Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:39 pm

not many people know more about Africa than keith harmon snow

Petroleum and Empire in North Africa
Muammar Gaddafi Accused of Genocide? NATO Invasion Underway
by keith harmon snow / March 4th, 2011

Are events unfolding in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt more about petro-terrorism or about freedom and democracy? How much oil is there in North Africa? Who is in control of that oil? What is the relationship between the West and Muammar Gaddafi? Is he really the terrorist we’ve all been led to believe he is? Who is the Libyan “opposition” and who are the “rebels” we read about?

Presented with this story are petroleum industry concessions maps for North Africa that people might want to ponder in between the Western propaganda on Libya. Amidst the full-court press of propaganda presented by the western media and State Department disinformation apparatus we find that Muammar Gaddafi is even accused of committing genocide against his own people. Are there double standards at work?
Image

An original photograph; backside text reads: Al Haji Amin (centre) is introducing military senior officers to his brother Col. Gaddafi, Chairman of the Revolutionary Command of Arab republic of Libya, shortly on arrival at Gulu Airfield [northern Uganda] to perform the official handing over of aircrafts to Uganda Airforce, March 3, 1974.

From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli

On September 1, 1969 the pro-western regime that had ruled in Libya was overthrown by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his officers. At the time, Libya was home to the largest US Air Base (Wheelus Air Base) in North Africa. Agreements between the USA and Libya signed in 1951 and 1954 granted the USAF the use of Wheelus Air Base and its El Watia gunnery range for gunnery and bombing training and for transport and bombing stopovers until 1971. During the Cold War the base was pivotal to expanding US military power under the Strategic Air Command, and an essential base for fighter and reconnaissance missions. The Pentagon also used the base — and the remote Libyan desert — for missile launch testing: the launch area was located 15 miles east of Tripoli. Considered a ‘little America on the shores of the Mediteranean’, the base housed some 4600 US military personnel until its evacuation in 1970.

With the discovery of oil in Libya in 1959, a very poor desert country became a very rich little western protectorate. US and European companies had huge stakes in the extremely lucrative petroleum and banking sectors, but these were soon nationalized by Gaddafi. Thus Libya overnight joined the list of US ‘enemy’ or ‘rogue’ states that sought autonomy and self-determination outside the expanding sphere of western Empire. Further cementing western hatred of the new regime, Libya played a leading role of the 1973 oil embargo against the US and maintained cooperative relations with the Soviet Union. Gaddafi also reportedly channeled early oil wealth into national free health care and education.

At one time Gaddafi played around with Idi Amin, but his ties to other despots — such as Tony Blair and George H. W. Bush — are far more notable, though far less advertised. Of course, just as Gaddafi is heavily slammed and maligned — in disproportion to his actual actions — we find that Idi Amin is not the premier African terrorist he is always billed to be: Amin’s crimes pale in comparison to the current despot in power in Uganda, President-for-Life Yoweri Museveni. Remember that Gaddafi has served the prerogatives of imperialism for years, even while being presented as the world’s premier terrorist.

Like previous revolutionary figures of the 20th century such as Mao and his Little Red Book, Gaddafi followed the example of other revolutionary figures like Mao Zedong in authoring his own unique and highly idealistic political philosophy. Gaddafi’s Green Book was published in three volumes between 1975 and 1979 and, as you might expect, it is almost unknown by the western enlightened [sic] world.

Over the past four decades the US and its closest allies, including Israel and Japan, have maintained a mostly hostile relationship with Muammar Gaddafi and Libya. This relationship has included economic sanctions, covert attacks, open warfare and other actions of aggression committed by the United States. The ‘international community’ repeatedly enforced or renewed sanctions against Libya in the 1980s and 1990s.

After September 11, 2001, the US issued extensive threats and warnings against Libya to pressure it to accept US demands and collaborate in the US “War on Terror.” Since Libya was considered one of the premier ‘rogue states’ involved in ‘terrorism’ and Gaddafi was forced to concede some of his country’s independence and autonomy. After diplomatic wrangling, sanctions against Libya were dropped in 2004 in exchange for Gaddafi’s (limited) collaboration.

In 2004, during heightened western media propaganda about Libyan terrorism and Gaddafi’s supporting Al Qaeda — all kinds of disingenuous reports and outright lies — the G.W. Bush administration dropped sanctions against the regime — and paved the way for a new era in US-Libyan bilateral trade.

US officials were reportedly under pressure from multinational corporations, including big petrol companies BP, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, Chevron, Conoco and Marathon Oil, and defense giants like Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, and other corporations like Dow Chemical and Fluor. These corporations and lobbyists then formed a “trade” association, US-Libya Business Association (USLBA) in 2005 with $US 20,000 membership dues.

USLBA members lobbied the US government to protect and advance their interests in Libya, through the US government, and business executives flocked to Libya and negotiated for million or billion dollar deals. Bilateral trade with Libya totaled $2.7 billion in 2010, up from virtually nothing when sanctions were in place prior to 2004. The USLBA also lobbied on behalf of the former outlaw state of Libya and has sponsored policy conferences, briefing sessions and events featuring senior U.S. and Libyan officials.

Officials traveled to Libya for meetings with Libyan government officials, private business leaders, and representatives of American companies working in the country — leading to some of the unbridled development that was evident in Tripoli (2009).

Through the secretive Libyan Investment Authority, billions of Libya’s petrodollars were reportedly invested in US Equity and Big Banks, including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and others, and into other private equity like the Carlyle Group — connected with Frank Carlucci, who is noted herein to be affiliated with the National Endowment for Democracy (described below).

ALGERIA & TUNISIA OIL SECTOR MAPS
(Note the HUNT OIL Concession in the lower right, in NIGER: HUNT OIL is out of Texas.)
View full size pop-up image
Image
The CIA has long wanted to eliminate and replace Muammar Gaddafi. President Reagan bombed Tripoli, killing Gaddafi’s infant daughter: the United States bombing of Libya (code-named Operation El Dorado Canyon) comprised the joint USAF, Navy, and Marines air-strikes against Libya on April 15, 1986. The US CIA brought down the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 flight over Scotland in 1988 and blamed this on Gaddafi.

Many of the top-level security documents from the Reagan Administration pertaining to Libya remain classified. These include National Security Decision Directives 16 (Economic and Security Decisions for Libya), NSDD 205a (Annex: Acting Against Libyan Support of International Terrorism), NSDD 224 (Counter-Terrorist Operations Against Libya), and NSDD 234 (Libya Policy), while even those that have been declassified are partially redacted. The George H.W. Bush NSDD 19 (US Policy Toward Libya) also remains classified.

In recent years Gaddafi has played along with the western fiction of Al-Qaeda, though it seems likely that some of the true mercenaries in Libya today are ‘Al-Qaeda’ terrorists trained by the United States to serve US interests in places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and now Libya. However, the CIA has always had their sights on Gaddafi.

Note the double standard in how the western press presents the accusations of Gaddafi using mercenaries, as if it is something unique to Gaddafi and Libya, and not something we ever do.

National front for the Salvation of Libya

In almost all western media accounts, the so-called “opposition” in Libya includes the unspecified, unnamed, unidentified “rebels” of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). These are not innocent ‘pro-democracy’ protestors who began with a ‘peaceful sit-in’ as reported by the New York Times and uncritically repeated everywhere else.

Reportage of atrocities in Darfur, Sudan (2003-20011), and Rwanda (1990-1994) was always blamed on the governments (Omar Bashir in Khartoum and Juvenal Habyarimana in Kigali) with no context to the foreign backed insurgency and intervention occurring, which in both cases involved the US, UK and Israel. Similarly, in Libya today, there is no context or history to the FNSL ‘rebels’: they are categorically presented as the good guys, no matter that they seem to have appeared out of thin air. No one explains who these people are who are cited by the New York Times or CNN or Democracy Now as sources.

Image
Street scene in Tripoli, September 2009

The FNSL was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other ‘opposition’ in Libya. The FNSL was actually formed in October 1981 in Sudan under Colonel Jaafar Nimieri — the US puppet dictator who was openly known to be a Central Intelligence Agency operative, and who ruled Sudan ruthlessly from 1977 to 1985. The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of ‘atrocities’ and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya.

Italy and France are also said to be backing these opposition groups, as the Italian and French oil companies AGIP and ELF and others seek to chop off and eat their pieces of the predatory pie. The US, Britain and Israel seek to insure control of the petroleum sector in advance of competitor corporations from other European countries.

Many of the petroleum concessions in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Egypt appear (the map is 15 years old) to be held by state-owned oil companies. The US/European/Israeli nexus seeks to dislodge state-ownership — to whatever extent it actually exists — and dislodge any Chinese workers or Chinese companies involved in the oil exploitation, and replace these with western companies and western agents.

National Endowment for (non) Democracy

In 1983, the Pentagon, USAID, US State Department, and the CIA were all involved in the creation and implementation of ‘Project Democracy’ –based on National Security Decision Directive 77 (NSDD 77) — and this led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy.

After that, some of the ‘softer’ tactics used in covert interventions were shifted away from the CIA and onto the NED, whose involvement with covert operations and foreign interventions are nonetheless well-established.

A ‘soft’ intervention CIA front, the National Endowment for Democracy has been deeply involved in Libya along with the CIA fronted Freedom House (under their Blue Umbrella program and others). These entities have backed ‘opposition’, supported propaganda campaigns and so-called ‘pro-democracy’ movements, and are known to be involved with backing armed insurgents and interventions.

Image

Libyan currency 2009



NED works its overt intelligence sector magic through four organizations under its (own) umbrella: National democratic Institute; International Republican Institute, Center for Private Enterprise, and the AFL-CIO’s American Center for International Labor Solidarity. NED is closely aligned with US foreign policy interests and achieves its mission through the revolving doors between US Government and the NED Board of Directors.

Some of these NED directors include: former US Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger (Nixon) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton), former US Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (Reagan), former National Security Council Chair Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter), former NATO Supreme Allied Command in Europe, General Wesley K. Clark (Clinton), and the current head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (George W. Bush).

Freedom House is supportive of NED programs but has been around since its creation by Elanor Roosevelt and they have been very active against Libya. Freedom House is funded by, amongst others, UNILEVER Corporation, USAID, and the US Information Agency (USIA). Freedom House, in alliance with USIA, has provided covert and overt “Radio Free” disinformation programs all over the world since at least 1952: e.g. Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia. The USIA is directly involved with US Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group in planning and coordinating major military operations (e.g. the Gulf War and the UNITAF intervention in Somalia).

Past and present Freedom House trustees include: former CIA director R. James Woosley; former national security adviser (at the time of the 1996 US invasion of Congo-Zaire) Anthony Lake; Harvard professor Samuel Huntington; UNILEVER executive Ned Bandler; CIA insider Andrew Young; former Joseph Mobutu confidant and national security insider Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick; former NED director and International Crisis Group trustee Zbigniew Brzezinski; USAID intelligence operative J. Brian Atwood (USAID administrator who oversaw the US-backed genocide against millions of Hutu refugees in Congo-Zaire, 1996-1998) and many more.

Freedom House is also very likely affiliated with the phantom US Office of Strategic Information (OSI), formed after September 11, 2001. OSI is said to have been reorganized, with all its original functions reassigned to the Office of Global Communications, Information Awareness Office (IAO), and the newly reactivated Counter-Disinformation/Misinformation Team (Counter-Information Team). However, then-Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld issued statements affirming that the OSI’s operations would continue.

Image
Banner mural on a building in downtown Tripoli, September 2009

Rogue State Painted with Blatant Propaganda

In the ABC LITELINE report “FNSL Leader Speaks from Washington,” we find the Washington monument in the background for an interview with an Arab agent being used by the western propaganda system as a credible source — but with zero explanations of who he is or why his claims might be false.

FNSL operative Irahim Sahad speaks freely, making any claim he likes, and nothing he says is challenged or counter-balanced. Sahad suggests that the UN Security Council MUST be convened to stop the ‘war crimes and ‘mass murder’ and ‘genocide’ being committed by Gaddafi against his own people. Ibrahim Sahad’s bias is unveiled by such statements as “The UN Security Council was convened when just one man was killed in Lebabon — so it should be convened to address the most brutal use of live ammunition, heavy arms and mercenaries.” The claim employs a double-standard, saying in short that Lebanese lives are worth more than Libyan, which is not at all the case, and that the United Nations takes serious one man’s life in Lebanon, so they should take far more serious the monumental loss of life [claimed] in Libya.

Here are some of the media’s rallying cries making headlines everywhere the English language is used:

Gaddafi killing his own people!
West worried that Gaddafi may use Nerve Gas!
Heavy Weaponry Used Against Civilians!
Heavy Arms Used in Libyan Crackdown!
Gaddafi Committing Crimes Against Humanity!
The death tolls in Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo-Zaire — by US/NATO/ Israeli forces — far surpass anything that might have occurred in Libya. Meanwhile, most ‘news’ on Libya is based on false accusations and false assertions — such as the THREAT of nerve gas being used.

However, just prior to the dropping of sanctions in 2004 it was established that Washington and London were grossly exaggerating claims of Gaddafi’s development of nuclear and chemical weapons. The western propaganda about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Libya had the same empty ring as the lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction used to justify the war against Iraq.

In Afghanistan the US is using weapons of mass destruction and has been since the invasion of 2001: these include phosgene and uranium weapons. A deeper issue might be the loss of certain nuclear weapons, by the west, as claimed by sources in London, which reportedly went missing from US/NATO stocks. Claims are that these weapons made their way into the hands of British arms dealer John Bredenkamp, a long time crony of the Robert Mugabe gang in Zimbabwe and war lord involved in Congo-Zaire, and that they may have been sold to Libya, Yemen or North Korea.

LIBYA
Image

[2a]
LIBYA
Inset Map of SIRTE BASIN

Image

Muammar Gaddafi Sides with the Empire?

“[T]he fundamental problem and issue before the people in the region is that the US rulers seek imperial control and imposition of semi-colonial country-selling regimes,” reports Ralph Schoenman, in ‘US Imperialism Against Democratic ME.’ “The more autocratic and brutal, the better from the point of the US imperialism that is unrelenting history. Every time the population is given the opportunity to shape its own destiny, to seek its national independence, to seek its own control over its own resources, to seeks its own sovereignty and determination of its own future, that is incompatible with the US imperialism.”

When Barack Obama was accepted by the US people as the new president, Gaddafi praised Obama and described Obama’s White House house-sitting gig as “a victory against racism,” and he urged the first Black U.S. president “to lead his country boldly and with integrity.”

“The Black people’s struggle has made tremendous advances against racism in America,” Gaddafi said. “It was God who created color. Today President Obama, son of a Kenyan father, a true son of Africa, has made it in the United States of America.”

At a speech he gave in his private tent in Tripoli in September 2008, Gaddafi rambled and muddled and zipped his all-over-the-place speech up as quick as he began it. Is he a desert mystic? Did he write the infamous Green Book or was it ghost-written? Are his sometimes rambling speeches emblematic of his propensity to try to please, to do what he likes, to be careful not to say the wrong thing, while being unable to remain silent when the hypocrisies of the west are (or were) thrown up in his face?

The Green Book says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These are fighting words to predatory international capitalism.

When Gaddafi bowed to Western demands in 2004, it was most likely in part due to the incredible alignment of forces against Libya. Gaddafi and the Libyan government, and governments of other countries, will agree to a lot of imperialist dictates to avoid having a war launched against their country and to allow the people to still enjoy some decent standard of living and peaceful lives. Gaddafi played along with the West’s moral righteousness for “the war on terror,” knowing that he didn’t have much choice. His opening to western interests made no difference in the end, as too many forces have desired his destruction for far too long. Now that time has come: this is no ‘popular revolution’ sweeping Libya.

Pentagon Invasion Already Underway

The US will use any propaganda necessary to whip up American fervor over Gaddafi and justify Pentagon or MI6 or NATO operations. US and British warships sit off the coast of Libya — and they don’t sit there idly. The imposition of a ‘no-fly’ zone means that US/NATO plannes can do as they like, with the understanding that what we are really talking about are possible bombing and fighter sorties against Libya.

US troops have already moved ashore in Libya, joining the ‘opposition’ and ‘rebel’ forces in ‘rebel’ controlled territories. The US, France and Britain have already set up Bases in Libya.

The recent report noted that British and US special forces entered Libyan port cities of Benghazi and Toburk on February 23 and 24.

US covert operatives have been on the ground for weeks, and probably much longer than that, whether they have entered by sea (SEALS) or by way of Niger, where the US has openly published information about its covert operations. (See, for example, the travelology reports by former U.S. Special Forces now ‘journalist’ Robert Kaplan in America’s African Rifles a Pentagon massaged and approved propaganda feature in the pro-war Atlantic Monthly). Any opportunity to attack, destabilize, invade will be exploited by the Pentagon.

Of course, as this is written the US media is preparing the ground for the English-news consuming masses to see the Pentagon invasion as a “humanitarian” mission in Libya. There is nothing humanitarian about the Pentagon, and there has never been.

It’s Not Only the Oil, Stupid

Using state-of-the-art satellite remote sensing, the western powers have certainly mapped the mineral deposits that lie beneath the sands of the Libyan desert. For example, Canada’s Barrick Gold has for years had concessions in Niger and Mali — this is the corporation affiliated with former US President George Herbert Walker Bush, former US Senator Howard Baker and former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney — and Libya has a huge landmass with massive untapped mineral potential that goes way beyond the known petroleum deposits.

Another strategic geopolitical concern of the western powers is the protection and control of the massive nuclear (uranium) resources both inside Libya and nearby. France and Canada had already signed memorandums (circa 2007-2008) with Libya to explore and exploit uranium in Libya.

France’s entire nuclear weapons complex (and massive nuclear power industry) revolves around uranium extracted from Agadez and Arlit in northern Niger and it was built, over the past 50 years, out of the blood, seat and tears of the Nigerienne people. Japanese companies have been extracting uranium out of Niger through the Overseas Uranium Resources Development Corporation (OURD), in cooperation with U.S., Israeli, German and French corporations. In 2008, France and former colony Algeria signed defense and civil nuclear power accords, including cooperation in research, training, technology transfer and the exploration and production of uranium, all of interest to French nuclear giant Areva. Canadian and Australian corporations are also mining in Libya’s other southern neighbor, Burkina Faso. And yet, unlike Libya, where the people have seen some benefits from the extraction of wealth from their land, Niger remains the second poorest country in the world and Burkina Faso is close behind.

Russia and Ukraine had also signed memorandums with Libya regarding uranium exploration and development. However, China intends to quadruple its uranium consumption and China’s largest nuclear power corporation China National Nuclear Corp, has signed an agreement with China-Africa Development Fund to jointly develop uranium resources in Africa. Western nuclear corporations aim to monopolize Libya’s uranium sector and exclude China and Russia from the exploration and development — so they can build the nuke plants themselves and sell uranium to their Asian competitors.

Egypt
Image

The Desert Mystic



Libya is a country of approximately 6 million people, having a huge geographical area but low population density. Claims that Gaddafi has uplifted his people over the course of his 40 year dictatorship are questionable. Supporters claim that poverty is low and enemies that poverty is high throughout the country. However, in Tripoli in September 2009 there were the obvious signs of capitalism: overcrowding, traffic, poverty, pollution and destruction of nature. There was also an element of fear visible in people’s faces.

It is completely hypocritical of citizens of the United States to speak of the outrage of ‘poverty’ abroad when that poverty is so often the result of US militarization, unjust trade, and plundering entities like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Further, some of the worst poverty in the world can be found in US cities like Gary, Indiana and on Native American reservations like Pine Ridge. Hillary Clinton complaints about Muammar Gaddafi are really just a projection of her shadow — a long, dark shadow steeped in bloodshed and deception — and another example of the hypocrisy on Libya.

Gaddafi’s Green Book and the ‘Third Universal Theory’ it propounds are worth reading. Had it been written by most anyone else who is opposed to the expansion of western empire with all its horrors, it would be more widely appreciated. The book addresses the falsification of democracy and the proliferation of organized criminal gangs — like the Republicans and Democrats that call themselves parties of and for the US people.

Gaddafi has funded Pan-African organizations and individuals, some of whom have very noble missions and serve to challenge the downtrodden, while he has also funded some armed factions involved in unjust wars or destabilizations. Gaddafi also supports one state in Palestine with equal rights for everyone, and he has spoken forcefully about the unjust war against the Palestinians by Israel. Gaddafi has funded Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (this is a value neutral comment by this white author).

Gaddafi also funded Jean Pieerre Bemba and the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), the ‘rebellion’ [sic] that was also backed by Yoweri Museveni and allied with Rwandan ‘rebel’ forces (Congolese Rally for Democracy) backed by Paul Kagame, and these forces were responsible for a very definite genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Congo-Zaire). Bemba is on trial at the ICC for war crimes committed in the Central African Republic.

Human Rights Watch has reported that international arms dealer Victor Bout illegally shipped weapons into Congo-Zaire, picking them up in Libya and delivering them to Rwandan Hutu forces. However, Human Rights Watch is deeply compromised when it comes to reporting and not reporting the facts — or selectively reporting them — on Central Africa. If Gaddafi did supply or facilitate the provision of arms to Rwandan Hutu insurgents in Congo-Zaire, it may be one of the more reasonable actions he took: e.g. the Forces for the Democratic Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) are forever misaligned by the Pentagon and its propaganda minions precisely because they fought against the illegal invasion of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni. Meanwhile, it is Rwanda, Uganda and their foreign multinational corporate allies that are responsible for the preponderance of killing in Central Africa, not the FDLR.

According to Amnesty International, another selective human rights organ serving western interests, Gaddafi also reportedly armed Sudanese in Darfur — long before the current conflict began in 2003 — to fight against western backed interventions in Chad and Sudan.

Gaddafi reportedly owns land in Zimbabwe and may flee there or to other countries where repressive control is maintained in service to western interests.

Muammar Gaddafi is/was the most recent chairman of the African Union, another elite organization designed to serve western exploitation — or run by a cabal of thieves, at the very least, who all have the goods on each other, and so none will ever challenge the way things are — while the people, the masses of Africa, everywhere suffer.

The African Union (AU) signed on with Washington for the devastating neo-liberal trade and tariffs agreement known euphemistically as the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The AU special report on genocide in Rwanda was a complete whitewash serving US/UK interests and protecting dictators Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni. The AU has also been slammed by African leaders for inaction and silence in various developments on the continent.

Former AU chairman have included some of Africa’s most criminal dictators, such as Dennis Sassou Nguesso, who has reigned with absolute military brutality in the Republic of Congo for some 20 years (with a gap from 1992-1997). Gabon’s present ruler Albert-Bernard Bongo is the son-in-law of Dennis Sassou-Nguesso, and both have been
sustained with millions of Elf petrol dollars (see, e.g., keith harmon snow: “The Crimes of Bongo“). Sassou-Nguesso’s elite Cobra militia were also trained by French advisers and, like Colonel Joseph Mobutu, Sassou-Nguesso relied on Israeli security and intelligence for protection.

The AU’s alliance with NATO began long ago, and it saw expanded joint military operations in Sudan, where the AU served as NATO’s “African face” for US/UK and Israeli military interventions in the war for Darfur. For example, forces fighting for the NATO interests, commanded and commandeered under an AU banner, came from Paul Kagame’s Rwanda Defense Forces (formerly called Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army) responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Uganda, Rwanda, Congo-Zaire, and then Darfur. Rather than condemning western military expansion and different forms of AFRICOM or CIA-backed terrorism, for example, the AU backs the western war of annihilation in Somalia, involving Ugandan troops trained by US Special forces, and the Pentagon’s expansion in Ethiopia, and support for dictator Meles Zenawi there. Ethiopia is the site of an ongoing genocide against the Annuak, Omo and Orono people — and no one has reported the atrocities in the blood-drenched oil-rich Ogaden basin there. What say the AU?

In “AFRICA: Global NATO Seeks to Recruit 50 New Military Partners,” journalist Rick Rozoff reports: “A recent article in Kenya’s Africa Review cited
sources in the African Union (AU) disclosing that the 28-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] is preparing to sign a military partnership treaty with the 53-nation AU.” Rozoff explains that this is a likely maneuver against the spread of Chinese interests in the continent.

According to Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford, who also traveled to Tripoli in 2008, Gaddafi is on the outs: the man who ruled this not-so-little North African dictatorship is about finished. Whatever the truth about Muammar Gaddafi, at least one thing is certain: he was not the big bad bogeyman now under attack by the West.

SUDAN
(Darfur is the giant block 12 concession on the left side.)

Image
And Now, the Gaddafi Genocide

On February 22, 2011, the Libyan deputy ambassador to the United Nations called on Muammar Gaddafi to step down and face trial over “war crimes and genocide.”

The charge has now been widely repeated in other news venues. “European diplomats are meeting around the clock to minimise risks for their nationals after a speech by Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi yesterday (22 February) was interpreted as “code to start genocide.”

“Gaddafi’s Genocide!” declared one CNN news pundit. A Stop Gaddafi Genocide! page was created on Facebook.

Such claims made by Libyan ‘opposition’ and reported in the western press that Gaddafi is committing genocide or about to commence genocide against his own people represent the height of western arrogance and hypocrisy.

The disinformation frenzy and hysteria knows no bounds. A web site dedicated to English language reporting on human rights in Cuba had this headline: “Human Rights in Cuba: Is Casto Supporting Gaddafi’s Genocide?” “Are Cuban pilots flying Gaddafi’s military jets, which are being deployed to attack peaceful Libyan protesters?” the article begins. Interestingly, Fidel Castro was the first international leader to publicly assert that Washington was about to invade Libya: Castro was right.

At this very moment the wars being prosecuted by the USA and its allies, including Japan, Europe, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, far dwarf the ‘atrocities’ committed in Libya. While we have no credible reporting about who is killing, who is opposition, how many dead, etc., out of Libya, we have credible report after credible report establishing that the US and its allies have perpetrated massacres, tortures, and other atrocities, including genocide, in the millions of people, in Congo-Zaire, Rwanda, Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan — for a short list.

The claim of genocide here, akin to the one-sided charges against former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, or against Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, are one more clear example of the Politics of Genocide delineated in great detail by this writer and others. Reports in western media — provided, again, by the FNSL and other western intelligence, covert operations or psychological operations flak organizations — are filled with harsh language and characterizations not seen in reporting on or by western military campaigns. For example, in many western reports we can find, such as Gruesome Footage Proves Libya Using Heavy Arms makes claims that “newspapers obtained shocking footage of corpses with bodies blasted off and several torsos in Libyan hospitals.”

So there are several torsos. That is not quite genocide. Where are the images? If such images of death and destruction do appear it will be in sharp contrast to the complete whiteout on dead bodies in the Pentagon’s other theaters of war, in the eastern Congo-Zaire or Somalia, or in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, some videos purporting to be ‘violence in Libya’ have disappeared from the web.

Images of dead bodies can be produced and published but these are easily stripped of context. How do western audiences and propaganda consumers know that these are authentic and not recycled images of protests from Yemen or Bahrain dumped into the western press (with their willing acknowledgment) by Britain’s MI-6, as has been alleged? Al-Jezeera shows its true western colors by not reporting much of anything, and that certainly not critical of western manipulation or involvement.
Image
Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni greets the entourage of foreign mercenaries Tony Buckinham and others as part of the Heritage Oil & Gas / Sandline International meetings to secure oil concessions in the bloody Semliki basin bordering eastern Congo-Zaire & northern Uganda: both sites of actual genocides.

We saw the tactic of collecting dead bodies and skeletons used in Rwanda by the Pentagon’s agents of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, and in Darfur and South Sudan, where journalist Nicholas Kristof produced some dead shriveled bodies from some desert somewhere and claimed these were from the New York Times‘ Secret Genocide Archives. The atrocities were committed, we are told, by President Omar al-Bashir and the government of Sudan.

However, there is never any mention of US military involvement, mercenaries (Pacific Architects and Engineers, Dyncorp, others) on the ground in Sudan. Dead men tell no tales, or dead women: these dead bodies are as likely dead from US or Israeli backed ‘rebels’ — the Justice and Equality Movement or Sudan Liberation Army backed by the US, NATO, Israel and our puppet dictator in Uganda.

The double-standards and outright lies can be seen quickly, if one knows there are deeper truths, by examining propaganda produced by the International Crisis Group, or such propaganda tracts as Smith College English teacher Eric Reeves’ “A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide” — where there is not one reference to Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni and his backing of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in South Sudan — a US military covert operation — and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) in Darfur, in all of the 386 pages.

Western mercenaries that have been deeply involved, and remain so, in some of the world’s bloodiest conflicts, in coup d’etats, in massacres and other atrocities, include British mercenary Tony Buckingham — whose mercenary past is legendary — founder of Heritage Oil & Gas, a petroleum company linked by Buckingham to mercenary firms Branch Energy and Sandline International. Buckingham was also a partner in the infamous Executive Outcomes, with former British Special Air Services (SAS) soldier-of-misfortune Tim Spicer — the recipient of massive Pentagon contracts in Iraq. Heritage director General Sir Michael Wilkes retired from the British Army in 1995 and is a former Middle East adviser to the British government and a member of the Army Board. Wilkes commanded Britain’s SAS regiment and was director of Special Forces. Heritage Oil has exploited opportunities in Mali, Uganda, Republic of Congo, Oman and Iraq.

Image

Heritage Oil & Gas map of operations in Iraq

Similarly, there was no public outcry about the use of mercenaries to shore up a dictator when Central African Republic dictator Ange Felix Patasse called in Libyan troops and commanders to protect his private diamond republic. When Ethiopian troops joined the Pentagon’s efforts to overthrow Col. Joseph Mobutu and reorganize capitalist interests in Congo-Zaire (1996) — no one said a word. What are UN troops from Pakistan, Guatemala, India or Bangledesh — paid to carry a gun and use it if necessary in support of protecting capitalist interests? Mercenaries.
If there are acts of genocide being committed in Libya, they are not being committed by Gaddafi or those fighting for Gaddafi. Reports are emerging that indicate that black Africans are being targeted by ANTI-government forces — these would be the western media’s precious ‘rebels’ — for their perceived support of Gaddafi. These include black Africans from Sudan, Chad, or Egypt, many of which are apparently laborers who have been working the service and lower menial jobs in Libya.

In short, almost everything in the western press on the crises in Libya is slanted by some faction, or interest, or it is tainted by western arrogance, or by anti-imperialist ideology (of ‘solidarity’), even in the case of what is perceived to be the ‘alternative’ media. There is very little accurate reporting of any kind (but some good work linked or cited herein).

Muammar Gaddafi has been a champion for people of color — providing funding, hope and solidarity where none existed, and this correspondent is aware that this correspondent’s writing herein is deficient in presenting all the positive aspects of his collaboration with people of color.

“The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation,” writes Antonio Cesar Oliviera, in “Who Is Muammar Gaddafi?”

“In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary [western] media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.”

Gaddafi’s alliance with Islam and his support for truly revolutionary movements must be understood for what the capitalist system sees them as: slaps in the face of power and threats to that power. This is one of the biggest reasons that Gaddafi, throughout his tenure as leader of the Libyan Revolution, has been considered the devil incarnate by Washington and London etc.

This report [herein] is just another incomplete picture of an incomplete puzzle — but it seeks to penetrate through and expose the ongoing western media campaign for what it is: a psychological operation against the masses of earth’s people who have not and do not benefit from the nasty policies and actions implemented to serve a very small and elite group of people.

Muammar Gaddafi is not my enemy, and I am not his, and so my criticisms are reserved for those involved in the unjust and illegitimate invasions and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Congo-Zaire, Somalia and now Libya. Gaddafi has opposed the unjust International Criminal Court, and so do I.

People wishing to support the legitimate grievances and actions for freedom and truth in Libya should challenge the western terrorist apparatus out of Washington, DC, Tel Aviv, Brussels, London and Toronto.

Prayers for the true innocent civilians in Libya, and across the region.

keith harmon snow traveled to Tripoli, Libya in 2009 and stayed about 3 days while attending the “2009 International Conference of the Green Book Supporters” as a member of the US Delegation invited by former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney (D-GA).
Maps are from a petroleum industry map of all Africa produced in 1996: much has changed since then, only for the worse, in terms of oil and gas expansions.
Photography Credits: keith harmon snow
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:12 pm

Cyprus: U.S. To Dominate All Europe, Mediterranean Through NATO
Rick Rozoff

Stop NATO, March 3, 2011


On February 24 a majority in the Cyprus parliament voted for the country to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Partnership for Peace program, a transitional mechanism employed to bring twelve Eastern European nations into the U.S.-dominated military bloc from 1999-2009: The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania and Croatia. Macedonia would have become a full member of the Alliance in 2009 along with the last two except for the lingering name dispute with Greece.

Cyprus is the only member of the 27-nation European Union that is not either in NATO or the Partnership for Peace (PfP), the only EU member that did not need to join NATO or be on its doorstep in order to be accepted, and the only European nation (excluding the microstates of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City) that is free of NATO entanglements. Every other nation on the continent and island state in the Mediterranean Sea is a member of NATO or the PfP. (NATO still lists Russia as a member of the second and since last November’s NATO summit in Portugal it has been active again in the NATO-Russia Council.)

The vote broke down along party lines, with all 32 opposition parties’ members voting supporting the resolution and all 17 members of the ruling party, the left-wing Progressive Party of [the] Working People (AKEL), voting against it. Deputies from the right-wing Democratic Rally (DISY) – whose initiative it was – the centrist Democratic Party (DIKO) and European Party (EVROKO), the liberal United Democrats (EDI) and the Movement of Social Democrats (EDEK) closed ranks against the government of AKEL President Demetris Christofias in a move to, in the words of a Cypriot newspaper, "force the administration to apply for membership in Partnership for Peace." [1]

Ahead of the vote, which AKEL members of parliament succeeded in postponing for a week, government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou stated, "Exercising foreign policy and taking foreign policy decisions is a safeguarded constitutional right of the executive." [2]

Cyprus was split into northern ethnic Turkish and southern Greek sections after the Turkish military invasion of 1974, although only Turkey recognizes the northern entity. The Republic of Cyprus has a population of 800,000 and a unicameral parliament, the House of Representatives, and as there is no prime minister President Christofias is both head of state and head of government.

The administration accused DISY and its allies of violating the principle of the separation of powers in attempting to override the president’s prerogative to make foreign policy decisions, with the country’s ruling party denouncing the move as "unprecedented political blackmail."

AKEL Central Committee member Aristos Damianou "said there is clear evidence of NATO’s involvement in the division of Cyprus and wondered why EDEK [ADEL's coalition partner from 2008 until February of 2010], which chairs the committee on the Cyprus File – as the investigation into the 1974 coup and subsequent invasion is called – sides with DISY on the matter." [3]

Damianou also leveled the charge that representatives of the opposition parties (the one Green Party member of parliament abstained on February 24) conspired behind the backs of their AKEL colleagues to introduce the motion.

When the proposal to join the NATO partnership program was passed in the legislature President Christofias announced he would veto the decision, and government spokesman Stefanou issued a written statement maintaining "that membership of the program is not in line with President Dimitris Christofias’ vow to achieve a peace deal with breakaway Turkish Cypriots that would demilitarize the island." [4]

The day of the vote supporters of the Cyprus Peace Council, including minority Turkish, Armenian and Maronite Cypriots, and all 17 AKEL representatives demonstrated outside the parliament building with banners reading "No to the Partnership for Peace" and "No Cyprus in NATO, or NATO in Cyprus." Former mayor of Famagusta (now in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus where NATO member Turkey maintains 30,000 troops) Yiannakis Skordis demanded Cyprus abjure any association with the "murderous organisation, at the hands of which Cyprus has suffered and continues to suffer." [5]

The protesters delivered a petition for House President Marios Garoyian (of DIKO) which castigated the drive to drag Cyprus into "warmongering NATO" as an act of "treachery."

It added: "We demand an immediate end to efforts to join the military camp of those who are responsible for the Cypriot tragedy. We demand respect for the deceased of the coup and the invasion; respect to the revolutionaries, respect to everything the refugees and enclaved have suffered; respect to our missing persons." [6]

The local press at the time reported that the president would "take the decision to the supreme court as he believes Parliament’s decision violates the Constitution." [7]

The parliamentary action of last month is the culmination of several years of a concerted campaign by DISY, NATO and the EU to incorporate the last truly neutral European nation into the Pentagon-NATO global military nexus.

Six years ago Canada’s General Raymond Henault (now retired), at the time chairman of the NATO Military Committee, said, in relation to "Cyprus’s strategic importance in the eastern Mediterranean," that "NATO has a very open policy for countries that want to work with it and Cyprus could be one of those if it decided to do that." [8]

In January of 2009 DISY intensified efforts to bring Cyprus into the PfP, winning support from EVROKO:

"Based on the argument that Cyprus is the only EU member that has not joined, DISY is trying to forge alliances with other parties that support its entry. Meanwhile, AKEL is adamant that entry to the PfP would not serve Cyprus’ interests, particularly while peace talks [for reunification of the island] are ongoing." [9]

At the time AKEL leader Damianou itemized the country’s ruling party’s objections to a partnership with the world’s only military bloc, one which has waged open warfare from Southeastern Europe to South Asia:

"AKEL is opposed for three main reasons. First, we are now going through a period of negotiations for the settlement of the Cyprus problem, and demilitarisation is a basic parameter of this settlement.

"We would therefore be giving the wrong messages to the international community if at the same time we start negotiating entry into a military organisation.

"Second, we should also analyse international political developments, our capabilities as a small state and what role we could play in such an organisation. This body functions as a gateway to NATO, where Turkey plays a significant role.

"Thirdly, we should not forget the role which NATO played in Cyprus, in the events of 1974."

He added: "Indeed, nine out of the ten new member-states that joined in the 2004 enlargement were granted EU membership on the precondition that they joined NATO. We did not have to do that as our interests are different and we seek a solution without armies." [10]

Regarding the assertion that NATO accession is a precondition for EU membership – that is, that through control of the military bloc the U.S. effectively determines who enters the European Union – the defense minister of post-"Twitter Revolution" (2009) Moldova, Valeriu Marinuta, last week affirmed that "joining NATO is crucial to gaining European Union membership" and that "As a rule…countries join NATO first and then the European Union." [11]

The AKEL leader also warned that "NATO and the Partnership for Peace participated in military missions that were not sanctioned by the United Nations, such as the war in Yugoslavia and the first stages of the Iraq war.

"As we are struggling for a solution based on international justice, we cannot join an organisation that infringes international rules." [12]

All twelve new NATO members (some at the time still in the Partnership for Peace) – Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – deployed troops to Iraq after the U.S. invasion of 2003 and all now have troops in Afghanistan serving under NATO command. Current Partnership for Peace affiliates Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine also provided the U.S. with troops for Iraq and all those except for Moldova (for the time being) have troops in Afghanistan. Fellow PfP members Austria, Finland, Ireland, Montenegro (which became an independent nation in 2006), Sweden and Switzerland have also assigned troops to NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, a nominal amount in most cases but with Sweden supplying 500 soldiers and Finland 200. Georgia has 950 troops in the Afghan war theater and had 2,000 in Iraq in 2008, the third largest national contingent at the time until the U.S. flew them home for the five-day war with Russia in August of that year.

Two years ago AKEL also warned about the perils of PfP membership in regard to another war – NATO’s first, the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 – recalling that "during the Kosovo crisis, Albania and Macedonia had used a mechanism provided in the PfP’s Framework Document, that calls partners to alert the organisation when it perceives a direct threat to its territorial integrity, political independence or security." [13] That is, whatever NATO and the U.S. may say to the contrary, PfP members are de facto covered by NATO’s Article 5 which obligates all members to respond to a threat, real or contrived, against another member. Or partner.

A commentary in the Cypriot press two years ago framed the prospect of PfP membership this way:

"Call me an idealist but it does seem a little contradictory that an island which has been exploited for centuries due to its geographic location would still want to place itself in the firing line for any future wars in the region.

"Cyprus could easily become the Switzerland of the Middle East, given a peaceful solution to the Cy Prob [Cyprus Problem] and the complete demilitarisation of the island." [14]

The earlier-cited government spokesman Stephanou has just demanded information from Britain about plans for deploying Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft to one of the two military bases the United Kingdom still retains in Cyprus, that at Akrotiri, for use against Libya. (The base and that at Dhekelia are referred to as a British Overseas Territory and Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom. President Christofias has referred to the bases as a "colonial bloodstain".)

On February 20, 2009 the EU’s European Parliament complemented the push by DISY in Cyprus to recruit the nation into the PfP by characterizing "the Cyprus problem as a major obstacle in EU-NATO relations" and "deploring" the fact that it continued to "badly impair the development of EU-NATO cooperation." It "further called on the Cyprus government to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme."

In the European Parliament’s first report on NATO, it bemoaned the fact "that only six member states of the EU are not NATO members. From those, only one, Cyprus, does not have bilateral ties with NATO through its PfP programme."

AKEL-supported MEP [Member of the European Parliament] Adamos Adamou said the report was "interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country by asking it to join an organisation that it has no obligation to join." [15]

AKEL General Secretary Andros Kyprianou, who replaced Demetris Christofias in that role after the latter was elected president in 2008, blasted the narrowly-approved European Parliament report – 293 votes for, 283 against and 60 abstentions – which "included a clause inserted by Cypriot MEP Yiannakis Matsis [member of DISY and at the time of the center-right European People's Party] calling on the Cyprus government to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme."

Kyprianou called the action of Matsis and fellow DISY MEPs "unacceptable and unethical" and described NATO as "an aggressive organisation that has scattered death and destruction in many corners of the world" and one which "continuously violates international law and the UN Charter."

The AKEL leader also warned that PfP membership mandates submitting defense plans and budgets to all NATO members, including Turkey, adding: "If that doesn’t bother some people, they should say so openly to the Cypriot people."

Regarding the European Parliament itself, Kyprianou stated: "It is unacceptable for a democratic country, operating on a completely democratic basis, to have its sovereignty compromised and have opinions imposed on it from abroad, wherever that opinion may come from." [16]

President Christofias was equally firm in rejecting the demand to join the NATO program and "referred to decisions taken by former Presidents Tassos Papadopoulos and Glafcos Clerides not to apply for accession to PfP and said he wondered why his government is now being urged to apply for PfP membership." [17]

In April of 2009 DISY, DIKO and EDEK deputies in the parliament mustered a majority to pass a resolution calling on the government to join the PfP.

Government spokesman Stefanou condemned the move, calling the PfP an "antechamber" to full NATO membership, and ruling party AKEL’s General Secretary Kyprianou said that any affiliation with NATO would irredeemably jeopardize the achievement of a just solution to the Cyprus problem, adding:

"We remain committed to our position for the demilitarization of the island. We insist on defending the cause of Cyprus based on the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter.

"We are adamant that we should not attach ourselves to the bandwagon of NATO and of the United States. We are resolute that nations must base their behavior on international law and not on the law of the 'big fish eats the small fish.’" [18]

Joining the PfP would put pressure on Cyprus to honor its obligations to NATO – and through NATO to the U.S. – by supplying troops for the war in Afghanistan and providing support for NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean Sea and Operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa. Had Cyprus become a member two years ago as DISY, NATO and the EU alike pushed for, it might at this moment be dragged into plans for military intervention against Libya.

It would be expected to accommodate ships and submarines assigned to the Mediterranean-based U.S. Sixth Fleet and American carrier and expeditionary strike groups (the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier visited Cyprus in 2006) crossing the sea from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Suez Canal for operations in the Horn of Africa and for the war in Afghanistan.

As a NATO partner, Cyprus will be unable to deny the Alliance and the U.S. the use and upgrading of military bases – infantry, air and naval – and will be employed for the U.S. and NATO interceptor missile system being developed in Europe, the Middle East and the South Caucasus, initially in relation to Aegis class American warships with Standard Missile-3 interceptors of the sort that have already been deployed in the Mediterranean.

Cyprus, south of Turkey and west of Syria in the Eastern Mediterranean, is the final link in the chain that allows NATO to control the entire sea. Every other European nation bordering or in the sea is a member of NATO or the PfP: Albania, Britain (through Gibraltar), Croatia, France, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Spain and Turkey in NATO and Bosnia, Malta (which withdrew in 1996 and rejoined in 2008) and Montenegro in the PfP. Bosnia and Montenegro have more advanced NATO Individual Partnership Action Plans, Montenegro being granted one only two years after becoming independent.

All the African nations on the Mediterranean except for Libya are members of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue partnership: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. A new government in Libya, especially one installed after a U.S.-NATO military intervention, would be expected to join the Mediterranean Dialogue.

Israel is the major member of that program, leaving only Lebanon (under a five-year-long naval blockade enforced by NATO nations), Libya and Syria among Mediterranean littoral nations not members of NATO and its partnership programs. (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in Israel last month where he discussed the deployment of NATO troops as part of a future Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, which means sending them to the Gaza Strip in the first place.)

Small and insular Cyprus is for the moment the last holdout in U.S. and NATO plans to consolidate control over Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.

1) Cyprus Mail, February 19, 2011
2) Ibid
3) Ibid
4) Associated Press, February 24, 2011
5) Cyprus Mail, February 25, 2011
6) Ibid
7) Famagusta Gazette, February 25, 2011
8) Kathimerini, December 5, 2005
9) Cyprus Mail, January 28, 2009
10) Ibid
11) Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, February 24, 2011
12) Cyprus Mail, January 28, 2009
13) Ibid
14) Haji Mike, From the sublime to the ridiculous
Cyprus Mail, February 21, 2009
15) Cyprus Mail, February 21, 2009
16) Ibid
17) Famagusta Gazette, February 23, 2009

18) Cyprus Mail, April 3, 2009
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby wallflower » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:33 pm

not many people know more about Africa than keith harmon snow


Africa is a huge continent home to diverse people. Keith Harmon Snow clearly has done good reporting. But he's also done plenty of ax grinding. I think particularly about his relentless attacks on Howard French. So I thought to Howard French's recent piece in The Atlantic "How Qaddafi Reshaped Africa." http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/qaddafis-deep-reach-across-africa/71861/

As an aside I rather like the custom here of reproducing articles in their entirety here, but can't seem to bring myself to do it :? Anyhow I recommend French's article, it's fairly short and offers something of a counter balance to Keith Harmon Snow's piece.

Snow's piece is all over the map. There are lots of nuances that his rendering of things, especially in re Uganda and The Sudan are lost and seem to distort the basic outline of things. But I hardly have the expertise to go toe to toe with him in argument. As far as the general thrust of the article being something like "Qaddafi is really a good guy" I'm not convinced of that. There seems plenty of evidence to the contrary.
create something good
User avatar
wallflower
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Mar 04, 2011 10:04 pm

"Qaddafi is really a good guy"


I don't believe he is saying that at all, just a bit of history and who is the real bad guy here. We are giving safe haven to our own war criiminal. I haven't added it up but I do wonder who has killed the most humans.

I love this


At one time Gaddafi played around with Idi Amin, but his ties to other despots — such as Tony Blair and George H. W. Bush — are far more notable, though far less advertised.


Note the double standard in how the western press presents the accusations of Gaddafi using mercenaries, as if it is something unique to Gaddafi and Libya, and not something we ever do.

All the African nations on the Mediterranean except for Libya are members of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue partnership: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. A new government in Libya, especially one installed after a U.S.-NATO military intervention, would be expected to join the Mediterranean Dialogue.

Israel is the major member of that program, leaving only Lebanon (under a five-year-long naval blockade enforced by NATO nations), Libya and Syria among Mediterranean littoral nations not members of NATO and its partnership programs. (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was in Israel last month where he discussed the deployment of NATO troops as part of a future Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, which means sending them to the Gaza Strip in the first place.)

Small and insular Cyprus is for the moment the last holdout in U.S. and NATO plans to consolidate control over Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.


TEN MILLION DEAD? SLAVERY, HOLLYWOOD, & GENOCIDE IN CENTRAL AFRICA

These two young men were captured by Congolese soldiers in the Kahuzi Beiga National Park, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I was on a mission with these Congolese soldiers. The soldiers pillaged their village -- I was standing right there -- and the poorest people in the world were made poorer...

I want to tell the world this story... because I cannot get it into the mainstream "news" and the photos will not be shown there... I want you to know about the western interests behind this war, about the huge deceptions of it, about the hidden agendas of the National Geographic and the New York Times...about George Bush and Bill Clinton and their connections to mining operations in Congo...

Read the Africa stories on this site. keith's most recent expose -- Hotel Rwanda: Hollywood and the Holocaust in Central Africa -- is a must read for anyone concerned about democracy, truth, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Keep an eye on this site for keith's upcoming expose: KING KONG.













Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby wallflower » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:23 am

I don't believe he is saying that at all, just a bit of history and who is the real bad guy here. We are giving safe haven to our own war criiminal. I haven't added it up but I do wonder who has killed the most humans.


I agree that the quest for American Empire has caused untold suffering and death across the African continent. Still, don't see how you can read Keith Harmon Snow's piece as not praising Qaddafi. He seems quite clear about that.

The piece contains many facts, but this piece doesn't add up to a coherent narrative for me. On that I suspect we disagree.

The FNSL was actually formed in October 1981 in Sudan under Colonel Jaafar Nimieri — the US puppet dictator who was openly known to be a Central Intelligence Agency operative, and who ruled Sudan ruthlessly from 1977 to 1985.


I think there is a distinction between getting funding from the CIA and being controlled by the CIA. The description of Nimieri as "the US puppet dictator" seems highly suspect to me. Nimeiri led Sudan for 16 years, that story simply cannot be reduced to "the US puppet dictator" without gross distortion.

Nimeiri was deposed in 1985. He returned to live in the Sudan in 1999 and ran for the presidency in 2000. The FNSL was formed in the Sudan in 1981 when Nimeiri was president. But I have seen little direct connection made between Nimeiri and the FNSL and Keith Harmon Snow doesn't provide any.

Keith Harmon Snow's piece is all over the map, in space and time. There are gaps, he's presenting broad strokes. Those strokes surely appear to him to make a coherent picture. I question that coherence. But even admitting for the sake of argument that he's got the outlines basically right, his pretension that only he's telling the truth and all else are lying simply isn't supported by his superficial treatment of a story with such an expansive scope. To find out about the myriad conflicts across decades and tens of thousands of miles, one has to look elsewhere to get the facts. Yet, not just in this piece, Keith Harmon Snow essentially accuses other sources as being hopelessly corrupted by the imperial project. Nobody else has the story right.

I do not think that journalists and scholars can proceed from a pretense of impossible objectivity. It's to be expected that people have a point of view and to state it. But a point of view ought to be capable of being corrected, or changed by evidence. Kieth Harmon Snow criticizes other research and writing making the argument that it's wrong on the basis of fanatical adherence to the imperial project. Fanaticism is notable for being immutable in the face of evidence. Keith Harmon Snow seems fanatical to me. Rather than acknowledging bias among the researchers, but allowing that sometimes the research can be well researched and factually correct, he wants to discredit it on the basis of biased points of view. He doesn't allow a check on his own biases.
create something good
User avatar
wallflower
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:44 am

Who do you read for truth telling on Africa?


wallflower wrote:
I don't believe he is saying that at all, just a bit of history and who is the real bad guy here. We are giving safe haven to our own war criiminal. I haven't added it up but I do wonder who has killed the most humans.


I agree that the quest for American Empire has caused untold suffering and death across the African continent. Still, don't see how you can read Keith Harmon Snow's piece as not praising Qaddafi. He seems quite clear about that.
Might be so what?

The piece contains many facts, but this piece doesn't add up to a coherent narrative for me. On that I suspect we disagree.

Extreme history here, hard to write about it all in one piece, at least he attempts to get it out unlike your msm

The FNSL was actually formed in October 1981 in Sudan under Colonel Jaafar Nimieri — the US puppet dictator who was openly known to be a Central Intelligence Agency operative, and who ruled Sudan ruthlessly from 1977 to 1985.


I think there is a distinction between getting funding from the CIA and being controlled by the CIA. The description of Nimieri as "the US puppet dictator" seems highly suspect to me. Nimeiri led Sudan for 16 years, that story simply cannot be reduced to "the US puppet dictator" without gross distortion.

Oh really? Interesting that you would believe that

Nimeiri was deposed in 1985. He returned to live in the Sudan in 1999 and ran for the presidency in 2000. The FNSL was formed in the Sudan in 1981 when Nimeiri was president. But I have seen little direct connection made between Nimeiri and the FNSL and Keith Harmon Snow doesn't provide any.

Maybe you should read more of snow, he might be able to provide some more answers for you

Keith Harmon Snow's piece is all over the map, in space and time. There are gaps, he's presenting broad strokes. Those strokes surely appear to him to make a coherent picture. I question that coherence. But even admitting for the sake of argument that he's got the outlines basically right, his pretension that only he's telling the truth and all else are lying simply isn't supported by his superficial treatment of a story with such an expansive scope. To find out about the myriad conflicts across decades and tens of thousands of miles, one has to look elsewhere to get the facts. Yet, not just in this piece, Keith Harmon Snow essentially accuses other sources as being hopelessly corrupted by the imperial project. Nobody else has the story right.


All over the map? Please there's so much history how can he or anyone else whittle it down to a couple of paragraphs? I think snow did a pretty good job.

I do not think that journalists and scholars can proceed from a pretense of impossible objectivity. It's to be expected that people have a point of view and to state it. But a point of view ought to be capable of being corrected, or changed by evidence. Kieth Harmon Snow criticizes other research and writing making the argument that it's wrong on the basis of fanatical adherence to the imperial project. Fanaticism is notable for being immutable in the face of evidence. Keith Harmon Snow seems fanatical to me. Rather than acknowledging bias among the researchers, but allowing that sometimes the research can be well researched and factually correct, he wants to discredit it on the basis of biased points of view. He doesn't allow a check on his own biases.


He's done Africa for a very very long time I think he knows what he speaks of, last time I got this reaction about snow was at DU, all be it it was taken to the extreme, they brought out the big guns to go after me there on this one, strange



Who is Muammar Gaddafi?
by Antonio Cesar Oliveira / March 3rd, 2011

How can you call someone a dictator leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?

Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media – in the service of the U.S. – praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South
Africa.

Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.

In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.

After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.

But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.

In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.

The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.

This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.

Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.

In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.

So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.

Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people’s money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.

This observation – and a book in publication – certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.

But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.

Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.

This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.

In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like “Egypt’s late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India’s Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy’s Garibaldi and Mazzini.” (Really, I’m a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)1

He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.

He also stated in another interview: “I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth.”



Venezuela says Libya OKs Chavez mediation plan
(AP) – 1 hour ago
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Moammar Gadhafi's government has authorized Venezuela to select countries for an effort to mediate an end to Libya's crisis and to coordinate the effort, Venezuela's foreign minister said Friday.
Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said he received a message from his Libyan counterpart authorizing Venezuela to "take all measures necessary to select the members and coordinate their participation in that dialogue."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who calls Gadhafi a friend and ally, has proposed creating a group of "friendly countries" to help mediate in the conflict.
Gadhafi's opponents in Libya, however, have shown no willingness to negotiate as long as he remains in power.
Countries including the U.S. and Italy also have been cool to Chavez's proposal.
The idea won support Friday from the foreign ministers of Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia as well as from other officials representing Nicaragua, Dominica and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. They joined Maduro in Caracas for a meeting of nations belonging to the Venezuela-led Bolivarian Alternative bloc, or ALBA.
Chavez read a statement Friday night in which the group condemned attempts at "intervention" in Libya by other countries and called for a cease-fire.
Chavez accused the United States and its allies of trying to use events in Libya to take control of its oil reserves. He warned that if there is a bigger conflict in North Africa, "those flames could reach Europe."
Support for the mediation proposal by Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia shows "how important the ALBA is for this world of today, which before the silence of the world has been left as the voice," Chavez said. He said time is of the essence in creating a "working group of coordination with other countries."
"We must make a very great effort. We cannot lose a day," he said.
Chavez accused news media of presenting a distorted view of events in Libya. He did not discuss the Libyan government's crackdown on civilian protesters, which has drawn condemnation from other nations.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez praised Chavez's proposal and called on supporters to work on building "an international movement ... against a NATO military intervention in Libya and in Arab countries."
Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patino, said his government supports Chavez's proposal or any other proposal that would lead to dialogue and a peaceful outcome of the 2½-week-old uprising.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:27 pm

The howling hypocrisy of the American response to the uprising in Libya has been so jaw-dropping and nauseating that I've hardly been able to address it.
---Chris Floyd


Taking the Cake: The Creeping Militarization of the Libyan Crisis

WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD
THURSDAY, 03 MARCH 2011 23:40
The howling hypocrisy of the American response to the uprising in Libya has been so jaw-dropping and nauseating that I've hardly been able to address it. Fortunately, Seamus Milne is on the case, and voices much of my thinking about the matter:

The same western leaders who happily armed and did business with the Gaddafi regime until a fortnight ago have now slapped sanctions on the discarded autocrat and blithely referred him to the international criminal court the United States won't recognise.


Yes, does this not, as they say, take the cake ... and the plate and the forks and the napkins too? The United States pushing through a measure to refer Libyan leaders to an international court which the United States resolutely refuses to recognize -- lest its own leaders and their underlings find themselves in the dock for the most monstrous war crimes of this century? Yet even today, the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate was sternly wagging his finger at Gaddafi and his underlings, telling them they "will be held accountable" for their actions before the august institutions of international justice, which weigh the whole world in the balance ... except for the Peace prize-winning drone assassin and Continuer-in-Chief of a worldwide campaign of state terror, that is. But now back to Milne:

With Colonel Gaddafi and his loyalists showing every sign of digging in, the likelihood must be of intensified conflict – with all the heightened pretexts that would offer for outside interference, from humanitarian crises to threats to oil supplies.

But any such intervention would risk disaster and be a knife at the heart of the revolutionary process now sweeping the Arab world. Military action is needed, US and British politicians claim, because Gaddafi is "killing his own people". Hundreds have certainly died, but that's hard to take seriously as the principal motivation.

When more than 300 people were killed by Hosni Mubarak's security forces in a couple of weeks, Washington initially called for "restraint on both sides". In Iraq, 50,000 US occupation troops protect a government which last Friday killed 29 peaceful demonstrators demanding reform. In Bahrain, home of the US fifth fleet, the regime has been shooting and gassing protesters with British-supplied equipment for weeks.

The "responsibility to protect" invoked by those demanding intervention in Libya is applied so selectively that the word hypocrisy doesn't do it justice. And the idea that states which are themselves responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in illegal wars, occupations and interventions in the last decade, along with mass imprisonment without trial, torture and kidnapping, should be authorised by international institutions to prevent killings in other countries is simply preposterous.


One key point Milne makes here deserves underlining: Western military intervention would be "a knife at the heart of the revolutionary process now sweeping the Arab world." But of course, that's exactly what Peace prizeniks and Etonian schoolboys now leading the "Free World" would like to see happen. As Milne notes, the Arab Awakening is threatening some of the West's favorite dictators and tough guys, from the religious extremists in Saudi Arabia to the ever-complaisant corruptocrats in Bahrain to the client brutalists in Iraq and elsewhere.The dullards directing world affairs have been desperately casting about for a way to put the kibosh on the movement - and Libya might give them the opening they've been fumbling for. Milne again:

The reality is that the western powers which have backed authoritarian kleptocrats across the Middle East for decades now face a loss of power in the most strategically sensitive region of the world as a result of the Arab uprisings and the prospect of representative governments. They are evidently determined to appropriate the revolutionary process wherever possible, limiting it to cosmetic change that allows continued control of the region.

In Libya, the disintegration of the regime offers a crucial opening. Even more important, unlike Tunisia and Egypt, it has the strategic prize of the largest oil reserves in Africa. Of course the Gaddafi regime has moved a long way from the days when it took over the country's oil, kicked out foreign bases and funded the African National Congress at a time when the US and Britain branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
Along with repression, corruption and a failure to deliver to ordinary Libyans, the regime has long since bent the knee to western power, as Tony Blair and his friends were so keen to celebrate, ditching old allies and nuclear ambitions while offering privatised pickings and contracts to western banks, arms and oil corporations such as BP.

Now the prospect of the regime's fall offers the chance for much closer involvement – western intelligence has had its fingers in parts of the Libyan opposition for years – when other states seem in danger of spinning out of the imperial orbit. ... Military intervention wouldn't just be a threat to Libya and its people, but to the ownership of what has been until now an entirely organic, homegrown democratic movement across the region.


Again, that would be -- will be? -- the very point of any type of Western military intervention in Libya: to kill a popular, democratic movement that is at present beyond the control of the imperial militarists along the Potomac. Such an intervention would allow Gaddafi and other tyrants under threat to paint opponents to their rule as "tools of the imperialists," while rallying many who oppose them back to their side, to defend the nation against outsiders. This in turn would help "stabilize" the revolutionary situations -- and the leaders, now safe once more, could then turn back to their cynical backroom deals with the West, and hoarding the blood and toil of their people in the cool vaults of Swiss banks. Hey, it's a win-win situation all around.

Events are in free, chaotic flow right now. The Libyan opposition might be able to oust Gaddafi before President Peacey and Prime Minister Fauntleroy go in with guns blazing. And events elsewhere might suddenly erupt and draw off attention and resources. But we are certainly seeing a creeping militarization in the response to the Libyan uprising -- and behind the exigencies of this crisis, there is the deeper shadow that Milne discerns: the longer-range project to diffuse and destroy the Arab Awakening before it further spreads its genuine threat to the business-as-usual dominance of Western elites.



Parsing the Libyan Myth
by Alan Bock, August 14, 2004

The battle for Najaf, at least at the military level, is inconclusive as I write, and the ultimate political implications will probably take weeks or months to sort out, though it is virtually certain that one result will be better recruiting prospects for militants, insurgents, jihadists and the like. The nomination of Porter Goss to head the CIA suggests that whatever faint hope one might have had for significant reform is the stuff of fleeting dreams, but plenty of people have already commented on that.
I’ve been meaning for some time to deal with the case of Libya, and now seems as good a time to do it as any.
It’s hard to imagine anybody who was not fairly pleased when Libya, last December, chose to abandon weapons of mass destruction and, in essence, rejoin the world of (relatively) decent nations. Libya had for decades been a major sponsor of terrorism (no, Virginia, it didn’t start with Osama bin Laden), notably including the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub in which two U.S. soldiers were killed. That incident prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to bomb Tripoli, quite likely targeting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, or at least one of his palaces.
That bit of retaliation didn’t prevent Libyan involvement in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 Lockerbie airplane bombing. It might be notable, however, that Libya did turn over two Libyan intelligence honchos suspected of organizing the incident in 1999 to the Hague, to be tried under Scottish law – well before 9/11 or the Iraq war.
More recently, just this week in fact, Libya agreed to pay some $35 million to about 160 non-U.S. victims of the Berlin nightclub bombing. Payouts to relatives of the two Americans, as well as a Turkish woman who was killed in the bombing, are being negotiated separately. However, the European Union still has some issues with Libya that could postpone the onset of full and relatively friendly diplomatic and commercial relations.
Bringing Libya Around
So what brought Libya from being the Number One state sponsor of terrorism to being (to exaggerate more than a bit) an exemplar of sweet reason and diplomacy? A widely accepted version of the conventional wisdom is that it was President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. Once Gaddafi saw that the American president was resolute (or unhinged) enough to take that step, he decided it was time to come in from the cold, come clean about weapons of mass destruction, and rejoin the family of socially-approved nations.
This view was expressed recently by retired National Review editor and syndicated columnist Bill Buckley, in a column written after he famously doubted whether the war in Iraq was justified. He notes a speech President Bush gave on July 12, "which sheds light on ambient questions."
"What especially catches the eye," Buckley continues, "is his [Bush's] saying that ‘Libya is dismantling its weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile programs. This progress came about through quiet diplomacy between America, Britain, and the Libyan government.’" Buckley’s noted fastidiousness about language and usage isn’t visibly triggered by the incorrect use of "between" in that sentence, but let it pass. We have other fish to fry.
Buckley continues: "The mind travels to the question: Why could not diplomacy have accomplished in Iraq what it accomplished in Libya? But the President keen-wittedly bases the success of Libya on quiet diplomacy, but quiet diplomacy backed up by our own commitment to ‘defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy.’ [An Orwellian construction that uttered by someone else might have triggered Buckley's critical juices, but let that pass also.] He is contending, in effect, that if it hadn’t been for our military entry into Iraq, Gaddafi might have continued his development of nuclear weapons. Who can dispositively argue that this analysis is wrong?"
Given that Buckley goes on to argue that if the war is something "necessary to fortify the U.S. presence in the world" and has brought Libya to recognize sweet reason, it might be justified, I’ll have to argue rather forcefully that the facts of the case argue otherwise.
Opinions Hardly Unanimous
As far back as last December, shortly after Libya’s decision to come clean about weapons, Howard La Branch, in the Christian Science Monitor, noted that "The man who once topped the A-list of international terrorism has sought to emerge from diplomatic and economic isolation ever since he was linked to the bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. But Colonel Gaddafi’s efforts accelerated behind the scenes in March, on the eve of the U.S.-led military effort to oust Saddam Hussein – timing some see as more than coincidence."
So Gaddafi has been trying to change his ways – or get others to be convinced he has changed his ways – since around 1988? The Monitor story goes on to quote Michael O’Hanlon, a defense policy specialist at Brookings, to the effect that "Gaddafi got out of the terrorism business in the 1990s, and he’s getting out of WMD now because domestically he’s up against a wall. The greatest incentive … is the prospect of reestablishing economic relations" with Europe and the United States.
Interestingly, just last week a 19-company business delegation, including people from Raytheon, DaimlerChrysler, Motorola, Fluor and Bell Helicopter completed the first non-oil business delegation to Libya in some 17 years. Retired Ambassador Mark Parris, who chairs the Libyan group of something called the Corporate Council on Africa, deemed the trip a success, claiming that "Libyans are eager for American products of all kinds. The country represents great opportunity for American business and its work force."
So maybe carrots work better than sticks and it was U.S. stubbornness rather than Libyan reluctance that made it take so long? Let’s explore some more evidence.
Earlier Overtures
Last December I attended a conference in Israel at which veteran overseas correspondent Arnaud de Borchgrave, now editor at large at United Press International, was also a speaker. During informal moments – Arnaud is an inveterate name-dropper, but then he has interviewed most of the major world leaders since the 1950s at one time or another – he told me about a trip he had made to Libya in the 1990s, during which Gaddafi had gone off the record and asked de Borchgrave to quietly deliver a message to people Arnaud knew in the State department and the CIA that he was ready and eager to work with them against the then-emerging threat of jihadist terrorists.

So Gaddafi was interested in making amends and reestablishing relations with the West long before Iraq was attacked. In January, Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote about the incident in his column:
"By 1993 wiser counsels had prevailed [following serious rethinking about being a 'rogue' state that began with the collapse of the Soviet Union]. On July 6, after a lengthy interview, he went off the record and asked me to deliver a message to the director of Central Intelligence in Washington. He admitted Libya’s guilt for the downing of Pan Am 103, but made clear that it was originally an Iranian terrorist attack for the downing by the U.S. Navy of a peaceful Iran Air Airbus on its daily run across the Strait of Hormuz.
"’Nobody in our part of the world believed the U.S. government when it said it was an accidental occurrence. So the Iranians subcontracted part of the job to a Syrian intelligence service, which, in turn, asked the Libyan Mukhabarat to handle part of the assignment,’ Col. Gaddafi explained. ‘That is the way these things were handled in those days. If we had initiated the plot, we would have made sure the accusing finger was pointed in the other direction and we would have picked Cyprus, not Malta, where some of the organization was done. The others picked Malta presumably to frame us.’

"Col. Gaddafi then said he was anxious to work directly with the CIA against Islamist terrorists ‘who are just as much of a danger to us as they are to you.’ He said he was prepared to give the CIA valuable information for fighting transnational terrorist groups, like al-Qaeda, but not those that are ‘national liberation movements fighting against Israeli colonialism.’"

The column goes on to maintain that the CIA and Gaddafi did get together and Gaddafi proved his value. While de Borchgrave does believe that the fall of Saddam Hussein was a tipping point, a much longer-term back channel relationship paved the way for welcoming Libya back into the fold.
The Hart Experience
Also in January, former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart wrote a piece for the Washington Post about an even earlier experience with Libyans.
"In February 1992, five years after I retired from the Senate and entered the world of international law, I was approached at my hotel while on a business trip to Athens by a man identifying himself as a ‘naval attaché’ from the Libyan Embassy, who was almost certainly with the Libyan intelligence. This was by no means the first time such a thing had happened to me since leaving the Senate. Nevertheless, there was an air of intrigue about the meeting, and it led to intensive contacts with the Libyan government over the next several weeks."
Hart writes, "I discouraged the idea that I was an appropriate contact person for the first Bush administration; I also immediately notified senior State Department officials of the encounter. In a meeting in Washington on March 6, 1992, State discounted the approach on the grounds that it was one of several such approaches and none was taken seriously. ‘We will have no discussions with the Libyans,’ was the answer, ‘until they turn over the Pan Am bombers.’"
Hart transmitted the information to the Libyans through Greek intermediaries, and was surprised by further contact from Libyans. Eventually he met Libyan officials in Geneva. "Almost immediately, the Libyans said they would turn over the two Pan Am bombing suspects, later named as Abdel Basset Ali Meghrai and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, in exchange for a commitment from the first Bush administration that preliminary discussions would begin within a reasonable period of time regarding the lifting of sanctions and eventual normalization of relations between our two countries." Hart relayed the offer to State, and received the reply that State didn’t take the offer seriously and discouraged further discussions.
Nonetheless, the Libyans insisted on further discussions and got into serious detail about legal issues and the logistics of turning over the two Libyans, along with assurances from Hart that they would have adequate defense counsel. After several meetings, however, the U.S. turned the offer down flat, on the grounds that if the suspects stepped on Swiss soil they might never be extradited to Scotland or the U.S. Hart still thinks, "The explanation was lame."
Even that didn’t discourage the Libyans. They eventually persuaded Sen. Hart to come to Tripoli clandestinely for further discussion with Abdul Salaam Jalloud, the prime minister. The offer was the same: the suspects for starting normalization. "I insisted that such discussion would have to include verifiable cessation of any support for terrorism," Hart wrote, "and confirmed abandonment of weapons of mass destruction programs, to which Jalloud responded that ‘everything will be on the table.’"
After confirming with the Italian foreign minister that the Libyans were probably quite serious, Gary Hart once again relayed the offer to the United States. Once again the answer was a flat no. Case closed.
As Hart concluded, "We might have brought the Pan Am bombers to justice, and quite possibly have moved Libya out of its renegade status, much sooner than we have. At the very least it calls into serious question the assertion that Libya changed direction as a result of our preemptive invasion of Iraq."
The invasion of Iraq might have had something to do with the timing, but I think the case that Libya was brought around by that event, or even mainly by that event, can be dispositively dismissed.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby wallflower » Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:33 pm

I'm certainly no expert. After a rim shot the response to that is: "Well then STFU!" But ordinary people want to know about what's going on the basis of morality and to inform our ethics. My intentions are good and I recognize that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" so I have to be careful.
I agree that the quest for American Empire has caused untold suffering and death across the African continent. Still, don't see how you can read Keith Harmon Snow's piece as not praising Qaddafi. He seems quite clear about that.
Might be so what?


My reading of Snow's piece in re Qaddafi is along the lines of: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Living is complicated, so we all know there's a grain of truth to this line of thinking as well as risks. So in order for the formulation of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" to be useful there needs to be a substantial degree of common ground with the "enemy of my enemy." I see Snow's piece in part to make the case for substantial common ground among anti-imperialists with Qaddafi.

Snow recognizes that in order to carve out common ground in re Qaddafi it's important to address Qaddafi's support of Idi Amin of Uganda. It seems to me that the key point in this regard is:
Amin’s crimes pale in comparison to the current despot in power in Uganda, President-for-Life Yoweri Museveni.
It's worth noting that Africa is a huge continent with a rich and varied history. Keith Harmon Snow has done substantial reporting about Rwanda and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Reporting about Rwanda and the DRC is very important, but such reporting represents but a part of Africa.

He's done Africa for a very very long time I think he knows what he speaks of, last time I got this reaction about snow was at DU, all be it it was taken to the extreme, they brought out the big guns to go after me there on this one, strange


I've never frequented Democratic Underground and I want to be clear I'm far from an expert, no "big gun." I'm just trying to make sense of the world and to evaluate to what extent the link to Keith Harmon Snow's piece contributes to understanding. Anyhow, I did search to look at the what would seem to be at least one example of reaction to your posts in re Keith Harmon Snow at DU.

I'll admit that I didn't spend a whole lot of time on those threads at DU, but from my time there it seems to me that the most of the pushback was against Snow's thesis that the reality of the Rwandan massacre is best understood as:
the invading RPF were the preponderant killers, most victims were Hutus, and the numbers of dead during those 100 days were far less than reported.
http://www.zcommunications.org/apocalypse-in-central-africa-by-keith-harmon-snow

His position in re the Rwandan massacre is useful for understanding Snow's argument that follows some like: Idi Amin wasn't so bad because Yoweri Museveni is awful. I think there's plenty of good evidence against both Amin and Museveni. Snow also deals with Qaddafi in re Sudan and Museveni plays a central role in Snow's telling.

I think there is a distinction between getting funding from the CIA and being controlled by the CIA. The description of Nimieri as "the US puppet dictator" seems highly suspect to me. Nimeiri led Sudan for 16 years, that story simply cannot be reduced to "the US puppet dictator" without gross distortion.

Oh really? Interesting that you would believe that


Nimieri made a mess of things in the Sudan and certainly the CIA played a role. I'm unclear how you find it interesting that I consider reducing Nimieri's regime to "the US puppet dictator" is a gross distortion. Perhaps you might give me a little more to go on about that.

Snow makes the point that the FNSL was formed in Sudan while Nimieri was president of Sudan. Snow posits Nimieri as a "US puppet dictator" and a "Central Intelligence Agency operative." The implication is that therefore FNSL is the creation and under the control of the CIA. I think the reality is more complex.

Snow writes:
Muammar Gaddafi has been a champion for people of color — providing funding, hope and solidarity where none existed, and this correspondent is aware that this correspondent’s writing herein is deficient in presenting all the positive aspects of his collaboration with people of color.


Qaddafi is the longest serving leader of a country in the world (I think). Snow makes a very good point about Qaddafi being an African leader and not only to be seen through an Arab lens. As an African leader Snow ranks Qaddafi as one of the good guys. Qaddafi has a long history in African affairs. And clearly there's a history of skulduggery and corporate mercenaries in African Affairs. Surely corporate interests and various national interests have intersected over time, but these interests have not always been the same. A key problem that I have with Snow's analysis is that he seems to underplay the interests of African actors in order to highlight the importance of imperial power.

The Ghanaian economist George Ayittey has argued that the primary problem of African poverty is less the result of meddling by colonial powers and more the result of oppressive native autocrats. Regardless of one's opinion of Ayittey, it does seem useful to note that Externalist versus Internalists is an important debate among Africans and that many progressive voices lean more to the Internalist camp. Clearly Keith Harmon Snow is firmly in the Externalist camp.

Snow looks at Qaddafi, Amin, Bashir and finds substantial common ground because he sees the primary problem in Africa today as externalist meddling. I align more with African leaders who are attempting to solve African problems with African solutions, so the common ground with Qaddafi, Amin, Bashir seems far less substantial to me.

As an American I'm against the American imperial project because I think it does grave harm to the American republic, which I'm for. As far as developments in African countries go there doesn't seem to me to be a contradiction between opposing externalist meddling and supporting progressive Africans operating from an internalist perspective.

I think there is substantial common ground between your views, seemslikeadream, and my own. I also think you're more erudite and informed than I. It's also clear we have differences of opinion. I know that my positions can be changed and it's precisely to become more informed that I want to participate in forums like this. I want to understand both our commonalities and differences.

How do you come down about Qaddafi, friend or foe?
create something good
User avatar
wallflower
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:36 pm

forgive me I didn't mean to come off as such an jerk about this, I just get so pissed about how we set 'em up and bring 'em down. The whole continent of Africa is being used. And then when I went to find the snow vids I find a thread at DU with the usual suspects beating me up I transferred my anger at you, sorry. Thanks for taking the time to read my post

wallflower
How do you come down about Qaddafi, friend or foe?


neither, he just a pawn in their game

[url=http://www.myvideo.de/watch/3473681/Only_a_pawn_in_their_game_1963[/url]

A bullet from the back of a bush took Medgar Evers' blood
A finger fired the trigger to his name
A handle hid out in the dark
A hand set the spark
Two eyes took the aim
Behind a man's brain
But he can't be blamed
He's only a pawn in their game.

A South politician preaches to the poor white man
"You got more than blacks, don't complain
You're better than them, you been born with white skin" they explain
And the Negro's name
Is used it is plain
For the politician's gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

The deputy sheriffs, the soldiers, the governors get paid
And the marshals and cops get the same
But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

From the poverty shacks, he looks from the cracks to the tracks
And the hoof beats pound in his brain
And he's taught how to walk in a pack
Shoot in the back
With his fist in a clench
To hang and to lynch
To hide 'neath the hood
To kill with no pain
Like a dog on a chain
He ain't got no name
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game.

Today, Medgar Evers was buried from the bullet he caught
They lowered him down as a king
But when the shadowy sun sets on the one
That fired the gun
He'll see by his grave
On the stone that remains
Carved next to his name
His epitaph plain:
Only a pawn in their game.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Petroleum and Empire in North Africa

Postby wallflower » Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:09 pm

Oh you certainly didn't come off as a jerk to me seemslikeadream. I've lurked around here long enough to know that you put up stuff I really want to pay attention to. Likewise I don't want to come off as a jerk, but there's something about this sort of forum set up that lends itself to that sort of misunderstanding. I do like the fact that there are regulars around RI who take the time to argue, even when there's an obvious disparity in how much people know about a subject. It seems really important for people to find ways they agree on stuff, even when there's hundreds of ways we may disagree.

The "pawn in their game" line in re Qaddafi makes a lot of sense. But it's also clear Qaddafi has agency. How to weigh the importance of the sides of the scale doesn't seem entirely straight forward; that is there seems room for interpretation.

This link isn't entirely on topic but I always like Ugandan journalist Charles Onyango-Obbo's take on things http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/1115430/-/item/0/-/156pcrsz/-/index.html snip:

The difference between Gaddafi, also known as “Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution” and other dictators, is that there is a method to his madness. No other African strongman has his large appetite for imperial adventure, and the kind of oil-money-heavy pockets he has to pay for it. After Gaddafi eventually flees, or is captured and hanged, and that cannot be too long in the future, his absence will be deeply felt in Africa.
create something good
User avatar
wallflower
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 136 guests