Please enlarge thumb.
The following is another extremely insightful article on neo-colonial
imperialist meddling in Africa by the unsual list of suspects. In this case, Zionist
Sarkozy of France is discussed a bit more than the rest. (His portrait is quite beautiful, worth enlarging for amusing details).
Regrettably, the one thing that Dr.
Lehmann omits, which is to be expected in most of the media, is the Israeli
connection. So, as you read, keep this in mind ~ the meddling involvement of Israel
is, as always when there are finances involved, irrefutable. Just the fact that
banks are involved carries the stench of Rothschild.
Dr. Christof Lehmann.
October 17, 2011
The withdrawal of the old colonial powers from Africa, in the
context of a developing cold war, (1), a developing
Pan-African Nationalism (2), and the rising
cost of maintaining a colonial administration system, during the
nineteen-hundred and sixties left the African nations in a euphoric state of
independence.
In most cases this euphoria was soon to be substituted by chocking
massacres and conflict, coup d’états unrest and destabilization. The old
colonial rulers had returned with a vengeance. Over fifty years later, most
African nations are, in spite of the richness of their resources and
productivity of their population, still catastrophically under developed,
impoverished, indebted, plagued by conflict, unrest and instability due to the
return of the colonial powers influence.
Those African nations who failed to comply with their returning
rulers were and are mercilessly attacked. Libya and the Ivory Coast are
examples for the new colonization’s subversive influence, and a warning for
African leaders to face the lion in solidarity or be devoured one by one.
COMMON
DENOMINATORS
All
conflicts in post-colonial African wars as well as internal unrest have the
same common elements:
The involvement of foreign nations;
The instrumentalization of local elements;
And the goal to control resources, economy, and geopolitically as
well as strategically significant locations.
Western Media’s narrative of French, British, and US-American
involvement in Africa is commonly manufacturing popular consent by eliciting a
fabled advocacy for stability, human rights, and democracy for African
countries; nothing could be farther from the truth.
Stability, human rights and democracy are but the pretext for
aggressive neo-colonial subversion, invasion, long-term military presence and
control.
This subversion and invasion has acquired an additional dimension
after China began to invest massively on the African continent. While the
traditional colonial powers and the USA maintained the traditional role of the
supremacist usurper, China is, though resource, trade and profit oriented, taking
an approach of joint ventures and contribution to the development of African
Nations infrastructure (3).
After all, the Chino-African model of free market enterprise and
joint venture cannot function if African nations don´t develop to such degree
that they can import consumer goods that are manufactured in China.
Thus, since China began vesting interests in Africa, the traditional
colonial powers and the USA´s subversions and aggressions began being directed
against primarily China, and secondarily Russia, which is recently
re-discovering it´s strength as a global power, after a period of restructuring
and re-consolidation after the collapse of the USSR (4).
The neo-colonial model of subversion is based on directing and co-opting local
instruments, such as opposition parties, human rights organizations, an ongoing
internal low intensity conflict, as well as expatriate communities, expatriates
sponsored and with ties to i.e. the National Endowment for Democracy, and other
Institutes, NGO´s and Organizations that are notorious for their involvement in
subversions (5).
These systems interface with both civilian and military
intelligence services and special operations forces, in a logical, systematic
approach that invariably has the same outcome; the subversion of the country,
and the installation of a controlled, friendly, or proxy government.
Precisely the same methodology is explained in an analysis of the
subversion of Syria that began with the “Arab Spring” in 2011 (6).
A successful subversion without the co-conspiracy of local elements
is neither viable nor desirable. A U.S. Training Manual for Unconventional
Warfare is breaking such terms as feasibility for subversion down into
operational details (7).
The co-opting of local opposition in African subversions has been
an invariable part of neo-colonial strategy since day one of neo-colonialism,
when the Congolese Government and Patrice Lumumba were overthrown by creating
and aggravating internal tensions, and the financial, as well as covert
military support of an armed insurgency with its basis in a local militia (8).
The function of any of these subversions is invariably the
controlling of resources and wealth while keeping the African Nations
impoverished and indebted, and since the beginning of the rapid development of
China´s economy, the geopolitical as well as economical warfare on Russia and
China.
MERCENARY
ARMIES IN COLONIAL WARFARE AND AL QAEDA
Abdelhakim
Belhadj LIFG
The use of local instruments in subversions has largely been based
on either tribal or religious aspects. A prime example of this strategy is
Angola. After the Socialist MPLA, backed by Cuba and the USSR came to power in
Angola, the Western Block, read NATO countries, began building and supporting
two alternative movements, the NFLA in Northern, and UNITA in Southern Angola.
Both the NFLA and UNITA were based on the same charter, but were divided by
tribal affiliation (9).
In the case of Afghanistan, the USA and NATO countries heavily
supported what was then called “Mujahedeen”, and a CIA-run network of Arab
mercenaries, which came to become known as Al-Qaeda (10).
The same network of mainly Arab and Afghan mercenaries was used by
NATO in the war on Serbia, and the conquering of Kosovo (11), and the same network has been used against
Libya by Western Intelligence Services for decades, and it is currently
delivering the core of the so called “rebels” in Libya (12).
How NATO is using this “network” or Al Qaeda, depending on what
function it is supposed to fulfill in a given operation, as respectively
purported enemy or ally is elicited by a West Point Study (13),
that shows that the same Al Qaeda Terrorist Network in Benghazi and Derna,
Libya, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, delivered the greatest per capita
contribution of foreign fighters against the USA in Iraq, while the same LIFG
is now providing the core around which among other, CIA imported Afghan
Fighters (14) are installed in the theater of
operations in the occupation of Libya.
At the onset of what is generally termed “The Arab Spring” in
Libya, US-President Barak Obama signed an order, designating CIA operatives to
the eastern Libyan cities Derna and Benghazi, in preparation of the final
stages of the covert, and the beginning stages of the overt subversion of the
Libyan Government (15).
Publicly, Obama sent the CIA operatives to “analyze” the rebel
forces. This analysis however, had been done in the West Point Study (ibid.)
long before, and knowing about how intelligence operations are performed, was
part of the step by step strategy for subversion, explained in the TC18-01
Unconventional Warfare manual (ibid.).
The military leader of the Al Qaeda fraction Libyan Islamic
Fighting group was re labeled “rebels” and not long time after into the Tripoli
Military Counsel (16).
Meanwhile, the Corporate Western Media villainies and positioned
Muammar Ghadafi and the Libyan Government as dictatorial villains, that
indiscriminately bombed “peaceful protesters” while it´s Al Qaeda and Associated
Army of Mercenaries, and the political proxies Mahmud Jibril, Jalil, and a
cohort of “anonymous “politicians” of the Transitional National Counsel were
made into the heroes of the Libyan Revolution.
The manufacturing of consent by media is one invariable element of
warfare. The manufacturing of a quasi legitimate new government is an
invariable element of neo-colonial strategy, as it can be observed on the
example of the manufacturing of the National Council of Syria, which is in
NATO´s sights too (17).
The main obstacle for the advance of neo-colonialism on the African
Continent has never been Al Qaeda, but Muammar Ghadafi, the Libyan Government,
as well as Laurent Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
DO
AFRICANS REALLY KNOW WHAT A SUPREME COURT IS?
In Ivory Coast, the situation was not unlike the one in Libya. Ivory Coast held
a Presidential Election, with an apparently very close outcome.
In Western Corporate Media all we hear is that the Electoral
Commission of Ivory Coast had declared Outara the winner of the elections.
What Western Media failed to report was, that there had been wide
spread election fraud, that the President of Ivory Coast and his party took the
election results to the supreme court, and that the supreme court declared
Laurent Gbagbo the winner of the election and thus Laurent Gbagbo to be the
lawful President Elect of Ivory Coast.
What was reported, and emphatically reported, was that “security
forces” clamp down on “peaceful protesters”, and then, that “Outara´s Army” is
cornering Gbagbo “in his bunker”(18).
This news Coverage and manufacturing of Consent is only possible in
populations that are inherently racist and traditional or neo-colonial powers (19).
The important question is where did Outara, who just claimed to
have won the election, gotten an “Army” from. Unless a population is so used to
condescending racism and colonialist thinking, one would immediately say, but
the electoral commission is not the one to approve of election results, it´s
the Supreme Court.
Not so, if the audience is inherently racist and inherently
thinking in a way typical for colonial powers; condescending towards the wild
and uncivilized African (ibid.). To illustrate the point on a Western Example.
When George Bush and Al Gore had the closest ever election held in
the United States of America (20), who certified
the election?
Even though many Americans felt utterly disenfranchised, the
population respected the Supreme Court. Can you for one moment imagine that “Al Gore cornered Bush in his bunker, with
Al Gore´s Army, neglecting the Supreme Court, because an Electoral Commission
had pronounced him the winner ? “
Where would Al Gore have gotten an Army from anyways?
What happened in Ivory Coast was that France and the United States
backed Outara at neglecting the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Counsel of
Ivory Coast because the Supreme Court decided in favor of Laurent Gbagbo and
not the Proxy President of Neo-Colonialism in Africa.
Laurent
Gbagbo
Where did Outara get an Army from? Outara´s “Army” consisted of a
collection of “rebel forces”
or French backed insurgents from the Northern part of Ivory Coast, who had been
convinced by the French DGSE (22) and old
colonial power structures, inherent in among other French Freemasonry in Arica,
to side with Outara, against Laurent Gbagbo (23).
Besides that, 2.500 French soldiers (24), plus U.N.
Soldiers (25) were present,
taking actively part in the ousting of Laurent Gbagbo, and the legitimate
government of Ivory Coast. That is where Outara got “His Army” from. Insurgents,
French and U.N. Troops were Outara´s
Army. (26)
An army that murdered thousands of Ivory Coast´s citizens in the
neo-colonial post-modern coup d’état. Justice on Laurent Gbagbo is then served
at the United Nation´s ICC making the U.N., France and the USA the judge, the
jury, and the executioner. (27)
SO
“WHY” HAD FRANCE TO REMOVE GBAGBO FROM OFFICE?
The question that needs to be answered, before it is possible to
discern why the events in Ivory Coast and Libya as they do is “why” did the USA and France
want Laurent Gbagbo and Ghadafi removed from political office.
The unrests, the engineering of dissent, the alliances with armed
militia, politicians and oligarchs are nothing but “functions” and “instruments”.
It is comparable with a script for a play in the world political
theater; the script is written, the acts planned, long before the cast of
actors is chosen.
The discourse of political reporting, and the manufacturing of
opinion discuss the cast, seldom the play writer, almost never the play writers
motivation, and that is one of the most critical functions of media with
respect to social engineering.
It is absolutely necessary to have an understanding of this
background to understand the subversions in Ivory Coast and Libya. After World
War II the European Economies were scrambling to reconstitute. So was that of
France, which devised long term plans for economical recovery in several
phases.
The traditional form of colonial control by military might and
absolute political control had, in spite of the richness of African resources,
become too costly, too cumbersome, and in the light of the depletion of
military force due to two major conflicts, become impossible.
What is also noteworthy is, that the post-war period was is the
period where the development of media and Public Relations significantly began
substituting police and military force as instruments for social control (28).
Laurent Gbagbo had discussions with other visionary African leaders
who not only knew that the new-colonization of Africa was keeping African
nations impoverished and virtually enslaved, it´s citizens being the back bone
of new colonial powers economy, but who had vision, courage, and integrity in
resisting the usurpers of Europe, the USA, and globalized Corporate Influences.
Most prominently, Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, and Muammar
al-Ghadafi, honorary leader of the Libyan Revolution.
One of the main reasons why Laurent Gbagbo had to be replaced by
France, and replaced fast, was that Gbagbo was not only seriously working
towards creating Ivory Coast’s own currency, that would be independent of
France, but that he, like Robert Mugabe and Muammar Ghadafi, actively lobbied
and encouraged other African nations in the CFA region to follow suit (29).
The main reason why France “never
would allow this to happen” in one of its old colonies is, that the
CFA is one of the main sources of income for the French economy. Not only does
France control the value of the CFA, and thus how much it earns on trade with
CFA nations, not only does France cooperate with the IMF on regular
devaluations of the CFA (30),
France is printing the money for and exerts absolute control over the eight
African countries economy.
Moreover, the monetary policy of France in governing the eight
nations’ economy is in fact operated by the French Treasury, without any
reference to the central fiscal authorities of any of these eight nations.
Under the terms of the CFA Agreement, it is France that is unilaterally setting
up these African nations Central Banks, and each of the eight countries is
obliged to keep at least 65 % of its foreign exchange reserves in an
“operations account” held at the French Treasury, as well as another 20% to
cover financial liabilities (31).
In other words, 85 % of all foreign exchange reserves of Ivory
Coast, Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bisau, Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo are 100
% under control of the French Treasury with France in a position to devalue and
manipulate these countries economy to its own advantage.
The CFA was created to keep African nations impoverished, to
maintain the plunder of their resources and wealth, while feeding the French
and European Economy (32).
The social unrest that follows in the wake of new devaluations (33), is then hard
handedly oppressed by those “African Viceroys” that are nepotistic enough to
co-operate with France as agents of their own nations’ and peoples’
enslavement.
Laurent Gbagbo opposed the colonial master because Laurent Gbagbo
was working for the benefit of his people and Ivory Coast; that is why Laurent Gbagbo had to be
removed.
SO
WHY DID THE SUN KINGS OF EUROPE
AND THE USA HATE GHADAFI?
Colonialism in Africa has changed significantly since the USA
entered African Politics after WWII, and very significantly, with the
consolidation of the European Union. While France has particular national
interests in the CFA region, most of Southern Europe’s states are working
towards an expansion of the European Market to the Mediterranean Basin, and a
new colonization by means of economic control and military presence in Northern
Africa.
Seldom mentioned in the corporate media, the Royal Family of
Morocco is a stern supporter of this policy. Cooperation on multiple areas,
such as the control of the Mediterranean Basin States Social Economy (34) has been
implemented for yea
French
President Nicolas Sarkozy made it his personal ambition to achieve what even Napoleon
did not, a colonization of the entire Northern and Western African Continent. In
2008 France and the European Union had been so far in their preparations, that
the only remaining obstacle for its North African Colonial Ambitions was Libya,
and Libya outright rejected to play into the hands of the want to be
colonialists.
When asked for his opinion about the Mediterranean Basin alliance,
Muammar Ghadafi said:
“If Europe wants co-operation, it should go
through Cairo and Adis Abeba”. (35)
In 2008, President Sarkozy wanted to make the Mediterranean
Alliance his contribution to the European Union, and during the six months of
the French E.U. Presidency (ibid.) French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner did
not only convey Sarkozy´s “disappointment”,
but clearly indicated that Libya and Ghadafi had become “the” obstacle for
further colonial expansion in Northern Africa, when he stated that
“Colonel Ghadafi is not in agreement with
this vision. Neither was he in agreement with the Barcelona process which we
intend to support and pursue” (ibid.).
The reason why Libya opposed the Mediterranean Alliance was that
it would have split, rather than united African Nations. Rather than
establishing one more “zone”
like the CFA Region in Northern Africa, Ghadafi and Libya were lobbying the
African Union to abandon the CFA treaties with France, and to establish a
Pan-African, gold backed currency, which would end the usury, the robbery of
African nations resources, and the enslavement of an entire continent’s
population.
The Libyan arguments were persuasive. Libya had the highest per
capita GDP, the highest standard of living, social services, wages, job
security, education program, literacy rate, and countless other “firsts” among
African Nations.
After Ghadafi´s and Libya´s outright rejection of the
Mediterranean Alliance (ibid.) and success at lobbying for a Pan-African
currency with ,among others, Laurent Gbagbo from Ivory Coast meant, that the
USA and Europe had only one option left, to topple the Libyan Government by any
means necessary.
THE MYTH OF AN AFRICAN UNION
To understand the full range of the problem Libya created, it is
necessary to know what the African Union (AU) is. The African Union was
established in 2002 by member states of the former Organization of African
Unity (OAU). The OAU was established in 1963 with the function to facilitate
African Nations’ transition to independence, to counter all forms of
colonialism, and protect the independence and national integrity of African
Nations (36).
The transition from the OAU to the African Union in 2002 was
nothing else but the European Union´s co-opting the only forum that actively
lobbied against neo-colonialism, and substitute it with an African Union, that
is modeled over the European Union (37).
The African Union is but the new colonial administration of a
now united Europe.
With approximately one third of the entire budget of the African
Union paid for by the European Union, as alms to Africa, taken from the money
that is usurped from Africa, the African Union is but the European Union´s
Colonial Administration.
An African Court of Justice (38) modeled over
the ICC, an African Investment Bank, an African Development Bank, and an
African Central Bank, managed by Europe, for Europe and the USA (39), and global
Finance Capital (40).
The African Union did not “cower
in the light of pressure from the E.U” (41) as some interpreted its support of
UNSC Resolution 1973 (42), the African
Union strictly spoken functioned exactly as it was designed to do; as an
instrument for the new colonization of Africa.
Just like Laurent Gbagbo, who had to be removed because he wanted
Ivory Coast to have its own currency or a Pan-African Currency under African
Control rather than that of the French National Bank, Muammar Ghadafi had to be
removed, because he was the one obstacle that prevented the establishment of
the Mediterranean Alliance, and because his ideas about a Pan-African Gold
Dinar was seriously considered by many African leaders, who do not dare to
speak of it over their breath.
`THAT IS “WHY” GHADAFI HAD TO BE REMOVED.
THE
SPIRAL TOWARDS A GLOBAL CONFLICT
Ivory Coast and the removal of
incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo from office;
the criminal war against Libya and
the ousting of the legitimate Libyan Government,
the aggressive expansion of the US
African Command,
the ongoing subversion of Syria,
the manufacturing of war in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Ossetia;
the manufacturing of insurgencies in
Chechnya, Yemen, among others,
and countless Color Revolutions
and the Arab Spring Coup d’état have
only been possible for two reasons.
The fact that Russia was severely destabilized after the
collapse of the USSR, and under the Presidency of Boris Yeltsin, who strip sold
Russian Assets to Global Oligarchs, and which had to find its footing as a
global power.
The fact that the transformation of the Chinese economy was
prioritized higher by China than the defense of the nations in Africa that
provide much of the resources that drive the Chinese economy.
Already at the International Security Conference in Munich, 2007,
then President of The Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin used the strongest
possible words of diplomatic parleur to warn the United States of America,
saying that it´s aggressive expansionism has brought the world closer to a
third world war than it has ever been before (43).
After the absolutely criminal and shameless abuse of the United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 and the attempt by NATO countries to
abuse the UN for a similar resolution on Syria, both China and Russia responded
with a veto (44).
The global danger however, is not the fact of the veto, but the
fact that the world today, with a United Nations that has utterly been co-opted
by NATO countries (45), has no forum for a peaceful
resolution of what increasingly seems to develop into a global war.
This is indeed an unprecedented crisis that demands unprecedented
leadership, courage, and integrity.
REFERENCES:
2. Pan-African Nationalism
9.
Frontline Vol. 2. Issue 8. December 2008, How Africa Won
Freedom.
15.
U.S. Sends CIA agents into Libya to analyze rebel forces.
24. Ivory
Coast´s Gbagbo held after French troops move in.
25. Ivory
Coast´s Gbagbo Captured at Presidential Compound.
40. GIGA
EU-African Economic Relations.
41. The African Unions Mistake of Policy and Principle.
