Government-funded propaganda operation in Miami exposed

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse aqui

More than 2,200 pages of documents obtained through FOIA Government-funded propaganda operation in Miami exposed by Gloria La Riva Coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five In 1998, five Cuban men were arrested by the U.S. government and tried in Miami on charges of conspiring to commit espionage on the United States. The five men’s mission was to stop terrorism, keeping watch on Miami’s ultra-right extremists to prevent their violent attacks against Cuba. “The Cuban Five,” as they are now known, were convicted after repeated denials by the judge to move the trial venue out of Miami. The U.S. government insisted that they be tried in Miami. What the Cuban Five and their attorneys did not know during trial was that the U.S. government—through its official propaganda agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors—was covertly paying prominent Miami journalists who, at the same time as the government conducted its prosecution, saturated the Miami media with reports that were highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the Cuban Five. The presence of Miami journalists on the U.S. government payroll, who purported to report as “independent” press, goes to the heart of the unjust conviction of the Five. The Five were not only victims of a politically-motivated prosecution, but a government-funded propaganda operation as well. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for Colin Powell when he was Secretary State from 2001 to 2005, commented about the inability of the Cuban Five to receive a fair trial in Miami: When the case came to trial, a change of venue was warranted and asked for because no Miami court was going to give the Cuban Five a fair trial, since the city is largely in the hands of some of the very Cuban-Americans and their supporters who've allegedly perpetrated these atrocities on the Cuban people and are prepared to invade the island. But the change of venue motion was denied. And of course the five were convicted. Wilkerson has called for the release of the Cuban Five. So, too, has former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who stated: I believe that there is no reason to keep the Cuban Five imprisoned, there were doubts in the U.S. courts and also among human rights organizations in the world. Now, they have been in prison 12 years and I hope that in the near future they will be released to return home. Digging up the truth A multi-year effort by the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five, the civil rights legal organization the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and, most recently, Liberation newspaper, has uncovered thousands of pages of previously unreleased materials exposing this government operation. More than 2,200 pages of contracts between Miami journalists and Radio and TV Martí—released thus far to Liberation newspaper through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) petition—expose the fallacy of an independent press in Miami. This is the first in a series of articles about these new disclosures. The BBG and its Office of Cuba Broadcasting have operated Radio Martí since 1985 and TV Martí since 1990. They broadcast into Cuba with the intent to destabilize the government. They also broadcast directly into Miami. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 regulating U.S. “public diplomacy” abroad—Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio and TV Martí, etc.—prohibits the U.S. government from funding activities to influence and propagandize domestic public opinion, see 22 U.S.C. § 1461. The U.S. government has funneled nearly half a billion dollars into the Office of Cuba Broadcasting in Miami. With an annual budget nearing $35 million, the OCB and BBG put on their payroll domestic journalists to broadcast the same message inside and outside the United States on Cuba-related issues, effectively violating the law against domestic dissemination of U.S. propaganda. The earliest documents obtained thus far from the BBG go back to Nov. 1, 1999. Despite the FOIA petition request for data on the journalists going back to the date of the shoot-down in 1996—which also covers the date of the Five’s 1998 arrest—the BBG has so far refused to comply, claiming that contracts and other documents have been destroyed. These contracts evidence the U.S. government’s payments to journalists in Miami whose reports constituted a sustained effort to create an atmosphere of hysteria and bias against Cuba and the Cuban Five. Three of the Cuban Five—Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero and Ramón Labañino—have filed habeas corpus appeals arguing that their constitutional rights to due process were grossly undermined by the government’s media operation in Miami and payments to the Miami reporters. The reportage of these journalists and their contracts with the government demonstrate a close partnership between Washington and right-wing Cuban exile reporters. Prominent journalists who churn out biased anti-Cuba themes in the Miami media are richly rewarded with contracts from the BBG. Headquartered in Miami, Radio and TV Martí are the only U.S. propaganda stations that operate outside of the Washington, D.C., area. Moving to Miami in 1997, they were able to recruit a stable of virulent anti-Cuba reporters. Those contracted by the U.S. government also served as guests, hosts, regular commentators and writers of shows such as “Actualidad Mundial” (“World Update”), “Mesa Redonda” (“Roundtable”) and regular daily newscasts. In other words, they directed and shaped the message. At the same time that they are employed by the U.S. government, these journalists also hold themselves out as independent reporters covering U.S.-Cuban affairs in other media. Such is the case with Pablo Alfonso and Ariel Remos. Reporters condemn the Five before trial Pablo Alfonso was a longtime reporter for El Nuevo Herald. The contracts released by the Liberation newspaper FOIA show that Alfonso received BBG payments of $58,600 during the Cuban Five’s trial during the period between Nov. 1, 1999 and Dec. 31, 2001. His total payments were $252,325 through Aug. 22, 2007. Ariel Remos is a longtime reporter and commentator for Diario Las Américas. Remos received BBG payments of $11,750 during the Five’s trial from Nov. 1, 1999 to Dec. 12, 2001—roughly the same time span as Alfonso. His total pay was $24,350 through Nov. 20, 2006. During the Cuban Five’s prosecution, both Alfonso and Remos wrote incendiary articles that were placed in the Miami media accusing the Cuba government of murder. Brothers to the Rescue had repeatedly sent planes to invade Cuban airspace in 1995 and early 1996, including buzzing Havana buildings and dropping thousands of leaflets over the city. With the Brothers to the Rescue’s public announcement that they would once again fly into Cuban territory on Feb. 24, Cuba warned that it would take direct action if the planes invaded again. When the planes crossed into Cuban airspace, they were shot down. Virtual hysteria and demand for vengeance became pervasive in the Miami media in the aftermath of the shoot-down. Despite being in Miami, not Cuba, and playing no role whatsoever in Cuba’s action to defend its territory, Hernández became a scapegoat. Seven months after the Five were arrested, Hernández was charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Although trial judge Joan Lenard later claimed that the non-sequestered jury was sufficiently shielded from the media with her instructions that they should not follow the news during the trial, the Miami community had already been inundated with inflammatory coverage on the shoot-down for almost five years before the jury was selected. Alfonso and Remos pounded a steady drumbeat to condemn Fidel Castro for the plane shoot-down, and interviewed others who demanded his arrest for “murder.” Their articles were inflammatory and sensationalist. In 1999, while under contract with the U.S. government, Remos interviewed Tampa attorney Ralph Fernández—the legal representative of José Basulto, the president of Brothers to the Rescue. The article by Remos, dated Nov. 28, 1999, states: … [I]n the case of U.S. v. Gerardo Hernández, in which Caroline Heck-Miler has been serving as the prosecutor and where the chain of command and cause for the death of the four members of Brothers to the Rescue – three of them citizens of the US and one resident – supposedly begins with Fidel Castro. Castro, therefore, is in the referenced case accused of murder and under investigation for murder; and if he sets foot on United States territory he can be arrested and brought before the justice of this country. That is the opinion of attorney Fernández, and that is how he just told it to DIARIO LAS AMERICAS. The harm created by the partnership between the government and its paid journalists was reinforced during the trial itself. The trial began in November 2000 and concluded in June 2001. Three months into the trial, an article by Ariel Remos appeared in Diario las Americas (Feb. 27, 2001) under the headline “Jeane Kirkpatrick Asks Ashcroft to Prosecute Cuban Officials for International Terrorism.” The article reveals a letter to the new Bush administration attorney general, John Ashcroft, written by Kirkpatrick, the neo-conservative U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Reagan administration. The article highlights the claim made in the letter to Ashcroft that “in the upcoming trial of five Cuban officials in Florida, evidence has come forward that the murders [of the Brothers to the Rescue pilots] were premeditated,” as well as the complaint that the “highest authorities who approved this act of state terrorism, have still not been charged.” On its face, the “arrangement” between the government and the journalists covering Cuba and the Cuban Five prosecution clearly impacts—or rather negates—the possibility of a fair trial in Miami. But the government, in its April 25, 2011, “Response in Opposition” to a motion filed by Gerardo Hernández that appeals his double life sentence, puts forth a simple “you can’t ever catch me” defense. The government’s recent response, filed by the Obama administration’s Justice Department attorneys, argues that the articles written by the government’s paid journalists could have no possible impact either because A) they were published before the trial started; or B) they were published after the trial started and the jury was empanelled and admonished by the judge not to be influenced by the media. Thus, hostile and inflammatory media coverage could never be harmful to the defendants. According to the government, its pumping millions of dollars into the so-called “independent” media in Miami is of no significance or impropriety. However, the U.S. prosecutors knew that the judge’s instructions were insufficient to protect the trial process from undue media influence, as demonstrated by the government's motion filed by prosecutor Caroline Heck-Miller in December 2000 seeking a gag order to prohibit the press from quoting potential witnesses – out of concern that those witnesses would help the defense. The motion was filed after one potential witness, Richard Nuccio, had expressed disgust at learning that the FBI was aware that the shoot-down might occur before it had taken place. The government's motion stated: “…the jury in this trial has been strictly instructed not to read press accounts of the case, and there is no reason to believe that they have disregarded their instruction. Nonetheless, unbridled comment by persons who are designated witnesses in this matter, contrary to the Court’s clear directives, poses risks to the process that none of the parties should have to endure.” (emphasis added) The government knew and admitted the media could influence the jury. And it continued to pay reporters who were doing just that. It continued to simultaneously prosecute the Cuban Five in Miami in the midst of press-generated anti-Cuba hysteria that it generously funded. Creating a climate of hysteria Some of the journalists on the government payroll as of the date of the earliest 1999 documents released by the FOIA request were writing prejudicial articles about the Five immediately after their arrest. The coverage went far beyond regular news reporting on a breaking story of the arrests to create the specter of a supposed threat that the just-arrested defendants and Cuba held for the United States. On Sept. 16, 1998, four days after the arrest of the Five, Pablo Alfonso published a highly-inflammatory and unsubstantiated charge of a link of Cuba and its agents with terrorism. It appeared in El Nuevo Herald, titled “Possible Alliance with Terrorism.” As evidenced by documents released to the National Committee, Alfonso received over $250,000 in BBG contracts between 1999 and 2007. Alfonso writes: The surprising offensive against an alleged network of Cuban spies in Miami, may be an action aimed at preventing a possible collaboration between the Cuban government and countries involved in terrorist actions against the United States, according to military and intelligence experts who expressed this to El Nuevo Herald. In his article, Alfonso quotes Orestes Lorenzo, an ex-major of the Cuban Air Force who deserted to the United States in 1991: “It’s ridiculous to assume that the Cuban army can do something serious to the powerful US military”, Lorenzo indicated. “However, if we think in terms of services provided to terrorist groups or nations like Libya, Iran or the like, things change.” Lorenzo said that he isn’t surprised Fidel Castro’s regime is “lending or selling its intelligence services” to Islamic terrorist groups or powerful nations that are interested in carrying out terrorist acts on U.S. territory. Alfonso’s unsubstantiated story ends by turning the speculation of Cuba’s link to “Islamic” terrorists into a fact. This type of reporting contributed the political context and climate facing the Cuban Five following their arrest and all the way through their trial, jury deliberations and ultimate conviction. Cuba was painted as a terrorist entity by the Miami media, including by the inflammatory reports of anti-Castro journalists who wrote during the same period that the U.S. government was prosecuting the Cuban Five in Miami and who have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the U.S. government. Wilfredo Cancio Isla, according to contracts published by Liberation newspaper, received $4,725 from Sept. 30, 2000, to Dec. 3, 2001—dates within the period of the Five’s prosecution. His contract P109-1036 with Radio Martí committed him to weekly “debate” participation on the station through Sept. 30, 2001. His total pay was $21,800 through Nov. 20, 2006. During this same period, Cancio published the unsubstantiated U.S. government accusations in El Nuevo Herald that the jury was not permitted to hear in the courtroom. Yet those charges would appear in the press for all to read, including the unsequestered jury. On June 4, 2001, the day the jury was to begin deliberations, a Cancio article appeared in El Nuevo Herald with the headline “Cuba Used Hallucinogens to Train its Spies.” This inflammatory article—supposedly based on information from an anonymous “Cuban spy defector”—claimed that Cuba gave LSD and other hallucinogens for “behavior modification” for the purposes of “intelligence and counter-intelligence.” The supposed “anonymous” ex-spy defector given two pseudonyms—Alex and José—conveniently links the drug accusation with the Cuban Five. Cancio writes: Cuba experimented with hypnosis techniques and hallucinogens to "modify the behavior" of numerous agents who were sent abroad ... "Among these hallucinogens were psilocybin and LSD. ..." [as described by his source, Alex] “I can assure you that the Wasp Network (broken up in September 1998) is just a part of the espionage work that was conceived to infiltrate the United States on a long-term basis,” said Alex, who now lives in southern Florida. [The Wasp Network is a reference to the Cuban Five.] It is clear that the Cuban Five political prisoners were victims of vicious anti-Cuba propaganda by reporters on the payroll of their very accusers, the U.S. government. The Reporters for Hire website will soon be publishing other articles and releasing additional documents obtained from the BBG exposing this illegal government propaganda operation and manipulation of the justice system. Contributing to this article was Ben Becker, editor of Liberation newspaper. Read Part 2 of the series here

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse aqui

To celebrate Unite State Independence day

The Continental Congress of the United States declared the country independence in their convention in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. at first, the celebrations were scattered and sporadic, but as the years passed, the tradition of parades, picnics, and fireworks increased and prospered and so is now a big party in which i am not sure if the government remember what the statement says, this is the end:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."


I want to celebrate with the American people but in a way that everyone knows that "pledge my life, my finances and my sacred honor" to fight for peace and sovereignty of all people and against the war in any country of the world.
I will wear a headscarf as Arabic woman do, this 4 July s, in honor of them, in solidarity with them.

-pagina inicial - home page-

Missing Iraqi oil money

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Iraq’s parliament is chasing about $17 billion of Iraqi oil money it says was stolen after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and has asked the United Nations for help to track it down.

The missing money was shipped to Iraq from the United States to help with reconstruction after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

In a letter to the U.N. office in Baghdad last month, Parliament’s Integrity Committee asked for help to find and recover the oil money taken from the Development Fund of Iraq (DFI) in 2004 and lost in the chaos that followed the invasion.

"All indications are that the institutions of the United States of America committed financial corruption by stealing the money of the Iraqi people, which was allocated to develop Iraq, (and) that it was about $17 billion," said the letter sent to the U.N. with a 50-page report.

But most telling is: "In 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued an order granting immunity to U.S. personnel and institutions working in Iraq. ... ’We cannot sue the Americans. Laws do not allow us to do that...’"

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

US Planning to Grab Venezuela’s Oil, by Nil Nikandrov

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

There is a growing impression that Venezuela with its oil riches is the next country on the US hit list. Latin America analyst Nil Nikandrov opines that one would have to be a hopeless idealist to believe that - after US crusades swept across Asian and African oil-producing countries - the Venezuelan oil deposits so far remaining beyond the US control would somehow evade Washington’s appetite.
The United States slapped sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil giant PDVSA on 25 May 2011 in a more aggressive effort to disrupt Iran’s fuel supplies. The banner says: "Venezuela now belongs to all". According to various estimates, Venezuela’s fuel reserves should last for 100-150 years under the conditions of strenuous exploitation.

The now-permanent US war over oil against Venezuela commenced in December, 2002 when the management of the country’s oil giant PDVSA staged a strike involving a total of around 20,000 personnel. Chavez’s foes expected that a destabilization across the Venezuelan oil sector, lines at gas stations, and problems with gas supply to households would shatter the defiant regime, but its supporters did not give in. The strike ended with a defeat in February 2003 and PDVSA was converted into a state-run company. The pro-US fifth column entrenched in PDVSA was exposed and many of its leaders fled from Venezuela. Some 15,000 oil sector employees were fired and the losses resulting from the turmoil topped $10b.

Rebuilding PDVSA was an uphill task for the Venezuelan administration and the part of the company’s personnel who had resisted the conspirators’ threats and blackmail. Chavez’s steps aimed at strengthening OPEC, subjecting the oil output to regulation, and maintaining fair prices helped boost the influence exercised globally by the cartel, Russia whose economy is propped up by oil revenues being among the beneficiaries. Chavez’s support also helped Cuba which was widely seen as a country on the brink to make it through an energy crisis.

Grim forecasts for Chavez and his designs like Venezuela’s original brand of socialism, discount supplies to same-orbit countries, and the establishment of the Petrocaribe alliance were churned out by analysis tightly linked to international energy grands but failed to materialize. The political regime in Venezuela and Chavez’s standing in international politics are largely sustained by the country’s potential in the energy sphere, and Venezuela’s case exemplifies the simple truth that state control over energy resources is in all cases the key to maintaining domestic stability.

President Hugo Chávez (L) with the head of Venezuela’s state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), who said the "imperialist" United States could "go to hell" after it slapped sanctions on the company over alleged ties to Iran. It would be naive to accept the explanation that Washington stamped sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector solely to punish PDVSA for sending a tanker with 20,000 tons of gasoline to Iran. US Deputy Secretary of State James B. Steinberg stressed that companies from other countries faced similar sanctions as a wider warning message against energy engagement with Tehran.

True, so far the sanctions imposed on Venezuela more or less read as a mere act of intimidation: the Venezuelan oil sector is debarred from contracts with US companies, export and import borrowings, and the acquisition of advanced oil extraction and refinement technologies. PDVSA can easily survive all of the above - it stayed clear of the US administration and finances for ages, and has a serious independent park of technologies.

Chavez responded to pressure from the US Department of State via Twitter: “Sanctions against the Patria of Bolívar? Imposed by the gringo imperialist government? Well then: Bring them on, Mr. Obama! Don’t forget that we are the sons of Bolívar!” and projected that PDVSA would not be shut out of the US market. When news about the sanctions spread on May 24, Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolás Maduro told the media that the country’s government was probing into the potential consequences for the stability of PDVSA and the supply of 1.2m bpd of crude to the US market. Maduro pledged an “adequate response to the imperialist aggression” and said Venezuela would more than ever be committed to fraternal relations with Iran which in no way threatened the world’s peace. The Venezuelan administration subscribed a number of times to the view that the claims concerning Iran’s ambitions in the sphere of nuclear weapons withstand no criticism. Washington is slandering Tehran as it slandered Baghdad when the invasion of Iraq loomed on the horizon. The propaganda made media audiences feel that S. Hussein was an immediate peril but no Iraqi WMDs were unearthed eventually.

G. Bush’s administration was the top manufacturer of anti-Chavez stereotypes. It was a staple for a time that he allegedly supported Arab terrorists and ran secret camps hosting them on Margarita Island in Venezuela, where a relatively small Arab community is known to reside. Back when I toured the Margarita Island more than once, occasionally talking to the amicable Arab vendors, I could not imagine that some day the CIA would count the folks as Hezbollah guerillas. These days, the myth is given an extensive backing, and every US SouthCom chief reiterates that a terrorist camp on the Margarita Island does exist. Another myth floated by the CIA is that Iran is admitted to cultivate uranium deposits in Venezuela’s Bolivar state and operates secret laboratories in the area.
German paper Die Welt reported that Iran has bought launch pads on the Paraguana Peninsula, allegedly reminding the West of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Recently Germany’s Die Welt came up with yet another curious finding: this time, Iran is supposed to build a missile base on Venezuela’s Paraguana Peninsula to target the US (long ago, the same plan was attributed to Russia, by the way). Chavez was prompt to react by featuring pictures of wind mills at a televised government meeting and saying that there must have been a problem with a US reconnaissance satellite. Vice president Elias Jaua did contribute a comment in earnest, saying that Washington was looking for a pretext to attack Venezuela.

The hypothesis increasingly seems realistic. The 2012 elections are drawing closer, and polls show Chavez’s rivals stand no chance. At least, as of today, Chavez is confronted with no competitors with comparable prospects. In response to the situation, the US is trying to ignite domestic conflicts in Venezuela patterned on those that recently shook Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, relying on social media, pro-US NGOs, radical youth groups, and Columbian guerillas from the ostensibly disbanded AUC. Coordinators of the plot are eyeing potential allies in the ranks of Chavez’s own administration.

Scores of ambitious figures have gone through a political divorce with Chavez over years, and all of them are permanently welcomed by the opposition’s Globovision TV channel. The brain-washing campaign waged by the opposition media reached impressive proportions. Venezuelans are taught to believe that their country is the scene of rampant crime, that drug lords meet with virtually no resistance, and that Chavez patronizes corrupt bureaucrats in a hope to secure their support. It is also a cliche that Venezuela’s oil is spent recklessly, mostly to keep ALBA and Cuba afloat while the Venezuelan infrastructures are in disrepair, leaving the population to endure electric power and water supply shutdowns along with recurrent food shortages.
The media are heavily criticizing Venezuela’s economic and military cooperation with Russia and China. At the moment the country’s defense capabilities are bled as a result of the sanctions imposed by Washington on Cavim, the key Venezuelan defense corporation. The explanation is that Washington hates to see other players eat away at its share of the arms market.
The assassination of an opposition politician - or of a group of opposition activists - will likely be organized to provoke an outbreak of unrest in Venezuela. The rest of the blueprint is predictable - NATO has the notorious Plan Balboa for the country.

Nil Nikandrov Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Humanitarian Bombing, by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Para volver a la pagina principal de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Humanitarian Bombing and Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

The purpose of these bombardments is to destroy the country's institutions, its productive base. It's called "humanitarian bombing". It is justified under the concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). Power generating facilities, bridges, roads, hospitals, TV stations, government buildings, factories, are singled out as strategic targets.

Libyan sources (unconfirmed) report that two hospitals and a medical clinic were bombed:
"Al-Tajura Hospital was hit as was Saladin Hospital in Ain Zara. The clinic that was bombed was also located in the vicinity of Tripoli, the Libyan capital. Not only were these civilian structures, but they were also all far away from the combat zone.

Civilian air facilities throughout Libya have been attacked. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed, Global Research, March 19, 2011)
In the case of the hospitals, the smart bombs are extremely precise. The Russian Foreign ministry has accused the Western military alliance of conducting an indiscriminate bombing campaign. (Metro - Russia: Stop 'indiscriminate' bombing of Libya, March 19, 2011)
Invariably the Western media will state that Qadhafi forces are bombing the country's hospitals, without supporting evidence.
There are indications that hospitals are included in the list of targets. Canadian CF-18 fighter jets were assigned specific civilian bombing targets. The pilots decided to return to base without attacking their pre-selected target, which was identified as an airfield. According to the press reports, the selected target was adjacent to a hospital: "Lawson said the risk was not related to any threat to the CF-18s, but rather potential damage to civilians or important infrastructure such as hospitals, on the ground." ( CTV Calgary- Canadian pilots abort bombing over risk to civilians - CTV News, March 23, 2011, emphasis added)
Public opinion is invited to unconditionally endorse a new war theater in North Africa. The so-called international community has managed through media propaganda to build a consensus.
The Responsibility to Protect has been endorsed by civil society organizations and NGOs. Many sectors of the progressive Left are supporting the bombings of Libya as a means to installing democracy, without even analysing the nature and composition of the rebellion.
Those who speak out against the US-NATO "no fly zone" are casually branded as "Qadhafi apologists".

Para volver a la pagina principal de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Libya: The Objective of "Humanitarian Bombing" is Death and Destruction,

Para volver a la pagina principal de Generacion F pulse AQUI

The Bombing of Civilian Targets

The objective is not to come to the rescue of civilians. Quite the opposite. Both military as well as civilian targets have been pre-selected. Civilian casualties are intentional. They are not the result of "collateral damage". Early reports confirm that hospitals, civilian airports and government buildings have been bombed.

Within hours of the air attacks, a Libyan government health official "said the death toll from the Western air strikes had risen to 64 on Sunday after some of the wounded died." The number of wounded was of the order of 150. (Montreal Gazette, Gadhafi hurls defiance as allied forces strike Libya, March 19, 2011).

The death toll resulting from aerial bombings and missile attacks (March 24) is of the order of 100 civilians, according to Libyan government sources ( UN Chief Expects Int'l Community to Avoid Civilian Casualties in Libya, March 25, 2011)

Media Disinformation

These deaths resulting from US-NATO missiles and aerial bombings are either denied or casually dismissed as `collateral damage`. According to British Foreign Secretary William Hague modern humanitarian warfare does result in civilian deaths, a totally absurd proposition:
"This operation has been doing what it was meant to do, protect the civilian population of Libya, and there is no confirmed evidence of any casualties at all, civilian casualties, caused by the coalition strikes on the Gaddafi regime," (British Foreign Secretary William Hague, No evidence of civilian casualties in Libya strikes: UK | Reuters, March 25, 2011)
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirms that "The coalition is going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and most of the targets are air defence targets isolated from populated areas." (West trying to avoid Libyan civilian deaths: Robert Gates - World - DNA, March 22, 2011)

The objective of the media disinformation campaign is to blatantly obfuscate the loss of life of civilians. Western media reports on casualties are heavily convoluted. Tomahawk missiles and aerial bombings are upheld as instruments of peace and democracy. They do not result in civilian deaths.

Without media disinformation, the legitimacy of the military operation under R2P would collapse like a deck of card. Several hundred people gather at a funeral. The latter is dismissed as Qadhafi propaganda.

The funeral is 'fake" according to Western reports. It is presented as a staged event.

In the words of one report: "Men pray for people supposedly killed in air strikes. But the contents of these coffins remain unclear.( See Civilian Casualties in Question at Tripoli Funeral - WSJ.com, March 24, 2011, In Libya, coffins carry a mystery, SMH, March 26, 2011).

Para volver a la pagina principal de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Reporting From Tripoli: What is Really Happening in Libya, by Cynthia McKinney

As my time in Libya winds down, I am rushing to see as much as I can.

A national tour has been organized and announced by ANSWER that will take me to Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City, and Atlanta (not necessarily in that order) in order to help me raise the funds to pay back the loan that brought the journalists and me down here.

Despite the bombing, I have had people contact me saying that they, too, wanted to come and see firsthand for themselves,what is happening here.

I would be happy to bring people here, provided they commit to help me raise the funding. Coming here and seeing for yourself is particularly important because everything that you think you know about Libya from the Western media is a lie. Once you arrive, you will learn. And then, what to do? We must confront our President with the truth. My experience has been that lies eventually wither in the face of the truth.
So continuing these delegations is certainly something worth considering. We'll revisit this after we see how the fundraising tour goes.
Today, I'm sending a message that can be found at the San Francisco Bay View newspaper. Deborah Dupre compiled our DIGNITY Delegation missives into a very good newspaper article and the Bay View carried it. In addition, please find below, a link to a PressTV interview done by Don DeBar who has received all of our footage and put it online. Here's the link to Don's interview with PressTV:
Yesterday, our journalist from Cape Town South Africa was allowed to film in a place where the bodies are still underneath the rubble. Remember New York's Ground Zero? Hurricane Katrina? I did not attend with this member of our Delegation, but he told me that he had to kneel and cry, the scene was so powerful and moving.
He owns a TV station in South Africa and after he gets the footage uploaded to his station, then he will share it with us and Don Debar will be able to post it at WBAIX.org. I will definitely let you know when we have received permission to post this material. I'm also hoping that before the tour, Don will be able to put a 10 minute video together that will only be unveiled at each of the tour stops.
Finally, the list of articles I must write keeps growing and I want to write them before I leave here. Here's hoping: 1. Mercenary story and the murder of Hisham; 2. How NATO treats the Libyans like Israel treats the Palestinians; 3. A backgrounder on the truth and lies about the beginning of this crisis; 4. Rape. In addition to these stories I want to also tell the story of (5) the many Judas kisses the Libyan people have received from trusted friends all around the world. I, too, know the sting of betrayal. I want to write about what Libyans have expressed to me about their friends letting them down.

Obama's Fourth War Intensifying, Who Will Be Victim Of the Fifth War?, by Boris Volkhonsky

---- Volver a Generacion F -----Home page here---- Volver a Generacion F -----Home page here

The New York Times has revealed what it calls “the Obama administration’s most closely guarded secret”, that is the fact that the US is not only launching a covert war in Yemen, but intensifying it now that the Yemeni president Abdullah Ali Saleh has fled the country after being wounded and receiving severe burns in a mortar attack on the presidential palace on June 2.

The reasons for the covert military operation are obvious. Abdullah Saleh is one of the most important allies of the US in its “anti-terrorist campaign”.

On the other hand, some of the rebels trying to put an end to his 33-year-old rule allegedly belong to Al Qaeda. It is reported that President Saleh himself authorized American military missions in Yemen back in 2009. But there has been a gap of almost one year in American airstrikes on Yemeni soil. Now, the airstrikes have resumed. As reported by The New York Times, the American campaign in Yemen is led by the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command, and is closely coordinated with the Central Intelligence Agency. Teams of American military and intelligence agents have acommand post in Sana, the Yemeni capital, to track intelligence about militants in Yemen and plot future strikes.

The recent strikes have reportedly killed several midlevel Al Qaeda militants. In fact, the score of civilian deaths is much higher. As US military officials admit, using force against militants in Yemen is complicated by the fact that Al Qaeda agents have mingled with other rebels and antigovernment militants, making it harder for the United States to attack them without the appearance of picking sides.

The whole story is strikingly different from what is going on, for example, in Libya, or what the US and its NATO allies would like to have in Syria. Abdullah Ali Saleh has ruled Yemen for 33 years – almost as long as his Libyan colleague Muammar Gaddafi. In terms of inner principles, his rule has not been much different from Gaddafi’s rule, or that of any other dictator in the Middle East. But – and the “but” is most important - while Gaddafi, or the Syrian Assad dynasty looked obvious villains in the Western eyes, Saleh has been an important ally. Therefore, the militants in Libya and protesters in Syria are called pro-democratic forces, while those in Yemen are labeled as Ql Qaeda militants and terrorists.

It is easy to do so, since Al Qaeda is a network organization with a very loose or, by and large, a non-existant organizational structure. You raise arms against our ally, and you are automatically included into the “terrorist list”. But the situation in Yemen is much more complicated than “bad guys and good guys”.

Yes, there are radical Islamic militants among the protesters and it is quite probable that some of them are affiliated with Al Qaeda. But Saleh’s regime has alienated such a wide spectrum of social forces that one cannot simply label everyone as “terrorists” and “militants”.

The expression “double standards” have been so widely used lately that repeating it seems senseless. But on the other hand, the usual habits of the American leadership leave no other option. Franklin Roosevelt’s phrase that “so-and-so is an SoB, but he is our SoB” seems to be relevant now and again.

And also, the Yemeni situation tears away all the masks Obama was trying so hard to put on when dealing with Libya. He has tried hard to present the Libyan operation as an entirely European affair with limited and forced assistance from Washington. But now it is becoming clear that such attempts were meant entirely for local consumption in the US. In fact, Obama is only too eager to launch a third war in Libya and a fourth one in Yemen.

The question is who will be the target of the fifth Obama war?

---- Volver a Generacion F -----Home page here---- Volver a Generacion F -----Home page here

NATO is in an Act of War Against Africa, by B.F. Bankie

-----Pagina principal de Generacion F  AQUI--- Home page here----

NATO is violating Africa The bombardment of Libya is an act of war and a desecration of the Afrikan Homeland by a set of Europeans.

a) The Pan Afrikanist Steering Committee of Namibia Against The United Nations Resolution 1973 (PSCNAUNR), notes with deep sadness the appalling atrocity being committed by NATO’s bombardment, the protracted sponsoring of mercenaries described as rebels by European governments to kill, maim, destroy local infrastructure, attack Afrikans and present to the world Black Afrikans as Gaddaffi’s forces, thus leading to ethnic cleansing, where such people are living in fear of their lives within Libya.

This violates Afrikan human rights and violates the territorial integrity of Afrika and its people. The PSCNAUNR now calls upon the government of Namibia, a member state of the Afrikan Union (AU), without further delay, to demand that the United Nations Assembly put an immediate cessation to the aggression and genocide against the people of Libya and the Afrikan people therein.

b) We note, with deep regret, that there was an Official AU Road Map in place under Article 20 of the United Nations’ Charter, wherein the AU delegation was positioned to meet with the sovereign leader of Libya and the Western-sponsored rebels.

Before the AU could carry out its legal and moral duty, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), under the guise of the UN, deliberately started its bombardment under a hidden agenda for regime change, contrary to the principles enshrined within the said Article.

This represents a desecration of Afrika and genocide, as part of the Fratral Doctrine. [They will attack one state together while others watch until their turn to be attacked comes, and they will fight all by themselves and get defeated. No individual state can defeat these fellows]. Yet when we are united like during the independence struggle we will emerge victorious.

The Europeans through NATO cannot be allowed to ignore the AU and override Afrika in a second colonial bid. It is now crystal clear that the motive behind Resolution 1973 was of a sinister nature, in the first instance representing a declaration of war, as demonstrated by attacks and acts of aggression against a sovereign state of the AU. This has thus culminated in crimes against humanity.

Therefore, we demand the immediate removal of those NATO terrorists from the area and that they be speedily brought to justice.

c) As Pan Afrikanists, the PSCNAUNR calls upon our brothers and sisters across the globe for the defence of Afrika and its people in respect of NATO’s act of war against an Afrikan state. An attack on one is an attack on all; we therefore reserve the right inter alia to defend ourselves by any means necessary.

d) The PSCNAUNR further notes that the United Nations 1973 Resolution was a deception in the first instance, the brain child of the USA, France and Britain, a group of reputed war mongers within the Security Council and whose track records are well known on the globe, who had indeed succeeded in fooling the members of that honorable Council of the UN, under the false pretence that the said Resolution was for the protection of civilians.

From the evidence so far, NATO and the Western-backed mercenaries are the ones killing civilians and destroying the infrastructure of that Afrikan state, where genocide has become an every day occurrence and where NATO has gone beyond the scope of the Resolution, in attempting to assassinate the sovereign leader of that state, which according to the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute Articles 5, 6 and 7 constitute an unlawful act. All these actions have nothing to do with the protection of civilians and that the real motive manifested so far is for regime change and a programme of re-colonization.

e) PSCNAUNR demands that, in the interest of safeguarding humanity and our territorial integrity and in the pursuit of justice that two Permanent Seats be created on the UN Security Council within the same time span it took to enact Resolution 1973 and this should not go beyond three months. One seat for the AU and one for the Caribbean Union (CARICOM).

f) In the mean time PSCNAUNR calls upon our government and fellow AU members to recall our ambassadors and to expel all ambassadors whose countries are directly involved in the bombardment of Libya within three days, until the war of aggression is called off.

g) The PSCNAUNR encourages the AU to continue with its policy of non-recognition against governments via coup d’état which historically has been the mechanism through which the West, particularly those bombing Afrika under the NATO flag, has maintained Afrika’s backwardness, continued with the exploitation and plundering and preventing democratic progress.

h) We the Pan Afrikanists demand an immediate trade embargo and the freezing of all assets of those governments and their people that have declared war against Libya and we call upon the AU Assembly to effect this programme of action without delay.

We the Pan Afrikanists, friends of Afrika and the peace-loving people of humanity hereby call upon the government of Namibia and the AU to mobilize a national march (es) on the 11th June 2011 against the UN, NATO, US, France, Italy and Britain’s programme of regime change in Libya.

Pagina principal de Generacion F  AQUI--- Home page here----------

====================================================

May be you also want to read Washington has found the solution, Michel Collon

Tambien te recomiendo Washington has found the solution, Michel Collon

"Let's Divide Iraq as We Did in Yugoslavia!"
They have found the solution! Divide Iraq into three mini-states and then pit them against one another. Does that remind you of something else? Oh, yes! It's not the first time something like this happened....

Gelb's plan? Replace Iraq with three mini-states: "Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south." The objective? "To put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly -- with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad.... American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences." In short, starve the central state around Baghdad because the Sunnis have always spearheaded the resistance to U.S. imperialism.

Enforcing the law is the opposite of “right of interference” , Michel Collon

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

To come back to home page click here

Enforcing the law is the opposite of “right of interference”

We are told that the United States today are much more respectful of international law at the time of the cowboy Bush, and there was this time a UN resolution. This is not the place to discuss whether the UN really represents the democratic will of the people or if the votes of many states are the subject of buying and pressures. But we will simply note that the resolution 1973 violates international law and, first of all, the Magna Carta … the UN itself.

Indeed, Article 2 § 7 states : “ Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any State. “. Suppress an armed insurrection is the responsibility of a State even if one can regret the consequences. Anyway, if armed rebels bomb is considered an intolerable crime, then there is an urgent need to judge Bush and Obama for what they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Similarly, Article 39 limits the cases where the constraint member is authorized : “The threat against the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression” (cons another country). Libya did not match any of these three cases, and this war is therefore also illegal. A note, just for laughs, even the NATO treaty states as Article 1 : “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means all international disputes in which they may be involved.

We present this “right of humanitarian intervention” as a novelty and a great step forward. In reality, the right of interference has been practiced for centuries by colonial powers against countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. By the strong against the weak. And it is precisely to stop this gunboat diplomacy have been enacted in 1945, new rules of international law. The United Nations Charter specifically prohibits a strong country to invade weak countries and the principle of state sovereignty is progress in history. Cancel this conquest of 1945 and return to the right of intervention is going back to colonial times.

So for us to approve a war still very interested, we play a chord : the right of intervention would be needed to save people in danger. Such excuses were also used in time by France, Great Britain or Belgium colonial. And all the imperial wars of the United States have made with this kind of justification.

With the United States and its allies in the police world, the right of interference obviously always belong to the strong against the weak, and never the reverse. Iran have the right to intervene to save the Palestinians ? Venezuela have the right to intervene to end the bloody coup in Honduras ? Russia Has the right to intervene to protect Bahrainis

In reality, the war against Libya is a precedent that paves the way for armed intervention of the United States or its allies in any Arab country, African or Latin American. Today, we will kill thousands of Libyan civilians “to protect them,” and tomorrow they will kill civilians Syrian or Iranian or Venezuelan or Eritrean “to protect them” while the Palestinians and all other victims of ‘Strong’ continue to suffer dictatorship and massacre. …

Show that Western intervention violates the law and brings us back to colonial times seems to put a theme central to the debate.

What to do :

The United States has called “Dawn of the Odyssey the war against Libya. However, their code names always contain a message to our unconscious. The Odyssey , a classic ancient Greek literature, recounts the journey undertaken by Ulysses twenty years across the universe. A half-words, we are told here that Libya is the first act of the long journey from the United States to (re) conquer Africa.

They thus attempt to halt their decline. But ultimately, this will be in vain, the U.S. will inevitably lose their throne. Because this decline is not due to chance or special circumstances, it is due to their very mode of operation. The famous theorist of liberal capitalism, Adam Smith has warned a long time ago : “The economy of any country that practices slavery of blacks is in the process of initiating a descent into hell that will be tough the day when other nations will wake up. “

But in fact the U.S. has replaced slavery with another. In the twentieth century, they built their prosperity on domination and pillage of entire countries, they lived like parasites and they have thereby weakened their internal economic capacities. Mankind has an interest in this system permanently terminated. Even the population of the United States there is interest. For one stops to close its factory, destroy jobs and confiscating their houses to pay the bonuses of bankers and war spending. Europe’s population also has an interest in an economy rather than serving multinationals and their wars, but to serve people.

We’re at a turning point, what “Dawn” will we choose ? That announced by the United States, and that will lead to twenty or thirty years of incessant warfare on all continents ? Or a true dawn : another system of international relations, where no one will impose its interests by force and where each people freely choose its path ?

As in every war the last twenty years, much confusion in the European left. Pseudo-humanitarian discourse relayed by the media because blind people forget to listen to another version, to study the previous wars, to test the info.

Our site Investig’Action – michelcollon.info strives to help everyone learn to inform and discuss. But our means are too limited compared to mainstream media. We therefore call waiting for all those who can. 1 ° Join our network of volunteer researchers to develop analysis strategies of the United States and other major powers, the analysis of economic and political relations as well as wars in preparation. 2 ° Join our group for critical analysis “test media.”

A world without war, it depends on all of us.

Michel Collon

[2] Kosovo, NATO and the media, debate between Michel Collon, Jamie Shea (NATO Spokesman) and Olivier Corten (Professor of International Law), June 23, 2000, DVD Investig’Action.

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

To come back to home page click here

Understanding the war in Libya (3/3), Michel Collon

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

In every war it is. At first, it is almost impossible to oppose. The media hype is such that one is immediately branded as an accomplice to a monster. After a while, when will the “mistakes”, the dead civilians, the military failures and revelations about “our friends”, the debate will eventually open. But initially it is very hard.

To unlock this debate, the battle of the info is the key. And this battle can be fought by us all, wherever he is, according to people we met, listening to what influences them, verifying information with them, patiently … To effectively conduct this debate, it is very important to study the experience of misinformation in previous wars.
The 5 principles of war propaganda applied to Libya
This experience, we have summarized in the “five principles of war propaganda”, as outlined in our book Israel, talk about In every war, the media wants to convince us that our governments are well and why they apply these five principles :
1. Obscure economic interests.
2. Invert the victim and the aggressor.
3. Hide history.
4. Demonize.
5. Monopolize the news.

These five principles were applied again against Libya, it will be reported in the previous pages. Finally, draw attention to the fourth : the demonization of the opponent. The going-in-war must still persuade the public that they do not act to obtain economic or strategic, but to eliminate a serious threat. In every war for decades opposing the ruler was always presented as cruel, immoral and dangerous, with the worst atrocity stories. Afterwards, many of these stories – and sometimes all – were deflated, but regardless, they had served their purpose : to manipulate the emotions of the public to stop analyzing the interests really at stake is no going back .

We did not have the means to go to Libya. By cons, we were in Yugoslavia, under the NATO bombings, and we found, and proved that NATO had systematically lied. [2] We have seen also in Iraq. As for Libya, it looks great, but so far we have not had the means to carry out test-media information presented. Investig’Action our team still lacks the necessary resources. But several commentators have already identified strong indications of misinformation. For example, “six thousand dead were victims of the bombing of Qadhafi on civilians” . Where are the pictures ? There were no cameras, no cell phone there as there were in Gaza, Tahrir Square, in Tunis or in Bahrain ? No evidence, no reliable evidence, denials by Russian satellites or observers of the EU, yet the news has turned loop endlessly and no one dares to contradict the fear of being accused of “complicity”.

A civil war is never lace, but this is true on both sides. A partial info will always try to make us believe that atrocities were committed on one side and therefore need to support each other. But we must be very careful about such stories.

Who informs us

What you should be able to show us around is that the demonization does not fall from the sky. It is broadcast by the media that take advantage, often without saying so. And it’s still always the first question to ask in a war : was I heard the other side ?
Why Europe and the United States, the media they are thoroughly against Gadhafi ? And why in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Russia, denounces Does it instead a new imperialist crusade ? They all are wrong ? Westerners always know everything better ? Or is it all influenced by its media ? So, should we blindly follow our media or test

We were thoroughly watered on the negative sides of Gaddafi. But we pointed out the positive aspects ? We talked about his support for African development projects ? Who said we knew that Libya, as international institutions, the highest “human development index” throughout Africa, ahead of the darlings of the West such as Egypt or Tunisia ? Life expectancy : 74 years, reduced to 5% illiteracy, the education budget to 2.7% of GDP and that of Defence to 1.1%.

To come back to home page of Generacion F click here

Distinguish two different issues

There are a lot of intimidation in the intellectual debate on Libya. If you denounce the war against Libya, they accuse you of supporting anything done by Gaddafi. Not at all. There are two very different problems.

On the one hand, the Libyans have every right to choose their leaders, and change through whatever means they deem necessary. The Libyans ! Not Obama or Sarkozy. While sorting through the charges against Gaddafi, between what is really established and what is propaganda concerned, a liberal may well wish that the Libyans have a better leader.

On the other hand, when Libya is under attack because hackers want to get its hands on its oil, its reserves and its strategic position, then it must be said that the Libyan people will suffer even more under the power of the pirates and their puppets. Libya lose its oil, its companies, the reserves of its national bank, social services and dignity. Neoliberalism apply its sales revenues have plunged many people into poverty.

But a good leader, it never happens in the suitcases of the invaders and bombs. What the U.S. has brought to Iraq is an Al-Maliki and a small group of corrupt officials who sold their country to the multinationals. In Iraq, there is still no democracy, but also, we lost the oil, electricity, water, schools and everything that makes life a little dignity. What the United States led in Afghanistan, Karzai is one that reigns over nothing but a district of Kabul, while U.S. bombs hit villagers, wedding parties, schools and the drug trade has never been so good.

Leaders who are imposed on Libya by Western bombs would be worse than Gaddafi. So, we must support the legal government of Libya when he resists what is really a neocolonial aggression. Because all solutions prepared by Washington and its allies are bad : whether the overthrow or assassination of Gaddafi, either splitting the country into two or whether the “Somaliazation”, ie ie a low intensity civil war and long duration. All these solutions will bring suffering to the people.
The only solution in the interest of the Libyans is negotiating with international mediators who are not disinterested party to the conflict, as Lula. A good agreement implies respect for Libyan sovereignty, maintaining the unity of the country, preparing for democratic reforms and an end to regional discrimination.

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

NATO expansion : already into three continents !, Michael Collon

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

NATO expansion : already into three continents !

In order to defend its economic interests and become the watchdog of the world, NATO leaders spread panic : « Our sophisticated, industrialized, and complex world had been assailed with a good many of fatal threats : climate change, drought, famine, cyber safety, and energy issues. » (10) non military matters, but social and environmental ones are used as excuses for increasing armament and military interventions.

Actually, NATO’s goal is to substitute itself for the U.N. With the militarization of the world, our future becomes increasingly dangerous. And of course this has a terrible cost : the United States allow, for the year 2011, a record military budget of 708 billion dollars. That is to say 2,320 dollars per inhabitant ! That is twice as much as Bush during the first days of his mandate. Moreover, U.S. secretary of Defense Robert Gates constantly urges Europeans to spend more : « The demilitarization of Europe is an obstacle to security and to a lasting peace in the 21st century. » (11) European countries had to promise Washington not to decrease their military spending. It is a great deal for arms factories. The world-wide expansion of NATO has nothing to do with Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein or Milosevic. It has to do with a global strategy to maintain the domination on the planet and its resources, maintain the profits of the multinationals, and prevent peoples to choose their own path. NATO protected Ben Ali, Mubarak and the tyrants in Saudi Arabia, it will protect those who will succeed them, and it will only crush those who oppose the Empire.

In order to become the watchdog of the world, NATO is indeed moving forward step by step. A war in Europe against Yugoslavia, a war in Asia against Afghanistan, and now a war in Africa against Libya. That comes to three continents by now ! It had been tempted to intervene in Latin America too, by organizing operations against Venezuela two years ago. But then it was too risky, because Latin America is more and more united and refuses U.S.A.’s « watchdogs. »

Why does Washington absolutely want to settle NATO as the « watchdog » of Africa ? Because of the new balance of power in international relations that we studied earlier : the decline of the United States, which are being questioned by Germany, Russia, Latin America, China, and even by small and medium Third World countries.

Why don’t we talk about Africom ?

What worries Washington the most is China’s growing power. Proposing more egalitarian relations with Asian, African and Latin-American countries, buying raw materials at better prices and without using colonial blackmail, proposing more attractive loans, and achieving infrastructure projects useful for development, China offers an alternative to the subordination to Washington, London or Paris. So what can be done to block China’s rise ?

The trouble is that a power in economic decline has less means of applying financial pressure, even on African countries, the United States thus decided to play its best card : the military card. We have to bear in mind that its defense expenditure are higher than those of all the other countries in the world put together. For many years, it has been moving forward its pawns on the African continent. On October 1, 2008, the U.S.A. set up AFRICOM (Africa command). All of Africa (except Egypt) was placed under the unified command of the U.S., including the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps Forces and the U.S. Special Operation Command (landings, coups, clandestine operations…). The aim being to repeat the same process with NATO in order to support the U.S. forces. Washington, which sees terrorists everywhere, found some in Africa too. And they just happened to be around Nigerian oil and other coveted natural resources. So, if you want to know where the next episodes of the famous « war on terror » will take place, just find oil, uranium and coltan on the map, that’s all. Besides, as Islam is spread among many of those countries, including Nigeria, now you already know the next scenario for intervention.

The true objective of Africom : « stabilizing » Africa’s subordination to the U.S., prevent Africa from liberating itself and becoming a dependent force that might ally itself with China and Latin America. Africom is an essential weapon in the United States’ project of global domination. The U.S. wants to be able to lean on Africa and its natural resources which would be under its exclusive control in this great battle to be in control of Asia and its sea routes. Indeed, the decisive economic battle of the 21st century is already taking place in Asia. But it is a big job, with opponents such as a very strong China and a group of emerging economies that would be well advised to join forces. So Washington wants to be in control of all of Africa and close the door on China.

The war against Libya is thus a first step to impose Africom on the whole African continent. It ushers in an era of new wars, not an era of pacification. In Africa, in the Middle-East, but also all round the Indian Ocean, between Africa and China.

Why the Indian Ocean ? Because if you look it up on a map, you can see it is the gate to China and the whole Asia. So, in order to be in control of this ocean, Washington tries to subject several strategic regions : 1. The Middle-East and the Persian Gulf, hence its tension towards countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, and Iran. 2. The horn of Africa, hence its aggressiveness towards Somalia and Eritrea. We will come back on these geostrategies in our forthcoming book entitled Understanding the Muslim world - interviews with Mohamed Hassan.

Gaddafi’s big crime

Let us go back to Libya. Within the context of the battle to control the dark continent, North Africa is a major objective. By developing about ten army bases in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, as well as in other countries in Africa, Washington would lead the way for itself to establish a complete network of army bases over the whole continent.

But Africom met with strong opposition from African countries. In a highly symbolical way, none of them was willing to host Africom’s headquarters. So Washington had to headquarter it in…Stuttgart in Germany, which is very humiliating. From this viewpoint, the war to overthrow Gaddafi is basically a very clear warning to the leaders in Africa, who might be tempted to follow a too independent path.

Here is Gaddafi’s big crime : Libya had accepted to be linked neither with Africom nor with NATO. The United States used to have an important army base in Libya. But Gaddafi shut it in 1969. Obviously, the aim of this current war is particularly to reoccupy Libya. It would be a strategic outpost to intervene militarily in Egypt if the latter escapes from the control of the U.S.

Which countries in Africa are going to be the next targets ?

So, the next question will be : after Libya, who is next ? Which other African countries might be attacked by the United States ? This is simple. If Yugoslavia had also been attacked because it refused to join NATO, one only has to check the list of countries which refused to join Africom, under U.S. military command. There are five of them : Libya, Sudan, the Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea. Here are the next targets.
Sudan has been divided and put under the pressure of international sanctions. Zimbabwe is also under international sanctions. The Cote d’Ivoire has been imposed a civil war fomented by the West. Eritrea has been imposed a terrible war by Ethiopia - an instrument of the U.S. in that region - and it is also under sanctions.

All these countries were or will be the subject of propaganda or disinformation campaigns. It does not matter either they are ruled by virtuous and democratic leaders or not. Eritrea is trying an autonomous social and economic development experience, refusing the « financial assistance » that the World Bank and the I.M.F., which are under the control of Washington, wish to impose it. This small country is achieving the first successes in its development, but it is under international threat. If other countries « go bad » , the United States will also have its eye on them. Especially Algeria. In fact, following one’s chosen path is quite risky.

And for those who would still think that all this is just a « conspiracy theory », that the U.S.A. does not plan so much wars but improvises in reaction to current events, let us remind them of what ex-general Wesley Clark declared (supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe between 1997 and 2001, who supervised the bombings in Yugoslavia) : « In 2001, in the Pentagon, a general told me : ‘I just received a classified memo from the Secretary of Defense : we will take seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and finally, Iran.’ » (12) There is a difference between dreams and reality, but the plans are already worked out. They are just delayed.

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Source : www.michelcollon.info
Translation : Sheila Carby
Notes :
[1] Marianna Lepore, The war in Libya and Italian interests, inaltreparole.net, 22 février.
[2] Ron Fraser, Libya accelerates German-Arabian peninsula alliance, Trumpet.com, 21 mars
[3] Michel Collon, Israël, parlons-en !, Bruxelles 2010, p. 172.
[4] New York Times Magazine, novembre 2006.
[5] Interview radio Democracy now, 10 février.
[6] J-P Pougalas, Les mensonges de la guerre contre la Libye, palestine-solidarite.org, 31 mars
[7] Michel Collon, Poker menteur, Bruxelles, 1998, p 160-168.
[8] Nato after enlargement, US Army War College, 1998, p. 97.
[9] Michel Collon, Monopoly – L’Otan à la conquête du monde, Bruxelles 2000, pp. 90 et 102).
[10] Assemblée commune Otan – Lloyd’s à Londres, 1er octobre 2009.
[11] Nato Strategic Concept seminar, Washington, 23 février 2010.
[12] Interview radio Democracy Now, 2 mars 2007

Para volver a la pagina inicial de Generacion F pulse AQUI

Understanding the war in Libya, Michel Collon, 2 of 2

Those for whom democracy is a threat
Former colonial or neocolonial powers swear that they have changed. After having financed, armed, advised and protected Ben Ali, now the United States, France and other countries are flooding us with moving statements. For instance, Hillary Clinton said : « We support Arab peoples’ desire for democracy .

This is an utter lie. Certainly the United States and its allies certainly do not want democracy in the Arab world, nor does they want the Arabs to be able to decide on their oil or on any other wealth of theirs. So they did whatever they could to slow down the democracy process and keep the former leaders in power. And, when this plan fails, they impose their own chosen leaders whose task will be to crush peoples’ resistance. For instance, the Egyptian government has recently took tough anti-strike actions.
Justifying the war against Libya with the idea that after the events that happened in Tunisia and Egypt, Washington and Paris supposedly have « understood » and want to ease their conscience or at least restore their reputation, is thus just a big lie.
Actually, the western policy with regard to the Arab world forms a whole that applies under three various forms :
1.Keeping repressive dictatorships in power.
2.Replacing Ben Ali and Mubarak with pawns under the control of the West.
3.Overthrowing the regimes in Tripoli, Damascus and Tehran in order to colonize again those « lost » countries.
Three approaches to achieve a unique goal : keeping the Arab world under western domination to continue exploiting it.

Democracy becomes a threat when only the interests of a tiny social minority are represented. What frightens the United States, is the fact that social discontent practically broke out in all the dictatorships in the Arab world. In Iraq - the Western media did not mention it by the way - many strikes broke up in several industries. Among them : the oil, textile and electricity supply industries, and other ones. In Kut, U.S. troops even surrounded a textile plant on strike. People demonstrated in sixteen of the eighteen provinces, irrespective of which community they belong to, against the corrupt government which abandons its people in poverty. In Bahrain, under the people’s pressure, the king finally promised a financial aid to the value of $2,650 for every family. In Oman, sultan Qaboos bin Said replaced half of the government members and increased the minimum salary by 40%, and ordered that fifty thousand jobs be created. Even Saudi king Fahd released thirty six million dollars to help low and medium income families !

Obviously one question immediately arises to all the simple people : but if they had all that money, why were they hiding it in their coffers ? The following question be : how many other billions have they stolen from their peoples in complicity with the United States ? And the last one : how can we put an end to this theft ?

« Facebook revolutions », a huge American plot or real revolutions ?

A misinterpretation spread on the internet : revolutions in the Arab world would have been triggered and manipulated by the United States. It would have pulled the strings in order to carry out well-controlled changes and be able to attack Libya, Syria and Iran. Everything would have been « made-up ». The argument which supports this being : more or less official organizations had invited to the U.S.A. and formed Arab « cyber activists » who were instrumental in the spreading of the news and who symbolized a brand new type of revolution, the « Facebook revolution ».

The argument of the huge plot does not hold together. Actually, the United States did anything they could to keep Mubarak - a very useful dictator - in power as long as possible. However, it knew that he was suffering from poor health and « finished ». Of course it always draws up a plan b, and even a plan c. Plan b consisted in replacing Mubarak with one of his deputies. But, given the deep anger of the Egyptian people, there was little chance that it would work.
So, it had also prepared one, even several plan c’ s, as it does by the way for basically every country it wants to control. What does it consist of ? It bribes beforehand a few rebels and intellectuals - with them realizing it or not - and thus « invest » in the future. When the time comes, they are brought into the forefront. How long this will work is another issue, so long as people are mobilized and that a government, be it a face-lifted one, cannot resolve the demands of the people, if its objective is to keep these people in a state of exploitation.

Talking about the Arab revolution movement as being a « Facebook revolution » is a myth that is convenient for the U.S.A. We have pointed since a long time the crucial importance of new means of information and mobilization on the internet, however it would be absurd to think that Facebook would replace social struggles and revolutions. This idea is convenient for big capitalists - whose representative was Mubarak - but in fact, what they fear most, is a workers’ opposition movement, because it directly endangers their source of profit.
The workers’ role
Facebook is a means of struggle, not the essence of revolution. Presenting things in this way is a means to hide the role of the laboring class - in a broad sense - which would be replaced with internet. Actually, a revolution is an act through which those at the bottom dismiss those at the top, through a radical change not only of the members of the government but particularly of social exploitation relations.

Oops ! According to our official great thinkers, we cannot use the phrase « class struggle » any longer, which is supposedly out of date and even improper. Too bad for you, stockbroker Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, said some time ago : « There is class warfare in the U.S., all right, but it is my class, the rich class that is making war, and we are winning. » (4) Well, Mr. Buffet, you should never swear to it before the end of the show ! He who laughs last…
But the events in Tunisia and Egypt strengthen the idea of « class struggle », in agreement with Mr. Buffet…When did Ben Ali pack up his bags and left ? On January 14, when Tunisian workers were involved in a general strike. When did Mubarak leave the throne ? When a great strike of Egyptian workers halted textile firms, post offices, and even official media. Joel Beinin, professor in Stanford university and former head of the American university in Cairo, explains to us : « These last ten years, a big wave of social revolts had touched more than two million workers who participated in more than three thousand strikes, sit-ins, and other forms of protest. This was the background of the revolutionary uprising of the last few weeks…However, these past few days we saw dozens of thousands of workers link their economic demands to the demand that Mubarak’ s regime be abolished… » (5)

The Arab revolution has just begun. After the first victories of the people, the ruling class, which is still in power, tries to appease the people by making tiny concessions. Obama wanted the people to calm down as quickly as possible, and everything to go back to square one. It can work for a while, but the Arab revolution is under way.
It may take years, but it will be difficult to stop.

Fourth goal : hindering the African unity
The richest continent on Earth, with a profusion of natural resources, Africa is also the poorest one. 57% of the population live below the poverty line, that is with less than $1,25 per day.The key to this mystery ? Multinationals do not actually pay for these raw materials, they steal them.

In Africa, they plunder resources, impose low salaries, unfavorable agreements and detrimental privatizations, blackmail and put any form of pressure to the weak states and cripple them with an unjust Debt, put subservient dictators in power, trigger civil wars in the coveted regions.

Africa is strategically important for multinationals, because their prosperity depends on the plundering of these resources. If gold, copper, platinum, coltan, phosphate, diamonds and agricultural produce were paid a fair price , multinationals would be much less richer yet the local populations would be done with poverty. For American and European multinationals, it is absolutely vital to prevent Africa from uniting and being free. It must remain dependent. Here is a well stated example showed by Jean-Paul Pougala, an African author : « The story begins in 1992, when forty five African countries created RASCOM in order to have an African satellite and drop the call costs on the continent. The calling rate from and to Africa was then the highest one in the world, because each year Europe collected a five hundred million dollars tax on phone conversations, even on those within the same African country, for voice transit on European satellites such as Intelsat.

An African satellite cost only 400 million dollars payable for in one go, so there would be no need to pay 500 million dollars per year anymore. Would any banker not finance such a project ? The most difficult equation to solve was : how can a slave free himself from the servile exploitation by his master if he is asking for the latter’s help in order to achieve this goal ? So, the World Bank, the IMF, the U.S.A., and the European Union needlessly dangled these countries for fourteen years. In 2006, Gaddafi had put an end to the needless begging from so-called Western benefactors who practice usurious loans ; so the Libyan guide put 300 million dollars on the table . The African Development Bank offered 50 millions, and the West African Development Bank gave 27 millions. As a result of this, for the first time in its history, Africa has its very first communication satellite since December 26, 2007. Following on from it, China and Russia followed suit, this time selling their technology and so new satellites were launched : a South African one, a Nigerian one, an Angolan one, an Algerian one, and even a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. And now, we are expecting in 2020 the very first satellite 100% technologically African and built on the African soil, particularly in Algeria. This satellite has been made to compete with the best ones in the world, but costing ten times less, a real challenge.

This is how a simple token gesture of a measly 300 million dollars can change the life of a whole continent. Gaddafi’s Libya made the West lose not only 500 million dollars per year but also billions of dollars of debts and interests that the debt itself could generate indefinitely and exponentially, thus contributing to the maintaining of the secret system which goal is to despoil Africa…It is Gaddafi’s Libya which offers Africa its first true modern-day revolution : providing universal coverage of the whole continent for telephony, television, broadcasting and many other uses such as telemedicine and distance learning ; for the first time, a low-cost connection becomes available on the whole continent, even in rural areas thanks to the radio bridge system called WMAX." (6)

Well, here is something we have not been told about nasty Gaddafi ! That he was helping African people to free themselves from the stifling tutelage of the West. Might there still be other secrets of this kind that remain unmentioned ?

Gaddafi challenged the I.M.F. and Obama plays the pickpocket
Yes he did. By supporting the development of the « African Monetary Fund » (AMF), Gaddafi committed the crime of challenging the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We know that the FMI, which is controlled by the United States and Europe and whose president is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, purely and simply blackmails the developing countries. It lends them only if those countries accept to get rid of their companies in favor of multinationals, place unprofitable orders, or cut their budgets on health and education. In short, the IMF is very harmful. Well, just as the Latinos launched their « Banco Sur » in order to counter the IMF and its arrogant blackmail and decide on the financing of projects that are truly beneficial for them, now the AMF might start offering a freer path for the Africans. What are the countries which finance the AMF ? Algeria gave 16 billion, and Libya gave 10 billion. Together they supplied 62% of its capital.
But, Obama just robbed the Libyans of thirty billion, an act that went unnoticed to the media. How did that happen ? On March 1, - long before the U.N. resolution was passed - he ordered the U.S. Department of the Treasury to freeze Libyan deposits to the U.S.A. Then, on March 17, he managed to insert into the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 a little sentence which would allow the freeze of the deposits of the Libyan central bank but also of the Libyan National Oil Corporation.
We know Gaddafi amassed riches that allowed him to invest in big European companies, in big development plans in Africa - and maybe in some European election campaigns too, but this does not seem to constitute any efficient form of life assurance ! -…

In brief, Libya is quite rich (with its cash reserves of 200 billion dollars) and it attracted the covetousness of one superpower which is heavily in debt : the United States. So, to embezzle the dozens of billions of dollars of the Libyan national bank, in other words to go through the pockets of the Libyan people, Obama simply called all this a « potential financing source for Gaddafi’s regime. » and there you had it ! A real pickpocket.

However hard he tried to coax the West by multiplying concessions to neoliberalism, Gaddafi still worried the leaders of the United States. The American embassy in Tripoli deplored the resistance movements in a wire dating back to November 2007 : « Those who run Libya politically and economically are more and more pursuing nationalist policies as regards power industry. » Does anybody refusing privatization all over the place deserve bombings ? War is definitely the continuation of economy with different means.

Fifth goal : Settling NATO as the watchdog of Africa.
At first, NATO was supposed to protect Europe from the « soviet military threat ». So, once the USSR collapsed, NATO should have disappeared too. But it was the very opposite that happened…

After having bombed Bosnia in 1995, Javier Solana, NATO’s general secretary, said : « The experience acquired in Bosnia may act as a model for NATO’s operations in the future. » At that time, I wrote : « Actually, NATO is asking for a limitless sphere of action. Yugoslavia was the testing ground for the preparation of the next wars. Where will they take place ? » (7) Then I suggested this answer : First axis : Eastern Europe. Second axis : The Mediterranean and the Middle East. Third axis : The third world in general. » Here we are, this very program is happening now.

As soon as 1999, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. A war to subject the country to neoliberalism, as we saw it. As I was studying the comments of American strategists, I pointed out a sentence from one of them, whose name is Stephen Blank : « NATO’s operations will increasingly take place ‘out of area’. Its main function would consist of being the vehicle for the integration of a steadily increasing number of regions into the western economic, security, political, cultural community. » (8)

Subjecting an ever more increasing number of regions to the West ! Then I wrote : « NATO is an army which serves globalization, it is the multinationals’ army. Step by step, NATO is definitely turning into a watchdog of the world. » (9) And I named the countries that would probably be the next targets of NATO forces : Afghanistan, the Caucasus, and a return to Iraq… just to begin with.
Now that all of this really did happen, some people are asking me : « Did you have a crystal ball ? ».
There is no need to have a crystal ball, you only have to analyze the documents - which are not even classified - from the Pentagon and from the big offices where plans of action are elaborated and understand their logic.
In fact, this logic of Empire is very simple :
1. The world is a source of profits.
2.If you want to win an economic war, you have to be the leading superpower.
3. And for that, you have to control raw materials and also be in control of the strategic regions and routes.
 4. Any opposition to that control must be crushed : through corruption, blackmail, or war, whatever the means are.
5. In order to remain the leading superpower, it is absolutely necessary to prevent the rivals from allying themselves against the master.