt in Syria.xvi A whistle blower from within the US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina had already in September 2011 admitted that the USA had special forces on the ground in Syria and cooperated with Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood brigades as part of a long-planned war on Libya, Syria, Lebanon and Iran.xvii

Meanwhile, organizations that are fighting a legitimate struggle for liberation, like the PFLP xviii, DFLP xix and to a degree Al-Fatah in Palestine are designated terrorist organizations. Syria, which is the sole Arab nation that consequently and consistently has supported Palestinians legitimate struggle against the Zionist/Israeli occupation of Palestine is according to the US State Department designated a state sponsor of terrorism.xx

During the height of the invasion of Libya, when the Libyan military forces caused heavy casualties among the hordes of Libyan, Egyptian, Qatari, Saudi and other nations Al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood associated mercenary brigades, the CIA imported 1.500 fighters from Mazare-e-Sharif, Afghanistan xxi , who belonged to the very Taliban which NATO is fighting there.

The US War on Terror has from the very onset been and still is a cynical part of the US low cost strategy towards global full spectrum dominance.

It is also a text book like example for why social constructionism within the language of  political discourse can be used to justify any crime as long as it serves ones own interests, how it can be used to scapegoat legitimate resistance as terrorist organizations, and why a teleological approach to the language of political discourse is the sole linguistic approach that can facilitate truth, reconciliation and conflict resolution.

The Dismantling of International Law and a Return to Global Barbarism.

In recent decades an unprecedented deterioration, one can say a “collapse” of international law has occurred. This deterioration is driven by the US and NATO, and its refusal to abide by long-established  legal principles of  international law in all its aspects; peaceful coexistence, human rights, military conduct and others, which have been established over hundreds of years.

Many of these principles and laws were implemented after unspeakable human suffering. Unless this regression into global barbarism is opposed by all necessary popular, political, diplomatic, economical, legal, and if necessary military means,  humanity will descend into a state of global barbarism and unspeakable outrages. The most serious deteriorations over the past two decades are:

The deterioration of the principles enshrined in the Treaty of Westphalia and National Sovereignty.

The treaty of Westphalia xxii was signed by European powers in the year 1648 a.v., after a religious and political power struggle between European empires had resulted in a war that lasted over thirty years. The treaty defines the sovereignty of national states and the principle of non-interference into the internal political affairs of sovereign nations by others. The treaty of Westphalia was one of the international legal principles that was used as a guideline for the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations and it is by many considered as thé most important principle of international law with respect to the regulation of bi-lateral and multilateral diplomacy and politics.

The principle of non-interference into domestic affairs and the principle of national sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter is increasingly being challenged by those who argue, that is the Americans, that the “international community”, again that is the Americans, has a “responsibility to protect” civilians in cases where the government of a sovereign state is not able to protect its citizens, or when the government of a sovereign state is committing severe violations of other principles such as human rights. A resolution that implemented the responsibility to protect was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2009, in violation of the UN Charter.xxiii

This false responsibility was first termed humanitarian intervention, but it appears that that term could only be used in propaganda when a crisis was already in progress. The slogan responsibility to protect was coined in order to give this strategy more flexibility so that “intervention” could be used even before the US had succeeded in creating a crisis. The ”responsibility to protect” (R2P)  also had the advantage of claiming to make a moral argument, of course never addressing how the USA came to claim this “responsibility” or why it operates only against its enemies and never its vassals and allies.

Although the guiding arguments for the primacy of human rights and the responsibility to protect “R2P” may sound convincing at first inspection, a closer analysis reveals that the erosion of national sovereignty based on the R2P opens a Pandora´s Box of serious problems.

The first instance where the R2P, which was then still termed humanitarian intervention, was used to override national sovereignty was NATO´s intervention into the internal affairs of Yugoslavia during the Clinton Administration in which the Secretary of State was Madeleine Albright.

It is now a well established and documented fact that the internal conflict in Yugoslavia was initially manufactured by an alliance of Slovenian and Croatian separatists with ties to WWII German National Socialism, with the covert support of the German government and the German Intelligence Service BND xxiv, and the Vatican. The German intelligence service BND provided the first weapons, second-hand Bulgarian AK 47 assault rifles, to Slovenian and Croat separatists.

As the conflict escalated and the country was forced apart along ethnic, and religious lines, the USA and other Western powers became increasingly involved, resulting in NATO´s “intervention” in fact its outright aggression against the Federal Republic, without approval from the United Nations Security Council and in complete violation of the UN Charter and NATO’s own Charter. NATO member states cooperated with a wide variety of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Bin Laden’s mujahedin.xxv The USA financed, trained, and was arming the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA/UCK) which was heavily supported by Al Qaeda brigades and which to a large extend was financed by Heroin trade and trafficking from Afghanistan to Europe and Northern America.xxvi xxvii

The war on and dismemberment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has according to retired French Brigadier General Pierre Marie Gallois been planned and prepared by European powers in unofficial meetings on a farm in Germany since 1976; more than a decade ahead of the first public Slovenian and Croatian demands for secession from Yugoslavia. Brig. Gen. Pierre Marie Gallois was the French representative to these meetings and has disclosed many of the details in a stunning interview.xxviii xxix

According to Gallois, one of the principle motivating factors for the covert and subsequent overt war on Yugoslavia was that Yugoslavia was the sole Russian ally in the Balkan region and the last functioning socialist state in Europe. Other motivating factors were that Germany wanted to re-establish its geo-political influence in the region which it had lost subsequent to world wars one and two. Yet another factor was to define a post cold war role for NATO. In fact, so the former French Brigadier General, the war on Yugoslavia provided the model for the war on Iraq and subsequent wars.(ibid.)xxx

The sole correlation between the intervention in Yugoslavia and Serbia, and the still ongoing NATO occupation of Kosovo and human rights is, that a humanitarian crisis was cynically manufactured with the intention to create a pretext for a military “intervention” in fact a military attack,  based on the “R2P” the claimed responsibility to protect.

The usurpation by the United States of the role of the United Nations by arrogantly claiming to itself this invented responsibility  has resulted in the deterioration of the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia  and the UN Charter that both guarantee the sovereignty of nations and the concomitant right of the self determination of peoples.

It is is nothing less than western colonialism once again justified by the “white man’s burden”. In a recent article, Dr. Henry Kissinger discussed whether nations like Syria and other Arab nations would at all qualify for protection against interference into their internal affairs under the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia.xxxi

Kissinger argues, that almost all Arab nations, with the exclusion of eventually Iran, Turkey and Egypt, were nations whose borders had been more or less arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers and that it was therefore questionable whether they could be defined as nation states that would be protected by the provisions in the Treaty of Westphalia. Iran, Turkey, and Egypt on the other hand, so Kissinger argues, had a long history as nations.

Lehmann has written an article in response to that of Dr. Kissinger. According to Lehmann, Kissinger´s interpretation is representative of the condescending, ethnocentric, colonialist attitude of Western nations towards countries world wide. It is also symptomatic for the social constructionism that guides Western foreign politics. While Kissinger questions the national sovereignty of almost all Arab nations on the basis that their borders were arbitrarily drawn by former colonial powers, he does not mention Israel, whose borders have been arbitrarily drawn by the same former colonial powers. xxxii

Neither does he mention the fact that the United States itself is also an artificial creation resulting from the extermination of the native peoples, the Louisiana Purchase of the south from France in 1803, and Florida from Spain, the War of 1812 against Canada,  the war of conquest against Mexico in 1846, the war between two nations the United States and the Confederates states, known as the Civil War in the 1860s and the artificial extensions into Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.

The most recent example of a successful abuse of the erosion of national sovereignty under the pretense of a manufactured Responsibility to Protect is NATO´s abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya.xxxiii

It can be argued that this Resolution never existed as the UN Charter requires that resolutions have the concurring votes of all permanent members of the Security Council. Russia and China abstained. An abstention is not a concurrent vote. It may be that Russia and China expected that the abstentions were enough to kill the resolution from being passed. Legally they were correct, but regardless whether Russia and China were taking a calculated Risk, or whether Russia, which was then under the presidency of Medvedyev was trying to appease the USA/NATO, which would have left China to deal with the impact of the US and NATO and GCC member states as well as Israel alone, will only be answered by future historical analysis.

What is certain, however, is that both the Russian and Chinese political leadership must have been aware that even though a UNSC resolution arguably is not legally valid unless all Security Council members vote in favor of it, it is a long established political practice that only a veto is sufficient for blocking an intervention. Since the first Russian, then USSR, abstention on UNSC Resolution 4 (1946) on Spain, an abstention has interpreted as not preventing the adoption of the resolution.

The claim that the USA, France and the UK abused the UN Charter was compounded when the US and its allies exceeded even the terms of their own resolution and conducted a war of aggression against Libya. A repetition of this abuse, directed against Syria, has so far been successfully stopped by Russia and China at the Security Council who since have consequently vetoed resolutions on Syria.

The deterioration of the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Conventionxxxiv comprises four treaties and additional three protocols that establish standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of victims and participants of war. It was updated to it´s current version in 1949, following two wars of global reach and unspeakable violence and it is thus, like the Treaty of Westphalia, a reaction to unspeakable acts of violence and human suffering, that has affected large populations. The Geneva Convention defines the wartime rights of both civilian and military prisoners, affords protection of the wounded, and establishes protections for civilians in war zones. It also specifies the rights and protections that are afforded to non-combatants. Since the onset of the US-led “war on terror” in 2001 the Geneva convention has been systematically undermined by the USA as well as other NATO countries.

These systematic erosion of the Geneva convention includes:

• The illegitimate use  of the term “unlawful combatants”xxxv and the indefinite imprisonment of prisoners of war in places like Guantanamo and outside the required norms of the Geneva Conventions.

• The used of the term “enhanced interrogation techniques”xxxvi in an attempt to legitimize unspeakable acts of torture, including water-boarding, sensory deprivation, forced positions, religious chicane, hours of forced positions during sensory deprivation together with making the prisoners subject to white noise, blindfolding, extreme temperatures as well as sheer physical brutality and even death.

• The use of the term “Extraordinary Rendition”xxxvii that is the kidnapping and disappearance of both combatants and non-combatants. As in Operation Condor conducted by the USA and its vassals in South America against leftists and progressives in the 70s and 80s people simply disappear.  Extraordinary rendition is a term used to cover over the fact that people are delivered  to third countries who apply torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques” or to people who are simply murdered. Extraordinary Rendition is also covered by the provisions of the Nuremberg Principles.

• Summary executions of prisoners of war on the battlefield and the the delivery of combatants and non-combatants alike to allied but irregular forces, knowing that the prisoners of war will be massacred as it happened in several instances in Afghanistan.

• The delivery of prisoners of war to criminal courts, that is US military tribunals,  for prosecution for “terrorism”.

And it does not stop there. The list of outrages against the Geneva Conventions would fill volumes. The results of this systematic violation of international law are outrages like those at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

The renown social psychologist Phillip G. Zimbardo Ph.D, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University,xxxviii who was working as expert for the defense of some of the soldiers who committed the outrages in Abu Ghraib.  Zimbardo stated that the appalling acts of torture at Abu Ghraib were not the result of “a few rotten apples among the troops”, as claimed by former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, but that they were the products of a carefully manufactured situation, where high level military and political cadre had to know that the outcome invariably would be torture and abuse.xxxix

The obvious danger of these systematic violations of international law is that it creates precedence and escalates the spiral of violence and abuse rather than defusing a conflict.

The irony is that this systematic violation of international law is being implemented by those nations who are claiming to wage wars as the vanguard of law, human rights, freedom, democracy and justice.

The Hague Conventions.

The Hague Conventionsxl consist of two treaties and regulate among other things, legality of war, declarations of war and surrender, use of legal and illegitimate weapons, military conduct, command structures and and command responsibility for prevention and punishment of crimes by subordinates..

Article one of the first chapter of the Hague Convention of 1909 states, that the laws, rights and duties of war not only apply to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps and require those forces fulfill the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person who is responsible for his subordinates, to have a fixed distinctive emblem visible at a distance, to carry arms openly, and to conduct their operations in accordance to the customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or part of it, they are included under the denomination “army”. They also include inhabitants of a territory which has not been occupied, who spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize themselves in accordance with article one if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The coining of the term “unlawful-combatant” is designed to try to evade the provisions of the Hague Convention, which clearly specifies that a population has the right to armed resistance against an aggressor’s military forces.

The use of mercenary forces, like the use of 20,000 mercenaries of the Al-Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the attempted subversion of Syriaxli erodes the concept of  command responsibility. It provides the USA/NATO with a loophole that lets them commit the most serious acts of terrorism, massacres and military barbarism, while NATO´s military leadership as well as members of Ministries of Defense and NATO members governments enjoy “plausible deniability” for their command decisions. Or so they think, because it is clear in international law that the fact that US officers have real command responsibility, that is effective command and control,  over these mercenaries would mean their conviction for war crimes if they could ever be brought before an international tribunal.

Let alone the fact that the USA reserves for itself the right not to make it´s citizens, including military personnel subject to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, while demanding the prosecution of citizens of nations which are in opposition to US/NATO hegemony, this illegal use of mercenary forces is a systematic circumvention of the Hague Conventions as mercenaries are forbidden by the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries from 4 December 1989.xlii

The use of mercenaries has been widely implemented since the war on Yugoslavia and in both the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and the trend is going towards an increase in their use under the euphemism “private contractors” as if they are construction workers,  to fulfill military tasks. These mercenaries do not obey the rules or customs of war.

On the other hand, members of the militia who legally resist US/NATO occupation are often being turned over to police authorities of a government that has been installed with the help of the US/NATO, and can be sentenced to long prison terms or execution because the affordance of the protection under the Hague Conventions is being circumvented.

The use of CIA personnel for military operations. The USA is increasingly making use of unmanned aerial vehicles for both observation as well as for kinetic military actions. None of the CIA´s Gameboy Killers in Langley, Virginia  is operating within a legal military command structure. Regardless if a drone attack is targeting resistance fighters, so-called terrorists, or if the Gameboy Killers at Langley blow the bride and groom of a wedding party in Pakistan or Somalia to kingdom come, any an all of these drone attacks are a circumvention of the Hague Conventions.

Chapter two of the Hague Conventions states that prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile government and not in the hands of the individuals or corps that capture them.

Both the use of private military contractors and the use of allied or state sponsored mercenary forces, including Al Qaeda brigades are a breach of  the Hague Conventions.

In Syria we are, as we are writing, witnessing the wide spread torture and summary executions of captured Syrian military personnel. Western intelligence personnel have been captured after firing into peaceful demonstrations with sniper rifles to enrage the demonstrators against the Syrian police and government. Non of them was operating under the Hague Conventions and violations against a cohort of international laws and conventions have been committed by the assassins of peaceful demonstrators.

Extrajudicial Executions and Assassinations. The corruption of the  US domestic and military legal systems and the violations of the US Constitution has resulted in the extraordinary situation that the American president not only has abolished the ancient right of habeas corpus but now claims the right of a tyrant, the claimed right to effect the extrajudicial assassination, that is the murder of both US citizens and citizens of any other nation, anywhere in the world who he claims to be a “threat”..

In fact, President Barak Obama takes pride in personally making life and death decisions by determining whether the one or the other individual shall be targeted for assassination.  Death has become his plaything, like an American Caligula.

Notwithstanding the audacity and arrogance of signing this practice into “law”, no executive order, and no approval by the corrupted congress of the USA can establish any basis in international law for this practice. Each and every assassination is in fact nothing but premeditated murder.

These extrajudicial executions and assassinations are a stark warning of what of” human rights”, “civil liberties” “freedom”, “democracy” and “justice” now mean in the United States of America and NATO in practice as opposed to what they preach.

Plausible deniability for acts of barbarism. It would be possible to write volumes about the problems that arise. The shortest way of describing what the US is practicing by systematically circumventing international law is to sum it up as follows:

• The systematic circumvention of international law.

• The systematic circumvention of legal responsibility for illegal acts of war.

• The systematic circumvention of human rights, civil liberties and the systematic implementation of torture, institutionalization of terrorism and massacres on civilian, military, combatants and non-combatants.

• A return to barbarism in war and to wars of aggression, that is crimes against peace,  unrestrained in their ferocity and cruelty.

All that, and more, under the pretext of freedom, democracy, the responsibility to protect, human rights or war on terrorism. No act of terrorism is in fact shied away from, such as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, the murder of Muammar Ghadafi  President Milosevic, President Saddam Hussein, President Habyrimana and countless others.

The Establishment of Illegal International Courts and Politicized Trials – A Pseudo-Legalistic Political Witch-hunt and Victors Justice.

Whereas the systematic erosion of international law is one alley that is leading towards a return to barbarism, the establishment of pseudo-legal international courts which are being used by NATO and allied nations for a pseudo-legalistic political witch-hunt and the implementation of victors justice against those who have fallen victims to NATO´s ”interventions” is an equally dangerous alley towards barbarism. In deed, it may be even be more dangerous than the outright violation of international laws and conventions because here the illegal aggression is disguised as legitimate justice.

The ICTY, ICTR, SCSL, SCL, and similar special courts and tribunals are such Quasi-Judicial Institutions. Modern international law does not provide any legal basis for the creation of any of the above mentioned institutions. Their utility is to provide ”legal” sanction to the already unlawfully achieved results of covert or overt illegal wars, aggressions, or interventions.

While these quasi-judicial tribunals are unlawful in the first place, their methodology of achieving ”desired results” is even more so, since new rules and regulations are written on an ad hoc basis to secure convictions, as was the case at the ICTY and ICTR and others.

The results of such ”International Criminal Justice” are

  • the conviction of mainly Serbs through rigged show trials and the demonstrative acquittal of real perpetrators who belonged to the NATO allied, Al Al Qaeda associated Kosovo Liberation Army, also known as KLA / UCK, at the ICTY;
  • the conviction of Hutus through the same rigged show trials at the ICTR which acts to protect the criminals of the RPF, and its western allies, the very ones who provoked and prosecuted the war in Rwanda,
  • the conviction of Khmer Rouge members while the leaders and military officers of the USA are granted complete impunity for the devastating carpet bombing of Cambodia which destroyed the irrigation systems and led to a collapse of the society,
  • so on at the other tribunals.

These tribunals all are part of a system of show trials designed to demonize the former regimes of the countries concerned, to justify the US et al aggression  both direct and indirect, against the countries concerned and to cover up the real role of the west in those wars.

The very creation of the International Criminal Court, ICC, is in fact another step towards the deterioration of international law due to the fact that the UN Security Council, notwithstanding the position of a given state to the ICC, which includes non-signatory states, can refer a case to the ICC Statute.

This creates the potential for situations where an non-signatory state to the treaty may force another non-signatory state to the same treaty to be bound by the treaty non of the two has signed. This state of affairs is an explosion of the very nature of international law at its very base.

Indeed, the USA refuses to be bound by the Rome Statute in any way and has stared that if any of its officers are ever charged and arrested by The ICC they will use force to obtain their release. This is nothing less than gangsterism.

The results of such justice will invariably be highly politicized show trials and victors justice, and it is in deed precisely what has occurred at the ICC since it was established.

Common Denominators in US/NATO Subversion Strategies and the Institutionalization of Irregular Warfare and Subversion.

There are certain common denominators that are part of every attempted subversion:

  • The establishment or presence of a foreign influence within the targeted nations.
  • The use of domestic elements, such as a minority political party, the use of dissenting political organizations, organizations that represent ethnic or cultural diversity, the use of militant opposition movements, ethnic and religious minorities, exile governments, terrorist organizations, and/or any other factors that can be used to either create or aggravate internal contests or struggles.

• The attempt to either overthrow a government or to destabilize the country sufficiently to justify an intervention under a pretext like countering terrorism or by use of perversions of international law like the responsibility to protect.

• The co-opting of geo-politically significant locations, access to resources and markets, and the denying of access to resources and markets for antagonistic nations or those who are siding with antagonistic nations.

Institutionalized Subversion.  As discussed above, NATO has since its 25th Summit in Chicago in 2012, made ”interventions”, which implies cooperation with illegitimate militant organizations, an integrated part of its official doctrine. xliii(ibid.)

The fact that NATO has made subversion the primary instrument for expansionism is further emphasized by the content of a Training Circular that is being used with the US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina.

The Training Circular, TC 18-01, which is so sensitive that it is provided with a destruction notice that instructs owners of the document to destruct it by any possible means to prevent unauthorized dissemination, states among other:

  • Training Circular (TC) 18-01, Special Forces Unconventional Warfare, defines the current United States (U.S.) Army Special Forces (SF) concept of planning and conducting Unconventional Warfare (UW) operations. For the foreseeable future U.S. Forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.
  • The intent of U.S. UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power´s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. Strategic objectives.
  • Combat support includes all of the activities of indirect and direct support in addition to combat operations.

The TC 18-01 has been published on nsnbc in its entirety and downloadble PDF format. xliv

It is normal that a nation entertains special operations units for defense purposes. What makes the TC 18-01 and implicitly US/NATO military doctrine uniquely criminal, is that the TC 18-01 clearly states that the US will predominantly be fighting ”irregular wars” in the foreseeable future, and that it in the form of the TC 18-01 provides a step by step manual for manufacturing political opposition into dissent, dissent into resistance and terrorism, terrorism into insurgency, with the explicit goal to overthrow the legitimate government of a targeted, sovereign nation; with the explicitly expressed purpose to accomplish U.S. Strategic Objectives.

It can hardly be emphasized enough that the combination of the US/NATO´s illegal warfare, combined with interventions based a presumed responsibility to protect a targeted population from the crisis which it itself manufactures, combined with an absolute and overt disregard for international law and the institutionalization of quasi judicial instruments, constitutes a direct road towards global tyranny. Global Tyranny is merely a less euphemistic synonym for U.S. Global Full Spectrum Dominance.

This quest for global tyranny is inherently opposed to any peaceful co-existence between sovereign nations. It is, although it is making use of ethnic diversity, opposed to ethnic tolerance. It is, although it is making use of human rights and slogans about democracy, inherently opposed to human rights, justice, and self-determination.

It has, since 2010 begun to intensify the targeting of Nepal, Burma, Pakistan, Thailand, Lao, Vietnam, the DPRK, and even its presumed ally, the Philippines with the purpose to create a crisis about the South China Sea.

Intensified Implementation of US/NATO Global Full Spectrum Dominance in Asia.

Nepal – The Exemplary Destruction of a Nation State, Sponsored by Soros. Nepal´s geo-political position, its richness in ethnic, religious, cultural and political diversity, and the fact that the targeting of Nepal is about to mature, makes Nepal a perfect model on which US/NATO subversion strategies can be explained. A closer look at Nepal lets us understand the modus operandi for US/NATO subversion so we are able to better recognize the red flags in other Asian nations.

Until 2006 Nepal was governed more or less exclusively by the King and the Nepali royal family. It was until then one of the worlds oldest functioning monarchies. The royal family of Nepal had very good ties to both British and Danish royalty. In spite of its landlocked geo-political position in Asia, it was strongly oriented towards Europe. The position of Nepal as a European aligned Asian monarchy had its basis in post-colonial times. A subsequent cold war made Nepal a front-line state between the capitalist and the socialist blocks.

Subsequent to the end of the cold war, and in tact with the transition towards a more open, joint venture based Chinese economy, the position of the royal Family and Nepal as post-colonial, cold-war front-line state became rapidly obsolete. European support for the monarchy dwindled and a long suppressed, legitimate popular demand for political, legal and social change became ever more outspoken.

From 1996 to 2006 the then illegal Maoist Party of Nepal fought a bitter rebellion against the monarchy. The rebellion succeeded due to the overwhelming support from the population in rural districts. In 2006 the rebellion resulted in political and legal reforms. After the first post-rebellion elections the Maoists held almost 40 % of the Constituent Assembly.

While the UK, other Western powers and India had responded to the rebellion with gravest concerns and somewhat ambivalent support for the old regime, the prospect of a Nepalese National Assembly in which the Maoist Party held almost 40 % of the seats and where other Communist parties were represented too provoked a much less ambivalent response.

Ethnicity. The New Parliament embarked on the mission of re-organizing Nepal. The Maoist party envisioned a new model that was based on the distribution of power to local communities. A State Restructuring Commission was formed which should suggest how the old, centralized Nepal could delegate more political influence to the people, to regions and to communities.

Nepal is, although poor with respect to economy, extremely rich in culture and ethnicity, and until recently it also was rich in tolerance and respect for diversity. This ethnic diversity, however, was also a pure treasure trove for anyone, like the United Kingdom, the E.U., the USA, and Soros, who would not accept a Nepal that had become so self-confident that it began implementing a foreign policy that did no longer accept dictates from the traditional and modo-colonial powers.

The population of Nepal is composed of over 100 ethnic minorities and over 300 casts. It is a situation that is potentially catastrophic for a nation that is being targeted by foreign influences who have centuries of experience in colonizing the world with the aid of the ”divide and conquer” strategy. What complicated the matter for Nepal and what makes it so easy to be taken advantage of is, that it is impossible to create regions along ethnic lines without creating new minorities in each of the federations regions. It is a situation much like that in Serbia and Bosnia Herzegovina.

Federalism. The Maoist Party originally intended to create a secular state with regions along community lines, with regional popular committees and administrations. Without focus on ethnicity, religion or casts. The question why the restructuring of Nepal went awry can be answered with two words; ”Foreign Interests”. We will even see that some of the names that were instrumental in carving up Yugoslavia and in creating ethnic violence in Bosnia have reappeared in Nepal.

Foreign Interests, Soros and the United Nations Framework Team.

The Hungarian born multi-billionaire and self-proclaimed philanthropist George Soros is the main sponsor of the United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action, short FT. The FT has since 2006 become very active in Nepal. We will hear more about Soros when discussing the South China Sea and the International Crisis Group which he also sponsors, but for now let us focus on Nepal.

In Nepal, the United Nations is active with twenty-eight UN agencies and departments who are working directly under the superintendence of the Soros sponsored Framework Team in Nepal.xlv Among other are represented the IMF, FAO, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNDP, UNODPC, UN-WFP, WHO, and the World Bank.

The UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action is led by the US-national Gay Rosenblum-Kumar. In Nepal it is represented by Ian Martin. Martin is known for having implemented ”Structural changes in other ”targeted nations”, including Bosnia Herzegovina and Cyrenaica, Libya. In both cases the helpful interventions of the FT and Ian Martin were correlated with considerable ethnic violence.

Besides its involvement in Bosnia and Nepal, the Framework team has over the last decade supported similar initiatives  toward ”structural reforms and change” in Ecuador, Fiji, Lesotho, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kenya where the US is currently aggressively trying to establish a stronger military footprint, Mauritania, the Maldives, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, where President Laurent Gbagbo was ousted with the help of the UN and France in 2010, in preparation for the war on Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe implemented much needed post-colonial land reforms and who is one of the last remaining anti-imperialist African leaders. What each and every of these nations have in common is that they are being targeted for a move towards a foreign imposed federalism that throws the doors wide open for the UN/US/NATO alliances´ divide and conquer policy.

The Soros funded NGO NEFIN is advocating indigenous Nepali peoples rights, among other with respect to ”indigenous land ownership”. xlvi   NEFIN is naturally advocating that every and each of the ethnic minorities in Nepal ”must” be  granted equal access to the ownership of land.

As discussed above, Nepal is a nation with over 100 ethnic groups and over 300 casts. Implementing square inch justice in ethnically based land-ownership rights is utterly impossible, regardless whether Nepal implements a six or an eleven regions model. Even if it would subdivide each of eleven regions into numerous sub-regions there would still remain a basis for conflicts.

What Nepal experiences is a cynical attempt to divide the nation along ethnic lines and to create a deadlocked situation that will be exploded into an unstoppable cycle of violence whenever it is most opportune for those who have targeted the country. The victims are national unity, diversity, tolerance and respect, and the people of Nepal who are being railroaded into massacring one another.

Some ethnic based violence has already occurred in Nepal and it is systematically being aggravated under the pretense of humanitarian principles. Unless the Soros / UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action under Gay Rosenblum-Kumanr and Ian Martin are opposed; unless the seeding of ethnic division by NEFIN, are opposed; it will merely be a question about what time would be the most convenient for the USA, UK, and NATO to aggravate a matured crisis to the extend that another ”humanitarian intervention” under the guise of an assumed ”responsibility to protect” will be ignited.

The following Asian countries are according to reliable sources also being targeted for ”balkanization” on the basis of ethnic and religious diversity by the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action:Burma/Myanmar, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sri Lanka.

Other Asian nations that are either being directly or indirectly targeted by Western power brokers, or which are being positioned into conflict with targeted nations include  among other, Afghanistan, Georgia, Ossetia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Lao, the Philippines.

The ongoing violent clashes between Buddhist and Muslim groups in Burma, the clashes between so called red shirts and yellow shirts in Thailand, the positioning of the Philippines for becoming a front line state in the containment of Chinese access to resources, transportation of resources and Chinese access to Asian markets. The list of subversive activities is virtually inexhaustible.

This development should raise warning flags about the volatility, vulnerability and potential dangers  the region will face, unless the US/NATO ambition for global, full spectrum dominance is challenged by the development of coherent and consistent national and regional strategies.

The South China Sea: How could Soros and the International Crisis Group let a perfectly good Crisis be wasted without making use of it?

String of Pearls. A 2006 study for the U.S. Army by Christopher J. Pehrson, called ”String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China´s Rising Power Across the Asian Littoralxlvii demonstrates the US/NATO´s condescending, modo-colonialist and ethnocentric perception of Asia as ”their” backyard, ”their repository of resources” and ”their markets that are being threatened by China”. It analyzes Chinese markets in the region as ”China´s String of Pearls”, that threatens US/NATO modo-colonial hegemony and primacy.

The nature and content of this military commissioned study demonstrate explicitly that even nations who align themselves with US/NATO foreign policy are potential targets for aggression and subversion unless these nations actively participate in the strategic encirclement of China, in denying China access to resources and markets. So much to the situation in general terms.

Soros´ International Crisis Group, Stirring up the South China Sea. With respect to the  territorial dispute about areas in the South China Sea, between the Philippines and China, a recent report by the European, Soros Funded, International Crisis Group, ICG, is revealing US/NATO´s strategy.xlviii

While the ICG is overtly claiming to be working on crisis resolution, the report has in fact to be understood as an analysis of, how the crisis can be managed to secure the best possible outcome for the modo-colonial and globalist powers.

An analysis of the report reveals that the strategy that is being discussed, among other, contains the following elements:

  • Attempts to infiltrate or influence Chinese military structures to create inter-services competition.
  • Attempts to influence the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to create disputes between the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Defense, and Military Services
  • Aggravating rivalry between the Chinese Maritime Forces and Law Enforcement agencies with maritime capabilities and duties, about the allocation of resources, competencies, roles, and responsibilities with respect to the South China Sea.
  • If possible, the creation of conflict between the Ministries of Defense, Foreign Affairs and the Interior.
  • Creation of regional rivalries by creating the above mentioned conflicts, facilitated by the fact that high level Chinese law enforcement officers, military officers, and their likes have ties to regional political structures and interests in China.
  • Systematic defamation of China´s claims to sovereignty over parts of the South China Sea. The defamation will be based on referring to ”China´s Nationalist Ambitions”, on fear-mongering due to the fact that the so-called nine-dashed line that appears on Chinese maps encompasses most of the South China Sea, the interpretation of the fact that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, supports Chinese claims is denounced as Chinese nationalism.
  • Creating Mistrust to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so that regional partners may perceive reassurances and negotiated settlements by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign affairs as not trustworthy. Undermining the credibility of Chinese Diplomacy by exaggerating inter ministerial conflicts or conflicts of interests between military and ministry.
  • Defamation of Chinese diplomacy at ASEAN and the seeding of doubt whether China is willing, or based on domestic politics able, to implement the Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea.
  • The creation of mistrust within ASEAN, whether China is willing to, or if the Chinese government is able, to adhere to the ASEAN six-point-principles accord about the South China Sea, even though China assures that the principles are in accord with China´s policy on the South China Sea settlement.xlix
  • Using the creation of doubts, whether the Chinese government is capable of controlling eventual unauthorized, unilateral action by regional Chinese military or law-enforcement services as pretext to increase the US/NATO military footprint in the Philippines, India, Vietnam, Lao, and Thailand.
  • Using the same arguments to pressure the government of Australia to increase military spending on maritime “defense” forces.
  • The positioning of China as hegemonic nation with ambitions to dominate the region politically and militarily, to prevent China´s access to markets and resources, and to create an atmosphere of mistrust towards Chinese initiatives for joint ventures, political, economical cooperation.
  • The positioning of China as nationalist military power with regional ambitions for dominance to saw mistrust that subverts regional, bilateral and multilateral initiatives towards security.

Others could be added, and the International Crisis Group is far from the sole player involved in what could best be described as careful, preparatory initiatives that weaken China politically, economically and militarily in preparation of a long-planned confrontation of Russia and China.

Countering the US/NATO ambition for global full spectrum dominance and preserving peace.

Although some Asian nations alignment with Western powers is being criticized, it is important to remember, that their long standing alignment with the USA, UK, France, and other is rendering them extremely vulnerable in cases where a government attempt to implement a non-aligned policy or simply a more autonomous foreign policy that serves the nations interests.

Rather than criticizing governments who are in that quagmire, it would be more constructive to use diplomatic finesse, to make it not only attractive but feasible for countries like the Philippines to orient itself politically so it can serve it´s own and regional interests rather than those of modo-colonial powers who are seeking dominance rather than partnership.

Some initiatives could and should be taken by all Asian nations, regardless their affiliations. Mutual, bilateral and multi-lateral assurances could ease their implementation in Western aligned countries. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is one step in the right direction. Cooperation with BRICS, and Latin-American organizations like ALBA, UNASUR, MERCOSUR can  facilitate increased autonomy.

Some initiatives that could help creating an atmosphere that would facilitate a development towards regional stability, security and the peaceful coexistence would be:

  • Further resolutions at the UN Security Council and General Assembly that lend apparent legitimacy to utterly illegal ”interventions” and violations of national sovereignty must be consequently and consistently opposed. Any nation that experiences political, diplomatic, economical, or other pressure in an attempt to make it comply with requests from NATO member states should enjoy the full solidarity of any other peaceful nation.
  • Demands that the USA and NATO change their foreign policy and military doctrine, to comply with international law. Diplomatic, political, economic and other sanctions should be negotiated among Asian and other nations and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements about solidarity in the case of repression need to be discussed and implemented.
  • Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court and other quasi-judicial, illegitimate organizations and solidarity with non-compliant nations. The fact that the USA does not recognize the ICC while abusing it, and while threatening with military action against nations that refer US citizens to prosecution at the ICC can not be withheld from the public and provides more than ample diplomatic leverage.
  • The implementation of international jurisdiction for the most serious crimes recognized by mankind into national law. Bilateral and multilateral assurances of solidarity in cases where the arrest, trial, and or sentencing of a person for any of such crimes results in political, diplomatic, economic, or even military sanctions against the nation who is making use of international jurisdiction.
  • The establishment of an International Bureau for Peace and Justice as a permanent, supra-national body to remedy the lack of independent investigations into the most serious crimes, the preparation of prosecutable cases, and other activities that limit the ability of criminals to travel freely. The deterioration of international law, including the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, the Laws that prohibit the use of mercenaries, and other international bodies of law, many of which have been established after unspeakable suffering, must be opposed. Without the establishment of an international institution that is legal, as opposed to the ICC, and just, as opposed to the ICC, the world, including the Asian region will regress into barbarism.
  • Implementing legislation modeled over a recent Russian initiative, to protect the country from covert subversion attempts by foreign sponsored NGOs.l Monitoring of NGO´s who are inciting discord between ethnic or religious groups in an attempt to destabilize a sovereign state, such as it is the case with NEFIN in Nepal.li
  • Monitoring United Nations agencies more closely. Holding UN Agencies, and in particular the Soros funded UN Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action accountable for any subversive activities. If necessary to arrest, deport, or prosecute UN members who engage in illicit, subversive activities. Bilateral and multilateral agreements and accords with respect to solidarity in the case of sanctions for holding the UN, its agencies or employees accountable for illegitimate activities. Diplomatic immunity is not a card blance  for espionage, subversion, drug trafficking, human trafficking or any of the other outrages the UN has been involved in in recent decades.
  • Monitoring closely, the activities of Western Embassy personnel and members of Western Intelligence communities. Countering their abuse of their host nations territory and good-will as well as diplomatic privileges to co-operate with terrorist organization or otherwise abuse their privileges to provide political or material support to terrorist organizations or their members. Bilateral and multilateral assurances and Concords of solidarity in case of repercussions due to countering Western diplomats and Intelligence personals illicit activities.

To use a reductionist approach at closing; there are two options.

National sovereignty, diversity and peaceful coexistence, the upholding of international law, combined with resistance against the US/NATO ambition for global full spectrum dominance, or a return to anarchy, barbarism, colonialism, and tyranny.

We are in deed in a period where courage and integrity among the political leadership in Asia is more urgently needed than ever before. The challenges can seem overwhelming. The alternatives to much needed change, however, are potentially catastrophic.

Source: Christopher Black., James Henry Fetzer, Alex Mezyaev, Christof Lehmann. on NSNBC

12-08.2012

NOTES:
i Project for a New American Century – PNAC.http://www.newamericancentury.org/
ii Open Society Foundations, Soros. http://www.soros.org/about
iii Zbigniev Brzezinski CSIS. http://csis.org/expert/zbigniew-brzezinski
iv The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniev Brzezinski (XXXXXXXXX XX
v Wahlberg Erik (2010) Globalresearch. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18019
viLehmann Christof (2012), NATO’s 25th Summit in Chicago in Preparation of Global Full Spectrum Dominance, Interventionism, Possible Preparations for A Regional War Directed against Russia and China, and Developments in Global Security,  nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/natos-25th-summit-in-chicago-in-preparation-of-global-full-spectrum-dominance-interventionism-possible-preparations-for-a-regional-war-directed-against-russia-and-china-and-developments-in-global/
vii Television Archive. 9/11 News Coverage. http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
viii NBC Sept. 11, 2001, 9:12 am – 9:54 am (September 11, 2001) Television Archive. http://archive.org/details/nbc200109110912-0954
ix Was America attacked by Muslims on 9/11 ? David Ray Griffin. http://911blogger.com/node/17631
x Rebuilding America´s Defenses. PNAC. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
xi Ibid. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
xii Twin Towers´Concrete turned into Dust in Midt-air. 9/11 Research. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
xiii Ibid. http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
xiv Transcript of G.W. Bush address to joint session of Congress and the nation on 20 September 2001. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html/
xv Newly disclosed documents shed more light on Taliban offers. Information Clearinghouse. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26410.htm
xvi Obama authorizes secret US support of Syrian rebels. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801
xvii Lehmann Christof (2011) NATO, and the modified Chechnyan Model. nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/syria-nato-and-the-modified-chechnyan-model/
xviii Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine PFLP. http://pflp.ps/english/
xix Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine DFLP. http://www.dflp-palestine.net/index.htm
xx US Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2011. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195553.htm#eta
xxi CIA recruits 1.500 from Mazar-e-Sharif to fight in Libya. The Nation. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/31-Aug-2011/CIA-recruits-1500-from-MazareSharif-to-fight-in-Libya
xxii Treaty of Westphalia. Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France and their respective Allies. The Avalon Project. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
xxiii UNGA Resolution 63/308 the responsibility to protect. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/Resolution%20RtoP.pdf
xxiv Newhouse John (1992), The Diplomatic Round, The New Yorker, 24 August 1992, pp. 63 – 65.
xxv International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia , Thursday 3 May 2012, pp. 28424 – 28506. http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/trans/en/120503IT.htm
xxvi Chossudovsky Michel, German Intelligence and CIA supported Al Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Globalreasearch. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEH502A.html
xxvii Chossudovsky Michel, Kosovo ”Freedom Fighters” financed by Organized Crime. Globalresearch. http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=22619
xxviii Interview with French Brigadier General, ret. Pierre Marie Gallois. (I) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgUNO3SZBP4
xxix Interview with French Brigadier General, ret. Pierre Marie Gallois. (II) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfFrynxn7os&feature=relmfu
xxx Ibid. 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgUNO3SZBP4 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfFrynxn7os&feature=relmfu
xxxi Kissinger Henry (2012) Syrian Intervention risks upsetting the Global Order. The 4th Media. http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/06/06/henry-kissinger-syrian-intervention-risks-upsetting-global-order/
xxxii Lehmann Christof (2012),  A Response to Henry Kissinger on Syria and the Global Order. The 4th Media http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/06/10/a-response-to-henry-kissinger-on-syria-and-the-global-order/
xxxiii UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011) Libya. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution
xxxiv Geneva Conventions, ICRC. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp
xxxv Värek René (2005) The Status and Protection of Unlawful Combatants, Juridica International,pp. 191-198. http://www.juridicainternational.eu/index.php?id=12632
xxxvi Ruth Blakeley (2011): Dirty Hands Clean Conscience ? The CIA Inspector General´s Investigation of ”Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” in the Wat on Terror and the Torture Debate, Journal of Human Rights, 10:4, 544-561 http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/pdf/PDF%20175%20%5BRB%20Dirty%20Hands%5D.pdf
xxxvii Kweskin, Qureshi & Twu, The International Legal landscape Of Extraordinary Rendition, University of North Carolina School of Law.
xxxviii Philip G. Zimbardo Ph.D at Stanford University. http://www.zimbardo.com/
xxxix Mbugua Martin , Zimbardo blames Military Brass for Abu Ghraib Torture. University of Dalaware. http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2006/dec/zimbardo120705.html
xl The Laws of War, The Avalon Project. Yale University.  http://adoption.state.gov/hague_convention/overview.php
xli Lehmann Christof (2012) Attack on Syria likely before March ? nsnbc.
xlii The International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, 4 December 1989. ICRC. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/530
xliii Ibid. Lehmann Christof (2012), NATO`s 25th Summit in Chicago in Preparation of Global Full Spectrum Dominance, Interventionism, Possible Preparations for A Regional War Directed against Russia and China, and Developments in Global Security,  nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/natos-25th-summit-in-chicago-in-preparation-of-global-full-spectrum-dominance-interventionism-possible-preparations-for-a-regional-war-directed-against-russia-and-china-and-developments-in-global/
xliv TC 18-01 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare. http://nsnbc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
xlv The United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action. http://www.unep.org/conflictsanddisasters/Portals/6/documents/FRAMEWORK_TEAM_FLYER-1Oct10.pdf
xlvi NEFIN . http://www.indigenousclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=81&lang=en
xlvii   Pehrson Ch. J. (2006) String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China´s Rising Power Across the Asian Littoral, U.S. Army Institute for Strategic Studies. http://nsnbc.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/string-of-pearls.pdf
xlviii ICG, Stirring up the South China Sea, An Executive Summary. ICG.http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/china/223-stirring-up-the-south-china-sea-i.aspx
xlix ASEAN six-point principles in accord with China´s policy on South China Sea settlement. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/asean-six-point-principles-in-accord-with-chinas-policy-on-south-china-sea-settlement/
lProtecting Russia from U.S. ”Covert” Subversions. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/protecting-russia-from-u-s-covert-subversions-putin-signs-foreign-agents-bill-to-regulate-political-ngos-into-federal-law/

 

Attack on Syria likely before March?

After the Arab Leagues discontinuation of it´s mission in Syria, the closure of European and Arab Embassies in Damascus, and the non binding resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, all signals are set “Go” for the War on Syria and Iran. The remaining questions are, what will be the pretext to trigger the transition from the months long covert to an overt war, when will it be initiated, how is it likely to develop, and what will the outcome be.

Diplomacy: The discontinuation of the Arab leagues mission in Syria and the closure of European and Arab Embassies prompted the Russian UN Envoy Vitaly Churkin to interpret them as possible precursors of war. (1) The adoption of a non binding resolution by the United Nations General Assembly on Syria on Thursday came after intense US-American and Western European diplomatic pressure on politically and economically dependent nations, and following the Russian and Chinese rejection of a draft resolution at the UN Security Council on 4 February.

On Sunday Syria rejected the Arab League´s resolution that was calling for a UN-Arab Peacekeeping force in Syria, combined with the tightening of economic sanctions on Syria. The resolution was perceived as blatant interference into Syrian internal affairs. More over, the fact that several of the nations that sponsored the Arab Leagues resolution, and who would be the most likely candidates to volunteer “UN Peace Keepers”, are the very nations that are waging an illegal covert war against Syria; namely, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, with the aid of Turkey, USA, UK, and other NATO Member States. Both Syria, Russia, and China opposed the Arab League Resolution to prevent what they called a new Libya like scenario.

Vitaly Churkin stated, that the draft resolution was unbalanced and that it reflected the tendencies that cause Russia concerns. Namely, the attempt to isolate the Syrian political leadership, the rejection of any contacts with it, and the attempt to impose a political settlement formula from the outside. According to Churkin, Russia also rejected the draft resolution because non of the Russian amendments had been adopted. Churkin elicited, that Russia was especially critical of the failure to include a call on all armed groups to cease attacking residential neighborhoods and government institutions, as well as a call on government troops to leave cities and towns. Churkin also concluded that failure to adopt these points did not leave Russia with any other choice than to vote against the draft.(2)

On Thursday, the European Union adopted a resolution, urging the Russian Government to immediately halt the sales of arms to Syria. The E.U. resolution was widely perceived by analysts as meant for domestic consumption in the attempt to cognitively and emotionally prepare populations of E.U. Member States for a significant “freeze” in E.U.-Russian relations and a possible indirect or direct military conflict with Russia. Syria is the largest Arab importer of Russian arms. (3) However, seen from an objective perspective, the relatively modest Russian arms sales to Syria dwarf the heavy US and E.U. arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Israel and other regional countries.

On 2 January, nsnbc reported that the US will deliver 84 new F-15 Boeing Fighter Jets to Saudi Arabia and significantly upgrade it´s existing fleet. (4) It is an arms deal, supporting a regional US ally, that is waging a covert war on Syria and is arming what is euphemistically called the “Syrian Opposition” (5), a country that is cracking down on protesters in Bahrain, and a country that only recently has beheaded a woman for “sorcery” (6). The traditional European or Prussian warfare doctrine of Carl von Clausewitz (7), that warfare should be the continuation of diplomacy by other means seems to have developed into diplomacy being warfare by other means. The fact that Clausewitz was inspired by Hegel seemingly makes this permutation easy. Create a problem, foster a popular demand for a solution which suits your strategic interests, and deliver the solution. The fostering and abuse of what is euphemistically sold as “The Arab Spring” with capital letters, like “The Holocaust” and the offering of military intervention as solution is a perfect example of Hegelian Dialectics; An Arab Spring, that is cynically, manufactured along the guidelines of the US Special Forces Training Circular for Unconventional Warfare, TC 18-01, which has bee published on nsnbc this week. (8)

War. After failed initiatives to lend apparent legitimacy to the war on Syria and Iran, the questions that call for being answered are; what will be the “event” that is used as pretext for entering an overt military stage of the war, when is it most likely to occur, how will it most likely develop and what is a plausible outcome. All signals are on “go”, the fuse is lit.

The Russian Military is bracing itself for the outbreak of a regional, and potentially wider Middle Eastern or Global War and is on a high state of alert. According to “The Hindu” the Head of the Russian General Staff, General Mikael Markov, informed at a Moscow Press Conference, that Iran is a sore spot for Russia, and that it is likely that a decision to attack Iran will be made within months, a little closer to the summer. Markov added, that Iran was capable of giving a sharp repulse to the attack. Also Russian Admiral Vladimir Komovedov reportedly said, that given the current military build-up in the Persian Gulf, any spark could set off the fire of a regional conflict. Komovedov, who is heading the Russian State Duma´s Defense Committee told foreign military attaches in Moscow that the US could attack Iran any time now with a simultaneous launch of 450 Tomahawk cruise missiles from warships deployed in the region. The Russian general Staff has established a “situation center” and is monitoring the situation around the clock in real time. (9)

Over the recent months Russia has significantly reinforced it´s Southern regions and borders with air, ground and maritime forces. An attack on Iran would most likely incite Iran to attack US Oil Installations in the Caspian Sea, and a developing conflict would involve Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ossetia, Chechnya and destabilize the entire Caspian Region. With an attack on Syria being the most likely “initiator”, and Iran bound to respond, it is most likely only a question of time before the powder keg ignites.

It is unlikely that the USA and NATO will be able to take on Iran directly and with massive ground forces, before it has either significantly reduced the Syrian governments military capabilities, or succeeded in ousting the Syrian Government. It is also most likely, that the US, NATO, Qatar and Saudi Arabia will be counting on “plausible deniability” as long as possible while waging war on Syria, in an attempt to position Iran and Russia as villains who intervene militarily. The ongoing development on the ground is strongly indicating that this is the most probable strategy.

Jordan. According to a report from 13 December 2011, an unspecified number of US troops that were withdrawn from Iraq had been re-deployed to Jordanian Air Force Bases as well as in Jordanian villages near Al-Mafraq, along the Jordanian-Syrian border.(10)

Since then, the NATO Alliance has established a buffer zone along the Jordanian-Syrian border, which according to sources around former Jordanian Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit is currently housing 43.000 “rebels” from Libya who are waiting for a signal to attack Syria. The so called buffer zone is established around the cities of Mafraq and Ramtha, and is approximately 30 km long and 10 km deep. The zone has reportedly been closed for civilian and non authorized persons. Three large camps, housing about 20.000 mercenaries of the “Tripoli Brigades” led by Abdelhakim Belhadj have reportedly been established. The sources around former Jordanian P.M. Marouf Bakhit, which have good ties to Jordanian Intelligence Services, state, that the total number of foreign fighters in Jordan, poised for an attack on Syria is 43.000. The transport of the NATO mercenaries has largely been conducted under the cover of medical evacuations from Libya, and that some of Jordan´s Royal Medical Services Hospitals as well as Hotels are filled beyond capacity with foreign fighters poised for war on Syria.

According to the same sources, a contingent of dozens of Turkish Intelligence Officers have been the Rabia district and established an operations room in Mecca Street. The Turkish operation also functions as recruitment office for Jihadi´s and mercenaries who wish to enlist in the planned attack on Syria.

Lebanon and Turkey. According to sources with ties to Jordanian Intelligence a shipment of over 50 T of Israeli Military Equipment, worth over USD 650 million has arrived at Erbil Airport in Kurdistan. The weapons have reportedly been paid by “Rafael Industries”.Lebanese M.P. and Chairman of the Lebanese Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt´s recent shuttling to Qatar, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey have specifically been tied to the arms delivery.  The weapons are planned to go on route to Homs. Jumblatt is well known for his anti Syrian meddling. During the protracted Lebanese civil war Jumblatt was a significant agent for division within the progressive alliance and known to have repeatedly sabotaged Syrian attempts to unite progressive forces around a pan-arabic solution that also embraced the Palestinian problem.

Syria First. But When.

Libya was not the easy push-over as many may have expected. The profound and still ongoing resistance of the legitimate Libyan governments forces and the Libyan people has most likely contributed to a delay of the war plans against Syria and Iran. Syria will be even harder to destabilize. The Syrian people are standing in a surprisingly strong solidarity behind their government and against the foreign led insurgency. NATO´s lack of ability to push for another Libya Style UN Resolution has significantly delayed the window for overt military intervention by NATO and allied countries.NATO´s problem with respect to Iran is, that it can not afford to attack Iran directly as long as Syria is not significantly destabilized, and the window of opportunity for a war on Iran in 2012 is already closing and is to be expected by middle of April if it is to be realized this year.

The rapidly closing window for an attack on Iran is adding to NATO´s urgency to initiate a Syrian campaign. Other contributing factors to the urgency are the problems that are arising with maintaining a force of largely uncontrolled and undisciplined foreign fighters in Turkey and Jordan. Another factor which is adding urgency to initiating an assault on Syria is the political nightmare that would arise for NATO if millions of Syrians turned out voting for the new Syrian Constitution, and protesting for President Bashar Al-Assad and against foreign intervention and aggression. What is needed is a plausible excuse for an intervention, and before the results of the referendum for the new Syrian Constitution can be proclaimed.

On 26 February the people of Syria will hold a referendum about the new Syrian Constitution. A referendum that will most likely be the point where the masses of NATO mercenaries in Jordan and Turkey will be given the “go” for an assault on Syria. Massive unrests and violence on the 26th may be the excuse NATO is creating.

Neither Iran nor Russia are particularly interested in becoming engaged in a direct confrontation with the NATO led aggression. The responses to an assault on Syria via Jordan, Turkey and eventually Lebanon will largely depend on the Syrian military´s capability to cope with the situation, and if NATO dares to raise the stakes, risking a confrontation with Russia. Would Iran stay passive when NATO mercenaries launch an attack via Jordan? If so, a Russian response would be strongly depending on the Syrian military capability to handle an assault by 40.000 fighters from Jordan, and if the West insists on intervening with regular forces. If Iran is getting involved the situation may be better for Syria. Can Iran muster a limited response that could not serve as pretext for a war against it ? Will Russia assert it´s influence over Iran and keep it from attacking US Oil refineries in the Caspian ? I don´t know, and most probably nobody really does. What is certain however, is that the Russian, Iranian and Syrian military forces are on alert and in anticipation of developments that can turn the region a thunder within the hour. What ever the outcome, the victim is humanity.

Dr. Christof Lehmann on nsnbc

17.02.2012

1) Russian envoy: Embassies closure in Syria could mean preparations for military intervention; TREND.  http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1992801.html

2) Russian Envoy Slams UN General Assembly’s Syria Resolution http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120217/171356084.html

3) EU Urges Russia To Halt Syria Arms Sales.  http://en.rian.ru/world/20120216/171347105.html

4) US Delivers New F-15´s to Saudi Arabia.  http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/us-delivers-new-f-15%C2%B4s-to-saudi-arabia/

5) The Manufacturing of the War on Syria. Christof Lehmann (2011), nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/the-manufacturing-of-the-war-on-syria/

6) Saudi woman beheaded for “sorcery”. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/saudi-woman-beheaded-for-sorcery/

7) Carl von Clausewitz. Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

8) US-Military Logic behind Syrian Insurgency. The “Special Forces Unconventional Warfare” manual” TC 18-01. Christof Lehmann (2012) nsnbc.  http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/us-military-logic-behind-syrian-insurgency-the-special-forces-unconventional-warfare-manual-tc-18-01/

9)Attack on Iran not far off says Russian general. The Hindu.  http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2899679.ece

10) Foreign Troops Begin to Spread near Al-Mafraq. Boilingforgspost/nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/foreign-troops-begin-to-spread-in-syria/

Wider Middle-East and Global War Imminent?

Posted on January 8, 2012 on nsnbc

Russian Warnings against NATO´s War Plans.

When then Russian President, and presidential candidate Vladimir Putin stated at the International Security Conference in Munich, 2007, that the world had never been as close to a global war the international media barely took notice. With US and NATO troops amassing in the Middle East, from the Strait of Hormuz via Israel and Jordan, and Turkey, with Special Operations Teams deployed inside Syria and Iran, sanctions on Iran designed to provoke a naval confrontation as a pretext for full scale war, the words of Putin have become more imminent than ever.

The article on the ISC website on the speech of Vladimir Putin at the International Security Conference, 2007, in Munich called Putin´s speech inflammatory, a breeze of cold war, and rhetoric. (1) Before his speech the atmosphere was cheerful, business as usual, but the atmosphere changed when Putin instructed the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference Mr. Telschick not to close for his microphone during his speech, announcing that he was going to make clear his real position on international security challenges without any “diplomatic inhibitions”. Putin condemned the US ambitions for global supremacy and global predominance through a system that had nothing to do with democracy, continuing that while everybody in the West seemed keen to teach Russia about democracy, Westerners did not seem to want to learn themselves.

Putin stated that the post-cold war period had produced far more casualties and armed conflicts than the cold war period, stating that the attempt to solve problems by unilateral actions caused human tragedies. “We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations”. “The US had overstepped it´s national borders in almost all spheres “, adding that nobody could feel secure within this political landscape. Likewise, Putin warned against the now deployed deployment of the “anti-missile defense shield in Eastern Europe” comparing it to an arms race that was not beneficial for Europe, and stating “we have weapons at hand that can neutralize this shield”, adding, that the Charter of the United Nations would ultimately also give Russia the inherent right to defend itself in the case of an escalation of the situation. Putin continued by a massive critique of NATO´s expansion to the east, and reminded about NATO´s promise not to deploy troops to East Germany.(ibid)

Today NATO has troops in Eastern Germany, Poland, the Baltic Republics Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the Ukraine, Georgia, supports Chechnyan armed insurgents, and wages covert wars in Syria and Iran.

Putin asked what had become of NATO´s guaranties not to deploy troops to any of the former Warsaw Treaty member states, calling the NATO expansion a provocation of Russia, warning against new dividing lines that will again cut through the European continent. Also warning about a unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, and proclaiming a Russian comeback. (ibid.) What the official Munich Conference website and article fail to mention however, are the prolific words by Putin, that the world had never before been as close to a global conflict, but called it the harbinger of a serious crisis in Russio-transatlantic relations. (ibid.)

Besides the obvious violations of Russian-NATO contracts that created the preconditions for the so-called re-unification of Germany, the Neo-Conservative school of US-Politics began a systematic encirclement of geo-politically and strategically significant positions directed against an expanding Chinese economy and a Russia that was re-asserting it´s national interests with respect to economy, and more significantly with respect to defense against NATO aggressions and hegemony. The policy towards global, full spectrum dominance of the USA was developed by the Neo-Conservative think tank ” The Project for a New American Century, short PNAC, (3) and described in many of their policy papers. Most prominently in ” Rebuilding Americas Defences “. (4) Even though the USA currently has a “democratic” administration, the policy guidelines of PNAC are followed, with variations in the details of implementing it only.

To elicit a few examples of the systematic encirclement of and NATO aggression against Russia, one could take notice of a few examples. Al-Qaeda, a creature of the CIA, was established by among other Zbigniev Brzezinski, to fight against Soviet troops in the former Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda has been, and still is one of NATO´s secret mercenary armies that depending on utility, can be used as respectively friend or foe. Both German the German Intelligence Service BND and the US American CIA massively supported Al-Qaeda mercenaries in former Yugoslavia. (5) CIA sponsored Al-Qaeda mercenaries and the so called war on terror were used as a pretext for a full scale invasion of Afghanistan, and besides the purported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which failed to manifest, as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. NATO troops came into direct confrontation with Russian troops when the new NATO partner, the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, attacked Southern Ossetia, which is allied to Russia.(6) Not to mention the deployment of missiles that led Vladimir Putin in 2007 state that the world was as close to a third world war as it has ever been.

US and NATO troops are stationed on military bases in the former Soviet Republics along the Russian and Chinese borders, importing religious fanaticism, ethnic conflicts, Al-Qaeda brand terrorism, destabilizing the entire region, and creating considerable security risks for Russia and China. The US and NATO support of insurgents in Tibet in cooperation with “a” Dalai Lama, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, whose contributions to world peace are his former co-operation with Nazi-Germany and Imperial Japan, and in latter years with the CIA and NATO, are an attempt to destabilize Southern China, and an attempt to blackmail Chinese governments into accepting human rights organizations that are known to be Trojan Horses of NATO. Most importantly, the USA and NATO are systematically destabilizing vital Russian and Chinese energy supply routes, on a world wide scale, and systematically wage aggressions against a peaceful expansion of Chinese trade and commerce in Africa and Asia. The war on Libya is but one of the symptoms of NATO´s push for full spectrum global dominance. (7)(8)

Russian and Chinese Signal that NATO needs to back down.

The policy of both Russia and China was extremely cautious towards NATO with respect to the war on Libya. Well informed nsnbc contacts could inform that both Russia and China considered the US as a mad man with bombs, able to do anything. Russian outrage over NATO´s blatant abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 – 2011 (9) however, became visible when then P.M. Putin met Danish P.M. Lars Løkke Rasmussen in Copenhagen, where he openly stated that NATO had overstepped it´s boundaries with respect to Libya. (10)

It is worth noticing that Vladimir Putin, who after all has his background in the KGB, most certainly must have been briefed of the fact that the Danish Prime Minister with whom he met, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has a long history of supporting the Afghani Taliban and demonstrating in front of the Russian Embassy in Copenhagen.(11) Russian and Chinese policy changed too late with regards to Libya, but it became obvious that a repetition of a Libya Style abuse of a UNSC – Resolution on Syria would not be tolerated, (12) and that both Russia and China would have to assert their positions with regards to Syria and Iran. Both because of strategic alliances, interests of trade and commerce, and because a destabilization of Syria and Iran would have severe security implications for both Russia and China that are intolerable.

In November 2011 a unanimous Russian State Duma, or House of Parliament, demanded that Russian foreign and security policy demands that NATO significantly reduces it´s military footprint in the Caucasus. A demand that was very well in line with Putin´s 2007 speech at the ISC.  The affirmation of Russia´s late but new found confidence can be perceived as a direct threat to what is euphemistically called “The New World Order”. (13)

All the while, NATO stepped up it´s covert war on Syria, a long standing ally of Russia,(14) and increased pressure against Iran, (15) threatening crippling sanctions and military action based on the report of the IAEA on Iran (16) that was criticized by Iran as fictitious. (17) With a United Nations that has long lost credibility as impartial forum of sovereign nations, the IAEA report is in deed criticized by most other than NATO countries for being everything between false to fabricated to create a pretext for an aggression against Iran. (18) It is worth noticing that Iran had changed it´s oil sales from the US-Dollar to trading it´s oil in Euro in 2009. (19) Something Iran has in common with Iraq, before it was attacked by NATO.

Deconstruction of the Popular Protests in Syria.

Russia has relentlessly attempted to facilitate diplomatic solutions to the crisis in Syria, knowing that the word crisis is a euphemism for covert war waged by the USA and NATO. As relentless as Russia has attempted diplomacy, as relentless is the NATO onslaught against the people of Syria and it´s government. More precisely the so called protests can be deconstructed into the following basic elements:

A National Counsel of Syria, that was formally formed in Turkey, that demands recognition as the sole representative of the people of Syria, but whose central members are either heavily involved in subversive US-Networks radiating around Zbigniev Brzezinski, henry Kissinger and Associates, The National Endowment for Democracy, and other institutes, funds, fellowships and more that are notorious for armed subversion of nations that are not playing along with US- and NATO geopolitical ambitions. Other members belong to the armed wind of the MI6 creation called The Muslim Brotherhood. (20)

A Free Syrian Army, that has been operating from NATO bases in Turkey for months, and that is under supervision of NATO Special Forces, (21) From the onset it mainly consists of members of the armed wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, (22) and a substantial amount of foreign fighters, or NATO mercenaries who are trained and under the command of the leadership of the Tripoli Military Counsel. (23)  The Tripoli Military Counsel is commanded by Abdelhakim Belhadj, and has formerly been known as the Al Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, (24) that according to a West Point Study was responsible for a significant amount of US casualties in Iraq. (25) Like it was the case in Libya, where the CIA imported Afghan fighters from Mazar e-Sharif, (26) it is very likely that a significant amount of the mercenaries, most likely between 1000 and 2000 are Afghani fighters, and the numbers are likely to increase as the US is striking prisoners release deals involving the Afghan government and the Taliban. This euphemistically called Free Syrian Army is a NATO Mercenary Army, under NATO General Command, and a joint command structure that includes an insignificant amount of so called defectors from the Syrian Armed Forces, needed to provide an apparent legitimacy.

A Saudi and Qatari backed Al Qaeda Assassination Experts Brigade. In October 2011nsnbc could report that the Russian and Syrian intelligence services attained information via inter-net chatter that confirmed that the Al-Qaeda assassination expert brigade called Omar Brigade had deployed to Syria. (27) The Omar Brigade is stationed in Saudi Arabia. It is financed by the Saudi Ministry of Internal Affairs, and it is likely that the Omar Brigade is responsible for the numerous assassination of key Syrian politicians, military officers, high profile reform activists who oppose the foreign intervention and war on Syria, and not least the recent high profile bomb blasts that shook Damascus. (28)

A Pro-Saudi Pro-US Anti-Pan Arab and Anti-Syrian Movement in Lebanon. The Lebanese “Movement for the Future”, is a political party led by Saad Hariri. Saad Hariri is a Saudi-Lebanese multi billionaire and the son of the late Lebanese P.M. Rafiq Hariri. The Hariri Family and associated political parties are traditional pro-NATO, pro-Saudi, and not least pro-Israeli agents in Lebanon. Saad Hariri has by virtue of a covertly recorded audio tape published on nsnbc been implicated in attempting to create false testimony at the ICC´s special prosecutor for Lebanon, and has been implicated in financing and arming terrorist gangs that take part in the armed insurgency and subversion of the Syrian government. (29)

Other elements of the euphemistically called Syrian Opposition include the London Based Syrian Human Rights Observatory and numerous other fringe organizations that are difficult to evaluate since very little is known about them and their members. nsnbc has send a letter and e-mail to the Syrian Human Rights Observatory asking for information about it´s goals, it´s policies, it´s funding, eventual contacts to foreign intelligence services, but has until today not received any reply. Finally, it should be recognized that Israel still occupies the Golan Highs, and that Israel has been waging an intelligence war against Syria for decades. It is unlikely that Mossad and IDF Special forces are not involved, but very little information is available.

A War Turning Hot.

On 24 October nsnbc published the article “NATO Prepares Global War – Russian and Chinese Military on Highest Alert“. (30) The message was alarming but in no way alarmist. On 3 October, few days before a meeting between Russian P.M. Vladimir Putin and Chinese president Huan Jintao, Putin announced Russian plans towards the establishment of a Eurasian Union. (31) On 12 October Putin and Jintao met in China discussing among other security and strengthened ties between the two countries, and off the official agenda gravest security concerns. Before Putin left China, the Russian Intelligence Service FSB (32) had received sobering reports from China´s Ministry of Security. (33) The reports were among other, not disclosed intelligence sources based on information from the former Blackwater Operative Brian Underwood who is currently held on charges for having passed on information to a foreign nation in the USA. (34) Though there are no details publicly available as to the details of the intelligence exchanged between Russia and China, the reaction was that both Chinese and Russian military forces were put on highest alert.

The situations that have aggravated concerns of US and NATO ambitions towards a global confrontation with Russia and China have since deteriorated significantly and rapidly. The comparison between the current developments and situation in the wider Middle East with a powder keg is not alarmist, but deeply disturbing and a situation that urgently needs to be confronted by international diplomacy and law.

Tartus Naval Base

The sole Russian Naval Base with access to the Mediterranean is situated in Tartus, Syria. November 2011 Russia has deployed reenforcement to Tartus, countering the deployment of NATO´s US-6th Carrier Group off the coast of Syria. (35) Though Russia has the capacity to counter the deployment of the 6th Carrier group, the fact that the Russian deployment was relatively modest in the light of the NATO threat against Syria was evidence of three factors. The first, that Russia is giving diplomacy all possible chances. The second is most likely that high ranking officials inside the Russian Ministry of Defence and Foreign Ministry perceive NATO, and particularly members in the highest echelons of the current US-Administration as virtually insane and able to cause a war that would be devastating for humanity.The third, and most disturbing, is that an analysis of the geo-strategic, regional and global developments have a strong propensity towards the development of a conflict with nuclear weapons.

The Rubicon of the developing situation may be Syria, but it is as likely to be Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. On 4 January the E.U. agreed to ban import of Iranian oil. (36) China criticized the USA for it´s sanctions against Iran, criticizing the USA for not using diplomacy and for it´s primacy of domestic legislation above international legislation in international affairs. (37) Syria and Iran are systematically encircled by US and NATO forces, in a systematic, step by step preparation of a wider Middle-East and global conflict. Neither Russia nor China can strategically, economically, or based on the security related to resources tolerate the destabilization of Syria and Iran without suffering the most serious long term consequences.

The recent Iranian naval and land military exercise provided ample evidence for the fact that an aggression against Iran won´t be a push over and that it has strong defense capabilities. The slow but massive NATO build up of military forces in the region alone should be sufficient to know that Iran is a force to be recogned with, and Syria is not the same easy push over as Libya, whose government had bought into the NATO deception that letting your defenses down and behave nicely will protect you from aggression. NATO troops are deployed in Turkey, many of them transfered from Iraq, in Jordan, along the Syrian border, in the eastern Mediterranean, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and encircle both Russia and China with anti ballistic missiles.

The situation that can bring the powder keg to explode is any incident that indicates, that NATO is attempting to deter Iran from safely exporting it´s oil through the Persian Gulf. In such case, it both promises, (38) and is perfectly capable of (39) to close the Strait of Hormuz for any maritime traffic, in that case, Russia and China will have the choice to stand with Iran and Syria, or to fall. What ever the outcome of such conflict, there will be millions of losers, and it it doubtful there will be a winner to enjoy a victory built on the carcass of civilization.

Given the possibility that the crisis will pass, the most urgent question for humanity, and for every single person is which action must be taken to once and for all outlaw and prosecute those who wage wars behind the veil of plausible deniability, the protection of diplomatic immunity, and the encouragement of brute force to co-opt, threaten, plunder and murder with immunity and impunity. The United Nations has utterly failed and is today a part of the problem, more than a possible path towards a solution.

Dr. Christof Lehmann on nsnbc

08.01.2012

Reference:

1) A breeze of cold war. ISC 2007. http://www.securityconference.de/Putin-s-speech.381+M52087573ab0.0.html

2) ibid. ..

3) Project For The New American Century, PNAC. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

4) Rebuilding Americas Defences. PNAC.  http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

5) German Intelligence and CIA supported Al-Qaeda sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia. Center for Research on Globalization. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEH502A.html

6) Georgia´s Invasion of South Ossetia, Two Years On. Center for Research on Globalization. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20500

7) Neo-Colonialism, Subversion in Africa, and Global Conflict. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/neo-colonialism-subversion-in-africa-and-global-conflict/

8) NATO´s war on Libya is directed against china.  http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/natos-war-on-libya-is-directed-against-china/

9) UNSC Resolution 1973 – 2011 on Libya. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm#Resolution

10) Russia Draws Line in Syrian Sand. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/russia-draws-line-in-syrian-sand/

11) Libya Denmark and Dirty Double Dealings. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/libya-denmark-and-dirty-double-dealings/

12) China, Russia oppose another Libya-Type of US.-led NATO Military Intervention. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/china-russia-oppose-another-libya-type-of-us-led-nato-military-intervention/

13) The Eurasian Project: A Threat to the New World Order. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/the-eurasian-project-a-threat-to-the-new-world-order/

14) Syria, NATO, and the Modified Chechnyan Model. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/syria-nato-and-the-modified-chechnyan-model/

15) France threatens Iran with military action at U.N. .  http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/france-theatens-iran-with-military-action-at-u-n/

16) Implementation of the NTP Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Counsel resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran. IAEA.  http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-54.pdf

17) BBC – Iran Nuclear Issue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

18) IAEA Report on Iran exposed as BIG Fraud. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/iaea-report-on-iran-exposed-as-big-fraud/

19) Iran ends Oil Transactions in US-Dollars. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/30/business/main4057490.shtml

20) The National Counsel of Syria and US-Unconventional Warfare. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/the-national-counsel-of-syria-and-u-s-unconventional-warfare/

21) Arabian Summer or NATO´s Fall. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/arabian-summer-or-nato%C2%B4s-fall/

22) Syrian Info-War. Syrian Attorney General Adnan Muhammad Bakkur not defected but kidnapped by armed gang with helicopter gunships. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/syrian-info-war-syrian-attorney-general-adnan-muhammad-bakkur-not-defected-but-kidnapped-by-armed-gang-with-helicopter-gunships/

23) Qatar invaded Libya, now invades Syria. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/qatar-invaded-libya-now-invades-syria/

24) Abdelhakim Belhadj, The Mask behind the Many Men. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/abdelhakim-belhadj-the-mask-behind-the-many-men/

25) West Point – Combating Terrorism – Al Qaeda´s Foreign Fighters in Iraq. http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

26) CIA recruits 1500 men from Mazar e Sharif to fight in Libya.  http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/31-Aug-2011/CIA-recruits-1500-from-MazareSharif-to-fight-in-Libya

27) Syria and Integrity in International Diplomacy. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/syria-and-integrity-in-international-diplomacy/

28) Damascus Bomb Blasts – Merry Christmas for Syria, with Love from America. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/merry-christmas-for-syria-with-love-from-america/

29) Hariri implicated in arming insurgency in Syria.(continues also audio tape) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/hariri-implicated-in-arming-nato-insurgency-in-syria/

30) NATO Prepares Global War – Russian and Chinese Military on Highest Alert. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/nato-prepares-global-war-russian-and-chinese-military-on-highest-alert/

31) Russia´s Putin promotes Eurasian Union in rare article. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h0KgpWReQEViJPRvovnJlzTvuK2w?docId=CNG.959cb8156142d070031486c72c2a0fb8.641

32) FSB – Home. http://www.fsb.ru/

33) China – Ministry of Security – Wikipedia. http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BD%E5%AE%B6%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E9%83%A8

* * *

34) US-Consulate guard accused on trying to pass secrets to China. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043096/US-consulate-guard-Bryan-Underwood-accused-trying-pass-secrets-China.html

35) Russia deploys war ships to Syrian Base. http://www.nineoclock.ro/russia-deploys-war-ships-at-syrian-base/

36) EU agrees to ban Iranian Oil Imports. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2012/iran-120104-voa02.htm?_m=3n.002a.394.gc0ao02hky.crr

37) China criticizes US sanctions against Iran. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2012/iran-120104-voa01.htm?_m=3n.002a.394.gc0ao02hky.crw

38) Iran says it will close Strait of Hormuz if crude export blocked.  http://rt.com/news/iran-ready-block-strait-hormuz-361/

39) The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz- Could the US Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf.  http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/the-geo-politics-of-the-strait-of-hormuz-could-the-u-s-navy-be-defeated-by-iran-in-the-persian-gulf/

“My Football Field/Tram Experience” – Racism, Ignorance, Stupidity or Nationalism?

ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD…

It has been with some degree of amusement or should I add fascination, that I have read stories today about Suarez’s 8 match ban and possible fine for being found guilty by the FA for racist remarks! This comes on the same day the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service announced its decision to bring charges against John Terry for allegedly racially abusing another player. My amusement and fascination was not really provoked by these two incidents but rather one that took place a few weeks ago.

ON A TRAM…

What I find a bit difficult to get over is the renewed ‘concern’ being shown towards victims of racial abuse.  The woman on the video titled ‘My Tram Experience‘ that went viral within a few days simply said what so many people in the world want to say but lack the courage. Watching her, I felt nothing for her but pity – not only for her but also for the innocent child she was carrying on her laps. While views differ so much on the woman’s attitude, I have not ceased to ask this question as I watched the video several times over – Is she really RACIST; IGNORANT, SIMPLY STUPID or A NATIONALIST?

BY INTELLECTUALS…

I want to dispel the thinking that this woman is as  bad as she has been made to look especially after she got arrested. Do not get me wrong… I am no supporter of discrimination of any form but we need to get the facts straight.

From the 18th and 19th Centuries, most European views of Africans for example had been one of a distinct category of humanity, a view based on the supposedly irreconcilable foreignness of African mental processes. For example one of the most celebrated scholars in Western thought argued that that Africa falls outside the boundaries of world history. He boldly argued that  “We [Europeans] cannot feel ourselves into [the African’s] nature .…Only by means of thought can we achieve this understanding of his nature; for we can only feel that which is akin to our own feelings.” (1) Hegel‘s argument was based on the original distinction between normative  existence and the African being.  He did not mix words then when he came to the conclusion that “Africans have not  achieve full self-awareness, as “their consciousness has not yet reached an awareness of any substantial objectivity.”  According to this view, Europeans, with their exclusive access to objective rationality, were the only ones capable of interpreting and understanding the African’s essential character. Was Hegel RACIST? MAYBE! IGNORANT? PERHAPS! STUPID? MAYBE NOT!

BY A PSYCHOPATH…

When Hitler, decided to incarcerate millions of Jews because of their race, the world did not react – about 6 million died in concentration camps. It was only when he started his re-militarisation  and re-occupation campaigns, that war was declared on him – in fact the world went to war against Hitler because he invaded Poland (the same Poland whose people are insulted by the woman in the video). Was Hitler RACIST, IGNORANT, STUPID or A NATIONALIST? All will say he was none of the above as all of them fall short of describing him – HE WAS SIMPLY A MONSTER OR A PSYCHOPATH! I concur.

BY COUNTRIES….

At the end of the war the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came up as part of peace processes in the world just three years after the United Nations was formed to curb any such Hitler-type aggression. It begins with the WONDERFUL WORDS “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”,

Wonderful! Is the simple word for such giant strides taken to stop a repeat of what Hitler had done. But under the watchful eyes of the UN with the declaration of human rights very much intact, it was a fierce battle before African States could gain political independence from their erstwhile colonial masters. It was with the existence of the UN and  paradoxically in the same 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights that  South Africa’s governance was built on a system of racial segregation called ‘apartheid’. Was apartheid Racism! YES!  Were its perpetrators Ignorant? MAYBE! Were they stupid? I doubt it!

That same fateful year, a new State called Israel was born and they have denied Palestinians all that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, effectively doing to them the same things that Hitler had done. Strangely enough, all those who demonize Hitler welcomed Apartheid and will die to support what is happening in the Gaza. Are Israelis and their supporters RACIST, IGNORANT, STUPID OR NATIONALISTS?

It would seem that the problem is not really who is abused or whose rights are denied in the world today but rather who does it. Or perhaps I just happen to have a nuanced view of what these terms mean.

RACISM, IGNORANCE, STUPIDITY OR NATIONALISM…

Racism is usually considered to be a belief that there exist  inherent differences among the various human races that can be said to account for cultural or individual achievements.This believe in a way usually involves the notion that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others. The first aspect could have been fueled by views such as that of Hegel, Levy Bruhl and others who used it to justify the slave trade. The myopia in such a doctrine does not lie only the fact that it is something that has no empirical basis but also because in reality there is no homogeneous race – one in which all are either achievers or all are failures. Some societies have made more technological or industrial or infrastructural advancements than others, but given the cyclic nature of history, this is not a given that the presently more advance society translates into a superiority of race. It is only a matter of priority in time. Also within each of the societies is a mix of greater and lesser persons. My point here is that going by the first view of racism, it amounts to nothing more than myopic egocentricism which is tantamount to STUPIDITY.

Closely linked to the second aspect about having the right to rule others, racism is seen as a case where a policy or  system of government is based upon fostering such a doctrine. I can recall vividly a great speech on immigration made by the British PM David Cameron in April, 2011, in which he argued that “When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods… This has been the experience for many people in our country and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.”  Cameron was simply observing an issue of national policy that is aimed at protecting the UK.

The question then is: HOW DIFFERENT IS CAMERON’S VIEW OF IMMIGRANTS AND THE WOMAN’S ON THE TRAM? While the woman has been branded racist for saying that immigrants had destroyed ‘her’ country, Cameron is right when he says the same thing. I am not insinuating here that Cameron is or was racist. What I am highlighting is that National policies will always ‘discriminate’ against foreigners but it is not simply in a bid to protect the country. IT IS CALLED NATIONALISM – the general attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity.

A third aspect of racism is that which is expressed in form of hatred or intolerance of another race. This is the one that calls for serious concern as it usually amounts to actual physical violence against the discriminated race. What I do not seem to understand is that footballers are banned or fined and a woman is arrested for making comments that are similar to those made every day in policies about immigration in a country that is supporting the ethnic cleansing and extermination of a town because of their race… AND NO ONE SEEMS TO SEE ANYTHING WRONG with it.

 I personally do not think calling me any name makes me that – because in most cases those calling the names are usually suffering from an inferiority complex. If people like Nelson Mandela were called Kaffir and they rose up to get over a hundred awards within a decade, then I daresay that he has ‘glorified’ the name, and only an idiot should think using it makes someone inferior.

If the President of the United States of America is called ‘Boy’ and ‘Tar Baby’ within a week, then I daresay that it is an honourable thing to be a White House ‘Boy’. The names did not qualify Obama, rather I think Obama has qualified those names. The people who called those names far from dishonoring their revered Presidency made me understand that another name for the US President could be ‘Boy’ or ‘Tar Baby’. If it is honourable to be the US President then it follows that it is an honourable thing to be a ‘Boy’ or ‘Tar Baby’.

In conclusion then, one can rightly argue that most of what is happening today in the international scene is a re-enactment of the acts committed by Hitler – when governments trade in arms, support rebels to topple governments, deny people the right to self-determination – all in the name of foreign policies, they sponsor genocides, support racism and perpetrate the highest levels of Human rights violations which they so much claim to want to protect.

NO PLAYER DIES FROM BEING CALLED NAMES BY ANOTHER IN A FOOTBALL FIELD; NO ONE DIES WHEN A WOMAN EXPRESSES HER FRUSTRATION ON A TRAM BY CALLING HER FELLOW CITIZENS NAMES… BUT MILLIONS DIE WHEN GOVERNMENTS ARM DICTATORS IN THE NAME OF FOREIGN AID; MAKE THEIR FOREIGN POLICY THE DEGRADATION OF OTHERS IN A BID TO PROTECT THEIR COUNTRIES; DENY OTHERS THE RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR SELFISH REASONS AND SUPPORT ILLEGAL TAKE-OVER OF GOVERNMENTS WHILE EMPOWERING OTHERS TO KILL. 

1. G.W.F. Hegel.  “Africa” in “The Natural Context or the Geographical Basis of World History” in Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. (177)

CAMEROON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: A KEG OF GUNPOWDER BUT ANY CAUSE FOR ALARM?

CAMEROON: READY FOR CHANGE?

Throughout the time I have been in Cameroon, (about two weeks now) I have not felt for once that a very crucial presidential election is around the corner – only once in Yaounde when I was asked to present my ID card twice within a distance of 200 km did I get the sense that there was some tension in the air. In fact, I get a greater feel that on the 9th of October 2011, Cameroonians will have to go to the polls, is when I am on Facebook.

It should not be in the least surprising for anyone who has been following Cameroonian politics. The first thing to note about the country is that it is one of the countries that are called ‘democratic’ but which has never for once elected its president. It is alleged that the first President Ahmadou Ahidjo was simply a choice of the erstwhile colonial masters who preferred him to André Marie Mbida after killing Ruben Um Nyobe. Ahidjo himself decided to single-handedly appoint Paul Biya his successor, who has clung to power since 1982. When the winds of change of the ’90s brought multi-party politics to Cameroon, it was an opportunity for old goons to learn new tricks.

The most free and fair elections in the Country was held in 1992 which the opposition led by Ni John Fru Ndi allegedly won but which, the incumbent Biya having the knife and the yam, ended up declaring himself the winner. Many today, blame Mr. Fru Ndi for the 1992 lapse. That was the decisive moment, they claim. He simply had to say the word and Cameroonians would have fought to defend their votes. He rather chose the pacifist route by taking up the bible and pointing to Cameroonians that ‘when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers’. That saved Cameroon the agony of going down the path of many African nations. OR DID IT?

Since then, the incumbent Biya and his party, the CPDM have mastered the art of maintaining power at all costs. The ultimate result has been that the government has concentrated more on trying to maintain power than do anything else. Most terrible in the whole scenario is that Biya has succeeded to build even within his own party a personality cult around himself. Without holding a Party congress since 1996, he has evolved into a ‘natural candidate’ for the party. Two days ago a Congress held after his candidature had already been declared seemed to be an opportunity for him to show all that he was ‘lord’ of the party (Of course, he is. The most popular emblem of the party is now his 1985 face. It is on all party uniforms and official documents). To have selected another candidate would mean the party will have to go through an overhaul of all its intrinsic values. CPDM is synonymous with Paul Biya.

But why all this sycophancy? Why is it that the failures of the Biya regime stare at all in the face yet he keeps receiving ‘motions of support’ even from parts of the country that are so run-down that one wonders if they are part of same Cameroon? All these would have pointed to the fact that the elections are a foregone conclusion had it not been for the recent happenings of the so-called Arab Spring – especially the fall of Hosni Mubarak. This is what makes the Cameroon situation precarious.

A KEG OF GUNPOWDER?

Cameroon did not take a cue from the uprisings in North Africa as many will wrongly assume. In 2008 Cameroonians came out on a nationwide protest and strike against Mr. Biya’s bid to change the constitution, a protest that was effectively crushed by the US-trained Battalion Intervention Rapide (BIR). Since then it was clear that the force could effectively carry-out the mandate for which it was created. However, with the fall of Mubarak, even when he tried some of the tricks Biya used in 2008, (clearly showing that they were reading from the same script), it became clear to the United States that even the BIR may not be able to quell a revolt in Cameroon this time, should one occur. President Obama quickly called on Biya to hand over power as a bid to avoid the same situation whereby power could fall into the hands of someone who was not on the US control-roll. This will have been an easy thing for Biya to do but unfortunately, he has little or no guarantee that leaving power would mean freedom. He had already soiled his hands. There is the lake Nyos disaster of 1986 that still has unanswered questions; there are the massive killings that he carried out from the period of 1990 to 1992; there are the mass imprisonment of people without trial; there is the case of the 9-killed at Bepanda; there is the recent case of 2008 and many crimes against humanity which the ICC has on their lists waiting for him.

Caught in this dilemma, Biya could not declare his candidacy until a few weeks to the elections as trips to China clearly gave him reason to dare the US. While it is clear that China endorsed his bid, given that they were clearly represented at his party’s congress, the real problem is that the leadership and command of the BIR is more American than pro-Biya. Should there be massive protests in Cameroon this time around, the US will be slow in using the BIR to maintain Biya in power. However, unless the US can get a candidate they can back, it will be a difficult situation as their inaction could still lead to what they are trying ab initio to avoid. The worse case scenario, however, will be one in which the US backs another person against Biya using the BIR and Biya manages to get support from the Country’s French forces and military. A clash between the gendermarie and the military on one hand and the BIR on the other, will be inevitable. BUT THIS CAN ONLY HAPPEN IF THE US SEES A POTENTIAL THREAT TO BIYA’S REIGN AND DECIDE TO LEAVE HIM IN THE COLD!

ANY CAUSE FOR ALARM THEN?

There seems to be none as far as Cameroon is concerned. This is because of three reasons:

First is the fact that Cameroonians are generally peaceful people. No people will bear the failures of Biya with such docility. From the time Biya took power in 1982, the country has been on a steady decline in all aspects. The economic crisis officially declared in 1987 was just the beginning of worse things to come. No new infrastructure in the country can be credited to the regime. From the presidency, airports to even football stadia, everything still carries the insignia for Amadou Alhidjo. Despite all these, Cameroonians have watched the country go from bad to worse with a geometric retrogression but maintained stoic silence. This may be because they are very hard-working, such that they have been able to weather the storms and keep sustaining themselves and forging ahead, and hence, lacking some of the basic ingredients of violent revolutions such as widespread hunger and great frustration, which makes the likelihood of a popular revolution slim.

Secondly, Cameroon has a breed of opposition leaders who unlike the Alassane Dramane Ouattaras and Morgan Richard Tsvangiras, are not ready to sacrifice the blood of innocent Cameroonians for the presidency or a piece of power. John Fru Ndi showed this in 1992 and at this stage, even popular leaders like Kah Walla and Ayah Paul Abine have all shunned the way of violence. This, however, can only be sustainable if none of them decides to approach the USA or France with promises of greater concessions against China. As long as they keep hoping to win through the ballot, none will defeat Biya unless they decide to team up with the power brokers – the USA and France. If they should take this root, however, the avenues for violence in Cameroon will be greatly opened.

Thirdly, the ability of the US to maintain the status-quo is crucial. Asking Biya to leave was not because they favoured change in Cameroon but because they fear change that is not within their control. If Biya can play his cards well and retain power, the US will be all too glad to endorse him again. He may not be playing the huge role that Mubarak was playing in the Middle East but at least being as naive as he is, he is effectively the type of person the US needs to maintain a solid base in West and Central Africa. Hence the USA will back another person only when it becomes crystal clear that a popular uprising that could threaten Biya’s hold on power is imminent.

In the final analysis, one should not expect anything to really change with the present elections, unless the opposition can effectively work out a strategy that promises a fair deal to the US and France. Should this happen, then Cameroon could explode at the slightest ignition after the elections.

THE SUPERIORITY OF AFRICAN KNOWLEDGE:

When Socrates made the statement that ‘it is better to be unborn than to be untaught for ignorance is the root of all misfortune’, little did he realise how true this will apply in the 21st century. By many shades it has applied to the African and most third world countries where it is arguably a fact that the high levels of illiteracy could account for the backwardness and lack of development of the regions – resulting in the misfortunes of high infant mortalities, prevalence of diseases and famine etc. But is there is direct relationship between education and development? Are the most educated people the most developed?

Most people will consider this a naive question – and indeed I deed think so myself. For example, Pope Paul VI in On The Development Of Peoples of 1967 held the view that “…economic growth depends in the very first place upon social progress: thus basic education is the primary object of any plan of development. Indeed hunger for education is no less debasing than hunger for food: an illiterate is a person with an undernourished mind.” This view may seem a truism until one decides to question what we mean by education.

If I had been asked this question a few years before I started studying western philosophy, I would have thought the most educated persons were those who had reached the apogee of formal education – that is those with Doctors of Philosophy (PhD). However, after four years of rigorous studies, I came to the realisation that most of the theorists of antiquity were mere monuments of intellection – monuments because they were relevant to their particular periods but offered nothing of practical importance to our generation. Some like the most celebrated Hegel to me may not even pass as a monument given that his greatest writings had the assumption that the African had not reached the level of self-consciousness. As theories used to justify slavery, these views were classics at the time but when subjected to critical inquiry in this age, it becomes apparent how, for a great part, Hegel and many western thinkers were simply rhetoricians who triumphed in arm-chair philosophising.

Their ignorance did not constitute a problem as it did not affect them directly and in fact served a purpose at the time (justified slavery and the colonisation of Africa). The ignorance that calls for serious concern is that which exists in this century where there is so much talk about globalisation and technological evolutions. I know it is stale news that a great part of the world still thinks Africa is a single country. I was shocked to discover, I was not surprised, when, many times in India, intellectuals alluded to Africa as a single country and some asked me if Cameroon is in the West Indies. It is therefore not just a Sarah-Palin-problem. But is this really an issue? I guess not.

The real issue is the ignorance that I have observed being manifested during the last few months. I did not realise how severe it is till I got to Cameroon and was confronted with the fact that people were more informed, objective and critical about issues than I was. I thought I was more educated but to my chagrin I realised I was not as informed as my African counterparts who had lesser formal education.

Thomas Jefferson had made the point that “ the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers”, which I have extrapolated to include Robert Brault’s statement that “You don’t realize how little accuracy there is in network TV reporting until they cover a story in your hometown.” Hence while we were being deceived by the mainstream media and kept away from the truth about Libya for example, African media houses were feeding the people with the truth. Little wonder the African Union for the first time unanimously challenged a decision by western powers – they knew the truth which we in the west did not know. I have had time to reflect a little on the whole notion of what I know and what I do not know and hence I now can boast of the superiority of the African education.

In High School, I studied American History, British History, European History etc. alongside African and Cameroon History; I studied Agriculture in France, Fishing in Norway and Agriculture in Nigeria among others; I studied British economics; I studied western philosophy and an apologia of African philosophy though I have been having encounters with the rich flavour of African philosophy in folklores and rich African proverbs all through my life. I studied in Cameroon, (Africa in Miniature) and Nigeria (the giant of Africa) and then studied in a renowned western university. The point here is that I, like all African students studied all what western Education offers but western students do not study anything that African education offers. An African who has not travelled out of Africa therefore, ends up knowing more about the world after high school, than a PhD holder who studied all through, in western institutions.

Do you have any doubts, then tell me – who can better understand the problem of hunger – the African who has experience of it or the foreigner who read about it? I recall with a fit of mild irritation how a mate from South Africa got a fail in an exam that he wrote about the apartheid only got an ‘A’ after he openly challenged the lecturer with facts. He lived the experience and the lecturer had only read about apartheid from books. He had firsthand knowledge and what the lecturer knew was at least three times removed from reality. He had knowledge of apartheid but the lecturer had an opinion about apartheid.

It is in the light of this that I cannot understand how it is that many institutions in the West have departments dealing with African studies where Africans go to learn about Africa. What illogicality! The truth is that Africans go for the certificates and not the knowledge. Hence, all what these renowned centres of African studies do is merely celebrate retardation in intellectualism. It is high time we stop deceiving ourselves. No one can teach Africans about Africa.

Isn’t it all so glaring with the stories emanating from the recent invasion of Libya? Of course it is logical that a good reason has to be given to taxpayers for every invasion. Unfortunately these reasons blur the truth and hence knowledge. Ask many in the West today what Libya was in 2010 and all they know is that Gaddafi had stayed in power for 42 years and that Libyans wanted democracy. Ask an African and he will tell you that Libya was a poor Kingdom under King Idris when Gaddafi seized power in 1969, expelled the British and US military bases that ensured Idris’ stay in power, and that Libya according to the UNDP Human Development Index of 2010 had a life expectancy of 74 and that it had free education, and enviable healthcare system and that it was a welfare system with unemployment benefits. How many people in the West today know the real reasons why there have been tensions between Gaddafi and the West?

  • That Gaddafi resisted joining a US/NATO-sponsored military alliance in the region.
  • That Gaddafi also refused to join the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM)
  • That Gaddafi put $300 million of the $400 million to fund Africa’s first communications satellite in 2007. (A project that made western countries to loose a net income from Africa of over $500 million a year)
  • That Gaddafi maintained public ownership of Libya’s own central bank, and the authority to create its own national money
  • That Gaddafi worked assiduously to establish an African Monetary Fund, an African Central Bank, and an African Investment Bank, which will curb the high levels of capital flight from Africa, make African governments more responsible and unfortunately render the IMF and the World Bank visibly useless.
  • That Gaddafi refused the request of Western powers to be part of these projects, especially France and the UK.

Of course many will not know all these. I have read many articles discussion the Post-Gaddafi era. Unfortunately, they are so filled with misinformation that I pity the western generation that will know nothing but what these tell them.  I am in no way down-playing the high standards of western education in western institutions. When it comes to the empirical sciences and technological sciences, there is no doubt that these institutions are of the most premium quality. But talk about the social sciences, the bottom line then is that if anyone wants to be educated in the world today, let them do their primary to high school education in Africa and then go to the Western institutions for University education. That way they will be able to discern fact from fiction and will not end up living a life of deceit.

In the final analysis, it is clear that the era is long gone when a few individuals or countries will continue to present their ideologies and selfish interests as international creed, thereby eroding the powers of the African people. This is clearly a period for a philosophical re-articulation of the African reality; a re-articulation because of the history of bastardisation of the intrinsic realities of African continent. It should be a philosophy of “existential hermeneutics” of self-rediscovery of the past, for an adequate re-integration and possible synthesis for a new way of being, doing and saying. In this sense, it should not be a mere mental or metaphysical outlook on life: not a mere ideological, and not even only an existential construct; but something that involves all of the above – a holistic vision and attitude to life. But most important one that can only be done by those most informed to do it – AFRICANS.

The Truth About the Situation in Libya

By Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition 

Aug 13 - Stop Bombing LibyaLibya is a small country of just over 6 million people but it possesses the largest oil reserves in all of Africa. The oil produced there is especially coveted because of its particularly high quality.

The Air Force of the United States along with Britain and France has carried out 7,459 bombing attacks since March 19. Britain, France and the United States sent special operation ground forces and commando units to direct the military operations of the so-called rebel fighters – it is a NATO- led army in the field.

The troops may be disaffected Libyans but the operation is under the control and direction of NATO commanders and western commando units who serve as “advisors.” Their new weapons and billions in funds come from the U.S. and other NATO powers that froze and seized Libya’s assets in Western banks. Their only military successes outside of Benghazi, in the far east of the country, have been exclusively based on the coordinated air and ground operations of the imperialist NATO military forces.

In military terms, Libya’s resistance to NATO is of David and Goliath proportions. U.S. military spending alone is more than ten times greater than Libya’s entire annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which was $74.2 billion in 2010, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.

In recent weeks, the NATO military operations used surveillance-collecting drones, satellites, mounting aerial attacks and covert commando units to decapitate Libya’s military and political leadership and its command and control capabilities. Global economic sanctions meant that the country was suddenly deprived of income and secure access to goods and services needed to sustain a civilian economy over a long period.

“The cumulative effect [of NATO’s coordinated air and ground operation] not only destroyed Libya’s military infrastructure but also greatly diminished Colonel Gaddafi’s commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations,“ reports the New York Times in a celebratory article on August 22.

A False Pretext

The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Italy targeted the Libyan government for overthrow or “regime change” not because these governments were worried about protecting civilians or to bring about a more democratic form of governance in Libya.

If that were the real motivation of the NATO powers, they could start the bombing of Saudi Arabia right away. There are no elections in Saudi Arabia. The monarchy does not even allow women to drive cars. By law, women must be fully covered in public or they will go to prison. Protests are rare in Saudi Arabia because any dissent is met with imprisonment, torture and execution.

The Saudi monarchy is protected by U.S. imperialism because it is part of an undeclared but real U.S. sphere of influence and it is the largest producer of oil in the world. The U.S. attitude toward the Saudi monarchy was put succinctly by Ronald Reagan in 1981, when he said that the U.S. government “will not permit” revolution in Saudi Arabia such as the 1979 Iranian revolution that removed the U.S. client regime of the Shah. Reagan’s message was clear: the Pentagon and CIA’s military forces would be used decisively to destroy any democratic movement against the rule of the Saudi royal family.

Reagan’s explicit statement in 1981 has in fact been the policy of every successive U.S. administration, including the current one.

Libya and Imperialism

Libya, unlike Saudi Arabia, did have a revolution against its monarchy. As a result of the 1969 revolution led by Muammar Gaddafi, Libya was no longer in the sphere of influence of any imperialist country.

Libya had once been an impoverished colony of Italy living under the boot heel of the fascist Mussolini. After the Allied victory in World War II, control of the country was formally transferred to the United Nations and Libya became independent in 1951 with authority vested in the monarch King Idris.

But in actuality, Libya was controlled by the United States and Britain until the 1969 revolution.

One of the first acts of the 1969 revolution was to eliminate the vestiges of colonialism and foreign control. Not only were oil fields nationalized but Gaddafi eliminated foreign military bases inside the country.

In March of 1970, the Gaddafi government shut down two important British military bases in Tobruk and El Adem. He then became the Pentagon’s enemy when he evicted the U.S. Wheelus Air Force Base near Tripoli that had been operated by the United States since 1945. Before the British military took control in 1943, the facility was a base operated by the Italians under Mussolini.

Wheelus had been an important Strategic Air Command (SAC) base during the Cold War, housing B-52 bombers and other front-line Pentagon aircrafts that targeted the Soviet Union.

Once under Libyan control, the Gaddafi government allowed Soviet military planes to access the airfield.

In 1986, the Pentagon heavily bombed the base at the same time it bombed downtown Tripoli in an effort to assassinate Gaddafi. That effort failed but his 2-year-old daughter died along with scores of other civilians.

The Character of the Gaddafi Regime

The political, social and class orientation of the Libyan regime has gone through several stages in the last four decades. The government and ruling establishment reflected contradictory class, social, religious and regional antagonisms. The fact that the leadership of the NATO-led National Transition Council is comprised of top officials of the Gaddafi government, who broke with the regime and allied themselves with NATO, is emblematic of the decades-long instability within the Libyan establishment.

These inherent contradictions were exacerbated by pressures applied to Libya from the outside. The U.S. imposed far-reaching economic sanctions on Libya in the 1980s. The largest western corporations were barred from doing business with Libya and the country was denied access to credit from western banks.

In its foreign policy, Libya gave significant financial and military support to national liberation struggles, including in Palestine, Southern Africa, Ireland and elsewhere.

Because of Libya’s economic policies, living standards for the population had jumped dramatically after 1969. Having a small population and substantial income from its oil production, augmented with the Gaddafi regime’s far-reaching policy of social benefits, created a huge advance in the social and economic status for the population. Libya was still a class society with rich and poor, and gaps between urban and rural living standards, but illiteracy was basically wiped out, while education and health care were free and extensively accessible. By 2010, the per capita income in Libya was near the highest in Africa at $14,000 and life expectancy rose to over 77 years, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.

Gaddafi’s political orientation explicitly rejected communism and capitalism. He created an ideology called the “Third International Theory,” which was an eclectic mix of Islamic, Arab nationalist and socialist ideas and programs. In 1977, Libya was renamed the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. A great deal of industry, including oil, was nationalized and the government provided an expansive social insurance program or what is called a welfare state policy akin to some features prevalent in the Soviet Union and some West European capitalist countries.

But Libya was not a workers’ state or a “socialist government” to use the popular if not scientific use of the term “socialist.” The revolution was not a workers and peasant rebellion against the capitalist class per se. Libya remained a class society although class differentiation may have been somewhat obscured beneath the existence of revolutionary committees and the radical, populist rhetoric that emanated from the regime.

As in many developing, formerly colonized countries, state ownership of property was not “socialist” but rather a necessary fortification of an under-developed capitalist class. State property in Iraq, Libya and other such post-colonial regimes was designed to facilitate the social and economic growth of a new capitalist ruling class that was initially too weak, too deprived of capital and too cut off from international credit to compete on its own terms with the dominant sectors of world monopoly capitalism. The nascent capitalist classes in such developing economies promoted state-owned property, under their control, in order to intersect with Western banks and transnational corporations and create more favorable terms for global trade and investment.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the “socialist bloc” governments of central and Eastern Europe in 1989-91 deprived Libya of an economic and military counter-weight to the United States, and the Libyan government’s domestic economic and foreign policy shifted towards accommodation with the West.

In the 1990s some sectors of the Libyan economic establishment and the Gaddafi-led government favored privatization, cutting back on social programs and subsidies and integration into western European markets.

The earlier populism of the regime incrementally gave way to the adoption of neo-liberal policies. This was, however, a long process.

In 2004, the George W. Bush administration ended sanctions on Libya. Western oil companies and banks and other corporations initiated huge direct investments in Libya and trade with Libyan enterprises.

There was also a growth of unemployment in Libya and in cutbacks in social spending, leading to further inequality between rich and poor and class polarization.

But Gaddafi himself was still considered a thorn in the side of the imperialist powers. They want absolute puppets, not simply partners, in their plans for exploitation. The Wikileaks release of State Department cables between 2007 and 2010 show that the United states and western oil companies were condemning Gaddafi for what they called “resource nationalism.” Gaddafi even threatened to re-nationalize western oil companies’ property unless Libya was granted a larger share of the revenue for their projects.

As an article in today’s New York Times Business section said honestly: “”Colonel Qaddafi proved to be a problematic partner for the international oil companies, frequently raising fees and taxes and making other demands. A new government with close ties to NATO may be an easier partner for Western nations to deal with.”

Even the most recent CIA Fact Book publication on Libya, written before the armed revolt championed by NATO, complained of the measured tempo of pro-market reforms in Libya: “Libya faces a long road ahead in liberalizing the socialist-oriented economy, but initial steps— including applying for WTO membership, reducing some subsidies, and announcing plans for privatization—are laying the groundwork for a transition to a more market-based economy.” (CIA World Fact Book)

The beginning of the armed revolt on February 23 by disaffected members of the Libyan military and political establishment provided the opportunity for the U.S. imperialists, in league with their French and British counterparts, to militarily overthrow the Libyan government and replace it with a client or stooge regime.

Of course, in the revolt were workers and young people who had many legitimate grievances against the Libyan government. But what is critical in an armed struggle for state power is not the composition of the rank-and-file soldiers, but the class character and political orientation of the leadership.

Character of the National Transition Council

The National Transitional Council (NTC) constituted itself as the leadership of the uprising in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city. The central leader is Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who was Libya’s Minister of Justice until his defection at the start of the uprising. He was one of a significant number of Western-oriented and neoliberal officials from Libya’s government, diplomatic corps and military ranks who joined the opposition in the days immediately after the start of the revolt.

As soon as it was established, the NTC began issuing calls for imperialist intervention. These appeals became increasing panicky as it became clear that, contrary to early predictions that the Gaddafi-led government would collapse in a matter of days, it was the “rebels” who faced imminent defeat in the civil war. In fact, it was only due to the U.S./NATO bombing campaign, initiated with great hurry on March 19 that the rebellion did not collapse.

The last five months of war have erased any doubt about the pro-imperialist character of the NTC. One striking episode took place on April 22, when Senator John McCain made a “surprise” trip to Benghazi. A huge banner was unveiled to greet him with an American flag printed on it and the words: “United States of America – You have a new ally in North Africa.”

Similar to the military relationship between the NATO and Libyan “rebel” armed forces, the NTC is entirely dependent on and subordinated to the U.S., French, British and Italian imperialist governments.

If the Pentagon, CIA, and Wall Street succeed in installing a client regime in Tripoli it will accelerate and embolden the imperialist threats and intervention against other independent governments such as Syria and Venezuela. In each case we will see a similar process unfold, including the demonization of the leadership of the targeted countries so as to silence or mute a militant anti-war response to the aggression of the war-makers.

We in the ANSWER Coalition invite all those who share this perspective to join with us, to mobilize, and to unmask the colonial agenda that hides under the slogan of “humanitarian intervention.”

THE PEACE DEAL DILEMMA IN LIBYA!

I have just finished reading a very prolific  article on the Financial Times COMPROMISE MUST BE REACHED TO END LIBYA CONFLICT and it is clear that we really still have some of the issues I raised in the last post. The problem of selective analysis and reporting of events. I would expect academics to be more objective if the mainstream media is failing. Unfortunately what I noticed from this article is way away from being objective.

While the article makes a graphic and realistic presentation of the facts facing the Libyan people and concludes that a compromise at this stage happens to be the best option, it fails in that it still at this stage draws its premises from the same false reasons that were given for the intervention in the first place.

There is no denying that there is a  good conclusion to this article, and the most reasonable one at this point in the saga, but unfortunately some facts need to be straightened. First I want to disagree that because Gaddafi used force to get and maintain power meant that he was going to kill 700,000 people in Benghazi. To call what is happening in Libya now, a lending of credence to Gaddafi’s propaganda is to ignore the bitter truth. If I remember correctly, when Gaddafi’s son addressed the people after the first day of protests, he pointed out just these terrible realities of civil war that this article highlights. But what happened? All the major media outlets interpreted it to mean he was threatening the people.

In any country – even the UK or the US – the military is there to protect the sovereignty of the State, which was clearly threatened when the first sights we saw of rebellion in Libya was of those carrying arms. If the Libyan army (so often wrongly called ‘forces loyal to colonel Gaddafi or Gaddafi forces’) was marching towards Benghazi, it was not because there were civilians on the street as was the case in Egypt and Tunisia but because men had carried arms against the State. We are yet to see footage of crowds of mass protesters in Libya as we saw in Tunisia and Egypt and as we have been seeing in Syria. The reason is simple. The Libyans had little to spur them to such action and the few who did come out (apart from the armed rebels who have a clearly different agenda), were deceived by the false impression that they could get a better country if Gaddafi was forcefully removed. Surely he did not stay in power for over four decades without getting tap roots into the ground.

A controversial no-fly zone was immediately sought from the same Security Council that Gaddafi had in 2009 criticized at the General Assembly for being undemocratic and perpetrators of disorder rather than order, (enough reason why the members of that council will want to see him out), and France and Britain with a reluctant USA started what has been the most ‘admirable’ ‘protection of civilians’ in human history. We are all witnesses of how Libyans have been protected. The logic used was humanitarianism but this in itself was greatly questioned by Stratfor at the time.

The NTC has been recognised by the powers bombing the country and what is the next move – they have started signing agreements that will see the release of money belonging to the Libyan people. If Gaddafi’s regime kept any money in Banks in the UK and US, how legitimate is it to hand it over to a group of rebels who may not even know how much it was? Why has the requests by Gaddafi for elections been turned down? How do we justify the fact that a country that had a welfare system, access to education and health that even the UK and US will envy, highest number of women entering universities – comparetively speaking, should now become a failed state because the UN has no sense of diplomacy? After listening again to the speech Gaddafi made at the UN, I now saw sense in most of what that man – a dictator as he may be – was making. The UN has been totally useless as far as maintaining peace in the world is concerned. I am sure ECOMOG has more to its credit than the UN has. If really the objective was to stop the killing of people in Benghazi, why did the bombing extend to Tripoli and to Gaddafi’s compound and civilian areas?

If at all there was any popular uprising in Libya, I am sorry to say that it was high-jacked by the very action of the UN security council which it now claims to have been the best option at the time. The United States had its war of independence and succeeded. The UK had its Glorious revolution and succeeded to come up with her current parliamentary system. Other countries had their protests like Egypt and Tunisia and succeeded (if we can call what is going on now success). Why were the Libyans not allowed to carry theirs to its logical conclusion? Why was there no similar response in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria in which the government has already massacred thousands?

What Ann-Marie Slaughter’s  article fails to point out is that most of the Libyans who have lost the wonderful lifestyle they had under Gaddafi, will not only say that a ‘devil they know is better than one they do not know’, but hey will also hate the invaders.This was manifested in the mass protests they held, expressing support for Gaddafi and  showing defiance for the invasion of their country. Owing to this crisis and given that the country is gradually being destroyed, most of them will seek asylum and be granted, but they will be foreigners with venom on their minds. If in 20 years we have Libyans bombing in the US or UK, it will not be a great surprise – that is if we have not forgotten then that we created the terrorists.

However, if  truly the UN and the rebels are sincere that they want the welfare of the people of Libya and they want to be champions of democracy – making unreasonable demands of Gaddafi is itself not democratic. The only democratic solution to this problem is that the Libyan people decide in a free and fair elections who they want their leader to be. Gaddafi should not stand the elections but there is no reason why any other person should not stand. To simply ask Gaddafi to leave and then hand power to the rebels to me is nothing more than a military coup – and we are all agreed that military coups have never been acceptable by the UN.

The situation has however taken the most unexpected twist now that the leader of rebels has been reported to have been killed. The next few weeks will hold a lot of surprises not only for Libyans, the Rebels but also for NATO.

RISING POWERS AND DEVELOPMENT POLITICS!

To say I expected this session to be emotional will be an understatement. For ten weeks we have had this stormy journey. Raising questions and attempting to answer them – only to realise the answers are questions in themselves. Many people had thrown in the towel and considered the question of ‘development’ one with a forgone conclusion – failure. Nothing seems to have changed since the so much talk about development. Was it worth all the trouble? This is surely what happens when a discipline spends so much time reflecting on itself rather than on the world. It happened with philosophy as it got caught in the ‘fly bottle of linguistic analysis’ so it is not surprising that it is happening to Development studies. Fortunately, IDD seems to have sensed this and places emphasis on linking theory and practice; the raison d’être for some of us who thought there was still something worth investigating. I can boldly affirm that these ten weeks have made me realise how lucky I am to have engaged in the quest.

I happened to have been at the Foreign and Common Wealth Office today for a POLSIS Study visit and in the few hours that we spent discussing with Alison Kemp (Joint Head, Policy Unit): FCO foreign policy priorities; Sara Everett (Deputy Head, Afghanistan Group): Afghanistan and  Greg Quinn (Head, UN Political Team, International Organisations Department): UN issues, several things we have discussed in the past few weeks took shape. I was able to put my questions to decision makers and hear their views about some of these issues. and was able to arrive at some conclusions…

First of all, the I came to the conclusion that the importance of understanding theory as a prelude to understanding the whole concept of development cannot be overemphasised. This understanding will leave little doubt that developments and politics are intricately interwoven.

Secondly, I was able to conclude that politics was indeed the most dominant variable in any discussion in development and that a talk on international politics could not go unsustained for long if it is not talking about issues of development. International Politics is inverted international development – was my ultimate conclusion. In the talk about foreign policy priorities – a talk which lasted about 20 minutes – Alison Kemp mentioned the term development (or sustainable development) about 8 times (once every 2.5 mins) a clear indication that issues of development were top on the priorities of the FCO.

Third any talk about ‘pro-poor’ politics is simply a charade. Any politics claiming to be aimed at the poor is simply a part of a bigger complex scheme. The endgame never benefit the poor – rather they suffer more when it goes wrong. The question I asked the Head of the UN political team was a simple one: why does the UN use economic sanctions on people like Mugabe and Abacha when they know very well that these people will not care a hoot if the country suffers, given that they will never go a day without their sumptuous meals no matter how harsh the sanction? Who suffers more from an economic sanction? If we can all answer that it is  THE POOR… then the soul-searching question will be if the UN in its politics is not pro-poor, where do we begin a discussion on pro-poor politics in an international forum?

Fourthly, the issue of ‘failed states’ is one that cannot be wished away easily. The fact that the concept is riddled with controversies, notwithstanding, the deputy head of the Afghan group used it several times in his description of Afghanistan. When he acknowledged the fact that 1979 arming of the Taliban was a great mistake, I could not help pointing to the fact that its result (Taliban support of Al Qaeda and the failure of the Afghan state) was being replicated in Libya.

Finally, the last conclusion I arrived at is that the nature of international politics was changing and it was going to take many by surprise.  The unprecedented rise of the Asian Tigers which challenged most of the conventional theories of development was simply the antiphon to a new era. Of course we should not have expected anything different if we recalled Marx stating in 1959 that “all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.”

We have had the surprising rise of the BRICs but what should not surprise us is how China and India replay history in a refined manner. It was fascinating to see how Tom captured the concept of China’s trade relations to Africa… The many layered question is… Is it a dependency relationship or is it the flip side to modernisation? Difficult questions to answer but certainly thought-provoking.

One thing that stands out though is that China rose to power on the wings of communism and a ‘closed’ state and is now seeking to expand that power through Capitalist means. Maintaining communism at the home front and capitalism at the international level is a strategy that only time can tell its outcome. It however points to something… China is being flexible and to me that is ‘politics’ or better still ‘development politics’. Their recent neutrality in the resolution over Libya is yet another pointer of her cautious nature. China is avoiding any form of conflict while at the same time building an empire outside China.

In the final analysis, we can all begin anew by asking ourselves what actually is new in development. Is there something intrinsically new? Or are we simply filling new wine into old wineskins? Can they hold the new wine? Whatever the case it will do some good to remember Duncan’s words

… a focus on ‘what’s new’ runs the risk of ignoring ‘what isn’t new’, such as the bread and butter issues of development: reducing poverty; supporting active citizens and their efforts to build effective, accountable states; fighting for universal health care, education, access to water and food; and equal rights for all women and men.

The onus however lies in knowing the difference… and this I guess is what I have been able to learn from this module.