The Obama Doctrine: Imperialism Masked as «Humanitarian Interventionism»

“A core elite of Democratic Party foreign policy wonks, many sheep-dipped through Soros-funded and – influenced non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Clinton administration. In addition to Power and Rice, a major player behind MARO and U.S. “humanitarian” interventionism is Sarah Sewall, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peace Operations in the Clinton administration. She now heads a MARO team at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations-heavy Kennedy School at Harvard.”

28.11.2011 | 00:00
Wayne MADSEN
Strategic-Culture.org

The Obama administration, in yet another display of the use of Orwellian language, has embarked on a military doctrine called “Mass Atrocity Prevention” (MAP), the Pentagon operational plan to implement the White House’s “R2P” or “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Essentially, the Pentagon doctrine is crafted to militarily support the intervention of regional and worldwide international forces operating under the umbrella of NATO, UN, the African Union, the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League, and other organizations in the name of “humanitarian” intervention to prevent widespread massacres. The doctrine’s first major test case was in Libya, where NATO forces, in support of Western- and Saudi/Gulf potentate-backed rebel forces, ousted the 42 year-old regime of Muammar Qaddafi.

And in yet another display of oxymoronic Orwellian “Newspeak,” the main Defense Department activity for developing “Mass Atrocity Response Operations” or “MARO” is the Army’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

The new American justification for military intervention arises from Presidential Study Directive 10/PSD-10, a memorandum issued by the White House on August 4, 2011, which created an Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board and interagency review to bring administration policy in line with a new presidential policy that deems “preventing mass atrocities and genocide” a “core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.”

The new American foreign policy initiative was justified by the 2008 report of the Genocide Prevention Task Force co-chaired by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The task force was heavily influenced by the neoconservative and federally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace, as well as George Soros-funded think tanks like the Center for American Progress and pro-Israeli organizations like the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

PSD-10 was largely the brain child of National Security Council staff member Samantha Power, who is married to Obama’s “propaganda czar” Cass Sunstein, and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN. The White House press briefing on Obama’s Mass Atrocity Prevention doctrine specifically mentioned Syria, Libya, Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, and Kyrgyzstan as examples of when U.S. diplomatic and stronger intervention was required. The announcement cited the Holocaust in Europe and the genocide in Rwanda as reasons for the new U.S. policy but curiously omitted the U.S.-supported Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia and the CIA-supported post-1965 coup genocide in Indonesia, the latter involving President Obama’s Indonesian step-father, a lieutenant colonel in the Indonesian army.

A core elite of Democratic Party foreign policy wonks, many sheep-dipped through Soros-funded and – influenced non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Clinton administration. In addition to Power and Rice, a major player behind MARO and U.S. “humanitarian” interventionism is Sarah Sewall, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peace Operations in the Clinton administration. She now heads a MARO team at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations-heavy Kennedy School at Harvard. Sewall’s MARO project director is Sally Chin, formerly with the U.S. Institute of Peace-funded Search for Common Ground (SFCG), which has also received support from Soros, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Saudi billionaire Prince Al Waleed bin Talal. SFCG target countries include Sudan, Pakistan, Kosovo, Kenya, Indonesia, Cote d’Ivoire, Burundi, Liberia, Lebanon, Zimbabwe, and the city of Jerusalem.

Funding for Sewall’s foreign policy-laundering operation for the Obama administration comes from PKSOI and Humanity United, an NGO having interlocking management links with many other George Soros-funded operations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), the Tides Center, and the International Crisis Group (ICG). In addition Humanity United is linked to the U.S. intelligence and Pentagon military operations planning contractor, the RAND Corporation; CIA-linked World Vision; and the William J. Clinton Foundation, headed up by the husband of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has also embraced the MARO doctrine.

Current targets for meddling by MARO and the Soros NGO network are Syria, Somalia, Philippines, Kenya, post-Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) Colombia, Guatemala, Pakistan, Uganda (targeting the Lord’s Resistance Army), and North and South Yemen. Past target nations that saw major “humanitarian” destabilization efforts by Obama’s new doctrine were Haiti, Kosovo, South Sudan, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.

The concept of R2P arose from a December 2001 report from another Orwellian “Newspeak”-named entity, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), the brainchild of then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. The commission is defunct but its role in pushing R2P was assumed by the Global Center for Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P), which has been championed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. GCR2P was founded by the same cast of Soros-influenced NGOs that helped to develop the MARO doctrine for the Obama administration: ICG and HRW, the founding partners of GCR2P. Among the major donors to GCR2P is Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI). GCR2P’s target countries match those of other NGOs involved in advancing the MARO doctrine: Syria, Libya, Uganda, Sudan, and Democratic Republic of Congo.

The MARO doctrine and R2P are currently being used to justify covert and proposed overt NATO and U.S. military operations to topple the government of President Bashar Assad in Syria, the same “humanitarian” intervention template used to justify NATO’s and the Gulf Cooperation Council’s (GCC) military intervention in Libya on behalf of the Transitional National Council, which plunged Libya into a worse human rights situation under rebel rule than anything ever experienced under the Qaddafi regime, including the massacre of Libyan civilians and foreign black African guest workers; summary executions of Qaddafi, members of his family, and his supporters; and detention of children.

One of the MARO principles, establishing “safe areas” for internally-displaced persons, is now at the heart of proposed NATO intervention in Syria. Another MARO military principle being proposed for Syria is the establishment of an “oil spot,” systematically securing limited areas with a “clear-hold-build” approach. Yet another MARO principle, containment through blockades and no-fly zones, was used to justify NATO intervention in Libya and is being proposed for Syria and Iran.

Other MARO operations include fomenting labor strikes in targeted nations; saturating large areas in target nations with sufficient military forces; creating buffer or demilitarized zones between perpetrator forces and victims; partner enabling by supplying advisors, equipment, and special support to host nations, coalition partners, and “victim groups” (more Orwellian “Newspeak” for rebel and secessionist forces – MARO doctrine, thus, incorporates decades of U.S. military doctrine on counter-insurgency – COIN – operations, which brought the world such “humanitarian” achievements as the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam, and other U.S. massacres of civilians in Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Iraq, and Afghanistan); and militarily defeating “perpetrator” leadership and their capabilities.

MARO and R2P, especially the training and special assistance to coalition partners, are being used by the Pentagon and CIA to beef up the U.S. military and intelligence presence at bases in east Africa and the Horn of Africa, ostensibly to protect Somalis from Al Shabab Islamist guerrillas. In fact, a virtual invading force of U.S. Special Operations forces, CIA operatives, and private military contractors have descended on the region, under the aegis of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), to prop up local armies in order to secure a developing western oil and natural as production infrastructure, including pipelines and oil sea terminals in the area. Drone, intelligence collection, and U.S. special forces and training bases have been established at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti; Victoria, Seychelles; Manda Bay, Kenya; Bujumbura, Burundi; Entebbe, Uganda; Mogadishu, Somalia; and Arba Minch, Ethiopia.

Beyond Africa, the Obama administration is building five new military bases in Australia, including a Marine base in Darwin. The U.S. military presence is also being expanded in the Philippines and Vietnam. It is well-known that beyond the Middle East and Africa, MARO doctrine is being used to eventually challenge the governments of China and Russia. In the world of Obama’s Orwellian “Newspeak,” mass atrocity prevention could result in a situation where billions die as a result of global thermonuclear warfare because a few oligarchs like Soros, Obama, and neo-conservative “New American Century” advocates decide that Western imperialism cannot be satisfied until “problem” regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang and, eventually, powerful governments in Beijing and Moscow are replaced by vassal regimes. In the world of the globalists, vulture capitalists and bankers, and militarists, the R2P promoters are now leading the initial military charge up the hill.
Source: Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org.

The Purpose of U.S. Soft Power Themed Revolutions: Disunity and Power Projection

14.02.2012
Wayne MADSEN
Strategic-Culture.org

A U.S. “alphabet soup” agency-sponsored themed revolution in the Maldives, an island nation in the Indian Ocean comprising twenty-six atolls, stands to plunge the nation, heretofore considered a tropical paradise for tourists, into the same kind of chaos and civil unrest now seen on the streets of Libya, Egypt, and Syria. Maldives is smaller in comparison to the nations of the Middle East where the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and George Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI) have sponsored themed revolutions that have all resulted in civil unrest and a entrance of extremist Wahhabi Salafists into political power. However, the small size of Maldives provides a much clearer picture of how the aforementioned Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-sponsored “soft power” aggressors managed to turn paradise into another center of unrest in the Muslim world.

In the case of the Maldives, the road to civil strife began in 2005 when USAID- and OSI-sponsored democracy” manipulation groups took root in the country upon the legalization of opposition political parties by the government of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Serving as president for thirty years, Gayoom was seen by the international human rights network of non-governmental organizations as a dictator ripe for removal. The Western-sponsored NGOs settled on Mohamed Nasheed, a Maldivian opposition leader who had lived in exile in Britain – with the support of the British government — and Sri Lanka and who returned to Maldives in 2005, as their favorite candidate for president.

In preparation for the first direct presidential election for president in 2008, outside “democracy manipulators” descended on Maldives, a country that had become popular with the Soros network because of global climate change. Maldives, which is threatened by rising sea levels, became a cause célèbre for the carbon tax and carbon cap-and-trade advocates.

Nasheed was the 2008 presidential candidate of the Maldivian Democratic Party against President Gayoom’s Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party. In the first round of voting, Gayoom received a little over 40 percent of the vote in the first round to the 24 percent of Nasheed’s and his vice presidential running mate, Mohammed Waheed Hassan. To defeat Gayoom in the second round, Nasheed, obviously with the encouragement of his foreign “democracy” advisers, sought and received the endorsement of four other opposition parties, including the Saudi- and United Arab Emirates-financed Salafist Adhaalath (Justice) Party. Adhaalath is an ideological partner of the Muslim Brotherhoods of Egypt and Syria. In the second round of the election, Nasheed, with the support of the other four opposition presidential candidates, defeated Gayoom 54 percent to 46 percent.

Nasheed was immediately embraced by the world’s glitterati community of NGOs and celebrities, including carbon tax-and-trade advocate Bill McKibben of 350.org and the crowd who gathered at the Sundance Film Festival to view a sycophantic film about Nasheed called The Island President. Nasheed was called the “Mandela of the Maldives” by those celebrities whose knowledge of Maldives did not extend beyond the nation’s Wikipedia entry. In October 2009, Nasheed and his Cabinet pulled off a pre-Copenhagen climate change conference publicity stunt by holding the world’s first underwater Cabinet meeting. Nasheed and eleven of his ministers, wearing scuba gear, convened the meeting twenty feet under the surface of the Indian Ocean. Nasheed was a huge hit among the celebrity contingent at the December 2009 Copenhagen summit.

Nasheed was selected by Time magazine at the top of their “Leaders & Visionaries” list of “Heroes of the Environment.” The United Nations awarded Nasheed its “Champions of the Earth” award. Foreign Policy magazine, co-founded by the late Samuel Huntington, a chief ideologist for the neo-conservative pabulum of a “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and Islam, named Nasheed as one of its top global thinkers.

Nasheed took on as his close adviser and communications assistant Paul Roberts, a British national. In what alienated his Salafist supporters, Nasheed also opened diplomatic relations with Israel, invited Israeli surgeons to Maldives amid fears they would begin harvesting human organs for Israeli clients, met with Israeli government officials, agreed to allow direct air links between Israel and Maldives, invited Israeli trainers into Maldives to advise Maldivian security forces, and failed to ensure that Maldives voted for Palestine’s full admission to the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) during the organization’s general assembly meeting in Paris on October 31, 2011. Maldives was absent from the vote.

Maldivian opposition parties, particularly the Salafist Adhaalath Party which left Nasheed’s coalition, did not buy Nasheed’s government’s weak explanation about the Palestine vote. By the end of 2010, the four other political parties in Nasheed’s Cabinet had left and Nasheed’s government was accused by the opposition of lacking transparency. The trademark yellow neckties and shirts worn by Nasheed and his supporters and the yellow Maldivian Democratic Party flags waved by Nasheed’s supporters were yet another indication that Nasheed’s “revolution” was another “themed revolution” concocted by the Soros/NED network of NGOs and think tanks in Washington, London, and New York.

Just as other Soros / NED-installed regimes began to violate the constitutions of their respective nations, including Georgia and Ukraine, Nasheed was no different. On December 10, 2010, the Maldivian Supreme Court ruled that Nasheed’s cabinet ministers could not serve without the approval of parliament. Nasheed responded by declaring the Maldivian courts were controlled by supporters of ex-president Gayoom and on January 16, 2012, Nasheed ordered the military to arrest Abdulla Mohammed, the Chief Justice of the Criminal Court.

Counter-protests were organized by Maldives opposition parties and were backed by the police. After the military clashed with the opposition protesters and police, several military members defected and joined the protesters.

Faced with the opposition and police/military uprising, Nasheed resigned the presidency on February 7. Later, Nasheed and his British adviser Roberts claimed that Nasheed was ousted in a coup d’etat. The U.S. State Department demanded that Vice President Mohammed Waheed Hassan, who assumed the presidency and opposed the arrest order of the Chief Justice, form a government of national unity with Nasheed’s supporters. Hassan refused and India, which, in the past, has intervened militarily in Maldives to put down attempted coups, remained silent. The Soros/NED global glitterati, including the Soros-funded “Democracy Now” program hosted by Amy Goodman and partly-funded by Soros, featured Roberts on an interview in which Gayoom was described as a thug and who was trying to re-assume power. Of course, the Soros propaganda program made no mention of Nasheed’s repeated violations of the Maldivian constitution.

As with the destabilization of Iraq, Egypt, and Libya, the first target for alleged Islamist radicals after the ouster of Nasheed was the destruction of priceless museum artifacts. Unknown men broke into the Chinese-built Maldives National Museum in Male, the capital, and smashed the delicate coral and limestone pre–Islamic Maldivian Buddhist statues on display.

The yellow flag of Nasheed’s political party.

The rise of Salafists and Muslim Brotherhood adherents in the new Maldivian government parallels what occurred in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia after their themed revolutions.

The Maldives were destabilized by the West at the same time that the Egyptian government charged 43 CIA-linked NGO personnel, including Americans, Britons, Serbs, and others working for IRI, NDI, and NED, with possessing a secret plan, including maps, to divide Egypt into an Israeli-dominated Sinai state, a Coptic state extending from Alexandria in the north to Asyut in the South, a Berber-dominated Islamic state based in Cairo, and a black African Nubian state in the south.

There now may be an attempt by the West to split up Maldives. In 1957, the British established the Gan airbase on the southernmost atoll of Addu and insisted on 100-year base rights on Seenu Atoll. After Maldives Prime Minister and President Ibrahim Nasir adopted a nationalist foreign policy, the British backed a secessionist movement in the southern atolls where the British bases were located that declared the short-lived United Suvadive Republic in 1959. After the collapse of the secessionist republic in 1965, the British bought the southernmost atoll in the Chagos-Laccadive chain of atolls from Mauritius and established the British Indian Ocean Territory. The inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago island of Diego Garcia were forcibly removed to Mauritius and other Chagos islands and the United States established its strategic military base on the island of Diego Garcia. Maldives never recognized Mauritian claims over the Chagos atolls or the British Indian Ocean Territory. With neo-con interference in Maldives now coming to fruition, secessionist movements in the southern atolls may, once again, gain ground to ensure unfettered U.S. and British control over Diego Garcia and expansion of U.S. and British military facilities to the Addu atoll and, perhaps, further north in the Maldives chain.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation on-line journal www.strategic-culture.org.

US Subverting Latin America: Bolivia and Venezuela Top Targets of Financially Backed Myriad of NGOs

Map Source: http://combatingglobalization.com/

November 6, 2011
Nil NIKANDROV
Strategic-Culture.org

US President John Kennedy Established USAID – the United States Agency for International Development – in November, 1962as an organization charged with an essentially humanitarian mission of providing economic and other support to struggling countries around the world. The agency’s stated goals therefore include conflict prevention, the expansion of democracy, humanitarian assistance, and human resources training, but the truth which is not deeply hidden is that the USAID activities tend to be tightly interwoven with those of the US Department of State, the CIA, and the Pentagon.

In Latin America, any illusions concerning the agenda behind USAID interventions proved to be short-living. A string of unmaskings of FBI and CIA agents who operated under the USAID cover were so fabulous that the actual character of the agency became impossible to conceal.Nevertheless, the USAID activity clearly got a boost over the first decade of the XXI century… In Haiti, for example, CIA operatives hosted by USAID coordinated and backed financially myriads of NGOs that in 2003-2004 were instrumental in toppling president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. For several days protesters in Haiti vandalized city streets, attacked government institutions, and showered Aristide with allegations of corruption and complicity in the drug business. A curious brand of rebels dressed in US military uniforms entered the stage shortly thereafter and occupied most of the country, eventually laying siege to its capital and the presidential palace. Aristide was arrested by US marines, taken to the airport, and – with no formalities like a court procedure – flown to South Africa. The warning issued to the displaced country leader in the process was that attempts to escape would earn him yet bigger trouble.

USAID also played the key role in organizing the June, 2009 coup in Honduras, where CIA agents under the USAID guise similarly guided and sponsored puppet NGO escapades, spread the myth of Honduran president M. Zelaya’s and Venezuelan leader H. Chavez’s joint communist conspiracy, and commanded the country’s army officers. The coup culminated in the arrest of Zelaya who, like Aristide, was forcibly taken to another country – Costa Rica in this case – and threatened that re-entering his home country would be lethal. As a result, Washington was happy about the resulting termination of Honduras’ drift towards the Latin American populist camp, the media pretended to stay unaware of the terrorist war on Zelaya’s supporters unleashed by the butchers marshaled by Honduran “de facto” new president R. Micheletti, and the USAID/CIA operatives who engineered the coup got their bonuses and promotions.

There is ample evidence that USAID is used extensively as a tool for inciting color revolutions and revolts in defiant countries across the Western hemisphere, especially in Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua…As for Cuba, USAID has been pulling off secret operations there for decades, but most of the agencies efforts aimed at planting in the country “independent” media and “alternative” political organizations in the form of trade unions or protest groups were remarkably unsuccessful. Cuba’s counter-espionage agency must be credited with enviable efficiency, while infighting occasionally erupts in the ranks of the opponents of the Cuban regime over the money poured in by the US. The permanent impression is that a considerable portion of the US funding supposed to help bring “democracy” to Cuba simply ends up in the pockets of CIA operatives and their local protégées. When leader of the Cuban opposition movement known as Ladies in White Laura Pollan died of natural causes recently, her co-workers initiated an inquiry into the group’s finances and discovered the disappearance of tens of thousands of dollars. USAID promptly hushed up the scandal, which was just one in a series of likewise incidents. The tendency for millions of dollars contributed by Washington to the anti-regime cause in Cuba to evaporate is widely attributed to the Cuban counter-espionage agency’s ability to cunningly divert USAID funds to its own needs. →

“Responsibility to Protect” as Imperial Tool

The left should support an active peace policy through international cooperation, disarmament, and non-intervention of states in the internal affairs of others. … Moreover, the left should strive towards strict respect for international law on the part of Western powers, implementing the UN resolutions concerning Israel, dismantling the worldwide US empire of bases as well as NATO, ceasing all threats concerning the unilateral use of force, stopping all interference in the internal affairs of other States, in particular all operations of “democracy promotion”, “color” revolutions, and the exploitation of the politics of minorities.

February 20, 2012

The Case for a Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy

by JEAN BRICMONT

Louvain-la-Neuve

The events in Syria, after those in Libya last year, are accompanied by calls for a military intervention, in order to “protect civilians”, claiming that it is our right or our duty to do so. And, just as last year, some of the loudest voices in favor of intervention are heard on the left or among the Greens, who have totally swallowed the concept of “humanitarian intervention”. In fact, the rare voices staunchly opposed to such interventions are often associated with the right, either Ron Paul in the US or the National Front in France. The policy the left should support is non-intervention.

The main target of the humanitarian interventionists is the concept of national sovereignty, on which the current international law is based, and which they stigmatize as allowing dictators to kill their own people at will.  The impression is sometimes given that national sovereignty is nothing but a protection for dictators whose only desire is to kill their own people.

But in fact, the primary justification of national sovereignty is precisely to provide at least a partial protection of weak states against strong ones. A state that is strong enough can do whatever it chooses without worrying about intervention from outside. Nobody expects Bangladesh to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States.  Nobody is going to bomb the United States to force it to modify its immigration or monetary policies because of the human consequences of such policies on other countries. Humanitarian intervention goes only one way, from the powerful to the weak. →

A Mistaken Case For Syrian Regime Change

“In the effort to inflate figures of casualties, the public relations-activist group AVAAZ has consistently outstripped even the UN”

By Aisling Byrne

05 January, 2012
Asia Times Online

“War with Iran is already here,” wrote a leading Israeli commentator recently, describing “the combination of covert warfare and international pressure” being applied to Iran.

Although not mentioned, the “strategic prize” of the first stage of this war on Iran is Syria; the first campaign in a much wider sectarian power-bid. “Other than the collapse of the Islamic Republic itself,” Saudi King Abdullah was reported to have said last summer, “nothing would weaken Iran more than losing Syria.” [1]

By December, senior United States officials were explicit about their regime change agenda for Syria: Tom Donilon, the US National Security Adviser, explained that the “end of the [President Bashar al-]Assad regime would constitute Iran’s greatest setback in the region yet – a strategic blow that will further shift the balance of power in the region against Iran.” →

The truth about Avaaz’s favourite Syrian “activist”: Danny Dayem

THERE ARE MANY AVAAZ VIDEOS FEATURING/PROMOTING DANNY –   JUST TWO OF THEM ARE LISTED BELOW. DANNY IS FEATURED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE AVAAZ CAMPAIGN “SMUGGLE HOPE INTO SYRIA”. (Intro by Ricken Patel, Executive Director and co-founder of Avaaz)

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/smuggle_hope_into_syria_q/

AVAAZ HAS BEEN INTEGRAL IN FRAMING WHAT IS A WELL-DOCUMENTED  DESTABILIZATION PROJECT OF SYRIA BY IMPERIALIST STATES. THIS IS DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF, YET ANOTHER “REVOLUTION” BEING “CRUSHED” BY A “TYRANT” LEADER. THIS STRATEGY IS STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO THE ONE WE JUST WITNESSED IN LIBYA WHICH HAS LEFT AS MANY AS 100,000 OR MORE LIBYANS SLAUGHTERED. AVAAZ WAS INTEGRAL IN CAMPAIGNING BEHIND THE LIBYAN “HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION” AS WELL. WHAT IS UNDERWAY IN SYRIA ALSO BARES RESEMBLANCE TO THE STRATEGY UNDERTAKEN AND EXECUTED BY THE COUP ENGINEERS WHO USED THE SAME SNIPER TACTIC IN AN ATTEMPT TO INCITE VENEZUELANS AND OVERTHROW CHAVEZ IN 2002.

Just one of many Avaaz petitions calling for foreign intervention against Syria: http://www.avaaz.org/en/arab_league_save_syria_3/

Just one of many Avaaz peitions calling for foreign intervention against Libya: http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_3/. What Avaaz, the non-profit industrial complex and the corporate-media complex did not share with the world: The July 1, 2011 pro-Gaddafi mass-rally in Tripoli, Libya protest where 1.7 million people (approx. 1/3 of Libya’s entire population) rallied against foreign intervention. Their voices went unheard.

VIDEO BELOW: Syria: coup engineers used the same sniper tactic to incite Venezuelans in 2002: “It’s unfortunate to see so many decent people duped into legitimizing disinformation and front organizations that exist solely to destabilize Syria and that benefit the 1% elite while destroying the lives of ordinary Syrians and Libyans. Out of all the writing on the wall, some of the most explicit is the fingerprint left by the cruel strategy being employed to overthrow sovereign regimes.”

SEE EXCLUSIVE LIZZIE PHELAN ARTICLE WHICH FOLLOWS THIS AVAAZ VIDEO:

Thanks Avaaz (French subtitles)

22 Feb 2012
The truth about western media’s favourite Syrian “activist”…

EXCLUSIVE TO lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com

By Kevork Elmassian, Hiba Kelanee, Feeda Kardous and Zoubaida al Kadri

Danny Abdul Dayem is a 22 year old British citizen, of Syrian descent, from Cambridge. In the summer of 2011 he escaped the Syrian city of Homs to Egypt; and then moved to London for a few months. In December of 2011, he secretly returned to Syria through Lebanon. While in London, Danny performed many interviews with some media agencies, as an “eyewitness” from Homs, allegedly shot upon by the Syrian security forces. Clearly, he was on a mission to take full advantage of the air time given him, to transmit propaganda of the idea of a “Syrian revolution”.  Instead of the reasonable quizzing and healthy skepticism, expected of a professional news entity, on Newsnight, Danny was given free reign to speak, unchallenged. The different accounts gave to numerous news channels, including Sky News, al Hiwar, Alarabiya (in Arabic) and the Guardian were somewhat alarming. Here are some of inconsistencies:

BBC interview September 7 2011

1. (At 00.08) Danny’s answer to the first question summed the intended message all up: “Yes, I’ve seen EVERYTHING”.

2. (At 00.35 ) He shows a video that proves absolutely nothing

3. (At 01.48)  He claims that: “three quarters of the shots are aimed and one quarter is just to scare people”. If this was true, tens of thousands of Syrian protesters would have lost their lives, rather than the reported, but unsubstantiated figure of 6000 provided by the western and GCC media.

4. (At 02.34)  He tells Newsnight anchor Jeremy Paxman that a car stopped two meters behind him, and someone inside shot him. Yet, the bullet managed to “come right in his waist and out of his back”?

5. (At 03.08)  Danny tells Jeremy that he was shot by a SINGLE bullet that went through his body and presumably left two scars.

This Sky News report, clearly shows a single scar in the middle of Danny’s back.

In this al Hiwar interview (at 13.50) (7) he tangles himself in even more knots when he shows the presenter TWO dressed wounds to the sides of his back.

Adding even further confusion to the picture, the Guardian reported that Dayem had five stitches, in the hospital, on EACH wound!

In his latest interview, on al Alarabiya, Danny reverts to the story of the single bullet that went through his waist and out his back.

But at 00.15,  Danny speaks of his friend throwing him on the floor and then “standing up” in front of him to take three bullets!! We find it hard to imagine anybody who would do such a thing. Standing up in front of a car, two meters away, with “security/ shabeeha” inside it, most probably “aiming” at the two of them.

Back to the Newsnight interview at 02.36 he tells Paxman that a  bomb exploded before he was shot. Then in the al Hiwar interview at 10.39 he told the presenter a bomb exploded before he was shot and another bomb exploded after he was shot. During the al Alarabiya interview at 00.50 Dayem adds that one person (from the al Khaznadar family) died, when the bomb exploded – something he did not mention in previous interviews.

At 03.25:  There was no explanation offered as to why the mentioned car managed to drive away, although it took a mere five minutes for people to get to Dayem and his friend despite the sound of the shooting and the explosion of the grenade(s) he claimed was thrown at them. This suggests the alleged incident occurred in an isolated area. If those armed men were army or security personnel, what would frighten them in an isolated area after they had injured Dayem and his friend? Why were Dayem and his friend shot at in the first place? Why would they be shot at by security forces?

According to Dayem, protesters were shot at when they went out on the streets, but  in his story this was not the case.
At 03.58 if the aim of security/ “shabeeha” is to kill injured protesters who go to hospital for treatment; driving away in an isolated area does not seem like a better option than stopping and killing their victims.

At 04.19: Dayem’s statements seems to change as he recounts his story: “They shoot at night and wait at hospitals in the morning… [and]… actually go at night to the hospitals too”.

During the al Hiwar interview at 20.05:  he says that at first he was not asked about his wound, in the airport, and if he was then he would have told them it was a kidney operation. Seconds later, he goes on to say he told them it was an operation and that they let him go without any trouble.

At 05.15 during his interview with Paxman, Dayem claims he told officials at the airport that he had a kidney operation.

At 06.17 he says that the protests can’t stop because, “Bashar al Assad has got videos for every protester that is going out and will catch them one at a time”

If the President and his security have videos of all protesters, how was it so easy for Dayem and his family to leave the country without harassment or hindrance by security?

When Dayem was in London, a conversation happened between him and other Syrian youth on Facebook where he was told: “be careful Danny, the news channels are using you, this is their job, and they search for people like you to make some interviews! I’m telling you this, because I know how things work and I don’t want you to fall in this trap. You are the owner of yourself, don’t let the media plays with you, at the end, this is your country, and we are all Syrians, but the media has their own agendas and they are all pressured and directed by lobbies.” Dayem replied, “Thanks for the advice, but a friend is helping and he’s a lobbier”

Danny describes his “political views” on Facebook as: “I think we should live peacefully like a fish”. However, he is certainly involved in helping and supporting the terrorist militia of the so-called “Free Syrian Amy”, who have conducted many terrorist attacks upon public and private entities including orchestration many explosions of oil pipelines bringing blackouts to large parts of the country, suicide attacks in Damascus and Aleppo and hung and beheaded many supporters of the government who spoke to observers from the Arab League. All of these incidents have been documented by this blog.

Dayem hasn’t hidden his political agenda, and he clearly states that he wants US and Israel to intervene militarily in Syria to overthrow the Syrian regime.

FOR CONTINUOUS UPDATES ON WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING IN LIBYA AND SYRIA WE RECOMMEND SUBSCRIBING TO LIBYA360 AND THE LIZZIE PHELAN BLOG.

http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.com/2012/02/truth-about-western-medias-favourite.html

The politics of charity

US Trojan Horses in Venezuela

Nil NIKANDROV | 20.02.2012

Strategic Culture Foundation

Several days ago, representatives of 55 Venezuelan NGOs called the international community to rise to the defense of democracy in the country at a media event in Miami, charging Hugo Chavez with threatening democracy, neglecting human rights, and igniting a civilian conflict in Venezuela. The participants of the event pledged that the campaign built around the demand to put the Venezuelan leader on trial would continue in order to keep Chavez’s regime under permanent pressure, and its coordinator Carlos Fernandez announced that an appeal had been supplied to the Hague Tribunal to make Chavez face justice over nothing less than alleged crimes against humanity. At the moment, the key lines on the Venezuelan opposition’s grievances list are company nationalizations, the looming closure of the anti-Chavez Globovision TV channel, attempts to introduce Marxist instruction in Venezuelan schools, and crackdowns on the opponents of the current Venezuelan regime. Fernandez, who had been on the radical fringe during the 2002 outbreak of anti-government protests in Venezuela, urged the international community to act immediately and warned that failure to do so would result in the entrenchment of a militarist, Castro-communist regime in Venezuela for years. He also confided to the audience that an investigator was dispatched by the Hague Tribunal to Columbia to examine the files on the notebooks which belonged to slain FARC secretariat member and spokesman Raúl Reyes. Chavez would eventually face justice for his FARC connections, claimed Fernandez.

NGOs mushroomed in Venezuela after Chavez’s 1998 electoral triumph, and at the moment their number estimatedly reaches several hundreds. Back in 1998, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) enjoyed unlimited freedom of maneuver in the country and made full use of it to expand the influence of the US intelligence community over the Venezuelan society. The correspondence of the US embassy in Caracas, unveiled by WikiLeaks, left no doubts that the US Department of State, the CIA, the US Defense Intelligence Agency, and DEA had been taking advantage of the situation to make inroads into Venezuela.

Washington had to learn as the 2002 anti-Chavez coup collapsed that the Venezuelan leader was a serious opponent who would not crack under pressure and at all times remained a clever strategist. Chavez managed to handle successfully the recurrent conflicts with the Empire, while staunchly upholding his socialist project domestically and building ever stronger positions internationally. Given Chavez’s record which includes oil sector nationalization and the expulsion of the fifth column from the petroleum industry, the removal of conspiracy-prone officers from the army top command, and nationally oriented socioeconomic reforms, plans for his ouster in a violent putsch obviously stand no chance, and Washington therefore has to place its bet on a color revolution in Venezuela. This type of revolt in the country does not seem altogether impossible as the support for the opposition in Venezuela typically measures around 35% and the Venezuelan middle class, students, and intellectual circles for the most part do not favor Chavez. These are the communities currently comprising the audience of the Venezuelan NGOs and receiving from them perks in the forms of grants, travel support, and costly gadgets.  Color revolution champions are trained in Venezuela based on movies featuring the corresponding episodes from the recent East European history. As in Cuba, the white color is chosen as the hallmark of the Venezuelan protesters. What Venezuela’s NGOs must pretend to be oblivious to are Chavez’s achievements in fighting poverty, strengthening the national economy, and boosting the amounts of welfare for the population.

Naturally, Venezuela’s young are the NGOs’ main target audience. Student attack groups played the central role in the clashes between protesters and police in Venezuela in May, 2007 when the government revoked the license of the RCTV channel (the step was taken in connection with the fact that the RCTV broadcasting contract expired by the time). Chavez described the unrest as an attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government and called the residents of low-income urban quarters and villages to resist what he termed a fascist offensive. In response, Andrés Bello Catholic University student leader John Goicoechea said that Chavez’ drumming up support among the more radical part of his constituency who were supposed to confront the violence-prone students was an irresponsible policy. Shortly thereafter, Venezuela’s state-run 8th TV channel demonstrated Goicoechea’s phone book with the US embassy phone and that of the US diplomat who worked with students. Goicoechea later stepped out of the spotlight, but there is surely still a place for him as a skilled color revolution activist in the CIA plans and we will see him stage a comeback. The US program of entraining students from affluent Venezuelan families stays on-line, though the tricks with white shorts, white paint on palms, etc. reflect a rather unimaginative attempt to replay past success stories.

NGOs like Provea, Cofavic, Centro de Derechos Humanos (in the Catholic University) Una Ventana a la Libertad, and Sinergia occupy the human rights advocacy niche. According to Chavez and his supporters, the groups, along with the opposition media, deliberately draw a distorted picture of what is happening in Venezuela, hammering just about every aspect of the country’s life, be it the situation within the army, the struggle against crime, the detention conditions, the workers’ employment terms, the environment, the Indian problems, etc. Activists from the above NGOs were spotted a number of times during transactions with CIA operatives who supply to them instructions and funds. The NGOs submit to the CIA lists of candidates for admission to courses teaching “self-defense” under the conditions of “instability”, which evidently means a provoked crisis.

The legitimacy of Venezuela’s electoral procedure is being permanently challenged. US puppeteers who used to say that Chavez had employed the national electoral council for ballot-rigging were instrumental in forming the NGO known as Sumate. María Corina Machado, a defeated candidate in the 2002 presidential race, headed Sumate in 2002. Predictably, she called into question the outcomes of essentially all elections and referendums in Venezuela, for example, that of the 2004 referendum in which Chavez smashingly won 60% of the vote. The image of Sumate suffered a heavy blow when it transpired that money – occasionally, tens of millions of US dollars – was fed to the group on a regular basis by NED. Chavez accused Sumate of conspiracy in the wake of the revelations. Machado personally met with US President G. Bush at the peak of her career, but her prestige was irreversibly eroded. In 2005, the Venezuelan office of the general prosecutor charged Sumate with exerting pressure on the authority and receiving funds from an organization controlled by the US Congress, but the case, after a series of re-openings, finally stalled in court.

The activity of NGOs in Venezuela continued completely unchecked over the first decade of Chavez’s rule, while the police and counter-espionage agency were constantly discovering that the confidants of the US and other Western countries in Venezuelan NGOs collected information of military importance across the country or surveyed its regions bordering Columbia, Brazil, and Guyana. It should also be noted that foreign intelligence services are keenly interested in Venezuela’s Amazonia, and environment-protection NGO activists are spying in the parts of the country formerly frequented by US preachers from the New Tribes Mission. Some 30 secret aerodromes in the zone of their activity were used to illegally carry out Venezuelan gold, diamonds, precious metals, and, according to several accounts, uranium. The latter circumstance may be paradoxically related to the concerns voiced by Bush’s and Obama’s Administrations over Venezuela’s allegedly existing secret uranium mines with Iranian workers on staff.

An end was put to the untamed activity of NGOs – the US Trojan Horses in Venezuela – in December, 2010 when the parliament of the country passed a law on the protection of political sovereignty and national self-determination. The legislation was backed by the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) and predictably met with resistance mounted by the opposition which actually thrives on foreign donations. By the law, groups are subject to sanctions for drawing money from abroad with the aims of destabilizing Venezuela or undermining the present authority. If caught red-handed, NGO activists would have to pay in fines twice the amount received from other countries or even face the loss of political rights for 5-8 years. Moreover, fines and deportation now await foreign nationals involved in funding subversive NGO activities in Venezuela.

With the financial transparency regulations for NGOs now in place, there is hope that the level of corruption in Venezuela’s politics will visibly go down, but it should be realized that the channels via which NED, USAID and their like pour millions of dollars into the country have not been fully severed. As noted by Eva Golinger, a person extremely knowledgeable about CIA operations against Venezuela, the easiest way to smuggle currency into the country is to have it delivered by diplomatic mail.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/02/20/us-trojan-horses-in-venezuela.html

 

 

Egypt Leads Fight Against NGO Agitators | A real revolution may be about to follow

Feb 20, 2012

by Tony Cartalucci | Land Destroyer Report

Neo-Conservative Max Boot is a certified warmonger, an elitist policy wonk sitting on the Fortune 500-funded Council on Foreign Relations, has signed his name to letters that called for sidestepping both national and international law to militarily intervene further in Libya, as well as call for troops on the ground even after Tripoli fell last year. He is a man you would least expect to champion NGOs and their liberal-progressive agendas.

However NGOs are not “liberal-progressive.” They are the system administrators of modern empire, an empire being forged by the wars and covert operations Boot is a chief proponent of. The absence of NGOs in any given nation, means a nation free from the influence of Wall Street & London’s networks and meddling. That is why Boot feverishly penned, “Obama’s Egyptian Hostage Crisis,” in an attempt to spur a more vigorous response to what would seem like a very minor event in the context of greater global conflicts. Egypt’s arrest and trying of 19 Americans, all of whom are directly involved in Wall Street’s network of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded NGOs, including the head of the International Republican Institute (IRI) office in Egypt, signifies a potential turning point not just in Egypt, but around the world. →

Empire’s Double-Edged Sword: Global Military + NGOs

Feb 19, 2012

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer Activist Post 

Tearing down sovereign nations and replacing them with global system administrators

Colonial Southeast Asia circa 1850s. Thailand/Siam was never colonized but made many concessions.

Part 1: Imperialism is Alive and Well