Libya vs Goldman Sachs – the secret memo


Libya vs Goldman Sachs – the secret memo

There are recruitment adverts out at the Libyan Investment Authority. Libya’s sovereign wealth fund, seeking to regain direction after the country’s revolution, has employed consultants for a few key roles. There’s the CEO. And the CFO. And the chief investment officer.

And the head of risk, the head of internal audit, and the chief operating officer.

Oh, and the deputy CEO. And the head of legal.

There are revamps, and then there’s the LIA. Founded by Muammar Gaddafi’s second son, Saif Al Islam Gaddafi, in 2006, the fund has already gone through more drama and upheaval than most of its sovereign wealth peers have endured in their combined history. 

Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif

 

Waves of executives and managers have come and gone, foreign banks and fund managers have sold it extraordinary duds that soured during the financial crisis, the country has undergone painful revolution during which Saif was jailed and his father killed, its funds have been frozen by the UN (and remain so, at the fund’s own insistence, today) and at the end of it all it finds itself with a glut of legacy headaches and an empty management bench. Now, as it seeks to move forward, it must also look back. This year it has launched litigation against some of the biggest names in global banking, seeking to recover billions of dollars for deals those banks put the LIA into during the Gaddafi regime. And no matter how much Libyan executives seek to paint themselves as a breath of fresh air, correcting the sins of the past, they must inevitably face scrutiny for just what their role in the bad old days really was.

Transgressions of the past

AbdulMagid Breish, the chairman and acting CEO of the LIA, is an urbane and confident presence. He is absolutely fluent in English, while his thick glasses and swept-back hair give him something of the appearance of a mid-career Henry Kissinger. 

LIA AbdulMagid Breish
AbdulMagid Breish, the
chairman and acting CEO
of the LIA

Breish has plenty of ideas for the future, but this year he’s been in the news for taking on the transgressions of the past, launching litigation to claim more than $2.5 billion from Goldman Sachs and Société Générale for instruments those banks sold to the LIA between 2007 and 2009. Today, flanked by a lawyer who never feels a need to rein him in, Breish is adamant the LIA is in the right on both cases. On Goldman – a case that rests on demonstrating that Goldman abused the trust it had built with the fledgling and somewhat wide-eyed sovereign fund, selling structures that its officials could not understand – he says: “It was very clear and evident that there was a breach in trust. They abused that confidence that was built, and the inexperience of individuals.

“I wouldn’t say it was a con job, but it was very near to it, where people were taken on holidays and bought gifts and things. The trust element was there and they totally took advantage of it and sold LIA complicated transactions with complicated documents that they couldn’t understand, at a moment when the whole world was going south, and they knew that.”

Goldman Sachs, which has applied for summary dismissal of the case before trial, tells Euromoney: “We think the claims are without merit, and we will defend them vigorously.”

The Société Générale case is less about mis-selling and more about over $58 million of payments the French bank made to a third party called Leinada, a Panama-registered vehicle owned by a man called Walid Al-Giahmi who was close to the Gaddafi regime – payments that the lawsuit describes as bribes.

“Then, SocGen did not disclose how much was being paid. They did not disclose the identity. It was like pulling teeth. Only months and months later we found out what was going on. SocGen itself was one of the prime banks in the world, at the forefront of derivatives trading. They bring in a party who is not even literate in financial affairs to advise them on structures and derivatives? Hard to understand.”

Société Générale tells Euromoney the allegations are unsubstantiated and says it “works occasionally with financial intermediaries in countries where it does not have local teams in place”.

A spokesman for Leinada told the Financial Times in March that “[the LIA] case is without merit”.

One can’t fault the LIA for boldness, but some are puzzled that this claim should be heading for court at all. The LIA’s legal representatives in the cases are Enyo Law, specifically partner Simon Twigden, who is considered a lawyer of the highest calibre; but look what he and his client are up against: the most powerful bank in the US and all its Wall Street legal advisers (although, these being London-heard cases, both Goldman and Société Générale are being represented by Herbert Smith). Many observers think the Goldman litigation in particular has no realistic chance of success. Did the LIA try to negotiate first?

The secret memo


New details emerge of
Libya’s claim against
Goldman Sachs

“I personally did not have any discussions with Goldman Sachs,” says Breish. Why, then, is litigation better than engagement? “We’ve been preparing ourselves for some time,” he says. “We’ve been analysing our documents, reviewing our strategy, talking to our legal counsel, and a lot of this has come out and about in the market. If Goldman Sachs wanted to come and talk, they had ample time to do so. It wasn’t as if we were working under cover: people knew what was going on.”

Indeed, Euromoney reported the LIA’s intention to sue both Goldman and Société Générale back in April 2013. (Interestingly, the third institution that then-CEO Mohsen Derregia named at that time, Millennium Capital, no longer appears to be on the LIA hit list, although Breish says “we are looking at around another five and investigating the documentation”.)

With Société Générale, he goes further, saying that he did write to the bank’s chairman before going to court, “inviting him to establish a direct line to sit and discuss this. I’m ready to meet with him and talk to him about this and see if we can settle some issues.” He says he didn’t hear back for two months. “And when we pressed their office I received an answer which was composed of half a page which didn’t say anything really: not even a willingness to meet, just ‘we’ve done nothing wrong’.”

Breish adds: “I find it perplexing that people at that level don’t even seem to think of their reputational risk.”

And how realistic is it that the LIA can win in court?

“Our objective is to regain all the money that we lost that belongs to the Libyan people,” Breish says. “That is what we will do. We feel very strongly about the principle of it, and we’re ready to go until the very end: it doesn’t really matter how much it is going to cost.”

But is that really what it’s about? Is litigation, Euromoney asks, also about sending a message, not just to international banks but to Libyans as well?

“Definitely. There’s a whole new message being sent.”

Gaddafi-era headaches 


Libyan plot thickens for
Goldman with Palladyne
‘money-laundering’ suit

For Goldman in particular, Gaddafi-era headaches go well beyond the LIA litigation. Its subsequent attempts to make amends for its losses have now put it in hot water with the US Department of Justice. In the end, the efforts to make things right might hurt Goldman much more than the original mistakes did.A confidential memo dated March 9 2010, prepared by Goldman Sachs for the Libyan Investment Authority and seen by Euromoney, sheds light on Goldman’s negotiations to move on from those disastrous trades.

The memo, titled ‘Unwind of trades and collateralized bond obligation transaction’, outlines a proposed deal whereby Goldman would pay $50 million, agree to unwind its trades, and pay additional expenses of up to $2 million, in order to draw a line under the deals from 2008 that would mutually release and discharge liability (which, the document says, carried an initial premium of $1.3 billion between them but by then were worth just $25 million). But this is not a straight compensation deal from Goldman to the Libyan fund.

It also involves a special-purpose vehicle called Tiber Bond Investment Ltd, a Cayman Islands entity. And another party is a group referred to as the ‘investment adviser’ in the memo – Palladyne International Asset Management. Under the terms outlined in the memo, the LIA would instruct Goldman to pay the amount directly to Tiber. Tiber would then issue a limited recourse note to LIA as its sole investor. Libya would then buy a $5 billion unlisted 6% note due 2030 at a price of 74%, meaning it would put $3.7 billion (74% of $5 billion) into Tiber, which would invest it in a portfolio of dollar-denominated investment-grade and high-yield bonds under Palladyne’s management.

Regular readers of Euromoney’s online edition will be familiar with Palladyne, an institution that first came to public light when a leaked internal LIA document drawing on a KPMG audit referred to it as having received $300 million from the LIA and having lost 17% of it in less than two years, despite having been paid $19 million in fees. (It also received $200 million apiece from two other Libyan institutions.)

Palladyne then turned up in another lawsuit earlier this year. Filed in a US District Court in Connecticut on behalf of a former Palladyne employee called Dan Friedman, and compiled by the noted ex-Jones Day international litigator Alan Kaufman, who has something of the bearing and charisma of George C Scott, it shows a boisterous turn of phrase. It describes Palladyne as “a kickback and money-laundering operation for the former dictatorial Gaddafi regime in Libya, operating under the public pretence of a hedge fund”.

The claim goes into some detail about Palladyne’s provenance: Dutch-incorporated, headquartered in Amsterdam, and run by Ismael Abudher, who is the son-in-law of Shukri Ghanem.

LIA Shukri Ghanam
Shukri Ghanem (c) former
head of Libya’s National
Oil Company

Ghanem was head of Libya’s National Oil Company (and a former Libyan prime minister) whose oil revenues fed the LIA, until the revolution; he was found dead in the river Danube in Vienna in April 2012. Palladyne calls the claims “entirely untrue and ludicrous”, presenting them as bad blood from a bitter former employee. In turn, Kaufman tells Euromoney: “We investigated this for 18 months on four continents before filing, and are fully confident that we will prove these claims.”

The case claims that Palladyne had absolutely no investment capability, which raises the question why it was initially entrusted with $700 million of Libyan money. One person familiar with the matter says: “the $300 million [from the LIA] was given to Palladyne without a single piece of paper to document it or explain their investment plans”.

It also raises the question of why such an institution should be appointed as the broker to resolve Goldman’s problems with the LIA, or why it would be entrusted with a new portfolio intended to hold $3.7 billion of assets. “At the time they were appointed investment adviser, they had already lost more than 17% of the money they had been given in a short period of time including the rising market that followed the 2008 crash,” says a source familiar with the matter.

“The whole thing is just ludicrous. The LIA, which has already lost money through Palladyne, is solving the problem by investing 10 times more money with Palladyne. Justice [the DoJ] looks at this, and says: ‘This is nuts, there is no innocent explanation for this and no business terms that could explain it’.”

The Goldman memo suggests the bank knew how this looked – paying $50 million to an institution with allegedly no capability to do anything with it but receive it – because it appears to try to head off some gnarly complications from the outset.

The memo specifically refers to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in a bullet point in a section about payments, saying that GSI (Goldman Sachs International) “will only accept this instruction” (to pay the money to the SPV) if the LIA delivers that payment instruction, and to the satisfaction of FCPA representations by LIA as set out in the terms of a separate letter. Euromoney has not seen this additional letter.

The memo also specifically points out that although Goldman did preliminary due diligence on Palladyne, it “did not provide a basis for Goldman to determine that Palladyne” is an “appropriate” investment adviser, or about the “services” rendered by Palladyne to the LIA. Finally it insists that both the LIA and Palladyne are responsible for determining whether the transaction is suitable for them, and that they “cannot rely on Goldman for any determination” as to whether it’s a good idea.

This section proceeds to sever Goldman from whatever happens to that money next. It is saying, in essence: now you’re on your own, and you decide whether or not it’s a good deal. And in aggregate, the memo infers: for our $52 million of payments, we will be released of all liability from our old trades. It’s odd, though, that only $2 million of that appears to go to the LIA, when the liability in the recent lawsuit against Goldman is put at more than $1 billion.

A lawyer familiar with the matter is puzzled as to why the memo goes into such great detail about what will happen to the money after it is transferred to Palladyne. “It should be none of Goldman’s business,” he says. “They should care less about what the LIA is going to do. You don’t care if it goes to pay for ice cream cones for every person in Bangladesh. If I’m unwinding my trades that I did for you, and giving a little cash to you, that’s the end of it: a release of liability. All of the detail about Tiber would never have been in a settlement and liability release.”

Euromoney understands that this was the fifth proposal that Palladyne, Goldman and the LIA (two sets of lawyers, Nabarro and the Libyan firm Bakhnug, are also mentioned) had discussed, and the last, following considerable negotiation.


The battle for the Libyan
Investment Authority

It is understood that events were then overtaken by revolution and that the payment was never made, although this commonly accepted version of events is slightly problematic: the memo, which suggests an arrangement approaching finality, is dated March 2010, and the first street protests in Benghazi did not get under way until February 2011. But Palladyne itself, in a rare communication with the outside world, cites this version to Euromoney. “Our expertise in finance and asset management was sought several years ago in the negotiation of a potential resolution between the LIA and Goldman Sachs,” a spokesperson says. “That process was halted with the rise of the Arab Spring in Libya in 2011.” Euromoney offered to come to Amsterdam to see for ourselves what Palladyne actually is. Palladyne declined, but sent a statement claiming it had “a team of around 30 professionals working with a wide variety of clients”.The lawsuit by Palladyne’s former employee specifically mentions the Goldman negotiations. “Defendant Abudher was inserted directly into the Goldman-LIA dispute by his father-in-law, and Abudher immediately proceeded to propose five distinctive ways for Goldman to ‘make right’ with the LIA, with the coincidence that under each option, Palladyne would be the asset ‘manager’ and collect fees and payments,” the suit alleges. Because no legitimate bank, fund or investment company would partner with Palladyne, the complaint says: “Abudher’s proposals were a transparent effort by his father-in-law to take a major loss for Libya and turn it into profit for the Ghanem-Abudher family.”

The suit openly refers to “an alleged attempt to launder a bribe to Libya” and says that funnelling the alleged bribe of $50 million through Palladyne would “show ‘good faith’ by Goldman that it would undertake to rectify the losses”.

Breish agrees with the claim’s depiction of Palladyne as a front. “It is an accurate description,” he says. “No investment capability.” He says the LIA now wants its money back. This is likely to be the next litigation we see. “Our lawyers are looking at this also,” he says. “It’s the same story: funds being assigned to someone who’s been close to the regime.” That is likely to mean going through the Dutch courts, and there might be a queue: Palladyne was raided by the Dutch Openbaar Ministerie (public prosecution service) and Fiscal Information and Investigation Service in simultaneous actions on June 21, 2013. The officers conducting the raid were heavily armed.

There is another point of view. One former LIA employee says: “At the time for us Palladyne was a legitimate counterparty. It was supposed to be a mixed portfolio, though they seemed to keep most of it in cash, and charged us 3%.” And since Goldman apparently didn’t make the payment, its sins do not look particularly egregious. But under the FCPA, even the discussion of a payment is enough for a penalty, if that payment can be construed as a bribe.

Whatever the outcome of the litigation battles, the LIA is attempting to move on from the controversies of the Gaddafi-era past.

As for Breish, lets not forget he used to work for the previous government and was well rewarded for his services, he helped to topple the Jamahirya so he could get all the funds of Libya into his pockets…. you can google him, he has a twin nationality which is an English passport also the Libyan passport worked with MI6 and was in bed with the UAE… need I say more?

 

For more information you can go to this link: http://www.chriswrightmedia.com/libya-and-goldman-the-secret-memo/

Armed men rob USD 4.8 mln from money transport vehicle


Armed men rob USD 4.8 mln from money transport vehicle


Arab News

TRIPOLI, April 27 (KUNA) — Armed men robbed Sunday six million Libyan Dinars (USD 4.8 million) from a money transport vehicle which was on its way to deposit the cash in the Central Bank.


A source from the Interior Ministry told KUNA the armed men forced the driver of the armored vehicle, which belonged to Al-Aman Bank for Trade and Investment, to the Qarji area in Tripoli and stole the cash.


The source said security authorities began an immediate investigation.
He noted that armed robbery of big cash was unprecedented.
Al-Aman is a private bank established through partnership between the Libyan private sector and a Portuguese bank.

source: kuna.net.kw

THE ILLEGAL WAR ON LIBYA, EDITED BY CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: BOOK REVIEW


THE ILLEGAL WAR ON LIBYA,

EDITED BY CYNTHIA MCKINNEY: BOOK REVIEW

BY LADY KHAMIS  (‘The Girl Who Loves Khamis’)

   “Think of this book as your primer on war propaganda, deliberate media deception, hidden political and personal agendas, and finally, on what a set of politically powerful and well-connected people will do to a country when they have access to military power and the will to use it”.

  So writes editor Cynthia McKinney at the start of this must-read, gripping collection of chapters by different authors, showing the world that the illegal war on Libya in 2011 was a war on civilians – the very people the West claimed to be protecting. A set-up like the Iraq war – but far less publicised.

  Just like the Israeli-led false flag ‘Operation Trojan’ project of 1986 that led Libya to be bombed then in an attempt to murder its leader, Muammar Qadhafi, so the latter was again framed in 2011.

  America’s real aims, she continues, were to ‘clean up’ the old pro-Soviet regimes of Iraq, Libya and Syria. To attack and destroy the SEVEN countries of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. And The Project For The New American Century – as desired by Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld etc. – to destabilise the Middle East and turn it upside down.

  McKinney has been told that the US keeps mercenary forces at an offshore base near the Libya-Tunisia border – which are carrying out joint operations with al-Qaeda in Eastern Libya. And that US forces operate in Tripoli under the protection of al-Qaeda’s Abdulhakim Belhadj – where they control the shipping terminal and Mitiga Airport.

  My own opinion is that America deliberately brought al-Qaeda to power in Libya – and is seeking to do the same in Syria – under the usual covert plot of publicly pretending to do otherwise. (Think CIA and their ‘war on drugs’). This will best continue America-‘israel’ plans for chaos across the Islamic world.

  The chapter by Wayne Madsen poignantly describes the scene at the house of Qadhafi’s son, Saif al-Arab, hours after the latter was murdered here by a US warplane, along with a friend and three of Qadhafi’s grandchildren on 30th April 2011. No evidence of it being a ‘military compound’ was ever found. It was an attempt to kill Qadhafi himself – who had just left the building to tend to some animals just 500 feet away. Indeed, the book shows a photo of a traumatised gazelle wandering amongst the rubble. (McKinney later describes the scene too and the “shredded” children).

  Madsen also writes how Bernard-Henri Levy, the Jewish French ‘philosopher’ (?!) was forging links with the rebels in Benghazi and then travelling to ‘israel’. Rebel support for ‘israel’ was a key demand in return for more support from Nato.

  One of Nato’s first targets in Tripoli was the Office Of Investigation Of Corruption. The real reason several Qadhafi ministers defected to the rebels is because they were being investigated by the Libyan Government for fraud. (This was covered up by the Western media). The documents on corruption were backed up – but are now “in a safe location”.

  Belhadj was issued with a false Libyan passport – showing him with a beard. Such a photo was not permitted by Qadhafi’s government.

  Many rebels are al-Qaeda fighters released from Guantanamo Bay – armed with weapons not found in Libya’s stockpiles. Many weapons used by the rebels in 2011 came from a CIA-connected subsidiary. One rifle, used as standard by the rebels, only uses Nato standard rounds. This weapon was never used by the Libyan Army – which relied on Soviet weaponry. Rebels also used US-made machine-guns – again chambered for Nato rounds. (This proves Nato and Western media claims that the rebels only used weapons captured from Qadhafi forces were lies).

  Rebels agreed to allow ‘israel’ to have a 30-year lease for a military base in East Libya – that will be used against the Egyptian military should there be any future ‘problems’.

  Uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt were used to pretend Libya was a state rebelling too, but Madsen reminds us that an American diplomat was operating as a CIA agent in Libya in 2010 – forging links with a rebel ‘sleeper-cell’.

  Madsen also claims that it has long been believed that Qadhafi’s former head of Libyan Intelligence, Musa Kusa, was a double agent for the CIA.

  Shortly after the rebels seized Benghazi, they plundered Libya of its money. They emptied the entire Central Bank’s cash vault in the city – even hiring a professional safecracker from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to open the safe. The rebels now had 900 million Libyan dinars – stealing it from the Libyan people.

  The next chapter contains the true scale of suffering, terror and death Nato unleashed on civilians in Tripoli, Zlitan etc. A testimony from one doctor is so harrowing that I defy any normal person to read it without feeling tears of anger. Children so frightened that they even contemplated suicide. And the other real scandal is of the media’s silence, its cover-up, and the way the people could not tell the world what was happening - and that many did not even know why they were being targeted just to get rid of their leader.

  The chapter “Nato Bombs The Great Man-Made River”, by Mark Metcalfe, tells the fascinating story of “the eighth wonder of the world”; how Qadhafi installed clean water for all the Libyan people – a project now derailed after Nato targeted the civilian population by bombing the pipe-making plant at Brega – murdering six security guards. 

  The segment “Black Genocide In Libya”, by T-West, describes how the targeting of black people by the rebels in Libya was a deliberate fomenting of ethnic strife by Nato - in order to break up the country. With a Euro-centric central bank that ties into the stock exchange and America and European corporate banking headquarters in Qatar, and a small group of puppets of the more Arab-centric Eastern Libya controlling the oil.

  The rebels have foisted the old monarchy’s flag and anthem on Libya – symbols that represent the British-ruled Libya of that time – so as to create a federal system that revives total European manipulation, with the Arab monarchies of Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia underneath this.

  A Libyan Army jet stolen by rebels was mistakenly shot down over Benghazi – by the rebels themselves – but the media used the situation to pretend the jet was Qadhafi attacking civilians.

  Western journalists reported how Libyan Army jet pilots were disobeying Qadhafi and missing targets so as to avoid civilians. But, in fact, the pilots had been ordered to drop bombs harmlessly in order to avoid casualties and act as a warning to rebels – (who were systematically attacking army and police posts). Qadhafi was not going to be baited into the mass-bloodshed the West wanted from him – so the West made it up anyway.

  Controlled by Jews – the Sephardim wing of France and the Ashkenazim wing of the US – they influenced the output of Reuters, the Associated Press etc.  20% of the rebellion believed the lie that Qadhafi himself was a Jew!

  But T-West’s chapter ultimately shows us what a traitor Obama has been to all black people – the very people who voted him into power believing he was an icon for their cause.

  Stephen Lendman’s piece then excellently sets out the legal case for trying Nato for the war crimes of “daily civilian terror bombings to break their morale, cause panic, weaken their resistance, and inflict mass casualties of punishment” to “conquer, colonise, occupy, and plunder another vassal state”, with “humanitarian intervention” as “mere subterfuge”.

  The next segment is by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and is an exploration of the magnificent plans that Qadhafi had for the future – such as ridding the government of corruption, the Wealth Redistribution Fund for all Libyans, the United States Of Africa, and the South Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Sato) – to protect Africa and Latin America from Nato.

  The West was horrified – and feared other populations would demand more fairness too.

  Saif al-Islam put Mahmoud Jibril into the position of a virtual Prime Minister – controlled by the US and the EU. Jibril would open up Libya to foreign corporations to plunder, and privatisation and poverty in Libya.

  Jibril met with Levy to discuss deposing Qadhafi – who was investigating Jibril for corruption. Jibril believed the Libyan people were not fit to govern themselves and that the ‘elite’ should always control the wealth of any nation. Jibril later fled to Cairo to meet the rebel ‘council’ leaders of both Libya and Syria.

  Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi even admitted that Nato’s bombings were not conducted as a result of a revolt against Qadhafi – but were intended to cause a revolt against Qadhafi…

  Another chapter by Nazemroaya explains the West and Israeli plots of reconfiguring the Middle East – by using wars as ‘creative destruction’ –deliberately targeting countries to create or exploit any religious differences or racial and ethno-linguistic tensions etc. Internal violence to bring countries to their knees and implement the doctrine of divide, rule and conquer.

  This supports the Zionist’s ‘Yinon Plan’ – partitioning individual countries – both in North Africa, as well as around ‘israel’ – into smaller and weaker states. Iraq was the primary target (and we see it today falling into the pre-planned Sunni, Shi’a, and Kurdish entities)…

  The break-up of Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria are also part of the Plan (and we are already seeing at this moment how the created chaos has now taken hold in all four).  The primary aim being to ensure that ‘israel’ has regional superiority. For the West, it continues the latter’s global empiric ambitions. Divided, exploited, colonised and dysfunctional societies – too weak to fight back against their oppressors and their puppet clients.

   Other targets and victims of these same plots are Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan and Sudan (Sudan has, of course, already been divided into two warring separate countries).

  After America invaded Iraq, Ariel Sharon told them to next attack Syria, Libya and Iran (and Tony Blair recently called Sharon ‘a man of peace’)!

  The assassination of Rafik Hariri in Lebanon was used as part of the ‘israeli’ Plan to destabilise Syria. (I personally believe that Hariri’s death – and that of many innocent bystanders in the same massive car bombing – was a Mossad/CIA operation – designed to frame Assad’s Syria).

  Nazemroaya continues that there are unknown snipers targeting Syrian civilians and army – to cause chaos and internal fighting. Christians are targeted by unknown groups. Most likely, the attacks include a coalition of US, French, Israeli, Jordanian, Turkish, Saudi, and Gulf Arab forces -working with some Syrians on the inside.

  This is part of a reign of terror that they are trying to spread in Syria – as they did in Libya.

  A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East, he concludes. An Islamic world free of Christians and Jews – who the Muslims have historically peacefully co-existed with – is the desired outcome. This would replenish the Christian population of the EU – and be used to support a new Crusade. The precursor to The Clash Of Civilisations…

  Dr. Christof Lehman’s chapter is next and he explains that the US uses al-Qaeda as either an enemy or an ally – depending on what role suits its agenda at the time.

  He also explains the evil hold that France has over Africa. Removing leaders like Qadhafi and Gbagbo (Ivory Coast) because they dared to plan to get rid of the African franc currency. This is because the African franc is one of the biggest sources of income for France. Worse still, France not only controls the value of it, but also has absolute control over no less than EIGHT African countries’ economies…Shockingly, 85% of all foreign exchange reserves of these eight states are 100% under the control of the French treasury!

  Qadhafi lobbied to help the people of these eight countries to free themselves from France’s enslavement and impoverishment of them.

France viewed him as the obstacle to even more French colonial expansion in North Africa.

  My favourite chapter is by an outstanding journalist, Keith Harmon Snow – whose knowledge and passion for the subject of Africa and the West’s utter hypocrisy in dealing with it is breathtaking.

  He, like other parts of the book, exposes the media’s manipulation of the facts of the situation in Libya in 2011: “Real facts are hidden behind these facades created through well-planned and coordinated psychological operations, like the one that played out in the media over the invasion of Libya. What the capitalist system seeks to hide are the Western mafias and their elite kingpins who are perpetuating the shock doctrines of disaster capitalism. This is what happened in Libya”.

  Snow deliciously debunks the myths of the West’s propaganda against Qadhafi’s “Green Book” philosophy: “No wonder the elites ruining the world don’t want you to read the Green Book, they might be prone to the arising of dangerous thoughts such as these that criticise the system of oppression that now threatens all life on planet Earth”.

  Snow is referring to Qadhafi exposing how Western ‘democracy’ is, in fact, based on propaganda, monopolisation and manipulation etc. for the benefit of only the rich elites.

  Snow acknowledges the repression practiced by Qadhafi’s government in Libya – but reminds us that it was only because Libya faced a constant barrage of coups, dirty tricks, undermining, infiltration and assassination – by Western powers and their agents. And that Qadhafi benefited the Libyan people far more than the Western regimes have done for their own populations: “The faults of the Libyan regime pale in comparison to the faults of foreign regimes in the countries that persecuted Libya”, as Western governments enslave and repress their people while serving private elites for corporate profit.

  But Snow’s piece mainly explores the wars in Africa – secretly waged by ‘israel’ and the West - that have led to the loss of many millions of lives.

  He reminds us that ‘israel’ trained Idi Amin – before Britain brought him to power by force in Uganda. (Later, he turned on ‘israel’ and so the West turned on him). Under the current dictator, Yoweri Museveni, Uganda was used as a base for the 1996 invasion of what is now DR Congo. It has also been used for the ‘israel’ and Nato invasion of Sudan (now Sudan and South Sudan) – a war that was, and still is today, primarily caused and maintained by ‘israel’, America, Canada, France and Britain.

  Israel’s shipment of tanks for the horror of the war crimes in Darfur – via Uganda – was helped by America – and utterly covered up by the Western media. (Has anyone ever told George Clooney about this)?!

  In 2011, Qadhafi was interviewed and demonised by ‘journalist’ Christiane Amanpour – but she was, in fact, a (Zionist) covert agent for the US State Department. She had also covered up the US’s involvement in DR Congo and Rwanda. US ‘Special Forces’ were on the ground shelling refugee camps and slaughtering innocent people – as part of the fuelling of the Tutsi and Hutu genocide wars that served the West’s interests (while at home, Western leaders pretend to bleat about “Responsibility to Protect” these “tragedies” from happening again)…

  Ethiopia’s leader, Meles Zenawi, has been conducting genocide against his own people for years, but as a puppet of the West, the latter says nothing. Ethiopia provides a base for covert Western military operations against Somalia, Sudan and even Syria.

  African mercenaries – trained by America since 2004/2009 – in Mauritania, Chad, Niger and Nigeria were used as death squads to invade Libya in 2011 (under the guise of being ‘freedom fighters’ from Libya itself).

  Snow asks why is Qadhafi a notorious household name in the West, when genuine despots such as the following are not? “Daniel Arap Moi, Gen. Gnassingbe Eyadema, Paul Biya, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, Lt. Jerry John Rawlings, and Omar Bongo”. (Add Museveni, Zenawi and Paul Kagame too).

  Why is it never said that it is the Western wars of annihilation that go on in Somalia – involving Ugandan troops trained by US ‘Special Forces’ – as well as Darfur, Rwanda, DR Congo, Sudan and Central Africa etc?

  While Qadhafi undoubtedly aided many noble liberation movements, Snow also raises interesting questions about some of the people Qadhafi himself armed and his reasons for doing so – but that is a whole other book!

  The final chapter is a transcript of Qadhafi’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 23rd 2009.

  It is chilling reading – as, retrospectively, its context is forever coloured by the events that subsequently occurred.

  Qadhafi speaks of wars that benefit only the few; military interventions of aggression and hostile acts by those with Power Of Veto. He calls the UN Security Council the “Terror Council” – for its treatment of the Third World – using terror, intimidation and sanctions to serve its own interests: “Wars of aggression waged against us by superpowers”, “that have violated the sovereignty of independent states. It has led to war crimes and genocide…in violation of the Charter of the United Nations”.

  He speaks of Africa “colonised, isolated and persecuted, and its rights usurped. Its people enslaved and treated like animals and its territory colonised and placed under trusteeship”. “How can we feel safe”? “Can we trust the Security Council or not”?

  Conversely, he calls Barack Obama a “son of Africa” and “our son”. But did he envisage really that Libya would be attacked? And, if so, that it would not be Obama who would be the one to do it?

  Completely deluded (?) about Obama’s true evil nature (“I am very good at killing people”, Obama informed us in 2013), Qadhafi calls Obama’s election win “a wonderful thing”, that Obama will be “a temporary relief for the next four or eight years”. “We would be content if Obama could remain President of the US forever”, he unwittingly (?) extols…

  Even worse, he says Obama “spoke truly when he said that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside”.

  Yes, this statement is true but not Obama’s belief in it!

  I wish that I could force every Westerner to read this magnificent book – then maybe the real revolution will begin…

  I will end my review with the final line of Qadhafi’s speech:

  “We should live in peace – always”.

Lady Khamis (‘thegirlwholoveskhamis’)

For libyaagainstsuperpowermedia.org

Libya almost Imploding, Status Quo Unsustainable: Oil Industry Target of Violent Attacks


Libya almost Imploding, Status Quo Unsustainable: Oil Industry Target of Violent Attacks

By Nicola Nasser

Global Research,
2a9fa-arabia

More than two years on since the “revolution” of Feb. 2011, the security crisis is exacerbating by the day threatening Libya with an implosion charged with potential realistic risks to the geopolitical unity of the Arab north African country, turning this crisis into a national existential one. Obviously the status quo is unsustainable.

“Libya is imploding two years after the former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi” was captured and killed on October 20,” Patrick Cockburn wrote in British The Independent on last Oct. 10.
Libya’s oil industry has become the target of violent attacks and civil protests, closing export terminals in east and west or/and creating an oil black market. “Security guards” at the country’s main ports are on strike and selling oil independently in spite of a 67% in pay for employees of the state oil sector on last Oct. 31. Libyan oil minister, Abdulbari Ali al-Arousi, told the Financial Times on last April 29 that disruptions to production and export cost the country about $1bn over the previous five months only.
On this Nov. 11 Reuters reported that Protesters shut Libya ‘s gas export pipeline to Italy, its only customer, in the Mellitah complex, some 100 km west of Tripoli, after shutting down oil exports from there as well. A day earlier, Reuters reported that the separatist self-declared autonomous Cyrenaica government set up a regional firm called “Libya Oil and Gas Corp” to sell oil independently after seizing several ports in the east of the country, where Libya’s two most important oil ports, Sidra and Ras Lanuf, were blockaded by protesters.
Libya is Europe ’s single largest oil supplier. Cutting the Libyan oil and gas supplies to Europe on the eve of a winter that weather forecasts predict to be a very cold one would be an excellent pretext for inviting a European military intervention in the country, which seems the only option left for the transitional government of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan that ran out of options for its survival.
It is noteworthy here that while the U.N. Support Mission in Libya can obviously “support” nothing, France, Italy, the UK and the U.S., who spearheaded the NATO campaign to topple the former ruling regime, in a joint statement on this Nov. 8, expressed their concern “at the instability in Libya and the threat that (it) poses to the successful achievement of the democratic transition” and reiterated their “support to the elected political institutions,” i.e. to Zeidan’s government.
Ironically, Zeidan on this Nov. 10 warned his compatriots of a possible “intervention of foreign occupation forces” in order to protect civilians under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter because “the international community cannot tolerate a state in the middle of the Mediterranean that is a source of violence, terrorism and murder,” which was the same pretext for the NATO military intervention that contributed mainly, if not created, the security crisis in the first place by destroying the military and police infrastructure of the central government and turned the country practically into a sponsor of regional terrorism in general and an exporter of arms and “Jihadists” to Syria in particular.
Zeidan’s warning of foreign “intervention” could also be interpreted as an implicit threat to ask for it to help rein in the security crisis lest it boils to an implosion of the country.
Forbes on last Aug. 30 reported that Libya’s “energy protection” was failing and quoted PM Zeidan as saying that his government would impose “order by force” when it came to protecting the oil and gas industry and expanded the Petroleum Facility Guards (PFG) to 18,000 members.
Months on, his efforts and threats failed to deter targeting pipelines, refineries and export terminals. His renewed threats since early last September to “bomb from the air and the sea” any oil tanker entering Libya’s territorial waters illegally and trying to pick up illicit Libyan oil have proved hollow and without teeth.
Libya is the second largest oil producer in Africa and the continent’s fourth largest natural gas supplier and already dominates the Southern Mediterranean ’s petroleum sector. According to the Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC), more than 50 international oil companies were already present in the Libya on the eve of the “revolution.” The country’s potential is more promising;Austria’s OMV said on last Oct. 21 it had struck oil in Libya in its first new discovery since 2011.
On last Oct. 18, CNBC.com quoted Paolo Scaroni, the CEO of the Italian oil and gas firm ENI, which is Libya’s largest foreign partner, as saying: “Everyone is going to be wealthy” in Libya, citing statistics of what could be: “Five million people and 2 million barrels of oil (per day), which means that this country can be a paradise, and I am doubtful that Libyans will not catch this opportunity of becoming the new Abu Dhabi, or the new Qatar or the new Kuwait.”

Libyan Copy of Iraq ’s “Green Zone”

Yet Libyans seem determined to miss “this opportunity.” “Revolutionary” Libya, reminiscent of the U.S. – engineered “democratic” Iraq after some ten years of the U.S. invasion, is still unable to offer basic services to its citizens. Real unemployment is estimated at over 30%. Economy has stalled and frustration is growing. Gone are the welfare days of Gaddafi’s state when young families could get a house with benefits for free, people’s medication and treatment were paid by the state and free education made available to everyone. About one million supporters of the Gaddafi regime remain internally displaced; hundreds of thousands more fled for their lives abroad.

Remnants of the destroyed institutional infrastructure of law, order and security is hardly capable of protecting the symbolic central government in Tripoli, reminiscent of its Iraqi counterpart, which is still besieged in the so-called “Green Zone” in Baghdad . Late last October Libya ’s central bank was robbed of $55m in a broad daylight robbery. More than one hundred senior military and police commanders were assassinated.

“ Libya isn’t just at a crossroads. We are at a roundabout. We keep driving round in circles without knowing where to get off,” Libya’s Minister of Economy, Alikilani al-Jazi, said at a conference in London last September, quoted by The Australian on last Oct. 14. 

On last Aug. 30, the Swiss-based group Petromatrix said: “We are currently witnessing the collapse of state in Libya , and the country is getting closer to local wars for oil revenues.” Four days later Patrick Cockburn reported in British The Independent that “Libyans are increasingly at the mercy of militias” and that the “Government authority is disintegrating in all parts of the country.”

Ironically, an estimated one-quarter of a million heavily armed militiamen, who are the main obstacle to creating and empowering a central government, are on government payroll.

Writing in The Tripoli Post on Oct. 31, Karen Dabrowska said that, “Local notables, tribal groups, Islamists and militias are all vying to keep the centre from extending its authority to their fiefdoms and this explains why disparate social groupings can only unite temporarily to prevent the centre from gaining power over them.” 

It “goes without saying that the post – Moammar Gaddafi Libya is purely a failed state” governed by militia, Adfer Rashid Shah of the Jamia Millia Islamia, Central University in New Delhi, wrote on last Oct. 15.

Following the heavy infighting in the Libyan capital on this Nov. 7, Italian foreign minister Emma Bonino told newspaper La Republicca that the country was “absolutely out of control” and the situation is worsening, hinting that Italian oil and gas firm ENI was prepared to close its oil wells.

Zeidan’s abduction from his Tripoli ’s Corinthia Hotel on last Oct. 10, which the British Economist described as “the shortest coup,” highlighted the country’s deteriorating security crisis. It was interpreted as a “reprisal” for kidnapping five days earlier of Abu Anas al-Libi on suspicion of links with al-Qaeda by U.S. special forces, an act which exposed the inability of the central government to cooperate and coordinate with the American “ally” in his arrest on the one hand and on the other exposed its failure in protecting Libya’s sovereignty against a flagrant U.S. violation thereof.

Last July Zeidan threatened that his government may have to “use force” in Benghazi, the cradle of the “revolution” and the current focus of insecurity, tribalism, separatism, Islamist rebels, decentralization of government, assassination of regular army and security officers and attacks on foreign diplomatic missions who mostly closed their consulates in Libya’s second largest city, where the U.S. ambassador was killed in September last year.

Ahead of his visit to the eastern city on Monday, when he promised reinforcements and logistical support to the security forces there, Zeidan launched a show of force into the city the previous Friday with hundreds of armored troop carriers and army trucks mounted with guns.

But Zaeidan’s threat to “use force” will inevitably be counterproductive, not only because his government’s lack of “force” would compromise his credibility, but because, within the current balance of power between his government and the militias, it will make the security situation worse if it does not ignite a civil war.

Zeidan said his government would give the “revolutionaries” who have turned into rival and vying militias and warlords until next Dec. 31 to join the regular army and police or they will be cut from government payroll, that is if his coffers could afford to sustain their payroll if they accepted and if they did not accept his offer it will be another reason for more mutiny and rebellion.

More likely the government payroll may not be rolling because the government is facing a budget crisis and “from next or the following month, there could be a problem covering expenditure” according to Zeidan himself, as the security crisis has brought oil production to a standstill or out of its control because the “militia groups are behaving like terrorists, using control over oil as political leverage to extract concessions,” according to Dr. Elizabeth Stephens, head of political risk at insurers Jardine Lloyd Thompson, quoted by British The Telegraph on last Aug. 29.

An imminent constitutional crisis could create a power vacuum that in turn would worsen the security crisis. Published by RT on this Nov. 7, analyst Nile Bowie wrote: “In accordance with the transitional road-map adopted by the transitional government in May 2011, the mandate of the current government in Tripoli is set to expire on February 8, 2014. Failure to implement a new constitution by then would either force Tripoli into extending its mandate – a move which is seen as highly unpopular – or a potential power vacuum scenario which could set off a chain of events that could lead to a civil war or dissolution.”

Pentagon’s Plans No Help

Short of western “boots on the ground” it is doubtful that Zeidan’s government will survive. The U.S. administration of President Barak Obama was repeatedly on record against any U.S. boots on the ground in the Middle East . With the exception of France, which might be ready for the appropriate price to repeat its recent limited and temporary military intervention in Mali , Europe seems against it too.

Zeidan, with less than three months remaining for him in office, seems relying on Pentagon’s plans to arm and train, through “AFRICOM,” a new Libyan army called “a general purpose force.”

But “the case of a separate and under reported U.S. effort to train a small Libyan counter terrorism unit inside Libya earlier this year is instructive,” Frederic Wehrey wrote recently in Foreign Affairs, adding: The absence of clear lines of authority — nearly inevitable given Libya’s fragmented security sector — meant that the force’s capabilities could just have easily ended up being used against political enemies as against terrorists. In August militias launched a pre-dawn raid on the training camp which was not well-guarded. There were no U.S. soldiers at the camp, but the militia took a great deal of U.S. military equipment from the site, some of it sensitive. The U.S. decided to abort the program and the U.S. forces supposedly went home.

The obvious alternative to Zeidan’s western supported government would be a stateless society governed by militia warlords, while the survival of his government promises more of the same.

At the official end of the NATO war for the regime change in Libya on Oct. 31, 2011 U.S. President Obama proclaimed from the White House Rose Garden that this event signaled the advent of “a new and democratic Libya,” but more than two years later Libya is recurring to the pre-Gaddafi old undemocratic tribal and ethnic rivalries with the added value of the exclusionist terrorist religious fundamentalism wearing the mantle of Islamist Jihad.

In the wake of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s death on October 20, a Saudi Arabian Arab News’ editorial said: “The point about Qaddafi’s death is that it makes the next transition stage that much easier, that much safer. As long as he remained at large, he would have been in a position to destabilize the country.”

More than two years after Gaddafi’s death, Libya is more destabilized, insecure and fractured that its future is now questionable enough not to vindicate the Saudi daily’s  prediction.

 Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Birzeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied 

 

The real Reason for the killing of Muammer Ghadafi- self explanatory


The real Reason for the killing of Muammer Ghadafi- self explanatory

Submitted by JoanneM

Learn the truth about why the Paper Bankers and the Western World had to fake a revolution in Libya, send in 200,000+ Al Qaeda mercenaries, arm, fund and train them, bomb Libya to smithereens with 60,000 bombing raids and hand the country to Al Qaeda leaving 500,000 dead, 2 million in exile and the remaining 3 million living in a failed state with no security. Learn why the only reason for all of these war crimes and carnage was to kill Muammer Ghadafi who threatened their paper banks by wanting to lead Africa to freedom from these very banksters.

 

 

 

source: http://libyanwarthetruth.com/real-reason-killing-muammer-ghadafi-self-explanatory