The New Dawn (Liberia)
Thursday, 08 March 2012
By Mohamed Dukuly (Sydney)
The present debate about returning Liberia to a Christian state is not only a malicious effort for destabilization but also a sign of how the colonial churches succeeded in their role as facilitators of Americo-black imperialism in the place now called Liberia.
The quest for Christian statehood is based on the misconception that Liberia was founded on Christian principles. This idea has been around for a while and mainly shared and promoted by some uncritical Liberian Christians who are seeking to continue the ideological imperialism in Liberia. The fact is, Liberia was NOT founded on Christian principles. Especially if Christian principles mean the “principles of living that Jesus Christ taught about our general behaviour and relationship with one another as human beings and creations of God”.
This paper is aimed to shed light on the idea that Liberia was founded on colonial imperialist principles to serve as dumping place for former American black slaves, primarily for the interest of those who once enslaved them. It was a situation whereby the imperialists American Government, through the American Colonization Society (ACS) imposed themselves on a foreign land and people for the purpose of enhancing their economy, political and social interest, as well as enforcing their imperialist culture and religion on the native population.
We are all aware that prior to the formation of the private organization that led the colonization of Liberia, the question of what to do with the black population in America was always alive in the minds of the American people. Amongst the various debates and discussions going on then, the popular solution most people leaned towards was the idea to remove free black slaves to some sort of territory beyond the border of the United States of America (see Sherwood, 1916).
Some of the well-known arguments advanced then were that: Politically, the two races could not live in harmony with equal political power because there will be prejudices and recollection of injuries between them. Physically, one race could oppose to the other on the bases of “color, form and beauty”. Morally, it was argued that blacks were inferior to whites in intelligence and moral ideals. The only solution therefore was “to transfer the blacks to another country” (ibid, p.493).
By the late end of the 18th Century, advocates for the deportation of blacks to Africa project had gained higher momentum and well known individuals like Thornton who was ready to sacrifice his entire fortune for the project and Hopkins who introduced the idea of the need to salvage Africa. However, Efforts made then were mainly through individuals but paved the way for the formation of the American Colonization Society (ACS) (ibid, p. 507)
The American Colonization Society (ACS) was formed in1816 as collective effort aimed to facilitate the colonization of free blacks of the United States (Poe, 1970).Key people behind the ACS were both “religious” and secular. There were individuals like Reverend Finley who believed in the idea of divine mission to colonize free blacks into Africa and slave holders from the South who supported the ACS because it meant to remove dangerous elements from their society. There was Paul Cuffe a philanthropist and rich businessman of the Quakers community whose interest was to just do something about the plight of black slaves. The interesting thing was that both religious and socio-political arguments were constantly used for different audience just to gain support for the ACS at all cost (see Sherwood 1970). The ACS later won the support of the American government under the leadership of James Monroe and no need to mention here that this was done purely for the interest of America.
Colonizing Africa was not an idea supported at all quarters of the black leadership. Some blacks truly argued that “colonization was an attempt to mask the ongoing problem of slavery, and in the process provided white colonizationists an opportunity to mollify their consciences without genuinely addressing the larger issues”. On the other hand, others saw it as once in a life time opportunity to obtain a full flesh freedom and sense of dignity in a land they can call theirs. While the religious patrons saw it as a God given opportunity to plan their form of Christianity in Africa in disguise of something else (see Stepp, 2007).
One year after what some called “dodgy procurement of land” by the ACS in Cape Mesurado of present Liberia; the first colonist ship arrived in March 1822. Despite intense resistance from the indigenous people the colonists occupied the Island, named it as Christopolis and began building dwellings (Holsoe 1971). Historians recorded that from March up till December that year (1822) indigenous people put up series of resistance against the colonists but failed in their efforts to prevent them from settling.
Even the questionable account of King Kamara’s (Sao Boso) intervention at the time did not help to prevent attacks against the colonist. As the indigenous leaders around the coastal areas of the Island who are mostly known by their imperialists imposed names including “Kings Bromley, Todo, Governor, Konko, Jimmy, Gray, Long Peter, George, Willey, and Ben, as well as all of King Peter's and King Bristol's…” (ibid, p .338); put their warriors together and executed a massive attack on the colonist in November of 1822 but failed to get them out.
Few months after the arrival of the first ship, ACS brought in Reverend Jehudi Ashmun, to administer the colony on their behalf. A Reverend that the black colonist led by Reverend Lott Carey revolted against due to what they called “Ashmum’s unfair attitude” towards them. Internal revolts plus perceived threat of encroachment from imperialist Britain and France were too real to be taken for granted. By 1847, the colony was declared Independent from ACS (White control) and named Liberia with its capital as Monrovia.
The story of Christianity on pre-Liberian soil can not be told without mention of Reverend Lott Cary. He and Teague led the first Baptist Mission into West Africa. The key source of the claim that Liberia was founded on Christian principles is principally premised on the works of those two men and later by activity of Reverend Day of the Southern Baptist Mission. Lott Cary established the first church in Liberia and became vice governor of the colony; while Teague became part of the team that drafted the 1847 Liberian Constitution. However, it is important to be aware of the following salient points about early Christianity in pre-Liberia.
Firstly, Lott Carey and Teague were never official delegates of the American Colonization Society (ACS) to Africa. They were sent by the Triennial Convention upon the recommendation of William Crane to spread Christianity in Africa. The two Christian missionaries plus their families first settled in Sierra Leone and later joined the colonist in 1822 for Liberia. In fact it was recorded that Lott Carey had Sierra Leone in mind as destination while his contract was being arranged by the Church group (see Poe 197 p. 51).
Secondly, prior to setting off for Africa, both Lott Carey and Teague were seriously urged to keep away from politics of the colony as much as they could and to “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s...” (See Stoughton to Carey and Teague in Seventh Annual Report of Baptist Board for Foreign Missions, 1821,p. 397) as cited by (Poe19 p. 55).
Thirdly, Lott Carey involvement into politics was not favoured by everyone in the Triennial Convention. This is why the first report sent to the six Triennial General Missionary Convention one year after his death included the remark that “.... could he (Lott Carey) had devoted his whole time to (the work of the church) much good might have been expected to have resulted from his labours....” (See Fisher, 1922, p. 416). This is one of the reasons why some writers argue that Lott Carey and his Christian team had plans different than that of the American Colonization Society. Unfortunately, their Christian work was somehow an encoded imperialism.
In spite all of these; indigenous Liberians will always remember Reverend Lott Carey as the great colonial missionary who died from injury sustained while preparing ammunition to be used for killing our people (Stepp, 2007, p. 51).
It should therefore be noted that reference made to Christianity and God in the 1847 Constitution should not seen as a genuine attempt to seeking goodness for all (indigenous inclusive). The reality then proved that this was not the case. Ironically, every social injustice issues they experienced as mentioned in the preamble of the 1847 constitution were the exact issues native people were to later be faced with from the so-called “Christian country” (see Liberian 1847 constitution). This is why it is important to raise the question of which Christianity were they talking about? Was it a Christianity that suited their understanding of “freedom”- a concept they understood as the acquisition of property, Black control of churches and their own destiny with their own “distinctive political culture”(Denise 2011). Or was it Christianity without Jesus Christ (Burrowes, 2011) that was being used as cover for imperialism and subjugation of the natives?
What is clear among scholars and at least echoed by Dunn (1997, p.712) is that once established in the place now called Liberia, these former slaves, and their descendents proceeded to enslave the ethnicities among whom they settled in the I820S in an exactly similar fashion which characterised European colonial rule over Africans in other parts of Africa .
These black colonists or settlers were filled with combination of anger about their past experience, extreme desperation and desires to get out of the control of their former slave masters. Their sole focus was on themselves and their plight. So they could do anything to get what they wanted. An example of their mindset then is illustrated by Burrowes (2001), when he recorded that once in 1841 when the president of the American Colonization Society (ACS) wrote Teage to complain about an offensive article in the Liberian newspaper against the whites, Teage (one of the Christian leaders then) responded that as in common with all colored men, he had certain sentiment.... and it was his indefeasible rights to hold those opinions against their former slave masters. What sort of Christianity then that the country is said to be founded on when everything that transpired since their presence on our soil were based on injustice, exploitation and unfair sufferings of native people?
Truly, Christianity filled with unfairness and injustice should not be equated with the Christianity connected to Jesus Christ. The latter is true Christianity while the former is imperialism in disguise. Against this background, it can be said that the founding of Liberia is nothing other than an exercise of imperialism.
In the first place the land was taken by treachery and presented to us as normal transaction. Fisher (1922) listed gunpowder; rum tobacco iron pots, looking glasses and other items not more than $ 300 as the exchange articles for the “valuable track of land which was the nucleus of Liberia”. The claim about signing treaty with native chiefs is a bit of mockery. How could they possibly do a fair deal with chiefs that were not literate in English language and did not speak English? No wonder the natives refused to allow them settle and put up fight to the best of their abilities.
Native people who out-numbered the imperialist at almost 100 to one ratio were denied every form of political participation in the so called “Christian country”. The 1847 constitution that is said to have set the Christian principle basis of Liberia did not assign any citizenship to the native people yet still they later introduced and imposed compulsory hut-tax on them. Not only that land was forcefully taken but natives were more or less a defector subjects to those colonial imperialists. A good “imperialist Christianity” – I guess!
They also practiced a very harsh form of assimilation policy in Liberia whereby natives were forced to undergo a “brainwashed education” to become “Christians” for several reasons. One of those reasons was to make religion an antidote to critical consciousness towards any attempt to question their hegemony. Another was to make their form of Christianity as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the cultural and moral value system existed in pre- Liberia (see Akpan, 1973, pp. 226-227). Not surprising that even in this day and age, one still sess the impact of the decade long brainwashed education in Liberia.
When it was clear that the assimilation policy was not working due to resistance from the Poro and Sande societies on one hand and Islam on the other, the colonial imperialists instituted an indirect rule system that subjected the natives to some of the harshest forms of maltreatments and exploitations. Like other colonial imperial powers, Liberia colonial imperialists placed natives against each other. They formed the Liberian Frontier Force, an on record notorious force to implement the indirect rule policy. Through this Frontier force, the Liberian colonial imperialists created the right atmosphere that allowed them to do to the natives what they experienced from their slave masters (see ibid pp. 229-231)
In conclusion, it is save to state that any claim that links the founding of Liberia to “Imperialist Christian principle” is not only demeaning to real Christianity but also an expression of concocted fallacy based on “brainwashed education”. In view of the historical situation explained earlier plus the realities seen on the ground in present day Liberia, the most rational position on the matter is the view that Liberia was founded on imperialist principles- those that advance domination, exploitation, institutional discrimination and social inequality.
Reference
Akpan, M. B. (1973). Black Imperialism: Americo-Liberian Rule over African Peoples of Liberia, 1841-1964. In Canadian Journal of African studies, Vol. 7, No. 2.
Burrowes, C.P. (2001) Black Christian republicanism: a southern ideology in early Liberia, 1822 to 1847. In the Journal of Negro History. Vol. 86, No. 1.
Dunn, D. E. (1987). Black Colonialism: The Americo-Liberian Scramble for the Hinterland by Yekutiel Gershoni; African and American Values: Liberia and West Africa by Katherine Harris; Big Powers and Small Nations: A Case Study of United States-Liberian Relations by Hassan B. Sisay. Review work in: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4. pp. 712-715
Dennis, D. A. (2011) the Mississippi Colonial Experience in Liberia, 1829-1860 (Doctorate Desertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI 3466928
Fisher, M. M. (1922). Lott Carey. The Colonizing Missionary. In the Journal of Negro History, Vol.7, No.4
Flowers, E. H. (2008). “A Man, a Christian... and Gentlemen?” John Day , Southern Baptists, and the Nineteenth Century Mission to Liberia. In Baptist History and Heritage, Vol.43, No.2
Holsoe, S.V. (1971). A Study of Relation between Settlers and Indigenous People in Western Liberia, 1821-1847. In African Historical studies, Vol. 4, No. 2
Poe, W. A. (1970). Lott Cary: Man of Purchases Freedom. In Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Vol.39, No. 1 [Peer Reviewed Journal].
Sherwood, H. N. (1916). Early Negro Deportation Projects .In The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol.2, No. 4
Sherwood, H. N. (1917). The Formation of American Colonization Society .In The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 2, No.3
About the Author
The Author is a trainer and facilitator with several years of group work experience with families and individuals from CALD background. He holds a BA (ED) History from Bayero University in Nigeria and postgraduate qualifications in Social Science and Family Mediation from Australia. He is presently pursuing his Master degree in Social Work at the Charles Sturt University in Australia.
Showing posts with label colonial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonial. Show all posts
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Thursday, March 08, 2012
On the western NGO's proclivity to "help" Africa.
This IC campaign is a perfect example of how fund-sucking NGO’s survive. “Raising awareness” (as vapid an exercise as it is) on the level that IC does, costs money. Loads and loads of money. Someone has to pay for the executive staff, fancy offices, and well, that 30-minute grand-savior, self-crowning exercise in ego stroking—in HD—wasn’t free. In all this kerfuffle, I am afraid everyone is missing the true aim of IC’s brilliant marketing strategy. They are not selling justice, democracy, or restoration of anyone’s dignity. This is a self-aware machine that must continually find a reason to be relevant. They are, in actuality, selling themselves as the issue, as the subject, as the panacea for everything that ails me as the agency-devoid African. All I have to do is show up in my broken English, look pathetic and wanting. You, my dear social media savvy click-activist, will shed a tear, exhaust Facebook’s like button, mobilize your cadre of equally ill-uninformed netizens to throw money at the problem.
Cause, you know, that works so well in the first world.
....
If there was a prize for the NGO who best commodifies white man’s burden on the African continent, and more specifically in Uganda, Invisible Children
On Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 Campaign.
Siena Anstis
March 7, 2012
If there was a prize for the NGO who best commodifies white man’s burden on the African continent, and more specifically in Uganda, Invisible Children would win.They recently struck again with a new video and campaign titled “Kony 2012.” I was surprised to see it popping up everywhere on my Facebook feedback yesterday: clearly, their social media tactics are to be admired. Their underlying message – which is, of course, more important – is not to be.
I think it would be useful for persons unfamiliar with the issues featured in the movie and with the difficulties of poverty porn messaging to read up on some past blogs about Invisible Children before sharing this film. A friend has circulated a list of links providing critique from bright and well-qualified individuals speaking on these issues:
Wronging Rights is headed by two human rights lawyers who, for many years, have been on top of the development and humanitarian aid debate, as well as international justice. A few thoughts on the previous Invisible Children “Abduct Yourself” campaign from their blog:
First, organizations like Invisible Children not only take up resources that could be used to fund more intelligent advocacy, they take up rhetorical space that could be used to develop more intelligent advocacy. And yeah, this may seem like an absurdly academic point to raise when talking about a problem that is clearly crying out for pragmatic solutions, but, uh, the way we define problems is important. Really, really important. Choosing to simplistically define Congolese women as “The Raped” and Ugandan children as “The Abducted” constrains our ability to think creatively about the problems they face, and work with them to combat these problems.
Second, treating their problems as one-dimensional issues that can be solved by a handful of plucky college students armed only with the strength of their convictions and a video camera doesn’t help anyone. These gets back to something very simple and very smart that Alanna Shaikh wrote a few months ago: “Bad development work is based on the idea that poor people have nothing. Something is better than nothing, right? So anything you give these poor people will be better than what they had before.”
Over on Texas in Africa, the blog has previously hosted two students who have provided some additional thoughts on Invisible Children. The students made a good faith effort to get in contact with Invisible Children and get both sides of the story on their former abduction campaign:
This is a symptom of the larger problem at hand. Not only does IC fail to base its decisions on what Ugandans think is best for them, the organization also make efforts to explain away any dissent. IC has become a brand with machine guns and cameras as its apparent logo and celebrity filmmakers as the protagonists against the evil LRA. The war is no longer about the people versus the LRA; it has transformed itself into something far too sensationalized and, at times, seemingly insincere. Poole, Russell, and Bailey v. Kony.
… And this is why we are as concerned as we are. IC has great potential and opportunity to do good. The organization has successfully motivated masses of young people to be globally and politically active. Advocacy, however, does not end at trendy t-shirts and cool graphics.
While I could reiterate what bad advocacy looks like and why we do not want nor need it, Texas in Africa has provided a thoughtful list of issues to consider as well. There is little I could add to it and I strongly suggest you read the whole post here.
Unmuted has also posted an excellent critique of this new video. An extract:
The dis-empowering and reductive narrative: the Invisible Children narrative on Uganda is one that paints the people as victims, lacking agency, voice, will, or power. It calls upon an external cadre of American students to liberate them by removing the bad guy who is causing their suffering. Well, this is a misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Fortunately, there are plenty of examples of child and youth advocates who have been fighting to address the very issues at the heart of IC’s work. Want evidence? In addition to the organizations I list above, also look at Art for Children, Friends of Orphans, and Children Chance International. It doesn’t quiet match the victim narrative, does it? I understand that IC is a US-based organization working to change US policy. But, it doesn’t absolve it from the responsibility of telling a more complete story, one that shows the challenges and trials along side the strength, resilience, and transformational work of affected communities.
Revival of the White savior: if you have watched the Invisible Children video and followed the organization’s work in the past, you will note a certain messianic/savior undertone to it all. “I will do anything I can to stop him,” declares the founder in the video. It’s quite individualistic and reeks of the dated colonial views of Africa and Africans as helpless beings who need to be saved and civilized. Where in that video do you see the agency of Ugandans? Where in that Video do you see Jacob open his eyes wide at the mere possibility of his own strength, as Jennifer Lentfer of How Matters describes here? Can we point out the problem with having one child speak on the desires, dreams, and hopes of a whole nation? I don’t even want to mention the paternalistic tone with which Jacob and Uganda (when did it become part of central Africa by the way?) are described, not excluding the condescending use of subtitles for someone who is clearly speaking English.
Finally, a few words of my own. My impression is that the movie is being used as means for Invisible Children to (i) stay relevant and (ii) raise more funding. Capturing Kony and the focus on international justice is a good excuse. Regardless of this opinion, running campaigns to raise awareness is not necessarily damning in itself (and, indeed, in many cases should be commended). Rather, as all the writers above suggest, the manner in which it is done is very important. A few comments on this new video.
The issue with social media is really highlighted by Invisible Children. The number of “likes” on your Facebook page is not necessarily related to the quality of information you share. Social media allows making anything viral, quickly. People often do not look into the substance of the message, or even watch the video you are sending. Once you become a brand, you can do anything. Invisible Children has successfully become a brand, but is sharing information that is far from nuanced and based on emotional reactions. It fails to paint the full picture. In addition to what Unmuted and others have said, I’d like to add the following thoughts:
My main concern is that Gulu – and Uganda - has gone through some incredible changes. The economy is booming. The region is re-stabilizing. While Kony’s men continue to kill, rape and slaughter elsewhere, Gulu is not a static, unchanging place. Neither is Uganda, neither is the continent. Portraying a region like Gulu as such, and sending the mass message that the whole continent reflects this, is damaging. It undermines possibilities of investment. It clouds story of entrepreneurship, success and innovation. This goes hand in hand with saying “I work in Africa.” Lumping the continent as one messy area.
When it comes to the ICC indictment of Kony, the film clip fails to consider the difficulties that such an international indictment can have and what alternative effects an offer like amnesty might have had. There have been major debates about the peace versus justice debate (an interesting and recent reflection on this is available here), which not only have an impact on how we conceive of the Kony indictment, but also of the ICC as an institution. When it comes to supporting American troops in Uganda, it fails to consider the wider systemic problems that are likely contributing to a failure to arrest Kony and which have little to do with whether the US sends a few soldiers abroad or not. Surely Invisible Children’s audience is not so simplistic that being presented with these critical questions would kill their messaging? I think Musa Okwonga, writing in the Independent, highlights the tension between the need to draw attention to these issues, while using sophisticated techniques:
I understand the anger and resentment at Invisible Children’s approach, which with its paternalism has unpleasant echoes of colonialism. I will admit to being perturbed by its apparent top-down prescriptiveness, when so much diligent work is already being done at Northern Uganda’s grassroots. On the other hand, I am very happy – relieved, more than anything – that Invisible Children have raised worldwide awareness of this issue. Murderers and torturers tend to prefer anonymity, and if not that then respectability: that way, they can go about their work largely unhindered. For too many years, the subject of this trending topic on Twitter was only something that I heard about in my grandparents’ living room, as relatives and family friends gathered for fruitless and frustrated hours of discussion. Watching the video, though, I was concerned at the simplicity of the approach that Invisible Children seemed to have taken.
The thing is that Joseph Kony has been doing this for a very, very, very long time. He emerged about a quarter of a century, which is about the same time that Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni came to power. As a result the fates of these two leaders must, I think, be viewed together. Yet, though President Museveni must be integral to any solution to this problem, I didn’t hear him mentioned once in the 30-minute video. I thought that this was a crucial omission. Invisible Children asked viewers to seek the engagement of American policymakers and celebrities, but – and this is a major red flag – it didn’t introduce them to the many Northern Ugandans already doing fantastic work both in their local communities and in the diaspora. It didn’t ask its viewers to seek diplomatic pressure on President Museveni’s administration.
About ten minutes into the video, the narrator asks his young son who “the bad guy” in Uganda is; when his young son hesitates, he informs him that Joseph Kony is the bad guy. In a sense, he let Kony off lightly: he is a monster. But what the narrator also failed to do was mention to his son that when a bad guy like Kony is running riot for years on end, raping and slashing and seizing and shooting, then there is most likely another host of bad guys out there letting him get on with it. He probably should have told him that, too.
There is another aspect about this particular video and campaign that I, and others, find disturbing. Invisible Children says it will be targeting “culture makers.” Not one of these individuals have significant, vested interests in the African continent (let alone Uganda). Not one person is from Uganda or the wider region. Encouraging a diversity of voices, and providing a platform for new African leaders – whether political, economic, or social – would help highlight that the continent is not just Kony, war and rape and would provide a valuable, wider messaging. The bottom line with poverty porn messaging is that it paints leaders who are struggling in their communities to tackle these problems as hopeless and useless. Keep the American “culture makers,” but why not also provide Ugandan leaders with a platform from which to speak?
In closing, I think the ‘we must start somewhere’ and the ‘better than nothing’ arguments are really tricky. The thing with Invisible Children is that they are not just starting from nowhere and they aren’t just doing nothing. They affect a huge contingent of people around the world. Through extensive fundraising, they have incredible resources. They have a strong foundation and could present a more nuanced and respectful campaign if they wanted to. With that said, I guess I think it is a shame that, after all this time and with their experience, they (i) believe their listeners do not want more answers to the complicated questions and (ii) that they have not considered including and uplifting leaders from the communities which they talk about who could provide a more honest and in-depth picture.
Regardless, I’d like to thank Invisible Children for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss how destructive bad advocacy can be. Here’s an opportunity to challenge ourselves, particularly those who work in development and aid communication, to try and collectively brainstorm how we can generate important stories and campaigns, while sending messages that are empowering, accurate and thought-provoking. It is also an opportunity for each of us to personally dig a bit deeper into the challenge of Kony and the LRA and become more familiar with these issues in a respectful way.
My first suggestion would be to start listening and engaging with the following individuals:
Rosebell Kagumire
TMS Ruge
Maureen Agena
Ssozi Javie
Siena Anstis
March 7, 2012
If there was a prize for the NGO who best commodifies white man’s burden on the African continent, and more specifically in Uganda, Invisible Children would win.They recently struck again with a new video and campaign titled “Kony 2012.” I was surprised to see it popping up everywhere on my Facebook feedback yesterday: clearly, their social media tactics are to be admired. Their underlying message – which is, of course, more important – is not to be.
I think it would be useful for persons unfamiliar with the issues featured in the movie and with the difficulties of poverty porn messaging to read up on some past blogs about Invisible Children before sharing this film. A friend has circulated a list of links providing critique from bright and well-qualified individuals speaking on these issues:
Wronging Rights is headed by two human rights lawyers who, for many years, have been on top of the development and humanitarian aid debate, as well as international justice. A few thoughts on the previous Invisible Children “Abduct Yourself” campaign from their blog:
Second, treating their problems as one-dimensional issues that can be solved by a handful of plucky college students armed only with the strength of their convictions and a video camera doesn’t help anyone. These gets back to something very simple and very smart that Alanna Shaikh wrote a few months ago: “Bad development work is based on the idea that poor people have nothing. Something is better than nothing, right? So anything you give these poor people will be better than what they had before.”
Over on Texas in Africa, the blog has previously hosted two students who have provided some additional thoughts on Invisible Children. The students made a good faith effort to get in contact with Invisible Children and get both sides of the story on their former abduction campaign:
This is a symptom of the larger problem at hand. Not only does IC fail to base its decisions on what Ugandans think is best for them, the organization also make efforts to explain away any dissent. IC has become a brand with machine guns and cameras as its apparent logo and celebrity filmmakers as the protagonists against the evil LRA. The war is no longer about the people versus the LRA; it has transformed itself into something far too sensationalized and, at times, seemingly insincere. Poole, Russell, and Bailey v. Kony.
… And this is why we are as concerned as we are. IC has great potential and opportunity to do good. The organization has successfully motivated masses of young people to be globally and politically active. Advocacy, however, does not end at trendy t-shirts and cool graphics.
While I could reiterate what bad advocacy looks like and why we do not want nor need it, Texas in Africa has provided a thoughtful list of issues to consider as well. There is little I could add to it and I strongly suggest you read the whole post here.
Unmuted has also posted an excellent critique of this new video. An extract:
The dis-empowering and reductive narrative: the Invisible Children narrative on Uganda is one that paints the people as victims, lacking agency, voice, will, or power. It calls upon an external cadre of American students to liberate them by removing the bad guy who is causing their suffering. Well, this is a misrepresentation of the reality on the ground. Fortunately, there are plenty of examples of child and youth advocates who have been fighting to address the very issues at the heart of IC’s work. Want evidence? In addition to the organizations I list above, also look at Art for Children, Friends of Orphans, and Children Chance International. It doesn’t quiet match the victim narrative, does it? I understand that IC is a US-based organization working to change US policy. But, it doesn’t absolve it from the responsibility of telling a more complete story, one that shows the challenges and trials along side the strength, resilience, and transformational work of affected communities.
Revival of the White savior: if you have watched the Invisible Children video and followed the organization’s work in the past, you will note a certain messianic/savior undertone to it all. “I will do anything I can to stop him,” declares the founder in the video. It’s quite individualistic and reeks of the dated colonial views of Africa and Africans as helpless beings who need to be saved and civilized. Where in that video do you see the agency of Ugandans? Where in that Video do you see Jacob open his eyes wide at the mere possibility of his own strength, as Jennifer Lentfer of How Matters describes here? Can we point out the problem with having one child speak on the desires, dreams, and hopes of a whole nation? I don’t even want to mention the paternalistic tone with which Jacob and Uganda (when did it become part of central Africa by the way?) are described, not excluding the condescending use of subtitles for someone who is clearly speaking English.
Finally, a few words of my own. My impression is that the movie is being used as means for Invisible Children to (i) stay relevant and (ii) raise more funding. Capturing Kony and the focus on international justice is a good excuse. Regardless of this opinion, running campaigns to raise awareness is not necessarily damning in itself (and, indeed, in many cases should be commended). Rather, as all the writers above suggest, the manner in which it is done is very important. A few comments on this new video.
The issue with social media is really highlighted by Invisible Children. The number of “likes” on your Facebook page is not necessarily related to the quality of information you share. Social media allows making anything viral, quickly. People often do not look into the substance of the message, or even watch the video you are sending. Once you become a brand, you can do anything. Invisible Children has successfully become a brand, but is sharing information that is far from nuanced and based on emotional reactions. It fails to paint the full picture. In addition to what Unmuted and others have said, I’d like to add the following thoughts:
My main concern is that Gulu – and Uganda - has gone through some incredible changes. The economy is booming. The region is re-stabilizing. While Kony’s men continue to kill, rape and slaughter elsewhere, Gulu is not a static, unchanging place. Neither is Uganda, neither is the continent. Portraying a region like Gulu as such, and sending the mass message that the whole continent reflects this, is damaging. It undermines possibilities of investment. It clouds story of entrepreneurship, success and innovation. This goes hand in hand with saying “I work in Africa.” Lumping the continent as one messy area.
When it comes to the ICC indictment of Kony, the film clip fails to consider the difficulties that such an international indictment can have and what alternative effects an offer like amnesty might have had. There have been major debates about the peace versus justice debate (an interesting and recent reflection on this is available here), which not only have an impact on how we conceive of the Kony indictment, but also of the ICC as an institution. When it comes to supporting American troops in Uganda, it fails to consider the wider systemic problems that are likely contributing to a failure to arrest Kony and which have little to do with whether the US sends a few soldiers abroad or not. Surely Invisible Children’s audience is not so simplistic that being presented with these critical questions would kill their messaging? I think Musa Okwonga, writing in the Independent, highlights the tension between the need to draw attention to these issues, while using sophisticated techniques:
I understand the anger and resentment at Invisible Children’s approach, which with its paternalism has unpleasant echoes of colonialism. I will admit to being perturbed by its apparent top-down prescriptiveness, when so much diligent work is already being done at Northern Uganda’s grassroots. On the other hand, I am very happy – relieved, more than anything – that Invisible Children have raised worldwide awareness of this issue. Murderers and torturers tend to prefer anonymity, and if not that then respectability: that way, they can go about their work largely unhindered. For too many years, the subject of this trending topic on Twitter was only something that I heard about in my grandparents’ living room, as relatives and family friends gathered for fruitless and frustrated hours of discussion. Watching the video, though, I was concerned at the simplicity of the approach that Invisible Children seemed to have taken.
The thing is that Joseph Kony has been doing this for a very, very, very long time. He emerged about a quarter of a century, which is about the same time that Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni came to power. As a result the fates of these two leaders must, I think, be viewed together. Yet, though President Museveni must be integral to any solution to this problem, I didn’t hear him mentioned once in the 30-minute video. I thought that this was a crucial omission. Invisible Children asked viewers to seek the engagement of American policymakers and celebrities, but – and this is a major red flag – it didn’t introduce them to the many Northern Ugandans already doing fantastic work both in their local communities and in the diaspora. It didn’t ask its viewers to seek diplomatic pressure on President Museveni’s administration.
About ten minutes into the video, the narrator asks his young son who “the bad guy” in Uganda is; when his young son hesitates, he informs him that Joseph Kony is the bad guy. In a sense, he let Kony off lightly: he is a monster. But what the narrator also failed to do was mention to his son that when a bad guy like Kony is running riot for years on end, raping and slashing and seizing and shooting, then there is most likely another host of bad guys out there letting him get on with it. He probably should have told him that, too.
There is another aspect about this particular video and campaign that I, and others, find disturbing. Invisible Children says it will be targeting “culture makers.” Not one of these individuals have significant, vested interests in the African continent (let alone Uganda). Not one person is from Uganda or the wider region. Encouraging a diversity of voices, and providing a platform for new African leaders – whether political, economic, or social – would help highlight that the continent is not just Kony, war and rape and would provide a valuable, wider messaging. The bottom line with poverty porn messaging is that it paints leaders who are struggling in their communities to tackle these problems as hopeless and useless. Keep the American “culture makers,” but why not also provide Ugandan leaders with a platform from which to speak?
In closing, I think the ‘we must start somewhere’ and the ‘better than nothing’ arguments are really tricky. The thing with Invisible Children is that they are not just starting from nowhere and they aren’t just doing nothing. They affect a huge contingent of people around the world. Through extensive fundraising, they have incredible resources. They have a strong foundation and could present a more nuanced and respectful campaign if they wanted to. With that said, I guess I think it is a shame that, after all this time and with their experience, they (i) believe their listeners do not want more answers to the complicated questions and (ii) that they have not considered including and uplifting leaders from the communities which they talk about who could provide a more honest and in-depth picture.
Regardless, I’d like to thank Invisible Children for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss how destructive bad advocacy can be. Here’s an opportunity to challenge ourselves, particularly those who work in development and aid communication, to try and collectively brainstorm how we can generate important stories and campaigns, while sending messages that are empowering, accurate and thought-provoking. It is also an opportunity for each of us to personally dig a bit deeper into the challenge of Kony and the LRA and become more familiar with these issues in a respectful way.
My first suggestion would be to start listening and engaging with the following individuals:
Rosebell Kagumire
TMS Ruge
Maureen Agena
Ssozi Javie
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Snake Behind the Arab Spring
By Elias Akleh
Media With Concience
14 November 2011
Due to its important geopolitical location (linking Asian, African and European continents) and to its diversified rich natural resources the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle Eastern region had been subjected to multi-forms of colonial campaigns since the beginning of ancient times. These inhabitants were subjected to ruthless military occupations, genocides, persecutions, oppressions, enslavements, and ethnic cleansing. Yet the people never surrendered nor gave up. They struggled for their freedom and independence and fought all colonial powers one after the other. Since the beginning of 2011 we are witnessing their latest regionally-sweeping fight against local ruling regimes that are subservient to foreign powers. This has become known as the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, like all their previous struggles, there is a poisonous snake in the background, which covertly is directing and orchestrating this Arab Spring to reap its fruits for itself.
Their most previous sweeping struggle, similar to the present Arab Spring, was the famous Arab Revolt of June 1916 kicking the colonial Ottoman Empire, known as the “Sick Man”, out of the whole Middle East. The poisonous snake then was the United Kingdom, who pledged to recognize Arab independence throughout the whole Middle East if they join the British in their fight against the Ottoman Empire; an ally to Germany during WWI. This pledge was officiated through what is known as McMahon/Hussein Correspondence (1915 through 1916). Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur McMahon was the British High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917 and Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca. The British confirmed their pledge, again, through the January 1918 letter by Sir Mark Sykes carried by British Commander David Hogarth to Hussein. British weapons were shipped to Arab fighters through T.E. Lawrence (known as Lawrence of Arabia), who also coordinated the war efforts between the two parties. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the British broke their pledge to Sharif Hussein. According to their May 16th 1917 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement they divided the Middle East into French and British colonies, and according to their Balfour Declaration, November 2nd 1917, they promised Palestine to the Zionists. Sharif Hussein was ousted from Mecca to exile by the British supported Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, who established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The military struggle continued within each separate Arab state until independence was achieved. Before quitting and leaving their Arab colonies, France and Great Britain raised some of their local cronies to become heads of states in order to keep the country dependent on the occupier economically, politically and even culturally. Some of the Arab countries, especially in Northern Africa, still use the occupier’s language next to Arabic as a main daily language.
There exists in the world a very wealthy and very influential group of people; the wealthiest 1%; a Power Elite, who exerts tremendous influence on world events. This Power Elite value themselves above all other nations. They had developed a kind of political theology that exalts them as the elite of all elites, the divinely chosen group, the architects of this world, the crafters of all religious, political and social ideologies, and the destroyers and builders of nations. It gives them the right and the duty to move nations and lead them into reshaping their political regimes through revolutions and wars to make these nations subservient to their own agenda. They spend their days drawing global projects and dedicate all their resources for their execution. They were responsible for all major wars around the world, for revolutions in many countries, for economical crises and for most major events in the history of this world. Through their wealth they control heads of states, all media outlets, military and intelligence organizations, and the world economy. Looking at the present global financial crises affecting many countries, one could not help but ask: who is this debtor, wealthy enough to hold many countries and their whole economies in his debt?
This is not any longer the farfetched conspiracy theory they are trying to ridicule those who try to expose it. It is a fact. After all a conspiracy is defined as “evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more people”.
For those who doubt that nations could be blindly and irrationally driven to acts against their own national interests and welfare, I would like to remind them of the drastic opposing effects of the famous speeches given by Brutus Albinus and Mark Antony to the Roman citizens after the assassination of Julius Caesar. The Romans, won by Brutus’ speech, were immediately converted against him within few minutes by Mark Antony’s speech. The famous proverb states that “people are just like a ball kicked from one corner of the field to the other by politicians.” Thus the political term “the ball is in one politician’s court.”
Iraq, Syria and Iran were the main obstacles to the Power Elite’s primary colonial Zionist Project of establishing Greater Israel to control the Middle Eastern region. The Power Elite came up with the “New Middle East” and “fighting global terrorism” projects to augment their Zionist Project. Intending to move southward they started with the occupation and destruction of Iraq. Although the Iraqi occupation was carried out under the banner of weapons of mass destruction and spreading the American democracy, it was faced with huge global political opposition not to mention the large financial expenses.
After failing to manipulate the IAEA and UN to isolate and to break the Iran/Syria ally, who supports Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas in their resistance against Israeli occupation and expansion, the Power Elite came up with the perfect scheme of “New Order through Chaos” erroneously dubbed, later on, as the Arab Spring. It involves revolution from within to topple the ruling regime and to incite conflict and struggle between the different religious and ethnic groups to divide and to weaken the country in order to make it easier for them to interfere, under the pretence of protecting minorities and/or of economic aid, to virtually control and re-organize the country. This way the Power Elite would present itself as an ally rather than an occupier, would gain the approval of the international community, would sidetrack all global political opposition and criticism, and would avoid the huge expenses incurred by the revolution. Their first attempt during 2009 Iranian election failed to topple the regime due to the relatively small size of demonstrators. A proven precedent with a strong credibility was needed to convince larger masses into revolting. The Power Elite was ready for a “controlled sacrifice” in order to win the ultimate prize, similar to a chess player, who is ready to sacrifice his queen in order to check-mate his opponent’s king. The goal is a controlled election in an American style democracy in some of the “non-friendly” Middle Eastern countries.
Tunisian Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was the first sacrifice. Tunisia was a French colony from 1883 to 1956 when Habib Bourguiba established the Republic of Tunisia. Bourguiba made the fatal mistake of nationalizing foreign land holdings and Christian religious institutions. This infuriated the Italians, who brokered what is known as the “medical coup d’état” deposing Bourguiba and installing the head of security forces, Ben Ali, in his place. This was declared to a 1999 Parliamentary Committee by Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service (SISMI). Ben Ali was perfect local foreign puppet. He has French and American military and intelligence training. He had close working relationship with Bush’s (Junior) administration and was a partner in fighting the so called global terrorism through the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative.
Contrary to the claimed cause for the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolt its economy was considered the best in the African continent and was projected to even improve in the coming years. The 2010-2011 Global Competitive Report (Davos World Economic Forum) ranked Tunisia as first in Africa and 32nd out of 132 globally. In an attempt to fight potential terrorism through economic assistance Ben Ali established a National Solidarity Fund that slashed Tunisia’s poverty from 7.4% in 1990 to 3.8% in 2005. The Oxford Business Group stated that Tunisia’s economy was likely to grow starting with 2008 due to its diversified industries.
Tunisia was chosen for its vulnerability to the West. Its security intelligence was penetrated through its cooperation in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, and its military and economy were compromised through the American military and economic assistance programs. Although the Power Elite supports its local puppet rulers they also support, to a lesser extent, opposition groups just in case the ruler gets out of line they would use the opposition groups to get rid of him.
The revolution started with Wikileaks exposing the large extent of Ben Ali’s corruption. When Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself aflame the opposition groups were already primed for mass demonstrations. As the head of state, and through bribery, Ben Ali could have sent the army and thugs to crush the demonstrators, as we have seen in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. The country’s army chief withdrew his support to Ben Ali after his consultation with the Obama’s administration as was rumored. Ben Ali flew out to Saudi Arabia that has become known as the refuge for all deposed dictators of the region.
The many political parties formed before the Tunisian election is an indicative of the prevalent division and confusion among the people. The inexperienced Ennahda Islamist Party, who won the October 23rd election, could become a very easy prey to foreign long experienced political interference and to economical manipulation.
Egypt was the litmus test that would propel the rest of the Arab nations, particularly Syrians, into revolting against their ruling regimes. Hosni Mubarak was chosen for he was the most hated, although very influential, Arab leader of the most important Arab country. He was hated by his people for his tyranny, his oppression, his corruption, and his cheap privatization of Egyptian natural resources to foreign investors among many others. He was hated by the majority of Arab nations for his pro-American/Israeli foreign policies, for supporting the American invasion of Iraq, for his opposition to the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas, for his sabotage to all inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts, for his partnership with Israeli Gaza siege, for his opposition to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ armed resistance against Israeli occupation, and for his support to Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah and Israel’s 2009 war against Gaza. He was the queen to be sacrificed in the chess game.
“US groups helped nurture Arab Uprisings” was the title of an article in New York Times, which exposed that young Egyptian activists had received technical training on the use of social networking and mobile technology, and were financed by American groups such as International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy and Project on Middle East Democracy.
It is inconceivable that Mubarak, the wealthy ruthless head of state for thirty years and with long history in military service, did not have any loyal subjects in the army, who would help him crush the demonstrators. For the last thirty years the Egyptian army had been virtually armed, trained, and financed by the US. The army did not crush the protesters because there were strict orders not to do so. Comparatively the same army had crushed protesters and even opened live fire at them after the revolution (Maspero Massacre of 9th October, here and here). The Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces, who seized power after the revolution, had re-instated the emergency laws and is slapping in military courts prison sentences to young activists, who started the revolution. This Counsel stood watching thugs attacking and destroying many government buildings. The latest attack this month was on the Supreme Court while judges were in a meeting. Egypt now is divided with religious conflicts (Christian Copts vs Muslims) and non-functioning government.
The American chosen next president is already primed and ready for the proper time to grab presidency. As for Mubarak, he had served the American/Israeli interest well for the last thirty years and would not be let off empty handed. According to Egyptian weekly “Alanbaa Aldawlia” the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) organization, with 14 million members and specializes in the monitoring of money laundering schemes, had reported to the FBI that for 10% commission President Obama and 17 other American officials, including both former presidents Bush (father & son), Hillary Clinton, James Baker and others, with the cooperation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a high manager of Deutche Bank in France, had been involved in the money laundering of Mubarak’s $700 Billion from Deutche Bank, Barclays Bank and HSBC Bank, to Israel’s Bank Leumi and other banks in China and Taiwan. According to Anat Levin, the branch manager of Israeli Bank Haboalim-Swiss branch, she was authorized by the Israeli government to transfer $20 Billion from Mubarak’s account to Saudi King Abdulla Abd El-Aziz’s account and to UAE president Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s account. The weekly also reported that Christine Legarde, while still French Minister of Economic Affairs, had submitted a report to the Interpol requesting thorough investigation into the management of Deutche Bank in France.
Libyan revolution was actually a civil war brokered by Western powers (US, UK, and France) and some Arab Gulf countries (Egypt, UAE, and Qatar). After paying reparations for Lockerbie bombing, abandoning his nuclear program, and giving Western energy companies (Royal Dutch Shell and BP) access to Libyan oil fields in 2004, Gaddafi had ended enmity with the West. Although he had a type of grandeur illusions Gaddafi attempted in the past to unite Arab countries, and upon failing he recently attempted to create an African Union which threatened the re-colonization plan of Africa by AFRICOM. The decision to get rid of Gaddafi, once and for all, came when he vowed to expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with oil firms from China, India and Russia. Gaddafi’s second fatal mistake was his plan to convince African and Muslim counties to create a new currency, the gold dinar, to rival the American Dollar and the European Euro, in oil trade.
Libyan revolution was totally militarized. It was revealed that Egypt and Qatar were the main arms suppliers to the Libyan rebels. Under American pressure Arab League urged UN to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and Qatar offered to cover all expenses of NATO forces to bomb alleged Gaddafi’s forces. Libyan rebels were civilians without any military training and were no match for Gaddafi’s well-trained and well-equipped army. It was revealed by Walter Fauntroy, member of US House of Representatives, that while in a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, he witnessed French and Danish troops coordinating NATO bombings and raiding Libyan villages, and giving the credit to Libyan rebels. At the end Gaddafi was ordered murdered rather than captured for fear of exposing all his shady dealings with the West.
Two unplanned products of the Arab Spring were the Yemeni and Bahraini revolutions. These are genuine popular peaceful revolutions against Yemeni Saleh’s 33 years oppressive rule, and against Al Khalifa family virtual 191 years rule. The two countries have strategic locations in the region and are of important interest to the American Administration. Yemen is located on the southern entrance of the Red Sea, through which all east/west marine traffic passes. Citing the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 2008 attacks on US embassy, and the October 2010 bomb packages incidents, allegedly linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, as proof of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Obama’s administration and Saudi Arabia justified sending money, arms and troops to help Saleh fight terrorists, and to crush the 10 months old demonstrations
The US has possibly the largest marine/air force base in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet provides support to all war ships of the US Naval Forces Central Command (USNACENT) to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. To keep the status quo in Bahrain Obama’s administration encouraged Gulf States to send the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain to crush the demonstrators. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE were happy to oblige and send their troops to Bahrain.
Syria is the main target; the prize; the king to be checked-mate. With American money and with the cooperation of some Arab officials, paid operatives incited some Syrian citizens, motivated by ethnic and religious background, to demonstrate in the streets demanding reform and regime change. These demonstrations took place in the easy accessible small towns on the borders of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Yet these demonstrations were dwarfed by millions of other Syrian citizens who demonstrated in major cities in support of the regime. To intensify the conflict these operatives, dressed in Syrian army outfits, started killing some citizens and accusing the Syrian police and army, and at the same time attack police and army personnel to force them into the defensive.
Compared to Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bahraini peaceful demonstrations, Syrian demonstrations are totally armed with heavy weapons; machine guns, propelled missiles, anti-tank RPG, mines and heavy explosives, and are directed and orchestrated by military experts from other neighboring Arab countries as exposed by Al-Alam and Syrian TVs.
Heavy weapons and military experts were smuggled in through Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as reported by the Lebanese Arabic Assafir. Turkey had also played a major role in pressuring Syria and had harbored and encouraged armed Syrian rebels called Free Syrian Army. In successive televised interviews the former Lebanese MP Nasser Kandil had exposed in details including names, dates, and places, the conspiracy of destroying Syria as a country not just a regime change. The Saudi Bandar Ben Sultan (dubbed Bandar Bush by the Bush family) was named as a major conspirator with the Americans against Syria. It was reported that He was arrested in Syria while under cover smuggling money and weapons to Syrian operatives. It was also exposed that the American Ambassador Robert Ford and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier (in Arabic) to Syria had smuggled sophisticated satellite communication and surveillance equipment to the Syrian rebels some of which were seized by Syrian police.
Media outlets had also been manipulated to pressure Syrian government and to inflame the demonstrators. After gaining credibility in reporting Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan revolutions Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia TV channels had almost totally ignored the 99% popular Bahraini peaceful demonstrations and concentrated on Syrian demonstrators, less than 40% of the population, in a biased unconfirmed and more hostile reporting against the Syrian government. Every Thursday one could notice heightened reports about civilian casualties and ruthless attacks of the Syrian army in an attempt to incite more people to join Friday demonstrators. Syrian news would top every news broadcast even though there might be more important news in the region. Al-Jazeera repeated broadcasting phone video clips of the same demonstrations from different angles, and of alleged civilian victims, some of these clips proved to be of old Iraqi troops abusing citizens. The victims were always reported as civilians while there was no mention of Syrian soldiers being killed. Unlike Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni army defectors shown on TV declaring support to the people, the media failed to show one Syrian army defector while they keep announcing wide defection. Al-Jazeera had established a special war room planning anti-Syrian propaganda as reported by some Al-Jazeera’s prime reporters and directors such as Ghassan Ben Jeddo and Luna Al-Shibl among many others (Arabnews in Arabic), who submitted their resignation in protest of such unprofessional politically biased reporting.
The US and France, particularly, had pushed for many harsh sanctions against Syria through the UN. Fortunately they could not obtain a military interference under the excuse of protecting Syrian citizens, as was done in Libya, because of the Russian and Chinese veto threat. So the Arab League, a Western tool, was pushed to play pressuring active role in Syria. It seems that many Arab leaders, especially Gulf leaders, who cynically call for democratic regime in Syria, have forgotten that they, themselves, employ family autocratic dictatorships in their own countries. Despite this fact the Syrian government had accepted the Arab League plan. The oppositional Syrian National Council rejected the plan and intensified its violence against the Syrian army inviting harsh retaliation. So the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and threatened economic and political sanctions. Such are illegal actions contradicting the constitution of the Arab League that had never made a decision benefiting any Arab state, but legalized the many Western military interference in the Middle East such as in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Libya. We should mention here that the Arab League had refused to receive a petition from the slaughtered Bahraini people requesting protection. Thousands of people within different Arab states demonstrated against the decision of Arab League in front of Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s embassies.
It has become obvious that the Syrian oppositional groups are divided and have different aspirations some of them are conflicting and confusing. This division and confusion are due to the background of each oppositional group. The Western paid groups are armed seeking violent regime change and call for foreign interference the same as in Libya. The genuine oppositional groups reject any foreign interference fearing the same fate of Libya, and seek drastic reform through dialogue.
To obtain peace, real democracy and prosperity in the Arab World, ALL the present Arab leaders and regimes need to be abolished, starting east with the Gulf States all the way west to the Pacific Ocean through the northern Arab states of Africa. This would give a chance for an Arab Union to develop under one real democratic regime with one united economy. Such a strong Arab Union would rebalance global power and put an end to Western re-colonization schemes of the Middle East.
We should remember that permanent changes happen through the evolution of human consciousness not through violent destructive revolutions.
Media With Concience
14 November 2011
Due to its important geopolitical location (linking Asian, African and European continents) and to its diversified rich natural resources the indigenous inhabitants of the Middle Eastern region had been subjected to multi-forms of colonial campaigns since the beginning of ancient times. These inhabitants were subjected to ruthless military occupations, genocides, persecutions, oppressions, enslavements, and ethnic cleansing. Yet the people never surrendered nor gave up. They struggled for their freedom and independence and fought all colonial powers one after the other. Since the beginning of 2011 we are witnessing their latest regionally-sweeping fight against local ruling regimes that are subservient to foreign powers. This has become known as the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, like all their previous struggles, there is a poisonous snake in the background, which covertly is directing and orchestrating this Arab Spring to reap its fruits for itself.
Their most previous sweeping struggle, similar to the present Arab Spring, was the famous Arab Revolt of June 1916 kicking the colonial Ottoman Empire, known as the “Sick Man”, out of the whole Middle East. The poisonous snake then was the United Kingdom, who pledged to recognize Arab independence throughout the whole Middle East if they join the British in their fight against the Ottoman Empire; an ally to Germany during WWI. This pledge was officiated through what is known as McMahon/Hussein Correspondence (1915 through 1916). Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Arthur McMahon was the British High Commissioner in Egypt from 1915 to 1917 and Hussein bin Ali was the Sharif of Mecca. The British confirmed their pledge, again, through the January 1918 letter by Sir Mark Sykes carried by British Commander David Hogarth to Hussein. British weapons were shipped to Arab fighters through T.E. Lawrence (known as Lawrence of Arabia), who also coordinated the war efforts between the two parties. After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire the British broke their pledge to Sharif Hussein. According to their May 16th 1917 secret Sykes-Picot Agreement they divided the Middle East into French and British colonies, and according to their Balfour Declaration, November 2nd 1917, they promised Palestine to the Zionists. Sharif Hussein was ousted from Mecca to exile by the British supported Abdul-Aziz bin Saud, who established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The military struggle continued within each separate Arab state until independence was achieved. Before quitting and leaving their Arab colonies, France and Great Britain raised some of their local cronies to become heads of states in order to keep the country dependent on the occupier economically, politically and even culturally. Some of the Arab countries, especially in Northern Africa, still use the occupier’s language next to Arabic as a main daily language.
There exists in the world a very wealthy and very influential group of people; the wealthiest 1%; a Power Elite, who exerts tremendous influence on world events. This Power Elite value themselves above all other nations. They had developed a kind of political theology that exalts them as the elite of all elites, the divinely chosen group, the architects of this world, the crafters of all religious, political and social ideologies, and the destroyers and builders of nations. It gives them the right and the duty to move nations and lead them into reshaping their political regimes through revolutions and wars to make these nations subservient to their own agenda. They spend their days drawing global projects and dedicate all their resources for their execution. They were responsible for all major wars around the world, for revolutions in many countries, for economical crises and for most major events in the history of this world. Through their wealth they control heads of states, all media outlets, military and intelligence organizations, and the world economy. Looking at the present global financial crises affecting many countries, one could not help but ask: who is this debtor, wealthy enough to hold many countries and their whole economies in his debt?
This is not any longer the farfetched conspiracy theory they are trying to ridicule those who try to expose it. It is a fact. After all a conspiracy is defined as “evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more people”.
For those who doubt that nations could be blindly and irrationally driven to acts against their own national interests and welfare, I would like to remind them of the drastic opposing effects of the famous speeches given by Brutus Albinus and Mark Antony to the Roman citizens after the assassination of Julius Caesar. The Romans, won by Brutus’ speech, were immediately converted against him within few minutes by Mark Antony’s speech. The famous proverb states that “people are just like a ball kicked from one corner of the field to the other by politicians.” Thus the political term “the ball is in one politician’s court.”
Iraq, Syria and Iran were the main obstacles to the Power Elite’s primary colonial Zionist Project of establishing Greater Israel to control the Middle Eastern region. The Power Elite came up with the “New Middle East” and “fighting global terrorism” projects to augment their Zionist Project. Intending to move southward they started with the occupation and destruction of Iraq. Although the Iraqi occupation was carried out under the banner of weapons of mass destruction and spreading the American democracy, it was faced with huge global political opposition not to mention the large financial expenses.
After failing to manipulate the IAEA and UN to isolate and to break the Iran/Syria ally, who supports Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas in their resistance against Israeli occupation and expansion, the Power Elite came up with the perfect scheme of “New Order through Chaos” erroneously dubbed, later on, as the Arab Spring. It involves revolution from within to topple the ruling regime and to incite conflict and struggle between the different religious and ethnic groups to divide and to weaken the country in order to make it easier for them to interfere, under the pretence of protecting minorities and/or of economic aid, to virtually control and re-organize the country. This way the Power Elite would present itself as an ally rather than an occupier, would gain the approval of the international community, would sidetrack all global political opposition and criticism, and would avoid the huge expenses incurred by the revolution. Their first attempt during 2009 Iranian election failed to topple the regime due to the relatively small size of demonstrators. A proven precedent with a strong credibility was needed to convince larger masses into revolting. The Power Elite was ready for a “controlled sacrifice” in order to win the ultimate prize, similar to a chess player, who is ready to sacrifice his queen in order to check-mate his opponent’s king. The goal is a controlled election in an American style democracy in some of the “non-friendly” Middle Eastern countries.
Tunisian Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was the first sacrifice. Tunisia was a French colony from 1883 to 1956 when Habib Bourguiba established the Republic of Tunisia. Bourguiba made the fatal mistake of nationalizing foreign land holdings and Christian religious institutions. This infuriated the Italians, who brokered what is known as the “medical coup d’état” deposing Bourguiba and installing the head of security forces, Ben Ali, in his place. This was declared to a 1999 Parliamentary Committee by Fulvio Martini, former head of Italian military secret service (SISMI). Ben Ali was perfect local foreign puppet. He has French and American military and intelligence training. He had close working relationship with Bush’s (Junior) administration and was a partner in fighting the so called global terrorism through the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative.
Contrary to the claimed cause for the 2010/11 Tunisian Revolt its economy was considered the best in the African continent and was projected to even improve in the coming years. The 2010-2011 Global Competitive Report (Davos World Economic Forum) ranked Tunisia as first in Africa and 32nd out of 132 globally. In an attempt to fight potential terrorism through economic assistance Ben Ali established a National Solidarity Fund that slashed Tunisia’s poverty from 7.4% in 1990 to 3.8% in 2005. The Oxford Business Group stated that Tunisia’s economy was likely to grow starting with 2008 due to its diversified industries.
Tunisia was chosen for its vulnerability to the West. Its security intelligence was penetrated through its cooperation in NATO’s Operation Active Endeavor, and its military and economy were compromised through the American military and economic assistance programs. Although the Power Elite supports its local puppet rulers they also support, to a lesser extent, opposition groups just in case the ruler gets out of line they would use the opposition groups to get rid of him.
The revolution started with Wikileaks exposing the large extent of Ben Ali’s corruption. When Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself aflame the opposition groups were already primed for mass demonstrations. As the head of state, and through bribery, Ben Ali could have sent the army and thugs to crush the demonstrators, as we have seen in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria. The country’s army chief withdrew his support to Ben Ali after his consultation with the Obama’s administration as was rumored. Ben Ali flew out to Saudi Arabia that has become known as the refuge for all deposed dictators of the region.
The many political parties formed before the Tunisian election is an indicative of the prevalent division and confusion among the people. The inexperienced Ennahda Islamist Party, who won the October 23rd election, could become a very easy prey to foreign long experienced political interference and to economical manipulation.
Egypt was the litmus test that would propel the rest of the Arab nations, particularly Syrians, into revolting against their ruling regimes. Hosni Mubarak was chosen for he was the most hated, although very influential, Arab leader of the most important Arab country. He was hated by his people for his tyranny, his oppression, his corruption, and his cheap privatization of Egyptian natural resources to foreign investors among many others. He was hated by the majority of Arab nations for his pro-American/Israeli foreign policies, for supporting the American invasion of Iraq, for his opposition to the democratically elected Palestinian Hamas, for his sabotage to all inter-Palestinian reconciliation efforts, for his partnership with Israeli Gaza siege, for his opposition to Hezbollah’s and Hamas’ armed resistance against Israeli occupation, and for his support to Israel’s 2006 war against Hezbollah and Israel’s 2009 war against Gaza. He was the queen to be sacrificed in the chess game.
“US groups helped nurture Arab Uprisings” was the title of an article in New York Times, which exposed that young Egyptian activists had received technical training on the use of social networking and mobile technology, and were financed by American groups such as International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy and Project on Middle East Democracy.
It is inconceivable that Mubarak, the wealthy ruthless head of state for thirty years and with long history in military service, did not have any loyal subjects in the army, who would help him crush the demonstrators. For the last thirty years the Egyptian army had been virtually armed, trained, and financed by the US. The army did not crush the protesters because there were strict orders not to do so. Comparatively the same army had crushed protesters and even opened live fire at them after the revolution (Maspero Massacre of 9th October, here and here). The Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces, who seized power after the revolution, had re-instated the emergency laws and is slapping in military courts prison sentences to young activists, who started the revolution. This Counsel stood watching thugs attacking and destroying many government buildings. The latest attack this month was on the Supreme Court while judges were in a meeting. Egypt now is divided with religious conflicts (Christian Copts vs Muslims) and non-functioning government.
The American chosen next president is already primed and ready for the proper time to grab presidency. As for Mubarak, he had served the American/Israeli interest well for the last thirty years and would not be let off empty handed. According to Egyptian weekly “Alanbaa Aldawlia” the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE) organization, with 14 million members and specializes in the monitoring of money laundering schemes, had reported to the FBI that for 10% commission President Obama and 17 other American officials, including both former presidents Bush (father & son), Hillary Clinton, James Baker and others, with the cooperation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a high manager of Deutche Bank in France, had been involved in the money laundering of Mubarak’s $700 Billion from Deutche Bank, Barclays Bank and HSBC Bank, to Israel’s Bank Leumi and other banks in China and Taiwan. According to Anat Levin, the branch manager of Israeli Bank Haboalim-Swiss branch, she was authorized by the Israeli government to transfer $20 Billion from Mubarak’s account to Saudi King Abdulla Abd El-Aziz’s account and to UAE president Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s account. The weekly also reported that Christine Legarde, while still French Minister of Economic Affairs, had submitted a report to the Interpol requesting thorough investigation into the management of Deutche Bank in France.
Libyan revolution was actually a civil war brokered by Western powers (US, UK, and France) and some Arab Gulf countries (Egypt, UAE, and Qatar). After paying reparations for Lockerbie bombing, abandoning his nuclear program, and giving Western energy companies (Royal Dutch Shell and BP) access to Libyan oil fields in 2004, Gaddafi had ended enmity with the West. Although he had a type of grandeur illusions Gaddafi attempted in the past to unite Arab countries, and upon failing he recently attempted to create an African Union which threatened the re-colonization plan of Africa by AFRICOM. The decision to get rid of Gaddafi, once and for all, came when he vowed to expel Western energy companies from the country and replace them with oil firms from China, India and Russia. Gaddafi’s second fatal mistake was his plan to convince African and Muslim counties to create a new currency, the gold dinar, to rival the American Dollar and the European Euro, in oil trade.
Libyan revolution was totally militarized. It was revealed that Egypt and Qatar were the main arms suppliers to the Libyan rebels. Under American pressure Arab League urged UN to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, and Qatar offered to cover all expenses of NATO forces to bomb alleged Gaddafi’s forces. Libyan rebels were civilians without any military training and were no match for Gaddafi’s well-trained and well-equipped army. It was revealed by Walter Fauntroy, member of US House of Representatives, that while in a self-sanctioned peace mission to Libya, he witnessed French and Danish troops coordinating NATO bombings and raiding Libyan villages, and giving the credit to Libyan rebels. At the end Gaddafi was ordered murdered rather than captured for fear of exposing all his shady dealings with the West.
Two unplanned products of the Arab Spring were the Yemeni and Bahraini revolutions. These are genuine popular peaceful revolutions against Yemeni Saleh’s 33 years oppressive rule, and against Al Khalifa family virtual 191 years rule. The two countries have strategic locations in the region and are of important interest to the American Administration. Yemen is located on the southern entrance of the Red Sea, through which all east/west marine traffic passes. Citing the October 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 2008 attacks on US embassy, and the October 2010 bomb packages incidents, allegedly linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, as proof of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Obama’s administration and Saudi Arabia justified sending money, arms and troops to help Saleh fight terrorists, and to crush the 10 months old demonstrations
The US has possibly the largest marine/air force base in Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet provides support to all war ships of the US Naval Forces Central Command (USNACENT) to patrol the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. To keep the status quo in Bahrain Obama’s administration encouraged Gulf States to send the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain to crush the demonstrators. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE were happy to oblige and send their troops to Bahrain.
Syria is the main target; the prize; the king to be checked-mate. With American money and with the cooperation of some Arab officials, paid operatives incited some Syrian citizens, motivated by ethnic and religious background, to demonstrate in the streets demanding reform and regime change. These demonstrations took place in the easy accessible small towns on the borders of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. Yet these demonstrations were dwarfed by millions of other Syrian citizens who demonstrated in major cities in support of the regime. To intensify the conflict these operatives, dressed in Syrian army outfits, started killing some citizens and accusing the Syrian police and army, and at the same time attack police and army personnel to force them into the defensive.
Compared to Tunisian, Egyptian, Yemeni and Bahraini peaceful demonstrations, Syrian demonstrations are totally armed with heavy weapons; machine guns, propelled missiles, anti-tank RPG, mines and heavy explosives, and are directed and orchestrated by military experts from other neighboring Arab countries as exposed by Al-Alam and Syrian TVs.
Heavy weapons and military experts were smuggled in through Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, as reported by the Lebanese Arabic Assafir. Turkey had also played a major role in pressuring Syria and had harbored and encouraged armed Syrian rebels called Free Syrian Army. In successive televised interviews the former Lebanese MP Nasser Kandil had exposed in details including names, dates, and places, the conspiracy of destroying Syria as a country not just a regime change. The Saudi Bandar Ben Sultan (dubbed Bandar Bush by the Bush family) was named as a major conspirator with the Americans against Syria. It was reported that He was arrested in Syria while under cover smuggling money and weapons to Syrian operatives. It was also exposed that the American Ambassador Robert Ford and French Ambassador Eric Chevallier (in Arabic) to Syria had smuggled sophisticated satellite communication and surveillance equipment to the Syrian rebels some of which were seized by Syrian police.
Media outlets had also been manipulated to pressure Syrian government and to inflame the demonstrators. After gaining credibility in reporting Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan revolutions Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia TV channels had almost totally ignored the 99% popular Bahraini peaceful demonstrations and concentrated on Syrian demonstrators, less than 40% of the population, in a biased unconfirmed and more hostile reporting against the Syrian government. Every Thursday one could notice heightened reports about civilian casualties and ruthless attacks of the Syrian army in an attempt to incite more people to join Friday demonstrators. Syrian news would top every news broadcast even though there might be more important news in the region. Al-Jazeera repeated broadcasting phone video clips of the same demonstrations from different angles, and of alleged civilian victims, some of these clips proved to be of old Iraqi troops abusing citizens. The victims were always reported as civilians while there was no mention of Syrian soldiers being killed. Unlike Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan, and Yemeni army defectors shown on TV declaring support to the people, the media failed to show one Syrian army defector while they keep announcing wide defection. Al-Jazeera had established a special war room planning anti-Syrian propaganda as reported by some Al-Jazeera’s prime reporters and directors such as Ghassan Ben Jeddo and Luna Al-Shibl among many others (Arabnews in Arabic), who submitted their resignation in protest of such unprofessional politically biased reporting.
The US and France, particularly, had pushed for many harsh sanctions against Syria through the UN. Fortunately they could not obtain a military interference under the excuse of protecting Syrian citizens, as was done in Libya, because of the Russian and Chinese veto threat. So the Arab League, a Western tool, was pushed to play pressuring active role in Syria. It seems that many Arab leaders, especially Gulf leaders, who cynically call for democratic regime in Syria, have forgotten that they, themselves, employ family autocratic dictatorships in their own countries. Despite this fact the Syrian government had accepted the Arab League plan. The oppositional Syrian National Council rejected the plan and intensified its violence against the Syrian army inviting harsh retaliation. So the Arab League suspended Syria’s membership and threatened economic and political sanctions. Such are illegal actions contradicting the constitution of the Arab League that had never made a decision benefiting any Arab state, but legalized the many Western military interference in the Middle East such as in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and Libya. We should mention here that the Arab League had refused to receive a petition from the slaughtered Bahraini people requesting protection. Thousands of people within different Arab states demonstrated against the decision of Arab League in front of Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s embassies.
It has become obvious that the Syrian oppositional groups are divided and have different aspirations some of them are conflicting and confusing. This division and confusion are due to the background of each oppositional group. The Western paid groups are armed seeking violent regime change and call for foreign interference the same as in Libya. The genuine oppositional groups reject any foreign interference fearing the same fate of Libya, and seek drastic reform through dialogue.
To obtain peace, real democracy and prosperity in the Arab World, ALL the present Arab leaders and regimes need to be abolished, starting east with the Gulf States all the way west to the Pacific Ocean through the northern Arab states of Africa. This would give a chance for an Arab Union to develop under one real democratic regime with one united economy. Such a strong Arab Union would rebalance global power and put an end to Western re-colonization schemes of the Middle East.
We should remember that permanent changes happen through the evolution of human consciousness not through violent destructive revolutions.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Africom and the 21st Century colonial war regime
Invariably, corporations followed.
Perhaps the bloodiest of colonial rulers was Leopold II, the Belgian monarch who took the Congo as his personal fiefdom in 1885, ruthlessly exploiting its inhabitants to run his rubber plantations.
Before his death in 1908, Leopold was responsible of upwards of five million deaths, with some estimates running as high as 21.5 million, all of them sacrificed for the profits of corporations in which the monarch personally owned the majority interest.
While it’s still available [until 29 April], we recommend you watch this 2003 Belgian documentary, White King, Red Rubber, Black Death for an account of one of the darkest and least known holocausts of modern times, one which may have dwarfed the murderous records of Hitler and Stalin.
And the war was about one simple thing: Exploitation of natural resources.
It was a later European leader, Adolf Hitler, who summed up the colonialist imperative: “To-day war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them.”
Africom is America’s newest imperial tool, created under the impetus of Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, the same four star who directed the air war against Afghanistan in the opening round of the Bush/Obama endless wars.
Wald was also the driving force behind the Pentagon’s agrofuel program, which aims to create vast amounts of crop-derived fuels to keep America’s war machine, well, booming.
The Iraq war, after all was all about oil. Even John McCain, Dubya’s senatorial stalwart, acknowledged back during his presidential campaign in 2008:
“My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”
And as Alan Greenspan famously confirmed, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
So let’s stop pretending that what we’re seeing play out in Africa these days has anything to do with “freedom” and “humanitarian needs.” It’s significant to note that targets of Western “intervention” tend to control critical resources.
Libya boasts the world’s finest light, sweet crude oil. Afghanistan holds trillions in natural resources as well as the geography needed for critical pipelines. And of course there was Iraq.
Now back to Africom, this from The East African back in January [via Ayyaantuu Oromiyaa]:
The incoming head of the US Africa Command has promised to consider African countries as part of a review of where Africom’s headquarters should be situated.
“I think we ought to consider locations on the continent of Africa,” Gen Carter Ham told a US Senate panel that was assessing his appointment in November.
Gen Ham was chosen by President Barack Obama to succeed Africom’s first commander, Gen William Ward, who recently visited Tanzania and Rwanda on a “farewell tour.”
Gen Ward is credited with having partly soothed the suspicions with which many African leaders have viewed Africom since its inception four years ago.
Liberia is the only African nation that has publicly offered to host Africom.
Misgivings among Africans about the command’s purposes caused the Pentagon to scrap initial plans to locate Africom’s headquarters on the continent. It has been based in Stuttgart, Germany, for the past three years.
“Some Africans worry that the move represents a neo-colonial effort to dominate the region militarily,” the US Congress’ research arm said in a recent report reviewing Africom’s creation and current status.
“Reports of US air strikes in Somalia in recent years and US support for Ethiopia’s military intervention there have added to those concerns,” the report noted. “Many view US counter-terrorism efforts in Africa with skepticism, and there appears to be a widespread belief that the new command’s primary goals will be to hunt terrorists and to secure US access to African oil.”
And remember: The Congressional report was written well before the eruptions in North Africa and Mideast, which haven’t done much to reassure Africans about America’s real intentions.
Now consider this from Horace Campbell, writing 15 March n the independent African Pambazuka News:
The Western bombardment of Gaddafi’s forces in Libya has become an opportunistic public relations ploy for the United States Africa Command (Africom) and a new inroad for US military stronghold on the continent. This involvement of Africom in the bombardment is now serving to expose the contradictions and deceit that have surrounded the formation of this combatant command, which is a front for military humanitarian assistance to Africa in coordination with the US Department of State and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Attempts by the US to re-militarize its engagement with Africa is extremely dangerous, given the fact that the US does not have any positive or credible tradition of genuine assistance to freedom fighters and liberation movements in Africa.
The US was complicit in the planning of the murder of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, after which they propped up the monstrous dictator Mobutu Sese Seko who raped and pillaged the country and established a recursive process of war, rape, plunder, corruption, and brutality which the Congo still suffers from till today. Jonas Savimbi was sponsored by the US to cause destabilization and terror in Angola. The US gave military, material and moral support to the apartheid regime in South Africa while anti-apartheid freedom fighters, including Nelson Mandela, were designated as terrorists. It was only in 2008 that the US Congress passed a bill to remove Mandela’s name from the terrorist watch list). The US has yet to tell the truth about how Charles Taylor escaped from its prison custody in Massachusetts to go destabilize Liberia. Young people who are recruited for the US military and deployed to Africom may not know much about the notorious history of US military involvement in Africa. The military top brass take advantage of this ignorance among the young folks.
Just as the US military carried out psychological warfare against US senators, one of the tasks of Africom is to rain down psychological warfare on Africans. Built in this subtle psychological warfare is the concept of the hierarchy of human beings and the superiority of the capitalist mode of production and ideas of Christian fundamentalism. It is on this front that we find a section of the US military known as the “Crusaders.”
And consider this from another African source, Dr. Kwame Osei writing at Modern Ghana News:
With the ongoing civil war in Ivory Coast seemingly close to an end it is appropriate to tell the REAL untold story of the crisis in Ivory Coast and inform our readers of the REAL issue(s) behind the situation in the country.
I have heard many commentators on this subject and the bulk of them rant about the fact that the situation in the Ivory Coast is about elections that were supposedly won by Alassane Ouattara and that he is “the internationally recognized president of Ivory Coast” and that Laurent Gbagbo refuses to stand down because he thinks he won the elections – this in itself is flawed because according to a report from a US senate committee that went to Ivory Coast to monitor the elections complained of voter irregularities in areas that were pro-Ouattara
However the deception about the elections is the line that the western media is peddling and experience informs us that when it comes to the western media and Afrika we must be very circumspect of the agenda of the western media who have nothing but disdain for Afrikan people.
That said it is very simplistic to say that the situation in Ivory Coast is solely as a result of undisputed elections and is giving the public a much skewed view of the actual situation.
The REAL issue behind the current impasse in the Ivory Coast is a battle relating to French imperialism and control of the Ivory Coast. What this actually means in reality is that on one hand you have Gbagbo who is against French imperialism in Ivory Coast and championing the cause of Pan-Afrikanism and on the other hand you have Ouattara who one could say is very accommodating to safeguarding French interests in Ivory Coast.
And consider this from James Petras, Bartle Professor [Emeritus] of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York:
According to a US Congressional Research Service Study published in November 2010, Washington has dispatched anywhere between hundreds and several thousand combat troops, dozens of fighter planes and warships to buttress client dictatorships or to unseat adversarial regimes in dozens of countries, almost on a yearly bases. The record shows the US armed forces intervened 46 times prior to the current Libyan wars. The countries suffering one or more US military intervention include the Congo, Zaine, Libya, Chad, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Ruanda, Liberia, Central African Republic, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea. The only progressive intervention was in Egypt under Eisenhower who forced the Israeli-French-English forces to withdraw from the Suez in 1956. Between the mid 1950’s to the end of the 1970’s, only 4 overt military operations were recorded, though large scale proxy and clandestine military operations were pervasive. Under Reagan-Bush Sr. (1980-1991) military intervention accelerated, rising to 8, not counting the large scale clandestine ‘special forces’ and proxy wars in Southern Africa. Under the Clinton regime, US militarized imperialism in Africa took off. Between 1992 and 2000, 17 armed incursions took place, including a large scale invasion of Somalia and military backing for the Ruanda genocidal regime. Clinton intervened in Liberia, Gabon, Congo and Sierra Leone to prop up a long standing stooge regime. He bombed the Sudan and dispatched military personnel to Kenya and Ethiopia to back proxy clients assaulting Somalia. Under Bush Jr. 15 US military interventions took place, mainly in Central and East Africa. The Obama regime’s invasion and bombing of Libya is a continuation of a longstanding imperial practice designed to enhance US power via the installation of client regimes, the establishment of military bases and the training and indoctrination of African mercenary forces dubbed “collaborative partners”. There is no question that there is a rising tide of imperial militarism in the US over the past several decades.
Read the rest.
But all we hear in our media, endlessly repeated, is that we’re bombing to bring freedom.
Finally, one last take on Libya, again from Pambazuka News [14 April], this time by Jean-Paul Pougala:
For most Africans, Gaddafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Gaddafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, Gaddafi?
AFRICOM: The U.S. Militarization of Africa
By Olayiwola Abegunrin
CAS
December 2007
President George W. Bush approved a Pentagon plan in January 2007 to set up Africa Command Center, to be known as AFRICOM. According to the plan, the Command Center is set to complete and go into service by the end of September 2008. The United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed the new plans as he addressed the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on the defense spending President Bush proposed in his 2008 budget submitted to the Congress that, “The main purposes of the Africa Command Center would be to fight the war on terror, cooperation, provide humanitarian aid, building partnership capability, oversee security, defense support to non-military missions, and if directed, military training operations designed to help local governments.”
The U.S. had initially reportedly intended to build AFRICOM in Algeria but it was turned down, thus, it had to relocate it to Stuttgart, Germany for the time being. African countries hold that U.S. has harbored with ulterior motives. Mohamed Bedjaoui, the Algerian Minister of State and Foreign Affairs, “questioned that why no one had ever proposed for any anti-terror cooperation with Algeria in the 1990s when terrorist violence went on rampant and wrought great havoc?” Africans are suspicious of the U.S. intentions. Majority of Africans believe that the aim of the U.S. for the Africa Command Center is to protect its potential oil interests in Africa. Second reason is that U.S. is worried about current rapid increased economic and diplomatic competition from China in Africa.
AFRICOM is an example of U.S. military expansion in the name of the war on terrorism, when it is in fact designed to secure Africa’s resources and ensure American interests on the continent. AFRICOM represents a policy of U.S. military-driven expansionism that will only enhance political instability, conflict, and the deterioration of state security in Africa. This is a project that most African countries have rejected to be located on their soil. African leaders are opposed to U.S. permanent military command bases/installations on African soil. Early (September 2007) this year the Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states defense ministers have decided that no member states would host AFRICOM. Nigeria, Ghana, Libya and Morocco have joined in opposing AFRICOM in Africa. However, Liberian Government has accepted to host AFRICOM on her soil. Of course we should not be surprised that President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia has accepted to host AFRICOM, after all Liberia is the American stepchild in Africa. AFRICOM is a deadly project to accept for any African country that wants peace and stability. Accepting this project would be a recipe to intensify anti-Americanism and for Al-Qaeda to make that African country a target of terrorist attack. AFRICOM would destabilize an already fragile continent, which would be forced to engage with U.S. interests on military terms.
Militarization of Africa with the U.S. designed so-called AFRICOM is not the solution to Africa’s problem. What African countries need is development of their own institutions for security, political and economic independence; massive infusion of foreign direct investment, fair equitable trade, access to U.S. markets, and for U.S. to decrease/or total removal of agricultural subsidies, debt relief and improved Official Development Assistance tailored towards the development aspirations of (recipient countries) African countries and not AFRICOM that will only lead to militarizing the continent.
What has President Bush’s current policy in Somalia achieved but chaos and more disasters for the Somali people? AFRICOM is another U.S. strategy of recolonization of Africa through the so-called military assistance to the continent. The age of gun-boat diplomacy is over. Africans do not need this in this twenty-first century.
About the Author
Olayiwola Abegunrin is a lecturer in Political Science at Howard University.
CAS
December 2007
President George W. Bush approved a Pentagon plan in January 2007 to set up Africa Command Center, to be known as AFRICOM. According to the plan, the Command Center is set to complete and go into service by the end of September 2008. The United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed the new plans as he addressed the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on the defense spending President Bush proposed in his 2008 budget submitted to the Congress that, “The main purposes of the Africa Command Center would be to fight the war on terror, cooperation, provide humanitarian aid, building partnership capability, oversee security, defense support to non-military missions, and if directed, military training operations designed to help local governments.”
The U.S. had initially reportedly intended to build AFRICOM in Algeria but it was turned down, thus, it had to relocate it to Stuttgart, Germany for the time being. African countries hold that U.S. has harbored with ulterior motives. Mohamed Bedjaoui, the Algerian Minister of State and Foreign Affairs, “questioned that why no one had ever proposed for any anti-terror cooperation with Algeria in the 1990s when terrorist violence went on rampant and wrought great havoc?” Africans are suspicious of the U.S. intentions. Majority of Africans believe that the aim of the U.S. for the Africa Command Center is to protect its potential oil interests in Africa. Second reason is that U.S. is worried about current rapid increased economic and diplomatic competition from China in Africa.
AFRICOM is an example of U.S. military expansion in the name of the war on terrorism, when it is in fact designed to secure Africa’s resources and ensure American interests on the continent. AFRICOM represents a policy of U.S. military-driven expansionism that will only enhance political instability, conflict, and the deterioration of state security in Africa. This is a project that most African countries have rejected to be located on their soil. African leaders are opposed to U.S. permanent military command bases/installations on African soil. Early (September 2007) this year the Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states defense ministers have decided that no member states would host AFRICOM. Nigeria, Ghana, Libya and Morocco have joined in opposing AFRICOM in Africa. However, Liberian Government has accepted to host AFRICOM on her soil. Of course we should not be surprised that President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia has accepted to host AFRICOM, after all Liberia is the American stepchild in Africa. AFRICOM is a deadly project to accept for any African country that wants peace and stability. Accepting this project would be a recipe to intensify anti-Americanism and for Al-Qaeda to make that African country a target of terrorist attack. AFRICOM would destabilize an already fragile continent, which would be forced to engage with U.S. interests on military terms.
Militarization of Africa with the U.S. designed so-called AFRICOM is not the solution to Africa’s problem. What African countries need is development of their own institutions for security, political and economic independence; massive infusion of foreign direct investment, fair equitable trade, access to U.S. markets, and for U.S. to decrease/or total removal of agricultural subsidies, debt relief and improved Official Development Assistance tailored towards the development aspirations of (recipient countries) African countries and not AFRICOM that will only lead to militarizing the continent.
What has President Bush’s current policy in Somalia achieved but chaos and more disasters for the Somali people? AFRICOM is another U.S. strategy of recolonization of Africa through the so-called military assistance to the continent. The age of gun-boat diplomacy is over. Africans do not need this in this twenty-first century.
About the Author
Olayiwola Abegunrin is a lecturer in Political Science at Howard University.
AFRICOM: Wrong for Liberia, Disastrous for Africa
By Ezekiel Pajibo and Emira Woods. Edited by John Feffer,
July 26, 2007, FPIF
“This new command will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa,” President Bush said in a White House statement, “and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa.” Ordering that AFRICOM be created by September 30, 2008, Bush said “Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa.”
The general assumption of this policy is that prioritizing security through a unilateral framework will somehow bring health, education, and development to Africa. In this way, the Department of Defense presents itself as the best architect and arbiter of U.S. Africa policy. According to Navy Rear Admiral Robert Moeller, director of the AFRICOM transition team, “By creating AFRICOM, the Defense Department will be able to coordinate better its own activities in Africa as well as help coordinate the work of other U.S. government agencies, particularly the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.”
Competition for Resources
This military-driven U.S. engagement with Africa reflects the desperation of the Bush administration to control the increasingly strategic natural resources on the African continent, especially oil, gas, and uranium. With increased competition from China, among other countries, for those resources, the United States wants above all else to strengthen its foothold in resource-rich regions of Africa.
Nigeria is the fifth largest exporter of oil to the United States. The West Africa region currently provides nearly 20% of the U.S. supply of hydrocarbons, up from 15% just five years ago and well on the way to a 25 share forecast for 2015. While the Bush administration endlessly beats the drums for its “global war on terror,” the rise of AFRICOM underscores that the real interests of neoconservatives has less to do with al-Qaeda than with more access and control of extractive industries, particularly oil.
Responsibility for operations on the African continent is currently divided among three distinct Commands: U.S. European Command, which has responsibility for nearly 43 African countries; U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, and Kenya; and U.S. Pacific Command, which has responsibility for Madagascar, the Seychelles, and the countries off the coast of the Indian Ocean. Until December 2006 when the United States began to assist Ethiopia in its invasion of Somalia, all three existing Commands have maintained a relatively low-key presence, often using elite special operations forces to train, equip, and work alongside national militaries.
A new Africa Command, based potentially in or near oil-rich West Africa would consolidate these existing operations while also bringing international engagement, from development to diplomacy, even more in line with U.S. military objectives.
AFRICOM in Liberia?
AFRICOM’s first public links with the West African country of Liberia was through a Washington Post op-ed written by the African- American businessman Robert L. Johnson, "Liberia's Moment of Opportunity." Forcefully endorsing AFRICOM, Johnson urged that it be based in Liberia. Then came an unprecedented allAfrica.com guest column from Liberia’s president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, “AFRICOM Can Help Governments Willing To Help Themselves,” touting AFRICOM’s potential to “help” Africa “develop a stable environment in which civil society can flourish and the quality of life for Africans can be improved.”
Despite these high-profile endorsements, the consolidation and expansion of U.S. military power on the African continent is misguided and could lead to disastrous outcomes.
Liberia's 26-year descent into chaos started when the Reagan administration prioritized military engagement and funneled military hardware, training, and financing to the regime of the ruthless dictator Samuel K. Doe. This military "aid," seen as “soft power” at that time, built the machinery of repression that led to the deaths of an estimated 250,000 Liberians.
Basing AFRICOM in Liberia will put Liberians at risk now and into the future. Liberia’s national threat level will dramatically increase as the country becomes a target of those interested in attacking U.S. assets. This will severely jeopardize Liberia’s national security interests while creating new problems for the country’s fragile peace and its nascent democracy.
Liberia has already given the Bush administration the exclusive role of restructuring its armed forces. The private U.S. military contractor DYNCORP has been carrying out this function. After more than two years in Liberia and an estimated $800,000 budget allocated, DYNCORP has not only failed to train the 2,000 men it was contracted to train, it has also not engaged Liberia’s Legislature or its civil society in defining the nature, content, or character of the new army. DYNCORP allotted itself the prerogative to determine the number of men/women to be trained and the kind of training it would conduct, exclusively infantry training, even though Liberia had not elaborated a national security plan or developed a comprehensive military doctrine. In fact, the creation of Liberia’s new army has been the responsibility of another sovereign state, the United States, in total disregard to Liberia’s constitution, which empowers the legislature to raise the national army.
This pattern of abuse and incompetence with the U.S. military and its surrogate contractors suggests that if AFRICOM is based in Liberia, the Bush administration will have an unacceptable amount of power to dictate Liberia’s security interests and orchestrate how the country manages those interests. By placing a military base in Liberia, the United States could systematically interfere in Liberian politics in order to ensure that those who succeed in obtaining power are subservient to U.S. national security and other interests. If this is not neo-colonialism, then what is?
Perhaps the South Africans will be the loudest voices on the continent in opposition to AFRICOM. Recent media reports spotlight growing tensions in U.S.-South Africa relations over AFRICOM. The U.S. ambassador to South Africa, Eric Bost, complained that South Africa’s defense minister Mosiuoa Lekota, was not responding to embassy requests to meet General Kip Ward, the recently nominated first commander of AFRICOM.
Opposing AFRICOM
The Bush administration’s new obsession with AFRICOM and its militaristic approach has many malign consequences. It increases U.S. interference in the affairs of Africa. It brings more military hardware to a continent that already has too much. By helping to build machineries of repression, these policies reinforce undemocratic practices and reward leaders responsive not to the interests or needs of their people but to the demands and dictates of U.S. military agents. Making military force a higher priority than development and diplomacy creates an imbalance that can encourage irresponsible regimes to use U.S. sourced military might to oppress their own people, now or potentially in the future. These fatally flawed policies create instability, foment tensions, and lead to a less secure world.
What Africa needs least is U.S. military expansion on the continent (and elsewhere in the world). What Africa needs most is its own mechanism to respond to peacemaking priorities. Fifty years ago, Kwame Nkrumah sounded the clarion call for a “United States of Africa.” One central feature of his call was for an Africa Military High Command. Today, as the African Union deliberates continental governance, there couldn’t be a better time to reject U.S. military expansion and push forward African responses to Africa’s priorities.
Long suffering the effects of militaristic "assistance" from the United States, Liberia would be the worst possible base for AFRICOM. But there are no good locations for such a poorly conceived project. Africa does not need AFRICOM.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Meet Professor Juan Cole, Consultant to the CIA
AUGUST 30, 2011
"Democracy Now?"
by JOHN WALSH
Juan Cole is a brand name that is no longer trusted. And that has been the case for some time for the Professor from Michigan. After warning of the “difficulties” with the Iraq War, Cole swung over to ply it with burning kisses on the day of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His fervor was not based on Saddam Hussein’s fictional possession of weapons of mass destruction but on the virtues of “humanitarian imperialism.”
Thus on March 19, 2003, as the imperial invasion commenced, Cole enthused on his blog: “I remain (Emphasis mine.) convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.” Now, with over 1 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and the country’s infrastructure destroyed, might Cole still echo Madeline Albright that the price was “worth it”? Cole has called the Afghan War “the right war at the right time” and has emerged as a cheerleader for Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya and for Obama himself.
Cole claims to be a man of the left and he appears with painful frequency on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now as the reigning “expert” on the war on Libya. This is deeply troubling – on at least two counts. First, can one be a member of the “left” and also an advocate for the brutal intervention by the Great Western Powers in the affairs of a small, relatively poor country? Apparently so, at least in Democracy Now’s version of the “left.” Second, it appears that Cole’s essential function these days is to convince wavering progressives that the war on Libya has been fine and dandy. But how can such damaged goods as Cole credibly perform this marketing mission so vital to Obama’s war?
Miraculously, Cole got just the rehabilitation he needed to continue with this vital propaganda function when it was disclosed by the New York Times on June 15 that he was the object of a White House inquiry way back in 2005 in Bush time. The source and reason for this leak and the publication of it by the NYT at this time, so many years later, should be of great interest, but they are unknown. Within a week of the Times piece Cole was accorded a hero’s welcome on Democracy Now, as he appeared with retired CIA agent Glenn Carle who had served 23 years in the clandestine services of the CIA in part as an “interrogator.” Carl had just retired from the CIA at the time of the White House request and was at the time employed at the National Intelligence Council, which authors the National Intelligence Estimate.
It hit this listener like a ton of bricks when it was disclosed in Goodman’s interview that Cole was a long time “consultant” for the CIA, the National Intelligence Council and other agencies. Here is what nearly caused me to keel over when I heard it (From the Democracy Now transcript.):
AMY GOODMAN: So, did you know Professor Cole or know of him at the time you were asked? And can you go on from there? What happened when you said you wouldn’t do this? And who was it who demanded this information from you, said that you should get information?
GLENN CARLE: Well, I did know Professor Cole. He was one of a large number of experts of diverse views that the National Intelligence Council and my office and the CIA respectively consult with to challenge our assumptions and understand the trends and issues on our various portfolios. So I knew him that way. And it was sensible, in that sense, that the White House turned to my office to inquire about him, because we were the ones, at least one of the ones—I don’t know all of Mr. Cole’s work—who had consulted with him. (Emphases mine.)
That seems like strange toil for a man of the “left.” But were the consultations long drawn out and the association with the CIA a deep one? It would appear so. Again from the transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, the way James Risen (the NYT reporter) writes it, he says, “Mr. Carle said [that] sometime that year, he was approached by his supervisor, David Low, about Professor Cole. [Mr.] Low and [Mr.] Carle have starkly different recollections of what happened. According to Mr. Carle, [Mr.] Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear [that] he wanted [Mr.] Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled [his] boss saying, ‘The White House wants to get him.’”
GLENN CARLE: Well, that’s substantially correct. The one nuance, perhaps, I would point out is there’s a difference between collecting information actively, going out and running an operation, say, to find out things about Mr. Cole, or providing information known through interactions. (Emphasis mine.) I would characterize it more as the latter.
And later in the interview Carle continues:
On the whole, Professor Cole and I are in agreement. The distinction I make is it wasn’t publicly known information that was requested; it was information that officers knew of a personal nature about Professor Cole, which is much more disturbing. There was no direct request that I’m aware, in the two instances of which I have knowledge, for the officers actively to seek and obtain, to conduct—for me to go out and follow Professor Cole. But if I knew lifestyle questions or so on, to pass those along. (Emphasis mine.)That’s how I—which is totally unacceptable.
It would seem then that the interaction between the CIA operatives and Cole was long standing and sufficiently intimate that the CIA spooks could be expected to know things about Cole’s lifestyle and personal life. It is not that anyone should give two figs about Cole’s personal life which is more than likely is every bit as boring as he claims. But his relationship with the CIA is of interest since he is an unreconstructed hawk. What was remarkable to me at the time is that Goodman did not pick up on any of this. Did she know before of Cole’s connections? Was not this the wrong man to have as a “frequent guest,” in Goodman’s words, on the situation in the Middle East?
This is not to claim that Cole is on a mission for the CIA to convince the left to support the imperial wars, most notably at the moment the war on Libya. Nor is this a claim that the revelation about the White House seeking information on Cole was a contrived psyops effort to rehabilitate Cole so that he could continue such a mission. That cannot be claimed, because there is as yet no evidence for it. But information flows two ways in any consultation, and it is even possible that Cole was being loaded with war-friendly information in hopes he would transmit it.
Cole is anxious to promote himself as a man of the left as he spins out his rationale for the war on Libya. At one point he says to Goodman (3/29), “We are people of the left. We care about the ordinary people. We care about workers.” It is strange that a man who claims such views dismisses as irrelevant the progress that has come to the people of Libya under Gaddafi, dictator or not. (Indeed what brought Gaddafi down was not that he was a dictator but that he was not our dictator.) In fact Libya has the highest score of all African countries on the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) and with Tunisia and Morocco the second highest level of literacy. The HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.
Whither the Left on the Question of Intervention?
None of this is all too surprising given Cole’s status as a “humanitarian” hawk. But it is outrageous that he is so often called on by Democracy Now for his opinion. One of his appearances there was in a debate on the unconstitutional war in Libya, with CounterPunch’s estimable Vijay Prashad taking the antiwar side and Cole prowar. It would seem strange for the left to have to debate the worth of an imperial intervention. Certainly if one goes back to the days of the Vietnam War there were teach-ins to inform the public of the lies of the U.S. government and the truth about what was going on in Vietnam. But let us give Democracy Now the benefit of the doubt and say that the debate was some sort of consciousness raising effort. Why later on invite as a frequent guest a man who was the pro-war voice in the debate? That is a strange choice indeed.
This writer does not get to listen to Democracy Now every day. But I have not heard a full-throated denunciation of the war on Libya from host or guests. Certainly according to a search on the DN web site, Cynthia McKinney did not appear as a guest nor Ramsey Clark after their courageous fact finding tour to Libya. There was only one all out denunciation of the war – on the day when the guests were Rev. Jesse Jackson and Vincent Harding who was King’s speechwriter on the famous speech “Beyond Vietnam” in 1967 in which King condemned the U.S. war on Vietnam. Jackson and the wise and keenly intelligent Harding were there not to discuss Libya but to discuss the MLK Jr. monument. Nonetheless Jackson and Harding made clear that they did not like the U.S. war in Libya one bit, nor the militarism it entails.
If one reads CounterPunch.org, Antiwar.com or The American Conservative, one knows that one is reading those who are anti-interventionist on the basis of principle. With Democracy Now and kindred progressive outlets, it’s all too clear where a big chunk of the so-called “left” stands, especially since the advent of Obama. In his superb little book Humanitarian Imperialism Jean Bricmont criticizes much of the left for falling prey to advocacy of wars, supposedly based on good intentions. And Alexander Cockburn has often pointed out that many progressives are actually quite fond of “humanitarian” interventionism. Both here and in Europe this fondness seems to be especially true of Obama’s latest war, the war on Libya . It is little wonder that the “progressives” are losing their antiwar following to Ron Paul and the Libertarians who are consistent and principled on the issue of anti-interventionism.
Democracy Now, quo vadis? Wherever you are heading, you would do well to travel without Juan Cole and his friends.
John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com After wading through Cole’s loose prose and dubious logic to write this essay, the author suspects that the rejection of Cole by the Yale faculty was the result of considerations that had little to do with neocon Bush/Cheney operatives.
"Democracy Now?"
by JOHN WALSH
Juan Cole is a brand name that is no longer trusted. And that has been the case for some time for the Professor from Michigan. After warning of the “difficulties” with the Iraq War, Cole swung over to ply it with burning kisses on the day of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His fervor was not based on Saddam Hussein’s fictional possession of weapons of mass destruction but on the virtues of “humanitarian imperialism.”
Thus on March 19, 2003, as the imperial invasion commenced, Cole enthused on his blog: “I remain (Emphasis mine.) convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.” Now, with over 1 million Iraqis dead, 4 million displaced and the country’s infrastructure destroyed, might Cole still echo Madeline Albright that the price was “worth it”? Cole has called the Afghan War “the right war at the right time” and has emerged as a cheerleader for Obama’s unconstitutional war on Libya and for Obama himself.
Cole claims to be a man of the left and he appears with painful frequency on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now as the reigning “expert” on the war on Libya. This is deeply troubling – on at least two counts. First, can one be a member of the “left” and also an advocate for the brutal intervention by the Great Western Powers in the affairs of a small, relatively poor country? Apparently so, at least in Democracy Now’s version of the “left.” Second, it appears that Cole’s essential function these days is to convince wavering progressives that the war on Libya has been fine and dandy. But how can such damaged goods as Cole credibly perform this marketing mission so vital to Obama’s war?
Miraculously, Cole got just the rehabilitation he needed to continue with this vital propaganda function when it was disclosed by the New York Times on June 15 that he was the object of a White House inquiry way back in 2005 in Bush time. The source and reason for this leak and the publication of it by the NYT at this time, so many years later, should be of great interest, but they are unknown. Within a week of the Times piece Cole was accorded a hero’s welcome on Democracy Now, as he appeared with retired CIA agent Glenn Carle who had served 23 years in the clandestine services of the CIA in part as an “interrogator.” Carl had just retired from the CIA at the time of the White House request and was at the time employed at the National Intelligence Council, which authors the National Intelligence Estimate.
It hit this listener like a ton of bricks when it was disclosed in Goodman’s interview that Cole was a long time “consultant” for the CIA, the National Intelligence Council and other agencies. Here is what nearly caused me to keel over when I heard it (From the Democracy Now transcript.):
AMY GOODMAN: So, did you know Professor Cole or know of him at the time you were asked? And can you go on from there? What happened when you said you wouldn’t do this? And who was it who demanded this information from you, said that you should get information?
GLENN CARLE: Well, I did know Professor Cole. He was one of a large number of experts of diverse views that the National Intelligence Council and my office and the CIA respectively consult with to challenge our assumptions and understand the trends and issues on our various portfolios. So I knew him that way. And it was sensible, in that sense, that the White House turned to my office to inquire about him, because we were the ones, at least one of the ones—I don’t know all of Mr. Cole’s work—who had consulted with him. (Emphases mine.)
That seems like strange toil for a man of the “left.” But were the consultations long drawn out and the association with the CIA a deep one? It would appear so. Again from the transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: Well, the way James Risen (the NYT reporter) writes it, he says, “Mr. Carle said [that] sometime that year, he was approached by his supervisor, David Low, about Professor Cole. [Mr.] Low and [Mr.] Carle have starkly different recollections of what happened. According to Mr. Carle, [Mr.] Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear [that] he wanted [Mr.] Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled [his] boss saying, ‘The White House wants to get him.’”
GLENN CARLE: Well, that’s substantially correct. The one nuance, perhaps, I would point out is there’s a difference between collecting information actively, going out and running an operation, say, to find out things about Mr. Cole, or providing information known through interactions. (Emphasis mine.) I would characterize it more as the latter.
And later in the interview Carle continues:
On the whole, Professor Cole and I are in agreement. The distinction I make is it wasn’t publicly known information that was requested; it was information that officers knew of a personal nature about Professor Cole, which is much more disturbing. There was no direct request that I’m aware, in the two instances of which I have knowledge, for the officers actively to seek and obtain, to conduct—for me to go out and follow Professor Cole. But if I knew lifestyle questions or so on, to pass those along. (Emphasis mine.)That’s how I—which is totally unacceptable.
It would seem then that the interaction between the CIA operatives and Cole was long standing and sufficiently intimate that the CIA spooks could be expected to know things about Cole’s lifestyle and personal life. It is not that anyone should give two figs about Cole’s personal life which is more than likely is every bit as boring as he claims. But his relationship with the CIA is of interest since he is an unreconstructed hawk. What was remarkable to me at the time is that Goodman did not pick up on any of this. Did she know before of Cole’s connections? Was not this the wrong man to have as a “frequent guest,” in Goodman’s words, on the situation in the Middle East?
This is not to claim that Cole is on a mission for the CIA to convince the left to support the imperial wars, most notably at the moment the war on Libya. Nor is this a claim that the revelation about the White House seeking information on Cole was a contrived psyops effort to rehabilitate Cole so that he could continue such a mission. That cannot be claimed, because there is as yet no evidence for it. But information flows two ways in any consultation, and it is even possible that Cole was being loaded with war-friendly information in hopes he would transmit it.
Cole is anxious to promote himself as a man of the left as he spins out his rationale for the war on Libya. At one point he says to Goodman (3/29), “We are people of the left. We care about the ordinary people. We care about workers.” It is strange that a man who claims such views dismisses as irrelevant the progress that has come to the people of Libya under Gaddafi, dictator or not. (Indeed what brought Gaddafi down was not that he was a dictator but that he was not our dictator.) In fact Libya has the highest score of all African countries on the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) and with Tunisia and Morocco the second highest level of literacy. The HDI is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education and standards of living for countries worldwide.
Whither the Left on the Question of Intervention?
None of this is all too surprising given Cole’s status as a “humanitarian” hawk. But it is outrageous that he is so often called on by Democracy Now for his opinion. One of his appearances there was in a debate on the unconstitutional war in Libya, with CounterPunch’s estimable Vijay Prashad taking the antiwar side and Cole prowar. It would seem strange for the left to have to debate the worth of an imperial intervention. Certainly if one goes back to the days of the Vietnam War there were teach-ins to inform the public of the lies of the U.S. government and the truth about what was going on in Vietnam. But let us give Democracy Now the benefit of the doubt and say that the debate was some sort of consciousness raising effort. Why later on invite as a frequent guest a man who was the pro-war voice in the debate? That is a strange choice indeed.
This writer does not get to listen to Democracy Now every day. But I have not heard a full-throated denunciation of the war on Libya from host or guests. Certainly according to a search on the DN web site, Cynthia McKinney did not appear as a guest nor Ramsey Clark after their courageous fact finding tour to Libya. There was only one all out denunciation of the war – on the day when the guests were Rev. Jesse Jackson and Vincent Harding who was King’s speechwriter on the famous speech “Beyond Vietnam” in 1967 in which King condemned the U.S. war on Vietnam. Jackson and the wise and keenly intelligent Harding were there not to discuss Libya but to discuss the MLK Jr. monument. Nonetheless Jackson and Harding made clear that they did not like the U.S. war in Libya one bit, nor the militarism it entails.
If one reads CounterPunch.org, Antiwar.com or The American Conservative, one knows that one is reading those who are anti-interventionist on the basis of principle. With Democracy Now and kindred progressive outlets, it’s all too clear where a big chunk of the so-called “left” stands, especially since the advent of Obama. In his superb little book Humanitarian Imperialism Jean Bricmont criticizes much of the left for falling prey to advocacy of wars, supposedly based on good intentions. And Alexander Cockburn has often pointed out that many progressives are actually quite fond of “humanitarian” interventionism. Both here and in Europe this fondness seems to be especially true of Obama’s latest war, the war on Libya . It is little wonder that the “progressives” are losing their antiwar following to Ron Paul and the Libertarians who are consistent and principled on the issue of anti-interventionism.
Democracy Now, quo vadis? Wherever you are heading, you would do well to travel without Juan Cole and his friends.
John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com After wading through Cole’s loose prose and dubious logic to write this essay, the author suspects that the rejection of Cole by the Yale faculty was the result of considerations that had little to do with neocon Bush/Cheney operatives.
Libya - The return of colonialist bondage
Hakeem Babalola,
AfricaNews
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Libya's destruction, a victory for the west; a defeat for ordinary Libyans.
The suffering of Libyans has just begun. For there can never be true liberation when your oppressor is the one who defines what your freedom should be. The ousting of Colonel Gaddafi, Libyan leader for 42 years, by the rebels backed western forces especially NATO is indeed a victory for the west whose fixation on Gaddafi's Libya has become worrisome.
It’s definitely not a victory for ordinary Libyans who would continue to suffer a lot of nervous strain and shock after the destruction. Neither is it a victory for the rebels who have been in excess jubilation since capturing Gaddafi’s official residence. “We are free,” they proclaimed in wild happiness.
But they have forgotten one important thing: that they are now slaves to all the countries that helped them kick out Gaddafi.
Apparently the rebels are not ordinary Libyan but a group of people who want the share of the oil with the help of foreign forces. Gaddafi’s main crime may be the fact that he refused to let the west control Libya’s resources, hence he must be eliminated by all possible means.
In their euphoria and in their haste to get rid of him, they forgot that none of the countries that backed them has the interest of Libyans at heart. Let them for once re-visit Iraq.
Gaddafi's mistake
As for Gaddafi, nothing lasts forever. The man should have known that 42 years of single-handedly ruling or administering a nation is more than too long. There is no doubting the fact that Gaddafi always means well for Libya unlike America, Britain, France, NATO, UN and other bereaved organisations claiming to love Libya more than God loves the Israelites. Ok I detest dynasty rule, and this seems to be Gaddafi`s undoing. A nation can never be the personal property of any man or group.
He should have relinquished power at a point in time and becomes the Father of the Nation or something similar. At 70 and having ruled for 42 years, Gaddafi should have embraced the uprising tactically no matter how painful it might be – at least to prevent his own legacy which the west actually wants to destroy.
But then power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. He should have known that America, Britain, France and others still consider themselves as the Alpha and Omega of this world – the owner of our earth.
And so they cannot tolerate any opposition from an Arab-African in the spirit of Gaddafi. This man should have realised he was not fighting the "rats" within his own environment but "desperate and hungry lions" outside his environment who have surreptitiously waited to devour him. Perhaps Gaddafi should have been more careful, especially when his colleagues in the African Union (AU) do not like his gut.
Gaddafi should have known that neither America nor its allies forget and forgive. He should have known that the oil in his background is enough to eliminate him by all means. He should have learnt a lesson from Iraq, a nation destroyed by Obama's predecessor on the pretence that the late Iraqi leader possessed Weapon of Mass Destruction which turned out to be a ruse.
It was simply a ploy by Mr. Bush to invade the oil rich nation. There is always an excuse to invade certain countries especially when the rulers of such countries refused to be a stooge.
Attacking a sovereign nation
I have stopped worrying each time the American or British or French government issues public propaganda justifying the need to attack Iraq or Afghanistan or Ivory Coast or Libya etc in order to protect the people.
I have stopped worrying because it is now obvious to me that this so-called "developed nations" must use ideas or statements often exaggerated or false intended for a political cause.
They need to sound as people oriented leaders to gain the much needed support otherwise they become irrelevant. They must use the empty rhetoric of politicians as an excuse to justify the partial occupation - of less powerful nations - especially Africa.
One wonders why United Nations has not ordered the attack on North Korea! And why it is so easy to bombard Libya under the pretext of protecting the civilians in that region. Even though more than 20,000 have lost their lives in the civil war, what’s coming out of people like David Cameron of Britain, Hilary Clinton of America and others is disturbing.
“I pledge support for a new era,” says Mrs Clinton, US Secretary of State. In what I consider a sinister statement, Mr Cameron says we would like to see Gaddafi punished for his crimes, adding: “We need a swift transition to a democratic and inclusive Libya,”
Inclusive Libya? Is it that necessary to include Libya in Libya’s affairs? Ah, to include the Libyan people is to further disrupt the agenda of a purpose. Let America, Britain and France take over Libya completely and divide it among themselves. For this would be the true picture of the main objective. Libyans and Africans in general aren’t capable of taking care of themselves hence the need to bombard every independent African State.
Rhapsody of Gaddafi's elimination
In February, the trouble barely started in Libya when America, France and Britain began to campaign for Gaddafi's exist. Their rhapsody of Gaddafi’s elimination was so soon then that it backfired; because discern minds wanted to know why these three countries were so fixated on Libya. Is it because like Iraq, it is an oil producing nation? Why was it so easy for these three countries to back the rebels? Did they know beforehand that Libya was to face uprising? What was behind their open support for the rebels? Why did they start freezing Libya's asset immediately the trouble started?
Can any African nation freezes Britain or US assets in any circumstance? What happened in Libya at that time was just unfolding but these nations had gone to town calling for the head of Gaddafi, saying he was killing his people. Will American or British or French government fold its arm if a group of rebels come together to topple the government?
"Oyinbo" always right mentality
I suppose it is easy for the western countries to attack or occupy African continent because they have mastered the art of colluding with African rulers. African people it seems hate their own image. Majority still probably believe that "Oyinbo" is always right.
This mental slavery is reoccurring in different forms: it may be the process of "protecting the people of Africa" from their dictators (as if there are no dictators elsewhere) whenever it pleases the western countries to destroy any African nation of their choice. Can't they leave African people to fight for ourselves? Or are we forever tied to their apron?
Destroy and build doctrine
It is interesting how easy our so-called intellectuals often blame their own rulers without asking the occupiers to leave Africa alone. Sad as it is, it's amusing many African intellectuals are yet to understand the game – the game of destroy and build. Let them go read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. That book reveals America’s brutal tactics in dealing with whomever or whatever nation it wants to deal with.
Africa has to be destroyed to enrich the western nations who are always the benefactor of such destruction.
Thereafter they would send their businessmen to get the contract to rebuild. The notorious International Monetary Fund (IMF) would offer to loan in order to further enslave the "protected civilians" even the country at large. Of course with the collaboration of the locals – governments included – whose thinking faculty is all about money.
How long will it take Africans to realise that no other nation or continent – no matter how powerful or rich – would sincerely volunteer to help Africa develop, or help build Africa? Each man to his own problem! It’s only Africans that can genuinely build Africa if we want. I salute Germany, Russia, China and others who have been diplomatic cautious and not aggressive in this regard.
Probing NATO forces
There has always been a double standard policy by the international organisations. Why is NATO spear-heading/spear-headed the attack on Libya while creating the impression that the rebels are acting on their own in the attacks in Tripoli? I agree with South Africa's deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe who has called for probe against possible human rights violations committed by NATO forces in Libya.
Reports have it that NATO conducted 46 strikes sorties in area around Tripoli. The question is whether the (court) will have the wherewithal to unearth that information and bring those who are responsible to book, including the NATO commanders on the ground.
NATO says target is not to kill Gaddafi and that it’s not coordinating with National Transition Council. Oh, really? Did NATO back the rebels with intelligence, logistics, ammunitions, training and aerial cover or not? Is this a violation of the letter and spirit of the UN charter or not? NATO nations clearly contravened UN arms embargo on Libya
Disappointing United Nations
As for the United Nations, the organisation has achieved very little in terms of solving conflicts around the world. It is hard to see what is united in United Nations. Why is the organisation always sending what it calls “Humanitarian Aid” only after the damaged might have been done?
I think the UN should cultivate the habit of preventing conflicts – by all means possible rather than sending aids. The United Nations seems to be failing in its responsibility to inspire peace among nations. The presence of UN since its inception in 1945 should have made the world a living place to live. Unfortunately, nations have been divided more than united. Perhaps this organisation needs to change tactics.
The UN resolution should be to protect and not to take side. On what principle did the UN back the rebels? Malam El-Rufai of Nigeria puts it succinctly: The swiftness at which the UN passes resolutions that water the grounds for the West's intervention in any country is directly proportional to the oil reserves in that country, as well as history of past grudges. The United Nations must not be seen as a partial or stooge of certain powerful countries.
Where is the African Union & Arab League?
African Union? The AU is becoming embarrassment. It’s supposed to be the mouth piece of Africa but has since become useless since the destruction started in Libya. The organisation is so much in slumber that foreign organisations like European Union had to take charge, dictating the pace of the uprising.
AU has further tarnished its image and disgraced the whole of Africa by not being the one in charge of an affair concerning its member state. It doesn’t matter its tactical approach, saying it will not “explicitly recognised the rebels”. Whatever that means! Arab League on the other hand is quick to say it is in “full solidarity with the rebels”. The position of these two important organisations added to the impunity with which the western countries violate Libya’s sovereignty.
Libyan rebels as stooges
My heartfelt sympathy goes to the Libyan people. Sure, people are always the victims in this circumstance. How can the rebels claim victory when it’s obvious the western countries fought the war? The rebels should have done it alone without the help of outsiders. By so doing they committed the same crime they accused Gaddafi of. The rebels like their foreign counterparts are misleading the people by claiming they’re fighting people's fight. I don't believe this.
The rebels are definitely fighting for their own share of the resources. Any insurgence that allows foreigners to attack own country cannot come clean of doing it for the same people they kill. How would they tell these nations to leave after they had helped them win the war? These "hegemonic" nations have come to stay and position themselves for contracts. Of course this is normal after spending a lot to help win the war. It’s the name of the game.
Period
Lindsay German says Libya won’t be able to get rid of pro-west government. Ms German, Convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, London, adds that “rebels will form western imposed government”. The rebels in their murky acceleration for revenge or getting rid of Gaddafi disregarded post war trauma on the people and therefore committed the same crime they accused Gaddafi of. The rebels know quite alright that accepting the west to help fight Gaddafi’s forces would have adverse effect on Libya and its people. Yet no one cares.
Gaddafi and the western press
Gaddafi may not be as bad as being painted by the western press whose bias reporting about the uprising is alarming. Accordingly, every atrocity committed during the uprising is done by Gaddafi’s forces while the rebels are considered innocent. It is Gaddafi and not the rebels that destroyed Libya. It is Gaddafi forces that killed civilians and not the rebels.
Personally despite Gaddafi’s shortcomings, I prefer him to other African rulers who often cringe before America and Britain. For instance, I would choose Gaddafi’s eccentric and dictatorship over Hosni Mubarak and Olusegun Obasanjo’s conventional and “democratic” rule.
When you report in a war that one side is killing its people then the discerning minds of course would like to know what happens to the other side. Is the other side fighting to embrace? The way the international media reported and reporting the happenings in Libya is one-sided which is regrettable.
Gaddafi is not as bad as is being painted by the west. He is much better than many African rulers who are in the good book of America and co. Mubarak who is now facing charges of corruption and murder in a country he once ruled for example enjoyed America’s backing and patronage for more than thirty years until the last moment. However if there’s evidence that Gaddafi killed his own people randomly, then of course he will have to face the charges
National Transitional Council
What is the principle behind the National Transitional Council when in fact many former aids of Gaddafi who had defected may constitute NTC? I predict that NTC will soon run into trouble. And I predict that whatever they do to Gaddafi is what they too will get. But before then, let them be cautious in dealing with the west.
The west obviously is concerned with their own interest. For instance, they have started telling us that Pro-revolt foreign states will get contract to re-build Libya, meaning China, Germany and Russia to lose out because they did not support the revolt. We are told that NTC needs 300 billion euro to rebuild Libya. The money of course would go back the west whose citizens will get most of the contracts. Most importantly, the National Transitional Council should ask itself when last America or Britain or France invited African forces to help them deal with their internal problems!
True liberation
True freedom will come only if each African country can confront its own tyrants without the help of outsiders whose aim would always to turn Africa into a “burning volcano and a fire under the feet of invaders”. For me, the rebels’ proclamation of freedom simply because the west helped them destroy their country is false freedom never to be celebrated. It is bondage in freedom. Libya will now be ruled by their oppressors pretending to be friends. Iraq and Afghanistan are two examples.
Libya like Iraq will never be the same and that is the crux of the matter. Libya’s destruction is a victory for the west; a defeat for ordinary Libyans. Sure Gaddafi has made mistakes but neither a monster nor a mad dog as being painted by several American presidents.
As for me even with his non-conformity, he is not as bad as most jejune African leaders who conform to code of conduct. Gaddafi usually speaks his mind at the UN General Assembly meeting unlike other African representatives who just nod their heads in agreement with the so-called superpowers. Such “being-my-self” attitude is enough to mark him out as the enemy.
Attacking a sovereign nation is the hallmark of destroy and build principle employed by the west especially America to pave way for a stooge government in the African region. It is unfortunate that the international journalists allow themselves to be used in this regard.
I consider NATO’s involvement; even UN as double standard. I believe passionately that the west cannot and will never give Africa and its people true freedom. It is Africans that can liberate themselves without outside help. How long will it take? That is what I don’t know.
AfricaNews
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Libya's destruction, a victory for the west; a defeat for ordinary Libyans.
The suffering of Libyans has just begun. For there can never be true liberation when your oppressor is the one who defines what your freedom should be. The ousting of Colonel Gaddafi, Libyan leader for 42 years, by the rebels backed western forces especially NATO is indeed a victory for the west whose fixation on Gaddafi's Libya has become worrisome.
It’s definitely not a victory for ordinary Libyans who would continue to suffer a lot of nervous strain and shock after the destruction. Neither is it a victory for the rebels who have been in excess jubilation since capturing Gaddafi’s official residence. “We are free,” they proclaimed in wild happiness.
But they have forgotten one important thing: that they are now slaves to all the countries that helped them kick out Gaddafi.
Apparently the rebels are not ordinary Libyan but a group of people who want the share of the oil with the help of foreign forces. Gaddafi’s main crime may be the fact that he refused to let the west control Libya’s resources, hence he must be eliminated by all possible means.
In their euphoria and in their haste to get rid of him, they forgot that none of the countries that backed them has the interest of Libyans at heart. Let them for once re-visit Iraq.
Gaddafi's mistake
As for Gaddafi, nothing lasts forever. The man should have known that 42 years of single-handedly ruling or administering a nation is more than too long. There is no doubting the fact that Gaddafi always means well for Libya unlike America, Britain, France, NATO, UN and other bereaved organisations claiming to love Libya more than God loves the Israelites. Ok I detest dynasty rule, and this seems to be Gaddafi`s undoing. A nation can never be the personal property of any man or group.
He should have relinquished power at a point in time and becomes the Father of the Nation or something similar. At 70 and having ruled for 42 years, Gaddafi should have embraced the uprising tactically no matter how painful it might be – at least to prevent his own legacy which the west actually wants to destroy.
But then power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. He should have known that America, Britain, France and others still consider themselves as the Alpha and Omega of this world – the owner of our earth.
And so they cannot tolerate any opposition from an Arab-African in the spirit of Gaddafi. This man should have realised he was not fighting the "rats" within his own environment but "desperate and hungry lions" outside his environment who have surreptitiously waited to devour him. Perhaps Gaddafi should have been more careful, especially when his colleagues in the African Union (AU) do not like his gut.
Gaddafi should have known that neither America nor its allies forget and forgive. He should have known that the oil in his background is enough to eliminate him by all means. He should have learnt a lesson from Iraq, a nation destroyed by Obama's predecessor on the pretence that the late Iraqi leader possessed Weapon of Mass Destruction which turned out to be a ruse.
It was simply a ploy by Mr. Bush to invade the oil rich nation. There is always an excuse to invade certain countries especially when the rulers of such countries refused to be a stooge.
Attacking a sovereign nation
I have stopped worrying each time the American or British or French government issues public propaganda justifying the need to attack Iraq or Afghanistan or Ivory Coast or Libya etc in order to protect the people.
I have stopped worrying because it is now obvious to me that this so-called "developed nations" must use ideas or statements often exaggerated or false intended for a political cause.
They need to sound as people oriented leaders to gain the much needed support otherwise they become irrelevant. They must use the empty rhetoric of politicians as an excuse to justify the partial occupation - of less powerful nations - especially Africa.
One wonders why United Nations has not ordered the attack on North Korea! And why it is so easy to bombard Libya under the pretext of protecting the civilians in that region. Even though more than 20,000 have lost their lives in the civil war, what’s coming out of people like David Cameron of Britain, Hilary Clinton of America and others is disturbing.
“I pledge support for a new era,” says Mrs Clinton, US Secretary of State. In what I consider a sinister statement, Mr Cameron says we would like to see Gaddafi punished for his crimes, adding: “We need a swift transition to a democratic and inclusive Libya,”
Inclusive Libya? Is it that necessary to include Libya in Libya’s affairs? Ah, to include the Libyan people is to further disrupt the agenda of a purpose. Let America, Britain and France take over Libya completely and divide it among themselves. For this would be the true picture of the main objective. Libyans and Africans in general aren’t capable of taking care of themselves hence the need to bombard every independent African State.
Rhapsody of Gaddafi's elimination
In February, the trouble barely started in Libya when America, France and Britain began to campaign for Gaddafi's exist. Their rhapsody of Gaddafi’s elimination was so soon then that it backfired; because discern minds wanted to know why these three countries were so fixated on Libya. Is it because like Iraq, it is an oil producing nation? Why was it so easy for these three countries to back the rebels? Did they know beforehand that Libya was to face uprising? What was behind their open support for the rebels? Why did they start freezing Libya's asset immediately the trouble started?
Can any African nation freezes Britain or US assets in any circumstance? What happened in Libya at that time was just unfolding but these nations had gone to town calling for the head of Gaddafi, saying he was killing his people. Will American or British or French government fold its arm if a group of rebels come together to topple the government?
"Oyinbo" always right mentality
I suppose it is easy for the western countries to attack or occupy African continent because they have mastered the art of colluding with African rulers. African people it seems hate their own image. Majority still probably believe that "Oyinbo" is always right.
This mental slavery is reoccurring in different forms: it may be the process of "protecting the people of Africa" from their dictators (as if there are no dictators elsewhere) whenever it pleases the western countries to destroy any African nation of their choice. Can't they leave African people to fight for ourselves? Or are we forever tied to their apron?
Destroy and build doctrine
It is interesting how easy our so-called intellectuals often blame their own rulers without asking the occupiers to leave Africa alone. Sad as it is, it's amusing many African intellectuals are yet to understand the game – the game of destroy and build. Let them go read "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. That book reveals America’s brutal tactics in dealing with whomever or whatever nation it wants to deal with.
Africa has to be destroyed to enrich the western nations who are always the benefactor of such destruction.
Thereafter they would send their businessmen to get the contract to rebuild. The notorious International Monetary Fund (IMF) would offer to loan in order to further enslave the "protected civilians" even the country at large. Of course with the collaboration of the locals – governments included – whose thinking faculty is all about money.
How long will it take Africans to realise that no other nation or continent – no matter how powerful or rich – would sincerely volunteer to help Africa develop, or help build Africa? Each man to his own problem! It’s only Africans that can genuinely build Africa if we want. I salute Germany, Russia, China and others who have been diplomatic cautious and not aggressive in this regard.
Probing NATO forces
There has always been a double standard policy by the international organisations. Why is NATO spear-heading/spear-headed the attack on Libya while creating the impression that the rebels are acting on their own in the attacks in Tripoli? I agree with South Africa's deputy president, Kgalema Motlanthe who has called for probe against possible human rights violations committed by NATO forces in Libya.
Reports have it that NATO conducted 46 strikes sorties in area around Tripoli. The question is whether the (court) will have the wherewithal to unearth that information and bring those who are responsible to book, including the NATO commanders on the ground.
NATO says target is not to kill Gaddafi and that it’s not coordinating with National Transition Council. Oh, really? Did NATO back the rebels with intelligence, logistics, ammunitions, training and aerial cover or not? Is this a violation of the letter and spirit of the UN charter or not? NATO nations clearly contravened UN arms embargo on Libya
Disappointing United Nations
As for the United Nations, the organisation has achieved very little in terms of solving conflicts around the world. It is hard to see what is united in United Nations. Why is the organisation always sending what it calls “Humanitarian Aid” only after the damaged might have been done?
I think the UN should cultivate the habit of preventing conflicts – by all means possible rather than sending aids. The United Nations seems to be failing in its responsibility to inspire peace among nations. The presence of UN since its inception in 1945 should have made the world a living place to live. Unfortunately, nations have been divided more than united. Perhaps this organisation needs to change tactics.
The UN resolution should be to protect and not to take side. On what principle did the UN back the rebels? Malam El-Rufai of Nigeria puts it succinctly: The swiftness at which the UN passes resolutions that water the grounds for the West's intervention in any country is directly proportional to the oil reserves in that country, as well as history of past grudges. The United Nations must not be seen as a partial or stooge of certain powerful countries.
Where is the African Union & Arab League?
African Union? The AU is becoming embarrassment. It’s supposed to be the mouth piece of Africa but has since become useless since the destruction started in Libya. The organisation is so much in slumber that foreign organisations like European Union had to take charge, dictating the pace of the uprising.
AU has further tarnished its image and disgraced the whole of Africa by not being the one in charge of an affair concerning its member state. It doesn’t matter its tactical approach, saying it will not “explicitly recognised the rebels”. Whatever that means! Arab League on the other hand is quick to say it is in “full solidarity with the rebels”. The position of these two important organisations added to the impunity with which the western countries violate Libya’s sovereignty.
Libyan rebels as stooges
My heartfelt sympathy goes to the Libyan people. Sure, people are always the victims in this circumstance. How can the rebels claim victory when it’s obvious the western countries fought the war? The rebels should have done it alone without the help of outsiders. By so doing they committed the same crime they accused Gaddafi of. The rebels like their foreign counterparts are misleading the people by claiming they’re fighting people's fight. I don't believe this.
The rebels are definitely fighting for their own share of the resources. Any insurgence that allows foreigners to attack own country cannot come clean of doing it for the same people they kill. How would they tell these nations to leave after they had helped them win the war? These "hegemonic" nations have come to stay and position themselves for contracts. Of course this is normal after spending a lot to help win the war. It’s the name of the game.
Period
Lindsay German says Libya won’t be able to get rid of pro-west government. Ms German, Convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, London, adds that “rebels will form western imposed government”. The rebels in their murky acceleration for revenge or getting rid of Gaddafi disregarded post war trauma on the people and therefore committed the same crime they accused Gaddafi of. The rebels know quite alright that accepting the west to help fight Gaddafi’s forces would have adverse effect on Libya and its people. Yet no one cares.
Gaddafi and the western press
Gaddafi may not be as bad as being painted by the western press whose bias reporting about the uprising is alarming. Accordingly, every atrocity committed during the uprising is done by Gaddafi’s forces while the rebels are considered innocent. It is Gaddafi and not the rebels that destroyed Libya. It is Gaddafi forces that killed civilians and not the rebels.
Personally despite Gaddafi’s shortcomings, I prefer him to other African rulers who often cringe before America and Britain. For instance, I would choose Gaddafi’s eccentric and dictatorship over Hosni Mubarak and Olusegun Obasanjo’s conventional and “democratic” rule.
When you report in a war that one side is killing its people then the discerning minds of course would like to know what happens to the other side. Is the other side fighting to embrace? The way the international media reported and reporting the happenings in Libya is one-sided which is regrettable.
Gaddafi is not as bad as is being painted by the west. He is much better than many African rulers who are in the good book of America and co. Mubarak who is now facing charges of corruption and murder in a country he once ruled for example enjoyed America’s backing and patronage for more than thirty years until the last moment. However if there’s evidence that Gaddafi killed his own people randomly, then of course he will have to face the charges
National Transitional Council
What is the principle behind the National Transitional Council when in fact many former aids of Gaddafi who had defected may constitute NTC? I predict that NTC will soon run into trouble. And I predict that whatever they do to Gaddafi is what they too will get. But before then, let them be cautious in dealing with the west.
The west obviously is concerned with their own interest. For instance, they have started telling us that Pro-revolt foreign states will get contract to re-build Libya, meaning China, Germany and Russia to lose out because they did not support the revolt. We are told that NTC needs 300 billion euro to rebuild Libya. The money of course would go back the west whose citizens will get most of the contracts. Most importantly, the National Transitional Council should ask itself when last America or Britain or France invited African forces to help them deal with their internal problems!
True liberation
True freedom will come only if each African country can confront its own tyrants without the help of outsiders whose aim would always to turn Africa into a “burning volcano and a fire under the feet of invaders”. For me, the rebels’ proclamation of freedom simply because the west helped them destroy their country is false freedom never to be celebrated. It is bondage in freedom. Libya will now be ruled by their oppressors pretending to be friends. Iraq and Afghanistan are two examples.
Libya like Iraq will never be the same and that is the crux of the matter. Libya’s destruction is a victory for the west; a defeat for ordinary Libyans. Sure Gaddafi has made mistakes but neither a monster nor a mad dog as being painted by several American presidents.
As for me even with his non-conformity, he is not as bad as most jejune African leaders who conform to code of conduct. Gaddafi usually speaks his mind at the UN General Assembly meeting unlike other African representatives who just nod their heads in agreement with the so-called superpowers. Such “being-my-self” attitude is enough to mark him out as the enemy.
Attacking a sovereign nation is the hallmark of destroy and build principle employed by the west especially America to pave way for a stooge government in the African region. It is unfortunate that the international journalists allow themselves to be used in this regard.
I consider NATO’s involvement; even UN as double standard. I believe passionately that the west cannot and will never give Africa and its people true freedom. It is Africans that can liberate themselves without outside help. How long will it take? That is what I don’t know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)