Analysis Libya: what price victory?

In a new analysis piece for Ceasefire, Akkas Al-Ali considers the dawn of a post-Gaddafi Libya, and the course of the Arab Spring so far.

Ideas, New in Ceasefire - Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2011 0:00 - 5 Comments

Share

By Akkas Al-Ali

After 42 years of repressive rule and a revolution that has been six months in the making, the death rattle has sounded for Africa’s King of Kings. The united forces of the National Transitional Council – an alliance created out of necessity – have taken Tripoli and delivered an historic coup de grâce to the Green Revolution.

But before we join in with the chorus of victory, we would do well to remember that regime change has been the objective from the start: before the UN had even established a no-fly zone over Libya back in March – ostensibly to protect civilian life – the opposition had already been officially recognised by France’s Nicolas Sarkozy.

Although the unrelenting progress of the Arab Spring is welcome, not least for its unravelling of autocratic dictatorships hitherto propped up and supported by Western governments – Egypt, for example, had been for over three decades one of America’s strongest allies in the region and the recipient of a $2bn annual stipend – Libya has been the beneficiary of a different kind of Western intervention.

Dubbed by Ronald Reagan as the ‘mad dog of the Middle East’, Gaddafi faced UN sanctions and international ostracism on the one hand and Tony Blair’s blood-soaked hand of friendship on the other. Still, more welcome would have been the Brother Leader’s downfall at the hands of his own people and not through Nato.

The Arab Spring, now turning into the Arab Autumn, represents a crisis of global capitalism which has magnified the problems and contradictions of a region crippled by decades of Western intervention. The spread of the free market problematises the notion that states – particularly those in the developing world – are able to enjoy economic and political sovereignty on their own terms; something that is left for the White House and its European allies to determine.

What the Arab Spring has shown us is how brilliant our Western leaders are at dealing with the crisis, skillfully adapting their approach to suit their needs: euphoric one minute, apprehensive the next. With its long-time adversary, the West’s reaction towards Libya was immediate: the establishment of a no-fly zone, as well as military intervention and humanitarian aid. By contrast, its neighbours Tunisia and Egypt – two pro-West autocracies – benefited from the diplomatic approach: citizenship rights and the freedom to protest were championed at the beginning, while outright condemnations of the regimes’ violent suppression and crackdown were reserved until the very end.

In Bahrain’s case, the West adopted an even softer approach. Timidly, our leaders urged the country’s Western-leaning monarch to “listen to his people” – calls that were routinely ignored in Manama. When Saudi forces entered the tiny Gulf kingdom in mid-March to brutally suppress the protests and to ‘restore order’, Washington and London stood idly by and just watched – with not a single word of condemnation. A few days earlier, when protesters had gathered outside the US embassy in Manama, carrying placards reading ‘Stop supporting dictators’, an embassy official emerged from the building to hand out doughnuts to the crowd.

In the case of Yemen, a country the US is unable to envisage without President Ali Abdullah Saleh at its helm, there have been repeated calls from the West for the country’s opposition to engage in political dialogue to end the impasse. Nevermind that Saleh’s true legacy to Yemen has been a litany of broken promises and lies stretching over three decades.

Most outrageously, until only this week Syria received understatement, two-faced platitudes but not a single expression of condemnation from Washington. Back in March, Hillary Clinton stated that it was unlikely the US would intervene in Syria since Congress still viewed Bashar al-Assad as a reformer. Al-Assad is probably guilty of killing at least as many people as Gaddafi yet it has taken eight months for Western leaders to come to this realisation.

Wherever he might be right now, the Colonel must be feeling a little betrayed. The toppling of his regime – despite his recent attempts to appease the West; despite accepting Blair’s hand of friendship; despite the fact that he signed away billions of dollars worth of Libyan oil to Western corporations – will have taught him at least one lesson: to sit on a sea of oil and other natural resources is akin to sitting on a political timebomb, its fate predicated upon economic conditions and political interests in the West.

And before us lies what Churchill might have called ‘the end of the beginning’. It would be too commonplace to suggest that Libya must learn from the lessons of Iraq. David Cameron, just returned from his fifth holiday this year, has been the chief advocate of this Nato mission with only Sarkozy for company. Whereas Tunisian and Egyptians can rightly be proud that their revolutions were autonomous, Libya may find itself dependent on Britain for further aid and assistance, including the possibility of the deployment of more troops to “maintain stability” and keep the old guard at bay.

Yet this responsibility – for if he wishes to take credit for Gaddafi’s ouster he must also accept this aspect of it – will strip the new regime of legitimacy and strength; the constant paradox lying at the heart of liberal interventionism. If Libya were to become a proxy state, and nothing more than an outpost of Western interests, it will descend into the same chaos that we have seen, over the past decade, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This neo-imperial dogoodery may have been tactically easy but it shows the extent to which the West has entangled itself in the developing world. Intervention brought civil war to Iraq – not the democracy that was promised. Likewise, it blasted an already impoverished Afghanistan back into the Stone Age.

We want freedom and security for Libyans, as we did for Tunisians and Egyptians and just as we continue to do for the people of Syria and Bahrain and Yemen. But these can only be achieved by the people alone; otherwise, their liberation will be less robust, less secure and less legitimate.

Akkas Al-Ali is a playwright living in London. He writes on politics and Muslim affairs at www.the-platform.org.uk and tweets from @akkasistan.

Share

5 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Jonathan Brown
Aug 27, 2011 19:36

I think you’re letting your (admirable and entirely sensible) scepticism of Western intentions obscure a number of very welcome facts, not the least of which is that (for a change, perhaps) countries like the US, the UK and France are actually on the right side of events in the Middle East.

Some things I think that are worth bearing in mind when forming a judgement on events in Libya:

1) We live in a globalised world. Very few wars, revolutions, significant events in world history are entirely cut off from outside influences. The US revolution was backed by France, the Soviet revolution was backed by Imperial Germany, the Vietnamese communists were backed by the USSR and China, and the anti-colonial movements striving to bring down the British Empire had the support of the USA (in many cases).

2) Western countries had been intervening in Libya (if not militarily) for years: buying oil, selling arms, doing deals to prevent migrants reaching Europe, extending legitimacy to the Gaddafi regime through contact and shared holidays. Standing by and watching as the Libyan uprising was crushed (and be in no doubt that it would have been) would have been taking a side too. There was no ‘neutral’ option for us. Taking either side had risks, but I think we took the right one.

3) Would any of the alternatives to Western military intervention have been preferable? A ‘Libyan only’ option did not exist. Without support, the rebels would have been massacred, the regime would have dug in further and decades from now, likely with Saif Gaddafi at the helm, the same authoritarian, crony-capitalistic regime, with its renewed military alliances with NATO would have been stronger than ever. The rebels knew this, which is why, when they realised that their hopes of going it alone had ended, they changed their minds and asked for Western military intervention. A Western-enforced no-fly zone that did nothing more than prevent Gaddafi from flying might have been more in keeping with the letter of the law of the UN resolution but would not have prevented a Gaddafi military victory. Absolute best-case scenario would have been a result that most people rightly condemned when it was applied to Iraq: a sanctions regime that hurt and weakened the people, that was easily circumvented by the regime and which became more and more risky and expensive (and politically resisted) to maintain.

4) Would any of the alternatives to Western military intervention have been preferable in regards to the wider impact on the Arab Spring? I can’t see ANY way to answer that question with a ‘yes’ that is remotely plausible. Every single regime would have compared and contrasted Mubarak’s relatively ‘soft’ handling of the protests with Gaddafi’s ‘zero tolerance’ and drawn the entirely correct conclusion: a willingness to commit unlimited violence is virtually certain to save an unpopular regime. Failure to commit to wholesale bloodshed carries risks with almost no prospect of reward. Would any of the protests in any other countries have drawn strength or inspiration from the bloody crushing of the Libyan rebels? I doubt it.

5) What the impact would have been on the two ‘successful’ revolutions – in Tunisia and Egypt – had things turned out differently? Would the limited gains of Tunisians and Egyptians been boosted by Gaddafi’s crushing of the Libyan revolt? Or would reformers in both countries, isolated and facing down re-organising military regimes, still with Western backing and possibly now in alliance with the least reformist elements of powerful, conservative and authoritarian Islamic parties have stood much chance of further reforming their countries? Again; I highly doubt it.

So; turning to events as they actually happened… There’s no denying NATO’s importance to the rebels’ victory, but don’t let that overshadow the very real achievements of the Libyans themselves. It is Libyans who have faced down Gaddafi’s machine guns, tanks, snipers and assassins. It is Libyans who fought street by street in Misrata, and who resisted Gaddafi’s legions in the Nafusa Mountains and the coastal towns of places like Zawiyya for weeks – without the support of NATO. And it is Libyans who have thrown of Gaddafi’s rule in most of Tripoli. Don’t let suspicion of Western motives blind you to the central role Libyans have played and will continue to play in this process.

And don’t draw the wrong conclusions from Western involvement in other Middle Eastern countries, such as Iraq. As popular as the US invasion of Iraq was (initially) with the Iraqis themselves, it was a war of conquest from the start, with minimal Iraqi participation. It was planned and aimed for years in advance. Its ultimate aims had nothing in common with the long term aims of most Iraqis. The arguments made in the war’s favour never made any sort of sense, and the war never commanded widespread support. Partly as a result of this contradiction, the US also never made the resources (diplomatic, economic or even military) available that might have led to a more stable, peaceful, liberal and prosperous Iraq.

As cynical as you may be (legitimately, given our history) of Western intentions in Libya, the differences are numerous and important:

1) A relatively liberal, relatively democratic and relatively popular government in Libya suits Western interests, but is also what a majority of Libyans either want, or will be happy to live with.

2) The Libyans have no interest in refusing to sell oil and gas to the West, so the fact that this suits Western interests is no problem.

3) While NATO probably won’t turn down an offer to host a big military base in Libya, it doesn’t actually NEED one. The European military powers clearly have no money to support one, or interest in stationing troops there. The US got involved militarily only reluctantly, as you point out in your article, and while attempting to ‘draw down’ troops in Iraq has no interest in controversially and expensively deploying troops to Libya now.

4) As your article pointed out; Western responses to the Arab Spring have been all over the place, veering from military intervention in Libya to the tacit condoning of the regime’s violence in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Rather than demonstrating “how brilliant our Western leaders are at dealing with the crisis, skilfully adapting their approach”, this suggests to me the complete opposite: Western military, economic and diplomatic power is in swift and dramatic decline. We have been unable to restrain our allies in the Gulf, unable to intimidate our enemies the Levant, and were bounced into supporting the Libyan rebels due to our leaders’ recognition of just how irrelevant and ridiculous they looked in the aftermath of successful protests in North Africa.

The Arab Spring represents a crisis (and a minor one at that) for only a certain kind of capitalism: a post-Soviet, mafia-esque crony capitalism that draws together the Bushs, Berlusconis, Blairs, Mubaraks, Salehs and Gaddafis of the world. Sadly, this kind of capitalism is likely to survive the Arab Spring, not least because it is a global, not a regional phenomenon. But the Arab Spring is not even conceived of by its supporters as an attack on capitalism. Very few of the protesters have been demanding a socialist state. The revolutionaries have included labour movements, left-wingers and liberals who favour a more redistributive state, higher minimum wages, better working conditions, less corruption, etc… But none of these things are impossible to achieve in, or contradictory to (a certain kind of) capitalism.

In conclusion: the rebels face many hard challenges which include keeping the support of the people and maintaining their relative independence from Western powers. Happily, the country’s oil and gas wealth actually give the post-Gaddafi government a much better chance of succeeding at this than the forlorn liberals of Tunisia and Egypt have. Of course the West has vested interests in what happens next in Libya, but this is natural and justifiable. African and Middle Eastern countries have vested interests too, and will no doubt pursue them, just as they did under Gaddafi. While not all Western interests will be compatible with those of Libyans, at least in the short to medium term; generally speaking what Libyans independently conceive of us a successful Libya will be something that has a lot in common with what Western countries would probably like to see. Just because the West has frequently been criminally and destructively wrong in the past does not mean that it is absolutely incapable of doing the right thing from time to time. Nor does the compatibility of Western interests in Libya with Libyan interests delegitimize the Libyan revolution.

Nalliah Thayabharan
Aug 30, 2011 2:20

Since the 1950s Western imperialists have been in the business of regime change, assassinations and propping up client states to pillage the wealth of nations.
In 1953, England and America overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran. The coup was orchestrated by the intelligence apparatus of both countries after Mr. Mosaddegh nationalized the oil industry that was controlled by foreign interests. They set up Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (the shah of Iran) as a puppet authoritarian ruler who relied heavily on U.S. support.
In 1961, in the Congo, the CIA in collaboration with Belgium plotted the overthrow and subsequent murder of Patrice Lumumba—the country’s first post colonial prime minister—and installed Joseph Mobutu who served America for 32 years until his own demise at the hands of Clinton administration backed proxies, Rwanda and Uganda. The war caused the death of 6 million Congolese.
In 1966, Ghanaian independence leader Dr. Kwame Nkrumah was deposed by the CIA using ambitious enemies from within Ghana while Dr. Nkrumah was abroad in China on a peace mission attempting to mediate the Vietnam conflict.
Another gross example of U.S. meddling in the affairs of others was the September 11, 1973 ousting and assassination of the legitimate, elected government of President Salvador Allende of Chile. The coup d’état was organized by the Richard Nixon administration and Chilean military, ushering in the brutal dictator General Augusto Pinochet. These are only three examples out of many that can be named as examples of America’s pursuit of wicked foreign policy objectives.
A dictator becomes a “dictator” abhorred by his countrymen when he has overused his authority & power. These are good lessons for such leaders overstepping their power because they have come to equate power as their right. Such have been the countries that the West have been quick to ear mark & target for overthrowing these countries has been an easy effort to enter & dislodge these leaders. It is these very citizens who end up helping the overthrow take place, thus the non-requirement for stretched military equipment or personnel & the use of their own to minimize the casualties to their own countrymen. Collateral damage is what the West would call this. The countries where these leaders become “dictators” are often rich in natural resources which are one reason why they end up misusing the mandate given to them & becoming power hungry & their stooges & families end up devastating the country to which they are supposed to function as custodians.
It is the lack of answering this all important question that demands the West not to use these false clichés of “freedom from dictators” as an excuse. No sooner these “dictators” are overthrown the first thing the West ends up doing is to tap the natural resources, take over the economic hubs & privatize all channels that will supply their countries a steady flow of monetary returns & economic gain. All those who played an indirect role in aiding the West by providing support end up just turning their heads away. Therefore, when we all know Iraq was a mistake it is good to now ask whether Libya is going to be another – where the consequences to the future of the people of these countries were never part of the strategy or overall plan!
It is not hard to deduce that all of the efforts to overthrow Governments whatever type of governance has taken place in these countries are done so purely on the basis of acquiring the wealth of these nations. The calls for removal of these “despots” or “dictators” are mere slogans helped greatly by the mass media that provides the visuals of sensationalism to justify the overthrowing by painting the perfect picture of saviors against despots. It took no time for Mubarak of Egypt, the one time darling of the West to be portrayed with so much hatred by the media with no reminder to the public that he was an agent of the West. This is what is likely to happen to all other political leaders who think they will remain the darlings of the West & continue corrupt leadership.
In any democracy where people come to power on the strength of a vote it is natural that almost half the nation will not vote in favor of the overall winner. This is certainly not basis for any country to say that a leader is opposed & plans set to overthrow him.
The countries that are currently earmarked for regime change will know from diplomatic statements where their countries are heading for & this alone should suffice to ensure the country is set in order & issues that are likely to be used as excuses are properly taken care of. Corruption being one excuse is a perfect area to ensure that politicians, their stooges & the corrupt public service immediately function as they should & not as they want to run for the repercussions are far more dangerous in the present context.
If any country should be saved by the West it should be Palestinians suffering in Gaza for years as a result of Israeli. What does the US do instead – it vetoes Resolutions brought against Israel in the UN.
– Nalliah Thayabharan

Frank Gelli
Sep 9, 2011 0:45

Whenever a message starts with hackneyed phrases like ‘Western imperialists’, it makes me yawn a bit. I already know what the writer will say. Can we have some originality, please?
Ideological fervour apart, here is a little, modest observation. There will be lots of weapons lying around in Libya when the civil war is formally over. Will the fighting fellows forsake their arms then? They might have acquired a bit of a taste for shooting…

Nalliah Thayabharan
Sep 11, 2011 19:26

At the end of WWII, an agreement was reached at the Bretton Woods Conference which pegged the value of gold at US$35 per ounce and that became the international standard against which currency was measured. But in 1971, US President Richard Nixon took the US$ off the gold standard after he and others realized that the USA no longer had enough gold to buy back every dollar that foreign governments were handing in.

In 1973, US President Richard Nixon and his new Secretary of State, German born Henry Kissinger asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only the US$ in payment for oil, and to buy US Treasury bonds, notes and bills with their excess profits, so that USA can continue spending money and not pay it back. In return, the USA pledged to protect Saudi Arabian oil fields from seizure by USSR and other nations including Iraq and Iran.

The 1973 Arab-Israeli War upset this agreement, and the Great Oil Embargo of 1974 was the result. By 1975 the Great Oil Embargo was over and all members of Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) accepted to sell their oil only in US$. The US$ now became the reserve currency of the world. Every country needed US$ to buy oil. Ever since the US$ has been the most important global monetary instrument, and only the US can print them. However, there were problems with this arrangement not least of all that the US$ was effectively worthless than before it reneged on the gold-standard. But more importantly because it was the world’s reserve currency, everybody was saving their surpluses in US$. The OPEC oil sales supported the US$ and also allowed the USA access to exchange risk free oil.

Since it is the USA that prints the US$, they control the flow of oil. Period. When oil is denominated in US$ through US state action and the US$ is the only fiat currency for trading in oil, an argument can be made that the USA essentially owns the world’s oil for free. Now over $1.3 trillion of newly printed US$ by US Federal Reserve is flooding into international commodity markets each year.

So long as almost three quarter of world trade is done in US$, the US$ is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves. But central banks, whether China or Japan or Brazil or Russia, do not simply stack US$ in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the USA. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse. Not the USA. This is because of the US$ reserve currency role. And the underpinning of the reserve role is the petrodollar. Every nation needs to get US$ to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets US$ countries.

Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate US$ surpluses. This is the case for every country but one — the USA which controls the US$ and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in US$, countries must go abroad to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today works around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Everyone aims to maximize US$ surpluses from their export trade.

The Petrodollar system nearly broke down during the US President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter’s presidential tenure , mainly due to double digit inflation of the US$. US President Ronald Reagan removed all controls on oil and fuel prices and all restrictions on oil drilling to restore the stability of the US$. Oil flooded the market, prices fell, and petrodollars became more valuable. These were some of the most prosperous years that the US had. But the danger remained, because the US continued to spend more US$ than it earned.

The reality is that the value of the US$ is determined by the fact that oil is sold in US$. If the denomination changes to another currency, such as the euro, many countries would sell US$and cause the banks to shift their reserves, as they would no longer need US$ to buy oil. This would thus weaken the US$ relative to the euro. The USA propagates war to protect its oil supplies, but even more importantly, to safeguard the strength of the US$. The fundamental underlying motive of the US in the Iraq war, even more than the control of the oil itself, is an attempt to preserve the US$ as the leading oil trading currency. The fear of the consequences of a weaker US$, particularly higher oil prices is seen as underlying and explaining many aspects of the US foreign policy, including the Iraq and Libyan War.

Until November 2000, no OPEC country dared violate the US$ price rule. So long as the US$ was the strongest currency, there was little reason to as well. But November 2000 was when France and other EU members finally convinced Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to defy the USA by selling Iraq’s oil-for-food not in US$, ‘the enemy currency’ as Saddam Hussein named it, but only in euros. Few months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, Iraq had made the move to accept Euros instead of US$ for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the US$ as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar. The euros were on deposit in a special UN account of the leading French bank, BNP Paribas. This Iraq move to defy the US$ in favor of the euro, in itself, was insignificant. Yet, if it were to spread, especially at a point the US$ was already weakening, it could create a panic selloff of US$ by foreign central banks and OPEC oil producers.

In the months before the latest Iraq war, hints in this direction were heard from Russia, Iran, Indonesia and even Venezuela. An Iranian OPEC official, Javad Yarjani, delivered a detailed analysis of how OPEC at some future point might sell its oil to the EU for euros not US$. He spoke in April, 2002 in Oviedo Spain at the invitation of the EU. All indications are that the Iraq war was seized on as the easiest way to deliver a deadly pre-emptive warning to OPEC and others, not to flirt with abandoning the Petro-dollar system in favor of one based on the euro. The Iraq move was a declaration of war against the US$. As soon as it was clear that the UK and the US had taken Iraq, a great sigh of relief was heard in the UK Banks.

First Iraq and then Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for US$, shortly before each country was attacked. The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the US unless there were another way of protecting the US$’s world trade dominance. The US pays for the wars by printing US$ it is going to war to protect.

After considerable delay, Iran opened an oil bourse which does not accept US$. Many people fear that the move will give added reason for the USA to overthrow the Iranian regime as a means to close the bourse and revert Iran’s oil transaction currency to US$. In 2006 Venezuela indicated support of Iran’s decision to offer global oil trade in euro. In 2011 Russia begins selling its oil to China in rubles

Muammar Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the US$ and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Muammar Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union (EU), with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Muammar Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

Muammar Gaddafi’s recent proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revives the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements. The notion, which contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them, has had trouble getting started. But today Iran, China, Russia, and India are stocking more and more gold rather than US$.

If Muammar Qaddafi were to succeed in creating an African Union backed by Libya’s currency and gold reserves, France, still the predominant economic power in most of its former Central African colonies, would be the chief loser. The plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010.

In February 2011, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has called for a new world currency that would challenge the dominance of the US$ and protect against future financial instability. In May 2011 a 32 year old maid, Nafissatou Diallo, working at the Sofitel New York Hotel, alleges that Strauss-Kahn had sexually assaulted her after she entered his suite.

Accepting Chinese yuans for oil, Iran and Venzuelathey have constantly been threatened by the US. If euros, yens, yuans or rubles were generally accepted for oil, the US$ would quickly become irrelevant and worthless paper.This petro dollar arrangement is enforced by the U.S. military.

On Aug 18 2011, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announces a plan to pull Gold reserves from US and European Banks .Venezuela reportedly has the largest oil reserves in the world. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has been a strong proponent for tighter Latin America integration – which is a move away from the power of the US banking cartels.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez formed oil export agreements with Cuba, directly bypassing the Petrodollar System. Cuba was among those countries that were later added to the “Axis of Evil” by the USA. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has accused the US of using HAARP type weapons to create earthquakes.

On Aug 24, 2001 a 7 magnitude earthquake rocks Northern Peru bordering Venezuela which doesn’t use the Petrodollar system and Brazil which has been engaged in discussions to end US$ denominated oil transactions. Is it a coincidence that these uncommonly powerful earthquakes are occurring in historically uncommonly large numbers during such a short period of time?. And that they are occurring in or close to countries that have been seriously discussing plans to leave the Petrodollar system, or are already outside it?

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is an ionospheric research program that is jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy, the University of Alaska and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The HAARP program operates a major Arctic facility, known as the HAARP Research Station, located on an US Air Force owned site near Gakona, Alaska. HAARP has the ability to manipulate weather and produce earthquakes, since it is capable of directing almost 4 Mega Watts of energy in the 3 to 10 MHz region of the HF band up into the ionosphere. This energy can be bounced off of the ionosphere and directed back down at the earth to create earthquakes. HAARP could potentially be used by adversaries to produce such events. Depending on the frequency, focusing, wave shape, one can induce a variety of effects such as earthquakes, induced at a distant aiming point, severe disturbances in the middle and upper atmosphere over the target area and anomalous weather effects known as the “Tesla effect”.

HAARP based technology is being actively used to emit powerful radio waves that permeate the earth and subsequently cause strong enough oscillations along fault lines of targeted areas to produce earthquakes. The high power radio waves of HAARP can be used to produce such intense vibrations as to cause an earthquake. HAARP based technology can be used to encourage and produce various weather phenomena such as hurricanes, flooding, or drought through manipulation of the ionosphere. Already Russia, China and Venezuela have suggested that a HAARP type technology weapon is capable of such and attack and been used against several countries causing severe destructions in Haiti, Japan, Russia, China, Iran, Chile, New Zealand, Afghanistan, India etc.

What would the probable response be to such a HAARP attack be? An armed conflict with USA? Or the elimination of the Petrodollar system and a subsequent dumping of surplus US$ into the international and US financial markets resulting in the quick collapse of the US$. Attacking these countries with HAARP would destabilize their economies and currencies and to prevent a move away from the US$ and the Petrodollar system.

Nalliah Thayabharan
Jul 10, 2012 13:32

Africa is almost four times the size of the United States of America in land size and in all kinds of riches, especially in raw materials such as platinum, cobalt, uranium, tantalum, gold, diamonds and oil. There is hardly an agricultural product that cannot be grown in Africa. Africa’s arable land for food security is reported to be the largest in the world. But Africa’s riches including her human resources have been brutally looted by imperialist countries for centuries and still are, even under supposedly liberated Africa. Africa was destroyed by imperialist Europe and is still being destroyed by Europe. The effects of colonialism past and present are visible all over Africa.

Africa is the Mother of Humanity. Africa is the cradle of the first human civilisation – the Mother of Nations. The First Renaissance on this planet was the African Renaissance. Africa was “the first world” economically. Ancestors of Africa built the pyramids which even in this 21st century no one can reproduce. Africans built the city of Memphis in ancient Egypt in 3100 B.C. Greeks built Athens in 1200 B.C. The Romans built Rome in 1000 B.C. Up to the 14th century A.D. Africa was ahead of Europe or on par with Europe militarily. The Romans used spears and Africans used spears in war. Earlier educated Greeks received their education in Africa, to be precise in Mizraim (ancient Egypt). Africans invented writing. It was Hieroglyphics before 3000 B.C. and Hieratic alphabet shortly after this. Demotic writing was developed about 6OO B.C., while a Kushite script was used in 300 B.C. Other African scripts were Merotic, Coptic, Amharic, Sabean, G’eez, Nsibidi of Nigeria and Mende of Mali. There were many others such as the Twi alphabet of the Twi people of Ghana.

The Africa was the place of birth of human kind, and that for thousands of years…Africa was in the forefront of all world progress. In Africa that history began. Africa remains the privileged source of the manifestations of intense human creativity. Up to the 14th century A.D. Africa was ahead of Europe or on par with Europe militarily. The Romans used spears and Africans used spears in war. Earlier educated Greeks received their education in Africa, to be precise in Mizraim (ancient Egypt). The people of Azania whose country colonialists called “South Africa” through the British imperialist Union of South Africa Act 1909; mined gold and copper in Mapungubwe as early as the 9th century.

The “Atlantic” Ocean was called the Ethiopian Sea as late as 1626 and the “Indian” Ocean the Azanian Sea. The Azanian civilisation, has a long history. Azania like Kush, Mizraim, Egypt, Kemet, Ethiopia means Blackman’s country or continent. In 1930 excavations at Mapungubwe in the area of Limpopo River revealed skeletal remains of people that became known as ancient Azanians.These Africans were also referred to as Kushites or descendants of Kush.
In fact, in 1990, Dr. Gert Viljoen who was F.W. de Klerk’s Minister of Constitutional Affairs gave reasons why his apartheid colonialist regime would not negotiate with those African revolutionaries who subscribed to the Azanian school of thought.

Africa has suffered the worst genocide and holocaust at the hands of the architects of slavery and colonialism. What is called “European Renaissance” was the worst darkness for Africa’s people. Armed with the technology of the gun and the compass it copied from China, Europe became a menace for Africa against her spears. So-called “civilised” Europe also claiming to be “Christian” came up with the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. There was massive loss of African population and skills. Some historians have estimated that the Gold Coast (today’s Ghana) alone, lost over 2 million of its people to slavery for four hundred years.

What would have been Britain’s level of development had millions of her people been put to work as slaves out of their country over a period of four centuries?

As if slavery had not already done enough damage to Africa’s people, European leaders met in Germany from December 1884 to February 1885 at the imperialist Berlin Conference. The Belgian King Leopold stated the purpose of the Berlin Conference as “How we should divide among ourselves this magnificent African cake.”

Africa was thus plunged into another human tragedy. Through the Berlin Treaty of February 26, 1885, the European imperialists sliced Africa into “Portuguese Africa”, “British Africa”, “German Africa”, “Italian Africa,” “Spanish Africa”, “French Africa” and “Belgian Africa.” There was no Africa left for Africans except Ethiopia, encircled by paupers of land dispossessed people who were now the reservoir of cheap native labour for their dispossessors.

Somalia, a tiny African country, had the misfortune of becoming “British Somaliland”, “Italian Somaliland”, and “French Somaliland.” Colonial brutality on the colonised Africans knew no bounds. Here are a few examples of atrocities committed against Africans by colonialists. A British philosopher, Betrand Russell wrote about some of these colonial atrocities perpetrated by Belgium in the Congo in the name of “Western Christian Civilisation.” Russell wrote, “Each village was ordered by the authorities to collect and bring in a certain amount of rubber – as much as the men could bring in by neglecting all work for their own maintenance.

If they failed to bring the required amount, their women were taken away and kept as hostages…in the harems of colonial government employees. If this method failed…troops were sent to the village to spread terror, if necessary by killing some of the men…they were ordered to bring one right hand amputated from an African victim for every cartridge used.” (Introduction To African Civilisations, John G. Jackson 310-311)

The result of these atrocities according to Sir H.H. Johnston was the reduction of the population in the Congo from twenty million to nine million people in fifteen years.

The worst genocide also occurred in Namibia in 1904. Namibia was then a German colony. The Herero people resisted German colonialism. A well armed army under General Lothar von Trotha defeated the Hereros at the Battle of Waterberg. The German colonial aggressors drove these Africans from their land to the desert where there was no water. Seventy percent of the Herero population died of dehydration in that desert. In South Africa the Khoisan people were exterminated by colonialists after being hunted like animals and dispossessed of their land.

Colonised Africans were treated not only as sub-humans, they were denied basic rights such as education and the right to land for decent housing, farming, mining and fishing. Colonial functionaries were honoured for barbaric actions and atrocities. The British government honoured its colonial officials such as “Sir Andries Stockkenstrom”. He had earlier said:

“The question of robbing natives of their land is not whether it is right or wrong to plunder their land, massacre and exterminate the Hottentots, the Kaffirs…the simple question is will it PAY? But if the Bible and the missionary stands in the way of this one thousand per cent profit…If in short, they cannot promote the great work of converting a nation of shop-keepers into a nation of millionaires,…gun powder will produce a more efficient gospel for the purpose of our system of civilisation.” (R.U. Kenny, Piet Retief, Cape Town and Pretoria: Human & Reason, 1976 page 77)

When introducing inferior education for African mental enslavement in South Africa, Hendrik F. Verwoerd that arch implementer of apartheid colonialism said, “There is no place for him (the African) in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour. Until now, he (the African) has been subjected to a school system which drew him away from his community and misled him by showing him the green pastures of the European society where he is not allowed to graze.” (‘Apartheid: The Story Of A Dispossessed People, Motsoko Pheko page 150 Marram Books London 1984)

Slavery and colonialism enriched Europe and reduced Africa to abject poverty. The riches of Africa and her raw materials fuelled the economies of imperialist countries. The British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill bore testimony to this fact when he said:

“Our possession of the West Indies gave us the strength, the support, but especially the capital, the wealth, at the time when no other European nations possessed such reserve, which enabled us to come through the great struggles of the Napoleonic Wars. The keen competition of commerce in the 18th and 19th centuries enabled us not only to acquire this appendage of possessions which we have, but also to lay the foundations of that commercial and financial leadership which when the world was young,…enabled us to make our great position in the world.” (‘The Long Road To Humanity’, by Stanton A. Coblentz page 325 and Introduction To African Civilisations John G. Jackson page 306)

It was against this background of genocide in the name of “European civilisation” that Africans in the Diaspora who had been shipped from Africa and enslaved in the West Indies and in the Americas realised that the solution to Africa’s people both at home and abroad was Pan-Africanism. Pan-Africanism is a political philosophy that was conceived in the womb of Africa. Pan-Africanism was formally organised in 1900 by Selvester Henry Williams.

It’s relevance to Africa’s people as a solution to their problems is indisputable. Its effectiveness and prowess were demonstrated at the 5th Pan African Congress in Manchester in 1945. It is Pan Africanism that won present political freedom for Africa and reversed the African tragedy and humiliation that was orchestrated at the Berlin Conference. It is Pan Africanism that brought about the Organisation of African Unity, the African Union, the Pan African Parliament and Africa Liberation Day that Africa’s people throughout the world are commemorating each year. It is Africa’s Pan Africanist spirit that led to assisting African Liberation Movements of Southern Africa against colonialism.

Pan Africanist pioneers including a few in the Diaspora such as Henry Sylvester Williams, Marcus Garvey, W.E. B. Du Bois, George Padmore, C.L.R. James, Frantz Fanon, Yosef Makonen, Malcom X, John Hendrik Clarke, Edward Wilmot Blyden, Binito Sylvania and Martin Delany, worked so hard to bring Africans to where they are today.In fact, Marcus Garvey was the first to organise Africans globally on the principles of Black Consciousness and Pan Africanism.

The pioneers of liberation in Africa such as Nkrumah, Patrce Lumumba, Julius Nyerere, Ahmed Ben Bella, Abdel Nasser, Modibo Keita, Ahmed Sekou Toure fought, the first stage of African liberation with distinction. That is political freedom. But they are now reminding this generation that there is much to be done. True sons and daughters of Africa must tighten their belts for a more fierce war. That is a war against neo-colonialism – the last stage of imperialism. The battle cry is now for economic liberation of Africa and her technological advancement.

A glaring example of the riches of Africa is the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country of Patrice Lumumba. Economic experts have pronounced that, when developed Congo alone can feed and provide electricity for the whole of Africa. During the Second World War, the Nazi forces of Hitler over-ran Belgium. The Belgians established their government-in-exile in London. How did Belgium manage financially? Well, Congo was their colony. Let this come from the horse’s mouth. Godding was the Colonial Secretary of the Belgian Government-in- exile. He boasted:
“During the War, the Congo was able to finance expenditure of the Belgian Government-in-exile in London, including the diplomatic service as well as the cost of armed forces in Europe and America. The Belgian gold reserve could be left intact.”

To this minute, Africa’s riches are fuelling the economies of imperialist countries. Africans remain the poorest people in the world amidst their own riches in their own African Continent. As the late President Kwame Nkrumah put it, “If Africa’s resources were used in her own development they would place Africa among the most modernised continents of the world. But Africa’s wealth is used for the development of overseas interests.”

Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe the Pan-Africanist giant that was banned “this side of eternity” as John B. Vorster put it, declared, “The potential wealth of Africa in minerals, oil, hydro-electric power, and so on, is immense.” Sobukwe envisioned that by the end of the 20th century, “the standard of living of the African masses will undoubtedly have arisen dramatically.” Lo! This has not happened.

Perhaps, venerated Martyr Steve Biko was being prophetic of the African condition, when he said, “At the end of it all, the Blacks have nothing to lean on, nothing to cheer them up at the present moment, and very much to be afraid of the future.”

Whenever an African country is about to be liberated, imperialists have always divided liberation movements into radicals, extremists and militants and so-called moderates. Colonialists have often called these so-called moderates to the “negotiating table” and offered them the flag and parliament – things Africans never made the fundamental objective of their liberation struggle.

From day one of the arrival of colonial invaders in Africa, the primary objective of Africans’ struggle was repossession of their land and its riches taken from Africans at gunpoint. Anyone one who doubts this historic fact must consult Kings Sekhukhene, Makado, Hintsa, Cetshwayo, Moshoeshoe, Makana and Bambatha, even Mzilikazi for that matter. Land is what African people have died for, for over three hundred years of their existence, in their case in Azania.

A Kenyan political activist and former presidential candidate, Koigi Mamwere, captured this truism accurately in April 2000 when he proclaimed:

“Today, Europeans own almost all the land in the Americas, almost all the good land in Australia, New Zealand and Tasmania and most of the best land in African countries like South Africa, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Kenya. To acquire this land outside Europe, Europeans did not use law, justice or money. They took the land and its riches with the gun….Europeans continue to own millions and millions of hectares of the best land in Africa….Whatever Robert Mugabe’s past mistakes, we must agree that on this one question of finally redistributing land to African people, he is 1OO% right…”

“Regime change” is the new name coined by imperialists to continue with colonialism in a new form. The political situation in “post independent” Africa demonstrates that any true leaders, who the imperialists perceive as a threat to their economic interests, are targeted through aggressive campaigns such as “regime change.” Some of these leaders were Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba, Chief Moshodi Abiola and recently Maummar Gaddafi.

So far, imperialists have found President Robert Mugabe a hard nut to crack. Two British Prime Ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and President George Bush of America have become despicable casualties in the battle field of “regime change” in Zimbabwe against President Robert Mugabe. The imperialist European leaders have gone down the political drain, on the shores of Africa. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France who enthusiastically created a “New Libya” in the imperialist war for “regime change” ia already the political dustbin of history.

Mugabe is still standing. He is still in command. Africa needs more African leaders like President Mugabe. Otherwise, Africa’s authentic liberation will never arrive.

Under America’s Bill Clinton’s government Chief Moshodi Abiola, a democratically elected Presidential candidate was prevented from taking power in Nigeria. Abiola was a staunch defender of Africa’s economic liberation. In 1993, he convened the First Pan African Conference on Reparations. In his speech inter alia, he said:

“Our demand for reparations is based on the tripod of moral, historical and legal argument….Who knows what path Africa’s social development would have taken if great centres of African civilisation had not been destroyed in search of human cargo by Europeans? Who knows how our economics would have developed?”

Chief Abiola added, “It is international law which compels Nigeria to pay its debts to Western banks. It is international law that must now demand Western nations to pay us what they have owed us for nearly six centuries.”

There are two main things that Africans must do to advance Africa’s authentic liberation. African rulers must exercise sovereignty over African lands and riches and use them for the benefit of their people. This is true national independence from colonialism and imperialism. Secondly, education is the key to the development of Africa, wise control of her raw materials and use of her human resources. Quality education is the key to creating, owning and controlling Africa’s wealth and mentally decolonising her people’s captured minds.

Africa needs a diverse education that is tailored to the economic needs of her people. That education must be free for the poor. No African child must be without education, merely because of his or her condition of poverty. And these African children must be taught the true history of Africa, not the colonial history of Africa’s invaders that is full of perfidy to protect their colonial interests.

All African countries must prioritise the study of science, technology, economics and finance and of course International Law. Africa’s children must be equipped with skills and professions that arm their countries with technological capacity to process Africa’s raw materials and export them to the outside world as finished goods. An African nation that exports its raw materials unprocessed will remain a perpetual pauper.

Where there is urgent need or desperate lack of high technology to process raw materials rapidly, African countries must exchange Africa’s raw materials for high technology; not for cash or foreign goods. Countries that enrich themselves from Africa’s raw materials are secretive and refuse to transfer technology to Africa. Knowledge is power.

Africans both on the continent and in the Diaspora must have the agenda for economic liberation of Africa and technological advancement.

Pan-Africanism is more relevant to the African world today than when it was formalised over one hundred and twenty years ago. Yes, Africans may be Jamaicans, Tanzanians, Trinidadians, Kenyans, Zimbabweans, Angolans, Nigerians, Ghanaians, Basotho, Zambians, Namibians, South Africans, Azanians, African Americans, Afro- Brazilians etc. But the train that will take all Africans to their destination and give them power to take their destiny into their hands is the Pan African train.

It is not ethnicity, regionalism, sectarian politics or flirtation with the forces of neo-colonialism and imperialism. Forces that are determined to make Africans their perpetual slaves work together against Africans. A divided Africa cannot defeat these plunderers and thieves.

Africans need to ignite their Pan African Nationalism. Pan African Nationalism is the privilege of all Africans wherever they may be to love themselves and to give their way of life preference. Pan African Nationalism views the personhood and humanity of the African people and of the people of African descent as equal to any other human beings on this planet. Pan African Nationalism rejects with contempt any philosophy that holds that Africa’s people are destined to exist in servitude to other human beings. Pan African Nationalism does not look down on other members of the human race.

But it demands justice for African people. Africa’s riches belong to Africans. They are there for the benefit of the African people. They are not there to fuel foreign economies and perpetuate economic exploitation and poverty of African people.

The ultimate goal of African political struggle was to regain African lands and economic power, and rapidly advance Africa’s people technologically.

The question is not whether economic liberation for Africa is winnable. The critical question is whether African can afford not to win such a life and death struggle and therefore, continue to be the wretched of the earth in their own country and continent. The economic freedom of Africa is winnable. But it starts with the recognition that the greatest damage colonialism did was on African minds. Africans must decolonise their minds. Only mentally liberated Black people with a vision for their country and continent can win Africa’s authentic liberation for themselves and their children.

Jews had been living in North Africa for many centuries when Europeans expanded their toehold on the dark continent in the 19th century. Some Jewish communities trace their presence in North Africa from Roman times. The expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula in the late 15th century gave the local Jewish communities a demographic and economic boost, especially in Oran and Algiers. A lot of Jews kept their Iberian tongue (Ladino) as a lingua franca among themselves, similar to the function of Yiddish for their Eastern European brethren.

In 1830 the French occupied most of the coastal plains of modern day Algeria and gradually began to root their colonial occupation into local communities. Indigenous tribes supplied soldiers for auxiliary colonial troops called Harkis and the Jews were recruited as local officials. From 1845 rabbis from the French mainland were sent to local Jewish communities “to inculcate unconditional obedience to the laws, loyalty to France, and the obligation to defend it.” The French government granted Algerian Jews French citizenship in 1870, putting them on a par with the French colonists from the mainland.

During the 19th century most Jews in North Africa discarded local customs and clothing in favor of the French language, culture and dress. Their affiliation with French culture and power also brought Jews protection, as in Tunisia after 1855. After a legal dispute with the local Arab Prince about blasphemy, the French emperor Napoleon III intervened with a naval force in favor of the Jews. Jews were subsequently granted equal religious rights but more legal rights than locals: Jewish assessors were attached to criminal courts to provide input on the sentences incurred by Jews charged with crimes in order to safeguard a fair trial.

Jewish collusion with the French in the occupation of North Africa, ultimately encompassing Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, had also negative side-effects in regions which were not firmly in French control. In Morocco, which remained independent until the beginning of the 20th century, Jews were always targeted by the public when the French launched military campaigns against Morocco or other local powers defying French expansion. Jews were seen as traitors by the local population, which were deprived of the right to vote and were economically deprived in favor of French settlers and their Jewish henchmen.

In Algeria the number of French citizens reached 1.4 million in 1961 (13% of the total population), including 140,000 Jews (10% of all French citizens). Those settlers dominated public life in the big cities, enjoyed colonial privileges and were in control of the economy. Jews were often the middlemen between the French rulers and the local subjects, because they knew the country best. The local Muslim population resented French occupation, not in the least place by their display of cultural-religious power by erecting huge cathedrals and synagogues. The Algerian war of independence was an exceptionally brutal one with terrorism, torture and murder squads from both sides. It was been estimated that approximately 1,000,000 Algerians lost their lives in the struggle for independence.

The French in Algeria had the ruthless parachute general Massu and the OAS (Organisation de l’armée secret: Secret Army), which was ultimately suppressed by none other than De Gaulle. De Gaulle granted Algeria independence in 1962, which led to the exodus of French colonials (Pieds noirs: blackfeet) and their Jewish collaborators. In the newly founded Algerian republic, both Christians and Jews were excluded from Algerian citizenship in revenge for support for the French occupation.

Most Jews left Algeria for France but a substantial portion went to Israel, the post-colonial apartheid state in the Middle East. Israel was founded in 1948 by a Jewish settler-minority from Europe, which deposed the Arab majority by brutal expulsion. The remaining natives were politically disenfranchized and economically exploited, similar to the French occupation of Algeria. It was (and is) seen as an offspring of European colonial domination: for example, the Balfour Declaration of 1916 by the colonial power Britain, and the Israel’s siding with the colonial powers France and Great-Britain against Egypt during the Suez crisis in 1956.

The Six Day War of 1967 sealed the fate of most Jewish communities in North Africa as locals cracked down on them as a result of Israeli victory over Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The point here is that in the case of French colonialism and throughout their history, Jews have not only been victims but have also been deeply complicit in actions now viewed as morally repugnant by the international community. The fact that throughout the Western world Jews are seen only as victims is far more an indication of Jewish power to control their image than a reflection of historical reality.

On November 23rd 2010, an important story reported in the Hebrew press of the Zionist entity, then picked up by the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Press TV, revealed a rather bothersome development. A retired “Israeli” colonel by the name of Avi Sivan had died in a helicopter crash near Yaounde, the capital of the Central African nation of Cameroon. Sivan was responsible for training the Cameroonian presidential guard and was also the head of the Jewish supremacist entity’s military delegation to Cameroon . The question was, “if the Zionist entity’s tentacles in Africa had penetrated a nation as geopolitically obscure as Cameroon, where else was it reaching?” To be blunt, the answer is, “everywhere.” On the books, the usurping Jewish regime has intelligence contacts in Eritrea, Kenya, Malawi, Zaire, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Egypt and Morocco.

Off the books, the list is even more extensive and thus, a brief but precise overview is necessary. Firstly, it must be understood that even America’s policies towards Africa, in fact, its entire geopolitical network of stratagems for the continent, are shaped by the Zionist regime itself and its plethora of think tanks. Secondly, the pestilential plan of senior “Israeli” foreign policy advisor Oded Yinon, “A Strategy For Israel In The 1980s,” a plot discussed on numerous occasions here at Mask of Zion, which features the fragmentation and dissolution of Sudan and Libya as prominent points, has been exported by the Zionist regime across the African continent. “Yinon Africa” is being assisted by the Ugandan dictatorship of Museveni, the corrupt regime in Kenya and the longtime marionette of Zionism, Ethiopia. The objectives of “Yinon Africa” are to balkanize the continent on three lines: ethno-linguistics, skin color and religion. Additionally, the concept of a US Military Central Command in Africa (AFRICOM), was designed and promoted by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), the same Zionist think tank that produced the infamous “Clean Break” papers.

The malevolent apartheid regime of South Africa is perhaps where the Jewish supremacist entity’s ties were the strongest. In South Africa, Jews benefited and thrived under the racist regime’s protection, maintaining and strengthening their ties with the Zionist entity. The Board of Deputies of South African Jewry, a major Zionist Lobby front on the African continent, declared “neutrality” in regards to apartheid so Jewish interests weren’t compromised. The “Israeli” security establishment saw the relationship with South Africa so vital in fact that, it actually believed the ties saved the Jewish “state” from extinction. The Zionist entity didn’t just provide a plethora of arms to the apartheid regime, it “created the South African arms industry.” Zionist occupation officers also assisted Pretoria with its operations (read: atrocities) in Angola and, from the illegal Jews-only colony of Kibbutz Beit Alfa, “Israel” developed a profitable industry selling anti-riot vehicles to the apartheid regime. Most astoundingly, Zionism provided South Africa with nuclear technology and expertise, helping it build its own miniature nuclear arsenal (45). Needless to say, every drop of South African blood spilled by the apartheid regime, especially in its last days, is on the hands of “Israel.”

Speaking of Angola, where the Zionist entity was active with South African forces, it should be mentioned that Angolan warlord Jonas Savimbi, the seemingly eternal darling puppet of America’s Jewish Lobby, the neoconservative establishment and “Israel,” was assassinated by Zionist special forces when he no longer served a purpose.

Nowhere has the usurping and criminal Zionist entity been more successful in executing destruction than Sudan, a prime target of the Yinon Plan in its past and current incarnations. Oil-rich Sudan has been cracked in half, its unity split and destroyed. The Zionist dragon’s military-intelligence apparatuses designed this balkanization, instigated it, funded the players and from Uganda to Ethiopia, it still maintains agents and assets to uphold the new fragmented Sudanese status quo. “Israel” has already entered the new, fabricated nation-state of ‘South Sudan.’ The deceptive and dangerous IsraAID, backed by Zionist Lobby organizations like the American Jewish Committee and United Jewish Appeal, is on the ground. The newly-created Zionist puppet state has opened its doors to “Israeli” companies to do business in the fields of agriculture, infrastructure, security and medicine, business worth hundreds of millions of dollars. South Sudan views this gesture as gratitude for the Zionist dragon’s committed military and intelligence support to its ‘rebellion.’ And now, to make the relationship between South Sudan and Zionism globally legitimate, full diplomatic relations have been established between the two entities so Tel Aviv can officially take control of South Sudan’s oil-rich economy.

“Israel” has been exceedingly active in Ethiopia for decades upon decades but 1990 is where relations hit new peaks. The Zionist regime fueled the Ethiopian Civil War as a testing ground for what it could do with its real enemies, Iraq, Syria and Iran. “Israel” supplied the regime ofwar criminal and collaborator Mengistu Haile Mariam with cluster bombs, several hundred IOF military trainers to guide the Ethiopian Army, 150,000 bolt-action rifles and an unknown number of its patented “Uzi” machine gun. The assistance has continued under the rule of Ethiopian Prime Minister and horrific human rights abuser Meles Zenawi Asres, in power since the fall of Mariam, with the most recent development being the purchase of murderous drones from the “Israeli” firm, Bluebird.

Kenya has been dear to the heart of the Jewish “state” since its assistance to Mossad and Aman during Operation Entebbe. In late November, the Kenyan regime signed a security pact that would have “Israeli” security consultants sent to the East African nation to govern its assault against the Islamic Resistance of occupied Somalia, Al-Shabab. The Somali Resistance assailed the Kenyan regime for the traitorous move, slamming the deal as an attack on Islam. The Zionist entity has provided Kenya with weapons in the past and this pact will significantly expand the existent ties, which is promising for “Israeli” arms firms; as usual, the innocent civilians already being butchered in the Zionist proxy war are of no concern to the Jewish “state”,considering that the civilians are of African origin and therefore “cursed” in Zionist eyes.

The “Israel”-Kenya dirty deal is already “bearing fruit,” as Kenya has allowed the usurping Jewish entity to house 5 drones in a Kenyan military base on the border with Somalia in exchange for a stash of heavy weaponry and 13 “Israeli” military advisors making their home in Kenya. The Zionist drones have illegally taken to the skies in Somalia and launched hellish missile attacks, with the latest one murdering at least 17 innocents and wounding more than 60 others. A 53-year old IAF engineer named Hanoch Miller, who founded a defense firm called Radom Aviation which has worked with “Israeli” Aerospace Industries, has been caught attempting to smuggle weapons to the pathetic puppet regime in Somalia, which is fully complicit in the crimes against the Somali people carried out by the US-backed UN-AU occupation. Though Miller appears to be acting independently, this is highly suspect due to his elite status in the IAF and the fact that the Zionist entity wants to establish relations with the regime (54). Only because of the steadfast Resistance of Al-Shabab has Somalia not been colonized, but it is indeed in the sights of the Merhav Group of “Israel,” a powerful Mossad-run consortium headed by elite Mossad agent Yosef A. Maiman that has already taken over the energy interests of occupied Afghanistan.

Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, a revolutionary and four-decade resistor of Zionism and Western domination loved dearly by his people, is dead. In an operation led by NATO and its rebels, Gaddafi was sodomized and tortured before he was murdered. The invasion, which took place on the Jewish revenge holiday of Purim, like Iraq before it, was designed by the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), the renamed Jewish-Zionist “Cabal” once known as the Project for a New American Century, and the despicable lies of “human rights violations” and “impending genocide” used by the Zionist media to sell the invasion to the world were generated by UN Watch, a Zionist affiliate of AIPAC’s foreign policy wing, the American Jewish Committee, and headed by “Israeli” citizen Hillel Neuer. Gaddafi was planning to introduce a gold dinar into the African economy for oil trade, a move that would have devastated Jewish-Zionist financial domination of the continent. The NATO rebels are not only willing to recognize the usurping Zionist regime, they are prepared to let it establish a base in eastern Cyrenaica on a 30-year lease. Gaddafi is spinning in his grave.

Another African revolutionary life that “Israel” ended was that of Mehdi Ben Barka, routinely described as the “Moroccan Che Guevara” and, “the Frantz Fanon of Morocco.” The Zionist entity’s Mossad kidnaped the great revolutionary theoretician and murdered him in cold blood.

Nigeria as of late has been rocked by an unrelenting campaign of violent car bombings, including a horrific attack on Christmas Day, which the Zionist media blames on an Islamic group known throughout the capital of Abuja and other cities for its social services, Boko Haram. Nigerian Muslims view the attacks as a means of instigating a religious war to divide the country on ethno-sectarian lines, as per one of the directives of “Yinon Africa,” and Nigerian Muslims also reject the idea that Boko Haram is behind the sophisticated attacks, saying it is far beyond their scope and antithetical to their agenda. They say that Boko Haram has become a “boogeyman” used by the Goodluck Jonathan regime to obtain Western grants. It is not by luck of any sort that the bombings in Nigeria began right around the same time that the Jonathan regime brought in a team of Mossad and CIA operatives, overseen by “Israeli” Ambassador to Nigeria Moshe Ram, to probe (read: run) its security services. The Zionist entity is attempting to break up Nigeria using the same successful methods it used in Sudan and it couldn’t be any clearer.

“Israeli” activity has even been found as far as the tiny island state of Madagascar, where an “illegal commando unit” of Zionist mercenaries led by 60-year old Joseph Akiva from the illegal Jewish settlement of Netanya were involved in a savage crackdown that left dozens of protesters dead. Akiva and his band of goons were suppressing rivals of former Madagascar President Marc Ravalomanana. Despite business interests on the Indian Ocean island involving construction, Akiva has been extradited back to occupied Palestine for his murderous criminal activity.

One of the most unknown examples of Zionist puppetry in Africa was “Emperor” of the Central African Republic, Jean-Bédel Bokassa. The closest friend of the megalomaniacal Bokassa was one of the usurping Jewish entity’s “famous generals,” General Shmuel Gonen-Gorodish. The “Israeli” general, in addition to his military and security advice, built up the public relations of Bokassa throughout the globe. Gonen-Gorodish also embezzled large amounts of taxes and customs from the state treasury. Though their relationship didn’t last long, when a military coup ousted Bokassa from power, Gonen-Gorodish helped him flee to the Ivory Coast, where, ironically enough, the luxury hotels, palaces of the rulers and monopolistic companies were all built with the close assistance of the private firms and racist Histadrut of the Zionist entity.

The coastal West African nation of Sierra Leone has been pillaged by some of the most vile elements of International Jewry. From the Brooklyn neighborhood of Brighton Beach, the small, troubled and diamond-rich Sierra Leone was “virtually run” by Marat Balagula, the Ukranian-Jewish mob boss of the most powerful criminal organization on earth, the Red Mafiya. Sierra Leone’s president, Joseph Momoh, didn’t have any problem with the Jewish syndicate setting up global smuggling and money laundering operations in Freetown because Balagula’s associates, in return, bankrolled Momoh’s 1985 presidential campaign. The Jewish ultra-gangster’s main contact in Sierra Leone was a Mossad agent named Shabtai Kalmanovitch, who trained Momoh’s presidential guard and assisted in the crushing of an attempted coup in 1986. Balagula and Kalmanovitch were introduced by Rabbi Ronald Greenwald, a frontman for the interests of Marc Rich, the famous billionaire Jewish criminal pardoned by Bill Clinton. This revelation shows a clear nexus between the “Israeli” entity and organized crime, united in the ancient Jewish hatred of the Black man, working together for the furtherance of Jewish interests.

In the Congo, where a catastrophic genocide has been occurring since 1996, in which up to 10 million people have died at a maddening rate of 1,500 a day, the profiteers of this downright insidious humanitarian disaster are almost exclusively Jewish and intimately linked to the larger network of international Zionism that has been responsible for every major conflict of the last century. Led by Dan Gertler, the grandson of Moshe Schnitzer, an Irgun terrorist known throughout the Zionist entity as “Mr. Diamond” and for founding the “Israel” Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings the usurping regime $14 billion annually in blood business, there is a Jewish-Zionist network in the Congo so interlocked, so powerful and so domineering, that it can truly make one’s head spin.

Gertler, a member of the influential Chabad Lubavitch supremacist gangster cult and guided by Rabbi Chaim Yaakov Leibovitch, is in bed with Jewish diamond dynasties that include the families of Templesman, Oppenheimer, Mendell, Blattner, Hertzov and Steinmetz, his main partner. The Chabadnik criminal bought off the Congolese government in exchange for high-level “Israeli” defense and intelligence assistance. The endeavors of Gertler and Beny Steinmetz, one of the richest Jews in the Zionist entity, have proliferated and today, they have a monopoly over Congo’s diamonds, a dominant stake in Congo’s copper and the largest cobalt-mining company in the world. And all of this blood money ties into Jewish organized crime, “Israeli” arms dealers, multiple influential Chabad houses and the Zionist occupation itself all the way up to Netanyahu’s office. Gertler, a Jewish supremacist of the highest order, revels in sucking the Congo’s blood and he’s so sadistically thirsty for it, he just won’t stop his criminality until there is nothing left but millions more dead.

If the late Mehdi Ben Barka was the “Moroccan Che Guevara,” then Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara, the Burkinabé revolutionary, Pan-Africanist and righteous leader of Burkina Faso from 1983-1987, was certainly the “Che Guevara of Africa.” Sankara was known for his incorruptibility and radical (and successful) policies that included land reform, women’s rights, literacy promotion, education, famine prevention, resource nationalization, anti-neoliberalism, anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism, public health care, social justice and legal punishment for all previous oppressors, colonialist and collaborator alike. Thomas Sankara was nothing short of remarkable. Unfortunately however, his extraordinary and pristine life came to an end on October 15th, 1987, when he was overthrown and executed in a coup d’état by incumbent Burkinabé president, Blaise Compaoré. It has been known, for quite some time, rather undisputably in all actuality, that French intelligence and the CIA aided the coup, but there is yet another player that isn’t discussed.

Not only has the usurping Zionist entity’s Foreign Affairs Ministry described Burkina Faso as “one of ‘Israel’s’ most loyal friends in Africa,” but Blaise Compaoré is an honorary member of The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, a known front for the usurping Jewish regime’s Mossad in which Yosef A. Maiman, the aforesaid Mossad agent who runs the Merhav Group of “Israel” consortium that is currently targeting Somalia, sits on the Board of Directors. The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation wasfounded by Argentine Jewish supremacist Baruch Tenembaum, a devoted Talmudist, Kabbalist and Zionist who made it his life’s work to undermine Christianity (69). The fact that Compaoré belongs to such an organization is damning; he is a Mossad asset and has been one from the moment that he sold his soul and Burkina Faso to the enemies of Thomas Sankara. Moreover, in a startling admission from former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas, it is now known that French intelligence is compromised and has been so for some time; the Zionist entity controls it. This is yet another damning piece of evidence that Thomas Sankara was indeed a martyr made so by Zionism.

The fallen Burkinabé hero’s widow, Mariam Sankara, declared with her head held high, “What remains above all of my husband is his integrity.” Indeed. And just one week before Mossad asset Compaoré led the coup against him which would result in his untimely death at the tender age of 36, Thomas would famously state, “While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas .” Indeed again.

The ideas of Thomas Sankara have not died; they are more alive now than ever before, in the hearts of the Islamic Resistance of Somalia and the Libyan Green Resistance fighting Zionist-designed occupations of their ravaged homelands, and in the streets of Tunisia, Egypt and Morocco, fighting counterrevolutions and repressive, pro-“Israel” dictatorships. What the people of Africa, Black and Arab, Christian and Muslim, and everything in between, must know, is that the Zionist entity, inspired by a primordial Jewish supremacist ideology, has no interest in your land except to exploit it, and exploit you. Zionism is a cancer that infests, infects and destroys everything in its path. But like any other cancer, it can be counteracted and cut out, so it never returns.

O’ Africa! Cut out the Zionist cancer from your midst. Cut it out like a knife to flesh and vow never to mix with it again. It is what Sankara would have wanted. It is what Gaddafi would have wanted. It is what Mehdi Ben Barka would have wanted. It is the right thing to do; the just thing, for all of the martyrs of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. For Rwanda. For the Congo. For Burkina Faso. For Somalia. For Zimbabwe. For Uganda. For anyone and everyone who has suffered at the hands of the usurping Jewish entity; to all oppressed people from Africa to what lies beyond its beautiful and ancient borders, heed the call: cut out the Zionist infestation before it is too late. Cut it out before you wake up one morning to the cruel jackboot of Jewish cultural imperialism stepping on your soul, with no Fela Anikulapo Kuti to remind you of the “Zombie” that now personifies your very existence.

Leave a Reply

Comment

 

More Ideas

More In Politics

More In Features

More In Profiles

More In Arts & Culture