Advertisements

QADDAFI WAS A ‘HERO,’ SAYS AFRICA’S LONGEST-SERVING PRESIDENT


QADDAFI WAS A ‘HERO,’ SAYS AFRICA’S LONGEST-SERVING PRESIDENT

The late Libyan strongman Muammar el-Qaddafi was a “hero” for promoting solidarity among African countries, according to the continent’s longest-serving president.

Qaddafi, who was killed (assassinated)  in an uprising (after stale mate with NATO)in the North African country in 2011, was a strong advocate of creating a “United States of Africa” and supported the philosophy of pan-Africanism, which promotes the political union of African countries.

The president of Equatorial Guinea, a small oil-rich country in Central Africa, said the failure to realize Qaddafi’s vision was to blame for poverty and conflict in parts of the continent.

Qaddafi at U.N.

Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi delivers an address to the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York City on September 23, 2009. Qaddafi was a strong advocate of greater unity between African nations. MARIO TAMA/GETTY

 

“I recall our hero Qaddafi who used to promote this African solidarity, but sadly most countries would not still agree with him,” said President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has been in power since 1979. Obiang made the comments during a visit to Uganda, where he met his counterpart President Yoweri Museveni, according to Ugandan newspaper the Daily Monitor. “The instability Africa is suffering due to the egoism of each country.”

The world’s ten-poorest countries by GDP per capita are all in sub-Saharan Africa. The continent has also witnessed major conflicts in recent years, including the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria and its neighboring countries and the civil war in Congo.

The African Union (AU), a continental institution that holds semi-annual assemblies and promotes socioeconomic and political integration, is pursuing a version of Qaddafi’s dream. In its Agenda 2063 policy document, published in 2013, the AU proposed creating a continent-wide free trade area, similar to the European Union’s single market, which ensures the free movement of goods, capital and people within member states.

While Africa already has some regional economic communities that promote trade, African countries on the whole do not trade with each other very much. A 2015 U.N. report found that intra-African trade made up just 14 percent of the continent’s total trade; in the EU, the equivalent figure was 61 percent.

The AU also wants to remove visa restrictions and eventually issue an African passport to citizens of AU member states.

Qaddafi ruled Libya for more than four decades before his demise, which followed a NATO military intervention led by the U.S. and the U.K. Since Qaddafi’s death, Libya has been mired in chaos, with multiple governments competing for legitimacy and jihadi groups, including the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), establishing bases in the country.

Human rights groups have accused Obiang of widespread human rights violations and rampant corruption. Equatorial Guinea has a higher GDP per capita than Russia or Turkey, but a large proportion of the country’s population remains in poverty.

Swiss prosecutors recently opened criminal proceedings against Obiang’s son, who also serves as a vice-president of the country, after accusing him of money laundering and seizing 11 luxury cars belonging to him, including a Bugatti Veyron.

Advertisements

Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails


Exposing the Libyan Agenda: a Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails

by ELLEN BROWN

a katz / Shutterstock.com

The brief visit of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Libya in October 2011 was referred to by the media as a “victory lap.” “We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview on hearing of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, write Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times, was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country dissolved into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fueling the refugee crisis in Europe and allowing the Islamic State to establish a Libyan haven that the United States is now desperately trying to contain.”

US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, its own food, its own oil, its own money, and its own state-owned bank. It had arisen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest of countries to the richest in Africa. Education and medical treatment were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country boasted the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-made River project, which brought water from the desert to the cities and coastal areas; and Qaddafi was embarking on a program to spread this model throughout Africa.

But that was before US-NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc on the country. Today the situation is so dire that President Obama has asked his advisors to draw up options including a new military front in Libya, and the Defense Department is reportedly standing ready with “the full spectrum of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if what we’re talking about is the officially stated goal of humanitarian intervention. But her newly-released emails reveal another agenda behind the Libyan war; and this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission Accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third were from her close confidante Sidney Blumenthal, the attorney who defended her husband in the Monica Lewinsky case. One of these emails, dated April 2, 2011, reads in part:

Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver . . . . This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email adds:

According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

1 A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

2 Increase French influence in North Africa,

3 Improve his internal political situation in France,

4 Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

5 Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa

Conspicuously absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The objectives are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations in the newly-published emails are detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They include admissions of rebel war crimes, of special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, and of Al Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition. Key propaganda themes for violent intervention are acknowledged to be mere rumors. Parry suggests they may have originated with Blumenthal himself. They include the bizarre claim that Qaddafi had a “rape policy” involving passing Viagra out to his troops, a charge later raised by UN Ambassador Susan Rice in a UN presentation. Parry asks rhetorically:

So do you think it would it be easier for the Obama administration to rally American support behind this “regime change” by explaining how the French wanted to steal Libya’s wealth and maintain French neocolonial influence over Africa – or would Americans respond better to propaganda themes about Gaddafi passing out Viagra to his troops so they could rape more women while his snipers targeted innocent children? Bingo!

Toppling the Global Financial Scheme

Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.

It is banks, not governments, that create most of the money in Western economies, as the Bank of England recently acknowledged. This has been going on for centuries, through the process called “fractional reserve” lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold domestically with central bank-created reserves, but gold remained the reserve currency internationally.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created money system globally. An IMF ruling said that no paper money could have gold backing. A money supply created privately as debt at interest requires a continual supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries wound up in debt to the IMF. The loans came with strings attached, including “structural adjustment” policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the US dollar traded interchangeably with gold as global reserve currency. When the US was no longer able to maintain the dollar’s gold backing, in the 1970s it made a deal with OPEC to “back” the dollar with oil, creating the “petro-dollar.” Oil would be sold only in US dollars, which would be deposited in Wall Street and other international banks.

In 2001, dissatisfied with the shrinking value of the dollars that OPEC was getting for its oil, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. Regime change swiftly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than just sell his oil in another currency.

As these developments are detailed by blogger Denise Rhyne:

For decades, Libya and other African countries had been attempting to create a pan-African gold standard. Libya’s al-Qadhafi and other heads of African States had wanted an independent, pan-African, “hard currency.”

Under al-Qadhafi’s leadership, African nations had convened at least twice for monetary unification. The countries discussed the possibility of using the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money to buy African oil.

Until the recent US/NATO invasion, the gold dinar was issued by the Central Bank of Libya (CBL). The Libyan bank was 100% state owned and independent. Foreigners had to go through the CBL to do business with Libya. The Central Bank of Libya issued the dinar, using the country’s 143.8 tons of gold.

Libya’s Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas.

Showing What is Possible

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya’s own state-owned bank.

That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it. Crippling a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like humanitarian intervention. Rather, as Canadian Professor Maximilian Forte put it in his heavily researched book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa:

[T]he goal of US military intervention was to disrupt an emerging pattern of independence and a network of collaboration within Africa that would facilitate increased African self-reliance. This is at odds with the geostrategic and political economic ambitions of extra-continental European powers, namely the US.

Mystery Solved

Hilary Clinton’s emails shed light on another enigma remarked on by early commentators. Why, within weeks of initiating fighting, did the rebels set up their own central bank? Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising.

It was all highly suspicious, but as Alex Newman concluded in a November 2011 article:

Whether salvaging central banking and the corrupt global monetary system were truly among the reasons for Gadhafi’s overthrow . . . may never be known for certain – at least not publicly.

There the matter would have remained – suspicious but unverified like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI probe. They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: violent intervention was not chiefly about the security of the people. It was about the security of global banking, money and oil.

The Obama Legacy Part VI: The Destruction of Libya and the US military Invasion of Africa


The Obama Legacy Part VI: The Destruction of Libya and the US military Invasion of Africa

 

by Danny Haiphong

In his two terms in office, President Obama has put nearly the whole of Africa under U.S. military sway. He was the first U.S. president to bomb an African country — Libya, whose “nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa.” Obama rewrote international law, invoking “Responsibility to Protect” as “justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.”

“With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.”

Endless war has been a staple of the Obama era. The first Black President’s imperialist record is so expansive that it could not possibly be fit into a singular piece on his legacy. Obama’s endless military incursions in Africa have been the least covered area of US foreign policy in the corporate media. From the outset of his selection in 2008, President Obama quietly militarized the African continent without the knowledge or consultation of the vast majority of the US population. In 2011, Obama’s policy of militarization exploded into full-scale war on the nation of Libya.

The US imperial campaign against Libya marked a watershed moment in the Obama legacy. The overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi by way of US-NATO sorties and jihadists made Obama the first Black President to bomb an African country. In addition, Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a “humanitarian intervention.” The Obama war doctrine rewrote the rules of war in the realm of international law.Humanitarian intervention” and the “Responsibility to Protect” provided a more effective justification for the destruction of sovereign nations.

“Obama became the first President to invoke the so-called R2P (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine as a justification for what he called a ‘humanitarian intervention.’”

Obama’s promotion of racist, colonialist lies about Libya helped muster public support to destabilize the most prosperous nation on the continent. According to President Obama and the corporate media, Gaddafi was a genocidal butcher of his own people. So-called mercenaries loyal to Gaddafi were accused of committing genocide against “peaceful” protesters. The “Libyan Revolution” was thrown into the so-called Arab Spring against brutal tyrants in North Africa. Mythological tales of Gaddafi’s loyalists using Viagra to rape women and children were run around the clock by the corporate media and its masters in Washington.

What actually occurred in Libya was US-NATO sponsored genocide. Obama received plenty of help from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which provided jihadist mercenaries with the necessary financial and military aid to wage war on Libya. Black Libyans were brutally lynched by jihadist mercenaries in Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte. Over 30,000 US-NATO bombs were dropped on Libya over the course of the six-month military invasion that began in March of 2011. Tens of thousands of Libyans died and the Libyan state was effectively dissolved.

When Gaddafi was illegally murdered by jihadists in October of 2011, Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled “we came, we saw, he died” in an interview with the corporate press. The imperial hubris of Secretary Clinton was completely supported by Obama. Not only did he destroy Libya, but also later in 2016 described the aftermath of the intervention as a “mistake.” Yet leaked emails from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s server scandal have proven that the war against Libya was waged for economic and geopolitical reasons. Libya’s nationalized oil reserves and plans to use gold as the chief reserve currency in Africa threatened US capitalist penetration in Africa. So Obama led the charge to destroy this effort by sending Libya into a state of never ending chaos.

“AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience.”

Today, Libya remains in the control of terrorists. The Libya prior to 2011 that possessed free healthcare, education, and numerous subsidies to support the wellbeing of the Libyan people no longer exists. Libya’s role in supporting African liberation in South Africa, Namibia, and Angola has been, for now, relegated to the history books. Libya once was a proud state that rejected US military presence on the continent, seeing it as an obstacle to Pan-African unity. With the Libyan state destroyed, the US has been able to further expand militarily all over the continent.

And it has been President Obama, not George W. Bush, who has presided over the rapid neo-colonization of Africa through military means. Under Obama, the US African Command (AFRICOM) has penetrated every African country but Zimbabwe and Eritrea. AFRICOM has locked African nations into military subservience. In 2014, the US conducted 674 military operations in Africa. According to a recent Freedom of Information Act request by Intercept, the US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations. US imperialism supposedly sees “enemies” everywhere in the form of jihadist groups. Yet it was the US-NATO alliance that empowered the spread of jihadists throughout Africa by arming them to destroy Libya.

“The US currently has Special Forces deployed in more than twenty African nations.”

The US has fueled instability in Africa as the primary means to undermine Chinese investment in the resource-rich continent. In 2013, China’s investment in Africa was estimated to total 200 billion USD. Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations. This has threatened the capitalist class in control of the US imperialist system. When Obama was elected, he made it a point to subvert China with the only weapon left in its arsenal: military force.

However, China is a rising global power and the US is not. US imperialism is in crisis and its military policy in Africa is a reflection of decline. The militarization of Africa led by Obama has done nothing but spread chaos from North to South, East to West. China still leads the US by tens of billions of US dollars per year in terms of real investment in Africa. And the regional catastrophes that Obama’s Africa policy has created are not going away. The rise of Boko Haram and the international jihadist terrorist network threatens to make the continent ungovernable. This may not be what US corporations want, but its all US policy is going to give.

“Nations such as oil rich Nigeria and mineral rich Democratic Republic of Congo have found Chinese investment to be far more mutually beneficial than trade with US multinational corporations.”

President Obama’s staunch support for the US military takeover of Africa has not stopped him from claiming identification with African people. However, Obama’s identification with Africa has not stopped him from condemning the continent for homophobia or chastising African nations to forget about colonialism. Obama has yet to condemn Rwanda and Uganda for its support of proxies that have murdered over 6 million in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1996. The Obama legacy in Africa should thus be characterized as the highest stage of hypocrisy. Obama received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 only to intensify African dependency on US imperialism, especially militarily.

The struggle for African liberation will continue long after Obama is out of the White House. His Africa policy will serve as the largest obstacle to efforts to rid the continent of neo-colonialism once and for all. The US military network currently operating in nearly every Africa country serves the purpose of arresting the ongoing process of self-determination. Solidarity efforts in the US mainland must recognize that the fate of Africa will determine the course of struggle worldwide. Obama expanded the US military state’s footprint in Africa. Africa’s liberation thus means the rejection of everything he has stood for.

Prison-issued Compact plateau on Libyan national gathering table


Prison-issued Compact plateau on Libyan national gathering table

In his meeting with Libyan national Assembly Secretariat and a number of its members on Saturday 16/01/2016 Professor Mohamed Belkacem another cabled Secretary of the General People’s Congress mass system adequately initiative dialogue with prison authorities who represent different sectors February stream.
Terrace, February party dialogue with prisoners ‘ group included Michelle Mohammed Azwai, Abdullah sanussi, Dr Mohamed Sharif, Dr Al-Baghdadi mahmudi.
After rounds of dialogue and negotiation we approach – speak here for Professor cabled – formation and formulation of general features of the agreement, were:
1. a general amnesty for all Libyans from date 1/11/1969 “and the date of signature of this document,
2. evacuation of all politicians.
3. cancel all laws that would hinder reconciliation, including the abolition of political isolation and security, bring down external pursuits.
4. create equity for reparations, so that any Libyan citizen to satisfy his rights and be financially body providing compensation to all those affected.
5. access to transitional justice in conflict.
6. the return of displaced and refugees and resolving their problems.
7. stop fighting and withdraw from the militias and grouped in camps.
8. create a unified national army his home protection and maintenance of the Constitution.
9. an agreed Constitution regulates the political life of the State.
10. election fund is the faycal, who is ruling in Libya.
This agreement will not be valid unless approved by the majority of parties
This document, I think that will be a roadmap and a light at the end of the tunnel to exit Libya from Choker and bottleneck toward broad prospects.
Libyan national leadership, and its members attending the meeting raised a lot of questions and asked for further clarifications on these points and circumstances that produced it was answered by Professor cabled all entertain.
Here are some of those questions and answers in short:
Does this agreement mean to give up alsbtmbrion or alvbrairion about their principles and their establisheds?
No, for each full freedom in thought alsbetmbrien walvbrairiin, but the agreement offers the possibility to carry out common demands away from fighting and we pain over.
Is there a compromise presented by the parties to each other?
Yes there are concessions to rescue Libya, politics is the art of the possible is not the art of the impossible.
As were the underdogs because you’re in prison you were asked for the conditions of adhesion or compulsion to accept what is excluded?
No, despite being imprisoned but we weren’t underdogs, the jailer who asked our CTBT negotiations, he knows how the strength we derive from steadfastness on the oppression and contempt, and strength we derive from February party failed to create a decent state after all these years, don’t tell a secret if I say that Abdullah sanussi, for example, was higher and stronger than the voice of their captors.
What does it take?
He desired to unite the efforts of all patriotic forces abroad and at home and the formation of a Coordinating Committee be able to conclude an agreement with Libya out of tragedy and disaster that threatens to stifle her yard.
In a great understanding of all points and the good efforts of founding, leading members of the National Assembly with high positive, through display and put it up on the rules of gathering in the Libyan regions and cities the makings to be a solid step toward the solution to Setup and build a better future for all Libyans.

Here is the original link in Arabic

THE US HELPED OVERTHROW LIBYA IN 2011. HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING THERE NOW


THE US HELPED OVERTHROW LIBYA IN 2011. HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING THERE NOW

We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late.”

That’s from Libya’s National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.

The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that’s been closed for at least a year.

Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. “Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya’s biggest oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,” Reuters notes. “They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State, and the eastern city of Benghazi.”

Continue reading : https://needfultruth.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/the-us-helped-overthrow-libya-in-2011-heres-whats-happening-there-now-2/

%d bloggers like this: