Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?


Why Was Gaddafi Overthrown?

Video

This chaos in Libya was deliberate. It was deliberate because Libya was a stable African society in North Africa, where the leader of Libya wanted to use the resources of Libya for the reconstruction of Africa—the water resources, the oil resources, the financial resources, and the intelligence of the Libyan people.

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore.
March 19 will be the third anniversary of the NATO intervention into Libya.

Looking back, what were NATO’s objectives?

What Libya did they hope to find after the overthrow of Gaddafi?

And what in fact is today’s Libya?

Now joining us from Syracuse University is Professor Horace Campbell. He teaches African-American studies there and political science. He’s written extensively on African-American politics. And his new book is called Global NATO and the Catastrophic Failure in Libya.
Thank you very much for joining us, Horace.

HORACE CAMPBELL, PROF. AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDIES AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, SYRACUSE UNIV.: Thank you for inviting me to discuss the failures of the U.S. foreign policy in Africa and the failure of NATO in Africa.
NOOR: So it was only a day or two ago, Navy SEAL sailors boarded a Libyan-North Korean boat carrying oil coming from a rebel-held oil port in Libya. This was, I guess, to send a message that the central government, so-called, of what is recognized by the United States, and nobody else should be selling oil. But it’s a reflection of what chaos there is in Libya. ****(what is not said by the US is that although the captured the ship they didn’t find the OIL ON BOARD)
Give us a sense now of what’s going on in Libya, and then we’ll kind of dig further back into why this all came about.
CAMPBELL: This chaos in Libya was deliberate. It was deliberate because Libya was a stable African society in North Africa, where the leader of Libya wanted to use the resources of Libya for the reconstruction of Africa—the water resources, the oil resources, the financial resources, and the intelligence of the Libyan people.
NATO intervened in spite of the differences between different sections of NATO, between France and the United States, between France and Germany, and the competition between Italy and France. Despite these differences, they came together after France precipitated this massive invasion to destroy Libyan society in 2011.
But that destruction has only created a great problem for Western capitalist forces in Africa.
JAY: I don’t quite understand why the West simply wanted to destroy Libyan society. Gaddafi’s regime was playing footsie with the IMF, with the World Bank. His sons were knocking the gavel at the stock exchange. In fact, one of his sons was visiting American military manufacturers, negotiating arms deals just before the invasion. They were doing oil and gas deals. There’s reports from the World Bank praising his reforms and privatization of the Libyan banking system. I mean, he cooperated with Bush–Cheney in many ways. He had made a big reconciliation with the Americans. I don’t understand, on the face of it, why they wanted to overthrow him. Obviously they did, but I don’t think that explains it.
CAMPBELL: That is all very true. But you’re missing one factor: that every political leader seeks political legitimacy. And in the case of Libya, the legitimacy of the leader had come from his presenting himself as someone who was part of the African Union and wanted to build an African Monetary Fund, an African Central Bank, and a African common currency. And that was a danger to not only the euro, because Sarkozy said, we’re going to fight to save the euro, but it would present a threat to the dollar. Moreover, the Libyan leadership had moved to take over the Arab banking corporation in Bahrain, and the Libyan leadership had over $200 billion in foreign reserves.
So, yes, you’re correct. They were playing footsie with the West. But that same leadership was also capable of nationalist pressures inside of Libya and inside of Africa so they could have nationalized oil companies in the midst of this global capitalist crisis. And the West did not want any surprises, where Libya would want to call on Africans to turn away from the dollar as the reserve currency and to use African resources, such as gold, as a new currency for all of Africa.
JAY: But, Horace, what evidence is there that they were really concerned about this? I know Gaddafi talked about it, but, I mean, he himself was up to the eyeballs in the World Bank. ****(see what I mean they are always mis-informed) And, you know, rhetoric is one thing, but the reality of the Libyan economy was becoming totally assimilated into global capitalism. ****(that is what the West told the rebels and they believed it. These rebels where living abroad and had no connection with the reality of Libya) It seems to me more that there was a problem is that he was also playing footsie with the Russians—
CAMPBELL: No, no, no, no, no.
JAY: —and there was more that he was caught in these inter-imperialist contradictions. I mean, you can’t tell me Libya had the power to change the currency of Africa.
CAMPBELL: They did, because Libya have $200 billion in reserves, and if Libya got five or six other African countries with massive reserves to create a common currency for Africa, which is one of the mandates of the African Union, that’s a threat to Western Europe and North America.
Moreover, the Chinese had become the dominant force in infrastructure development within Libya. There were over 36,000 Chinese involved in railway, road, water, agriculture, and other forms.
So there’s no question that Libya had the financial wherewithal to determine their own independence.
And I think one of the things that the media is missing, even those who call themselves the left, is the role thatGoldman Sachs andtheir dalliance trying to use the resources of Libya toshore up thederivatives market and thefact that they wereso involved in Libya prior to intervention.
JAY: Yeah. Well, talk a bit about that. Why was Gaddafi so involved with Goldman Sachs?
CAMPBELL: Well, that is the point. The point was that Gaddafi wanted to please the Western forces. Gaddafi’s son had studied in the London School of Economics. Gaddafi had been open to talking to this group from Boston that was going there. And all of these forces were trying to ingratiate themselves with Gaddafi, so that Gaddafi would completely be in the pockets of the West.
But he was unpredictable, and that was the problem between them and Gaddafi.
JAY: Yeah, I agree with that part. He was unpredictable. But he was very much playing ball. He was very close to the new rising Rothschild. He was playing ball with the commodity brokers. I mean, he was using the Libyan sovereign wealth fund like a private investment thing, ***(that’s absolute BS they don’t mention that with Golden Sachs we had taken them to court for misusing the funds and loosing billions which of course GS would have to return back to Libya as they court was on the side of Libya) just to—really playing with every speculator in Europe and America.
But I agree with you: he was unpredictable, and he was playing ball too much with the Chinese and with the Russians, ****(well we may played ball with China and Russia but these two countries never sanctioned us plus being deprived of any goods(from medicine, food, to everything plus a no fly zone which meant that every Libyan person had to drive to the borders of Tunis or Egypt so that they could go to Europe or anywhere else. Imagine if you need immediate attention health wise and you had to drive 700 km to reach the border wait there for over six to seven hours and then to drive to the nearest airport to conclude if someone wanted to travel to England for example he needed to be on the road for 48 hours that was one of the things we had to endure through out the embargo that the US did to Libya) from America and Europe for over ten years what did the west expect that we would lay down and die? It was the west who lost on contracts with Libya while Russia and China where wiser. For the West’s stupid decision in putting sanctions to us we made new friends and for that FUKUS destroyed everything we built.)  and that he wasn’t becoming a reliable ally in Northern Africa. That—I think that much is for sure.
But there was a lot of differences in the West about what should be done and what the objectives were.
CAMPBELL: The differences in the West stems from the fact that there is a rivalry between the European Union and the United States over the reserve currency. The entire Western world is in the midst of a global capitalist crisis since 2007, 2008, and it’s imperative that they use the military to keep forces in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe in line behind the dollar as the currency of world trade.
So in the case of Libya, Libya had the wherewithal to be playing around with the Europeans, playing around with the Chinese, and playing around with the United States of America.
JAY: But, Horace, the Chinese have—first of all, they own several trillion U.S. dollars, and I think they’ve made it very clear for at least for this historical period they are not going to challenge the U.S. dollar ****(you think, they will use it at one point or other.) as a reserve currency. Far from it. They rely on the Americans to manage this whole global system.
CAMPBELL: They rely on the United States to manage the global system, but no country in the world is happy with the United States devaluing the dollar by printing dollars, what they call quantitative easing.
JAY: Yeah, this is true.
CAMPBELL: [incompr.] $65 billion dollars every month. If the United States of America is putting $65 billion every month on the world market, nobody wants to keep their reserves in dollars. So the Chinese, the Brazilians, everybody’s looking for the exit from the dollar, because the capitalist prices means that the dollar is worthless, because if anyone can have a printing press to print dollars, then other currencies are worthless.
JAY: Okay. Then why is everybody buying American dollars? I mean, they’re getting people to buy T-bills with practically zero percent interest.
CAMPBELL: Because the American military makes it, the American dollar, a force in world politics. What backs up the American dollar today is not gold, but the U.S. military.
JAY: Yeah, but I agree with that. But all these other governments and elites rely on that.
CAMPBELL: The elites in Latin America and Africa are seeking ways to exit this, in Latin America, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and all these countries are seeking an exit from the dollar. They’re trying to create a common currency in Latin America. In the Asian countries, they’ve created alternatives. In Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand they have created alternatives. The reality for the world is we’re living in a dangerous moment because of this capitalist crisis where the United States military is shoring up the printing of dollars and this condition in the world where the United States have unlimited access to the resources of the world.
JAY: And you think is what triggered the Libyan intervention.
CAMPBELL: This is one of the factors in the Libyan intervention. Initially the United States government was hesitant because this was a plot by the French to go into Libya. And at the outset, the secretary of defense Robert Gates and Mullen said before the Congress, do you have evidence that Libya was about to destroy their people. And the military in the United States, the United States Africa Command was originally opposed to going into Libya. But the pressures of Goldman Sachs, along with those people called the humanitarian hawks—Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton—[incompr.] the American public and the media to go along with France and Britain for the destruction of Libya in 2011. And the people of Africa are still living with this destruction, where over 50,000 people in Africa have been killed, 40,000 people, black-skinned from Tawergha, have been thrown out of where they live. And so we have to see that initially the United States military was opposed, but later on, the media, along with Clinton, Rice, and Powers, were able to build up the psychological warfare and propaganda within this society against the United States people to portray Gaddafi as this terrible leader, when, as you said, he was in league with the Western banking and financial institutions.
JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Horace.
CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
End

source: therealnews.com

About these ads

The Lies Behind The West’s War On Libya


The Lies Behind The West’s War On Libya

By Jean-Paul Pougala

Global Research
2a9fa-arabia

It was Gaddafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, alow cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.

It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.

China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.

This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere US$300 million changed the life of an entire continent. Gaddafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of US$500 million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.

African Monetary Fund, African Central Bank, African Investment Bank

The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Sirte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.

The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only US$25 billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17 December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.

It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around €150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a US$2,000 billion public deficit compared to less than US$400 billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.

Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.

Regional Unity as an Obstacle to the Creation of a United States of Africa

To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of Gaddafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries ,which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because Gaddafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.

Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of Gaddafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.

It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to Gaddafi who understood what was happening.

Gaddafi, the African Who Cleansed the Continent from the Humiliation of Apartheid

For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.

Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’

Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?

Are Those Who Want to Export Democracy Themselves Democrats?

And what if Gaddafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.

The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous Social Contract that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’

Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these Gaddafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:

1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.

The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.

From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.

2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.

3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.

4. No luxuries: according to Rousseau there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’

Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.

The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.

How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?

Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.

It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.

What Lessons for Africa?

After 500 years of a profoundly unequal relationship with the West, it is clear that we don’t have the same criteria of what is good and bad. We have deeply divergent interests. How can one not deplore the ‘yes’ votes from three sub-Saharan countries (Nigeria, South Africa and Gabon) for resolution 1973 that inaugurated the latest form of colonisation baptised ‘the protection of peoples’, which legitimises the racist theories that have informed Europeans since the 18th century and according to which North Africa has nothing to do with sub-Saharan Africa, that North Africa is more evolved, cultivated and civilised than the rest of Africa?

It is as if Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Algeria were not part of Africa, Even the United Nations seems to ignore the role of the African Union in the affairs of member states. The aim is to isolate sub Saharan African countries to better isolate and control them. Indeed, Algeria (US$16 billion) and Libya (US$10 billion ) together contribute 62 per cent of the US$42 billion which constitute the capital of the African Monetary Fund (AMF). The biggest and most populous country in sub Saharan Africa, Nigeria, followed by South Africa are far behind with only 3 billion dollars each.

It is disconcerting to say the least that for the first time in the history of the United Nations, war has been declared against a people without having explored the slightest possibility of a peaceful solution to the crisis. Does Africa really belong anymore to this organisation? Nigeria and South Africa are prepared to vote ‘Yes’ to everything the West asks because they naively believe the vague promises of a permanent seat at the Security Council with similar veto rights. They both forget that France has no power to offer anything. If it did, Mitterand would have long done the needful for Helmut Kohl’s Germany.

A reform of the United Nations is not on the agenda. The only way to make a point is to use the Chinese method – all 50 African nations should quit the United Nations and only return if their longstanding demand is finally met, a seat for the entire African federation or nothing. This non-violent method is the only weapon of justice available to the poor and weak that we are. We should simply quit the United Nations because this organisation, by its very structure and hierarchy, is at the service of the most powerful.

We should leave the United Nations to register our rejection of a worldview based on the annihilation of those who are weaker. They are free to continue as before but at least we will not be party to it and say we agree when we were never asked for our opinion. And even when we expressed our point of view, like we did on Saturday 19 March in Nouakchott, when we opposed the military action, our opinion was simply ignored and the bombs started falling on the African people.

Today’s events are reminiscent of what happened with China in the past. Today, one recognises the Ouattara government, the rebel government in Libya, like one did at the end of the Second World War with China. The so-called international community chose Taiwan to be the sole representative of the Chinese people instead of Mao’s China. It took 26 years when on 25 October 1971, for the UN to pass resolution 2758 which all Africans should read to put an end to human folly. China was admitted and on its terms – it refused to be a member if it didn’t have a veto right. When the demand was met and the resolution tabled, it still took a year for the Chinese foreign minister to respond in writing to the UN Secretary General on 29 September 1972, a letter which didn’t say yes or thank you but spelt out guarantees required for China’s dignity to be respected.

What does Africa hope to achieve from the United Nations without playing hard ball? We saw how in Cote d’Ivoire a UN bureaucrat considers himself to be above the constitution of the country. We entered this organisation by agreeing to be slaves and to believe that we will be invited to dine at the same table and eat from plates we ourselves washed is not just credulous, it is stupid.

When the African Union endorsed Ouattara’s victory and glossed over contrary reports from its own electoral observers simply to please our former masters, how can we expect to be respected? When South African president Zuma declares that Ouattara hasn’t won the elections and then says the exact opposite during a trip to Paris, one is entitled to question the credibility of these leaders who claim to represent and speak on behalf of a billion Africans.

Africa’s strength and real freedom will only come if it can take properly thought out actions and assume the consequences. Dignity and respect come with a price tag. Are we prepared to pay it? Otherwise, our place is in the kitchen and in the toilets in order to make others comfortable.

BRICS to end dollar rule and USA’s supremacy


BRICS to end dollar rule and USA‘s supremacy

BRICS to end dollar rule and USA's supremacy. 47042.jpeg

The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in late March held a summit in New Delhi, which can be considered the beginning of a new global financial and political order. In five years this world will be unrecognizable. The Anglo-Saxon model of governance of the world that flourished in the 1990s is losing its way and is being replaced by the Sino-Russian one. Yuan came close to international recognition, and with the adoption of Brazil and India into the UN Security Council the West will lose its political hegemony.

In 2008, the Wall Street’s practice of inflating financial bubbles in alliance with the U.S. Congress led to the collapse of neoliberalism. As Western politicians have not been able to build a coherent model of its resuscitation, the financial crisis is smoothly transforming into the political one. If President Obama advocates for the return of the industry to the country, what kind of subsequent prosperity of the United States are we talking about? The globalized economy has gradually shifted production to China, India and Brazil, where labor is cheaper, and tax and other legislation is much softer. So far there are no obvious reasons as to why Obama will return it to the United States.

This year, the BRICS countries provided 56 percent of world GDP growth, while the share of the richest of seven (G7) is only 9.5. In 2035 the BRICS countries will outrun G7 in terms of the economic potential. The volume of trade within the block grew from $27 billion in 2002 to $250 billion in 2011.

The main interests of the groups include the need to change the present world order, which is based on the global leadership of the U.S. dollar and its leading position as a major world currency. This order was approved by the agreements in Bretton Woods in 1944, at the end of World War II. The U.S. allies in Europe panicked before the inevitable spread of Soviet socialism and were happy to have hidden under the wing of the economically powerful neighbor in the Atlantic.

The economic rationale for cooperation among the BRICS is clear today, but more serious political points of contact are found. Here Russia rules, because it was President Medvedev who most emphatically called for political unity. The unity for the first time was obvious on the Libyan issue.

The countries agreed to abstain on the vote of resolution 1973 of the UN Security Council, and after the military operation were critical of the coalition of NATO. This unity can be described today as “friendship against NATO.” Russia, despite a smaller contribution to the global economy (two to three percent of 18), is considered promising for investments due to the large potential of the consumer market and sustainable autonomous growth.

South Africa (39 per cent of the GDP of all sub-Saharan Africa) joined the block on the invitation to make the alliance global and build a “bridge” to Brazil. In addition, the partners of South Africa in the BRICS gained access to the promising African market, which is particularly important for Brazil and China.

At a recent summit in New Delhi two important statements were made. The first one is geo-financial (about creating a joint Development Bank in future) and the second – geopolitical (condemning the war rhetoric and sanctions of the West against Iran and Syria). It should be noted that the leading U.S. media angrily commented on these statements.

The Financial Times, for example, published an article stating that the BRICS countries are asking for more power in the IMF. The paper concludes that if the BRICS are unable to overthrow the American director and replace him with a single candidate, the block will cease to fund the IMF and will focus on the Development Bank mentioned in New Delhi. The American press has stressed that the Development Bank is not to rival the IMF. This is a strange statement, considering that the China Development Bank has a capital of two times greater than the entire capital of the IMF.

The Washington Post noted the BRICS’s opposition to Iran and Syria. The newspaper wrote that the block has made a significant geopolitical move, namely, condemned the military threats against Iran and Syria. In fact, the collective claims were filed against the sanctions of the West that are detrimental to trade with these countries. This means that in case of the negative development of events this position may become more serious.

This was stated by the President of Brazil Dilma Russef, who promised that at the next summit of G20 in July the BRICS will make a joint political statement. Perhaps, the criticism will be heavier at the end of the campaign in the U.S. The BRICS are unwilling to press Obama, who is more acceptable for them than any of the Republican “hawks.”

The Washington Post pointed out that the countries of the block will never find a common platform for a political union. The newspaper quoted a former Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Lalit Mansinha, who assured that all the countries of the Union have issues with China, and said that before challenging the United States they should think hard. He thinks that Beijing and New Delhi have strong border disputes and Russia is increasing its military spending to counter China. There is also rivalry between Brazil and China in Africa and the expansion of the Chinese goods causes discontent of the Brazilians.

However, first, the NATO countries do not always come to a consensus on all issues, and, second, every country has its own internal benefit. The foreign factor that unites the BRICS countries is the desire to push the US dollar from the leading positions, to oust the U.S. from the Middle East, not to decolonize Africa and to deprive it of the economic and hence political influence in developing countries. This is what the Development Bank will engage in. It assumes the creation of lines of credit in national currency and financing of the developing economies.

The work in this direction has been already started, and both China and Russia in recent years reduced their national reserves in US dollars, preferring to invest in other assets. Everything leads to the fact that in five years the Yuan will be a major world currency, and China – the main engine of the global economy.

The mutual trade turnover of the BRICS over the years will reach $500 billion with growth of 28 percent per year. The BRICS will become a major global player in the political arena, all the leaders of the block are convinced. Dmitry Medvedev said after a meeting in New Delhi that “Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa must transform their alliance into a full-fledged mechanism for international influence and move from discussion of purely economic issues to developing positions on political issues.”

Medvedev said that the BRICS countries are not satisfied with the fact that the UN is used to cover the actions to offset unwanted modes, and will advocate for the inclusion of its partners as a permanent member of UN Security Council. He was echoed by Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh, who noted that “the prosperity of the BRICS is associated with the geopolitical situation.” While China is the economic leader, Russia is the political leader of the BRICS. This “axis” is a serious concern for the West, and later through the media it will in every way try to minimize the successes of the BRICS, as it feels threatened.

The political benefits of Brazil and India are also obvious. Traditionally on the sidelines of the world politics, these countries finally got the opportunity to realize their ambitions through the BRICS. For the first time they are talked about as a giant, and not only on the regional scale. With regard to South Africa, after its entry into the union for the first time sub-Saharan Africa ceased to be referred to as “miserable and poor.”

Lubov Lyulko

Pravda.Ru 

libya-gaddafi-imperialism-13

Libya: Naked Bloody Imperialism – “We Came, We Saw, He Died”


Libya: Naked Bloody Imperialism – “We Came, We Saw, He Died”

Analysis of the “death” of Muammar Gaddafi (photo: Libya’s “new leaders”)

 

By Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley

Among the many comments we have read and received on the alleged death of Gaddafi, the one most often repeated goes something like this:

Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who deserved what he got‘.

The widely-held belief (at least in Western nations) that Gaddafi was a ‘brutal dictator‘ is the result of over 30 years of (primarily) US, British and French propaganda against the former Libyan leader.

The reasons for this long-running propaganda campaign are many, but chief among them is the fact that Gaddafi was not only fiercely independent as regards his native land, but he persistently sought to bring financial independence to other African nations.

It’s The Media Stupid!

The average person in the street seems to find it difficult to grasp the idea that the ‘national interests’ of democratic governments often run counter to democratic ideals and that, in pursuing such interests, governments will attempt to maintain the appearance of remaining faithful to democratic ideals.

Another way to say this is that governments will lie about their undemocratic activities in order to maintain a facade of democracy and thereby avoid disturbing the population. (For those who may have, understandably, forgotten the core democratic principles, check this link for a short refresher course.)

The maintenance of a democratic façade while pursuing undemocratic ‘interests’ is today only possible with the committed and almost unanimous connivance of the mainstream media, which unfailingly disseminates government propaganda to the people, and which the people in turn accept as gospel truth in the belief that the press is free and independent of government control.

But virtually all Western mainstream media outlets today are owned by a handful of powerful corporations and mega-wealthy individuals who count high level members of Western governments among their close friends and confidants.

The truth of this can easily be verified by anyone with a computer and a little time to do some research of their own.

The extent of the actual freedom of the ‘free press’ can also be ascertained by revisiting the way in which the Western media blindly accepted and reported as truth government lies prior to and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

It is reasonable then to conclude that the Western media, by and large, acts as a ‘Ministry of Propaganda‘ for Western governments, especially in situations where government(s) are pursuing policies that are at variance with democratic ideals.

So, in light of all that, let’s consider the question:

“was Gaddafi really a ‘brutal dictator’?”

Gaddafi’s Real “Crimes”

Gaddafi with Mandela

Throughout his reign, Gaddafi insisted on a much larger (and fairer) share of his country’s oil profits than multinational oil companies were used to accepting.

Indeed, in a 2009 talk given to students at Georgetown University, Gaddafi threatened to kick Western oil companies out of Libya altogether by nationalizing its oil and natural gas.

What is beyond dispute is that Gaddafi used his nation’s oil wealth to turn Libya into the most progressive and modern of all African nations.

In a 2007 African executive magazine it was noted that Libya,

unlike other oil producing countries such as Nigeria [where major Western oil companies have a stranglehold on the government], utilized the revenue from its oil to develop its country.”

Throughout most of Gaddafi’s rule, Libyan citizens enjoyed free health care, free education and free electricity and water.

“Car purchases for every citizen were 50% subsidized by the government. Gas in Gaddafi’s Libya was $0.14 per liter. Under this ‘brutal dictator‘, the mother of every newborn child received $5,000. All these, and many other social benefits under Gaddafi, make the supposedly socialist systems of France and other European nations look like predatory capitalist regimes.

Today, with Gaddafi ‘gone’, Libya’s generous social benefits and the formerly high standard of living of its citizens are under serious threat from the new pro-Western puppet regime.

Gaddafi was also instrumental in establishing the African Union. He invested heavily and generously, to the tune of $6 billion, in many other African nations. Throughout Africa, hospitals, schools, hotels and roads bear Gaddafi’s name as a sign of gratitude to the ‘brutal dictator’. Libyan investments have helped to connect most of Africa by telephone, television, radio broadcasting, etc.

Many major African companies, in which Gaddafi had invested via the ‘Libya Arab Africa Investment Portfolio’, now face financial ruin as Libyan oil money is diverted to the West under Libya’s new rulers.

But undoubtedly the greatest threat posed by Gaddafi to NATO warmongers was his efforts to fast-track the creation of an African Monetary Fund and an African Central Bank and to establish the gold dinar as a pan-African currency (Libya has 144 tons of gold with a population of jut 6 million, no external debt and $150 billion in cash reserves).

Gaddafi’s idea was that African and Muslim nations would join together to create this new currency and use it to purchase oil and other resources to the exclusion of the dollar and other currencies.

While a Russia Today report called it,

an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world“,

…Gaddafi’s plans for a radical financial overhaul of African economies would undoubtedly have sounded the death knell for IMF looting of African economies, not to mention the ‘CFA Franc‘, a colonial currency tied to the Euro and the French central bank and used in twelve formerly French-ruled African countries (hence the unbridled enthusiasm with which the French government joined the fray).

Peace Maker

Writing in April 2011 for the London Evening Post, writer Jean-Paul Pougala had this to say about Gaddafi:

“For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one:

No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do.”

He added,

Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.”

A “generous humanist“? Dare we say a genuine socialist?

The late African freedom fighter, Kwame Ture, further characterized Gaddafi as ‘a diamond in a cesspool of African misleaders’. “African misleaders” installed and financed by Western governments.

Writing in September this year in the Guardian, Julian Borger and Terry Macalister pointed out that Western oil companies had planned to carve up Libyan oil before the so-called ‘revolution’.

Are we surprised? Is it mere coincidence that the NATO bombing campaign began on the 8th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq?

The Egyptian uprising was more or less legitimate based on the psychopathic policies of a real ‘brutal dictator’ – Hosni Mubarak - who had brought millions of Egyptians to the brink of starvation. And take note how Mubarak was dealt with in comparison to Gaddafi. But no such conditions existed in socialist Libya.

The plain truth is that there was no widespread popular revolution against Gaddafi; there were only ever hired mercenaries, a well-orchestrated Western media campaign, which played out a script dictated to it from start to finish, heavy infiltration by military intelligence agents of the US and European countries, and NATO bombs.

Lots of NATO bombs…

Media War Lies

Perhaps all of this helps us to understand why, in July this year, huge crowds of Libyans thronged the streets of Tripoli in support of Gaddafi and why recent polls suggested that 90% of the Libyan population supported their ‘brutal dictator’.

Perhaps we can also understand why images such as the one below are being touted by the Western media as ‘crowds of Libyans queuing to ‘gawp’ at the ‘brutal dictator’s dead body':

Not very convincing ‘crowd’ queues to see the ‘brutal dictator’s body.

See here for more ‘crowd’ pictures.

It should come as no surprise then to realize that allegations of ‘war crimes’ leveled at pro-Gaddafi forces and that Gaddafi “bombed his own people” during the NATO bombing campaign were simply a continuation of the decades-long demonization of the Libyan Leader, and were designed to cover up the fact that, just as we saw during the prelude to the ‘humanitarian war to save Kosovars’ in 1999 (when “tremendous efforts were undertaken to discover evidence of war crimes“), it was NATO bombs which took the lives of thousands of Libyan civilians.

During a bombing raid on 30 April, Gaddafi’s son, Saif el-Arab, 29, as well as three of his grandchildren, were killed. The four-month-old daughter of Gaddafi’s daughter Aisha was among those murdered.

Down The Rat Hole

Was it really Colonel Muammar Gaddafi who was dragged out of that ‘rat hole’?

The story of Gaddafi’s ‘death’ strikes me as a little too similar to that of Saddam Hussein (pulled from a ‘spider hole’, ‘hiding like a rat’, etc.) and the images and videos that are doing the rounds on the mainstream media sites are far too grainy to be proof of anything.

At least one of them (below) is clearly a doctored version of an image purportedly taken at the site of Osama Bin Laden’s death, which in itself could be taken as evidence that the same people were involved in both staged events.

Look at ‘Gaddafi’s’ left shoulder.

The pictures of the dead men at ‘Bin Laden’s compound‘ contained one of a man with a toy ‘water gun’ beneath him. The gun was bright green, the blood was dark red, and the man wore a white shirt and had dark black hair. He also had one hand across his chest.

Here’s the original:

Déja vu

Look familiar? The CIA photoshopper simply flipped the image and put Gaddafi’s face on it. The water gun was moved slightly so that the orange on the gun is no longer visible. (Hat-tip to Pundit Press for pointing this out.)

The real Muammar al-Gaddafi has some rather distinctive facial features:

Note the ‘drooping eyelids’ and wrinkle lines

One distinctive feature is ptosis.

Also called ‘drooping eyelid‘, ptosis is caused by weakness of the muscle responsible for raising the eyelid, damage to the nerves that control those muscles, or looseness of the skin of the upper eyelids.

Whether a genetic trait or a result of aging or plastic surgery, Gaddafi had it. The other distinctive feature is some marked ‘wrinkles’ extending diagonally from the corner of his eyes across his cheek-bones. Check any images of the ‘brutal dictator’ from the past few years and you’ll see these prominent lines in every image.

Now, check out the ‘dead Gaddafi':

What happened to the ‘drooping eyelids’ and the wrinkle lines? Same man?

In public appearances over the past few years, Gaddafi appeared with a respectable head of hair for a man his age.

Here he is with Berlusconi in 2009:

And another image taken during the same year:

While we were unable to find any images of the back of Gaddafi’s head, we think the above two provide a decent enough view to conclude that he had a significant amount of hair covering his whole head (marked receding on the front sides notwithstanding).

Compare the above images with a still from the ‘capture video’ showing the top of the head of the man who was dragged out of the ‘rat hole':

Thinning on top – ‘rat-hole Gaddafi’

Granted, in the first images of Gaddafi above, he could well be wearing a wig or hair-piece.

Curiously enough, the Washington Post went out of its way to explain that DNA tests conducted by Libyan doctors on the man they pulled out of the ‘rat-hole’ confirmed that the hair on his head was not Moammar Gaddafi’s because the unlucky stooge was wearing a wig.

What are we supposed to believe here? That they ran identity-verification tests on a wig?! Are they that stupid? Hardly.

It’s more likely that they ran tests on real hair because clearly ‘rat hole Gaddafi‘ DID have some hair. But when there was no match, the wig was set up to take the blame.

What else are we to conclude from the comment in the Washington Post that “the hair was not Moammar Gaddafi’s” other than the man pulled from the rat hole was not Muammar Gaddafi?

Decades of Lies

We’re still eagerly awaiting the scenes of mass jubilation among Libyan citizens at the alleged demise of their ‘brutal dictator’.

We suppose it might take a while to convince the 90% of the Libyan population which supports Gaddafi that a Western puppet government and economic occupation by Western corporations is actually a good thing.

The statements made by Western leaders about Gaddafi’s ‘crimes’ as they gloated over the brutal televised murder of some poor unfortunate in Libya were revolting, to me anyway.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said that October 20th was:

“a day to remember all of Gaddafi’s victims, from those who died in connection with the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, to Yvonne Fletcher in a London Street, and obviously all of the victims of IRA terrorism who died through their use of Libyan Semtex. We should also remember the many many Libyans who died at the hands of this brutal dictator and his regime.”

Omitted from the end of Cameron’s statement was and we should also remember that I’m lying through my teeth.’

Of course, British tabloids like The Sun, are only too happy to parrot Cameron’s nonsense in typically jingoistic fashion:

But let’s have a quick review of ‘Gaddafi’s crimes‘ as reported by Cameron.

  • The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. This was clearly a false-flag operation designed to demonize Libya. See the website of the father of one of the victims, Dr. Jim Swire, for the evidence. Libya has never accepted responsibility for the bombing of Flight 103, but instead paid compensation to the families to “buy peace” i.e. attempted reintegration into the Western elite. Mathaba: the witnesses that testified against Libya later admitted they were each paid $4 million to lie for the US and later recanted their evidence.

  • The murder of Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher in St. James’ Square, London, in April 1984. Blamed on Libya, there is in fact a wealth of evidence to support the theory that Fletcher was shot by a CIA/MI6 operative in an effort to, again, demonize Libya. Despite the fact that a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary spelled it out in scientific detail, Cameron is happy to propagate the lie.

  • Yvonne Fletcher: Murder In St. James’ Documentary (it wasn’t Libya) (RARE)http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0l1J11WNQAs

  • The ‘victims of IRA terrorism’ through the use of Libyan Semtex. There is little doubt that, on a few occasions, the IRA leadership successfully bought Libyan weapons. There is also little doubt, however, that all alleged major IRA attacks which involved the death of civilians were the work of British intelligence.The British media’s mendacity and complicity in this lie was further exposed in September this year when it was revealed that a major British media network had taken CGI video footage from a violent computer game and passed it off as real video footage in an effort to portray Gaddafi as a supporter of terrorists:

Photo © ITV/MI5

The British network claimed it was “human error” that led to a scene from a computer game having “IRA film 1988” pasted on it as the narrator worked through a list of the past (non-existent) sins of Gaddafi for the British audience in September this year.

Also consider the following interesting link between alleged IRA attacks and the Lockerbie bombing.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, one Dr. Thomas Hayes progressed to become Head of Department at the British Royal Armaments Research Establishment (RARDE). His testimony was central to the bogus Lockerbie verdict. A Parliamentary inquiry into the 1974 alleged IRA ‘Maguire Seven‘ bombing and mistrial discovered that key forensic evidence indicated the innocence of the accused.

This evidence, which was known to Dr. Hayes and two RARDE colleagues, was not disclosed at the Maguire Seven trial. The Maguire Seven were eventually freed on appeal after spending fifteen years in jail.

That just gives you some small insight into the lengths to which Western governments and ‘intelligence agencies’ have gone (and are prepared to go) to ‘protect their interests’.

With the mainstream media bought and paid for, global, corporate, fascist domination is a done deal unless we all wake up to the reality of the situation and start calling it for what it is – bullshit, through and through.

So yeah,

  • Cameron et al gloating and lying to the cameras

  • Hilary Clinton just happening to be in Libya a few days ago and demanding Gaddafi ‘dead or alive‘ one day before someone looking a bit like him is produced from a ‘rat-hole’ and then quickly executed and (soon to be) buried in a ‘secret location’ far from prying eyes

  • the deliberately conflicting stories of how he was killed being spread far and wide by the mainstream media

  • Gaddafi being feted (and armed) by British, French, American, Italian Prime Ministers and Presidents just a couple of years ago and then suddenly demonized as a ‘brutal dictator’ and his country and citizens bombed back to the stone age – all of that pisses us off

But what really concerns us here is not our own rising blood pressure, but the future of Libya. Already the vultures are circling, eying their prize in the form of Libya’s natural resources.

Take it away, French Minister of Defence, Gérard Longuet:

New Libyan leaders ‘owe’ France Agence France-Presse

France will seek a leading role in post-war Libya, Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said on Friday, arguing that Libya’s new leaders “owe” Paris for leading the campaign to oust Muammar Gaddafi.

Speaking in an interview to Le Monde on the day after Libya’s ousted strongman was captured and killed, Longuet said France is poised to take advantage of its leading role after a successful campaign.

France,

“will strive to play the role of a principal partner in the country where the leaders know they owe us a lot“.

Everyone will throw their hat into the ring. We will neither be the last nor the most blatant,” he said of Libya’s relations with various Western countries in the coalition. […]

Libya, which produced 1.6 to 1.7 million barrels of oil daily before the conflict, is a coveted market for many countries that are also eyeing potentially massive contracts for rebuilding its infrastructure.

Ah yes, ‘reconstruction’, Libyans can kiss goodbye to the relatively decent standard of living they enjoyed under Gaddafi.

Just look at post-invasion Iraq:

‘reconstruction’ there has left the country impoverished and in ruins, looted by the war-mongers.

I’m a ‘Brutal Dictator‘, Get Me Out of Here

The bottom line here is that people like Gaddafi do not remain leader of a major nation for 40+ years without having self-preservation high on their list of priorities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y4MTsRv0uQ

The idea that Gaddafi would have waited until he was dragged from a sewer by a gang of bloodthirsty hoodlums and then beaten and shot dead is stretching his reputation as a true ‘man of the people’ a little far.

Gaddafi’s decades of experience gleaned from dealing with and observing the treachery of ‘Western diplomacy’, both up close in person and from afar, would have left him in no doubt as to what lay in store for him if US-imposed regime change ever came to Libya.

He would also have been egotistical enough to realize that he would be of better service to his beloved Libya alive than dead.

We cannot then, at this stage, rule out the possibility that, like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi left Libya long before he was forced to resort to martyrdom in a sewer with only his ‘golden gun‘ between him and a baying mob of paid CIA killers.

As with the case of Saddam, there is evidence that this is what happened. As Joe Quinn noted at the time, the death of Saddam Hussein was more than likely faked. See his article on the Capture, Trial and Conviction of Saddam Hussein for evidence that Saddam too was spirited out of the country long before someone that looked like him was pulled from a ‘rat-hole’.

Consider also the very convenient way in which the alleged body of Gaddafi has now been secretly buried in an unmarked grave in the desert. Much like the alleged dumping of the body of Osama bin Laden ‘at sea’, this little maneuver stinks of a cover-up.

In attempting to uncover and expose government and media lies, it is often helpful to consult media reports that were released early on in any major news event. In a 21 February report, the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, was quoted as having said that Gaddafi had already left the country.

Then in August Ynet News reported that:

A convoy of six armored vehicles has crossed the Libyan border to Algeria on Saturday night, the Egyptian news agency reported. While it is unclear who was riding in the cars, a rebel forces source estimated that the convoy transported senior Libyan officials – including the embattled leader, Muammar Gaddafi.”

The report quoted a Libyan military council source as saying that “troops loyal to Gaddafi’s regime accompanied the convoy to the border”.

In a 24 August IOL News story we were told:

“Burkina Faso, a former recipient of large amounts of Libyan aid, has offered Muammar Gaddafi exile but has also recognized the rebel National Transitional Council (NTC) as Libya’s government. “

The modern Libyan city of Misrata, before and after NATO and its mercenaries -NOT Gaddafi, or “Gaddafi’s loyal supporters” – bombed it back to the stone age.

On 1 September, Reuters reported that:

“Muammar Gaddafi called Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to negotiate a passage into his country but the latter refused to take his call.”

And then on 11 October, the Bulawayo News reported that:

“An official on Libya’s governing council says he believes Muammar Gaddafi is hiding in the south-western desert near the borders with Niger and Algeria.”

We submit that the publishing of grisly (and grainy) photos and video of the alleged death of Gaddafi is not for the benefit of the global public at all (even though many seem to have relished the lynching).

Rather, it is for the benefit of the leaders of any other nations who might be thinking about disobeying the dictates of the US Empire and the World bank.

British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg seemed to confirm Joe’s earlier thoughts about this when he declared on 22 October that:

“The death of Muammar Gaddafi sends a huge signal to others in the region that the sins of grotesque dictators eventually catch up with them.”

In making this statement, Clegg has departed from the British government’s original rationale for an attack on Libya – humanitarian intervention – and has made clear the real reason for the eight month-long bombing of Libya, its people, and their freedoms – naked, bloody imperialism, launched – quite coincidentally – on 19 March, the same date as the invasion of Iraq eight years ago.

Assuming for a moment that that really was Gaddafi they murdered in broad daylight, then the unctuous words of British foreign secretary William Hague...

“We would have preferred him to be able to face justice at the International Criminal Court or in a Libyan court for his crimes. We don’t approve of extra-judicial killings,”

…are such fantastical bullshit that we reckon Hague deserves a prize.

If Gaddafi was in fact executed on October 20th, then Hague and his ilk in the US and France are undoubtedly delighted.

Gaddafi in the dock at The Hague was the very last thing any members of the US, British or French criminal enterprises (aka governments) would have wanted to see, mainly because of the large quantities of beans he would have spilled.

They didn’t want a rerun of Slobodan Milosevic’s truth-letting tainting their blood-spattered image as liberators, an embarrassing judicial episode which thankfully, for NATO governments, came to an abrupt end with the termination of the former Serb leader in his jail cell.

As we ponder the dark implications of living in a world where large numbers of people rejoice at gruesome stage shows of death and merrily embrace the murder of decent men, we’ll leave you with the final, disgusting words of the clearly psychopathic Hillary Clinton:We Came, We Saw, He Died“.

 http://www.mathaba.net/news/libya

 

 

The Real Reason the US Wanted Gaddafi Gone


Libya, the Lie

The Real Reason the US Wanted Gaddafi Gone

by MURRAY DOBBIN

Powell River, BC

When the U.S. invaded Iraq riding a pack of lies and monstrous manipulation, the entire U.S. elite, including major news services, academics, and politicians from both parties, lined up to cheerlead and off they went to war. It was one of the most shameful chapters in the long history of shameful acts of U.S. imperial foreign policy.

But it actually didn’t take too long for dissenting voices to come out of the woodwork.

The lies were exposed, the liars identified, the manipulation denounced. The war went ion but at least we knew the lies.

Watching the sorry media spectacle of the tragic farce unfolding in Libya, one has to wonder if anyone will ever expose the lies and hubris that have characterized the coverage of this faux Arab spring.

To be sure, as more journalists, aid workers and human rights representatives arrive in the country the more some of the obvious facts trickle out.

The “freedom fighters”more like soccer hooligans with gunshave looted dozens of arms depots of the Libyan military.

According to Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch,

“Every time a city falls, they end up being looted. .  Every facility we go to where there were surface-to-air missiles, they’re gone.”

Just what will these lovers of democracy do with these weapons? The U.S. and E.U. might just start to worry that no matter who buys them on the black market, they will eventually end up in the hands of al Qaeda or other militant groups.

As NATO knows full well, some of the so-called rebels have ties to al Qaeda. Or perhaps the missiles will end up in the hands of the Taliban where they will be used to shoot down U.S. helicopters. Talk about blowback. Too bad the Americans have never quite grasped the meaning of irony.

The photos of the revolutionaries give any thoughtful observer pause. Almost every photo of the victorious rebels show aggressive, undisciplined, young men armed to the teeth holding their guns high in the air (often firing randomly).  Boys with their (lethal) toys.

  • And while the Western media repeatedly imply that the Nation Transitional Council is in control of these dangerous gangs the truth lies elsewhere.

  • Several rebel groups have denounced the NTC and said they don’t recognize its authority.

  • So not only does the council not represent anyone, it doesn’t even control its own “army.”

  • The NTC is little more than a group of greedy opportunists salivating at the thought of getting its hands on the billions in state funds that NATO is now handing over to them.

  • Only with the constant disciplinary efforts of its NATO handlers does the council manage to maintain a semblance of decorum and credibility.

  • In other situations where dictators were deposed the seizing of their assets was justified –because they were in personal bank accounts.

  • But the tens of billions illegally seized by Western countries was money belonging to the Libyan state and its national bank. That no one has commented on the casual elimination of sovereignty, someone should.

  • NATO has effectively destroyed the Libyan government — not just Gaddafi’s regime.

  • Tens of thousands of foreign workers have left Libya, many of whom were critical to the running of the country.

  • Rebels have been accused of randomly executing blacks, many of them students and workers.

  • Who will fill their critical roles now?

But none of this bothers the Canadian political elite and its intellectual hired guns. One of the most shameful examples is Lloyd Axworthy, the “highly respected” former foreign affairs minister under Jean Chretien. He penned an op-ed for the Globe and Mail in which he waxed on romantically about how the NATO bombing of Libya is a huge advance for the principle of Responsibility to Protect – a UN principle promoted by Axworthy in  in 1999-2000.

According to Axworthy,

“We are seriously engaged in a resetting of the international order toward a more humane, just world.” I predict that instead NATO’s grotesque manipulation of the UN mandate to impose a “no fly” zone to protect “civilians” (a violation Axworthy doesn’t even mention) will in fact do more damage to the responsibility to protect principle than any similar action to date.

It will tarnish the UN, too, which has allowed its mandate to be used for imperial gain. The rush by France, Britain and Italy in particular, to get their hands on Libyan oil will soon be too obvious to cover up. The revolutionaries are no doubt busy signing deals handing over that previously nationalized resource to the neo-colonialists who put them in power — robbing the real civilians of their birthright.

  • We should ask who will take the “responsibility to protect” Libyans from this new gang?

  • Who will protect the people of Libya so that they continue to enjoy a literacy rate above 90 per cent, the lowest infant mortality rate and highest life expectancy of all of Africa, free medical care and education and the highest Human Development Index of any country on the continent?

  • Do the boys firing their guns in the air even have a clue that their living standards — subsidized by nationalized oil — were among the highest in Africa?

  • Who will they blame when medical care disappears and their kids have to pay to go to school?

  • Western, free-market democracy will come to Libya at a very high price when designed and delivered by the neo-colonial powers.

Why does virtually no one in the mainstream Canadian media even mention the fact that Libya was the biggest obstacle to the continued super-exploitation of Africa and its vast resources.

This is, after all, the principle reason for NATO’s determination to turn a ‘no fly zone” into regime change.

On a whole number of fronts, Libya was using its oil wealth to gradually close the doors to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the economic domination of Africa.

  • Africa’s role as a giant pool of cheap resources was being threatened just as the U.S. and E.U. faced economic catastrophe because of the failure of their own neo-liberal policies.

  • Gaddafi’s determination to eliminate Africa’s dependence on Western financial institutions was one of the most serious threats faced by global capitalism.

  • Gaddafi was not only in the process of creating the African Investment Bank (providing interest-free loans to African nations) and the African Monetary Fund (to be centred in Cameroon) and eliminating the role of the IMF.

  • It was also in the planning stages of creating a new, gold-backed African currency that would seriously weaken the U.S. by undermining the dollar.

It is almost certain that in return for putting the new bunch in power, and freeing up the billions in state funds, NATO will demand these new institutions be smothered in their cribs.

Gaddafi was also instrumental in killing AFRICOM, a new U.S. military command and control base intended to add military intimidation to American economic domination. Look for that initiative to be revived.

  • It’s easy to be gratified getting rid of a brutal dictator.

  • But when will we learn that waging war has enormous, long-lasting consequences?

  • Already, the head of the new “government” is calling for legislation based on Sharia law – reversing 42 years of secularism in Libya.

  • Western-style democracy is an unlikely outcome in a country consisting of many different and hostile tribes – unified only by Gaddafi’s iron fist and socialist policies which distributed wealth equally amongst them.

So if we are going to feel triumphant –

Prime Minister Stephen Harper boasted about Canada “punching above our weight” – let’s be clear what we have accomplished. We got rid of one moderately nasty dictator.

But we have eliminated a government which distributed its oil wealth more equally than any other Arab state,

will impose on Libya a new market imperative, likely eliminating most social programs and making Libya less equal,

may well end up with a government based on Islamic law (if it doesn’t fly apart in tribal warfare) and have destroyed Africa’s best hope for independent development.

How shall we celebrate?

MURRAY DOBBIN, now living in Powell River, BC has been a journalist, broadcaster, author and social activist for over forty years. He now writes a bi-weekly column for the on-line journals the Tyee and rabble.ca. He can be reached at mdobbin@telus.net.