The west striving to Re-Colonise the African Continent by Idang Alibi

Nov 17, 2011 (The Moment/All Africa Global Media) — IF I were a man of some great consequence, I would have the audacity to say that Thursday, October 20, 2011 will go down in my diary as one of the saddest days in my life.

 

For it was on that day that the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, one of the most nationalistic, intelligent, caring, responsive and responsible leaders among leaders of the developing nations, was killed and humiliated by imperialists powers under the guise of freeing the people of Libya from his dictatorship.

 

My sorrow was so immense not only because a great leader and humanist was killed by the forces of greed and injustice, but because some members of the human family, including, unfortunately, some brain-washed citizens ofLibya, did not know the import of what had, some years ago, happened inIraqand which had now come uponLibya.

 

And who can blame those who do not understand the significance of what happened on that day?

 

Being victims of several years of Western media propaganda which demonises any uppity Third World leader that the West cannot easily manipulate for their own purposes, it is hardly surprising that some people, including Libyans, were wildly celebrating what they foolishly thought was the fall of Gaddafi, the deserved end of a dictator, a tyrant, a corrupt man.

 

But the truth of the matter is that the Americans, French and Britons who killed Gaddafi had no noble thoughts on their mind at all: that they were out to take out a man who was giving pains to some Arabs.

 

As far as they are concerned it will be better if some crazy folk can kill off all the Arabs inLibyaand leave the place empty for them to get their crude oil, which is what all the adventure inLibyais about.What took place that day was not the fall of Gaddafi as is erroneously being thought.

 

What happened is another signpost that the world is being led back to the era of colonisation of various peoples adjudged by some unjust and greedy people to be primitive but who have the strategic resources that the West need for their industries back home.

 

This, in reality, is what happened and, as I said, first, inIraqand now it has been accomplished inLibya.And instead of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, some people were rejoicing? Is this not a case of ignorance being bliss?

 

We are experiencing the beginning (in Iraq) and the consolidation (in Libya) of a people being subjected to the loss of their country, their freedom and the resources which God is his infinite wisdom gave to them yet, some are so ignorant and so blissful of their impending bondage?

Western powers who feel entitled to all the resources of the earth, are about again to begin a second colonisation of Africa, theMiddle Eastand the rest of the `primitive world`.

Remember that in recent times the West has been referring toAfricaas the last frontier of resources in the world.

 

This is a Freudian slip, which reveals their covetous desire for the crude oil, gold and other strategic resources ofAfrica.

 

With the type of simple minded attitude of taking in and believing everything that our predators tell us about our leaders and their offer to `help` us do away with them, we should just begin to prepare for re-colonisation because that is one of the guises they will hide under to invade our countries to install puppets who will rule us on behalf of the imperialists.

 

Let me tell my people one truth; there are dictators everywhere. Our own may not be worse than those ofEurope.

 

The difference between our own dictators and those of Europe and America is that while our own may kill their own citizens who disagree with them, those of America order the killing of thousands of peoples of other countries who have no quarrel whatsoever with America.

 

Please, may I know something: How many ordinary Afghans who cannot locate the map of their own country or that of America`s on the world map and who have no quarrel whatsoever with America have been killed on the orders of President Barack Obama and other dictators of America before him?

 

What are American soldiers doing inAfghanistan? When was there a vote that they should go there? Is that their country?

 

Did the people ofAfghanistanask `democrat` Obama to come to their aid against an aggressor? If they did not, what legitimate right doesAmericahave to be in that country?

 

If they went toAfghanistanuninvited, theAmericaleader who gave the order for his troops to occupy that country, is he a democrat or a dictator? Let someone please tell the simple son of Alibi the answer, please.

I am trying in my small way to puncture some of the fraudulent and fallacious arguments these imperialists put up to justify some of their costly adventures but which some among us who call themselves democrats, human rights activists, non-state actors, feminists and the likes, choose to buy and swallow spoon, fork and knife.

 

The Americans and the Europeans are in trouble and only their leaders know it.

 

Many of the leaders and ordinary peoples of those continents have sold their souls to Satan.

 

We live in a moral world and whether we believe it or not, there are consequences of our actions.

 

The people have squandered the resources most of which they stole from other people through outright theft, piracy, unfair trade policies and living a life of insatiable greed fuelled by smart advertising in which most of their citizens, especially women, buy what they do not need but which they have been led to believe they must possess if they want to live a good life and be like the Jones across the street.

 

Payback time for a life of greed and living on credit has come.

 

The politicians of those countries have unsuccessfully tried so many things for their countries to remain afloat but no dice.

 

Imperialism in which an imperial power extracts the resources of client states is not bringing as much money and wealth and with as much speed as the West would like because some leaders of `primitive` countries like Saddam and Gaddafi are not pliable.

 

The West is at its wit`s end: they do not know what trick in the rulebooks to employ any more. The new option is therefore recourse to old-fashioned re-colonisation: re-colonise the countries of Africa, Latin America andAsia.

 

What strategy to adopt? Start with those countries with huge strategic resources but which have wise, intelligent, nationalistic and assertive leaders such as Saddam and Gaddafi who could act as obstacles.

 

The calculation is that by such a strategy they can shock, destabilise, intimidate and overawe the rest.

Analysis
NATO in Libya – UN And ICC Risk Becoming Irrelevant to Africans by Yaw Asare Adu-Out
November 10, 2011

Nov 10, 2011 (Ghanaian Chronicle/All Africa Global Media) — Repeating the falsehood that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) exercised its military capability inLibya to protect civilians against attack by the military of Gadahfi regime did not make the assertion truthful when reasonable people around the world examined all the facts. Additionally, repeating NATO`s false premise has not made intervention inLibya and brutal murder of Col Gadahfi either legal or legitimate in the context of international law.

Rather, the chances may be that heads of government of NATO member-countries and their outside allies must be ready to exculpate themselves at the International Criminal Court (ICC) from charges of willful overthrow and assassination of the head of state of an African country, Muammar Gadhafi.

NATO Air Force attack supported organized Libyan civilian forces engaged in armed hostilities in opposition to the Gadahfi regime for eight months. The hostilities had the character of a civil war, culminating in the assassination of Gadahfi in cold blood through the instrumentality of NATO`s air force.

Considering the glee and euphoria with which popular media outlets in the West reported the internal conflict and hostilities inLibya, it is tempting for one to hazard a question regarding the source of NATO`s actual motivation for the intervention inLibyaas it happened.

In the context of NATO feigning concern for civilian population ofLibya, it is defensible to question why the organization did not intervene inSouth Africaduring the period of apartheid when the Afrikaans regime unleashed brutality against the African population. NATO was a no show inSudanto protect the African population in the South of the country against the brutalities of theKhartoumgovernment. In the event of genocide hostilities inRwandain 1994, NATO was nowhere near. The world is waiting to see when NATO will decide to protect civilian population in the Great Lakes region ofAfricato secure the peace and protect Democratic Republic of Congo against foreign predators plundering its mineral resources. Since NATO had not seen reason to respond to other critical internal conflicts in Africa as cited here, it takes a stretch of one`s imagination to fathom its “real” reason for the decision to engage inLibya.

Until NATO provides satisfactory explanation for its intervention inLibya, African people would have reason to believe that the organization has engaged in aiding and abetting imperialist forces with neo-colonialist intentions inAfrica.

One could only be suspicious that given the downturn of European economies forces must be at work in support of Europe`s return to its imperialist past. Nothing will rescueEuropefrom its current economic quagmire than to have unfettered access to African resources and raw materials. It is not sheer co-incidence thatLibyais oozing sweet crude oil that the Europeans andUnited Statesneed desperately.

If the ICC do not initiate steps to investigate and prosecute President Nicolas Sarkozy ofFrancefor dumping arms inLibya, that court must consider itself irrelevant to Africans. ICC has become notorious for focusing its prosecutorial power primarily on African heads of state by preferring frivolous charges against some of them to satisfy the whims and caprices of world imperialist powers.RussiaandChinanoted that intervention of NATO inLibyaviolated provisions of UN resolutions 1970 and 1973. Leaders of African Union have pointed out that NATO`s campaign risked replicating “Somaliasation” inLibya.

While NATO Air Force rained mayhem on the government and people ofLibya, ICC had the effrontery to issue warrant for arrest of Gadahfi and his children. That was an example of the frivolousness of ICC`s behavior towards Africans. Regarding the bombardment ofLibya, it is defensible to question the fairness about ICC`s decision to arrest Gadahfi. Shouldn`t the ICC have arrested leaders of the oil-hungry world imperialist forces that attacked the people ofLibyaand Gadahfi, head of state and government of the sovereign nation ofLibya? Didn`t Gadahfi have a duty to defend the sovereignty of the nation ofLibyaagainst external attack?

Dr. Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president in the 2012United Stateselections, has repeatedly stated that theUnited Statesconstitution does not grant authority to the government to intervene in internal affairs of any country.

Franceis broke and short of resources and risks becoming bankrupt without access to African resources that it had during a long period of European colonization ofAfrica. Towards re-colonization of Africa,Francehas been fomenting confusion, atrocities and promoting internal conflicts in some of its former colonial holdings in Africa such as Cote d`Ivoire,Burkina FasoandCameroon. Currently, it seemsFranceis getting help from theUnited Statesand NATO to have access to Libya`s oil and cash reserves. Therefore, it appears the moves by ICC inLibya, added to the consternation of forces to deprive people ofLibyaof their oil and money resources.

Meanwhile, prosecutors at ICC have appeared unconcerned when leaders of world powers in the West such asBritainandFrancecommit atrocities in the international arena through unwarranted wars as well as other forms of irresponsible actions or inactions against humanity. In this instance, events and outcomes of `Katrina` submergence ofNew Orleans, Abu Ghraib, Bagram andGuantanamocome to mind.

While NATO claimed the false premise of protecting a section of the Libyan population against the Gadhafi regime,Francekept dumping arms unilaterally in the hands of another section of Libyan civilian population.

For many years, African governments had campaigned against infiltration of arms into the continent from outside. Infiltration of arms intoAfricahad encouraged local conflicts and hostilities in various societies, drawing attention and resources away from needed development. Therefore, doling arms to a civilian population inLibyaconstituted an action for which the ICC must indict Nicolas Sarkozy ofFrance.

Instead of indicting Sarkozy, the ICC set its eyes on Gadahfi and his children. Gadahfi had a duty to protect his regime against chaos and conflict sponsored by forces of economic imperialism. Clearly, Gadhafi`s regime had a duty also to protect the territorial integrity ofLibyaagainst external attack.

In the process of considering intervening inLibya, the UN as well as NATO and its reactionary allies ignored overtures from the African Union, AU, the organization representing majority of Africans. At the end of June 2011, a spokesperson for AU, speaking fromEquatorial Guinea, pointed out the risk of a number of problems linked to the unilateral airdrop of arms inLibyabyFrance. The problems the AU spokesperson listed included, “The risk of civil war, risk of partitioning of the country, the risk of `Somaliasation` of the country, risk of having arms everywhere … and risk with terrorism.” The spokesperson raised also the specter of spillover effects of outcomes inLibyainto neighboring countries, BBC News reported.

The AU, on March 10, 2011, empanelled five African presidents “to mediate an end to bloodshed inLibya,” online Times live ofSouth Africareported. A spokesperson forSouth Africasaid, “South Affrica viewed the situation inLibyaas grave and wanted Muammar Gaddafi and the rebels fighting to end his four decades in power to cease hostilities.” A Libyan radio report suspected members of the al-Qaeda organization fighting alongside the anti-Gadahfi Libyan forces.

The UN-NATO war machinery group shoved the AU presidential peace mediators panel aside and rather, listened to the advice of backward thinkers like David Cameron, David Owen and William Hague to carry on with air attack onLibya.

Francehas not denied dropping arms at a civilian populated area of Libyan territory where there had been on-going civil war. Who knows what Sarkozy has tried to achieve inAfrica. In the final analysis, armed Libyan civilians murdered Gadahfi brutally with help of NATO air attack. Had NATO and France done the bidding of the UN? Who are the good people now in the Libyan contradiction?

 

www.buhodlepost.com source B/kulule