South Africa in solidarity with Libya

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) will hold a demonstration outside the US embassy in protest against NATO and US bombings in Libya.
Numsa spokesman Hlokoza Motau said the protesters would meet at 10AM on the corner of Leyds and Church streets where they would march to the US embassy to hand over a memorandum of demands.
African National Congress youth league president Julius Malema was expected to address the protesters.
Politburo member of the SA Communist Party Solly Mapaila, Congress of SA Trade Union international affairs secretary Bongani Masuku and Numsa deputy general secretary Karl Cloete would also address members.
"We call on the South African public to join the demonstration in solidarity with the people of Libya," Motau said in a statement.

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-

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.

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.

The “International Criminal Court”: Prosecuting Gaddafi With Questionable Evidence While Ignoring NATO-Israeli Atrocities

Para volver a la pagina principal de Generacion F pulse AQUI

PULSE AQUI PARA VER

ARTICULO COMPLETO EN ESPAÑOL-SPANISH VERSION

by Andy Dilks

The International Criminal Court has requested an arrest warrant for Colonel Gaddafi and his sons for “crimes against humanity”, accusing them of ordering, planning and participating in illegal attacks on civilians. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, International Criminal Court Prosecutor, said, “Based on the evidence collected, the prosecution has applied to pre-trial chamber one for the issuance of arrest warrants against Moammar Muhamad abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah al-Sanoussi.”

But what is the evidence? The press release on the website of the International Criminal Court makes frequent reference to “direct evidence” but fails to cite any of this evidence in detail. In order to try and clarify the grounds for the prosecution, I emailed the ICC:

I’m looking into the ICC Prosecutor allegations of war crimes against Col. Gaddafi and his sons and am struggling to find the evidence on which these accusations are based. Referring to the press release issued on 16th May 2011 (http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/exeres/1365E3B7-8152-4456-942C-A5CD5A51E829.htm) there is frequent reference to “direct evidence” obtained by the ICC but nothing in the way of the actual evidence itself. Can you point me to a comprehensive analysis of this evidence so I can refer to it in my article?

I look forward to your response and clarification.

A secondary point of which you could be assistance relates to the following passage: “The Office will further investigate allegations of massive rapes, war crimes committed by different parties during the armed conflict that started at the end of February, and attacks against sub-Saharan Africans wrongly perceived to be mercenaries” Given that some of the parties involved in these rapes and attacks against sub-Saharan Africans were armed and funded by Western powers via their proxies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, will NATO-affiliated forces also be under investigation for their part in these atrocities? Are NATO forces being investigated for the deaths of civilians as a consequence of Operation Mass Appeal, in addition to covert actions carried out by special operations forces prior to the NATO-led bombing campaign?

The ICC promptly responded, providing me with a document entitled, PUBLIC REDACTED Version Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Al‐Islam GADDAFI and Abdullah AL‐SENUSSI.

Needless to say, “redacted” is the operative word.

Sources backing up the frequent assertions in the document regarding crimes against humanity carried out by Gaddafi and his sons are notable by their absence. For example, the document states, “In the early days of the demonstrations, GADDAFI transmitted orders through his Secretariat to “discipline” civilians, by killing them and destroying their property, who had openly rebelled against the regime. Further, AL‐SENUSSI, upon GADDAFI’s instructions, directed and coordinated the operation of the Security Forces in Benghazi and expressly ordered the shooting at civilians. Demonstrators were attacked by members of the Security Forces who opened machine gun fire on them in different areas of the city, such as the Juliyana bridge and Jamal Abdun Naser Street.” The sources for these alleged transmissions and subsequent attacks are not provided. Further, the report uses vague generalisations concerning the history of Libya in an attempt to bolster its case. “Direct evidence of the plan to use extreme and lethal violence is corroborated by the scale, scope and duration of the attacks; the pattern of the attacks in various cities; the speeches and statements of GADDAFI, SAIF AL‐ISLAM and AL‐SENUSSI; the history of the regime’s response to any political opposition within Libya; and the complete authority exercised by GADDAFI and his subordinates over all important security decisions.” Again, the “direct evidence” is not sourced, while appealing to a state’s prior human rights record is not proof by any measure of the current crimes of which they stand accused.

The report continues, stating, “On 20 February, SAIF AL‐ISLAM spoke on Libyan state television, refusing to recognize the Libyans’ demands, blaming the unrest on “foreign agents” and threatening the country with a “civil warʺ “worse than Iraq and worse than in Yugoslavia” that would cause “thousands of deaths”. No mention is made of the presence of the SAS and CIA in the country prior to this point, validating the claim that “foreign agents” were in fact involved in the unrest. Nor does the report concede the rather obvious point that a “civil war” cannot by definition be waged without more than one party, thus implicating forces backed by foreign powers in the “thousands of deaths” that Saif Al-Islam hinted might follow.

The document again makes the claim that Gaddafi opened fire on peaceful protestors without providing any sources for this claim, stating, “During that night, massive demonstrations against GADDAFI took place in different areas of Tripoli after the sunset prayers. GADDAFIʹs Security Forces opened fire as soon as they met groups of peaceful demonstrators that were walking towards the Green Square. Similar incidents were replicated throughout the day mainly in the areas of the Green Square and city center, Mojam’a Al‐Mahakem Court compound and Al‐Dribi. The protesters set on fire government buildings, including the General People’s Congress, and at least one police station and one ministry.” The report provides no video, photographic or any other evidence for these assertions. Perhaps the following point is intended to provide such evidence: “On 22 February GADDAFI spoke on State television from his headquarters in Bab Al‐Azizia, Tripoli. He refused to acknowledge any legitimacy of the demonstrators’ demands and did not regret the crimes committed by his Security Forces. On the contrary, GADDAFI called the protesters ʺratsʺ, “garbage” and “mercenaries” and threatened “to clean Libya inch by inch, house by house, small street by small street, individual by individual, corner by corner until the country is clean from all garbage and dirt”.” Clearly, threatening such actions is not proof by any measure that such actions were indeed carried out – if that were the case, one must present a prosecution for war crimes against the State of Israel, since shortly before Operation Cast Lead the deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai threatened a “shoah”. The slaughter that followed proved that this was no empty threat – yet the ICC has made no effort to present a case for prosection against Israel for the killing of Gazan civilians, which included over 300 children in the death toll.

The report continues with more unsupported assertions, stating, “On 25 February, Friday, one week after the beginning of the attacks and a day of prayer for the Muslim community, GADDAFI issued further instructions to attack civilians. He learned that demonstrations were scheduled that day after the prayers and instructed the deployment of Security Forces throughout the city. Snipers strategically placed awaited the crowds to leave the mosques. Multiple sources describe how civilians were shot at throughout the city when they were pouring from the mosques after the prayers. On this day alone GADDAFI’s forces killed up to one‐hundred civilians in Tripoli in the areas of Green Square, Souq al‐Jomaa, Arada, Zawyet al dahmani, Tajoura and Fashloom, among others.” Despite refering to “multiple sources” not a single one of these is cited.

The document then continues. “In sum, the evidence demonstrates that GADDAFI conceived a plan to quell the popular demonstrations of February 2011 by all means, including through the use of extreme and lethal violence.” Unfortunately, as appears to be self-evident from the frequent unsourced assertions combined with the proliferation of redactions throughout the document, it is perhaps fair to conclude the there is very little evidence to demonstrate the central claims of the International Criminal Court’s prosecution against Colonel Gaddafi and his sons. This is perhaps best highlighted on page 17 of the document: (http://nifcrimes.com/Libya_redacted.pdf)

E. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE AND OTHER INFORMATION ESTABLISHING REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT MUAMMAR MOHAMMED ABU MINYAR GADDAFI, SAIF ALISLAM GADDAFI AND ABDULLAH AL‐SENUSSI COMMITTED CRIMES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 58(2)(d) OF THE ROME STATUTE1. REDACTED

2. REDACTED
3. REDACTED
4. REDACTED
5. REDACTED
6. REDACTED

Following on from this I emailed the ICC once again:

Many thanks – it would seem that the evidence is flimsy and circumstantial at best (that is, the evidence that hasn’t been redacted) – most of the key claims (use of snipers against civilians etc) appear to be completely lacking sources. Will a version of this be released for public consumption without the redactions?

Can you respond to my second point with regards to prosecuting NATO forces for civilian deaths/attacks on hospitals and civilian infrastructure and the repeated use of depleted uranium? Also, is a case going to be brought against Israel for the recent killing of protestors as well as the attack on the humanitarian ship Spirit of Rachel Corrie in international waters?

The evidence for these crimes against humanity is certainly overwhelming in comparison to the evidence provided by the ICC in their case against Gaddafi, yet the ICC has remained steadfastly silent when it comes to the crimes committed by NATO and Israeli forces, both recent and historical. The crimes of which Gaddafi and his sons are accused by the ICC may indeed have occurred, although the paucity of evidence provided – at least, in the redacted public version cited above – seems to cast some doubts on this. No conclusive video or photographic evidence has been provided by either the ICC or the mainstream media who have made similar accusations. If it existed, there is little doubt that it would have been broadcast to the world constantly across the news channels.

Contrast this with the strong evidence of war crimes committed by Western powers such as the US, UK and Israel, and the corresponding absence of prosecutions against these nations by the ICC, and it seems fair to say that the institution has a conception of justice which appears to be one-sided at best.

PULSE AQUI PARA VER

ARTICULO COMPLETO EN ESPAÑOL-SPANISH VERSION

Para volver a la pagina principal de Generacion F pulse AQUI