Again an informing Newsletter from Peter Myers in Australia.
If you like to receive these newsletters directly from Peter, send a comment to me and I'll send you the details.
"Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran" - ElBaradei, when head of
IAEA. But new IAEA report says otherwise
(1) Israel’s leading columnist, Barnea, warns of Israeli attack on Iran
(2) Haaretz screaming headline: Bibi Seeks Cabinet Approval for Iran Attack
(3) Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran, as
debate goes public
(4) Meir Dagan challenges Netanyahu over leaking attack plan: "prosecute me"
(5) The Drums of Another WAR: IAEA suspects Iran nuke but silent on Israel's
(6) Iran on verge of getting Bomb, time to act - UK Telegraph; no
mention that Israel has it
(7) ElBaradei (former IAEA head) urges ICC trial of Bush for waging war
on Iraq
(8) "Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran" - ElBaradei, when
head of IAEA
(9) Turkish PM asks why Israel is allowed to have nukes
(10) US departure from Iraq is an illusion: 17,000 personnel will be
under jurisdiction of US ambassador
(11) Three Jewish software heads (Brin, Ballmer, Ellison) develop a New
and Frightening Stuxnet
(12) Stuxnet: Screens deceptively said all was ok (By Way of Deception -
Mossad motto)
(13) Aeroplanes could be taken over by remote control and forced to
crash - it could be a whole fleet
(1) Israel’s leading columnist, Barnea, warns of Israeli attack on Iran
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/10/27/israels-leading-columnist-barnea-warns-of-israeli-attack-on-iran/
Richard Silverstein
October 27, 2011
{photo caption} Barnea column headline: 'Have Bibi and Barak sealed a
deal between them despite the opposition of the security apparatus, and
without public debate, to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before
winter?' {end}
For those of you seeking a comparison in the U.S. media that does
justice to the role Nahum Barnea plays as Israel’s leading political
columnist, you might go back to Walter Cronkite or Walter Lippman. In
terms of today’s media, you could compare him to Tom Friedman, though
Barnea is far more read, known and popular in Israel than Friedman is here.
In the past weeks, I’ve described an increasing chorus of media warnings
from other newspaper columnists that Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak had
come to a decision to attack Iran. Not to mention the well-known and
repeated warnings of former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. Though I found
them convincing then, the fact that Barnea adds his own crediblity and
voice in support of the warnings is critically important. I also note
that his newspaper, Yediot Achronot, made this story its lead for the
Friday afternoon-Erev Shabbat edition (equivalent to the Sunday paper),
a further indication of the importance it gives to it.
We’re on the road to war, I’m afraid. We have to begin thinking which
side are we on, as the old union song goes. There are liberal Israeli
parties like Meretz and Labor which always support Israeli wars no
matter what. I call on them to determine what their stance will be now
and not to dither as Meretz did during Cast and the last Lebanon war.
Quick and early denunciation counts far more than faint hearted
criticism that comes too little too late. It would be even better for
them to announce their views even before an attack so that they lay down
a political marker which they may refer back to after war begins. There
is nothing like credibility in politics. Most Israeli political parties
have little or none. Will they show any backbone now or behave in the
same spineless way they have during past military adventures?
(2) Haaretz screaming headline: Bibi Seeks Cabinet Approval for Iran Attack
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2011/11/01/haaretz-screaming-headline-bibi-seeks-cabinet-approval-for-iran-attack/
Richard Silverstein
November 1, 2011
{Caption; photo is of the Hebrew edition} Haaretz front page headline:
'Netanyahu Seeks Cabinet Majority for Military Action Against Iranian
Nuclear Plants' {end}
The main headline of today’s Haaretz practically screams out
(translation of Hebrew edition):
Netanyahu Seeks Cabinet Majority for Military Action Against Iran’s
Nuclear Plants
The article continues (from the English edition):
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are
trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action
against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the
official, there is a "small advantage” in the cabinet for the opponents
of such an attack.
Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a
move.
The article suggests that this month’s IAEA report will be "decisive” in
determining Israel’s decision. Since Israeli media have already blared
what the supposed substance of the report will be (i.e. that Iran is
moving ever closer to processes necessary to create a nuclear weapon),
this seems a dubious proposition. What this means is that Bibi wants to
bomb Iran and if there is any material in the report that justifies his
pre-ordained outcome, then he will seize upon it.
Much more decisive in the determination will be whether there is a
cabinet majority, as the headline notes. Once Bibi has the votes it will
hardly matter what the IAEA says.
The report says that Bibi and Barak currently have a "slight majority.”
Opposing are Yuval Steinitz, Dan Meridor, Bogie Yaalon (this is a
shocker to me), Benny Begin and Eli Yishai. Maariv too has a screaming
headline (Hebrew only):
Meridor: Iran Deliberations Graver than Anat Kamm Leaks
I take this to mean that the contents of the materials leaked by Anat
Kamm, which revealed that IDF general had approved Palestinian
assassinations in violation of Supreme Court rulings, will pale in
comparison to the damage that an Iran attack could do to the IDF and Israel.
This is the first Israeli media confirmation that not only have Bibi and
Barak have determined to attack Iran, but that they have attempted to
dragoon the cabinet into supporting it as well. This takes the plan one
step closer to realization. As soon as there is a cabinet majority, the
attack could happen at any moment. Don’t be terribly surprised if you
wake up one morning and find pictures of Israeli missiles falling on
Iran on CNN and the front page of your local paper. It no longer seems
much of a question of "if,” but rather "when.”
It’s very important that bloggers, journalists and others prepare for
such an eventuality. We should try to create open channels of
communication among us and Israeli and Iranian bloggers who can tell us
in real time what is happening, who’s saying what, and where the bombs
are falling. This will be a chilling, savage attack which I imagine will
impact not just Iran, but Israel as well.
In this column, Haaretz columnist Reuven Pedatzur, a former IAF fighter
pilot and one of Israel’s premier military analysts, practically begs
the current IAF commander to stand lay his body on the railroad tracks
to halt the runaway train that is the project for an Iran attack:
If anyone can save Israel from catastrophe it is the Israel Air Force
commander. All Maj. Gen. Ido Nechushtan has to do is whisper to the
prime minister and defense minister that an Air Force attack on Iran
cannot achieve its goals.
The force’s airplanes can reach Iran and even drop bombs, he must tell
them, but ultimately the operation will not destroy the Iranian nuclear
program. At best it will be delay the program by a few months.
…Such an approach to the policy makers may be opposed to the "Air Force
spirit,” but Nechushtan must act with national responsibility. It would
not be a display of defeatism, but rather one of supreme responsibility
in an era when the decision-making process has gone dangerously haywire.
Only he can stop the train speeding to a collision in Iran’s skies.
…Never, it seems, has an IDF officer been in a position in which his
professional recommendation could bring on Israel a disaster of such
proportions. We may only hope Nechushtan will rise to the occasion.
Yet a third Haaretz article portrays (Hebrew) a Knesset speech by Ehud
Barak in which he says regarding a possible Israeli strike against Iran:
Events of the past year in the Middle East lead to the conclusion that
there may be situations in which Israel will have to defend its own
interests or stand up for things which are vital to it by itself,
without being able to depend on regional powers or expecting the help of
others.
This was a clear reference to the fact that Israel, if it attacks Iran
will not receive the backing of the U.S. (though whether it receives
tacit backing is another question).
In related developments, Shelly Yachimovitz, the leader of the much
depleted Labor Party, actually took a reasonable position warning Bibi
and Barak against a "reckless, megalomaniacal Iranian adventure.” Of
course, the moment the F-16s take off, Labor will dutifully fall in line
and we won’t hear another peep out of them until at least a hundred
Israelis are dead. Then we’ll begin to see some finger-pointing and even
a charge that Bibi didn’t let the IDF hit hard enough. So goes Israeli
politics.
(3) Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran, as
debate goes public
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-trying-to-persuade-cabinet-to-support-attack-on-iran-1.393214
Published 00:51 02.11.11Latest update 00:51 02.11.11
Netanyahu trying to persuade cabinet to support attack on Iran
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking
Iran, was recently persuaded by Netanyahu and Barak to support such a move.
By Barak Ravid, Amos Harel, Zvi Zrahiya and Jonathan Lis
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are
trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action
against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said. According to the
official, there is a "small advantage" in the cabinet for the opponents
of such an attack.
Netanyahu and Barak recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a
move.
Although more than a million Israelis have had to seek shelter during a
week of rockets raining down on the south, political leaders have
diverted their attention to arguing over a possible war with Iran.
Leading ministers were publicly dropping hints on Tuesday that Israeli
could attack Iran, although a member of the forum of eight senior
ministers said no such decision had been taken.
Senior ministers and diplomats said the International Atomic Energy
Agency's report, due to be released on November 8, will have a decisive
effect on the decisions Israel makes.
The commotion regarding Iran was sparked by journalist Nahum Barnea's
column in Yedioth Ahronoth last Friday. Barnea's concerned tone and his
editors' decision to run the column under the main headline ("Atomic
Pressure" ) repositioned the debate on Iran from closed rooms to the
media's front pages.
Reporters could suddenly ask the prime minister and defense minister
whether they intend to attack Iran in the near future and the political
scene went haywire.
Western intelligence officials agree that Iran is forging ahead with its
nuclear program. Intelligence services now say it will take Iran two or
three years to get the bomb once it decides to (it hasn't made the
decision yet ).
According to Western experts' analyses, an attack on Iran in winter is
almost impossible, because the thick clouds would obstruct the Israel
Air Force's performance. ...
Former Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said he feared a "horror
scenario" in which Netanyahu and Barak decide to attack Iran. He warned
of a "rash act" and said he hoped "common sense will prevail." ...
(4) Meir Dagan challenges Netanyahu over leaking attack plan: "prosecute me"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/world/middleeast/israel-is-scrambling-over-news-reports-of-seeking-iran-strike.html
Israel Faces Questions about News Reports of Eyeing Iran Strike
By ISABEL KERSHNER and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: November 3, 2011
JERUSALEM — Israel’s top leadership has spent the week answering and
evading questions about widespread reports that it is once again
considering a strike on Iran’s nuclear complexes, while President Obama
said Thursday that he and his allies would maintain "unprecedented
international pressure” on Tehran to keep it from producing a nuclear
weapon.
Israeli officials would not confirm or deny multiple reports in the
Israeli news media that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense
Minister Ehud Barak were pressing for a decision on whether and when to
strike a uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the centerpiece of
Iran’s known nuclear-fuel production, and related sites across the country.
Several Israeli ministers have publicly placed blame for the leaks on
Meir Dagan, the former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service,
who after leaving office this year said that Mr. Netanyahu was intent on
launching such an attack, and had to be restrained by opposition from
top intelligence and military officials, almost all of whom have since
left office.
Mr. Dagan, who is believed to have played a central role in unleashing
the Stuxnet computer worm that set back Iran’s nuclear efforts by
disabling about a fifth of its nuclear centrifuges, has argued that
military action is unlikely to do enough damage and could set off a new
war in the Middle East.
Speaking to an audience in Tel Aviv on Wednesday night, Mr. Dagan
challenged the government to indict him. "Have I violated information
security?” he asked. "Then let them prosecute me. Let them say, ‘Dagan
has broken the law.’ I’ll get a good lawyer.”
Israel has debated the viability and effects of attacks many times in
the past seven years, often to Washington’s consternation. Obama
administration officials, in private conversations with the Israelis,
have argued that the combination of economic sanctions and covert
sabotage of the Iranian effort has been more effective than an attack
could be, without the risk of provoking counterattacks or a war.
But the most recent debate has been prompted by the confluence of three
events that has made the issue seem especially urgent in Israel,
according to American officials who have been worried about whether
Israel might conduct a surprise attack.
The first is Iran’s continued production of low- and medium-enriched
uranium: it now has enough fuel for roughly four bombs, though producing
them would require more time, more enrichment, and more risk of
exposure. The second is Iran’s declaration that it is moving much of its
production to a well-protected underground site near the holy city of Qum.
"The Israelis fear that once it’s moved underground they won’t have the
ability to see it, or reach it,” one American official said recently.
But perhaps the most important event is a forthcoming report from the
International Atomic Energy Agency, expected next week. For the first
time, the agency is expected to describe, in detail, the evidence it has
collected suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with
warhead designs, nuclear detonation systems and specialized triggering
devices that can be explained only as work on a nuclear weapon.
Iran has said the data is fabricated, and vowed to publish its own
evidence of Western terrorist plots against Iran.
Mr. Obama and NATO allies, at a summit meeting in Cannes, France, have
steered clear of any talk of military strikes, and said they remained
focused on economic sanctions and other forms of diplomatic pressure,
including enforcement of several United Nations Security Council
resolutions that demand that Iran stop all uranium enrichment.
The secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said Thursday that
"NATO has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Iran, and NATO is not
engaged as an alliance in the Iran question,” according to The
Associated Press.
The British newspaper The Guardian reported on Wednesday that Britain’s
armed forces were stepping up their contingency planning for potential
military action along with the United States against Iran. The Guardian
added that the British Ministry of Defense "believes the U.S. may decide
to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian
facilities.”
Mr. Obama discussed Iran on Thursday with the French president, Nicolas
Sarkozy. Mr. Obama told reporters that the International Atomic Energy
Agency "is scheduled to release a report on Iran’s nuclear program next
week, and President Sarkozy and I agree on the need to maintain the
unprecedented pressure on Iran to meet its obligations.”
Isabel Kershner reported from Jerusalem, and David E. Sanger from
Washington. John F. Burns contributed reporting from London, and Helene
Cooper from Cannes, France.
(5) The Drums of Another WAR: IAEA suspects Iran nuke but silent on Israel's
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@gmail.com> Date: 4 November
2011 11:05
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8866022/Iran-the-damning-nuclear-evidence.html
Iran: the damning nuclear evidence
Iran is attempting to engineer and test nuclear weapons at a series of
banned production sites in defiance of United Nations sanctions,
according to a report to be released next week
By Damien McElroy, Adrian Blomfield in Jerusalem, Duncan Gardham and
Alex Spillius
10:24PM GMT 02 Nov 2011
The research by the UN’s watchdog, the International Atomic Energy
Agency, will add a substantial layer to seven years of investigations
that is likely to inflame tensions in the Middle East.
Yukiya Amano, the organisation’s director-general, is unlikely to draw a
definitive conclusion that Iran is making nuclear weapons, but according
to Western diplomats the facts will make any other conclusion implausible.
They believe the IAEA has substantiated evidence from intelligence
reports, interviews with Iranian scientists and on-the-ground
inspections that Iran is carrying out a nuclear weapons programme in
parallel to its civilian energy goals.
The agency will sound the alarm over Iranian scientists’ work to develop
a ballistic missile warhead capable of carrying a nuclear device. It has
already uncovered evidence that Iran has been carrying out research into
triggers for nuclear weapons.
Inspectors have also questioned Iranian scientists on simulation
programmes that they believe are designed to design and test a potential
weapon.
"This is the product of a vast amount of work by the IAEA which will
show the level of evidence they’ve accumulated and make clear a number
of supplementary indications they have uncovered,” said a Western
diplomat. "It makes an inescapable case that Iran has ambitions to
militarise the uranium it has been enriching at its production facilities.”
Another official said: "The Iranians have been very evasive, and quite
clever about it at times. It’s been difficult to discover the smoking
gun. But this will be more detailed than before. The director-general
will point to black holes in the Iranians’ explanations. It will
undoubtedly increase the pressure.”
The Armed forces are conducting contingency planning for a potential
attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities amid concerns of a resurgent nuclear
programme, sources have said. ...
But the fear of allowing a country whose president repeatedly has called
for Israel’s annihilation to build a nuclear bomb yesterday led Israel
to test a long-range ballistic missile easily capable of reaching Iran.
The test came just hours after Mr Netanyahu was reported to have stepped
up pressure on his cabinet to back military strikes against Iran’s
nuclear facilities.
Indicating that a rapid reassessment of policy was under way, Israeli
newspapers suggested that an attack could take place either before the
onset of winter or in the summer of next year.
The dramatic disclosures came as the Israeli defence ministry confirmed
that it had fired "a rocket propulsion system” from its Palmach airbase
after a white streak was spotted in the skies above the centre of the
country early yesterday.
The ministry, which insisted that the launch had been long planned,
censored further details. But Western experts concluded that Israel had
fired a Jericho-3 ballistic missile, which is capable of carrying a
nuclear warhead and could form a component of any attack on Iran.
It also emerged that Israel’s air force simulated a long-range attack at
a Nato base in Sardinia last week.
The exercise, which was not initially disclosed in Israel, included an
air-to-air refuelling component. Potential targets in Iran lie between
950 and 1,400 miles from Israel’s borders. Any mission to destroy them
would would require aerial refuelling.
(6) Iran is on verge of getting Bomb, time to act - UK Telegraph; no
mention that Israel has it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/8867813/Iran-is-on-the-verge-of-getting-the-Bomb.-It-is-time-for-President-Barack-Obama-to-act.html
Iran is on the verge of getting the Bomb. It is time for President
Barack Obama to act
The US President's softly-softly approach has failed to deter the
ayatollahs in their bid to acquire nuclear weapons.
By Con Coughlin
8:28PM GMT 03 Nov 2011
[... ] As we know from the 1930s, appeasement achieves little when it
comes to confronting a determined foe for whom the normal laws of
international conduct do not apply. And next week, the full extent of
Iran’s duplicity will be laid bare, with the publication of the latest
International Atomic Energy Agency report on its nuclear ambitions.
Unlike previous IAEA reports – which, under the leadership of Dr Mohamed
ElBaradei, deliberately sought to obfuscate the true nature of Iran’s
activities – this one will demonstrate unequivocally that Iran is well
on the way to acquiring nuclear weapons. It will show that the country
is seeking to engineer and test components that are only used in the
production of nuclear weapons, and that this illegal activity is taking
place at sites that would not even exist if Iran was in compliance with
its international treaty obligations.
Why, for example, are Iranian scientists experimenting with triggers
that are only used for detonating nuclear weapons? Why are Iranian
technicians devoting so much energy to developing a ballistic missile
warhead that can carry a nuclear warhead? And why have they designed
simulation programmes whose sole purpose is to test nuclear weapons
systems? ...
In fact, the only measures that have had any demonstrable effect on
slowing Iran’s nuclear progress have been undertaken by Israel, via a
skilful combination of targeted assassinations and cyber-warfare. The
introduction last year of the Stuxnet computer virus, which was
developed at Israel’s Dimona nuclear research centre in the Negev
desert, knocked out thousands of the centrifuges used to produce
weapons-grade uranium. Iranian efforts have also been hit by the
assassination of three of their top nuclear scientists in the past two
years.
But as the IAEA report will demonstrate, a combination of ingenuity and
determination has enabled the Iranians to overcome these setbacks, to
the point where their uranium enrichment activities have been fully
reconstituted. Moreover, to ensure they do not suffer any further such
attacks, they are relocating much of their nuclear equipment to
underground bunkers. This includes the facility at Qom, which is buried
deep below a mountain range, safe from foreign meddling.
If Iran continues at its present rate, it is estimated that all the key
nuclear components will be safely hidden away within 12 months, which
would make it impossible for either the US or Israel to launch
pre-emptive strikes. For this reason, a more bellicose response can be
expected from the major Western powers when the IAEA presents its report.
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already sought Cabinet
support for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities while they are still
visible. By way of underlining the seriousness of his intent, the
Israeli military earlier this week test-fired a missile capable of
hitting Iran.
Given the appalling repercussions that a unilateral attack on Iran would
have on regional stability, it is highly unlikely that even Mr Obama can
distance himself from the coming storm. The Iranians have made it
abundantly clear that, if attacked, they will respond by trying to wipe
Israel off the map. Mr Obama does not enjoy the best of relationships
with Mr Netanyahu, who has been accused of constantly undermining
Washington’s attempts to revive peace talks with the Palestinians. But
he also knows that America cannot afford to stand by when Iran threatens
the very existence of its closest regional ally.
(7) ElBaradei (former IAEA head) urges ICC trial of Bush for waging war
on Iraq
From: IHR News <news@ihr.org> Date: 06.05.2011 10:00 AM
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/176217.html
ElBaradei urges ICC trial of Bush
Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:34AM
Former IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says former US President George W.
Bush and his administration's officials should be put on trial in the
"International Criminal Court" (ICC) for waging war on Iraq.
ElBaradei in a new memoir, "The Age of Deception," says that the Bush
administration officials should face international criminal
investigation for the "shame of a needless war" in Iraq.
He accused then-President George Bush and his administration officials
of "grotesque distortion" in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
with an excuse to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the
world from grave danger of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The so-called hunt for WMD in Iraq, however, yielded no results.
The then US administration claimed that Iraq possessed WMD despite
contrary evidence collected by ElBaradei's and other arms inspectors
inside the country.
ElBaradei, who was the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) from 1997 to 2009, says his inspectors in Iraq have found certain
aluminum tubes that were designed for artillery rockets, not for uranium
enrichment equipment to build nuclear bombs, as Washington claimed.
He reported the conclusion to the UN Security Council on January 27,
2003, and yet on the next day Bush, in a "remarkable" response,
delivered a State of the Union address in which he repeated the
unfounded claim about aluminum tubes, ElBaradei wrote.
ElBaradei called the invasion of Iraq "aggression where there was no
imminent threat," and suggested that international courts should
investigate it as a possible war crime.
"Should not the International Criminal Court investigate whether this
constitutes a 'war crime' and determine who is accountable?" the former
IAEA chief stated.
ElBaradei wrote that the Iraq war taught him that "deliberate deception
was not limited to small countries ruled by ruthless dictators."
SB/MGH/HRF
(8) "Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran" - ElBaradei, when
head of IAEA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei
In an interview with CNN in May 2007, ElBaradei gave one of his sternest
warnings against using military action against Iran, a state signatory
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Referring to "the extreme
people who have extreme views" he said that "you do not want to give
additional argument to some of the 'new crazies' who want to say let us
go and bomb Iran."[33]
The New York Times columnist Roger Cohen interviewed ElBaradei in April
2009. ElBaradei is quoted as saying, "Israel would be utterly crazy to
attack Iran." He states that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities
would "turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash
course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim
world.”[34] ElBaradei believes that the nuclear non-proliferation regime
has "lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of
the perceived double standard" in relation to Israel's nuclear-weapons'
program.[35]
In an interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, ElBaradei said that he
wants "to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from
tomorrow and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran
should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb. We are not at all in that
situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of
force exacerbates the problem rather than [solves] it."[13]
In an interview published on July 12, 2010, in the German magazine Der
Spiegel, ElBaradei said "I do not believe that the Iranians are actually
producing nuclear weapons. . . .[I]n general, the danger of a
nuclear-armed Iran is overestimated; some even play it up intentionally.[36]
References
33. ^ "Transcript of Interview with IAEA Director General Mohamed
ElBaradei" . CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. 28 October 2007.
Retrieved 2008-06-21.
34.^ Realpolitik for Iran
35.^ "Israel seen undermining disarmament ElBaradei" . Reuters.
2009-02-16. Retrieved 2011-03-22.
36.^ Der Spiegel: Interview with Mohamed ElBaradei, 12 July 2010 .
Accessed 15 July 2010.
This page was last modified on 1 November 2011 at 16:53.
(9) Turkish PM asks why Israel is allowed to have nukes
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:21:11 -0400 (EDT) From: IHR News <news@ihr.org>
http://www.presstv.com/detail/201329.html
'Why is Israel allowed to have nukes?'
Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:40PM
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the West practices
double standards in regard to Israel's nuclear arsenal.
In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Erdogan noted that Israel is the
only player in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons and asked, "Why
is it that countries banning Iran from having nuclear weapons don't also
ban Israel from having nuclear weapons?”
Turkey downgraded ties with Israel after Tel Aviv refused to apologize
for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which left nine Turkish
citizens dead on May 31, 2010.
Earlier in September, the Turkish Economy Minister said Ankara would
continue its "normal” economic ties with Tel Aviv. From January 2011 to
July 2011, trade between Turkey and Israel reached $2.3 billion.
Erdogan also commented on Turkey's decision to host one component of a
missile shield system, calling it a "NATO concept.”
He advised against "different interpretations” of Turkey's decision and
urged everyone to look at "what is actually the reality” in the issue.
But Turkey's move was still censured in some circles, with Iran
describing it as "a cause for concern” and "questionable.” Russia
criticized Turkey for collaborating with NATO.
Turkey could earn as much as $4 billion from the missile shield system.
It has been reported that a Turkish defense company is holding
negotiations on a $2 billion contract in connection with the project.
HMV/HGH/HGL
(10) US departure from Iraq is an illusion: 17,000 personnel will be
under jurisdiction of US ambassador
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/25/us-departure-iraq-illusion
The US departure from Iraq is an illusion
39,000 soldiers will leave Iraq this year, but US military control will
continue in such guises as security and training
James Denselow guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 October 2011 16.00 BST
Barack Obama has announced that US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by
the end of this year. Photograph: Khalid Mohammed/AP Barack Obama has
made good on one of his election promises, announcing: "After nearly
nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over." The Iraqis' assertion
of their sovereignty – meaning no legal immunity for US troops – was the
deal-breaker, and 39,000 US soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of the year.
Jonathan Steele wrote that the Iraq war was over and the US had learned
"that putting western boots on the ground in a foreign war, particularly
in a Muslim country, is madness". Yet this madness may continue in a
different guise, as there is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality
surrounding the US departure from Iraq. In fact, there are a number of
avenues by which the US will be able to exert military influence in the
country.
These can be divided into four main categories:
Embassy, consulates and private security contractors
The US embassy – the largest and most expensive in the world – is in a
green zone of its own in Baghdad, supplied by armed convoys and
generating its own water and electricity, and treating its own sewage.
At 104 acres, the embassy is almost the same size as Vatican City. It is
here that the US is transforming its military-led approach into one of
muscular diplomacy.
State department figures show that some 17,000 personnel will be under
the jurisdiction of the US ambassador. In addition, there are also
consulates in Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, which have been allocated more
than 1,000 staff each. Crucially, all these US staff, including military
and security contractors, will have diplomatic immunity. Essentially,
the Obama administration is reaping the political capital of withdrawing
US troops while hedging the impact of the withdrawal with an increase in
private security contractors working for a diplomatic mission unlike any
other on the planet.
This "surge" of contractors has even raised the possibility of
controversial firm Blackwater, now known as Xe, returning to the
country. The firm was responsible for the deaths of 17 Iraqis in 2007 in
the infamous Nisour Square massacre, yet president and chief executive
Ted Wright told the Wall Street Journal recently that he would like to
do business in Iraq again.
In 2008, much was made in of the fact that as part of the Status of
Forces Agreement (Sofa) between the US and Iraq, contractors would lose
their immunity. However, as a congressional research report noted: "The
term defined in the agreement, 'US contractors and their employees',
only applies to contractors that are operating under a
contract/subcontract with or for the United States forces. Therefore, US
contractors operating in Iraq under contract to other US
departments/agencies are not subject to the terms of the Sofa."
Congressman Jason Chaffetz questioned the replacement of military forces
with contractors, asking: "Are we just playing a little bit of a shell
game here?" There is some irony in the fact that a decision by the Iraqi
government to deny US soldiers immunity will result in an increase in
the numbers of much hated and unaccountable security contractors.
Military trainers included as part of arms deals
There are an estimated 400 arms deals between Baghdad and Washington,
worth $10bn, with an additional 110 deals, worth $900m, reportedly
pending. Many of these, as part of the deal, require US trainers, who
would be working through the Office of Security Co-operation in the
embassy. Bloomberg news reported that this "newly established office
will have a core staff of 160 civilians and uniformed military alongside
750 civilian contractors overseeing Pentagon assistance programmes,
including military training. They will be guarded, fed and housed by
3,500 additional contract personnel", working in 10 offices around the
country .
In September, Iraq made the first payments in a £1.9bn deal to buy 18
F-16s. The agreements mean that despite the claim that Iraq took full
responsibility for its airspace in October, effective aerial sovereignty
will be in the hands of the Americans for years to come as they help to
patrol the country's skies and control its airspace, and train its air
force. A senior Iraqi politician explained to me last week: "We are
absolutely incapable of defending our borders. We don't even have one
fighter jet to defend our airspace."
US moving under the Nato umbrella
Nato has a training mission in Iraq that will stay through 2013. The
alliance is providing expertise in logistics and policing and Iraqi
lawmakers are currently discussing an extension of the Nato mission that
could see US military trainers move under the jurisdiction of an
agreement originally made in 2004.
Drones and targeted assassinations
With the US in de facto control of Iraq's airspace, Obama is likely to
increase his reliance on drones and targeted killings as a means of
attacking al-Qaida targets. As the US is still at war with al-Qaida, it
can find justification in self-defence and article 51 of the UN charter.
With continued concern over a potential conflict with Iran, it is
perhaps unsurprising that the US is unwilling to surrender the ability
to influence events on the ground in Iraq. Hillary Clinton told
reporters on Sunday: "No one, most particularly Iran, should
miscalculate about our continuing commitment to and with the Iraqis
going forward."
In his speech on Friday, Obama said the US sought "a normal relationship
between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual
interests and mutual respect". Whatever shape the relationship between
the US and Iraq takes in the long term, for the short term the US is
definitely remaining in the country.
(11) Three Jewish software heads (Brin, Ballmer, Ellison) develop a New
and Frightening Stuxnet
http://www.isssource.com/a-new-and-frightening-stuxnet/
A New and Frightening Stuxnet
By Richard Sale
Industrial Safety and Security Source (ISSSource)
Tuesday, October 18, 2011 @ 11:10 AM
Facing mounting concern about Iran’s nuclear program, a top U.S. and
Israeli technical team has developed a computer "malworm” designed to
take down all of Iran’s computer software.
ISSSource has learned leaders of the three major software companies,
Sergey Brin at Google, Steve Ballmer at Microsoft and Larry Ellison at
Oracle have been working with Israel’s top cyber warriors and have now
come up with new version of a Stuxnet-like worm that can bring down
Iran’s entire software networks if the Iranian regime gets too close to
a breakout, according to U.S. intelligence sources. Google, Microsoft
and Oracle had no comment on the issue.
{Comment (Peter Myers) - the three above-named IT heads are all Jewish}
"Cyber warfare is a lot like biological warfare. It’s hard to stop. It’s
uncontrollable. It can bite you in the ass,” said one U.S. official.
This new version of Stuxnet was, until recently, seen as a tool to
derail any notions of an Israel military surgical strike on Iran with
the United States in a supporting role. During his visit to Israel,
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta carried a U.S. message to Tel Aviv
that President Barack Obama would not support a military strike on Iran,
said a U.S. official, who spoke under the condition of anonymity.
Israeli plans for an attack had alarmed the National Security Council
and the Senate foreign policy committee when briefed on the Israeli
proposal.
"They were in shock afterwards,” the U.S. official said.
Since early June, U.S. intelligence experts have warned of an Israeli
attack on Iran before the UN meeting on the question of Palestinian
statehood. Those warnings came at the same time as when then Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates left office in June or when Joint Chiefs of
Staff head Adm. Mike Mullen was preparing for his September retirement.
Throughout the summer, U.S. officials have strenuously resisted the
urgings of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a preemptive
strike. Several senior U.S. intelligence officials confirmed large
contingency planning drills for an intervention if Israel attacked Iran.
Planning for such an intervention was seen as "pretty far advanced,” a
U.S. official said in August.
These officials reported they were resisting such notions with all the
force they can. But one cautioned, "This is no drill.”
Matters became more complicated when the FBI uncovered an Iranian
terrorist operation targeted in Washington, DC, that could have
supported long-time American hard liners as well as Israeli supporters
of some type of military attack on Iran.
Compounding that is the Saudi position informing President Obama the
Saudis strongly support a military campaign against Iran. Saudi
officials are now signaling the Israelis Saudi King Abd’allah is in
favor of a strike on Iran.
This new Stuxnet worm is being advanced by administration and
intelligence officials as a more powerful tool with more range and a
stronger capability than the previous version. Officials want this new
cyber capability to derail any military action that could result in a
regional war.
The Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear plants in Bushehr and Natanz in
2010 was the result of a joint effort between the United States and the
cyber warfare experts of Israel’s Mossad and the IDF Unit 8200. The
attack wrecked havoc on Iran’s nuclear program for 11 months, U.S.
officials confirmed.
These officials verified Israeli assertions that Iran never overcame the
disruptions caused by Stuxnet nor did it manage to restore its
centrifuges to smooth and normal operation as was claimed.
U.S. intelligence sources current and former, said Iran finally was
forced to scrap tainted machines and replace them with new ones.
Iran provided confirmation of this July 19 when a senior Iranian
official said improved and faster centrifuge models were being installed.
Sources differ on the number of centrifuges replaced. One former U.S.
intelligence official said at least 1,000 machines had been replaced.
Israeli intelligence sources put the number as high as 5,000. U.S.
sources believe the actual estimate to be lower.
"Iran has an illegal procurement system for the machines and it makes
the system vulnerable to attack,” said one former U.S. intelligence
official with knowledge of the matter. The reason it is vulnerable to
attack is because the CIA has penetrated Iran’s dummy procurement
companies in order to plant design and other flaws that will cause the
system to malfunction if Iran tries to use it. As a former CIA official
said, "When Tehran throws a switch, nothing will happen.”
In spite of U.S. intelligence operations to hamper or thwart any
progress on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel continues to claim in recent
months Iran has taken advantage of the West’s fixation with the Arab
Spring to forge ahead unnoticed with its weapons program.
U.S. officials dismissed this claim by the Israelis, pointing out it was
hard to argue on one hand that a "malworm” had severely damaged Iran’s
system to the point where it has having to replace its machines and then
on the other hand boast of ongoing secret progress. "That nonsense is
for Israeli hawks like Netanyau,” one source said.
"Anyone who argues about secret progress in Iran’s program had better
come up with hard evidence of it. We do not possess such evidence,” a
former senior intelligence official said.
Richard Sale was United Press International’s Intelligence Correspondent
for 10 years and more recently has been intelligence correspondent for
the Middle East Times, a publication of UPI.
(12) Stuxnet: Screens deceptively said all was ok (By Way of Deception -
Mossad motto)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Computer_expert_says_US_behind_Stuxnet_worm_999.html
Computer expert says US behind Stuxnet worm
by Staff Writers
Long Beach, California (AFP) March 3, 2011
A German computer security expert said Thursday he believes the United
States and Israel's Mossad unleashed the malicious Stuxnet worm on
Iran's nuclear program.
"My opinion is that the Mossad is involved," Ralph Langner said while
discussing his in-depth Stuxnet analysis at a prestigious TED conference
in the Southern California city of Long Beach.
"But, the leading source is not Israel... There is only one leading
source, and that is the United States."
There has been widespread speculation Israel was behind the Stuxnet worm
that has attacked computers in Iran, and Tehran has blamed the Jewish
state and the United States for the killing of two nuclear scientists in
November and January.
"The idea behind Stuxnet computer worm is really quite simple," Langner
said. "We don't want Iran to get the bomb."
The malicious code was crafted to stealthily take control of valves and
rotors at an Iranian nuclear plant, according to Langner.
"It was engineered by people who obviously had inside information," he
explained. "They probably also knew the shoe size of the operator."
Stuxnet targets computer control systems made by German industrial giant
Siemens and commonly used to manage water supplies, oil rigs, power
plants and other critical infrastructure.
"The idea here is to circumvent digital data systems, so the human
operator could not get there fast enough," Langner said.
"When digital safety systems are compromised, really bad things can
happen -- your plant can blow up.
Most Stuxnet infections have been discovered in Iran, giving rise to
speculation it was intended to sabotage nuclear facilities there. The
worm was crafted to recognize the system it was to attack.
The New York Times reported in January that US and Israeli intelligence
services collaborated to develop the computer worm to sabotage Iran's
efforts to make a nuclear bomb.
Russia called on NATO in January to launch an investigation into the
computer worm that targeted a Russian-built Iranian nuclear power plant,
saying the incident could have triggered a new Chernobyl.
Russia's envoy to NATO in January said Stuxnet caused centrifuges
producing enriched uranium at the Bushehr plant to spin out of control,
which could have sparked a new "Chernobyl tragedy," the 1986 nuclear
meltdown in Ukraine.
"The operators saw on their screens that the centrifuges were working
normally when in fact they were out of control," Dmitry Rogozin told
reporters after meeting with ambassadors from the 28-nation Western
alliance.
Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power plant in the southern city
of Bushehr for civilian use.
Langner said the Stuxnet code was designed to trick human operators by
showing them recorded readings indicating machinery is running normally
while behind the scenes they are heading for destruction.
"It's definitely hard-core sabotage," Langner said of Stuxnet. "It's
like in the movies where during a heist the security camera is running
pre-recorded video showing nothing is wrong."
Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency has denied that
the Stuxnet attack effected the country's nuclear program, including
Bushehr.
A terrifying aspect of Stuxnet, according to Langner, is that it is a
generic attack that would work well in factories, power plants, or other
operations plentiful in the United States.
"It's a cyber weapon of mass destruction," Langner said. "We'd better
start preparing right now."
(13) Aeroplanes could be taken over by remote control and forced to
crash - it could be a whole fleet
{shades of 9/11 - Peter Myers}
http://www.news.com.au/technology/remote-control-computer-programs-pose-terror-risks-to-aeroplanes/story-e6frfrnr-1226033003093
'Remote control' computer programs pose terror risks to aeroplanes
By Alex Dickinson The Courier-Mail April 04, 2011 12:01am
AEROPLANES could be taken over by remote control and forced to crash
with the use of newly invented computer software.
Cyber attacks are now viewed by experts as the second-biggest risk to
aviation behind natural disasters.
Representatives from Qantas and Virgin Airlines were warned of the
threat at the Asia-Pacific Aviation Security Conference in Hong Kong.
Australian cyber-security expert Ty Miller, from Pure Hacking, told the
conference whole fleets of planes could be affected.
"The stereotypical Die Hard 2 airport attack, where aircraft controls
can be taken over, is no longer just a movie script. It's an actual
reality,'' Mr Miller said.
"Depending on what information was accessed . . . the control of the
aircraft themselves could be compromised.
"You could deal with planes so that when they're in the air they all of
a sudden start dumping all of their fuel, or force the planes to take a
nose-dive. And it's not necessarily one plane it could be a whole fleet
of planes.''
Mr Miller's firm engages in "ethical hacking'', which involves testing
the security of a network by trying to crack its systems.
Posing as a rogue employee with general access to an airline's systems,
Mr Miller was recently able to take over the airline's entire network
within a day.
"That would give us full administrator access to the whole computer
system and access to potentially sensitive documents and data,'' he said.
He cited the Stuxnet worm incident, where an unknown attacker last year
used the software to sabotage one of Iran's uranium enrichment plants.
The Stuxnet attack overwhelmed the nuclear facility's internal network,
causing it to go offline.
"The analysis of the Stuxnet attack (on Iran) showed that it would have
required a team of five or ten people working for at least six months,''
Mr Miller said.
"It would have been extremely well funded, and the culprits would have
had access to intelligence to conduct several multi-staged attacks on a
number of different companies to perform industrial espionage.
"To compromise the avionics of an aircraft, hackers would have to have
the same level of information and potentially need to hack into Boeing,
the specific airline and the airport systems.''
A rogue employee was in fact more of a threat than terrorists, Mr Miller
said.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
168 How Libya was 'framed'.
This blog: http://tiny.cc/04obl or http://tinyurl.com/6hq7efa
Earlier I wrote these articles about Lybia:
133 Waarom Libië? Waarom Ghadaffi?
157 Ghadaffi short link: http://tiny.cc/4bjluw
158 Ten mistakes about Libya.
167 The end of a country.
170 Ghadaffi cooperated with jewish bankers and with Israel, says Duff.
171 Was Nato involvement in Libya justified?
171a The oil money. 171b: No bombing , no rape,...
245: How Ghadaffi became the iconic 'Terrorist', and how false this was.
These are 4 articles about Libya.
From Global Research, october 2011.
Author: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Part 1/4
Summary: A certain Morris B. Abram founded an organisation that watches critical at the UN: UN Watch. UN Watch is affiliated to the AJC.
In 1993 a Human Rights organisation was founded in Lybia: the LLHR.
This LLHR sent a letter to The World claiming that Ghadaffi was committing terrible atrocities, and killing 6000 civilians.
This claim was the only reason for the Nato mandate to have a no fly zone. Nato planes later have made 10.000 bombing missions, which they did illegally.
There have never been any proofs ( not on 21 february, and not ever sice) that the claims of the LLHR were true. No video's were ever shown to the world.
Earlier I wrote these articles about Lybia:
133 Waarom Libië? Waarom Ghadaffi?
157 Ghadaffi short link: http://tiny.cc/4bjluw
158 Ten mistakes about Libya.
167 The end of a country.
170 Ghadaffi cooperated with jewish bankers and with Israel, says Duff.
171 Was Nato involvement in Libya justified?
171a The oil money. 171b: No bombing , no rape,...
245: How Ghadaffi became the iconic 'Terrorist', and how false this was.
These are 4 articles about Libya.
From Global Research, october 2011.
Author: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Part 1/4
Summary: A certain Morris B. Abram founded an organisation that watches critical at the UN: UN Watch. UN Watch is affiliated to the AJC.
In 1993 a Human Rights organisation was founded in Lybia: the LLHR.
This LLHR sent a letter to The World claiming that Ghadaffi was committing terrible atrocities, and killing 6000 civilians.
This claim was the only reason for the Nato mandate to have a no fly zone. Nato planes later have made 10.000 bombing missions, which they did illegally.
There have never been any proofs ( not on 21 february, and not ever sice) that the claims of the LLHR were true. No video's were ever shown to the world.
Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
The war against Libya is built on fraud. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions against Libya on the basis of unproven claims, specifically that Colonel Muammar Qaddafi was killing his own people in Benghazi and Libya. The claim in its exact form was that Qaddafi had ordered Libyan forces to kill 6,000 people in Benghazi as well as in other parts of the country. These claims were widely disseminated, but always vaguely explained. It was on the basis of this claim that Libya was referred to the U.N. Security Council at U.N. Headquarters in New York City and kicked out of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva.
False claims about African mercenary armies in Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also used in a broad media campaign against Libya. These two claims have been sidelined and have become more and more murky. The massacre claims, however, were used in a legal, diplomatic, and military framework to justify NATO’s war on Libya.
Using Human Rights as a Pretext for War: The LLHR and its Unproven Claims
One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton., and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25 members of this coalition actually assert that they are human rights groups.
The letter is as follows:
False claims about African mercenary armies in Libya and about jet attacks on civilians were also used in a broad media campaign against Libya. These two claims have been sidelined and have become more and more murky. The massacre claims, however, were used in a legal, diplomatic, and military framework to justify NATO’s war on Libya.
Using Human Rights as a Pretext for War: The LLHR and its Unproven Claims
One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton., and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Only 25 members of this coalition actually assert that they are human rights groups.
The letter is as follows:
We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue.
As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.
Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted.
There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.”
Accordingly, the government of Libya is committing gross and systematic violations of the right to life as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are being massacred by the government.
Moreover, the government of Libya is committing crimes against humanity, as defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Libyan government’s mass killing of innocent civilians amount to particularly odious offences which constitute a serious attack on human dignity. As confirmed by numerous oral and video testimonies gathered by human rights organizations and news agencies, the Libyan government’s assault on its civilian population are not isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these actions constitute a widespread and systematic policy and practice of atrocities, intentionally committed, including murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts which reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.
Responsibility to Protect
Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, you have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect the Libyan population. Because the Libyan national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from crimes against humanity, should peaceful means be inadequate, member states are obliged to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII.
In addition, we urge you to convene an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, whose members have a duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to address situations of gross and systematic violations of violations of human rights. The session should:
-Call for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which applies to member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.
-Strongly condemn, and demand an immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its own citizens.
-Dispatch immediately an international mission of independent experts to collect relevant facts and document violations of international human rights law and crimes against humanity, in order to end the impunity of the Libyan government. The mission should include an independent medical investigation into the deaths, and an investigation of the unlawful interference by the Libyan government with the access to and treatment of wounded.
-Call on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Council’s relevant Special Procedures to closely monitor the situation and take action as needed.
-Call on the Council to remain seized of the matter and address the Libyan situation at its upcoming 16th regular session in March.
Member states and high officials of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect the people of Libya from what are preventable crimes. We urge you to use all available measures and levers to end atrocities throughout the country.
We urge you to send a clear message that, collectively, the international community, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council will not be bystanders to these mass atrocities. The credibility of the United Nations — and many innocent lives — are at stake.[1]
As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons.
Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted.
There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.”
Accordingly, the government of Libya is committing gross and systematic violations of the right to life as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are being massacred by the government.
Moreover, the government of Libya is committing crimes against humanity, as defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Libyan government’s mass killing of innocent civilians amount to particularly odious offences which constitute a serious attack on human dignity. As confirmed by numerous oral and video testimonies gathered by human rights organizations and news agencies, the Libyan government’s assault on its civilian population are not isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these actions constitute a widespread and systematic policy and practice of atrocities, intentionally committed, including murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts which reach the threshold of crimes against humanity.
Responsibility to Protect
Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, you have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect the Libyan population. Because the Libyan national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from crimes against humanity, should peaceful means be inadequate, member states are obliged to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII.
In addition, we urge you to convene an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, whose members have a duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to address situations of gross and systematic violations of violations of human rights. The session should:
-Call for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which applies to member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights.
-Strongly condemn, and demand an immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its own citizens.
-Dispatch immediately an international mission of independent experts to collect relevant facts and document violations of international human rights law and crimes against humanity, in order to end the impunity of the Libyan government. The mission should include an independent medical investigation into the deaths, and an investigation of the unlawful interference by the Libyan government with the access to and treatment of wounded.
-Call on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Council’s relevant Special Procedures to closely monitor the situation and take action as needed.
-Call on the Council to remain seized of the matter and address the Libyan situation at its upcoming 16th regular session in March.
Member states and high officials of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect the people of Libya from what are preventable crimes. We urge you to use all available measures and levers to end atrocities throughout the country.
We urge you to send a clear message that, collectively, the international community, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council will not be bystanders to these mass atrocities. The credibility of the United Nations — and many innocent lives — are at stake.[1]
According to Physicians for Human Rights: “[This letter was] prepared under the guidance of Mohamed Eljahmi, the noted Libyan human rights defender and brother of dissident Fathi Eljahmi, asserts that the widespread atrocities committed by Libya against its own people amount to war crimes, requiring member states to take action through the Security Council under the responsibility to protect doctrine.” [2]
The letters signatories included Francis Fukuyama, United Nations Watch (which looks out for Israel’s interests and according to Israeli sources organized the entire session against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, the Cuban Democratic Directorate, and a set of organizations at odds with the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya. Some of these organizations are viewed with hostility as organizations created to wage demonization campaigns against countries at odds with the U.S., Israel, and the European Union. Refer to the annex for the full list of signatories for consultation.
LLHR is tied to the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which is based in France and has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). FIDH is active in many places in Africa and in activities involving the National Endowment for Democracy in the African continent. Both the FIDH and LLHR also released a joint communiqué on February 21, 2011. In the communiqué both organizations asked for the international community to “mobilize” and mention the International Criminal Court while also making a contradictory claiming that over 400 to 600 people had died since February 15, 2011. [3] This of course was about 5,500 short of the claim that 6,000 people were massacred in Benghazi. The joint letter also promoted the false view that 80% of Qaddafi’s support came from foreign mercenaries, which is something that over half a year of fighting proves as untrue.
According to the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the claims about the massacres in Benghazi could not be validated by the LLHR when he was challenged for proof. When asked how a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva, Dr. Buchuiguir has answered that a network of close relationships was the basis. This is a mockery.
Speculation is neither evidence nor grounds for starting a war with a bombing campaign that has lasted about half a year and taken many innocent civilian lives, including children and the elderly. What is important to note here is that the U.N. Security Council decided to sanction the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the basis of this letter and the claims of the LLHR. Not once did the U.N. Security Council and the member states pushing for war once bother to even investigate the allegations. In one session in New York City, the Indian Ambassador to the U.N. actually pointed this out when his country abstained from voting. Thus, a so-called “humanitarian war” was launched without any evidence.
The letters signatories included Francis Fukuyama, United Nations Watch (which looks out for Israel’s interests and according to Israeli sources organized the entire session against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, the Cuban Democratic Directorate, and a set of organizations at odds with the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Sudan, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya. Some of these organizations are viewed with hostility as organizations created to wage demonization campaigns against countries at odds with the U.S., Israel, and the European Union. Refer to the annex for the full list of signatories for consultation.
LLHR is tied to the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), which is based in France and has ties to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). FIDH is active in many places in Africa and in activities involving the National Endowment for Democracy in the African continent. Both the FIDH and LLHR also released a joint communiqué on February 21, 2011. In the communiqué both organizations asked for the international community to “mobilize” and mention the International Criminal Court while also making a contradictory claiming that over 400 to 600 people had died since February 15, 2011. [3] This of course was about 5,500 short of the claim that 6,000 people were massacred in Benghazi. The joint letter also promoted the false view that 80% of Qaddafi’s support came from foreign mercenaries, which is something that over half a year of fighting proves as untrue.
According to the General-Secretary of the LLHR, Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, the claims about the massacres in Benghazi could not be validated by the LLHR when he was challenged for proof. When asked how a group of 70 non-governmental organizations in Geneva could support the LLHR’s claims on Geneva, Dr. Buchuiguir has answered that a network of close relationships was the basis. This is a mockery.
Speculation is neither evidence nor grounds for starting a war with a bombing campaign that has lasted about half a year and taken many innocent civilian lives, including children and the elderly. What is important to note here is that the U.N. Security Council decided to sanction the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the basis of this letter and the claims of the LLHR. Not once did the U.N. Security Council and the member states pushing for war once bother to even investigate the allegations. In one session in New York City, the Indian Ambassador to the U.N. actually pointed this out when his country abstained from voting. Thus, a so-called “humanitarian war” was launched without any evidence.
Global Research Editor’s Note: U.N. Watch which actively promoted the LLHR statement has informal ties to the U.S. State Department. It was established during the Clinton Administration in 1993 under the Chairmanship of Morris B. Abram, a former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva. U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), a powerful pro-Israeli political lobby organization based in New York City.
The Secret Relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council
The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were coordinated with the formation of the Transitional Council. This becomes clear when the close and cagey relationship of the LLHR and the Transitional Council becomes apparent. Logically, the Obama Administration and NATO had to also be a part of this.
Whatever the Transitional Council is and whatever the intent of some of its supporters, it is clear that it is being used as a tool by the U.S. and others. Moreover, five members of the LLHR were or would become members of the Transitional Council almost immediately after the claims against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya were disseminated. According to Bouchuguir individuals with ties to the LLHR or who hold membership include Mahmoud Jibril and Ali Tarhouni.
Dr. Mahmoud Jibril is a Libyan regime figure brought into Libyan government circles by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. He would undemocratically be given the position of Transitional Council prime minister. His involvement with the LLHR raises some real questions about the organization.
The economist Ali Tarhouni on the other hand would become the minister for oil and finance for the Transitional Council. Tarhouni is Washington’s man in Libya. He was groomed in the United States and was present at all the major meetings about plans for regime change in Libya. As Minister of Oil and Finance the first acts he did were privatize and virtually handover Libya’s energy resources and economy to the foreign corporations and governments of the NATO-led coalition against Libya.
The General-Secretary of the LLHR, Sliman Bouchuiguir, has even privately admitted that many influential members of the Transitional Council are his friends. A real question of interests arises. Yet, the secret relationship between the LLHR and the Transitional Council is far more than a question of conflict of interest. It is a question of justice and manipulation.
Who is Sliman Bouchuiguir?
Sliman Bouchuguir is an unheard of figure for most, but he has authored a doctoral thesis that has been widely quoted and used in strategic circles in the United States. This thesis was published in 1979 as a book, The Use of Oil as a Political Weapon: A Case Study of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. The thesis is about the use of oil as an economic weapon by Arabs, but can easily be applied to the Russians, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and others. It examines economic development and economic warfare and can also be applied to vast regions, including all of Africa.
Bouchuguir’s analytical thesis reflects an important line of thinking in Washington, as well as London and Tel Aviv. It is both the embodiment of a pre-existing mentality, which includes U.S. National Security Advisor George F. Kennan’s arguments for maintaining a position of disparity through a constant multi-faced war between the U.S. and its allies on one hand and the rest of the world on the other hand. The thesis can be drawn on for preventing the Arabs, or others, from becoming economic powers or threats. In strategic terms, rival economies are pinned as threats and as “weapons.” This has serious connotations.
Moreover, Bouchuiguir did his thesis at George Washington University under Bernard Reich. Reich is a political scientist and professor of international relations. He has worked and held positions at places like the U.S. Defense Intelligence College, the United States Air Force Special Operations School, the Marine Corps War College, and the Shiloah Center at Tel Aviv University. He has consulted on the Middle East for the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department and received grants such as the Defense Academic Research Support Program Research Grant and the German Marshal Fund Grant. Reich also was or is presently on the editorial boards of journals such as Israel Affairs (1994-present), Terrorism: An International Journal (1987-1994), and The New Middle East (1971-1973).
It is also clear that Reich is tied to Israeli interests. He has even written a book about the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. He has also been an advocate for a “New Middle East” which would be favourable to Israel. This includes careful consideration over North Africa. His work has also focused on the important strategic interface between the Soviet Union and the Middle East and also on Israeli policy in the continent of Africa.
It is clear why Bouchuiguir had his thesis supervised under Reich. On October 23, 1973, Reich gave a testimony at the U.S. Congress. The testimony has been named “The Impact of the October Middle East War” and is clearly tied to the 1973 oil embargo and Washington’s aim of pre-empting or managing any similar events in the future. It has to be asked, how much did Reich influence Bouchuiguir and if Bouchuiguir espouses the same strategic views as Reich?
The “New North Africa” and a “New Africa” – More than just a “New Middle East”
A “New Africa” is in the works, which will have its borders further drawn out in blood like in the past. The Obama Administration and its allies have opened the gateway for a new invasion of Africa. United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) opened the salvos of the war through Operation Odyssey Damn, before the war on Libya was transferred to NATO’s Operation Unified Protector.
The U.S. has used NATO to continue the occupation of post-Second World War Europe. It will now use AFRICOM to occupy Africa and create an African NATO. It is clear the U.S. wants an expanded military presence in Libya and Africa under the disguise of humanitarian aid missions and fighting terrorism – the same terrorism that it is fanning in Libya and Africa.
The way is being paved for intervention in Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism. General Carter Ham has stated: “If we were to launch a humanitarian operation, how do we do so effectively with air traffic control, airfield management, [and] those kind of activities?” [4] General Ham’s question is actually a sales pitch for fashioning African military partnerships and integration, as well as new bases that could include the use of more military drones against Libya and other African countries. The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) have both made it clear that the Pentagon is actively trying to establish more drone bases in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula to expand its wars. [5] In this context, the AFRICOM Commander says that there are ties between the Al-Shabaab in Somalia, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa, and the Boko Harem in Nigeria. [6]
The War in Libya is a Fraud
General Ham has said: “I remain confident that had the U.N. not made the decision, had the U.S. not taken the lead with great support, I’m absolutely convinced there are many, many people in Benghazi alive today who would not be [alive].” [7] This is not true and a far stretch from reality. The war has cost more lives than it could have ever saved. It has ruined a country and opened the door into Africa for a neo-colonial project.
The claims of the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) were never supported or verified. The credibility of the United Nations must be questioned as well as the credibility of many humanitarian and human rights organizations that have virtually pushed for a war. At best the U.N. Security Council is an irresponsible body, but it has clearly acted outside of due legal process. This pattern now appears to be repeating itself against the Syrian Arab Republic as unverified claims are being made by individuals and organizations supported by foreign powers that care nothing for authentic democratic reforms or liberty.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California.
NOTES
[1] United Nations Watch et al., “Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in Libya: Sent by 70 NGOs to the US, EU, and UN,” February 21, 2011:
<http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=9135143>
[2] Physicians for Human Rights, “PHR and Human Rights Groups Call for Immediate Action in Libya,” February 22, 2011:
<http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/press/press-releases/news-2011-02-22-libya.html>
[3] The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR), “Massacres in Libya: The international community must urgently,” respond, February 21, 2011:
<http://www.fidh.org/IMG/article_PDF/article_a9183.pdf>
[4] Jim Garamone, “Africa Command Learns from Libya Operations,” American Forces Press Service, September 15, 2011:
<http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=65344&reason=1>
[5] Gregory Miller and Craig Whitlock, “U.S. U.S. assembling secret drone bases in Africa, Arabian Peninsula, officials say,” The Washington Post, September 20, 2011; Julian E. Barnes, “U.S. Expands Drone Flights to Take Aim at East Africa,” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), September 21, 2011.
[6] Garamone, “Africa Command Learns,” Op. cit.
[7] Ibid.
ANNEX: SIGNATORIES OF THE URGENT LETTER FOR ACTION ON LIBYA
February 12, 2011 – Geneva, Switzerland
1. Hillel C. Neuer, United Nations Watch, Switzerland
2. Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, Libyan League for Human Rights, Switzerland
3. Mary Kay Stratis, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc., USA
4. Carl Gershman, President, The National Endowment for Democracy, USA
5. Yang Jianli, Initiatives for China, USA - Former prisoner of conscience and survivor of Tiananmen Square massacre
6. Yang Kuanxing, YIbao - Chinese writer, original signatory to Charter 08, the manifesto calling for political reform in China
7. Matteo Mecacci, MP, Nonviolent Radical Party, Italy
8. Frank Donaghue, Physicians for Human Rights, USA
9. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Stop Child Executions, Canada
10. Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Gram Bharati Samiti, India
11. G. Jasper Cummeh, III, Actions for Genuine Democratic Alternatives, Liberia
12. Michel Monod, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Switzerland
13. Esohe Aghatise, Associazione Iroko Onlus, Italy
14. Harris O. Schoenberg, UN Reform Advocates, USA
15. Myrna Lachenal, World Federation for Mental Health, Switzerland
16. Nguyên Lê Nhân Quyên, Vietnamese League for Human Rights, Switzerland
17. Sylvia G. Iriondo, Mothers and Women against Repression (M.A.R. Por Cuba), USA
18. David Littman, World Union for Progressive Judaism, Switzerland
19. Barrister Festus Okoye, Human Rights Monitor, Nigeria
20. Theodor Rathgeber, Forum Human Rights, Germany
21. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Center, Juba – Southern Sudan
22. Carlos E Tinoco, Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia, A.C., Venezuela
23. Abdurashid Abdulle Abikar, Center for Youth and Democracy, Somalia
24. Dr. Vanee Meisinger, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women’s Association, Thailand
25. Simone Abel, René Cassin, United Kingdom
26. Dr. Francois Ullmann, Ingenieurs du Monde, Switzerland
27. Sr Catherine Waters, Catholic International Education Office, USA
28. Gibreil Hamid, Darfur Peace and Development Centre, Switzerland
29. Nino Sergi, INTERSOS – Humanitarian Aid Organization, Italy
30. Daniel Feng, Foundation for China in the 21st Century
31. Ann Buwalda, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign, USA
32. Leo Igwe, Nigerian Humanist Movement, Nigeria
33. Chandika Gautam, Nepal International Consumers Union, Nepal
34. Zohra Yusuf, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan
35. Sekou Doumbia, Femmes & Droits Humains, Mali
36. Cyrille Rolande Bechon, Nouveaux Droits de l'Homme, Cameroon
37. Zainab Al-Suwaij, American Islamic Congress, USA
38. Valnora Edwin, Campaign for Good Governance, Sierra Leone
39. Patrick Mpedzisi, African Democracy Forum, South Africa
40. Phil ya Nangoloh, NamRights, Namibia
41. Jaime Vintimilla, Centro Sobre Derecho y Sociedad (CIDES), Ecuador
42. Tilder Kumichii Ndichia, Gender Empowerment and Development, Cameroon
43. Amina Bouayach, Moroccan Organisation for Human Rights, Morocco
44. Abdullahi Mohamoud Nur, CEPID-Horn Africa, Somalia
45. Delly Mawazo Sesete, Resarch Center on Environment, Democracy & Human Rights, DR Congo
46. Joseph Rahall, Green Scenery, Sierra Leone
47. Arnold Djuma, Solidarité pour la Promotion Sociale et la Paix, Rwanda
48. Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor, Greece
49. Carlos E. Ponce, Latina American and Caribbean Network for Democracy, Venezuela
50. Fr. Paul Lansu, Pax Christi International, Belgium
51. Tharsika Pakeerathan, Swiss Council of Eelam Tamils, Switzerland
52. Ibrahima Niang, Commission des Droits Humains du Mouvement Citoyen, Senegal
53. Virginia Swain, Center for Global Community and World Law, USA
54. Dr Yael Danieli, International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, USA
55. Savita Gokhale, Loksadhana, India
56. Hasan Dheeree, Biland Awdal Organization, Somalia
57. Pacifique Nininahazwe, Forum pour le Renforcement de la Société Civile, Burundi
58. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Center, Southern Sudan
59. Michel Golubnichy, International Association of Peace Foundations, Russia
60. Edward Ladu Terso, Multi Media Training Center, Sudan
61. Hafiz Mohammed, Justice Africa Sudan, Sudan
62. Sammy Eppel, B'nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, Venezuela
63. Jack Jeffery, International Humanist and Ethical Union, United Kingdom
64. Duy Hoang, Viet Tan, Vietnam
65. Promotion de la Democratie et Protection des Droits Humains, DR Congo
66. Radwan A. Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy, USA
67. MarÃa José Zamora Solórzano, Movimiento por Nicaragua, Nicaragua
68. John Suarez, Cuban Democratic Directorate, USA
69. Mohamed Abdul Malek, Libya Watch, United Kingdom
70. Journalists Union of Russia, Russia
71. Sindi Medar-Gould, BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights, Nigeria
72. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Centre, Sudan
73. Sr. Anne Shaym, Presentation Sisters, Australia
74. Joseph Rahad, Green Scenery, Sierra Leone
75. Fahma Yusuf Essa, Women in Journalism Association, Somalia
76. Hayder Ibrahim Ali, Sudanese Studies Center, Sudan
77. Marcel Claude Kabongo, Good Governance and Human Rights NGO, DR Congo
78. Frank Weston, International Multiracial Shared Cultural Organization (IMSCO), USA
79. Fatima Alaoui, Maghrebin Forum for environment and development, Morocco
80. Ted Brooks, Committee for Peace and Development Advocacy, Liberia
81. Felly Fwamba, Cerveau Chrétien, DR Congo
82. Jane Rutledge, CIVICUS: World Alliance of Citizen Participation, South Africa
83. Ali AlAhmed, The Institute for Gulf Affairs, USA
84. Daniel Ozoukou, Martin Luther King Center for Peace and Social Justice, Cote d'Ivoire
85. Dan T. Saryee, Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI), Liberia
Individuals
Dr. Frene Ginwala, former Speaker of the South African National Assembly
Philosopher Francis Fukuyama
Mohamed Eljahmi, Libyan human rights activist
Glenn P. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc., father of Beth Ann Johnson, victim of Lockerbie bombing
Source: U.N. Watch (Refer to note 1)
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Part 2/4
America's Conquest of Africa: The Roles of France and Israel
Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and Julien Teil
Introduction: “Operation Gladio” Then and Now...
I will begin with the scandal of Operation Gladio that climaxed in the murder of former Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro, who on the day of his kidnapping, was to announce an Italian coalition government that would include the Italian Communist Party. Leader of the Christian Democratic Party at that time, Francesco Cossiga, admits in the 1992 BBC Timewatch documentary about Operation Gladio, that he chose to “sacrifice” Moro “for the good of the Republic.” Not unlike the targeted assassinations that the U.S. government engages in around the world, where someone extrajudicially makes decisions on who lives and who dies. In the three-part documentary, Cossiga states that the decision caused his hair to turn white. Operation Gladio is the ugly real-life tale of the U.S. government’s decision to hire members of the state security apparatus of various European countries, and in collaboration with recruited community allies, wreak terror on innocent citizens by blowing up train stations, shooting customers in grocery stores, and even killing police officers in order to convince populations in Europe to give up their rights in exchange for certain security measures and enhanced state power. Yes, Operation Gladio, along with Operation Northwoods and U.S. policy toward Libya, shows us that the United States is willing to create terror groups in order to justify a fight against terrorists! Sadly, this has become the modus operandi of our government in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Europe and Africa. And the U.S. government after 9/11/01 has become like a “Gladio laboratory” of state policies that rip the U.S. Bill of Rights to shreds and lie to the public. The beginning of the end of Operation Gladio occurred when the existence of the U.S. program was revealed. Characteristically, instead of stopping such insanity, the Europeans joined in creating multiple other “Operation Gladios.” Placed in this context, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya’s second installment in a four-part series reveals how U.S. policy in Libya falls right in line with U.S. actions in the past. In my opinion, Libya will not be the last location for such illegal activities unless we stop our government. Along with French videographer Julien Teil, Nazemroaya weaves the incredible-but-true scenario of U.S. finance of alleged terrorists, wanted by Interpol, who became the chief protagonists in the NATO genocide currently unfolding in Libya. Cynthia McKinney, 1 October 2011. Cynthia McKinney is a former U.S. Congresswoman who served in two different Georgia federal dictricts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. She was also the U.S. Green Party presidential candidate in 2008. While in the U.S. Congress she served in the U.S. Banking and Finance Committee, the U.S. National Security Committee (later renamed the U.S. Armed Services Committee), and the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee (later renamed the U.S. International Relations Committee). She also served in the U.S. International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. McKinney has conducted two fact-finding missions in Libya and also recently finished a nationwide speaking tour in the United States sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition about the NATO bombing campaign in Libya.
Order from Chaos?
A repeat of the disorder and pandemonium generated inside Afghanistan is in the works for the continent of Africa.
The United States, with the help of Britain, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, created the brutal Taliban and then eventually waged war on its Taliban allies. Similarly, across Africa, the United States and its allies are creating a new series of future enemies to fight, but after initially working with them or using them to sow the seeds of chaos in Africa. Washington has literally been helping fund insurgencies and regime change projects in Africa. “Human rights” and “democratization” are also being used as a smokescreen for colonialism and war. So-called human rights and humanitarian organizations are now partners in this imperialist project directed against Africa. France and Israel: Is Washington Outsourcing its Dirty Work in Africa? Africa is just one international front for an expanding system of empire. The mechanisms of a real global system of empire are at work in this regard. Washington is acting through NATO and its allies in Africa. Each one of Washington’s allies and satellites has a specific role to play in this global system of empire. Tel Aviv has played a very active role on the African continent. Israel was a major supporter of South Africa under the apartheid regime. Tel Aviv also helped smuggle arms into Sudan and East Africa to balkanize that sizeable African nation while contributing to the destabilization of East Africa. The Israelis have been very active in Kenya and Uganda. Israel has been present wherever there were conflicts, including those pertaining to blood diamonds. Israel is now working with Washington to establish total hegemony over the African continent. Tel Aviv is actively involved -- through its business ties and intelligence operations -- in securing the contacts and agreements required by Washington for the extension of its interests in Africa. One of Washington’s major objectives is to disrupt the development of Chinese influence in Africa. Israel and Israeli think-tanks have also played a major role in shaping the U.S. geo-stratagem in Africa. France, as a former colonial master and a declining power, on the other hand, has traditionally been a rival and competitor of Washington on the African continent. With the rise of the influence of non-traditional powers in Africa, such as the People’s Republic of China, both Washington and Paris envisaged ways of cooperating. On the broader global stage this is also evident. Both the U.S. and several of the major powers in the European Union consider China and other emerging global powers as a threat. They have decided to end their rivalries and work together. Thus, a consensus between Washington and the E.U. unfolded, leading to some forms of political integration. This consensus may have also been manufactured by growing U.S. influence in E.U. capitals. Whatever the case, it has been boosted since the beginning of Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency in 2007. President Sarkozy also wasted no time in pushing for the reintegration of the French military command structure within NATO. The consequence of this action has led to the surbodination of the French military to the Pentagon. In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle pulled French forces out of NATO and removed France from the military command structures of NATO as a means of maintaining French independence. Nicolas Sarkozy has reversed all of this. In 2009, Sarkozy ordered that France rejoin the integrated military command structure of NATO. In 2010, he also signed an accord to start amalgamating the British and French militaries. On the African continent, Paris has a special place or niche in the U.S. system of global empire. This role is that of a regional gendarme in North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, and all the countries that were former French colonies. France’s special role, in other words, is due to its history and the existing, albeit declining, position of France in Africa, specifically through the “Françafrique.” The Union of the Mediterranean, which Sarkozy officially launched, is one example of these French interests in North Africa. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has also been working through France’s International Federation of Human Rights (Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme, FIDH). The FIDH is well established in Africa. The NED has essentially outsourced its work to manipulate and control African governments, movements, societies, and states to the FIDH. It was the FIDH and the affiliated Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) that helped orchestrate the various pretexts for the NATO war against Libya, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through unsubstantiated and false claims. The National Endowment for Democracy and its Partnersip with the International Federation of Human Rights in Africa Following the 2007 election of Nicolas Sarkozy as the leader of the French Republic, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) started to develop a real partnership with the National Endowment for Democracy. Both organizations are also partners within the World Movement for Democracy. Carl Gershman, the president of the NED, even went to France in December 2009 to meet with the FIDH to deepen collaboration between the two organizations and to discuss Africa. [1] He also met individuals who are are considered as pro-Israeli lobbyists in France. The partnerships between the FIDH and the NED are mostly based in Africa and the intersecting Arab World. These partnerships operate in a zone that covers countries like Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Niger, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. North Africa, which includes Libya and Algeria, has been a specific area of focus for the FIDH, where Washington, Paris, and NATO clearly have major ambitions. The FIDH, which is directly implicated in launching the war on Libya, has also received direct funding, in the form of grants, from the National Endowment for Democracy for its programs in Africa. In 2010, a NED grant of $140,186 (U.S.) was one of the latest amounts given to the FIDH for its work in Africa. [2] The NED was also one of the first signatories, along with the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) and U.N. Watch, demanding international intervention against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. [3] AFRICOM and the Post-9/11 Road Towards Conquering Africa In 2002, the Pentagon started major operations aimed at controlling Africa militarily. This was in the form of the Pan-Sahel Initiative, which was launched by the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). Under the banner of this project, the U.S. military would train troops from Mali, Chad, Mauritania, and Niger. The plans to establish the Pan-Sahel Initiative, however, date back to 2001, when the initiative for Africa was actually launched after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 (9/11). Washington was clearly planning military action in Africa, which already included at least three countries (Libya, Somalia, and Sudan) identified as enemy targets to be attacked by the Pentagon and the White House according to General Wesley Clark. Jacques Chirac, the President of France at the time, tried to offer resistance to the U.S. push into Africa by reinvigorating Germany’s role in Africa as a means of supporting France. In 2007, the Franco-African summit even opened its doors to German participation for the first time. [4] Yet, Angela Merkel had different ideas about the direction and position that the Franco-German partnership should take in regards to Washington. Since 2001, the momentum towards creating U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) had started. AFRICOM, however, was officially authorized in December 2006 and the decision to create it was announced several short months later in February 2007. It was in 2007 that AFRICOM was established. It is important to note that this momentum also received Israeli encouragement, because of Israeli interests in Africa. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), for example, was one of the Israeli organizations supporting the creation of AFRICOM. On the basis of the Pan-Sahel Initiative, the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCTI) was launched by the Pentagon in 2005 under the command of CENTCOM. Mali, Chad, Mauritania, and Niger were now joined by Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Nigeria, and Tunisia in the ring of African military cooperation with the Pentagon. Later, the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative would be transferred to the command of AFRICOM on October 1, 2008, which is when AFRICOM would be activated. The Sahel and Sahara: The U.S. Clearly Adopts France’s Old Colonial Projects in Africa “Fighting terrorism” and executing “humanitarian missions” are just façades or smokescreens for Washington and its allies. While the stated goals of the Pentagon are to fight terrorism in Africa, the real aims of Washington are to restructure Africa and to establish a neo-colonial order. In this regard, Washington has actually adopted the old colonial projects of France in Africa. This also includes the U.S., British, Italian, and French initiative to divide Libya after 1943 as well as the unilateral French initiative to redraw North Africa. In this scheme, the U.S. and its cohorts plan on creating ethnic wars and sectarian hatred between the Berbers, the Arabs, and others in North Africa. The map used by Washington for combating terrorism under the Pan-Sahel Initiative says a lot. The range or area of activity for the terrorists, within the borders of Algeria, Libya, Niger, Chad, Mali, and Mauritania according to Washington’s designation, is very similar to the boundaries or borders of the colonial territorial entity which France attempted to sustain in Africa in 1957. Paris had planned to prop up this African entity in the western central Sahara as a French department (province) directly tied to France, along with coastal Algeria. This French colonial entity in the Sahara was named the Common Organization of the Saharan Regions (Organisation commune des regions sahariennes, OCRS). It comprised the inner boundaries of the Sahel and Saharan countries of Mali, Niger, Chad, and Algeria. The French goal was to collect and bind all the resource-rich territories of these countries into this one central entity, the OCR, for French control and extraction. The resources in this area include oil, gas, and uranium. Yet, the resistance movements in Africa, and specifically the Algerian struggle for independence, dealt Paris a hard blow. France had to give up its quest and finally dissolve the OCRS in 1962, because of Algerian independence and the anti-colonial stance in Africa. Because of the push towards independence in Africa, France was finally cut off from the inland area in the Sahara that it wished to control. Washington clearly had this energy-rich and resource-rich area in mind when it drew the areas of Africa that need to be cleansed of alleged terrorist cells and gangs. The French Institute of Foreign Relations (Institut français des relations internationals, IFRI) has even openly discussed this tie between the terrorists and energy-rich areas in a March 2011 report. [5] It is also in this context that the amalgamation of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests and companies has allowed France to become an integrated part of the U.S. system of global empire with common interests.   Regime Change in Libya and the National Endowment for Democracy: A Nexus of Terrorism and Human Rights Since 2001, the U.S. has falsely presented itself as a champion against terrorism. The Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCTI), which opened the doors for AFRICOM in Africa, was justified as necessary by Washington to fight organizations like the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Algeria and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Libya. Yet, Washington is cooperating and using these very same groups in Libya, along with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood, as foot soldiers and proxies. Moreover, many of the key Libyan individuals that are members of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) are members of these groups and have also been part of conferences and longstanding plans pushing for regime change in Libya. One of the key meetings for establishing what would become the current Transitional Council in Libya took place in 1994 when the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) organized a conference with Ashur Shamis and Aly (Ali) Abuzakuuk. The 1994 conference’s title was “Post-Qaddafi Libya: The Prospect and the Promise.” In 2005 another conference with Shamis Ashur would be held in the British capital of London that would build on the idea of regime change in Libya. [6] So who are these Libyan opposition figures? A series of questions must be asked. Are their tie to Washington new or old? Who do the associate with? Also, have they had longstanding support or not? Ashur Shamis is one of the founding members of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which in 1981 was founded in Sudan. He has been wanted by Interpol and the Libyan police for years. [7] Ahsur is also listed as someone who has been a director in the National Endowment for Democracy in the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum. He is also the editor of the Akhbar webpage, which was registered under Akhbar Cultural Limited and tied to the NED. He has also participated in recent key conferences for regime change in Tripoli. This includes the conference in London held by Chatham House in 2011, which discussed NATO plans for the invasion of Tripoli. [8]  Like Ashur, Aly Abuzaakouk is also a member of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya and tied to the National Endowment for Democracy. He was one of the key participants and attendees at the roundtable held for the 2011 Democracy Awards by the NED. [9] Like Ashur, he is also wanted by Interpol and serves as a director at the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum. [10]  There is also Noman Benotman, a former leader and founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and a wanted terrorist. He is presented as a former terrorist. Benotman conveniently left the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Benotman is not only a National Endowment for Democracy (NED) director in the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum, he is also tied to the news network Al Jazeera.  Not only have these three men lived in Britain without any problems while they were wanted by Interpol and sought because of their ties to terrorism or, in the case of Abuzaakouk, drug-related crimes and forgery, but they also received grants from the United States. They received U.S. grants which formalized their affiliation to various NED sponsored organizations, which have supported the regime change agenda in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. This regime change agenda has also been supported by MI6 and the CIA. Moreover, the legal documents that have been filed by the NED regarding these individuals have been deliberately and illegally tampered with. One key individual’s identity has been hidden in the list of NED directors. Thus, legal documents have been fraudulently filled out to hide an individual’s identity under the alias of “Beata Wozniak.” Even Wozniak’s birthday is invalid, appearing as January 1, 1 (01/01/0001). She is an person who has been on the board of all these NED organizations. She is listed as a director and secretary of Akbar, Transparency Libya Limited, and several British companies.  The “Long War” Enters Africa: The Gate into Africa has been Opened The fanning of terrorism in Africa is part of a deliberate strategy used by the U.S. and its allies, including NATO. The strategy consists in "opening the door to the African continent" by expanding the so-called “Global War on Terror.” The latter provides a justification to the U.S. objective of expanding its military presence in the African continent. It was also used as a pretext to create the Pentagon’s AFRICOM. US Africa Command (AFRICOM) is meant to “manage Africa” on Washington’s behalf. It consists in creating an African version of NATO with a view to carrying out the occupation of Africa. In this regard, the U.S. and its allies have already established a budget to fight the very terrorist organizations which they have created and supported (including with military aid and weapons) across the map of Africa from Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Mali to Mauritania, Niger, Algeria, and Nigeria. The terrorists not only fight for America on the ground, they also liase with Washington and act as frontmen through so-called human rights organizations which have a mandate to "promote democracy". On the ground these same individuals and organizations are used to destabilize their respective countries. They are also supported internationally by Washington to actively work towards for regime change and military intervention in the name of human rights and democracy. Libya is a clear case in point. Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California. Julien Teil is a videographer and investigative documentary film maker from France. He was also recently in Libya for about one month.
NOTES
[1] National Endowment for Democracy, “NED Strengths Democracy Ties with France,” March 16, 2010:
[2] National Endowment for Democracy, “Africa Regional,” August 2011:
[3] United Nations Watch et al., “Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in Libya: Sent by 70 NGOs to the US, EU, and UN,” February 21, 2011:
˂http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=9135143˃
[4] Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs (France), “XXIVème sommet Afrique-France,” February 2007:
[5] Etienne de Durand, “Francs-tireurs et Centurions. Les ambiguïtés de l’héritage contre-insurrectionnel français,” Institut français des relations internationals, March 2011:
[6] The National Conference of the Libyan Opposition, “The National Accord: The National Conference of the Libyan Opposition, London, 26th June 2005,” 2005.
[7] Interpol Wanted Notice for Ashour Al-Shamis :
[8] Foreign and Commonwealth Office (U.K.), “Chatam House event: the future of Libya,” June 2011:
[9] National Democracy for Democracy, “2011 Democracy Award Biographies,” June 2011:
[10] Interpol Wanted Notice for Ali Ramadan Abu Za Kouk:
| |||
Part 3/4
Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations”
Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Third of Four Installments on Libya: Israel and Libya
Once again, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya peels away the veneer of legitimacy and deception enveloping the U.S./NATO genocide currently taking place in Libya. In his first article, Nazemroaya exposed the mechanism by which the world came to "know" of the need for a humanitarian intervention in the Libyan Arab Jamahirya and U.S./NATO admissions of targeted assassination attempts against the Leader of the 1969 Libyan Revolution, Muammar Qaddafi. In his first of these four installments since his return from Libya, Nazemraoya makes it clear that there never was any evidence given to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to warrant or justify United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 or current U.S./NATO operations inside Libya. In his second article detailing this very sad story, Nazemroaya exposes the relationships between the major Libyan protagonists/NATO collaborators and the U.S. Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy. Incredibly, when leading Members of Congress publicly proclaimed repeatedly that they did not know who the Libyan "rebel" NATO collaborators were, select so-called rebel leaders were political intimates with stakeholders at the National Endowment for Democracy. The leaders of the National Transitional Council, contrived to appear highly influential to publics in former colonial capitals, have very little influence or support inside Libya, and can be likened to a Hamid Karzai type of morally bankrupt neo-colonial authority that presides over and gives a fig-leaf of "legitmacy" to those outsiders whose objective is the total destruction of recalcitrant citizens who demand self-determination over their own communities and country. Nazemroaya also exposes that, despite its Global War on Terror, the U.S. government actually financed Libyan terrorists and criminals wanted by INTERPOL. In this, his third of four installments, Nazemroaya removes the U.S./NATO fig leaf and what he reveals are the abhorrent, obnoxious, inhumane, and cynical machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby that is the only political force that seems to be able to command the mightiest of militaries and the strongest of leaders to act in ways that threaten the peace and tranquility of their own political parties and national security of their own governments. Indeed, by its policy to support Israel, no matter how belligerent its policies, the United States has eroded its own national interest, as warnings from U.S. military leaders continue to point out. In fact, my own personal experiences with the pro-Israel Lobby inside the United States demonstrate Israel's intense interest in Africa. I have written about my experience with "the pledge" to support Israel that is forced on every candidate for the U.S. Congress; refusal to sign it, as I did, means not one dollar of the millions expended each election cycle in campaign contributions and can ensure the most vicious media demonization as the major descriptor of the un-cooperating candidate. The demonization of Alabama's first Black Member of Congress since Reconstruction, Earl Hilliard, in his 2002 re-election campaign, with specific regard to his visits to Libya, immediately come to mind. Weeks later, many of the New York contributors against his re-election, reappeared in my own opponent's campaign coffers. While I was portrayed in letters to supporters of the pro-Israel Lobby as anti-Israel, I will continue to believe that it was my very real activities in Africa that the pro-Israel Lobby found most threatening. From land reform to blood diamonds to various warnings I sent to certain African oil-producing countries to support for African self-determination and against artificial efforts to create divisions in Cote d'Ivoire, Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Sudan, I found an incredible interest in all things African on the part of the pro-Israel Lobby. In fact, I was invited to lease my "Black" face to these very interests and get arrested in front of the Sudan Embassy to sow the very "Black versus Arab" narrative being tragically created in Libya which Nazemroaya describes so thoroughly in this current text. I note here that some Blacks inside and outside of the U.S. Congress did choose to accept this particular invitation and get arrested. My representative was present at the meeting where these activities were planned, finance was arranged, and actions put in motion. This was a purposeful manipulation of U.S. policy and more importantly, of the despicable behaviors in Sudan that led to human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. My own legislation to de-list corporations from the U.S. stock exchange that aided or abetted or engaged in any way in human rights abuses in Sudan was deemed by guardians of the pro-Israel agenda inside the Congress to be an unacceptable answer to the very real abuses taking place in that country. Additionally, while I was in prison in Israel, the point of the mostly African female prisoners on my Ramle Prison cell block was that they were adherents of "the wrong religion." The purging of Christians inside Israel is a fact. The scribblings on the wall of my Israeli holding room in another prison complex before my release made it clear that those Christians being deported were not wanted in Israel and they felt that it was because of their religion. Israel's recent push, despite its non-Jewish residents, to identify itself as a "Jewish state" is telling. While in Libya, I met many Africans who said that they chose to live there because of the pan-Africanism of the policies of the Libyan Jamahirya. In fact, while at an "Africans in the Diaspora Conference" there in January/February of 2011, I personally witnessed, along with a delegation of others from the United States, Muammar Qaddafi pledge $90 billion to a "United States of Africa" that would work together to build the Continent and counter the efforts to penetrate and recolonize it. Blacks in the United States who struggled for dignity, self-determination, and against U.S. oppression and imperialism during the 1960s and 1970s have a relationship with Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahirya government that goes back decades. At the 29-stops of my Libya Truth Tour, I met many U.S. citizens who reminded the audiences of the contributions of Muammar Qaddafi and the Jamahirya government against British imperialism in Northern Ireland. Continental Africans attending these Tour-stops reminded audiences of Muammar Qaddafi's support for Nelson Mandela and Africans struggling to rid the Continent of Apartheid at a time when Israel shared an alliance with that government. They also noted the Jamahirya government's current support for many development projects throughout the Continent and for the budget of the African Union, itself. Therefore, many alarmed observers have pointed out that the U.S./NATO attack on Libya is actually an attack on all of Africa. Nazemroaya eloquently makes this point while revealing the underlying motives for the "uber-violence" that we see in Libya and that is opposed by large majorities of voters in NATO member states, if reported polling results can be trusted. What comes to my mind is how anyone who identifies with the peace community could support such an attack on Libya, especially while the people of Libya valiantly resist NATO domination. Nazemroaya makes the essential point: "An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway." The Voice of America has exposed the psychological aspects of its brutal intervention and hints at the mindset of the U.S./NATO Libyan pawns; several stories suggest that the "new" Libya will turn more toward its Arab identity than its African identity. And U.S./NATO successful imposition of the psychological chains of identity denial are the most longlasting of chains. While in Tunisia, I actually came face to face with the fruits of this project when a taxi driver born in Tunisia told me that he was not African! Muammar Qaddafi drove home to all Libyans that Libya, as its geography dictates, is an African country. It seems ludicrous on its face to have to reiterate such a fact except for the racism, brainwashing, and psychological underpinnings of current U.S./NATO policy and its colonial antecedents that Nazemroaya exposes. Finally, Walter H. Kansteiner has moved in and out of various positions within the foreign policy apparatus of the United States government and has been the voice for exactly the policies described by Nazemroaya. Among Kansteiner's positions are stints as Africa Director at the State Department and National Security Council Director for African Affairs during the Presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Presidency of George W. Bush. During these stints, Mr. Kansteiner was in a position to initiate the balkanization of Africa that we now see reaching fruition on the Continent. I was forced to write a letter to President Bush in 2001 expressing my alarm at his suggestions for Democratic Republic of Congo. In my opinion, Laurent Kabila was murdered because he refused to balkanize Congo. (He personally related his last conversation with a certain U.S. representative who encouraged him to betray Congo. In his last words to me, "I will never betray Congo.")
Cynthia McKinney, 10 October 2011.
Cynthia McKinney is a former U.S. Congresswoman who served in two different Georgia federal districts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. She was also the U.S. Green Party presidential candidate in 2008. While in the U.S. Congress she served on the U.S. Banking and Finance Committee, the U.S. National Security Committee (later renamed the U.S. Armed Services Committee), and the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee (later renamed the U.S. International Relations Committee). She also served on the U.S. International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. McKinney has conducted two fact-finding missions to Libya and also recently finished a nationwide speaking tour in the United States sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition regarding the NATO bombing campaign on Libya.
ISRAEL AND LIBYA: PREPARING AFRICA FOR THE "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS"
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Under the Obama Administration the United States has expanded the "long war" into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called "Son of Africa" has actually become one of Africa's worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized, Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.
The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.
As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution. Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of "divide and conquer" being used to bring nations to their knees. The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a "New Middle East"
The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continuously divided the region.
For years, there have been advocates calling for a "New Middle East" with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies.
The Manipulation of the First "Arab Spring" during World War I
The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the "Great Arab Revolt" against the Ottoman Empire.
Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.
During the "Great Arab Revolt" the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called "repression" of the Ottomans.
In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the "Arab Spring" is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.
The Yinon Plan
The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses. The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military's Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region. Note: The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008. Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008. Note: The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006. The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world's oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective. In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran's Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous. In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too. The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian. Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi's position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm. Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon. Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria. The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria. A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan. Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work... In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets: (1) ethno-linguistics; (2) skin-colour; (3) religion. It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called "Black Africa" and a supposedly "non-Black" North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be "Arabs" and so-called "Blacks." An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway. This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an "African South Sudan" and an "Arab North Sudan" have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to "colour cleanse" Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of "black-skinned Arabs" so that there is a clear delineation between "Black Africa" and a new "non-Black" North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining "non-Black" Berbers and Arabs. In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent. Israel and the African Continent The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv. Israel's two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think-tank, is one example. Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just "inside" Africa, but "over" Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran. Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran's ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa. [1] Sudan is Africa's third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese. [2] Israel and Libya
Libya had been considered as "a spoiler" which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.
The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO's military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene. [3] U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Qaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France. Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy's special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders [4]. A similar pattern (to that of Israel's links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel. Despite the Transitional Council's position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize Qaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative. In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Qaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another. Preparing the Chessboard for the "Clash of Civilizations" It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected. The chessboard is being staged for a "Clash of Civilizations" and all the chess pieces are being put into place. The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups. Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This is also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa. What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively "Muslim Middle East" area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a "non-Black North Africa" area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the "Clash of Civilizations" model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called "West" and "Black Africa." This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies. [5] Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the "Clash of Civilizations" which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multiculturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: "[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the 'Global War on Terror']." [6] Brzezinski's next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: "[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms." [7] Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called "Western World" and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted. Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today's "Just Wars" In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies. At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as "sub-human," inferior, or soulless. Finally, the "White Man's burden" of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called "uncivilized peoples of the world" was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a "just cause." The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of "just wars" as a means to conquering and "civilizing" foreign lands.
Today, the imperialist designs of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today's "just wars" and "just causes" are now being conducted under the banners of women's rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.
NOTES
[1] The Economist, "Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile world," February 4, 2011.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Tova Lazaroff, "70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli," Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.
[4] Radio France Internationale, "Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu," June 2, 2011.
[5] Robert Marquand,"Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism," Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211
[7] Ibid.
ANNEX I: MAP OF DIFFERENT WORLD CIVILIZATIONS REFLECTING SAMUEL HUNTINGTON'S MODEL
* These civilizational divisions and categories are incorrect. There are no clearcutting divisions between many of these so-called and supposedly "distinct civilizations."
ANNEX II: MODEL OF SAMUEL HUNTINGTON'S "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS"
 | ||||||
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Part 4/4
Who Was Muammar Qaddafi? Libya's Wealth Redistribution Project
With an Introduction by Cynthia McKinney
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Fourth of Four Installments on Libya: Who is Stealing the Wealth?
Once again, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya peels away the veneer of legitimacy and deception enveloping the U.S./NATO genocide currently taking place in Libya. In his first article, Nazemroaya makes it clear that there never was any evidence given to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court to warrant or justify United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 or current U.S./NATO operations inside Libya.
In his second article detailing this very sad story, Nazemroaya exposes the relationships between the major Libyan protagonists/NATO collaborators and the U.S. Congress-funded National Endowment for Democracy. Incredibly, when leading Members of Congress publicly proclaimed repeatedly that they did not know who the Libyan "rebel" NATO collaborators were, select so-called rebel leaders were political intimates with stakeholders at the National Endowment for Democracy. Nazemroaya also exposes that, despite its Global War on Terror, the U.S. government actually financed Libyan terrorists and criminals wanted by INTERPOL.
In his third installment, Nazemroaya removes the U.S./NATO fig leaf that attempts to cover the cynical machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby and its objective of balkanizing African and Asian states, especially those whose populations are largely Muslim. Nazemroaya makes the essential point: "An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway." The Voice of America has exposed the psychological aspects of its brutal intervention and hints at the mindset of the U.S./NATO Libyan pawns; several stories suggest that the "new" Libya will turn more toward its Arab identity than its African identity. While Muammar Qaddafi drove home to all Libyans that Libya, as its geography dictates, is an African country, Nazemroaya shows how this fact is not a policy objective shared by the U.S., NATO, Israel, or their Libyan allies.
Finally, in this last of the four-part series, Nazemroaya shows the ultimate perfidy of the U.S./NATO Libyan allies, especially Mahmoud Jibril, in the pre-emptive strike against the Jamahirya Wealth Redistribution Project.
The Libyan people are now fighting the world's most powerful militaries to save their Jamahirya. No matter how many times NATO-inspired media lie to their publics, the lies will never become the truth. Hauntingly, Nazemroaya ends by telling us that the Libyan National Transitional Council has already recognized the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the legitimate government of Syria. Meanwhile, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, now reputed to be the leader of Al Qaeda and reportedly rewarded with U.S. citizenship after fighting for the C.I.A. in Bosnia, just called for the people of Algeria to oust their President. President Obama's policy of flying drones and dropping bombs over Africa, and invading the Continent with U.S. troops, means that any country that resists an AFRICOM base, as Colonel Qaddafi's wife tells us he did, or expects to exercise its right of self-determination, can expect the kind of treatment we are witnessing now in Libya. We, in the U.S., must resist these policies for ourselves and and on behalf of the Africans who deserve better than this from the United States of America.
Cynthia McKinney, 25 October 2011.
Cynthia McKinney is a former U.S. Congresswoman who served in two different Georgia federal dictricts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003 and from 2005 to 2007 as a member of the U.S. Democratic Party. She was also the U.S. Green Party presidential candidate in 2008. While in the U.S. Congress she served in the U.S. Banking and Finance Committee, the U.S. National Security Committee (later renamed the U.S. Armed Services Committee), and the U.S. Foreign Affairs Committee (later renamed the U.S. International Relations Committee). She also served in the U.S. International Relations subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights. McKinney has conducted two fact-finding missions in Libya and also recently finished a nationwide speaking tour in the United States sponsored by the ANSWER Coalition about the NATO bombing campaign in Libya.
INSTALLMENTS I-III
WHO WAS MUAMMAR QADDAFI? LIBYA'S WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION PROJECT by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya Colonel Muammar Qaddafi symbolizes many things to many different people around the world. Love or hate the Libyan leader, under his rule Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries on the face of the planet into the country with the highest standard of living in Africa. In the words of Professor Henri Habibi:
When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence. [1]
Qaddafi had many grand plans. He wanted to create a South Atlantic Treaty Organization to protect Africa and Latin America. He advocated for a gold dinar standard as the currency of Muslim countries. Many of his plans were also of a pan-African nature. This included the formation of a United States of Africa.
Qaddafi’s Pan-African Projects
Colonel Qaddafi started the Great Man-Made River, which consisted in a massive project to transform the Sahara Desert and reverse the desertification of Africa. The Great Man-Made River with its irrigation plans was also intended to support the agricultural sector in other parts of Africa. This project was a military target of NATO bombings. Without just cause, NATO’s bombing campaign was intent upon destroying the Great Man-Made River.
Qaddafi also envisioned independent pan-African financial institutions. The Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Foreign Bank were important players in setting up these institutions. Qaddafi, through the Libyan Foreign Bank and the Libyan Investment Authority, was instrumental in setting up Africa’s first satellite network, the Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM), to reduce African dependence on external powers. [2]
His crowning achievement would have been the creation of the United States of Africa. The supranational entity would have been created through the African Investment Bank, the African Monetary Fund, and finally the African Central Bank. These institutions were all viewed with animosity by the European Union, United States, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project
Qaddafi had a wealth redistribution project inside Libya. U.S. Congressional sources in a report to the U.S. Congress even acknowledge this. On February 18, 2011 one report states:
In March 2008, [Colonel Qaddafi] announced his intention to dissolve most government administrative bodies and institute a Wealth Distribution Program whereby state oil revenues would be distributed to citizens on a monthly basis for them to administer personally, in cooperation, and via local committees. Citing popular criticism of government performance in a long, wide ranging speech, [he] repeatedly stated that the traditional state would soon be “dead” in Libya and that direct rule by citizens would be accomplished through the distribution of oil revenues. [The military], foreign affairs, security, and oil production arrangements reportedly would remain national government responsibilities, while other bodies would be phased out. In early 2009, Libya’s Basic People’s Congresses considered variations of the proposals, and the General People’s Congress voted to delay implementation. [3]
Qaddafi wanted all the people of Libya to have direct access to the nation’s wealth. He was also aware of the deep rooted corruption that plagued the ranks of the Libyan government. This was one of the reasons why he wanted to apply a model of political anarchy in Libya through progressive steps. He was talking about both these project for a few years.
On the other hand, the Wealth Redistribution Project, along with the establishment of an anarchist political system, was viewed as a very serious threat by the U.S., the E.U., and a group of corrupt Libyan officials. If successful, the reforms could have created political unrest amongst many domestic populations around the world. Internally, many Libyan officials were working to delay the project. This included reaching out to external powers to intervene in Libya to stop Qaddafi and his projects.
Why Mahmoud Jibril Joined the Transitional Council
Amongst the Libyan officials that were heavily opposed to this project and viewed it with horror was Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril was put into place by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. Because of strong influence and advice from the U.S. and the E.U., Saif Al-Islam selected Jibril to transform the Libyan economy and impose a wave of neo-liberal economic reforms that would open the Libyan market.
Jibril became the head of two bodies in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the National Planning Council of Libya and National Economic Development Board of Libya. While the National Economic Development Board was a regular ministry, the National Planning Council would actually put Jibril in a government position above that of the Office of the General-Secretary of the People’s Committee of Libya (which is the equivalent of the post of a prime minister). Jibril actually became one of the forces that opened the doors of privatization and poverty in Libya.
About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibiril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing Colonel Qaddafi. [4] He described Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project as “crazy” in minutes and documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. [5] Jibril strongly believed that the Libyan masses were not fit to govern themselves and that an elite should always control the fate and wealth of any nation. What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the Libyan government and layoff a large segment of the public sector, but in exchange increase government regulations in Libya. He would also always cite Singapore as the perfect example of a neo-liberal state. While in Singapore, which he regularly visited, it is likely that he also meet with Bernard-Henri Lévy.
When the problems erupted in Benghazi, Mahmoud Jibril immediately went to Cairo, Egypt. He told his colleagues that he would be back in Tripoli soon, but he had no intention of returning. In reality, he went to Cairo to meet the leaders of the Syrian National Council and Lévy. They were all waiting for him inside Cairo to coordinate the events in Libya and Syria. This is one of the reasons that the Transitional Council has recognized the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria.
Do Not Pity the Dead, Pity the Living! Muammar Qaddafi is now dead. He was murdered in his hometown of Sirte. He stood his ground until the end like he said he would. The Transitional Council, which vowed to take him to court had him murdered. He even reminded the men who beat him, anally raped him, mocked him, and finally murdered him that they were not following the laws of Islam about respectful treatment of prisoners. NATO played a central role and oversaw the whole event. The murder was systematic, because after Qaddafi was murdered his son and several other Libyan leaders were killed too. Colonel Qaddafi’s death marks a historic milestone for Libya. An old era has ended in Libya and a new chapter begins. Libya will not become a new paradise like the Transitional Council says. In many cases the living will envy the dead, because of men like Mahmoud Jibril, Ali Tarhouni, and Sliman Bouchuiguir. Mahmoud Jibril is a mere opportunist. The man had no problems being a government official under the late Qaddafi. He never complained about human rights or a lack of democracy. He was the prime minister of the Transitional Council of Libya until a few days after the savage murder of Colonel Qaddafi. The opposition of Jibril to the late Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project and his elitist attitude are amongst the reasons he conspired against Qaddafi and helped form the Transitional Council.
Is this ex-regime official, who has always been an open supporter of the Arab dictators in the Persian Gulf, really a representative and champion of the people? How about his colleagues in the Transitional Council who negotiated oil contracts with NATO member states, even before they held any so-called government positions in the Transitional Council?
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is an investigative news program carried on numerous stations in the United States and based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions (now archived) with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on Saturdays on KPFK, Los Angeles, California.
Notes
[1] Henri Pierre Habib, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montmagny, Québec: Le Cercle de Livre de France Ltée, 1975), p.1.
[2] Regional African Satellite Communication Organization, “Launch of the Pan African Satellite,” July 26, 2010:
<http://www.rascom.org/info_detail2.php?langue_id=2&info_id=120&id_sr=0&id_r=32&id_gr=3>
[3] Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service, February 18, 2011, p.22.
[4] Private discussions with Mahmoud Jiribil’s co-workers inside and outside of Libya.
[5] Internal private documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
| |||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)