Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘war’

“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

Was Gaddafi With or Against Africa?

The normal reactions of most people to Obama’s NATO war against Libya and the subsequent savage and humiliating assassination of Colonel Gaddafi ranged from support to indignation. But let us look at the whole globalist episode from purely African objective perspective. The common mistake made is to be emotional or biased right from the outset which definitely will result in subjective conclusion.

Ancient Africans of North Africa and Nubians

The purpose here is to make Africans answer essential questions. Was the war in Libya between the good against the evil? Or was it between bigger and lesser villains? What are the consequences of regime change in Libya to Africa and Africans? Is it better for Africa and Africans to reverse the course of events in Libya, as Obama’s NATO and the Arabs did?

Africans must seek and defend their interests first and not to react to such war as if they were spectators in a boxing arena. This is practical politics not a TV show.

Who was Gaddafi? And What were his Opinions About Africa?

The biggest problem and contradiction with Gaddafi and his Green Book, and also equally with all states of the so-called New World, like the USA and all similar states, is the atrocities committed against the indigenous people and their issues. The imbalances and injustices created in recent modern history of Libya should have been corrected by Gaddafi 42 years rule.

These serious issues are concerning the non-integration of invaders, colonizers, and immigrants into the fabric of the old states. Gaddafi knew history and calling Libya an Arab state and giving Arab identity state official bias was totally unfair and discriminatory. Why the Tamazight (Berber); the Tubu (Teda); and all other African tribes must accept that their ancient land is called Arab while they are definitely not Arabs. No people can talk about human rights, justice, and other values if they are enjoying bloody loots.

Libyans

I strongly believe that all North Africa belongs to Africa and not to the Middle East, the Mediterranean, and the so-called Arab World. North Africa must be returned back to Africa. Libya’s oil wealth is African oil, but oil revenues are spent mainly on the coastal parts of Libya. The so-called black Libyans are simply the true Libyans. The atrocities committed by the militias of the NTC in Libya against black Libyans; African workers, and the African Union brought into the surface the deeply seated and imbedded wrong orientation of the inhabitants of coastal Libya, and also Jamahiriya regime.

After a long time of being Nasserist Pan-Arabist, Colonel Gaddafi started the beginning of course correction. That was only after the Arabs regimes targeted him openly and covertly supported his isolation and embargo. He apologized to Africans for Arab involvement in slavery and he supported African development and institutions.

Greater actions were and are still needed in this direction from any government in Libya. These include among many policies the following in particular: recognition of native languages; purging the educational system and the media from racist and anti-African sentiments and inclinations; political and economic empowerment of indigenous Libyans especially in the vast inland; affirmative actions to level the socio-economic and political fields; and the gradual assimilation of Arab tribes’ members into original Libyan identity.

Was Gaddafi Genuine Africanist or was He Tactical Player?

Libyan Tuareg Girl

For many political analysts and nationalists the ideology of Pan-Africanism might not offer enough sovereignty to states and it is too ahead of time. They argue that Africans cannot just leap from the current deformed colonial inheritance to a United State of Africa which must be far advanced and healthier than the infamous US model.

The Vision of Muammar Gaddafi is not sacred or ideal to most Africans. You may look at it this way, each state must first establish a stable system and national solidarity then moves to African economic cooperation, integration, or union. Only after these prerequisites are met they can move forward and work on African federation, confederation, or total unity; otherwise it is unrealistic. Imagine that after establishing US of Africa something like what is happening in Bahrain occurred; shall we act like the Arab GSC and suppress our fellow Africans by sending troops, or topple a regime.

Genuine Africanism is a bottom-up approach not the other way around. Gaddafi tested and discovered the dangers of Islamism and Arabism to his system; but sadly he stopped short from Africanism, and instead he tried to make a domination at regional level and on the African Union.

The history of Federalism, as well as Democracy, is dirty but this is not the system itself. Correct Federalism is the unity of the welling. The amount of delegation of sovereignty is based on a negotiable constitution. The USA, Russia, India, Nigeria, and Sudan are very bad examples of totalitarianism disguised in Federalism. Very loose federation might be considered as a confederation, also a valid option. All depends on the negotiated constitution. The point is to reach a good balanced contractual relationship between strength in unity and freedom in sovereignty.

Colonial Arab and Western Abuses of Nationality and Nationalism:

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms, i.e. a nation. Africanist identification of “nation” is based on the mind; the heart and the interests of individuals but not on ethnic, racial, or tribal basis. Nationality and nationalism are acquired and not inherited; they are dynamic and not static; they are individual choices and not a group right; this means you have to prove you allegiance every day whatever your origin is. Once you keep sharing your heart; mind; and interests with any indigenous group then you are entitled to nationality and you may politically be a nationalist. You cannot be an Africanist just because you are from African origin or with African genes.

To emancipate from Arab and European colonial eras free African governments are supposed to be considered as public servants only and with very specific delegation of authorities from the people. Governments and peoples too own nothing in this God created universe; but only the indigenous people are the custodians of their territories. Based on this definition, free African governments must not give nationality to anybody by birth, residence, marriage, or anyway else. It is only the indigenous institutions who have the right to instruct the public servants to issue documents upon current and accepted allegiances.

End note:

Gaddafi must have known very well that the inhabitants of the coastal parts of North Africa must realize that they are also Africans and their brethren in the inland are not getting their fair share in power and wealth.

Neither the Jamahiriya of Gaddafi nor the Obama’s NATO and AFRICOM and his masters the corporate globalists can bring peace and development to Africa. It is up to Africans, Libyans, and North Africans to make their future in Africa. The Arab League and the UN must not be allowed to act in any part of Africa without the leadership of the African Union.

Why I’m suing Obama administration over Libya; Says: Ron Paul

TheDailyCaller.com published on 16 June 2011 this article written by Dr. Ron Paul, the American physician, author and US Congressman, who is running for Republican Party candidacy for 2012 US presidential elections:

Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya

US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul to Sue Obama over Libya

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya.

That’s why I’ve joined several other members of Congress in a lawsuit against President Obama for engaging in military action in Libya without seeking the approval of Congress.

Of course, in 2007, then-Senator Obama spoke passionately about the need to go after the Bush administration for violating the War Powers Act — the very same thing he’s doing now. In fact, while speaking at DePaul University in October of 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said the following:

“After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the president. No law can make senators read the intelligence that showed the president was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.”

We are now taking Barack Obama’s past advice and standing up to the executive branch.

Of course, the War Powers Act is hardly an improvement on the U.S. Constitution because it does allow the president to go to war without the approval of Congress. But President Obama refuses to follow this law.

If a president does go to war unilaterally, the War Powers Act requires him to seek Congressional approval within 60 days. The president can get an extension of up to 90 days if he asks for more time — but President Obama did not do this.

His time is up.

The Obama administration recently issued a 38-page paper stating that Obama is not in violation of the War Powers Act because “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Under this argument, President Obama could preemptively launch nuclear weapons against any country in the world without Congressional approval. Obviously, this is not what the Founders intended!

But even aside from violating the Constitution, it makes no economic sense for us to be engaged in yet another war overseas — especially during such tough economic times. For years now, we’ve been sending foreign aid to the very same Libyan government we’re now spending $10 million a day to fight. And it has been recently discovered that the Federal Reserve’s bank bailouts even benefited the Libyan National Bank. Now, we’re taxing the American people to bomb the very nation that we taxed them to prop up.

This makes no sense at all.

The Founding Fathers did not intend for the president to have the power to take our nation to war unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

It’s time for the president to obey the Constitution and put the American people’s national interest first.

Is Obama America’s First Elected Dictator? says: Ron Paul

RonPaul.com. A website maintained by independent grassroots supporters for Dr. Ron Paul’s Republican Party candidacy for 2012 US presidential elections posted the following article written by Dr. Ron Paul (American physician, author and US Congressman) on its website today:

Ron Paul: Is Obama America’s First Elected Dictator?

US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul

These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president’s desire to “do something” in spite of his severely weakened mandate.

Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The draftees of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can’t be agreed upon constitutionally which is to say legally such laws or actions should be rejected.

The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government.

But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress’s unwillingness to pass the president’s jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship.

Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women’s lives for ill-defined reasons!

This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.

  1. Ron Paul: Why I’m suing the Obama administration over Libya There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life…
  2. Ron Paul: Obama Violated War Powers Resolution Transcript This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript…
  3. Ron Paul: Understand, Respect, Follow and Uphold the Constitution Understand, Respect, Follow and Uphold the Constitution by Ron Paul I am pleased that the…

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

Corporate Globalists Are Targeting Africa to Plunder

Corporate Globalists Are Looking for Green Pastures in Africa to Plunder

African leaders from multiple regions stand opposed to AFRICOM

A simple Google search with “Obama war crimes”; “Sarkozy war crimes”; or “NATO war crimes” will show how widespread the charges against Obama; Sarkozy; and NATO.

Horrific atrocities were executed in Libya with direct military and political support and directions from Obama and his NATO mercenaries which included: Sarkozy; Cameron; and Al-Thani (of Qatar). These persons and states must be brought to national and international justice and pay for their horrendous crimes.

Crimes are crimes no matter who committed them. The World did not see evidences in photos or videos of the alleged crimes of Gaddafi despite all the propaganda of the ICC; but the media is full of very horrible evidences of the crimes of Obama and his NATO, Sarkozy, Cameron, and the Libyan Islamist rebels for those who care to see.

Gaddafi tried for a very long time to establish direct democracy in Libya and he campaigned for it worldwide. He fearlessly exposed the crimes of Western liberal democracy and the international mafia of globalists and their secret societies. These were the crimes of Gaddafi and that is why they decided to remove his regime and kill him to stop him from making any further damages and any further progresses.

The thieves and criminals who are bankrupting the West and its people are looking for green pastures in Africa; and to stop Asians from taking over the economic lead in the World.

African Leaders Must Protect Africa