Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘imperialism’

Operation Sarkozy (Mr Sarkozy and the CIA)

Based on Thierry Meyssan’s “Operation Sarkozy” Robert Thompson wrote at Axis of Logic on July 18, 2008 warning the world and particularly the Arabs, more than three years ago, from eminent dangers which we can see them clearly now in regime change in Ivory Coast, Libya, and the so-called “Arab Spring”:

[A most interesting study dated 14th July 2008 by Thierry Meyssan, entitled Operation Sarkozy, has been brought to my attention on how the CIA managed to place one of its agents, namely Mr Nicolas Sarkozy, as president of the French Republic.

To make his point, Mr Meyssan does not content himself with vague conjecture, but puts together check-able facts relating to the relationship between our President and the CIA (the well-known terrorist organisation financed by the tax-payers in the USA), and the USA establishment in general, with a view to ensuring that French policy should be dramatically re-aligned to serve the interests of the present USA administration (not, of course, the people of the USA).

The links between various arms of the USA establishment and Mr Sarkozy are much closer than I could ever have imagined, although I was aware of a fair number of the facts reported and examined by Mr Meyssan. I had not however thought, and this is indeed my own fault, how closely these links tie up with other links with groups on both sides of the Atlantic allied, or similar, to the Mafia and other conspiratorial bodies based in Italy and neighbouring states as well as being well entrenched in the USA.

Acceptance of the arguments put forward by Mr Meyssan serves to explain many of the otherwise seemingly inexplicable decisions made by Mr Sarkozy since he took over from Jacques Chirac in 2007, as well as giving very personal private reasons (previously totally unknown to me, but then I am not a fan of the gossip columns) for the obvious dislike, and perhaps even hatred, which Mr Chirac has for his successor.

This article should be read by everyone as the implications are extremely serious for the future of the world. I make this claim not because France is still a great power — it is not and most of us recognise this — but it shows a more subtle means of achieving a coup d’etat than using military or other violent means.  Mr Meyssan very carefully tracks the whole story of Mr Sarkozy’s rise within the ranks of the successive parties which have claimed to be “Gaulliste” (as following the broad lines of policy laid down by the General, later President, but many of us still think of him as the great leader during the Second World War from 1940 onwards). It is a tale of most cunning duplicity supported by hyper-intelligent backing from within the USA establishment.

If the conclusions reached by Mr Meyssan are correct, and I can see no reason to doubt his analysis of the facts, then Mr Sarkozy is even more dangerous than he has so far appeared to be, and the poor and the oppressed can expect to suffer almost anywhere in the world from his actions on behalf of his masters in the USA. The Arab world, above all others, can expect to be the victim of highly sophisticated concerted trickery as he does everything that he can to crush any moves which the people may try to make towards freedom from tyranny, wherever such moves might in any way limit the greedy ambitions of those who rule the USA.

Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com]

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

The article in question was written by Thierry Meyssan on July 14, 2004.  It was translated for Axis of Logic from French to English by Robert Thompson and was published on Red Ice Creations (a news website and radio program, hosted by founder, filmmaker and researcher Henrik Palmgren.) The following is this translation:

How the CIA planted one of its agents as President of the French Republic

Nicolas Sarkozy

Nicolas Sarkozy should be judged on his actions and not on his personality. But when his actions surprise even his own electors, it is legitimate to examine in detail his biography and to ask about the alliances which brought him to power. Thierry Meyssan decided to write the truth about the origins of the President of the French Republic. All the information contained in this article is verifiable, with the exception of two imputations, pointed out by the author who assumes sole responsibility for them.

The French people, weary of the over-long presidencies of François Mitterrand and Jacques Chirac, elected Nicolas Sarkozy and counted on his energy to revitalise their country. They hoped for a break with the years of immobilism and superannuated ideologies. They have had a break with the principles which form the foundation of the French nation. They have been stupefied by this “hyper president”, every day grabbing hold of another new file, drawing the right and the left to him, thus disposing of all the land-marks to the point of creating complete confusion.

Like children who have just done something very stupid, the French are too busy finding excuses to admit the extent of the damage and of their naïvety. This makes them refuse all the more to see who Nicolas Sarkozy is, which they ought to have realised long ago.

The man is clever. Like an illusionist, he has diverted their attention by offering them his private life as a spectacle and in posing in celebrity magazines, to the point of making them overlook his political history.

Let the sense of this article be fully understood: it is not to reproach Mr Sarkozy with his links of family, friends and professional contacts, but to reproach him with having hidden his links from the French people who believed that they were electing a free man.

To understand how a man in whom all agree they see an agent of the United States and Israel has been able to become the head of the Gaullist party, then the President of the French Republic, one must go back in time. Far back. We must follow a long digression during which we shall introduce the protagonists who are today taking their revenge.

Family secrets
At the end of the Second World War, the USA secret services counted on the Italo-US godfather Lucky Luciano to control the security of American ports and to prepare the allied landings in Sicily.

Luciano’s contacts with the US services passed above all through Frank Wisner Sr. then, when the ‘godfather’ was freed and went into exile in Italy, through his Corsican ‘ambassador’, Étienne Léandri.

In 1958, the United States, worried about a possible victory of the FLN in Algeria which would have opened North Africa to Soviet influence, decided to give rise to a military coup d’état in France. The operation was organised jointly by the Planning Direction of the CIA – in theory run by Frank Wisner Sr.- and by NATO. But Wisner had already sunk into dementia so that it was his successor, Allan Dulles, who supervised the action. From Algiers, the French Generals formed a Committee of Public Safety which exerted pressure on the civil government in Paris and forced it to give full powers to General De Gaulle without any need to use force.

However, Charles De Gaulle was not the pawn whom the Anglo-Saxons believed they could manipulate. To start with, he tried to find a way out of the colonial contradiction by giving wide autonomy to the overseas territories within a French Union. But it was already too late to save the French Empire since the colonised peoples did not believe in the promises from the metropolis and insisted on their independence. After having successfully led fierce campaigns of repression against the independentists, De Gaulle realised what had to be done. Showing rare political wisdom, he decided to give each colony its independence.

This U-turn was seen as a betrayal by most of those who brought him to power. The CIA and NATO then backed all sorts of plots to get rid of him, including a failed putsch and some forty attempts to assassinate him. However, some of his partisans approved of his political evolution. Around Charles Pasqua, they formed the SAC, a militia to protect him.

Pasqua is both a Corsican crook and a former member of the resistance. He married the daughter of a Canadian bootlegger who made a fortune during prohibition. He ran the Ricard company which, after having dealt in absinthe, a forbidden drink, made itself respectable by selling anisette. However, the company continued to serve as a cover for all sorts of deals in relation with the Italo-New Yorker Genovese family, that of Lucky Luciano. It was therefore not surprising that Pasqua called on Étienne Léandri (Luciano’s “ambassador”) to recruit strong arm men and build up a Gaullist militia. A third man played an important role in the formation of the SAC, De Gaulle’s former body-guard, Achille Peretti -another Corsican.

Thus protected, De Gaulle drew up with panache a policy of national independence. While confirming that he belonged to the Atlantic camp, he questioned the Anglo-Saxon leadership. He objected to the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market (1961 and 1967); he refused the deployment of UNO blue helmets in the Congo (1961); he encouraged Latin American states to break free of US imperialism (speech in Mexico, 1964); he expelled NATO from France and withdrew form the Integrated Command Structure of the Atlantic Alliance (1966); he denounced the Viet-Nam War (speech in Phnon Penh, 1966); he condemned Israeli expansionism during the Six Day War (1967); he supported the independence of Quebec (speech in Montreal 1967) ; etc…

At the same time, De Gaulle consolidated France’s power by giving it a military-industrial complex including a nuclear dissuasion force, and by guaranteeing its supply of energy. He usefully separated the troublesome Corsicans from his entourage by giving them overseas missions. Thus Étienne Léandri became the dealer for the Elf group (now Total), while Charles Pasqua became the confidant of the heads of state in French-speaking Africa.

Aware that he could now defy the Anglo-Saxons everywhere at the same time, De Gaulle allied himself with the Rothschild family. He chose as Prime Minister the Director of the Bank, Georges Pompidou. The two men formed an efficient tandem. The political audacity of the first never lost sight of the economic realism of the second.

When De Gaulle resigned, in 1969, Georges Pompidou briefly succeeded him as President before being carried off by cancer. The historical Gaullists did not accept his leadership and were worried by his excessively anglophile attitude. They cried treason when Pompidou, seconded by the Secretary General of the Elyse Eduard Balladur, allowed “perfidious Albion” into the European Common Market.

The making of Nicolas Sarkozy
Having thus described the background, let us come back to our principal personage, Nicolas Sarkozy. Born in 1955, he was the son of a Hungarian nobleman, Pal Sarkösy de Nagy-Bocsa, who fled to France after fleeing the Red Army, and Andrée Mallah, a Jewish lady from Sallonica. After having had three children (Guillaume, Nicolas and François), the couple divorced. Pal Sarkösy de Nagy-Bocsa remarried with an aristocrat, Christine de Ganay, by whom he had two children (Pierre-Olivier and Caroline). Nicolas was not brought up by his parents alone, but passed to and fro in this recomposed family.

His mother became the Secretary of Achille Peretti. After having co-founded the SAC, De Gaulle’s body-guard had pursued a brilliant political career. He was elected Député and Mayor of Neuilly-sur-Seine, the richest suburb of the capital, then President of the National Assembly.

Unhappily, in 1972, Achille Peretti was subject to serious accusations. In the United States, the magazine Time revealed the existence of a secret Corsican criminal organisation the ‘Union corse ‘ which was said to control a large share of the traffic in drugs between Europe and America, the famous “French connection” which Hollywood brought to the screen. Based on parliamentary hearings and its own investigations, Time quoted the name of a Mafia boss, Jean Venturi, arrested some years earlier in Canada, who was no other than the commercial representative of Charles Pasqua for the drinks company Ricard. The names of several families were mentioned who were said to run the “Union corse”, including the Perettis. Achille denied this, but had to resign from the presidency of the National Assembly and even escaped from a “suicide”.

In 1977, Pal Sarközy separated from his second wife, Christine de Ganay, who then linked herself with the number two of the central administration of the Department of State in the United States. She married him and set up home with him in America. The world being small, as is well known, her husband was no other than Frank Wisner Jr., the son of the previous one. The functions of Junior at the CIA are not known, but it was clear that he had an important role there. Nicolas, who remained close to his step-mother, his half-brother and his half-sister, began to turn towards the United States where he “benefitted” from training programmes in the Department of State.

At the same time, Nicolas Sarkozy joined the Gaullist Party. He there met and had contacts with Charles Pasqua more speedily as he was not only a national leader, but also in charge of the local section in the Hauts-de-Seine.

In 1982, Nicolas Sarkozy, having completed his legal training and having been called to the Bar, married Achilles Pretty’s niece. His best man was Charles Pasqual. As an Avocet, Maître Sarkozy looked after the interests of the Corsican friends of his mentors. He bought a property in Corsica, at Vice, and thought of making his name more Corsican by replacing the ‘y’ with an ‘I’: Sarkozy.

The following year, he was elected Mayor of Neuilly-sure-Seine in the place of his uncle-in-law, Achilles Pretty, stricken by a heart attack.

However, Nicolas did not take long to betray his wife and, from 1984 onward, he had a hidden liaison with Cecilia, the wife of the most famous French television personality at the time, Jacques Martin, whom he had met when celebrating their marriage as Mayor of Neuilly. This double life lasted for five years, before the lovers left their respective spouses to set up a new household.

Nicolas was a witness at the marriage, in 1992, of Jacques Chirac’s daughter, Claude, to an editorialist at Le Figaro. he could not stop himself from seducing Claude and to have a brief affair with her, while living officially with Cecilia. The betrayed husband committed suicide by taking drugs. The break between the Chirac’s and Nicolas Sarkozy was brutal and permanent.

In 1993, the left lost the parliamentary elections. President François Mitterrand refused to resign and entered into a cohabitation with a Prime Minister from the right, Jacques Chirac. His ambition was to become President and thought of then forming a tandem with Eduard Balladur comparable with that of De Gaulle and Pompidou, and he refused to be Prime Minister again and left the place to his “friend for over thirty years”, Eduard Balladur. Despite his dubious past, Charles Pasqual became Minister of the Interior. Even if he kept a firm grip Moroccan marijuana, he took advantage of his position to legalise his other activities by taking control of the casinos, gaming and racing in French-speaking Africa. He also established links in Saudi Arabia and in Israel an became an honorary officer in the Mossad. As for Nicolas Sarkozy, he was Minister of the Budget and government spokesman.

Frank Wisner Jr.

In Washington, Frank Wisner Jr. took over from Paul Wolfowitz as being responsible for political planning in the Defence Department. Nobody commented on the links which he had with the French government’s spokesman.

This was when the tension within the Gaullist Party came back as thirty years earlier between the historic Gaullists and the financial right, in the person of Balladur. The novelty was that Charles Pasqua and with him the young Nicolas Sarkozy betrayed Jacques Chirac to come closer to the Rothschild tendency. Everything went wrong. The conflict reached its peak in 1995 when Édouard Balladur put himself forward against his ex-friend Jacques Chirac for the presidential election, and was beaten. Above all, following the instructions received from London and Washington, the Balladur government opened negotiations for adhesion to the European Union and to NATO of the States in Central and Eastern Europe, freed from Soviet control.

Everything went wrong in the Gaullist Party where the friends of yester-year were ready to kill one another. To finance his electoral campaign, Édouard Balladur tried to get hold of the Gaullist Party’s black funds, hidden within the double accounting system of the oil company Elf. Hardly had the old Étienne Léandri died, when Judges looked into the company and its bosses were incarcerated. But Balladur, Pasqua and Sarkozy never managed to recuperate the booty.

Crossing the desert
Throughout his first term, Jacques Chirac kept Nicolas Sarkozy at a distance. The man became discreet during this long period of crossing the desert. Discreetly, he continued to make links in financial circles.

In 1996, Nicolas Sarkozy having finally managed to end an endless divorce procedure married Cécilia. As witnesses they had the two billionaires Martin Bouygues and Bernard Arnaud (the richest man in the country).

Last act
Well before the Iraq crisis, Frank Wisner Jr. and his colleagues at the CIA were planning the destruction of the Gaullist line and the rise in power of Nicolas Sarkozy. They acted in three stages: firstly the elimination of the leaders of the Gaullist Party and taking over this body, then the elimination of the principal rival on the right and the investiture by the Gaullist Party for the presidential election, and finally the elimination of any serious challenger from the left in order to be sure of carrying off the presidential election.

For years, the media were kept excited by posthumous revelations by a real property speculator. Before dying of a serious illness, he had registered for reasons never made clear a video confession. For even more obscure reasons, the “cassette” fell into the hands of a highly placed member of the Socialist Party, Dominique Strauss-Khan, who passed it on indirectly to the press.

Even if the confessions of the speculator did not lead to any judicial sanction, they opened a Pandora’s box. The principal victim of the successive affairs was to be the Prime Minister Alain Juppé. To protect Chirac, he alone took on all the criminal offences. Putting Juppé out of the way left the way clear for Nicolas Sarkozy to take over the running of the Gaullist Party.

Sarkozy then made use of his position to force Jacques Chirac to take him back into the government, despite their mutual hatred. He was definitively to be the Minister of the Interior. What a mistake! In this post, he controlled the Préfets and the interior intelligence network which he used to put his appointees into the major branches of the administration.

He also dealt with Corsican matters. The Préfet Claude Érignac had been assassinated. Although no-one had claimed it, the murder was immediately interpreted as a challenge made by the independentists to the Republic. After a long hunt, the police managed to arrest a fleeing suspect, Yvan Colonna, the son of a Socialist Député. Without regard for the presumption of innocence, Nicolas Sarkozy announced this arrest accusing the suspect of being the assassin. This news was too good two days before a referendum being organised by the Minister of the Interior in Corsica to modify the status of the Island. However that may be, the voters rejected the Sarkozy project which, according to some, favoured Mafia interests.

Although Yvan Colonna was later found guilty, he has always claimed his innocence and no material evidence has been found against him. Strangely, the man refused to talk, preferring to be found guilty than to reveal what he knows. We here reveal that the Préfet Érignac was not killed by nationalists, but shot by the hit-man, Igor Pecatte, immediately sent off to Angola where he has been taken on by the Elf group. The motive for the crime was closely linked to the previous functions of Érignac, in charge of the African networks of Charles Pasqua at the Ministry of Cooperation. As for Yvan Colonna, he has been a personal friend of Nicolas Sarkozy for many years and their children are in friendly contact with one another.

A new affair came to light: false listings were circulating which untruthfully accused certain personalities of hiding bank accounts in Luxembourg, with Clearstream. Among the personalities defamed: Nicolas Sarkozy. He took the case to court and let it seem that his right-wing rival for the presidential election, the Prime Minister, Dominique de Villepin, had organised this machination. He did not hide his intention to have him sent to prison. In reality, the false listings were put in circulation by members of the Franco-American Foundation, of which John Negroponte was the President and Frank Wisner Jr. the Director. What the Judges did not know and we reveal here was that the listings were made in London by a joint office of the CIA and the MI6, Hakluyt & Co, of which Frank Wisner Jr. is also Director. Villepin fights back against the accusations, but he is charged, forbidden to leave his home and, de facto, temporarily removed from political life. The way is open for on the right for Nicolas Sarkozy.

It remained necessary to neutralise opposition candidates. The membership dues to the Socialist Party have gone down to a symbolic level to attract new members. Suddenly thousands of young people applied for membership cards. Among them are at least ten thousand new members who are in reality members of the Trotskyite “Lambertist” Party (so called from the name of their founder Pierre Lambert). This small extreme left formation has a history of working for the CIA against the Stalinist communists during the Cold War (it was the equivalent of the SD/USA of Max Shatchman, which formed the neoconservatives in the USA). This was not the first time that the “Lambertists” had infiltrated the Socialist Party.

In particular they planted two famous CIA agents: Lionel Jospin (who became Prime Minister) and Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, the principal adviser to Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Primaries were organised in the Socialist Party to appoint its candidate for the presidential election. Two personalities were competing: Laurent Fabius and Ségolène Royal. Only the first represented a danger for Sarkozy. Dominique Strauss-Kahn became a candidate with the task of eliminating Fabius at the last moment. This he was able to do thanks to the votes of the infiltrated “Lambertist” militants who voted not for him but for Royal. The operation was possible because Strauss-Kahn, of Moroccan Jewish origin, had been on the US payroll for many years. The French were not aware that he lectured at Stanford, where he had been taken on by the Provost of the University, Condoleezza Rice. As soon as he took office, Nicolas Sarkozy and Condoleezza Rice thanked Strauss-Kahn by having him appointed to head the International Monetary Fund.

First days at the Élysée Palace
On the evening of the second round of the presidential election, when the opinion polls announced his probable victory, Nicolas Sarkozy made a short speech to the nation from his campaign HQ. Then, contrary to custom, he did not go to celebrate with the militants of his party, but went to Fouquet’s. The famous restaurant on the Champs-Élysées, which had once been the meeting place for the “Union Corse” now belongs to the casino operator Dominique Desseigne. It was placed at the disposition of the elected President to receive his friends and principal donors to his campaign. A hundred or so guests crowded in, the richest men in France were there with the casino bosses.

Then the elected President allowed himself a few days of earned rest. Taken there in a private Falcon-900 to Malta, he rested there on the Paloma, the 65 metre yacht of his friend Vincent Bolloré, a billionaire formed at the Banque Rothschild.

Finally, Nicolas Sarkozy was invested as President of the French Republic. The first decree which he signed was not to proclaim an amnesty, but to allow casinos to be operated by his friends Desseigne et Partouche and increase the number of gambling machines.

He formed his working team and his government. With no surprise, one finds there a very worrying casino owner (Minister of Youth and Sport) and lobbyist for the casinos of his friend Desseigne (who became spokesman for the “Gaullist” Party).

Nicolas Sarkozy relied above all on four men: Claude Guéant, Secretary General of the Élysée Palace. He was the former right arm of Charles Pasqua. François Pérol, Assistant Secretary General of the Élysée. He was a managing partner of the Banque Rothschild. Jean-David Lévitte, diplomatic adviser. Son of the former Director of the Jewish Agency. French Ambassador to UNO, he was removed from his post by Chirac who considered him too close to George Bush. Alain Bauer, the man in the shadow. His name does not appear in any directory. He is in charge of the intelligence services. Grandson of the Grand Rabbi of Lyon, former Grand-Master of the Grand Orient of France (the principal Masonic obedience in France) and former number 2 of the USA National Security Agency in Europe.

Frank Wisner Jr., who had in the meantime been appointed special envoy by President Bush for the independence of Kosovo, insisted that Bernard Kouchner be appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs with a dual priority mission: The independence of Kosovo and the ending of France’s Arab policy.

Kouchner, of Baltic Jewish origin, started his career by taking part in creating a humanitarian NGO. Thanks to money from the National Endowment for Democracy, he took part in operations for Zbigniew Brzezinski in Afghanistan, alongside Osama Ben Laden and the Karzaï brothers against the Soviets. He could be found in the 90s alongside Alija Izetbegoviç in Bosnia-Herzegovina. From 1999 to 2001, he was the High Representative of UNO in Kosovo.

Under the control of the younger brother of President Hamid Karzaï, Afghanistan became the largest producer in the world of opium poppies. The juice is transformed on the spot into heroin and transported by the US Air Force to Camp Bondsteed (Kosovo). There the drug is taken over by the men of Haçim Thaçi who distribute it principally in Europe and also in the United States. The profits are used to finance the illegal operations of the CIA. Karzaï and Thaçi are long-time personal friends of Bernard Kouchner, who obviously knows nothing of their criminal activities despite the international reports which have been made on the subject.

To complete his government, Nicolas Sarkozy appoints Christine Lagarde, Minister of Economy and Finance. She had made all her career in the United States where she ran the prestigious law firm of Baker & McKenzie. Within Dick Cheney’s the Center for International & Strategic Studies, she co-chaired with Zbigniew Brzezinski a working group which supervised the privatisations in Poland. She had organised intense lobbying for Lockheed Martin against the French aircraft manufacturer Dassault.

Sarkozy with Carla Bruni

A new escapade during the summer. Nicolas, Cécilia, their joint mistress and their children were offered holidays in the USA at Wolfenboro, not far from President Bush’s property. The bill this time was paid by Robert F. Agostinelli, an Italo-New York merchant banker, a Zionist and a leading neo-conservative who gives his views in Commentary, the magazine of the American Jewish Committee.

The success of Nicolas spreads to his half-brother Pierre-Olivier. Under the Americanised name of “Oliver”, he was appointed by Frank Carlucci (who was the number 2 of the CIA after having been recruited by Frank Wisner Sr.) Director of a new investment fund of the Carlyle Group (the joint management company of the portfolios of the Bushes and the Ben Ladens). Having become the 5th deal-maker in the world, he manages the principal assets of the sovereign funds of Kuwait and Singapore.

The popularity of the President is in free-fall in the opinion polls. One of his advisers in communication, Jacques Séguéla, planned to distract the attention of the public with new “celebrity stories”. The announcement of the divorce from Cécilia was published by Libération, the newspaper of his friend Édouard de Rothschild, to cover up the demonstrators’ slogans during a day of general strikes. Going further still, the communicator organised a meeting with the singer and former model, Carla Bruni. Several days later, her affair with the President became official and the media din again covered up the political criticisms. A few weeks later still and it was Nicolas’ third marriage. This time the witnesses whom he chose were Mathilde Agostinelli (the wife of Robert) and Nicolas Bazire, former private secretary of Édouard Balladur who had become a managing partner at the Banque Rothschild.

When will the French open their eyes to see what they should do?

© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com (Translation Copyright)

This Axis of Logic translation is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author, translator and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!

Ron Paul Questioned the US Policies for Decades

Opposing US Policies

The “What If?” speech to the US Congress on February 12, 2009. (Text and video).

Ron Paul: “Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleagues:
What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interest?

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?

Senator Dr. Ron Paul

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair tradeoff with the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation technique”, is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all war-time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that war-time conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if Conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if Conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that would spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learned the truth, that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war in preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded?
Nothing.

But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored?
Nothing good.

And I yield back the balance of my time.”

The Ad That May Kill the Next USA President

Senator Dr. Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican Party senator seeking nomination for 2012 presidential elections in the USA, maintained his strong stands against the deeply unpopular and continuous US violent defense policy and the very intrusive foreign policy running for decades. The team of Senator Paul produced a superb advertisement titled “Imagine!” or “Just Imagine” presenting his alternative peaceful and constructive defense and foreign policies; and it is powerfully challenging US military adventurism.

The wealthy and extremely influential war business establishment in the USA is definitely extremely worried from such campaign promises. This business which involves arms, oil, minerals, banking, security, entertainment, organized crime, intelligence, media and many other lucrative ventures are at stake.

The main stream media as affiliated to the defense business is trying hard to ignore the campaign of Ron Paul and even negatively influence public support. They are working to reduce the chances and even prevent any possible outcome that may install Ron Paul in the White House. But the most dangerous scenario is a repeat of the assassination of Anti-war heroes like John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963; and the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968.

“Imagine!”/“Just Imagine” advertisement says:

[Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of “keeping us safe” or “promoting democracy” or “protecting their strategic interests.”

Imagine that they operated outside of US law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops, and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed, or captured or tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers’ attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, ten more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people who live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the new foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy WILL change eventually, as Rome’s did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.]

[Click here to learn how Ron Paul is America’s strongest presidential candidate on national defense; or get involved and click here to register to vote in 2012]

(Imagine! : Is a speech written & given by Ron Paul on March 11, 2009; while the ad is of recent production.)

Senator Ron Paul also said: [We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment towards us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn’t stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. 50,000 troops left behind in Iraq are not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.]

Will the war establishment in the USA allow Ron Paul to come to power and implement his policies?

Who will win? – knowing that Obama’s job approval rating dropped to 40% in October 2011 and the curve is downward.

For more details on Jim Garrison’s, the District Attorney of New Orleans, Kennedy assassination investigation please see JFK, a 1991 American film directed by Oliver Stone. It examines the events leading to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, through the eyes of former New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner); and how his office was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover-up defending the two official investigations: the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

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

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

The American Dream website posted the following article:

Thanks To Obama, The Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

Al-Qaeda Flag Is Now Flying High And Proud Over Libya

[The Al-Qaeda flag has been flying high over Libya and the governments of the western world that helped remove Gaddafi from power don’t seem to mind at all.  The flag, which contains the phrase “there is no God but Allah” with a full moon underneath, has been photographed flying beside the new national flag of Libya at the courthouse in Benghazi.  The courthouse in Benghazi is where the “rebels” established their provisional government, and it is where the “media center” for communication with foreign journalists was located during the fight against Gaddafi.  So it isn’t as if the al-Qaeda flag has been flying over some insignificant building.  But this should be no surprise.  It has been known all along that al-Qaeda was very heavily represented in the army of “the rebels” and among the leadership of “the rebels”.  Now, thanks to Obama, they have taken over Libya and they intend to impose a brutal form of Sharia law on the entire Libyan population.

You can see more pictures of the al-Qaeda flag flying over Libya on the website of the Telegraph and on the website of the Daily Mail.

The following is video of the al-Qaeda flag flying over the courthouse in Benghazi….

So where is the uproar about this in the U.S. media?

The silence has been deafening.

I guess it would be hard to explain to the American people why they should be sacrificing their sons and daughters to fight al-Qaeda when we just spent billions of dollars helping them take over Libya.

Sadly, the flag of al-Qaeda is not just being flown at the Benghazi courthouse.  According to eyewitnesses, it is now being displayed all over Benghazi.  The following is an account from an eyewitness that has seen the flag flying over the Benghazi courthouse for himself….

It was here at the courthouse in Benghazi where the first spark of the Libyan revolution ignited. It’s the symbolic seat of the revolution; post-Gaddafi Libya’s equivalent of Egypt’s Tahrir Square. And it was here, in the tumultuous months of civil war, that the ragtag rebel forces established their provisional government and primitive, yet effective, media center from which to tell foreign journalists about their “fight for freedom.”

But according to multiple eyewitnesses—myself included—one can now see both the Libyan rebel flag and the flag of al Qaeda fluttering atop Benghazi’s courthouse.

According to one Benghazi resident, Islamists driving brand-new SUVs and waving the black al Qaeda flag drive the city’s streets at night shouting, “Islamiya, Islamiya! No East, nor West,” a reference to previous worries that the country would be bifurcated between Gaddafi opponents in the east and the pro-Gaddafi elements in the west.

So what in the world are we supposed to think about all this?

We were told that we had to invade Afghanistan because they were harboring “al-Qaeda” leaders.

We were told that it was necessary for us to stay in Iraq for so long so that “al-Qaeda” would not take over.

But now we have helped al-Qaeda take over Libya.

It isn’t as if the governments of the western world did not know what was going on in Libya.

According to the Telegraph, the leader of the Libyan rebels was very open about the fact that his “troops” included significant numbers of al-Qaeda fighters that were firing bullets at U.S. soldiers in Iraq….

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

According to a recent article by Kurt Nimmo for Infowars.com, al-Qaeda rebels had established an “Islamic emirate” in eastern Libya as early as February….

In February, it was reported that al-Qaeda had set-up an Islamic emirate in Derna, in eastern Libya, headed by a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi.

Now that they have won the war, the “rebels” have announced that they will be imposing strict Sharia law all over Libya.

The head of the National Transitional Council in Libya, Moustafa Abdeljalil, has already made this very clear.  Just consider the following statements….

-“Sharia law is the source of all our laws.

-“We take the Islamic religion as the core of our new government

-“The constitution will be based on our Islamic religion

Shouldn’t the people of Libya have a say in all of this?

Sadly, one kind of tyranny has just been replaced with another.

In fact, some elements of Sharia law have already been implemented.

According to a recent article posted on the Telegraph, Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has already announced that the law banning polygamy has been repealed because it is not compliant with Sharia law….

Mr Abdul-Jalil went further, specifically lifting immediately, by decree, one law from Col. Gaddafi’s era that he said was in conflict with Sharia – that banning polygamy.

The American people were told that the system of government established by the Taliban in Afghanistan was so repressive that it needed to be overthrown, but now we are helping essentially the exact same system of government be set up in Libya.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Not only that, we have greatly destabilized the region and there will almost certainly be very bloody internal conflicts within Libya for many years to come.

The following comes from a recent report posted by The New American….

Gadhafi and the remnants of his regime are thought to have distributed vast stockpiles of weapons and wealth so anti-revolutionary forces could wage what the despot promised would be a long-lasting insurgency. Many of those fighters fled to the desert and are staging surprise attacks on roaming bands of militiamen.

The ongoing battles have sparked widespread speculation that the bloody conflicts will continue to rage far into the future.

In addition, as The New American notes, as a result of this conflict huge amounts of very dangerous weapons have fallen into the hands of potential terrorists….

Advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft missiles has also fallen into the hands of known terrorist organizations. The deadly stockpiles are turning up all over the region, but it remains unclear how much firepower has been smuggled out of the country so far.

But does the Obama administration seem alarmed by any of this?

No, they just want us all to praise them for a “job well done” in Libya.

Hopefully the American people will see right through this nonsense.

The flag of al-Qaeda has been flying over the headquarters of the provisional government in Libya, and yet the American people are the ones that are being treated as potential terrorists.

Our borders are wide open and anyone that wants to can sneak into this country, and yet we are told that we must have our private parts examined before we are allowed to get on to an airplane.

Something is very, very wrong.  Somehow the focus of national security has gone from protecting the American people to spying on the American people.

As I wrote about yesterday, the government has become absolutely obsessed with watching us, listening to us, tracking us, recording us, compiling information on all of us and getting us all to spy on one another.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has been spending billions of dollars to help al-Qaeda take power in Libya and is helping them enslave the entire Libyan population to a brutal form of Sharia law.

Can anyone explain how this makes any sense at all?]

Comment from Tarig Anter:

Corporations rule the USA and Europe and they want businesses with Islamists. War is business; and business is good. For them Gaddafi was too stingy and too nationalist to let them get a share; so, regime change; kill him; and bring his enemies the Islamists after striking a deal with them.
US and EU People must wait until corporations make profits and they must know that their security and that of the USA and Europe are subject and require future contracts. That is how capitalism and liberal democracy work. If you don’t like it then you must be insane anarchist or communist, and they have to deal with you too.

Please read the following:
1- The Globalists and the Islamists

2- Globalists Created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State

3- Obama – Product of Illuminati Breeding Program?

4- Muslim Brotherhood- Illuminati Tools

5- Neoliberal Corporations & Sunnite Islamism Attacking Nationalism

6- Secret Societies & the New World Order

7- Exposing Capitalism; Communism; & International Secret Societies

8- Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder