Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Archive for November, 2011

Even if I got a visa for Europe…I wouldn’t go

Abdirizak Mohamed Mohamoud

Here is a typical story of tens of thousands of African refugees seeking survival and better life. It is from an Ethiopian teacher his name is “Abdirizak Mohamed Mohamoud” as it was posted on IRIN (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) on 22 November 2011.

Before you read the story

For all those Africans who are trapped with poverty they must realize that Western and Arab countries, including the USA and European countries are not the solution but they are behind the problems that created Africa and World poverty; corruption; and armed conflicts.

Behind every great fortune, there must be a crime, or more. Western and Arab countries devastated Africa before and they are continuing their pillage. Look at Congo; Ghana; Nigeria; Libya; Ivory Coast;…….. and all other African countries.

Why there are poverty; conflicts; and corruption? The answer is obvious. It is because Western countries on both sides of the Atlantic and Arab countries are succeeding in getting African best natural and human resources cheap while they sell their products at exorbitant prices for long time.

The mineral industry of Africa is one of the largest mineral industries in the world. Africa is the second biggest continent, with 30 million km² of land, which implies large quantities of resources. For many African countries, mineral exploration and production constitute significant parts of their economies and remain keys to future economic growth. Africa is richly endowed with mineral reserves and ranks first or second in quantity of world reserves of bauxite, cobalt, industrial diamond, phosphate rock, platinum-group metals (PGM), vermiculite, and zirconium. Gold mining is Africa’s main mining resource.

The Central African Mining and Exploration Company (CAMEC), one of Africa’s primary mining enterprises, is criticized for its unregulated environmental impact and minimal social stewardship. In the Spring of 2009, retired British cricket player Phil Edmonds’ assets were seized by the United Kingdom’s government due to CAMEC’s illicit association with self-appointed Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. CAMEC recently sold 95.4% of its shares to the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. It is currently under restructuring and is no longer trading under the CAMEC brand.

African mineral reserves rank 1st or 2nd for bauxite, cobalt, diamonds, phosphate rocks, platinum-group metals (PGM), vermiculite, and zirconium. Many other minerals are also present in quantity. The 2005 share of world production from African soil is the following : bauxite 9%; aluminium 5%; chromite 44%; cobalt 57%; copper 5%; gold 21%; iron ore 4%; steel 2%; lead (Pb) 3%; manganese 39%; zinc 2%; cement 4%; natural diamond 46%; graphite 2%; phosphate rock 31%; coal 5%; mineral fuels (including coal) & petroleum 13%; uranium 16%.

Key producers as of 2005, strategic African minerals and key producers were:
Diamonds: 46% of the world, divided as: Botswana 35%; Congo (Kinshasa) 34%; South Africa 17%; Angola, 8%.
Gold: 21% of the world, divided as: South Africa 56%; Ghana, 13%; Tanzania, 10%; and Mali, 8%.
Uranium: 16% of the world, divided as: Namibia 46%; Niger 44%; South Africa less than 10%.
Bauxite (for aluminium): 9% of the world, divided as: Guinea 95%; Ghana 5%.
Steel: 2% of the world, divided as: South Africa 54%; Egypt 32%; Libya 7%; Algeria 6%.
Aluminium: 5% of the world, divided as: South Africa 48%; Mozambique 32%; Egypt 14%.
Copper (mine/refined): 5%/ of the world, divided as : Zambia 65%/77%; South Africa 15%/19% ; Congo (Kinshasa) 13%/0%; Egypt 0%/3%.
Platinum/Palladium: 62% of the world, divided as:South Africa 97%/96%.
Coal: 5% of the world, divided as: South Africa 99%

As for agricultural produce, take Ivory Coast cocoa for example and compare the prices of cocoa and those of chocolates. Or take the prices of cotton and textiles.

The same injustices apply in human resources. They get our best minds and labor and Africa gets in return the worst of their people.

A Story of An African Refugee

[Abdirizak Mohamed Mohamoud, 30, returned to his home village of Lafaisa, in the Jijiga zone of eastern Ethiopia, six months ago, after his attempt to reach Europe and a better life turned into an ordeal. He talked to IRIN, as well as a roomful of curious neighbours and friends, about his experiences as a migrant in Libya.

“I wasn’t satisfied with life here. I was a teacher, but I wasn’t earning enough to support my family. I had friends who had gone to Libya and then to Italy, but I only got as far as Libya.

“I crossed the border of Ethiopia into Sudan; then I crossed the Sahara in a lorry with 160 other people. All of the others were from Somalia – I was the only Ethiopian. One lorry broke down, then another came and took us the rest of the way.

“I paid the driver US$1,000 – money I got from all of my family and friends – but when we arrived in Libya, the driver wanted another $1,200 and held all of us hostage in his home on a big farm for two days.

“He gave me a cell phone and told me to call my family to get the money. He only got money from 10 individuals, even though he tortured us with electric shocks. I told my mother to send money but before it came, the Libyan police came and arrested all of us, including the driver.

“We were taken to a prison in Benghazi where there were about 900 Africans – Nigerians, Somalis, Eritreans and Congolese. After three months we thought we were going to die there. Some were tortured and some tried to kill themselves. We broke out by force, overwhelming the guards, and escaped, but some local people caught me and returned me to the jail. I spent one more month there before they transferred me to a Tripoli prison, where I spent two months.

“Then they transferred me again to a place called Katron, near the border with Niger, in the Sahara. I was there for a month with 320 Somali people before we escaped again. I found some people from Chad in Katron and stayed with them for 15 days and called my family to send money. My brother sent $300 to someone he knows in Tripoli, but that money paid only for me to be smuggled from Katron to Tripoli.

“I worked as a porter in Tripoli for 18 months, just to save money to get home. I couldn’t sleep at night because I was so afraid of being robbed; the only safe place to sleep was on graves. I managed to save $700 and pooled my savings with 14 friends to pay a smuggler to take us through Niger and into Chad. We left just before the uprising [in Libya] started.

“In Chad, people were dying of hunger and UNHCR [the UN Refugee Agency] refused to help us because they were busy helping the local people who were starving. We went on to Darfur in Sudan and UNHCR flew us to Khartoum and then to the Ethiopian border. I was very happy to get home after two years and two months.

“By the time I got back, one of my sisters had already left for Saudi [Arabia] to work as a housemaid. If I had got back in time, I would have told her not to go.

“I’m an example for my village – if I had succeeded, all the others would have gone. I don’t have a job now, I’m surviving by Allah, but even if I got a visa for Europe or the United States, I wouldn’t go – I’m dying here.”].

Africa is very rich if it can only stop the West and the Arabs from exploiting its resources and undervalue their prices to make themselves filthy rich and enjoy their unsustainable and immoral ways of life.

More data on the mineral resources of Africa are at these links:

Mineral industry of Africa and Economy of Africa

The new democracy: Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

The Independent published on 18 November 2011 this revealing article written by Stephen Foley.

What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

Goldman Sachs Men in the EU

While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone’s corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation

The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank’s alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund’s European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as “the Vampire Squid”, and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman’s interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren’t “bought and paid for” by corporations, as in the US, he says. “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.”

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy’s most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman’s bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury’s committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country’s financial policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank’s two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman’s UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country’s financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland’s interest rate this summer.

Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn’t be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

The bank’s traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece’s unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: “It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher.”

When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn’t involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a “voluntary” haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent’s big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

“My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?” says Simon Johnson. “It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same.”

So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm’s money that Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent.  Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries’ debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?

The Three Pillars of National Liberalism

The National Liberal Party (UK) is a political party supporting the principle of National Liberalism.

National Liberal Party (UK) emblem

Who are the National Liberals?

National Liberals believe that the personal liberty of a nation’s citizens is vitally important and that this freedom is best preserved within the framework of a democratic nation state. A National Liberal will therefore support measures protecting and promoting personal liberty, greater democracy and national independence (see our Three pillars of National liberalism on this site).

Under Threat

The two main achievements of the 19th century were the proliferation of Nation States and the development of Civil Liberties and Individual Rights. Today these achievements are under threat.

National Sentiment

Establishment politicians are happy to work towards an unreformed ‘ever closer (European) Union’ or slavishly follow US foreign policy. We now, more than ever, need an independent (and ethical) British foreign policy that follows the dictates of national interest and achieves peace by respecting others interests. Questions of national identity, vital in an era of global migration and globalization, are being ignored. Civil and communal strife in many parts of the world, including the U.K. seem all but inevitable. Yet there is an alternative – the creation of unifying and inclusive national sentiments.

Loss of Liberty

Establishment politicians are using the ‘War on Terror’ to facilitate a growth in a ‘surveillance society’ whilst restricting civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association and the right to privacy. A heavily regulated society does not fit well with our traditions, where the protection of our liberty is often taken for granted and where an Englishman’s home was considered ‘his castle’.

National and Liberal

We must reverse these dangerous trends by helping to protect our treasured freedoms and liberties within the framework of a preserved nation state. We need a fresh and commonsense third alternative to the forces of Conservative and Labour.

The Three Pillars of National Liberalism

Liberty: Independence: Democracy

National Liberals believe that individual liberty and the right to organise social change is essential for human progress – but we believe a Liberal society can only be attained by people sharing an inclusive culture within the framework of an independent national state.

National Liberals believe that national sentiment is intrinsic to mankind and that an independent nation state is a natural building block of human society. As nationalists we believe in the right to self-determination for all nations and reject imperialism.

National Liberals believe that the principal enemy of liberty are Big Brother Governments who are ever ready to abuse their power for selfish ends or lead us to war. They enslave the people in ‘the name of the people’.

National Liberals believe that the antidote to Big Brother Government attacks on liberty and national feeling is by introducing forms of Direct Democracy. By building democratic institutions and voting systems we can ensure the ‘sovereignty of the people’.

In conclusion;

National Liberals believe “individuals require a national identity in order to live meaningful autonomous lives” and believe liberal societies need the “stability of national identity in order to function properly”. Both liberty and independent nations need strong democratic institutions to defend them from the corruption of Government.

National Liberals Vs. Liberal Democrats

Spot the Difference!

Both the National Liberals and Liberal Democrats believe in protecting personal liberties. These are important and trying times however for those who wish to preserve that liberty.

A Big Brother state is looming with ID cards imminent, public order restrictions and a growing surveillance culture. Once we have discarded our personal protections, that thousands have fought and died for over the centuries, it will be hard to get them back.

But………….the National Liberals and Liberal Democrats are not the same as we differ on some other fundamental issues. Here are just a few examples:

Sovereignty

Liberal Democrats believe in surrendering national sovereignty to bodies such as the EU to the benefit of Big Business and Bureaucrats.

National Liberals however believe that national sentiment is intrinsic to mankind and support the preservation of independent nation states.

Free Trade & Globalisation

Liberal Democrats believe in International Free Trade regardless of the impact on jobs and our Balance of Trade.

National Liberals believe that the resulting ‘Globalisation’ i.e. the mass movement of people and Capital has gone too far and is undermining wages, threatening jobs and exacerbating social tensions.

State Role in Society

Liberal Democrats are ambivalent towards the role of the state in society.

National Liberals oppose too much state control but do believe the state can still play a role in supporting vital sectors of the economy such as the self-employed and small trader as well as helping poorer sections of our people.

Democracy

Liberal Democrats believe, as with other ‘establishment’ parties, in the primacy of Representative Democracy, in particular the will of Parliament.

National Liberals accept the need for democratic Parliaments and Assemblies but are skeptical of their independence from ‘Big Brother’ Governments and members understanding of the needs of ‘real’ people. We would like to see much greater use of referenda to introduce legislation.

In short the National Liberals re-unite patriotism and popular democracy with liberalism!

See also their stand on the very important issue of:

Nationalism Vs. Liberalism?

EU and Banks are Weapons of Mass Slavery

How to Buy a European Country?

They temp you; they fool you; then the EU vampire sucks each drop of blood and wealth in your nation. If you are lucky and not dead when they are done with you; you will remain in debt bondage and poverty slave for centuries.

People must wonder, not the businesses, not the bankers, and not the politicians, can they really gain from joining the EU. “We must sacrifice for our country and our future generations” that is what they tell your politicians to tell the people to accept “austerity”. They want the people to pay for the debts of fraudulent local businesses; greedy banks; and EU agents. These debts are now considered sovereign debts. Why the billions are now considered national debts if some foreign thieves gave few bucks to local conmen and senseless entrepreneurs? The EU forces the governments to pay back EU bankers; but governments have no body to squeeze other than the people and national assets. Electricity; water; factories; airlines; or anything will go to foreign banksters. This is free market and the price you have to pay to clear your debts; be civilized; and join the rich democratic EU!

Join the European Union; be part of the civilized rich Europe and the West; and Easy loans are actually weapons of mass destruction and very marketable imperial expensive products. Getting any rubbish business plan is the only requirement; of course with some naivety and stupidity. They come to you and give you free advice if you don’t have some extra cash; or they can write it in your debt books as consultancy fees. The marvelous outcome is that “Hurray!!! You are eligible for loans from our banks; don’t worry about collaterals or securities, we just want to help you to become rich and civilized like us in the EU” that is what they told hundreds; but they never tell the people that they are screwed.

Why would banks potentially destroy themselves with such bad loan?

Bad loans are actually toxic loans because they are poisonous. It is a calculated gamble and a secure one with the definite support from the governments of creditors, namely: Germany; UK; and France.

I stated many questions about the initial silence and roles of these governments and their controlled EU institutions. Banks are too big to fail because governments defend them.

Banks and financiers cannot be incompetent, have maladministration, or short-sighted. The same scenario was tried in the US in several bubbles; and who lost? The banks didn’t but the foolish and greedy customers did.

Defaulting countries are now under exploitative control; it also happened in the past many times and in many countries.

Take Egypt for example; it was forced to sell Suez Canal to pay back small debt for a greedy foreign ruler “Pasha” who Britain and France deceived him and made him believe that he is Ismail “the Magnificent”; and he can Europeanize Egypt because he is so great and visionary.

Before him, his brother Saaid pasha was much under French influence, and in 1854 was induced to grant to the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps a concession for the construction of the Suez Canal.

To the British, Said also made concessions to the Eastern Telegraph Company, and another in 1854 allowing the establishment of the Bank of Egypt. He also began the national debt by borrowing £3,293,000 from Messrs Fruhling & Gbschen, the actual amount received by the pasha being £2,640,000.

Egypt financed and built the Canal and produced cotton; then what? They were forced to sell them for peanuts; or a song.

Britain and France in November 1879 re-established the Dual Control in the persons of Major Baring and Monsieur de Blignières. For two years the Dual Control governed Egypt, and initiated the work of progress that Britain was to continue alone. The financiers and their governments tools were the winners and the common people were the losers.

Cutting a just pound of his flesh

Blame Greedy Poor and Not Rich Banks

The core of the problem was most likely irresponsible lending by banks. A credit bubble was created through banks’ lending out money to individuals and businesses to acquire assets that proved to be worth less than the amount of the loans. This was especially true in the real estate sector – something we also saw happening in the United States.

What is called “irresponsible lending by banks” is actually a deliberate act of sabotage for the sovereignty of specifically targeted some European states.

It is a replay of the tragic comedy “The Merchant of Venice”. Cutting a iuſt pound of his fleſh

But can the money lenders take their loot without dropping blood?

These debts were made with evil intentions and they must be either written off or rescheduled by the people without additional usury.

Europe Soverien Debt Crisis Explained. Who Owes Who What?

Who owes the most European Debt?

 

Who is Buying What?

Inter Trader wrote on September 15, 2011, explaining the European Sovereign Debt Crisis:

[The core of the problem was most likely irresponsible lending by banks. A credit bubble was created through banks lending out money to individuals and businesses to acquire assets that proved to be worth less than the amount of the loans. This was especially true in the real estate sector – something we also saw happening in the United States.

When these banks got into trouble because of bad loan practices, the government had to bail them out using public funds. This happened in the United States and it was repeated in Greece and other European countries.

The government of course has no money of its own – it has to raise it either through taxes or through loans. Since tax money is normally used to finance the current budget expenditure, the money to bail out banks had to come from loans. What therefore happened is that the US, Greece and subsequently other European governments issued government bonds to finance these bailouts.

The problem with government bonds is that you have to pay interest on them and when the market starts doubting your ability to repay the loan, the interest rate will become higher and higher. In the end it is a downward spiral – the government takes up more loans to roll over existing ones, but the interest rates keep on getting higher and higher.]

Yesterday for the first time the EuroNews TV stated in a news bulletin that the new PMs of Greece and Italy and other EU officials are Goldman Sachs associates and ex-employees.

What is called “irresponsible lending by banks” is actually a deliberate act of sabotage for the sovereignty of specifically targeted some European states.

It is a replay of the tragic comedy “The Merchant of Venice”.  cutting a iuſt pound of his fleſh

But can the money lenders take their loot without dropping blood?

These debts were  made with evil intentions and they must be either written off or rescheduled by the people without additional usury.

External Debts of Rich Countries:

Country External Debt in US $ PerCaptia in US $ % of GDP
 Luxembourg 1,892,000,000,000 3,759,174 3,443
 Ireland 2,268,310,000,000 495,264 3,616.20
 Switzerland 1,200,000,000,000 154,063 229
 United Kingdom 8,981,000,000,000 144,338 400
 Norway 643,000,000,000 131,220 141
 Belgium 1,241,000,000,000 113,603 266
 Denmark 559,500,000,000 101,084 180
 Sweden 853,300,000,000 91,487 187
 Austria 755,000,000,000 90,128 200
 France 4,698,000,000,000 74,619 182
 Finland 370,800,000,000 68,960 155
 Germany 4,713,000,000,000 57,755 142
 Australia 1,169,000,000,000 52,596 95
 New Zealand 219,589,000,000 50,260 127
 Greece 532,900,000,000 47,636 174
 United States 14,991,308,000,000 47,568 99
 Netherlands 371,028,000,000 47,172 74
 Spain 2,166,000,000,000 47,069 154
 Portugal 497,800,000,000 46,795 217
 Italy 2,223,000,000,000 36,841 108
 Canada 1,009,000,000,000 29,625 64
 European Union 13,720,000,000,000 27,864 85
 Japan 2,441,000,000,000 19,148 45

Financiers’ Reich is Buying Some European Countries

European Countries Sovereign Debt Owed to German Banks

I intend to investigate an assumption that major German and British investment banks and financiers who are the main creditors and lenders for many European countries in the last twenty years deliberately created the current European sovereign debt disasters to gain control over certain countries.

The reason behind this accusation is very logical and clear. To protect investors, normal creditors in any situation shall definitely refrain from lending to any already heavily indebted entity or state.

The questions posed here to readers are:

1- Do you have any idea why these investment banks and financiers provided bad debts?

2- Do you know the names and ownerships of the major investors and creditors to each European country in crisis?

3- Why the EU institutions did not warn and intervene before approving the loans to heavily indebted countries?

4- Why the EU is suddenly very vigorous in dealing with debt default and bankruptcy while they were watching the clear problems in the making?

5- What made elected governments exceed any reasonable debt ceiling and overspend beyond their capacity?

6- Why the essential financial and economic prerequisites of the EU were relaxed and allowed heavily indebted countries to gain membership?

7- How far the EU and the financial markets are legally allowed to topple democratically elected governments and appoint unelected rulers?

8- What are the invisible relationships between the EU institutions and those investment banks and financiers?

9- Why the credit rating system was not applied to states that exceeded reasonable Debt/GDP ratio?

10- Why very rich countries like the USA, Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, France, and the UK are the top indebted countries without interference?

I appreciate any information and comments on these questions to let everybody know the truth behind the unholy alliance between bankers; bureaucrats; and senior officials in any country.

Western Democracy is a Financiers’ Joke

European austerity protests

The financial and economic crises of Europe and in the West in general are bringing new corrupt solutions and concepts. It is impossible to understand and not to be outraged by the new practices of Western “democracies”.

One late example, in Greece and Italy the elected prime ministers and governments were forced to resign. The pressures on them didn’t come from the peoples but from the EU and from the financiers. This means that elections and the decisions made by voters are useless.

Government cabinets and members of parliaments are no longer answerable to the people but primarily to the EU and to financiers. Sovereignty is now being sold in European and Western financial markets. It is the same old story that changed the map of Europe and toppled European systems in the in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Did anyone learn?

People are very concerned about the way the EU demanded austerity is being distributed; but the “democratic” politicians are only worried about the EU and financiers interests.

The former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was swiftly removed just because he decided that a referendum is essential to approve the EU debt package agreement. His plan infuriated European leaders, and rocked globalist financiers. Then the proposed referendum was emphatically scraped to appease them.

In a similar manner, the former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy was hastily ditched because he insisted that Italy will not ask for loans from the IMF. Europe and the USA are victims of the same systematic sabotage of overspending; debts; speculations; and financiers’ control for a very long time.

Is it possible in the near future to see voting being conducted in stock exchanges rather than in voting centers?

Western democracies on both sided of the Atlantic are influenced by financiers and not by the people. It would be better for them to rename their own form of “Democracy” to be “Finocracy”.

NATO War in Libya a Face of “Neo-Colonialism”

Thabo Mbeki Former president of South Africa

Former president of South Africa Thabo Mbeki strongly criticized NATO, the West and the UN Security Council for their involvements in the war in Libya.

There are troubling, ominous developments in Africa, wrote former president Thabo Mbeki in Sowetan posted on Nov 8, 2011. Africa’s fundamental right to self-determination, the very independence for which it fought so hard and long to achieve, is being undermined by a pernicious “new imperialism” that threatens to end in the re-colonization of Africa.

He pointed out that NATO far exceeded its UN mandate in Libya, which allowed for the protection of civilians, not regime change. And he argues that the intervention was never motivated by anything other than a fig leaf to legitimize the involvement of foreign powers. “It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’. These countries then used the Security Council to authorize their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.”

President Mbeki added: “In the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law.”

The consequences of the international community’s complete disregard for Africa’s rights could be devastating, Mbeki said. Libya, in Mbeki’s view, is the beginning of a slippery slope. By letting the West determines its next government, Africa risks losing all the gains it has made over the last few decades, opening the door to the West who will reassert their control.

Recent events in Libya should raise alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard won right to self-determination, former president Thabo Mbeki said on Saturday 5 November 2011. Addressing the Law Society of the Northern Provinces in Sun City, Mbeki said it “seemed obvious” that a few powerful countries were seeking to use the council to pursue their selfish interests. They were also determined to behave according to the principle and practice that “might is right” and to sideline the principle of self-determination.

“I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle.”

He said this was done on the basis that the African Union and the rest of “us” had been “bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars”, and felt obliged to defend his continued misrule. He said all known means of disinformation was being bandied about, included an argument that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the apartheid struggle.

“The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet”.

“This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.”

Mbeki said Libya’s assistance to the ANC came after 1990, when it realized that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Assertions that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival were false and yet another fabrication.

“The (UN Security Council) Resolution (on a no-fly-zone) said nothing about regime change. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gadaffi regime.”

The AU had in fact adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya.

“To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution.

“Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.”

Despite this, the Security Council chose to ignore the AU, he said.

For this and all speeches of former President Thabo Mbeki go to:

Thabo Mbeki Foundation

And for articles visit: Sowetan LIVE Website

“Westerns” Panic from Thabo Mbeki Attack on Neo-imperialism in Africa

Thabo Mbeki

A Simon Allison wrote, on 9 November 2011, an opinion article titled: “Former President Thabo Mbeki Troubled By a ‘New Imperialism’ in Africa” at The Daily Maverick , and it was also posted on All Africa.

I am really amused, astonished and outraged by the amount of bias; prejudice; and misinformation in that article. Simon Allison wrote among other things the following statements:

[Mbeki should take off his pan-African spectacles and look deeper into the issues.]

[Thabo Mbeki is troubled]

[Thabo Mbeki is not happy]

[It’s Libya that has got Thabo so worried.]

[But what Mbeki is really worried about is that if the West does it once, they could do it again. “It is clear to many on our continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has, therefore, been raised – which African country will be next?” he asks.”]

[Is this not a way of tacitly condoning Kenyan imperialism?]

[Mbeki’s inconsistency reveals his biases. He’s invested so much of his political capital in the African Renaissance, a renaissance that looks no nearer now than it was when he left office. But his worldview is coloured by this vision and he can’t see that Africa cannot always solve its own problems, or that African solutions can be just as problematic as those coming from the West.]

[Libya enjoyed no heroic liberation struggle]

[And regardless of the rights or wrongs of the intervention, the fact remains that there will be elections in Libya’s near future.]

[This is the closest Libyans have ever come to self-determination]

[Some of Mbeki’s ire doubtless has its roots in the way the African Union was marginalised during the Libyan intervention. Its softly-softly approach was much-maligned, and ultimately irrelevant as NATO sent in the fighter jets. By denying the African Union its say, goes the logic, the West is trampling all over Africa’s self-determination. But let’s forget about lofty pan-African ideals for a second; after all, in recent times the flag of pan-Africanism was flown highest by none other than Muammar Gaddafi. The fact is, Libya is part of the Arab world too, and the Arab League has as much right to speak for Libya as the African Union does. And it was the Arab League that requested the UN resolution that so vexes Mbeki.]

Other western commentators and writers spoke on behalf their shady politicians and said a lot of pathetic defense for Obama’s NATO war in Libya. Among the statements they made to make Africans assume that “the West is the BEST” (in a lot of woeful aspects; I believe!) things like:

[Africa will remain in mess because of Africans]

[African leaders are corrupt]

[African Renaissance is useless]

Their fears; allegations; misinformation; accusations; and machinations are all aiming to how to stop Africans from controlling their countries and their continent; and not to stop Westerns looters in Africa. I am sure that the “worried”; the “troubled”; and the “unhappy” are definitely the westerns, including the author and publisher, in reaction to our dear leader’s speech and campaign.

The Daily Maverick website has a page called “Maverick Tribe”. That page has the following invitation: [If you are eager to engage with fellow intelligent and good-looking readers on this site, consider registering with us in the meanwhile.]! I cannot join them because I am ugly, stupid, and of course I am not a “fellow” whatever it means.

I feel very sorry for the South Africans for having such people and such opinions on their land.

Well done Thabo Mbeki; well done all African leaders who stand against the West and defend Africa. Our African leaders will remain honest and incorruptible as long as they distance themselves from the greedy and hypocrite and the financially and ethically bankrupt West.

Africa must the burial ground for any attempts for Neo-colonialism and Neo-imperialism and their cronies.

I invite you to read these three articles: “Save North Africa from Arab Emirs and NATO” ; “Return Libya & North Africa to Africa!” ; and “Was Gaddafi With or Against Africa?

End Note:

I personally invite all Africans and Africanists to visit the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s website of and read the speech “International Law and the Future of Africa” of Former President of the Republic of South Africa; which was delivered on November 5, 2011.

The Thabo Mbeki Foundation implements programmes and projects aimed at supporting the achievement of Africa’s Renaissance.

Contact and directions of Thabo Mbeki Foundation

Engage in Exploring, Writing, and Commenting:

I would like to invite readers of this blog to engage in exploring, writing, and commenting on any of the following topics which interest me most and I guess most of them might also be interesting for you:

1. Obama’s NATO and AFRICOM, and his masters the corporate globalists.
2. Dr. Ron Paul presidential candidacy.
3. Ralph Nader against the two-party system.
4. Threats of corporate globalization to Healthy Democracy.
5. Expose the origins and crimes of Western Liberal Democracy.
6. Re-Designing Democracy.
7. Occupy the lower and upper houses and the bureaucracy.
8. The greed triangle of bloated bureaucracy, detached legislators, and corporate globalists.
9. Non-ethnic nationalism.
10. The dangers of international secret societies.
11. Nationality laws and indigenous nationalism.
12. Create Three-dimensional democracy.
13. Universal religions are fighting faiths.
14. Spirit Of Swadeshi inner development.
15. Corporate globalists alliance with Islamism
16. Exposing the links between Globalism; Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies.
17. Nations Must Trash Western Liberal Democracy?…..& Their Way of Life Too.
18. International Secret Societies & the New World Order.
19. Corporate globalists & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism.
20. Swindles of Modern Liberal Democracy.
21. All wars in the Middle East and North Africa are between two evils.
22. Colonial Arab and Western Abuses of Nationality and Nationalism.
Few lines of comments will be much appreciated.

Thanks guys.

Thabo Mbeki Urges Africans to Protect their Right of Self-determination from Neo-imperialism

Thabo Mbeki

Former President of the Republic of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki delivered the following great speech on November 5, 2011. The address “International Law and the Future of Africa” is posted on the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s website.

[….(Africa have) “urgent obligation to use its enormous talents to defend the inalienable right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination and thus affirm the inviolability of an important principle of international law”.

Last year we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the historic “Declaration on the Granting of independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.

Among other things, the Declaration says:  “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.”

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

For the colonised, the Declaration constituted an important step forward in terms of expanding the corpus of international law to the extent that it decreed that “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.

This proposition had been raised earlier in the context of the Second World War, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston adopted “The Atlantic Charter” in 1941, which served as the precursor to the UN Charter.

In this context they said they “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world” and went on to say that:

“They desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”; and, “They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”

And yet the UN Charter which came into force in October 1945 suggested that the colonial powers could continue to hold onto their colonies. This was despite the fact that its Article 1, spells out that one of “The Purposes of the United Nations” is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”

In its Article 73 the UN Charter says: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end…

“(agree) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”

To this extent the UN Charter gave legitimacy to continued colonial rule, of course with the proviso that the colonial powers would chaperone their wards towards self-government. It is self-evident that this was done at the insistence of the then colonial powers, principally the United Kingdom and France.

To the contrary, the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” made the peremptory determination that:

“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

“Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”

It goes without saying that the eradication of colonialism, apartheid and white minority rule is one of the great and historic achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War.

As an expression of this development, we too, as South Africans, won the rights “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I am certain that all of us present here at this AGM, other South Africans and all Africans throughout our Continent, place a high value on these rights and would defend them with our very lives.

I have spoken as I have because of troubling developments which suggest, ominously, that Africa’s right to self-determination, so unequivocally confirmed in the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”, and entrenched as an important part of international law, is under threat.

In hindsight, it would seem to me that we made a serious error as Africans when we paid virtually no attention to a particular and pernicious thesis advanced by various individuals in the countries of the North, and specifically the UK, arguing for the re-colonisation of Africa.

In a 2002 article on “The Post-Modern State”, the British diplomat and then adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now occupies an important position in the EU Commission, Robert Cooper, said that one of the “main characteristics of the post-modern world” is achieving “security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.”

He went on to say: “Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment…

“All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism has dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth – all of this seems eminently desirable.

“What is needed, then, is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.”

This view was echoed by Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), in a June 2, 2003 article, in which he wrote: “Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and – ultimately – some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding.”

On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris titled ‘The new scramble for Africa begins’, in which he said: “Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonized. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren’t interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”

Writing in the New Statesman magazine published on 15 January 2001, another British commentator, Richard Gott, writing to oppose this “new imperialism”, said: “What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably. Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world’s coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message.

“With the reporting and analysis of today’s Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governments embark on neo-colonial interventions. The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest.”

I am certain that all of us will not hesitate to denounce these arguments in favour of “a new kind of imperialism”, “a form of neo-imperialism”, “neo-colonial interventions” as constituting a direct and unacceptable challenge to international law, and equally repugnant justification for the repudiation of the solemn “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”

In the passages we have quoted from his article, Robert Cooper says ‘the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world – a world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth…’

In essence he is arguing that the mighty and powerful should use their might to determine the shape and content of ‘the new world order’, positioning themselves as the global but unelected law-givers, giving practical expression to the undemocratic and brutal principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

As South Africans we waged a protracted and costly struggle among other things to assert the primacy of the rule of law and to establish a law-governed society founded on respect for justice in all its forms. In this regard we sought to liberate ourselves from arbitrary rule and injustice and therefore the ineluctably negative consequences of the implementation of the principle that ‘might is right’.

I am certain that all other genuine liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa also sought to achieve the very same outcomes.

It therefore stands to reason that in our own country we have a fundamental obligation to defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, at the same time as we defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, in the ordering of the system of international relations, especially as it relates to Africa’s interactions with the rest of the international community.

It is in this context that I have raised the important matter of defending and safeguarding the right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination, and your tasks in this regard, as an important and vibrant segment of our country’s and Continent’s legal community.

On September 14 – 16, 2005, a World Summit Meeting of the UN General Assembly took place at the New York Headquarters of the UN and, inter alia, adopted important decisions about what has come to be known as “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).

As part of its “Outcome”, the Summit Meeting said: “Recognizing the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, we: Reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”

What threatens Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is precisely the contemporary disrespect for “the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law”, directly contrary to the decisions of the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In the period since the end of the Second World War the world community of nations has built a corpus of international law precisely to avoid the catastrophe of lawlessness imposed by Nazism, which, among other things, led to the criminal murder of six million Jews, the death of twenty million Soviet citizens, and massive destruction of the accumulated wealth of nations.

As you know, in this regard the UN Charter contains important provisions of international law relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. The 2005 World Summit Meeting to which we have referred, which addressed the so-called Right to Protect, expanded the peace-making obligations of the international community.

Article 24 of the UN Charter says: “In discharging these duties (for the maintenance of international peace and security), the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.

“The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”

For its part, the 2005 Summit Meeting resolved that: “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.”

The critical and essential point I am making is that the UN Security Council understood and accepted that its own actions had to be conducted as prescribed by international law. This relates both to the task to maintain international peace and security as provided for in the UN Charter and the ‘responsibility to protect’ as defined by the 2005 World Summit Meeting.

In other words, the UN Security Council itself could only carry out its work, and demand acceptance of its decisions by the world community of nations, including the General Assembly to which it has to report, if it respected the rule of law and established international law, as these relate to its own decisions and operations.

Part of what has obliged us to ring the alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is the concrete reality that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and therefore the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law in terms of its decisions and actions.

It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.

The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.

Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule.

For example, as part of this offensive, relying on all known means of disinformation, the argument is advanced that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the difficult struggle to defeat the apartheid regime.

The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet. This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.

Libya came to extend assistance to the ANC after 1990, when it realised that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.

Similarly, the false assertion has been made that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival. This is yet another fabrication.

The UN Security Council adopted the infamous Resolution 1973 on Libya on March 17, which imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ and authorised various Member States (NATO) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”

The Resolution said nothing about ‘regime change’. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

And indeed in a 15 April, 2011 joint letter, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron had openly declared their intention to achieve this goal.

In this letter they said: “Our duty and our mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.”

And yet in the same letter they said: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadaffi in power…There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi…Colonel Gadaffi must go, and go for good.”

And indeed, as leaders of NATO they ensured that this objective was achieved, directly contrary to what the Security Council Resolution said. And yet the UN Security Council has said nothing about what was a clear violation of international law.

A week before Resolution 1973 was approved; the AU Peace and Security Council adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya and conveyed this to the UN Security Council, as prescribed under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that country.

This was despite the fact that Resolution 1973 itself said the Security Council supports the “efforts (of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General) to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis” in Libya.

The Resolution also noted the decision of the AU PSC “to send its ad-hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”

Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.

Despite this, the Security Council, in violation of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which provides for cooperation between the Security Council and regional bodies, chose completely to ignore the African Union, preferring to accord a Chapter VIII status to the League of Arab States, simply because the League had called for the establishment of a ‘no-fly zone’.

Resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya. The latter Resolution also specifically excluded “a foreign occupation of any form or any part of Libyan territory” and deplored and demanded an end to what it called “the continuing flow of mercenaries” into Libya.

And yet it is now known that Member States involved in the NATO operation sent weapons to the NTC rebel forces and deployed military and other personnel inside Libya to support these forces.

Again this was in violation of international law, and yet the UN Security Council did nothing to stop it.

The armed uprising in Libya started one week after the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations. This can only mean that preparations had taken place before hand to effect a military uprising. In its resolutions the Security Council says nothing about this.

In this regard, in a Report on Libya issued on June 6 this year, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said: “Much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the (Libyan) regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on…

“Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”. That said, the repression was real enough, and its brutality shocked even Libyans. It may also have backfired, prompting a growing number of people to take to the streets.”

It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’, as clearly explained by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron in the joint letter we have cited.

These countries then used the Security Council to authorise their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.

Thus the ‘right-to-protect’ was abused and international law was violated to enable some of the major world powers to help determine the future of an African country. In this context all measures were taken to deny our Continent the possibility to help resolve the Libyan conflict without the death of many people and the massive destruction of property, and on the basis of the democratic transformation of that country.

It is clear to many on our Continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has therefore been raised – which African country will be next?

As Africans we have a continuing responsibility to protect our right to self-determination as well as a duty to work together to resolve our problems, fully cognisant of the inter-dependence of our countries and the fact that we share a common destiny.

In this regard, to protect that right to self-determination, it seems obvious that we must engage in a sustained struggle to ensure respect for international law and the rule of law in the system of international relations. This must include ensuring that the UN Security Council itself respects international law, which prescribes the rule of law.

I therefore return to the appeal I made at the beginning, that you should use your considerable talents to join this struggle so that indeed, as Africans, we have the possibility “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”

I hope that you will find some space in your busy schedules to reflect and act on this important matter.  Thank you.]

For all the programmes and speeches of former President Thabo Mbeki please go to:

Thabo Mbeki Foundation