The Solution For Libya


The Solution For Libya

By Richard Galustian

UN Libya chief Ghassan Salame speaking with some degree of despondency at the end of a month of talks in Tunis on Saturday

More failed talks. It’s enough. I feel compelled to suggest a decisive solution after 6 years of UN failure.

Let’s me first discuss the fact Egypt is central to France’s Libyan policy and to support for Haftar.

President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi arrived in Paris Monday night, beginning a State visit, his first with French President Emmanuel Macron.

Macron and Sisi met at Élysée Palace this week to discuss regional security, including particularly Libya, and of course Syria, as well as discuss the purchase of yet more Rafale fighters.

Only France and Italy have developed, though almost opposing, strategies for Libya, while the EU in Brussels, US and UK and worse of all, the UN, have none that are founded in reality.

France has, I believe the most grown up view of what needs to happen in Libya with the exception of Russia, though they presently seem to vacillate in their support for military strongman Haftar and the UN.

The Kremlin veers to supporting the ‘UN process’ which might prove to be Russia’s mistake.

This below UN quote shows the despondency and hopelessness of the Chief of UNSMIL which is best summed up by his own words and comments.

UN envoy Ghassan Salame said, after a month of talks in Tunis with a variety of Libyan actors, on Saturday that “no discernible progress has been made toward stabilising Libya and paving the way for elections.” Salame added discussions would continue, notably without giving a new date.

The UN’s central objective was to amend the now in reality moribund LPA amendments to a previous UN-mediated plan signed two years ago!

The first Prime Minister after the revolt against Gaddafi was Dr. Mahmoud Jibril who has such disdain for the UN he didn’t bother to attend the last meeting in Tunis. He did however attend a Libya Conference last week in Belgium.

The conference on Libya was held in Brussels in the name of ‘Peace-building and State-Building in Libya: What role for the European Union?’ with Jibril as the keynote speaker and also there in his capacity as head of the National Forces Alliance Party (NFA).

It should be remembered that in the first election after Gaddafi’s fall, it was the NFA Party not the Muslim Brotherhood sponsored party that got the more votes.

Here I offer a controversial scenario that could work if the US State Department would help, something unlikely since particularly it continues to be staffed by Hillary Clinton appointees which is inhibiting to say the least for Secretary Of State, Rex Tillerson.

The plan suggested is this:

1. The UN should pack their bags and leave the Libyan stage. They have after 6 years trying absolutely zero credibility for the Libyans.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood (and its political party affiliates and puppets) must be designated a terrorist organisation, also in the US, along with CAIR and the Al Qaeda affiliate LIFG former members must also be precluded by law from participation in Libyan political life.

3. The US and Russia convinces the Security Council to lift the ban on arms sales to the Libyan National Army, giving Field Marshall Haftar a strong hand to totally eradicate Islamic extremists and terrorists.

This isn’t extreme as extreme as it sounds when you consider the British Government ordered last week that all ISIS British nationals found in Syria should be summarily executed, without a court proceedings.

America must also take off the gloves when it comes to terrorists.

4. That its recognised that technocrats, educated people must only occupy the government which needs to be formed before any elections. Only two man are qualified and skilled technocrats, the only Libyans qualified to do it that I can identify, are Mahmoud Jibril and Abuzed Omar Dorda. He too is a very competent technocrat and diplomat and is well equipped, as is Jibril, to handle the position of Prime Minister. Interestingly for those who were not aware, Dorda was based in New York as Libya’s Permanent Representative to the UN from 1997 to 2003. He is amazingly well connected. It would be only right and proper that either man draw from the HoR in Tobruk competent candidates as Ministers for an interim government  Either man would make a very competant interim Prime Minister, until elections in 2018 or 2019.

5. That chosen. another controversial idea.  As a figure head, a unifying individual, with no repeat no executive powers but with good technocrat advisors, Saif Gaddafi be appointed as a ‘constitutional’ President, primarily important to ‘bind’ the tribes and the populace where there is little doubt of his popularity. His position would also be up for vote at election time. Even it should be he that establishes a South African type ‘Truth & Reconciliation’ tribunal, for peace not revenge.

In summary its an interim leadership to be immediately created.

There are some historical enmities that exist between these mentioned individuals and it’s up to America and Russia, I believe, to ‘bang heads’ and get agreement between these individuals, having got rid of the MB and terrorists/militias like former AQ LIFG, particularly men like Abdel Hakim Belhadj.

Such so called ‘former’ terrorists should be exiled to probably Turkey which has a Muslim Brotherhood government and though not admitted, have undeclared sympathies for ISIS.

Given the impotence of the UN and EU, I can only hope President Trump will intervene, if for no other reason than to stop ISIS, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s help, from taking over Libya and then inevitably moving into Tunisia.

Europe have already suffered one awful consequence from the Libyan turmoil on European soil. An assassination of a prominent Maltese figure.


The rumours amongst ‘the security community’ that the semtex explosive used to tragically kill investigative journalist Daphne Galizia in Malta last week originated from Libya, something yet to be confirmed by the forensic investigators. This has brought home to us all the need for the two superpowers to be more strident, with the rest of the world, in solving Libya’s situation which has gone on for six years already.

If Libya is not stabilised soon there could be a catastrophic domino effect in North Africa with the next target for turmoil almost certainly being Tunisia.

Given the impotence of the UN and EU, I can only hope President Trump will intervene, if for no other reason than to stop ISIS, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s help, from taking over Libya and then inevitably moving into Tunisia.

 

SaveSave

Advertisements

Pentagon Mercenaries: Blackwater, Al-Qaeda… what’s in a name?


Pentagon Mercenaries:
Blackwater, Al-Qaeda… what’s in a name?

By Finian Cunningham

CIA-linked private “security” companies are fighting in Yemen for the US-backed Saudi military campaign. Al-Qaeda-affiliated mercenaries are also being deployed. Melding private firms with terror outfits should not surprise. It’s all part of illegal war making.
Western news media scarcely report on the conflict in Yemen, let alone the heavy deployment of Western mercenaries in the fighting there. In the occasional Western report on Al-Qaeda and related terror groups in Yemen, it is usually in the context of intermittent drone strikes carried out by the US, or with the narrative that these militants are “taking advantage” of the chaos “to expand” their presence in the Arabian Peninsula, as reported here by the Washington Post.

This bifurcated Western media view of Yemen belies a more accurate and meaningful perspective, which is that the US-backed Saudi bombing campaign is actually coordinated with an on-the-ground military force that comprises regular troops, private security firms and Al-Qaeda type mercenaries redeployed from Syria.

There can be little doubt in Syria – despite Western denials – that the so-called Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)) jihadists and related Al-Qaeda brigades in Jabhat al-Nusra, Jaish al-Fateh, Ahrar ash-Sham and so on, have been infiltrated, weaponized and deployed for the objective of regime-change by the US and its allies. If that is true for Syria, then it is also true for Yemen. Indeed, the covert connection becomes even more apparent in Yemen.

Last November, the New York Times confirmed what many Yemeni sources had long been saying. That the US-backed Saudi military coalition trying to defeat a popular uprising was relying on mercenaries supplied by private security firms tightly associated with the Pentagon and the CIA.

The mercenaries were recruited by companies linked to Erik Prince, the former US Special Forces commando-turned businessman, who set up Blackwater Worldwide. The latter and its re-branded incarnations, Xe Services and Academi, remain a top private security contractor for the Pentagon, despite employees being convicted for massacring civilians while on duty in Iraq in 2007. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration awarded the contractor more than $200 million in security and CIA work.

Erik Prince, who is based primarily in Virginia where he runs other military training centers, set up a mercenary hub in the United Arab Emirates five years ago with full support from the royal rulers of the oil-rich state. The UAE Company took the name Reflex Responses or R2. The NY Times reported that some 400 mercenaries were dispatched from the Emirates’ training camps to take up assignment in Yemen. Hundreds more are being trained up back in the UAE for the same deployment.

This is just one stream of several “soldiers of fortune” going into Yemen to fight against the uprising led by Houthi rebels, who are in alliance with remnants of the national army. That insurgency succeeded in kicking out the US and Saudi-backed president Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi in early 2015. Hadi has been described as a foreign puppet, who presided over a corrupt regime of cronyism and vicious repression.

Since last March, the Saudis and other Persian Gulf Arab states have been bombing Yemen on a daily basis in order to overthrow the Houthi-led rebellion and reinstall the exiled Hadi.

Washington and Britain have supplied warplanes and missiles, as well as logistics, in the Saudi-led campaign, which has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. The involvement of Blackwater-type mercenaries – closely associated with the Pentagon – can also be seen as another form of American contribution to the Saudi-led campaign.

The mercenaries sent from the UAE to Yemen are fighting alongside other mercenaries that the Saudis have reportedly enlisted from Sudan, Eritrea and Morocco. Most are former soldiers, who are paid up to $1,000 a week while serving in Yemen. Many of the Blackwater-connected fighters from the UAE are recruited from Latin America: El Salvador, Panama and primarily Colombia, which is considered to have good experience in counter-insurgency combat.

Also among the mercenaries are American, British, French and Australian nationals. They are reportedly deployed in formations along with regular troops from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE.

In recent months, the Houthi rebels (also known as Ansarullah) and their allies from the Yemeni army – who formed a united front called the Popular Committees – have inflicted heavy casualties on the US-Saudi coalition. Hundreds of troops have been reportedly killed in gun battles in the Yemeni provinces of Marib, in the east, and Taiz, to the west. The rebels’ use of Tochka ballistic missiles has had particularly devastating results.

So much so that it is reported that the Blackwater-affiliated mercenaries have “abandoned the Taiz front” after suffering heavy casualties over the last two months. “Most of the Blackwater operatives killed in Yemen were believed to be from Colombia and Argentina; however, there were also casualties from the United States, Australia and France,” Masdar News reports.

Into this murky mix are added extremist Sunni militants who have been dispatched to Yemen from Syria. They can be said to be closely related, if not fully integrated, with Al-Qaeda or IS in that they profess allegiance to a “caliphate” based on a fundamentalist Wahhabi, or Takfiri, ideology.

These militants began arriving in Yemen in large numbers within weeks of Russia’s military intervention in Syria beginning at the end of September, according to Yemeni Army spokesman Brigadier General Sharaf Luqman. Russian air power immediately began inflicting severe losses on the extremists there. Senior Yemeni military sources said that hundreds of IS-affiliated fighters were flown into Yemen’s southern port city of Aden onboard commercial aircraft belonging to Turkey, Qatar and the UAE.

Soon after the militants arrived, Aden residents said the city had descended into a reign of terror. The integrated relationship with the US-Saudi coalition can be deduced from the fact that Aden has served as a key forwarding military base for the coalition. Indeed, it was claimed by Yemen military sources that the newly arrived Takfiri militants were thence dispatched to the front lines in Taiz and Marib, where the Pentagon-affiliated mercenaries and Saudi troops were also assigned.

It is true that the Pentagon at times wages war on Al-Qaeda-related terrorists. The US airstrike in Libya on Friday, which killed some 40 IS operatives at an alleged training camp, is being trumpeted by Washington as a major blow against terrorism. And in Yemen since 2011, the CIA and Pentagon have killed many Al-Qaeda cadres in drone strikes, with the group’s leader being reportedly assassinated last June in a US operation.

Nevertheless, as the broader US-Saudi campaign in Yemen illustrates, the outsourcing of military services to private mercenaries in conjunction with terrorist militia is evidently an arm of covert force for Washington.

This is consistent with how the same groups have been deployed in Syria for the purpose of regime change there.

The blurring of lines between regular military, private security contractors with plush offices in Virginia and Abu Dhabi, and out-and-out terror groups is also appropriate. Given the nature of the illegal wars being waged, it all boils down to state-sponsored terrorism in the end.

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

On the occasion of a resolution on Syria


On the occasion of a resolution on Syria

 

One aspect of the developments in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East highlights an analysis of “Reuters” that republished the “Daily” (30/08/2013). It is known that China, like Russia, has a veto on the UN Security Council on the proposal of Britain to adopt the terms of use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. Besides, it is a pretext chemical weapons for the military intervention.

Of course, politics and diplomacy one can not treat them out of the economy and the interests of capital of each state. Besides, urban propaganda has showcased in all its glory this fact, leaving aside the pretenses of imperialist intervention in Syria, as the so-called “humanitarian problem” or “restoration of democracy”.

The issue of energy and transport routes emerges as key issue of developments in the region, developments that certainly incited the powerful capitalist states which now have ready plans for military intervention. In fact, have already begun to talk about the negative impact on capitalist economies dependent on oil from the Middle East due to the increase in the price of which will cause the war.

Therefore, the veto shows contrasting interests in the region and of course rivalries have sharpened the fullest. That have no relationship with Syria, Egypt, but the destabilization in the East. Mediterranean and the Middle East who value themselves and the bourgeoisie that will bring an imperialist military intervention in Syria.

When started the military conflict in Syria, with states outside intervention, writes about the intensification of competition in the area, between the U.S., EU and Russia and China because of the sources of energy and geostrategic point of the region. Their U.S. competition with China in the area gives the specific analysis closes as follows: “It is inevitable that at some stage, China may wonder: Why should the U.S. to protect our oil?”.

 

China and the Middle East

 

Writes but this analysis:

The Middle East is the largest supplier of crude oil to China. Without it, the second largest economy in the world would face serious problems. It is significant that in the first seven months of this year, China imported from the Middle East about 83 million tons of crude oil, equivalent to 50% of total production …

China has major economic interests in Syria itself, but a strategic and diplomatic interests to ensure stability in the Middle East in order to protect a critical source for Beijing Energy …Moreover, the Chinese leadership does not consider that it is its responsibility to security in the Middle East, as it has the means to engage effectively in this case, says Yin Gang, an expert on the policy of China in the Middle East.

“If there is stability, this is good for China and if chaos is bad for China. But China does not have the ability to ensure stability in the region,” he says. “It is impossible, absolutely impossible. China has the ability to use military force to protect its interests in the Middle East. The best way to protect its interests would be to diversify its oil imports to import more oil from Russia, other parts of the world, “he adds …”.

Undermining the U.S. competitors

“Nevertheless – continues the analysis – the subject of an “aggressive” China’s presence in the Middle East has been widely discussed lately, since the country depends, basically, on strong U.S. military presence in the region as a guarantee for stability and smooth oil flow, especially through the Strait of HormuzThis fact, in itself, could serve as a challenge to the Chinese and make them seek a strategic role in the region, told Reuters, diplomatic source with knowledge of the situation. “

From the above analysis become clearer contrasts of interest and monopolistic competition. It has been written that the last U.S. with hydrocarbon production, ie energy from shale, encounter without problem the energy needs of the economy. If that is the case, excel their competitors.

It is a fact and has been proven historically that competition between capitalist states embody the political subversion of the capitalist economy by a competitor to his opponent. By any means. And it seems that, among other things, that the pursuit of U.S. subversion and the economy of China and its interests in the region is more than noticeable.

source: www.902.gr

Fake Washington Terror Threat


The Yellow Brick Road Free Blog

They’re in various forms. They repeat with disturbing regularity. America’s war on terror targets Islam. At issue is duplicitous scaremongering. It advances Washington’s imperium.

View original post 1,180 more words