Using NGOs to Coerce Nations

by Sandhya Jain

May 8, 2012

Western nations fund NGOs operating in developing countries to influence policy and subvert institutions. India does not need foreign-funded NGOs.

Non-Western nations have long known that non-Government organisations, ostensibly set up to provide humanitarian services to citizens in their respective countries, such as against the police or other public authorities, fighting poverty or environmental degradation, are funded by foreign regimes to serve their agendas. They are, in that sense, a tool of coercive diplomacy, or war by other means.Some weeks ago, Egypt, front-runner of the aborted Arab Spring, clamped down on foreign NGOs and refused to licence eight US civil groups, including the election-monitoring Carter Centre, prior to the presidential poll. Under Egyptian law, NGOs cannot operate without licence.American NGOs, called ‘quangos’, tend to focus on promoting democracy abroad, an euphemism for electing Governments that serve American interests. Last month, the UAE decided to shut down the offices of an American ‘quango’ run by the Democratic Party but mainly funded by the US Government. Observers said the move was engineered by Riyadh and other capitals that felt the ‘quango’ was interfering in their internal affairs, and hence urged the UAE to close it.

Many capitals view ‘quangos’ as intrusive of national sovereignty. By grooming ‘democracy activists’ — recall the Coloured Revolutions in former Soviet republics — they create the environment for US-desired changes to occur. The decision by the UAE and other Gulf countries to curtail the functioning of German and US foundations is likely to usher in a new system whereby entities directly or indirectly funded by foreign Governments will be allowed to function only under negotiated agreements and can no longer operate as they please.

The National Endowment for Democracy, closely associated with the Reagan Administration, was conceived as a tool of US foreign policy by its founder Mr Allen Weinstein, a former professor, Washington Post writer, and member of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a neo-conservative think-tank whose members included Mr Henry Kissinger and Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski. The NED’s first director, Mr Carl Gershman, was candid that it was a front for the CIA. From its inception in 1983, the NED’s annual funds are approved by the US Congress as part of the United States Information Agency budget. Its activities include funding anti-Left and anti-labour movements; meddling in elections in Venezuela and Haiti; and, creating instability in countries resisting imperial America.

Freedom House, set up in 1941 as a pro-democracy and pro-human rights organisation, is engaged with the Project for the New American Century, and much of the war-mongering in Washington, DC. The Bush Administration used it to support its ‘War on Terror’. The US Government provides 66 per cent of its funding via USAID, the State Department, and the NED. Freedom House leapt into the Arab Spring, training and financing civil society groups and individuals, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, and grassroots activists in Yemen.

The Bush Administration also compelled NGOs to serve its imperial agenda. In 2003, USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios said the NGO-USAID link helped the Karzai Government to survive, but Afghans did not appreciate this. In Iraq, he wanted NGO work there to show a connection with US policy. It is difficult to be more explicit. →

Apr 26

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Humanitarian Agencies, Imperialist Wars/Occupations, NED | National Endowment for Democracy, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, The International Campaign to Destabilize Syria, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence

Amnesty International HRC HRW ICC LLHR NED | National Endowment for Democracy UN

NGOs Promote Wars for Profit

Well-known NGO’s are profiteers earning big money

opednews.com

by Stephen Lendman

Like better known war profiteers, NGOs also cash in. A Centre for the Study of Interventionism (CSI) report discussed it.

CSI challenges interventionist notions. Exponents believe “military violence” should enforce international law.

“These claims stand in contrast to” non-interventionist principles. UN Charter provisions and other international law enunciate them. CSI challenges current practice. Its new report discussed Libya.

It explains how lies promote war. It asked if “the case for R2P (responsibility to protect was) based on fraud.” It wasn’t on truth and international law. Its rage to fight spurned them.

The UN Charter’s Chapter VI calls for resolving conflicts peacefully. Humanitarian intervention prohibits military force or other hostile acts.

Chapter VII permits justifiable boycotts, embargoes, blockades, and severed diplomatic ties. It prohibits war, except in self-defense until the Security Council acts. It has final say.

Libyan interventionists claimed doing so protected civilian areas from attack. In 2005, the General Assembly World Summit Outcome Document adopted the responsibility to protect (R2P).

Paragraph 138 states each nation must “protect (its) population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.”Paragraph 139 grants the UN 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” these crimes.

Military force is excluded. UN Charter provisions prohibit it for humanitarian intervention. Justifying it under R2P is illegal. War crimes follow. So does profiteering. War is big business. NGOs like corporate predators cash in.

The web site ngo.org defines them as follows:

“A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens’ group which is organized on a local, national or international level.”

“Task-oriented and driven by people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of service and humanitarian policies and encourage political participation through provision of information.”

“Some are organized around specific issues, such as human rights, environment or health. They provide analysis and expertise, serve as early warning mechanisms and help monitor and implement international agreements.”

“Their relationship with offices and agencies of the United Nations system differs depending on their goals, their venue and the mandate of a particular institution.”

Other definitions call them non-political groups, advancing social/humanitarian objectives. In fact, most profiteer largely for themselves. They’re ideologically biased predators, not humanitarians.

Nearly all have entrenched bureaucracies. Their officials are highly paid. Their operating rules are secret. Their financing sources and amounts are undisclosed. They mostly come from domestic or foreign nations whose interests they serve. As agents, they perform PR, intelligence, and population control. Most don’t provide humanitarian services.

They all claim non-profit status, yet operate unethically. They collude with governments or business interests. Their profiteer handsomely, own unrelated businesses, and exploit people they claim to serve.

In many countries, they’re the preferred choice for Western aid and emergency relief. They provide cover for imperial intervention. They cash in handsomely from wars, floods, famines, earthquakes, and other disasters. “Non-profiteering” is big business.

Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

In 2006, General Assembly Resolution 60-251 established the Human Rights Council (HRC) and authorized UPR. Three adopted “mechanisms” were decisive for Libya:

(1) Paragraph 1 established HRC.

(2) Paragraph 8 opened HRC membership to all UN Member States based on their contribution to promoting and protecting human rights. The General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote, may suspend member rights based on gross, systematic violations.

(3) Paragraph 10 authorized regular HRC annual sessions, including special ones when needed on request from one member supported by one-third of the Council.

UPR periodically examines the human rights record of all Member States. In 2009, the Non-Aligned Movement stated:

HRC “should not be used as a tool to interfere in the internal affairs of States or to question their political, economic, and social systems, their sovereign rights, and their national, religious and cultural particularities.”

In October 2005, the General Assembly adopted the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle. On February 26 and March 17, 2011, the Security Council adopted two Libya resolutions.

Even though Tripoli wasn’t an International Criminal Court (ICC) member, the first gave the body jurisdiction over ongoing events. The second authorized “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians,” as well as no-fly zone cover. Doing so was an act of war. It followed almost immediately.

“The Libyan case is a very good example of (lawlessly) interfer(ing) in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.”

Armed insurgents were supported and legitimized. Libya had no say. Claims made before HRC about massacres and other atrocities were falsified. Nonetheless, UN resolutions followed. So did war, mass slaughter and vast destruction.

“NGOs and others invoke (R2P). But what responsibility do these bodies, and the states which use military force, have for the consequences of their acts?”

In May 2010, the NGOs Freedom House and UN Watch campaigned against electing Libya but lost. Both organizations serve Western and Israeli interests. Former American Jewish Committee (AJC) honorary president, Morris Abram, founded UN Watch. AJC is a pro-Israeli front group

UN Watch wanted Libya expelled from HRC. On March 1, 2011, the General Assembly supported its campaign based on lies. HRC’s January 4, 2011 UPR was ignored.

It praised Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya governance. It said it protected “not only political rights, but also economic, educational, social and cultural rights.” It also lauded his treatment of religious minorities, and “human rights training” given his security forces.

On February 21, 2011, the Libyan League for Human Rights got 70 other NGOs to petition Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

They demanded international action against Libya. They cited R2P. Of the 71 petitioners, only 25 were human right groups. Others included UN Watch, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), B’nai B’rith, and other anti-democratic organizations.

They demanded an emergency HRC Special Session “to address situations of gross and systematic violations of human rights.” They called for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership.

On February 25, 2011, a Special Session was held. Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) head Sliman Bouchuiguir called for international community action against Gaddafi. LLHR is a member of the French-based International Federal of Human Rights (FIDH). It’s closely tied to NED.

Its claims later proved to be false. No documentation existed. The puppet National Transitional Council (NTC) provided them. They said Gaddafi slaughtered thousands, and mercenaries comprised 80% of his military.

Nonetheless, based on falsified NGO claims, Libya was expelled from HRC. At the same time, other nations supported its Jamahiriya government. Brazil cited its economic and social progress.

It acknowledged its promotion of rights for disabled persons, free health care, and high primary education enrollment. It also noted its cooperation with international organizations in areas of migrant rights, judicial reform, and curbing corruption.

Malta and Tunisia also expressed support. They acknowledged Jamahiriya Green Charter freedoms and achievements.

On March 14, 2012, when it was too late to matter, HRC adopted its report praising Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya government. UN Watch protested. It demanded it be rescinded. It said “Libya’s long-suffering victims deserve no less.” It ignored generous benefits NATO destroyed.

Amnesty International (AI) also called HRC’s decision “abhorrent.” Its head, Suzanne Nossel, served as Obama’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. She’s also a former Human Rights Watch (HRW) CEO.

Like AI, HRW’s record is notoriously tainted. Both supported NATO’s Libya’s campaign. It turned peace and stability into charnel house disaster. These organizations and others like them often back oppressors, not victims.

Media Complicity with Political and NGO Lies

On February 21, 2011, the government controlled French International News Network (France 24) broadcast a Libya special. It falsely claimed Gaddafi’s planes bombed civilian areas. At a later French parliament session, Sarkozy’s Tripoli ambassador refuted the account.

At the same time, falsified claims about “African mercenaries” comprising 80% of Gaddafi’s military were made. AI’s Genevieve Garrigos supported what she later said was based solely on unsubstantiated rumors.

Ashur Shamis is a National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) founding member. He was wanted by Interpol and Libyan police for years. He also was an NED Libyan Human and Political Development Forum director. He actively participated in regime change conferences.

Aly Abuzaakouk is another NFSL member with close NED ties. Like Shamis, he’s a wanted man. Among other anti-Gaddafi guests, Al Jazeera featured him during NATO’s campaign. Broadcasting falsified managed news, it shamelessly serves imperial interests.

In 2011, London-based Chatham House, a pro-corporate think tank, discussed NATO plans for attacking Libya.

A Final Comment

Libya was targeted based on falsified, undocumented NGO claims, as well as similar ones by NED and other pro-Western organizations.

“The lack of investigation, and the non-existence of any process to question (NGO assertions) inside the Council (became) one of the main causes for the events which cost the lives of thousands of Libyans” killed during NATO’s campaign.”Non-interventionism….is a way to guarantee Peace, Democracy and Freedom.”

“The Libyan case shows the reality behind” R2P. The doctrine destroyed peace. Thousands died. Vast destruction was caused. Libyan sovereignty was lost.

NATO committed war crimes. HRC betrayed its mandate. So did the Security Council, General Assembly and ICC. R2P is “an instrument of domination.” International bodies are imperial tools.

Stronger states crush weaker ones. International law’s a non-starter. “Russia’s recent position on Syria is a step in the right direction.” It bought “breathing space” to slow another march to war. Stopping it’s another matter.

The same NGOs behind Libya’s war want another on Syria. Their earlier pattern’s repeated. It features undocumented allegations, spurning dialogue, and enlisting UN support.

“How can such interference and lack of rigor bring peace to international relations? How can these ideas claim to” support humanitarianism? How can UN bodies go along? How can they contemptuously dismiss their inviolable mandate to support peace?

These and other questions deserve answers. Complicit Member States and NGOs provide none. One war leads to another. Syria’s turn is next. Like Gaddafi, Saddam, and other Washington targets, vilifying Assad’s based on lies.

How long before bombs away repeats? How many more deaths will follow? How much more can be tolerated? When will most Member States say no more? When will peacemakers triumph? Humanity wants to know. Time’s running out for answers.

Apr 24

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Humanitarian Agencies, Imperialist Wars/Occupations, The International Campaign to Destabilize Syria

Amnesty International Destabilization Human Rights Watch Non-profit Industrial Complex Syria

WATCH: NGO Your Enemy: Bogus Reports Fuel Intervention Industry

NGO’S PUSHING FOR “HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION” IN SYRIA

Far from helping an embattled nation, NGOs operating in Syria are being accused of helping the push towards military intervention. Some are peddling unverified reports to deliberately encourage foreign action. The agencies hold sway with groups like NATO, which has weighed in on their findings before – with deadly consequences.

http://youtu.be/BUmSaueB2b8

Apr 13

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Humanitarian Agencies, Non-Profit Industrial Complex, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence

Amnesty International Gaddafi Human Rights Watch Invisable Children Kony Kony 2012

Did NGOs Help Overthrow Gaddafi? (The Answer Is Yes)

In Libya, Western funded non-governmental organizations brought a lot attention to the alleged bloodshed ex-leader Mommar Gaddaffi was supposedly imposing on his people. The information gathered was used to justify an attack on Gaddafi and his government, but after his death reports have shown the information that was used to lead the attacks was incorrect. Marina Portnaya takes a closer look into the influence NGO’s played in Libya.

http://youtu.be/WrWC7KDpM5E

Apr 12

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Imperialist Wars/Occupations, The International Campaign to Destabilize Syria

Amnesty International Destabilization Kony Libya NATO Russia Soros Syria United Nations US State Department

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL TARGETS RUSSIA AND SYRIA

Shameless propaganda stunt by US State Department run, Soros-funded front Amnesty International

April 12, 2012
Tony Cartalucci | Land Destroyer Report

The Amnesty International “infographic” titled, “Shocking Facts About Who’s Arming Human Rights Abusers,” portraying Russia’s arming of Syria as “fueling the most bloodshed” is not “shocking” at all when one realizes the disingenuous human rights advocacy organization is run by US State Department officials and is funded by convicted criminal George Soros‘ Open Society Institute (annual report page 8) as well as the UK Department for International Development (page 8), the European Commission, and other corporate-funded foundations. The “infographic,” in this context, clearly becomes a case of shameless, politically motivated propaganda using the Amnesty International “brand” to give it the legitimacy its increasingly distrusted sponsors lack.

Image: Amnesty International’s “infographic” aimed at the lowest possible intellectual denominator in their target audience. While Syria might be the biggest enemy of the US currently, it is by no means the greatest human rights violator – Ugandan “president-for-life” Museveni displaces entire populations of tens of thousands of people in single US-British land grabs and has led regional military campaigns that have killed millions – yet he receives millions in military aid and arms from the West. Such hypocrisy reveals Amnesty International as the politically-motivated front it ultimately is.

The graphic is so inaccurate, so full of such overt, easily refuted lies, it must be aimed at the most ignorant, impressionable members of Western society. It also contains glaring inexplicable hypocrisy. For instance, while Russia defends its arming of Syria’s government by citing documented evidence that the unrest is being fomented by foreign-funded, well armed terrorists committing a multitude of atrocities, even according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International’s sister organization, what imaginable excuse could France, Germany, the US, or the UK have for arming Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, or Libya past or present – especially when these same nations have justified the total summation of their foreign meddling and military interventionism with acting upon “humanitarian concerns?”

The next glaring deception comes from Amnesty International’s “Human Cost” tally. Amnesty cites themselves as the source for the tallies, admitting that they have no accurate information regarding Libya or whether or not the tally includes the thousands upon thousands killed in NATO’s onslaught or during the genocidal orgy carried out by NATO-armed and backed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) terrorists. It should be noted that NATO’s Libyan legion of terror is still to this day carrying out systematic atrocities (also covered here) in both Libya, and across the Arab World.

One assumes that Amnesty International’s tally for Syria comes either from the UN’s already discredited tally, or Amnesty International’s own tally taken from London-based foreign-funded NGO’s working out of the British Foreign Ministry’s office who are basing their tallies on hearsay and overt fabrications.

The UN number was likewise based on hearsay, taken from opposition members in Geneva and compiled by Fortune 500 think-tank director, Karen Koning AbuZayd. AbuZayd sits on the Washington D.C. based Middle East Policy Council, along side current and former associates of Exxon, the US military, the CIA, the Saudi Binladin Group, the US-Qatari Business Council and both former and current members of the US government. Clearly, by representing the very interests who have been trying to reorder the Arab World for their own convenience for decades, AbuZayd’s involvement compromises the entire UN report as well as the credibility of the UN itself.

Image: Amnesty International using the same “activism 2.0? gags employed by their junior partners at Invisible Children, the perpetrators of the Kony 2012 scam. Note the “Donate Now: Fight bad guys with every dollar,” and how like Invisible Children, Amnesty addresses its audience as if they are children – a tried and true method employed by propagandists. Ironically, Amnesty and Invisible Children also both so happen to cultivate a myriad of connections with the US State Department and corporate interests.

But perhaps what is most offensive of all, is not the intelligence-insulting lies told by Amnesty International, but rather the information they failed to include in their “infographic.” This includes information like the 60-billion dollar arms deal the US signed with notorious human rights abuser Saudi Arabia – the largest arms deal in US history – and the billions upon endless billions of dollars sent to the Israeli government to maintain its belligerent regional posture as well as maintain their nation-sized concentration camp, sometimes called “Palestine.”

At best, the only difference between Russia’s arming the legitimate government of Syria, and the US arming Libyan terrorists, Saudi despots, and Israeli megalomaniacs is clever Western propaganda used to mischaracterize each instance, justifying it when it suits the West, and demonizing it when arms dealing works against them. At worst, the difference is in fact that Russia is arming standing governments while the US and its NATO-Arab League partners are veritably arming notorious terrorist organizations, many listed on both British and US government lists of “foreign terrorist organizations.” This includes the Iraqi-Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), the aforementioned LIFG, and Baluchi terrorists on the Iranian-Pakistani border.

The purpose of this arming of terrorists is to do exactly what Amnesty International accuses Russia of doing, fueling bloodshed. In fact, as the West demanded Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad to withdraw troops from Syrian cities according to a UN brokered “peace plan,” the West’s proxy rebels openly denounced the deal and promised to fight on. Instead of berating the rebels, the West along with their Arab League partners pledged cash and weapons to the rebels encouraging them to flaunt the “peace deal” and indeed perpetuate the bloodshed.

And this is only the latest in a long series of politically-motivated stunts pulled by Amnesty International specifically targeting both Russia and Syria. Whatever credibility Amnesty International might have had left after its participation in the destruction of Libya and indeed its own “fueling of bloodshed” in North Africa, it has completely buried under the battlefields of Syria.

Mar 24

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Avaaz, Humanitarian Agencies, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence

Amnesty International Avaaz China Libya NATO Russia

“Trusted Messengers” (Avaaz) and “Humanitarian Groups” (Amnesty International) Target Russia and China, Endorse the US-NATO Mandate

by Richard Nogueira

Global Research, March 15, 2012

Your content here.ecently “humanitarian” groups such as Amnesty International and Avaaz have been targeting Russia (and China to a lesser extent) in relation to the current Syrian conflict.

The stance does not make much sense in relation to the general missions of these “humanitarian” groups.

A.I., a long standing effective and trusted player, is seen worldwide as an agency of impeccable credentials on human rights.

From seemingly nowhere (?) Avaaz has exploded onto the world-political-activist scene with enormous success (including membership enrollments involving millions of weekly outreach communications).

I described this activity as the state of being “infiltrated with the agenda of Empire” in a previous e-mail.

It is an extremely effective form of propaganda – these are deeply trusted messengers.

The entire effect is similar to how “P”BS is being used to prop up “commercial” network personalities (and mainstream/corp. media agendas), especially in affiliate with CBS and NBC/MSNBC). →

Mar 24

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence

Amnesty International Libya NATO

Amnesty and the NATO Cover-Up of War Crimes in Libya

20.03.2012

By Christof Lehmann – nsnbc

Yesterday, on 19 March 2012, Amnesty International was calling on NATO to “investigate the killing of dozens of civilians during it`s air campaign last year and to provide reparations to the people affected”. Amnesty further stated that “adequate investigations must be carried out and full reparation provided to the victims and their families“. NATO rebutted Amnesty International`s call for an investigation and compensation for the “dozens” of civilians, and in doing so, NATO has entered an elegant propaganda dance macabre. A propaganda dance macabre, designed to dominate and more importantly direct the public and political discourse away from the true dimensions and proportions of the war crimes that were committed under NATO command as well as command responsibility.

The “human rights organization” that is branding itself as “watchdog” is obviously attempting to make even well intended humanitarian minded members of the worlds public belief, that NATO`s Operation Unified Protector, authorized by UNSC Resolution 1973 has resulted in 55 documented cases of named civilians, including 16 children and 14 women that were killed in air strikes in the capital Tripoli and the towns of Zliten, Majer, Sirte, and Brega. The amnesty narrative must make the heart of every NATO propaganda expert jump faster. Possibly, Amnesty is positioning itself for a Nobel Peace Price, where it would be in perfect company with Barak Hussein Obama, Henry Kissinger and other humanitarian avatars. After all, Amnesty International USA has Suzanne Nossel at the helm. A Hilary Clinton aide for International Organizations Affairs.

Reality Amnesty-Style is depended on the all important methodology. With the correct methodology it is possible to reduce a genocide to 55 documented cases – and viola an amazed misinformed public donates to Amnesty`s pacers, pads them on their back asking them to “keep up the good work“.

For those who would like to leave the Orwellian Matrix one may remember the following.

The NATO led assault on Tripoli started with the firing of over 100 Cruise Missiles into the densely populated Tripoli alone. Now imagine 100 Cruise Missiles fired into the city of Paris, London, New York and the carnage they would unleash.Can anyone in his right mind imagine that 100 Cruise Missiles dropped on Paris would result in 55 death, including 16 children and 14 women ? Or was it more likely that there was something terribly flawed with Amnesty`s methodology. Having the habit of answering rhetorical questions I would say yes, something is terribly flawed about Amnesty`s methodology, and nobody will make me belief that a well financed, well staffed, international organization as Amnesty International is not aware of the fact. So why, Amnesty ? Why, Suzanne Nozzel ?

Right – it`s all about methodology. Those who are to intimidated to “report” the murder on their families to Al Qaeda mercenaries who roam the streets, raping, plundering and murdering don`t exist. And where you don`t look you can`t find anything. Statistic is a great tool – and Amnesty is apt at using it. The problem is, Amnesty has so good ties to the US Department of State and Main Stream Media that nobody who is asking all the right questions will get any air time or columns. Thus, tens of thousands disappear, and NATO can rejoice happily in it`s little public embarrassment about those 55 documented cases.

We may recall that the land assault on Tripoli – right, that one where Al Jazeera and other GCC and Western Media aired pictures of celebrating crowds on Tripoli`s Green Square, which later were proven to having been recorded in Doha, Qatar (1) – let`s recall that NATO`s bombing was strictly coordinated with the so called rebels, who committed atrocities from random arrests and summary executions to rape and systematic ethnic cleansing (2) – let`s recall that that assault was initiated from the sea side, from NATO vessels, and that NATO`s Apache Helicopter Gunships and Jets were strifing the streets with heavy machine gun fire and Hellfire Missiles to pave the way for the advancing heroes of the Libyan Revolution. First among those heroes, the NATO / MI6 Asset, known terrorist, and commander of the Al Qaeda associated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. (3) Yes – the one Belhadj who is now commanding 18.000 Al Qaeda / NATO mercenaries to liberate Syrians to death.

We may recall the fact that even the Colonial Lap Dog of the E.U., the African Union`s Fact Finding Mission and subsequently the Pan African Parliament complained not only about the AU`s failures, but about the wide spread massacres and killings of black African Libyans and migrant workers, and the fact that entire villages and towns were ethnically cleansed.(4) In Tawergha alone some 15.000 black Libyans are expected to having been massacred and the town that was previously populated by 20.000 people has literally ceased to exist.(5)

We may recall the NATO cluster bombs and Fuel Gas Explosion Bombs that NATO used against the citizens of Bani Walid.(6) Personally I personally recall a phone conversation with a Libyan medical doctor at the hospital in Sirte, reporting about hundreds of dead after just one NATO bombing raid and over 1000 dead within the last week.(7) NATO`s UN mandate according to UNSC resolution 1973 permitted one and only one military action, the enforcement of a so called “No Fly Zone” which was already sufficient to be a gross violation of the UN Charter and International Law. The enforcement of a no fly zone is always implemented by the bombing of a sovereign nations air force, radar and other military installations. NATO would not have had to have command responsibility for the murder of over 100.000 Libyans for having committed a gross violation of international law. Fact however is, that by deploying Special Forces who led the Libyan Al Qaeda Mercenaries under Belhadj, by importing foreign fighters from Mazar E-Sharif in Afghanistan (8), by coordinating NATO Special Forces operations with illegally deployed Qatari and Saudi troops who together with NATO attempted to bring some military raison into the headless assaults of the few Libyan fighters who actually fought at times other than for Al Jazeera appearances, NATO, and it`s political as well as military leadership took command responsibility upon them selves. I could go on, but belief that I have made the point.

There is one word that is almost as terrifying for war criminals as the word “nationalize” is for globalist cartels. It is the word “command responsibility“, and according to international law, NATO and it`s political and military leadership has direct command responsibility for the murder of over 100.000 Libyans.

Who then, could be a better friend of NATO`s war criminals then, than a humanitarian “Watch Dog” who is telling the world about NATO`s horrendous crimes in 55 documented cases. 16 of them Children! 14 of them Women! How horrific, and someone should get a little slap over his little finger.

Methodology makes it possible. You see, with the right methodology used, You don`t exist and if you don`t exist, you can be murdered with impunity.The root cause for the problem is systemic. There is in fact no organization that documents war crimes in a prosecutable manner, and especially civilians are, de facto, in a state of legal limbo. We the People can at best fool ourselves to having at least “some” sense of justice by arranging International War Crimes Tribunals with no other than Moral Authority. Now imagine a psychopathic murderer and tell him that you have just sentenced him for mass homicide, and that you morally condemn him. He`ll laugh you straight into your face, if you are lucky, murder you next if you are not so lucky, and that is exactly the effect of such war crimes tribunals. All respect for His Excellency Dr. Tun Mahatir Muhammad, but this is not the way to deal with war criminals. To make matters worse, even though Dr. Tun Mahatir Mohammad`s Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal was established with the best of intentions, such Tribunals are counter productive due to the fact that they give the public the impression that there exists at least “some” kind of Justice which in fact is utterly illusory.

There is one constant that is valid for all citizens, all over the world. It is that war criminals can murder, plunder and rape them, You, with absolute impunity unless “some” nation finds it “opportune” to take on their case; and, even if one is so luck to be instrumentalized in politicized tribunals non of them has any “right” to compensation of any kind, ever, unless the majority of the people world wide “demand” that laws and institutions are established that provide factual rights and factual protection. Such demands can only be enforced by an informed public that is aware of the fact that every single one of them can be murdered and raped with utter impunity. An informed public that organizes itself to the point of critical mass, making use of their best weapon – their money and their will to right and justice. Tribunals that give psychopathic murderers a slap over their little fingers in moral sentences are in fact almost as counter productive as highly politicized kangaroo courts and victors justice at the ICC . Some of the systemic problems are:

The International Criminal Court is a U.N. body. The United Nations was in the case of Libya a waring party due to the fact that it passed UNSC resolution 1973-2011 on Libya, authorizing NATO to act on it`s behalf. Any subsequent war crime investigation about any war crimes committed in Libya would make the ICC not impartial and impeachable. Some nations, like Spain, have implemented International Jurisdiction with respect to the most serious crimes recognized by mankind, including crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, ethnic cleansing and other. Now imagine a citizen of Bani Walid or Brega, whose family has been decimated by NATO Cluster Bombs, whose house and business was devastated and ruined gather sufficient resources to plead to the State Prosecutor of Spain to take on his case.

The naked and saddening fact is, that You, I, and every citizen of this world is in fact without actual protection against war crimes by any law, or by any legal body, unless some nation is willing to take on the case; and, even if one should be so lucky to find the “mercy” of the one nation, NGO, or the other, who doubtlessly have their own motivations to engage in your case other than the fact that a crime has been committed, it is highly questionable that we will witness not politically biased kangaroo courts. The Milosevic trial being but one prime example.

For the sake of humanity it would be high time to consider how to remedy the fact that all those who fall through the mesh of Amnesia International Style war crimes investigations can be murdered with impunity.

At closing, I wonder if Amnesty ever investigated how many Libyans were murdered alone during the one cluster bomb attack on the citizens of Brega shown on the video below. You tube continued deleting and removing it. Amnesia International has most likely forgotten that it ever existed. Methodology makes it possible.

NATO deploys Cluster Bombs over Densely Populated area of Brega / Libya

Christof Lehmann

20.03.2012 – nsnbc

http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/amnesty-and-the-nato-cover-up-of-war-crimes-in-libya-updated/

1) Arabian Summer or NATO`s Fall. Christof Lehmann (2011) nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/arabian-summer-or-nato%C2%B4s-fall/

2) The awful Truth of Libya. Christof Lehmann (2011) nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/the-awfull-truth-of-libya/

3) Abdelhakim Belhadj, The Mask Behind the Many Men. Christof Lehmann (2011) nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/abdelhakim-belhadj-the-mask-behind-the-many-men/

4) PAP blasts AU over Libya, covering it`s own Failures. Christof Lehmann (2011) nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/pap-blasts-au-over-libya-covering-it%C2%B4s-own-failures/

5) Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide, and the Tawergha. Human Rights Investigations (2011) http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/ethnic-cleansing-genocide-and-the-tawergha/

6) International Military Support for Libya results in TNC withdrawals. Christof Lehmann (2011) nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/international-military-support-for-libya-results-in-tnc-withdrawals/ NB.: The link to the video documenting cluster bombs has since been removed from YouTube. The video is shown above as part of the present article.

7) New Attack on Sirte at Closing of NATO Summit. Christof Lehmann (2011) nsnbc. http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/new-attack-on-sirte-at-closing-of-nato-summit/

8) CIA recruits 1500 from Mazar-eSharif to fight in Libya. The Nation (2011) http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/31-Aug-2011/CIA-recruits-1500-from-MazareSharif-to-fight-in-Libya

Mar 08

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, NED | National Endowment for Democracy, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence, USAID

Amnesty International CIA Freedom House Haiti Libya NED | National Endowment for Democracy Syria USAID Venezuela

NGOs: The Missionaries of Empire

by Devon DB

Global Research | March 3, 2012

Non-governmental organizations are an increasingly important part of the 21st century international landscape performing a variety of humanitarian tasks pertaining inter alia to issues of poverty, the environment and civil liberties. However, there is a dark side to NGOs. They have been and are currently being used as tools of foreign policy, specifically with the United States. Instead of using purely military force, the US has now moved to using NGOs as tools in its foreign policy implementation, specifically the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and Amnesty International.

National Endowment for Democracy

According to its website, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is “a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world,” [1] however this is sweet sounding description is actually quite far from the truth.

The history of the NED begins immediately after the Reagan administration. Due to the massive revelations concerning the CIA in the 1970s, specifically that they were involved in attempted assassinations of heads of state, the destabilization of foreign governments, and were illegally spying on the US citizens, this tarnished the image of the CIA and of the US government as a whole. While there were many committees that were created during this time to investigate the CIA, the Church Committee (led by Frank Church, a Democrat from Idaho) was of critical importance as its findings “demonstrated the need for perpetual surveillance of the intelligence community and resulted in the creation of the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.” [2] The Select Committee on Intelligence’s purpose was to oversee federal intelligence activities and while oversight and stability came in, it seemed to signal that the CIA’s ‘party’ of assassination plots and coups were over. Yet, this was to continue, but in a new way: under the guise of a harmful NGO whose purpose was to promote democracy around the world- the National Endowment for Democracy.

The NED was meant to be a tool of US foreign policy from its outset. It was the brainchild of Allen Weinstein who, before creating the Endowment, was a professor at Brown and Georgetown Universities, had served on the Washington Post’s editorial staff, and was the Executive Editor of The Washington Quarterly, Georgetown’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, a right-wing neoconservative think tank which would in the future have ties to imperial strategists such as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. [3] He stated in a 1991 interview that “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” [4] →

Feb 16

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Humanitarian Agencies, The International Campaign to Destabilize Syria, The War on Libya - There Was No Evidence

Amnesty International Human Rights Watch Imperialism Libya NATO Syria United Nations

“HUMAN RIGHTS” WARRIORS FOR EMPIRE | Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch

“Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have chosen sides in the Washington-backed belligerency – the side of Empire.” Syria has no choice but to secure every square foot of its territory. “Faced with the certainty of superpower-backed attack under the guise of ‘protecting’ civilians in “liberated” territory, Syria cannot afford to cede even one neighborhood of a single city – not one block! – or of any rural or border enclave, to armed rebels and foreign jihadis.”

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“NATO wants desperately to identify some sliver of Syrian soil on which to plant the ‘humanitarian’ flag of intervention.”

The largest imperial offensive since the Iraq invasion of March, 2003, is in full swing, under the banner of “humanitarian” intervention – Barack Obama’s fiendishly clever upgrade of George Bush’s “dumb” wars. Having failed to obtain a Libyan-style United Nations Security Council fig leaf for a “humanitarian” military strike against Syria, the United States shifts effortlessly to a global campaign “outside the U.N. system” to expand its NATO/Persian Gulf royalty/Jihadi coalition. Next stop: Tunisia, where Washington’s allies will assemble on February 24 to sharpen their knives as “Friends of Syria.” The U.S. State Department has mobilized to shape the “Friends” membership and their “mandate” – which is warlord-speak for refining an ad hoc alliance for the piratical assault on Syria’s sovereignty.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are swigging the ale with their fellow buccaneers. These “human rights” warriors, headquartered in the bellies of empires past and present, their chests shiny with medals of propagandistic service to superpower aggression in Libya, contribute “left” legitimacy to the imperial project. London-based Amnesty International held a global “day of action” to rail against Syria for “crimes against humanity” and to accuse Russia and China of using their Security Council vetoes to “betray” the Syrian people – echoing the war hysteria out of Washington, Paris, London and the royal pigsties of Riyadh and Doha. New York-based Human Rights Watch denounced Moscow and Beijing’s actions as “incendiary” – as if it were not the empire and its allies who were setting the Middle East and Africa on fire, arming and financing jihadis – including hundreds of veteran Libyan Salafists now operating in Syria.

“Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch contribute ‘left’ legitimacy to the imperial project.”

Under Obama’s “intelligent” (as opposed to “dumb”) imperial tutelage, colonial genocidaires like France now propose creation of “humanitarian corridors” inside Syria “to allow NGOs to reach the zones where there are scandalous massacres.” NATO flatly rejected such a corridor in Libya when sub-Saharan Africans and black Libyans were being massacred by militias armed and financed by the same “Friends” that now besiege Syria.

Turkey claims it has rejected, for now, the idea of setting up humanitarian “buffer zones” along its border with Syria – inside Syrian territory – while giving arms, training and sanctuary to Syrian military deserters. In reality, it is Syrian Army troop and armor concentrations on the border that have thwarted the establishment of such a “buffer” – a bald euphemism for creating a “liberated zone” that must be “protected” by NATO or some agglomeration of U.S.-backed forces.

NATO, which bombed Libya non-stop for six months, inflicting tens of thousands of casualties while refusing to count a single body, wants desperately to identify some sliver of Syrian soil on which to plant the “humanitarian” flag of intervention. They are transparently searching for a Benghazi, to justify a replay of the Libyan operation – the transparent fact that prompted the Russian and Chinese vetoes.

Faced with the certainty of superpower-backed attack under the guise of “protecting” civilians in “liberated” territory, Syria cannot afford to cede even one neighborhood of a single city – not one block! – or of any rural or border enclave, to armed rebels and foreign jihadis. That road leads directly to loss of sovereignty and possible dissection of Syria – which western pundits are already calling a “hodge-podge” nation that could be a “failed state.” Certainly, the French and British are experts at carving up other people’s territories, having drawn the national boundaries of the region after World War One. It is an understatement to say that Israel would be pleased.

“It is the Libya formula, and might as well have come straight from Barack Obama’s mouth.”

With the Syrian military’s apparent successes in securing most of Homs and other centers of rebellion, the armed opposition has stepped up its terror tactics – a campaign noted with great alarm by the Arab League’s own Observer Mission to Syria, leading Saudi Arabia and Qatar to suppress the Mission’s report. Instead, the Gulf States are pressing the Arab League to openly “provide all kinds of political and material support” to the opposition, meaning arms and, undoubtedly, more Salafist fighters. Aleppo, Syria’s main commercial and industrial city, which had seen virtually no unrest, was struck by two deadly car bombs last week – signature work of the al-Qaida affiliate in neighboring Iraq.

The various “Friends of Syria,” all nestled in the U.S./NATO/Saudi/Qatar cocoon, now openly speak of all-out civil war in Syria – by which they mean stepped up armed conflict financed and directed by themselves – as the preferred alternative to the protracted struggle that the regime appears to be winning. There is one caveat: no “Western boots on the ground in any form,” as phrased by British Foreign Secretary William Hague. It is the Libya formula, and might as well have come straight from Barack Obama’s mouth.

Syria is fighting for its national existence against an umbrella of forces mobilized by the United States and NATO. Of the 6,000 or so people that have died in the past 11 months, about a third have been Syrian soldiers and police – statistical proof positive that this is an armed assault on the state. There is no question of massive foreign involvement, or that the aim of U.S. policy is regime change, as stated repeatedly by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“Assad must go,” she told reporters in Bulgaria).

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have chosen sides in the Washington-backed belligerency – the side of Empire. As groups most often associated with (what passes for) the Left in their headquarters countries, they are invaluable allies of the current imperial offensive. They have many fellow travelers in (again, what passes for) anti-war circles in the colonizing and neo-colonizing nations. The French “Left” lifted hardly a finger while a million Algerians died in the struggle for independence, and have not proved effective allies of formerly colonized people in the 50 years, since. Among the European imperial powers, only Portugal’s so-called Carnation Revolution of 1974, a coup by young officers, resulted in substantial relief for the subjects of empire: the withdrawal of troops from Portugal’s African colonies.

“Of the 6,000 or so people that have died in the past 11 months, about a third have been Syrian soldiers and police – statistical proof positive that this is an armed assault on the state.”

The U.S. anti-war movement lost its mass character as soon as the threat of a draft was removed, in the early Seventies, while the United States continued to bomb Vietnam (and test new and exotic weapons on its people) until the fall of Saigon, in 1975. All that many U.S. lefties seemed to want was to get the Republicans off their backs, in 2008, and to Hell with the rest of the world. Democrat Barack Obama has cranked the imperial war machine back into high gear, with scarcely a peep from the “Left.”

There was great ambivalence – the most polite word I can muster – among purported leftists in the United States and Europe to NATO’s bombardment and subjugation of Libya. Here we are again, in the face of existential imperial threats to Syria and Iran, as leftists temporize about human rights while the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” blazes new warpaths.

There is no such thing as an anti-war activist who is not an anti-imperialist. And the only job of an anti-imperialist in the belly of the beast is to disarm the beast. Absent that, s/he is useless to humanity.

As we used to say: You are part of the solution – or you are part of the problem. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are part of the problem.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

Feb 15

2012

newWKOGadnim

Amnesty International, Humanitarian Agencies, Imperialist Wars/Occupations, The International Campaign to Destabilize Syria

Amnesty International BBC Destabilization Human Rights Watch Syria

FLASHBACK: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International fan the flames of conflict in Syria

October 7, 2011

Human Rights Investigations

A major thread running through the story of the Libyan conflict has been the information war – propaganda spread by intelligence agencies, military, media and political groups designed to encourage hatred, conflict, war, foreign intervention, death and destruction.

One sad aspect of the propaganda war has been the role played by Amnesty International and – as we will see -the heavily compromised Human Rights Watch (HRW), organisations which used to be highly regarded (and still employ some decent, well-intentioned and brave individuals.)

The daily output of propaganda is difficult to keep up with, let alone dispel. With fabricated stories describing camel bones as mass graves containing 1270 bodies, Moussa Ibrahim reportedly being found in women’s clothing and viagra apparently being distributed as a weapon of mass destruction in order to “rape children as young as EIGHT” the propaganda is beyond parody.

Human Rights Watch – infiltrated

HRW has always been a somewhat dodgy organisation, largely funded by billionaires such as George Soros and the Rausing family whose fortune comes from Tetra Paks, exploiting cheap labor in China and (allegedly) tax dodging on an industrial scale. According to its 2010 financial statements, HRW’s annual spend on fundraising was $8,042,326 and $2,344,370 on management and general costs. →

←

→

Archives

Well-known NGO’s are profiteers earning big money

NGO’S PUSHING FOR “HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION” IN SYRIA

Shameless propaganda stunt by US State Department run, Soros-funded front Amnesty International