The West and Others~~Western Civilization, Global Continuity & The 'Third' World~~
Photo; the Turf... a little bit of Heaven, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria
Frustrated Nigerian Announces Own Suicide on Facebook... then takes life
His last posting on FB reads:
My xmas gift 2 u all is d news of my death. By d time u are reading this story i should ve being dead somewhere. Pple say i should get a job, save b4 achieving my enterpreneural dream. How do get a good job i can save from without my B sc result dat delsu has wickedly refused 2 issue me. I ve had failure in all aspect of life. I invested 10yrs for a Bsc yet Umukoro, Oboreh n Odirin ate it up. Any biz i run always fail usually due 2 DUEX EX MACHINE. Some say i need deliverance cos day say am cursed. Last month getting married was aborted though am an expecting father. I hate God 4 allowing d demons 2 continuously destroying my hardwork. @ this point i want 2 appreciate some pple. Mudiaga my elder bro, Pawon & Nehi my only true friends 4 always understanding me. Lastly my Unborn child ( omoovie ). Please show my unborn child Omoovie when born in 2012 some love, kindness n favour in anyway u can. I took the best decision cos i don't want to see my child suffer 4 me not 2 b tempted 2 take other persons' life. Did u say am a coward? 9ja, what a pple dwelling there. What are u doing 2 help that person that is stil alive?
Daino Ovie-Richy died on Christmas day, 2011. He was from East Ethiope in Delta State and was a 2009 graduate of Business Administration from Delta State University, Abraka. He was 30 years old and an expecting father. May his young soul find solace in God's place.
Child killed by a bomb at a Catholic church in Madalla, Niger state, Nigeria.
Dear Mr. President: We should say Merry Christmas but we are not your goverment, we are not in the business of deception. After almost ten hours of gathering your thoughts to speak on the bomb blasts that rocked the nation yesterday, you still fell short of your own very low standards.
What did you intend to say when you said Bomb Blasts are a burden we must live with? Why do you bother to budget over a trillion for security if we must live the burden of insecurity? How come you are still a president? We do not blame you, we blame our older ones who were stupid enough to think that where you come from and your religion was all you needed to be a competent president.
They are crying now. We all cried yesterday on the darkest Christmas day of our short lives.
While we cried and left Christmas postponed for another year, we watched as you danced your life away like there was no tomorrow. Is it true that all you care about is the fact that you are the president so whatever can happen should happen. Last night we prayed for you. We prayed that the white men should be able to make common sense so that we can budget for it and then you will have it in abundance. As it is, it is obvious sir that you are grossly lacking in common sense.
If you weren’t, you would never come out to tell a mourning nation that it should get ready to live with the burden of destruction and insecurity. That was utterly insensitive and even the dumbest of our mates, fellow Nigerian children would never descend that low to an unprecedented level of cluelessness.
>
Nigeria's grinning President and his Vice amidst his Christmas greeting splatter
We understand this is not a sane country, if this was a sane country, your ilk will not be in a job. Your security chiefs, yourself and your cabinet would have been throwing resignation letters left right and centre. But then, here is a place where people are satisfied with just being in positions, that they are clueless about what to do in such positions does not matter.
Mr. President, Boko Haram defeated you in 2011. What plans are you making for 2012? Do you realise they have since improved while your security tactics remain stop and search? Do you realise they are far more coordinated than ever before? Have you thought of engaging more intelligence in curbing this menace instead of just mere brute? Yes, you have issues with concentrating for long, why not budget for a concentrator? That way you are conditioned to at least focus on being the president of Nigeria instead of our national chief chef? You are wondering where that came from? It came from cassava bread sir. You chose the menu for 2012 but we hope you realise that Boko Haram certainly has a menu.
Please Mr. President, they will look to attack again in the New Year, do what you have never done before, get your security chiefs to prevent that by all means. Contrary to your assertion, we are not prepared to live with the burden of bomb blasts. Get yourself to work and stop excusing your inability to deal with Boko Haram on the premise that they are a necessity. What is that? If you cannot lead and be a president, help yourself and resign. Please take your vice-president along. You are a twin set of incompetence.
This letter has been written with kind words, not because we are in the mood to be nice to you but because we are children and respect is a value we want to live with but our lack of it sometimes is a burden you must live with as long as you force us to live with your Boko Haram burden.
We wrote you a letter on subsidy yesterday but we figured it would be better to send this before you get our other letter. As long as your cluelessness reigns supreme in this country, we will always remind you of our angst and stake in this nation. It is not by force to live in Aso Rock. So if you must, do the right things, say the right things and learn to get the basic things right.
The Bomb Blasts darkened our Christmas but your response dampened our mood even further. This is not the way to lead a people. If you need help, we will nominate one of us to offer you words of wisdom for free. As it is, you look overwhelmed by the mere job of providing security for Nigeria let alone the other duties you swore to carry out for Nigeria.
Action point: Sack yourself sir, and take Arc. Namadi Sambo along. It is a good place to start.
Signed:
Association of Conscious Nigerian Children (ACNC)
An Addendum: I was lucky to read up some interesting stuff at Aangirfan's site that threw more light on the goings-on in my country Nigeria. It is also amazing to learn from Aangirfan, that in countries such as Indonesia, millions of Muslims are protecting Christians and churches there. It would appear from all of this, that there is a pattern emerging in which Christians and churches are being targeted and destroyed world-wide. It is exceptionally reassuring that Indonesia provides us all with an example of what to do in situations such as my country today finds itself. It shouldn't only be Muslims protecting churches but Christians protecting mosques too, there is a good dose of those ever willing to commit these kinds of mayhem to be found in both religions. I am linking these stories up here for your continued reading as I find them most enlightening and worth reading.
The writing is on the wall. If you can’t read it, then you’re going to have a problem – very soon. It was in early 2009 that we first warned our readers of the coming wave of riots and social unrest that would envelop the globe. Nearly three years on we’re seeing a progressive increase in tension among those affected by deteriorating economic conditions and the trend towards social unrest seems to be accelerating. Absolutely nothing has been resolved in terms of the economic and financial woes facing the world, despite the literally trillions of dollars of wealth in the form of credit and monetary easing that has been committed to the crisis.
As the economic paradigm shifts and hundreds of millions of citizens from the world’s advanced economies are thrown into poverty (including 100 million from the U.S. alone), the situation is getting critical. So much so that what once existed only in the realm of conspiracy theory and alternative news web sites – that governments, especially in the U.S., are planning for large-scale economic meltdown and social unrest – is now a foregone conclusion in political circles.
Europe, as we discussed in 2009, is now coming unhinged and we have the real possibility of not just a collapse in the sovereign debt of a single nation, but the entire European Union and their beloved currency. This is not just some far-out possibility. The collapse of Europe now seems more likely than ever, and governments and regulatory agencies all over the continent are calling for immediate preparations, planning and strategies to deal with the imminent collapse of sovereign debt of individual countries, European banks, and the Euro monetary system that is the glue holding it all together.
“It’s in our interests that they keep playing for time because that gives us more time to prepare,” the minister told the Daily Telegraph.
Recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office instructions to embassies and consulates request contingency planning for extreme scenarios including rioting and social unrest.
Greece has seen several outbreaks of civil disorder as its government struggles with its huge debts. British officials think similar scenes cannot be ruled out in other nations if the euro collapses.
Diplomats have also been told to prepare to help tens of thousands of British citizens in eurozone countries with the consequences of a financial collapse that would leave them unable to access bank accounts or even withdraw cash.
…
The EU treaties that created the euro and set its membership rules contain no provision for members to leave, meaning any break-up would be disorderly and potentially chaotic.
If eurozone governments defaulted on their debts, the European banks that hold many of their bonds would risk collapse.
Some analysts say the shock waves of such an event would risk the collapse of the entire financial system, leaving banks unable to return money to retail depositors and destroying companies dependent on bank credit.
The Financial Services Authority this week issued a public warning to British banks to bolster their contingency plans for the break-up of the single currency.
Some economists believe that at worst, the outright collapse of the euro could reduce GDP in its member-states by up to half and trigger mass unemployment.
…
“When the unemployment consequences are factored in, it is virtually impossible to consider a break-up scenario without some serious social consequences,” UBS said.
Source: Telegraph
Underestimate this events at your peril. Similar events played out in Europe in the early 1930′s, and we experienced a decade’s long depression here in the United States, followed by five years of world war – and that’s when we were a creditor nation without hundreds of trillions in debt and liabilities.
The collapse of Europe, as we have argued for several years, is imminent. If it so happens that Europe does collapse as we forecast, and capital flees to the safety of the US dollar (thus boosting the dollar’s strength and causing a stock market meltdown) than we urge readers to consider the repercussions that will be felt in America. Within a period of a few months to a few years a similar scenario will play out with our own sovereign debt and currency. And, when the world’s reserve currency goes into meltdown mode, all bets are off.
There’s a reason governments the world over are preparing contingency plans. They know it’s coming, and they know it will be pandemonium. There is, as we noted two years ago, No Way to Avoid Financial Armageddon.
Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst -
* collapse of purchasing power due to hyperinflation
* interruptions to the normal flow of commerce
* disruptions to food supplies
* political upheaval
* increased violence
* riots
* the militarization of Main Street
* and the potential for failure of our domestic utility grid.
We realize these are extreme potentialities and many might suggest we take off the tin foil hat, but the same was true when we and others forecast a collapse of Europe, civil unrest and government contingency planning three years ago. That has now been actualized.
The next leg of this crisis will take hold in the United States in due time. Don’t wait until it’s too late. Start thinking about money during a collapse, bartering items, post-collapse trade skills, and creating a solid preparedness foundation.
A sinister bill has quietly been introduced, so expansive in scope and dangerous in nature that it makes the PATRIOT Act look like the Bill of Rights...
If these provisions are enacted, it would give the federal government the explicit power to imprison civilians, including American citizens, indefinitely with no charges or trial.
This would include individuals apprehended both inside and outside of the United States, meaning that this could give the federal government the ability to openly detain American citizens for their entire lives without so much as a single charge.
While the federal government already murders American citizens abroad based upon the decision of an unlegislated secret death panel within the National Security Council, this would be the first time since 1950 that Congress has explicitly authorized indefinite detention of Americans without charges or a trial.
This provision includes people who had absolutely no role in the attacks of September 11th, 2001, or any hostilities whatsoever and would mandate military detention of certain civilians.
This includes civilians arrested within the United States who would otherwise be outside of military control while also transferring all responsibilities to the Department of Defense.
Instead of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, National Security Division, or the United States Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, the Marshals Service and/or the state attorneys general handling the prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal and custodial authority, the Department of Defense would handle it all.
That means that all control would be taken out of the hands of civilians and put into the brutal grip of the American military, essentially this would mean a military takeover of our so-called justice system.
All they would have to do is classify you as a terrorist, no need for actual charges or participation in hostilities; you could be locked up indefinitely for any reason or no reason at all if the Department of Defense saw fit under this NDAA.
November 23, 2011: The day before the Thanksgiving holiday brought three extraordinary news items. One was the report on the Republican presidential campaign debate. One was the Russian President’s statement about his country’s response to Washington’s missile bases surrounding his country. And one was the failure of a German government bond auction.
As the presstitute media will not inform us of what any of this means, let me try.
With the exception of Ron Paul, the only candidate in either party qualified to be the president of the US, the rest of the Republican candidates are even worse than Obama, a president who had the country behind him but sold out the American people to special interests.
No newly elected president in memory, neither John F. Kennedy nor Ronald Reagan, had the extraordinary response to his election as Barack Obama. A record-breaking number of people braved the cold to witness his swearing in ceremony. The mall was filled for miles distant from the Capitol with Americans who could not see the ceremony except as televised on giant screens.
Obama had convinced the electorate that he would end the wars, stop the violation of law by the US government, end the regime of illegal torture, close the torture prison of Guantanamo, and attend to the real needs of the American people rather than stuff the pockets of the military/security complex with taxpayers’ money.
Once in office, Obama renewed and extended the Bush/Cheney/neoconservative wars.
He validated the Bush regime’s assaults on the US Constitution. He left Wall Street in charge of US economic policy, he absolved the Bush regime of its crimes, and he assigned to the American people the financial cost necessary to preserve the economic welfare of the mega-rich.
One would think such a totally failed president would be easy to defeat. Given an historic opportunity, the Republican Party has put before the electorate the most amazingly stupid and vile collection of prospects, with the exception of Ron Paul who does not have the party’s support, that Americans have ever seen.
In the November 22 presidential “debate,” the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, revealed themselves as a collection of ignorant warmongers who support the police state. Gingrich and Cain said that Muslims “want to kill us all” and that “all of us will be in danger for the rest of out lives.”
Bachmann said that the American puppet state, Pakistan, is “more than an existential threat.” Bachmann has no idea what is “more than an existential threat.”
However, it sounded heavy, like an intellectual thing to say for the candidate who previously declared the long-defunct Soviet Union to be today’s threat to the US.
Unfortunately for Americans and the world, the US electorate lacks the intelligence and awareness of their plight as denizens of a police state to elect Ron Paul, the last defender together with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of the US Constitution. Nevertheless, there would be a silver lining in one of the Republican morons being elected president of the “world’s only superpower.” Once the rest of the world realized that a war-crazed idiot had his or her finger on the nuclear button, the rest of the world would organize and close down the Washington horror before it destroys life on earth.
Any sentient American who watched or read about the Republican presidential debate must wonder what there is to be thankful for as the national holiday approaches.
The Russian government, which prefers to use its resources for the economy rather than for the military, has decided that it has been taking too many risks in the name of peace. The day before Thanksgiving, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said, in a televised address to the Russian people, that if Washington goes ahead with its planned missile bases surrounding Russia, Russia will respond with new nuclear missiles of its own, which will target the American bases and European capital cities.
The President of Russia said that the Russian government has asked Washington for legally binding guarantees that the American missile bases are not intended as a threat to Russia, but that Washington has refused to give such guarantees.
Medvedev’s statement is perplexing. What does he mean “if Washington goes ahead?” The American missile and radar bases are already in place. Russia is already surrounded. Is Medvedev just now aware of what is already in place?
Russia’s and China’s slow response to Washington’s aggression can only be understood in the context of the two countries experience with communism. The sufferings of Russians and Chinese under communism was extreme, and the thinking part of those populations saw America as the ideal of political life. This delusion still controls the mentality of progressive thinkers in Russia and China. It might prove to be a disaster for Russia and China that the countries have citizens who are aligned with the US.
Belief in Washington’s trustworthiness even pervades the Russian government, which apparently, according to Medvedev’s statement, would be reassured by a “legally binding guarantee” from Washington. After the massive lies told by Washington in the 21st century–”weapons of mass destruction,” “al Qaeda connections,” “Iranian nukes”–why would anyone put any credence in “a legally binding guarantee” from Washington. The guarantee would mean nothing. How could it be enforced? Such a guarantee would simply be another deceit in Washington’s pursuit of world hegemony.
The day prior to Thanksgiving also brought another extraordinary development–the failure of a German government bond auction, an unparalleled event.
Why would Germany, the only member of the EU with financial rectitude, not be able to sell 35% of its offerings of 10-year bonds? Germany has no debt problems, and its economy is expected by EU and US authorities to bear the lion’s share of the bailout of the EU member countries that do lack financial rectitude.
I suspect that the answer to this question is that the failure of the German government’s bond auction was orchestrated by the US, by EU authorities, especially the European Central Bank, and private banks in order to punish Germany for obstructing the purchase of EU member countries’ sovereign debt by the European Central Bank.
The German government has been trying to defend the terms on which Germany gave up control over its own currency and joined the EU. By insisting on the legality of the agreements, Germany has been standing in the way of the ECB behaving as the US Federal Reserve and monetizing the debt of member governments.
From the beginning the EU was a conspiracy against Germany. If Germany remains in the EU, Germany will be destroyed. It will lose its political and economic sovereignty, and its economy will be bled in behalf of the fiscally irresponsible members of the EU.
If Greeks will not submit to the tyranny, why should Germans?
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
Neo-colonization of Africa; President Mugabe appeals to China and Russia
PRESIDENT Mugabe has appealed to China and Russia to provide leadership in international relations and protect smaller states in view of the blatant attacks they face from the United States and Europe.
At a meeting with Acting Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great People’s Hall here yesterday, President Mugabe said small countries were beginning to wonder whether international law offered adequate protection from the Anglo-Saxon alliance’s expansionist agenda given what NATO did in Libya and threats posed to Syria and Iran.
“Is international law now dead? Are international relations as governed by the United Nations Charter now dead? Are Europe and America allowed to act so unlawfully with impunity that smaller states feel intimidated and unprotected by international law.
“Countries like China and Russia must provide both leadership and protection,” President Mugabe’s spokesman, Mr George Charamba, quoted him as telling Mr Xi.
The Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces said there was now pessimism among smaller states that international law can not protect them.
He told Mr Xi the attacks were made in pursuit of exploiting resources found in these small nations and had become so glaring.
“Nature has disbursed its resources in its own ways to different countries with some countries richly endowed while some are not,” Mr Xi said.
“Even us who do not have oil feel no less menaced as these rapacious countries are looking for other resources,” President Mugabe said. He enumerated Zimbabwe’s minerals such as gold, diamonds and platinum and said even its rich fauna and flora made it a target.
“All this (Zimbabwe’s wealth) is envied and we need protection. We rely on good friends like you to protect us and you have done that in the past. We do not lose confidence in you and please don’t lose confidence in us.”
Mr Charamba said Mr Xi told President Mugabe that China would not abandon its allies.
“In spite of external disturbances China will never forget its friends,” Mr Xi reportedly said. He hailed President Mugabe for personally taking the lead in cultivating relations between the two countries after Zimbabwe’s independence in 1980.
Mr Xi also accepted an invitation from President Mugabe to visit Zimbabwe and noted that it will be fulfilled at a mutually agreed time. A few years ago China and Russia scuttled US and EU attempts to have the United Nations Security Council legitimise their illegal sanctions they have slapped Zimbabwe with.
Indictment against NATO military and political leaders.
NATO: Indictment for breach of international law in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The military and political leaders of NATO are hereby accused of the following crimes committed in the Libyan campaign of 2011, in which the systematic breaches of international law are underlined.
Understanding that international law exists and that it is systematically broken by certain powers with impunity, understanding that such a situation is unacceptable and that the same set of laws should apply to all, equally, with the same sets of weights and measures employed in upholding it, I hereby accuse NATO and the below-mentioned individuals, party to its acts in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from February to September (ongoing) 2011, of breach of international law;
1. Accusation: NATO war crimes, crimes against humanity, breach of UN Charter, Breach of UNSC Resolutions, breach of Geneva Conventions, occasioning murder, attempted murder, actions occasioning grievous and actual bodily harm, destruction of private and public property.
William Hague (UK), Hillary Clinton (USA) Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini
(?)
3. Law and breaches:
3.1 Proper procedure was not followed: Under the UN Charter, any military action which comes outside a UNSC Resolution in any theatre of conflict must necessarily come from a separate Resolution in the UNSC and any military action must come after the Military Council is convened. This was not the case under UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) covering the Libyan conflict.
Why did NATO not convene the Military Staff Committee of the UNSC? Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 46: “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee”. Such committee was never convened.
This is a violation of the UN Charter rendering Resolutions 1970 and 1973 (2011) void; There is also evidence that such Resolutions were passed on the evidence from a false flag event. The supposed crimes committed by the Libyan authorities have been hotly contested and must be investigated;
3.2 Intervention in domestic affairs of a sovereign state: UNSC Resolution 2131 (XX) of 21 December 1965, containing the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States was backed up by Resolutions 31/91 of 14 December 1976, 32/153 of 19 December 1977, 33/74 of 15 December 1978, 34/101 of 14 December 1979 and 35/159 of 12 December 1980 on non-interference in the internal affairs of States.
3.3 Bombardment of undefended buildings and structures: Article 3 of the Statute of The Hague International Penal Court which states clearly that one criterion for indictment for war crimes is:
“Attack or bombardment, by whatever means, against undefended cities, towns, villages, buildings or houses”.
Another clause of the same Article 3 could also be invoked:
“Massive destruction of cities, towns or villages or destruction not justified by military necessity”.
The attack on Libya’s water supply network on Friday July 22 and the attack on the factory making pipes for the supply system on Saturday July 23 in al-Brega were not covered under “military necessity” in which case, under Article 3, this was an act of wanton destruction of civilian structures with military hardware. This renders NATO liable for trial by its own court, the ICC at The Hague;
3.4 Support for outlawed organizations and individuals. Despite this admission:
There is evidence that armed groups fighting inside Libya include the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which according to the British Government: “The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa’ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu’ammar Qadhafi” and for which reason is on the Home Office list of proscribed terrorist groups, despite this, the UK aided and abetted the said group;
3.5 Failure to apply international law: Under the UN Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33, member states must “seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”.
3.6 The Jamahiriya Government of Libya had the right to defend itself without being attacked: Chapter VII, Article 51 refers to the right of States to defend themselves against armed insurgency:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”;
3.7 Mercenaries: UNSC Resolution 1973 (2011), in its Chapter on Protection of Civilians, in paragraph 4. states:
“4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
There have been numerous reports of mercenaries being used by NATO and the rebels it supported; French Foreign Legion, Egyptians, Qataris, UAE forces, among others;
3.8 Boots on the ground: UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011) Paragraph 16:
“16. Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;”.
If David Cameron has admitted that UK special services have assisted the terrorists on the ground, this is against the UN mandate which allowed NATO to intervene in Libya, and is a war crime.
A request has been sent (August 30) to the British FCO and Ministry of Defence to confirm or deny that troops have been used in the theatre of operations; no reply has been forthcoming;
3.9 Non-enforcement of UN Resolution, and violation of international law, by transporting rebel forces to enter the theatre of operations:
UNSC Resolution 1970 (2011):
In the Chapter on Enforcement of the arms embargo, Paragraph 13 of the same states:
“13. Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of Resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;
In violation of this: supply of French Milan anti-tank missiles, Swedish Carl Gustav 84mm rifles, 68mm rockets and mortars and Maadi assault rifles from Egypt; this, in addition to the British, French and Italian military advisors helping the terrorists.
3.10 Violation of Geneva Conventions: NATO and the Transitional National Council have given the people of Sirte ten days to surrender or face a full military onslaught. This is not a cease-fire. While they await their fate, they will still be subject to artillery fire and NATO bombing, and food, water and electricity have already been cut off.
These siege tactics have been outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. In particular, Article 14 of the second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states, “Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies and irrigation works.”
The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits all forms of attacks on civilians and the collective punishment of civilian populations, so virtually everything that the combined TNC-NATO forces are doing to the people of Sirte is strictly illegal and in fact criminal.
4. Sample Crimes:
21.03.2011. Tens of civilians killed on 31st of March in Gharyan city in western Libya (video).
07.04.2011. — NATO bombers killed 15 rebels and wounded 22 on the outskirts of Brega.
20.04.2011. TRIPOLI NATO Bombing The Libyan Arab Association For Human Rights (video).
27.04.2011. — NATO attacked the city of Misrata, killing 12 people and wounding 5 others.
30.04.2011. — The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli (video).
30.04.2011.— NATO killed inocent civilinas: The youngest son of our great leader Saif Al arab gaddafi was only 29 years old, grandchildren of our Great Leader, Saif Mohammed Muammar Gaddafi was one year and 3 months (born on 30 January 2010) , Carthage Hannibal Muammar Gaddafi was 2 years and 9 months old (born on 2 August 2008) and Mastura Humaid (daughter of Aisha) was 4 months and half (she was born on 15 December 2010) (video).
09.05.2011. — 600 civilians are reported dead after getting into trouble on thier boat. They send urgent SOS messages to NATO, but they were ignored (video).
13.05.2011. The 11 imams (spiritual leaders of Islam) that were killed. The imams were killed in a NATO bombing in the city of Brega (east), which also injured about 50 people. (video)
17.05.2011.—The NATO attack on Libya’s Anti-Corruption Agency on May 17 was extremely convenient for some Westrern politicians (video).
12.06.2011. — The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established. (link) or photo evdence.
15.06.2011. — At least 12 people were killed and two injured when a NATO air strike hit a bus Wednesday evening in Libya’s Kikla city (video).
19.06.2011. — 9 civilians were killed by a NATO air strike on Tripoli (video).
19.06.2011. — Massacre of Al-Hamedi family 15 civilians, including 3 children, were killed by another NATO air strike on Sorman (link).
19.06.2011. — Firetracs was bombed (video).
22.06.2011. — The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water. Water for 4,5 million INOCENT CIVILIANS IN LIBYA (video).
22.06.2011. — Zliten – many civilians were chopped into pieces. (link)
28.06. 2011. — NATO air strike killed 16 civilians (one whole family killed) and more than 20 injured in public market in Tawergha east of Misurata (video).
04.07.2011. — NATO bombing civilian checkpoint in ZWARA. (video)
15.07.2011. — At least 12 people were killed and 2 injured when a NATO. The air strike hit the bus with inocent civilians in Kikla City. (video)
17.07.2011. — Multiple urban areas were bombed simultaneously this morning. Anywhere from 60 to 75 bombs may have been dropped mostly in the areas of Tajura and Seraj, according to eyewitness reports. (video)
23.07.2011. — The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.
24.07.2011. NATO bombing cattle and poultry project in Torghae city (video).
24. 07.2011. Libya war: NATO Press Briefing, 15 civilians are dead in Tawergha (video).
24.07.2011. —The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 civilians many of them children.(video).
25.07.2011. NATO bombed food storage in Zlitan.(video).
25.07.2011. — 20 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes in Bir al Ghanam. (video)
30.07.2011. — NATO warplanes also repeatedly bombed a Libyan television station, killing 3 and injuring 15.
02.08.2011. — Law School In Zlitan (Zliten) (video).
04. 08.2011. — Woman and two children (video).
07.08.2011. — NATO bombed today the vegetable market in Tripoli (link).
08.08.2011. — Libya: NATO MASSACRED 85 CIVILIANS: 33 CHILDREN, 32 WOMEN and 20 MEN (video)…
The persistent on-going bombing of the civilian population in Zliten, Sirte and Tripoli, death toll not yet established. All4Peace & LibyaSOS.
Over the recent months the political rhetoric concerning Iran has become increasingly heated. Early September 2011 a nsnbc source at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina reported that the USA has been actively preparing for a military aggression against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah for months, and that special operations units had been deployed long ago. While politicians, analysts and media assess the plausibility and dangers of a US-led war on Iran, in a discourse styled for public consumption, the actuality of the situation is that the war has been on for years. The questions that ought to be asked are not whether the USA will attack Iran, but rather when the ongoing low intensity conflict will enter a phase of higher intensity, how an attack most likely would be performed, and what the consequences on a regional and global scale would be.
Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran
The rhetoric has slowly been heating up for years. When The Republican US-Senator John McCain during his 2007 presidential campaign said “/Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran/” most people throughout the world who heard it thought that it was harmless. The man had no chance to win, he´s a maverick, a loose cannon, a crazy man who just tried to score some cheap points for his election by playing the war hero game. Those who knew who John McCain is, and what positions and influence he has however, knew that it was a threat that needed to be seriously assessed. John McCain is a leading figure in the Republican Party and the Republicans ranking member of the Armed Services Committee (1).
It would be a dangerous mistake to confuse his carefully crafted PR-Image as maverick politician with a John McCain who has close ties to the US-Military-Industrial Complex, and the McCain who is committed to expanding the US-hegemony into Iran by means of a military attack as unavoidable step towards global, full spectrum dominance of the United States of America. The Neo-Conservatives may not currently occupy the White House, but their policy, calling for global primacy of US Military might and global dominance, which requires an attack on Iran, as manifested in “Rebuilding Americas Differences” (2), transcends party politics. The difference between Neo-Conservatives and Democrats with respect to US Military Primacy and full spectrum dominance is one of strategy. The one relies on brute military might, the other on skillful subversion before military might is applied.
In late September 2011, the French Ambassador to the United Nations Gerard Araud openly threatened Iran with military action if it continued on the path of nuclear proliferation (3).
Letting rhetoric and warmongering propaganda be what they are the factual situation is that contrary to the USA, which has openly sold nuclear technology to countries like Pakistan even though the USA has signed the international non-proliferation treaty. Iran has never signed the treaty, and is thus not bound by it.
If Araud was concerned about breaches of non-proliferation treaties he would have to threaten the USA rather than Iran, but then again, the truth is that the rhetoric has nothing to do with concerns about nuclear proliferation, and that it has everything to do with positioning Iran as the rogue state and threat to world peace, so the populations of the USA and EU member states would become more willing to accept an illegal and dangerous military campaign against Iran. On 12 November 2011 Reuters reported that all Conservative presidential candidates had given statements about what they would be doing about Iran´s purported intentions to develop a nuclear bomb (4).
Even though no one spoke of overt military attacks, the candidates statement spanned from tough sanctions to supporting militant subversion and covert military operations that could be denied. That none of the candidates spoke of overt military action is understandable but by no means a signal that it is not being actively prepared, as a reliable nsnbc source at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina reported in early September 2011. Covert military operations by US-Agents, and CIA as well as DIA operatives have most likely been conducted in Iran for years.
One of those covert operations is the support of the Baluchistani Jundullah militia (5 ) which is targeting both military and civilian targets inside Iran, and which is involved in opium and heroin running operations between Afghanistan and Iran. Drug sales have for decades provided part of US Intelligence Services black budgets. Another militant organization is the Peoples Mujahedeen of Iran, MEK.
The MEK (6 ) was originally established with aid from Iraq´s Intelligence Services with the purpose to establish a militant subversion inside Iran. It is still operating, and today most likely with the support of the new Iraqi as well as US Intelligence Services.
The latest days rhetoric about the IAEA report have brought the world one step closer to an overt aggression. In the latest IAEA report (7 ), the IAEA claims that foreign aid has brought Iran closer to developing the capacity to produce nuclear bombs.
According to a report by BBC (8 ) Iran has rejected the IAEA claims as fictitious. In what can only be described as a typical US-Blackmail and Positioning Strategy, the UNSC demands from Iran that it stops it´s 18 year old nuclear enrichment program, until Iran has provided evidence for the fact that it only intends to use its enrichment capacity for peaceful purposes (ibid.). Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad reportedly replied, ” We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won´t build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads.“ (ibid.)
The important issue to observe is, that the US backed demand that Iran provides “/evidence/” for it´s peaceful intentions is a hybrid of the US-Blackmail Strategy that was used against Iraq with respect to it´s purported weapons of mass destruction. Former CIA Asset Susan Lindauer, who prior to the overt military aggression against Iraq was working as diplomatic back-channel between Iraq and CIA-Operatives provides an explicit description of the blackmail strategy in her book “Extreme Prejudice“. (9)
The people of Iraq were suffering severely from the sanctions that had been imposed on it due to pressure from the USA. In what prior to the first Gulf War was one of the most developed Arab nations, infant mortality skyrocketed to appalling proportions due to the imposed sanctions. (10 ) According to Lindauer (ibid.) the Iraqi government and diplomats were desperate to have the sanctions lifted and trying everything in their power to comply with the weapons inspectors and US demands. Their problem was, that the USA insisted on Iraq providing evidence for something non-existent. The current US calls for sanctions against Iran and the demand for Iran to provide evidence for its peaceful intentions is bearing a striking resemblance to the criminal strategy the cost over one million Iraqi lives and led up to its criminal invasion and destruction.
Konstantin Kosachev
Russian politicians and diplomats can hardly avoid seeing the striking resemblance between the blackmail of Iraq and the blackmail of Iran either. At a recent meeting of the Russian Parliament, the State Duma, the chairman of the State Duma´s Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev condemned the IAEA report and the allegations against Iran that have been put forward by the USA, France, and Israel. (11 ) According to Voice of Russia (ibid.), Kosachev said, that the recently published IAEA report may be part of a strategy to force a change of power in Tehran or provoke revolts within the country. Kosachev also said that such a scenario would be feasible after the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, adding, that he was surprised by the fact that the IAEA´s accusations against Tehran are not supported by any new evidence of the alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Kosachev described recent statements by some leaders on possible military operations against Iran as “dangerous” (Ibid).
As how dangerous Russia perceives the military threat against Iran by the USA, France, Turkey, Israel, and other NATO and NATO allied countries is evident when analyzing a recent Russian military exercise. Between 9 and 26 September the Russian, Kazakh, Kyrgiz, Taijik armies deployed 12,000 troops in a military exercise with the code name “Center”. (12)
The troops are part of the Russian-led rapid deployment force. Operation “Center” simulated an Iranian assault on oil fields in the Caspian Sea that are operated by US-American firms, as a response to a military attack against its nuclear facilities. According to Russian Intelligence sources Russia expects that Iran will initiate an immediate military response to any military aggression, and that the rapid response forces were briefed for two stages of the Iranian military response. Stage one, a naval attack along the coast of the Caspian Sea, and stage two, a large scale airborne attack including the Iranian Air Force, Armored Divisions, Marine Battalions, and Infantry Brigades, that would be landing by the Northern and Eastern coastline of the Caspian Sea. The political bearing that the exercise had for the top Russian political and military leadership, and the fact that the exercise was to be understood as an overt warning directed against Western countries political leadership becomes evident by the fact that Russian President Dmitri Medvedjev toured the front on 26 September (ibid).
With the United States, France, Israel, and probably the UK and a number of other nations being set on an aggression against Iran, there are a number of possible scenarios. All of them are equally catastrophic and dangerous.
Scenario one would be to enforce harsh sanctions against Iran, which however is likely to fail at the UNSC. Both Russian and Chinese awareness of the long terms plans behind the US and Allied´s demands for sanctions. Latest since the illegal abuse of the UNSC resolutions on Libya that led to the installation of a NATO proxy regime, destabilization and civil war and occupation, both Russia and China have shown on the example of Syria that they are up to NATO´s colonial ambitions.
Scenario two would be a massive stepping up of the covert operations, including US Special Operations teams and local insurgents, which have been going on ever since the Iran-Iraq war. This strategy would be backed up by subversion strategies similar to those seen in Syria. This strategy however is bound to fail too. Like the Syrian population, the population of Iran stands, in spite of all internal differences, massively behind the Iranian government when it comes to confronting an external threat.
Scenario three would be so called “surgical strikes”, which could be initiated from an Aircraft Carrier, from Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, or any other allied nations territories in the region. It would most likely involve a combined attack by airplanes and missiles. The most likely targets would be key military installations, key nuclear installations, and eventually key figures within the Iranian government. It is not unlikely, not unrealistic, but would trigger an immediate response by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and put both Russian and Chinese military forces back on highest alert.
Scenario four would be an all out military assault on Iran, beginning with an aerial campaign, to be followed by assaults via Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, the Gulf Coast, and eventually the Southern Shore of the Caspian Sea. Such a campaign would be supported by airborne assaults in strategic locations. The preparations for such a campaign have according to an anonymous nsnbc source been prepared for months. It would require several staging areas outside the reach of the most prevalent Iranian missiles. The new NATO colony Libya comes to mind as a perfect cover for a staging area.
Whatever the final scenario will be; never since the end of the Second World War has international peace and security been as threatened as today. Both Russia and China are acutely aware of the fact that the USA is set for full spectrum, global military dominance. Both Russia and China are aware that failure to defend Iran as well as Syria would be failure to protect their own nations security, including vital energy supplies. Ever since the discontinuation of the former USSR and the apparent end of the so called cold war, the USA and NATO have been tightening the military net that encircles Russia and China, and both nations are acutely aware that they would not survive militarily or economically if the net was tightened any further.
by Dr. Christof Lehmann@www.nsnbc.wordpress.com
About nsnbc:
nsnbc is a news-media, established on 28 August 2011 with the purpose to break corporate or state controlled medias embargo on truth. nsnbc publishes articles from journalists, authors and experts from all continents. nsnbc was established and is edited by Dr. Christof Lehmann with the intention to bring you daily no-spin reporting, in depth analysis and opinion from throughout the world. nsnbc is politically and economically independent.
"It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.
The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.
Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule."
Chairperson, Distinguished delegates:
I would like to thank the Law Society of the Northern Provinces for giving me the honour to address its AGM this morning. As you know, I suffer from the great deficiency that I am not a lawyer. However I took the decision to speak to you on what I consider to be the important subject of “International law and the future of Africa”.
I elected to address this topic because I am convinced that the legal community in our country, such as yourselves, and in Africa as a whole, has an urgent obligation to use its enormous talents to defend the inalienable right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination and thus affirm the inviolability of an important principle of international law.
I hope that what I will say later will explain why, in all humility, I decided to place this challenge at your feet.
Last year we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the historic “Declaration on the Granting of independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.
Among other things, the Declaration says:
“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
For the colonised, the Declaration constituted an important step forward in terms of expanding the corpus of international law to the extent that it decreed that “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.
This proposition had been raised earlier in the context of the Second World War, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston adopted “The Atlantic Charter” in 1941, which served as the precursor to the UN Charter.
In this context they said they “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world” and went on to say that:
“they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”; and,
“they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”
And yet the UN Charter which came into force in October 1945 suggested that the colonial powers could continue to hold onto their colonies. This was despite the fact that its Article 1, spells out that one of “The Purposes of the United Nations” is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”
In its Article 73 the UN Charter says: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end… “(agree) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”
To this extent the UN Charter gave legitimacy to continued colonial rule, of course with the proviso that the colonial powers would chaperone their wards towards self-government. It is self-evident that this was done at the insistence of the then colonial powers, principally the United Kingdom and France.
To the contrary, the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” made the peremptory determination that:
“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
“Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”
It goes without saying that the eradication of colonialism, apartheid and white minority rule is one of the great and historic achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War.
As an expression of this development, we too, as South Africans, won the rights “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”
I am certain that all of us present here at this AGM, other South Africans and all Africans throughout our Continent, place a high value on these rights and would defend them with our very lives.
Chairperson:
I have spoken as I have because of troubling developments which suggest, ominously, that Africa’s right to self-determination, so unequivocally confirmed in the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”, and entrenched as an important part of international law, is under threat.
In hindsight, it would seem to me that we made a serious error as Africans when we paid virtually no attention to a particular and pernicious thesis advanced by various individuals in the countries of the North, and specifically the UK, arguing for the re-colonisation of Africa.
In a 2002 article on “The Post-Modern State”, the British diplomat and then adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now occupies an important position in the EU Commission, Robert Cooper, said that one of the “main characteristics of the post-modern world” is achieving “security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.”
He went on to say:
“Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment…
“All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth – all of this seems eminently desirable.
“What is needed, then, is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.”
This view was echoed by Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), in a June 2, 2003 article, in which he wrote:
“Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and – ultimately – some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding.”
On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris entitled ‘The new scramble for Africa begins’, in which he said:
“Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonised. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren’t interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”
Writing in the New Statesman magazine published on 15 January 2001, another British commentator, Richard Gott, writing to oppose this “new imperialism”, said:
“What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably. Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world’s coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message.
“With the reporting and analysis of today’s Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governmentsembark on neo-colonial interventions. The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest.”
I am certain that all of us will not hesitate to denounce these arguments in favour of “a new kind of imperialism”, “a form of neo-imperialism”, “neo-colonial interventions” as constituting a direct and unacceptable challenge to international law, and equally repugnant justification for the repudiation of the solemn “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”
In the passages we have quoted from his article, Robert Cooper says ‘the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world – a world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth…’
In essence he is arguing that the mighty and powerful should use their might to determine the shape and content of ‘the new world order’, positioning themselves as the global but unelected law-givers, giving practical expression to the undemocratic and brutal principle and practice that ‘might is right’.
As South Africans we waged a protracted and costly struggle among other things to assert the primacy of the rule of law and to establish a law-governed society founded on respect for justice in all its forms. In this regard we sought to liberate ourselves from arbitrary rule and injustice and therefore the ineluctably negative consequences of the implementation of the principle that ‘might is right’.
I am certain that all other genuine liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa also sought to achieve the very same outcomes.
It therefore stands to reason that in our own country we have a fundamental obligation to defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, at the same time as we defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, in the ordering of the system of international relations, especially as it relates to Africa’s interactions with the rest of the international community.
It is in this context that I have raised the important matter of defending and safeguarding the right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination, and your tasks in this regard, as an important and vibrant segment of our country’s and Continent’s legal community.
On September 14 – 16, 2005, a World Summit Meeting of the UN General Assembly took place at the New York Headquarters of the UN and, inter alia, adopted important decisions about what has come to be known as “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).
As part of its “Outcome”, the Summit Meeting said:
“Recognizing the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, we: Reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”
What threatens Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is precisely the contemporary disrespect for “the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law”, directly contrary to the decisions of the 2005 World Summit Meeting.
In the period since the end of the Second World War the world community of nations has built a corpus of international law precisely to avoid the catastrophe of lawlessness imposed by Nazism, which, among other things, led to the criminal murder of six million Jews, the death of twenty million Soviet citizens, and massive destruction of the accumulated wealth of nations.
As you know, in this regard the UN Charter contains important provisions of international law relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. The 2005 World Summit Meeting to which we have referred, which addressed the so-called Right to Protect, expanded the peace-making obligations of the international community.
Article 24 of the UN Charter says: “In discharging these duties (for the maintenance of international peace and security), the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
“The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”
For its part, the 2005 Summit Meeting resolved that:
“The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.”
The critical and essential point I am making is that the UN Security Council understood and accepted that its own actions had to be conducted as prescribed by international law. This relates both to the task to maintain international peace and security as provided for in the UN Charter and the ‘responsibility to protect’ as defined by the 2005 World Summit Meeting.
In other words, the UN Security Council itself could only carry out its work, and demand acceptance of its decisions by the world community of nations, including the General Assembly to which it has to report, if it respected the rule of law and established international law, as these relate to its own decisions and operations.
Part of what has obliged us to ring the alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is the concrete reality that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and therefore the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law in terms of its decisions and actions.
It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.
The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.
Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule.
For example, as part of this offensive, relying on all known means of disinformation, the argument is advanced that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the difficult struggle to defeat the apartheid regime.
The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet. This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.
Libya came to extend assistance to the ANC after 1990, when it realised that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.
Similarly, the false assertion has been made that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival. This is yet another fabrication.
The UN Security Council adopted the infamous Resolution 1973 on Libya on March 17, which imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ and authorised various Member States (NATO) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”
The Resolution said nothing about ‘regime change’. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
And indeed in a 15 April, 2011 joint letter, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron had openly declared their intention to achieve this goal.
In this letter they said: “Our duty and our mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.”
And yet in the same letter they said: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadaffi in power…There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi…Colonel Gadaffi must go, and go for good.”
And indeed, as leaders of NATO they ensured that this objective was achieved, directly contrary to what the Security Council Resolution said. And yet the UN Security Council has said nothing about what was a clear violation of international law.
A week before Resolution 1973 was approved, the AU Peace and Security Council adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya and conveyed this to the UN Security Council, as prescribed under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.
To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that country.
This was despite the fact that Resolution 1973 itself said the Security Council supports the “efforts (of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General) to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis” in Libya.
The Resolution also noted the decision of the AU PSC “to send its ad-hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”
Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.
Despite this, the Security Council, in violation of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which provides for cooperation between the Security Council and regional bodies, chose completely to ignore the African Union, preferring to accord a Chapter VIII status to the League of Arab States, simply because the League had called for the establishment of a ‘no-fly zone’.
Resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya. The latter Resolution also specifically excluded “a foreign occupation of any form or any part of Libyan territory” and deplored and demanded an end to what it called “the continuing flow of mercenaries” into Libya.
And yet it is now known that Member States involved in the NATO operation sent weapons to the NTC rebel forces and deployed military and other personnel inside Libya to support these forces.
Again this was in violation of international law, and yet the UN Security Council did nothing to stop it.
The armed uprising in Libya started one week after the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations. This can only mean that preparations had taken place before hand to effect a military uprising. In its resolutions the Security Council says nothing about this.
In this regard, in a Report on Libya issued on June 6 this year, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said:
“Much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the (Libyan) regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on…
“Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”. That said, the repression was real enough, and its brutality shocked even Libyans. It may also have backfired, prompting a growing number of people to take to the streets.”
It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’, as clearly explained by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron in the joint letter we have cited.
These countries then used the Security Council to authorise their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.
Thus the ‘right-to-protect’ was abused and international law was violated to enable some of the major world powers to help determine the future of an African country. In this context all measures were taken to deny our Continent the possibility to help resolve the Libyan conflict without the death of many people and the massive destruction of property, and on the basis of the democratic transformation of that country.
It is clear to many on our Continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has therefore been raised – which African country will be next? As Africans we have a continuing responsibility to protect our right to self-determination as well as a duty to work together to resolve our problems, fully cognisant of the inter-dependence of our countries and the fact that we share a common destiny.
In this regard, to protect that right to self-determination, it seems obvious that we must engage in a sustained struggle to ensure respect for international law and the rule of law in the system of international relations. This must include ensuring that the UN Security Council itself respects international law, which prescribes the rule of law.
I therefore return to the appeal I made at the beginning, that you should use your considerable talents to join this struggle so that indeed, as Africans, we have the possibility “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”
I hope that you will find some space in your busy schedules to reflect and act on this important matter.
Thank you. ADDRESS BY THE PATRON OF THE TMF AND FORMER SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT, THABO MBEKI,
AT THE AGM OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN PROVINCES: SUN CITY,
