The Gaddafi Mercenaries and the Division of Africa | Amnesty International

Exposing the lies of the use of ‘African mercenaries’ in Libya

Via Global Civilians for Peace: “Amnesty International was well aware of the false accusations of the use of ‘African mercenaries’ in Libya. It was a lie used by NATO and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media to de-legitimise and demonise the Libyan government and cover up the mass racist lynchings, torture and imprisonment of black Libyans and migrant workers by the ‘rebels’. Surely as a self-proclaimed human rights organisation Amnesty International should have exposed these heinous ‘rebel’ crimes to the world, condemned the mainstream media’s complicity and campaigned on behalf of the black communities in Libya facing this racist onslaught.”

For more information on the ‘rebels’ relentless racist campaign of mass detention, lynchings and atrocities see the following compilation of articles and videos:

http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/2011/11/22/rebel-racism-compilation-of-articles-and-videos/

For more information on the truth behind the Imperialist war on Libya visit www.thehumanitarianwar.com.

U.S. Funded ‘Activist’ Becomes President of Tunisia | From A-Z, the Arab Spring is Fake

“It is a necessity to research the backgrounds and affiliations of all political groups and NGOs, and assess both their funding and their affiliations. The National Endowment for Democracy is indisputably disingenuous in both their stated cause and their actions. Their board of directors alone betrays their motto of “Supporting freedom around the world,” as it is almost entirely made up of corporate-fascists, Neo-Conservative warmongers, and corporate lobbyists. The organizations, opposition groups, media outlets, and NGOs, they support seek to destabilize and destroy the nations they infest.”

Dec 13, 2011

From A-Z, the Arab Spring is Fake.

Cross posted from LIBYA 360°

Tony Cartalucci

December 13, 2011 – The BBC hails Tunisia’s assembly and their election of a new president in their article, “Tunisian activist, Moncef Marzouki, named president.” What the BBC predictably fails to mention is that Marzouki’s organization, the Tunisian League for Human Rights, was a US National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros Open Society-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) member organization.

Photo: Tunisia’s new “president,” Moncef Marzouki, a veteran Western collaborator whose last two decades of political activity have been supported and subsidized by the US government and US corporate-financier funded foundations.

It was earlier reported in “Soros Celebrates the Fall of Tunisia,” that Marzouki was named “interim-president” of Tunisia and that the myriad of NGOs and opposition organizations that worked with him to overthrow the government of Tunisia were fully subsidized and backed by the US government and US corporate-funded foundations.
Marzouki, who spent two decades in exile in Paris, France, was also founder and head of the Arab Commission for Human Rights, a collaborating institution with the US NED World Movement for Democracy (WMD) including for a “Conference on Human Rights Activists in Exile” and a participant in the WMD “third assembly” alongside Marzouki’s Tunisian League for Human Rights, sponsored by NED, Soros’ Open Society, and USAID.

Marzouki, along with his Libyan counterpart Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the Petroleum Institute, sponsored by British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France’s Total, the Japan Oil Development Company, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, makes for the second Western proxy installed into power either by covert sedition or overt military aggression, during the US-engineered “Arab Spring.” Western proxies in Egypt including Mohamed ElBaradei and Mamdouh Hamza are also vying for power in the wake of similar foreign-fomented unrest, while NATO backed militants harbored in Turkey are attempting to overthrow the government of Syria by force.

The Arab Spring is Fake

Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institution penned the book “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” originally designated for the destabilization and recolonization of Myanmar, still called “Burma” throughout much of the West. Sharp’s book would be utilized by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) throughout Eastern Europe, throughout Asia, and eventually, in 2011, for the US-engineered “Arab Spring.”
According to Sharp’s own Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) 2000-2004 annual report, AEI had been sponsored by the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its funded subsidiary International Republican Institute (IRI) to train activists in Serbia (page 18) Zimbabwe (page 23) and Myanmar (page 26) to help overthrow their respective sovereign governments.

Australia’s Southern Cross University’s “Activating Human Rights & Peace (AHRP)” conference had put out a revealing account of their 2008 proceedings illustrating that all of Gene Sharp’s work, beyond what was even mentioned in his own institution’s annual report, had been fully funded and in support of the US government and its global domineering agenda. Beginning on page 26, Sharp’s affiliations, in particular with the National Endowment for Democracy, which is described as carrying out “a lot of work that was formerly undertaken by the CIA,” as well as the Ford Foundation, and billionaire Wall Street patriarch George Soros’ Open Society Institute are fleshed out in immense detail.

The “Arab Spring” itself was not spontaneous, nor was it indigenous. Rather it was a was a premeditated geopolitical plot engineered by US corporate-financier interests years in advance. The New York Times in its article, “U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” clearly stated as much when it reported, “a number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington.”

Further confirming this were public statements made by the US State Department-sponsored “Alliance for Youth Movements” (AYM) counting Egypt’s April 6 Youth Movement among its above mentioned inaugural AYM summit attendees in New York City as far back as 2008. Foreign Policy magazine admited that April 6 received further training from CANVAS in Serbia, before fomenting unrest in Egypt. FP magazine would also report that “CANVAS has worked with dissidents from almost every country in the Middle East; the region contains one of CANVAS’s biggest successes, Lebanon, and one of its most disappointing failures, Iran.”

The destabilization in Iran, of course, was drawn up by corporate-funded Brookings Institution, as articulated in its “Which Path to Persia?” report, with the actual mechanics of organizing the foreign-funded revolution subcontracted to organizations like US-funded CANVAS, NED and its subsidiaries.

In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, stated that the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US (emphasis added) “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there.” Posner would add, “They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” The ripple effect Posner is talking about is of course the “spontaneous” “Arab Spring” and bears a striking resemblance to the campaign of destabilization Gene Sharp and AEI perpetuated throughout Eastern Europe as described in detail in the above mentioned AHRP report.

Conclusion

With a similar gambit now playing out in Russia, fueled by the exact same Western organizations and foundations, not only is it obvious that Tunisia was overthrown, not by spontaneous, indigenous protests, but rather premeditated foreign-funded sedition carried out by the likes of Moncef Marzouki and his US-funded opposition group, it is also obvious that Tunisia was just one of many nations destabilized in the largest concerted geopolitical reordering since World War II. With Russia now targeted by foreign-fomented color revolutions, the US’ declaration of a new “American Pacific Century” aiming to contain China, and Western proxies beginning to climb into positions of power throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East, it is clear that the campaign of encirclement and destabilization of both Russia and China by the forces of global corporate fascism described in February 2011?s “The Middle East & then the World” is indeed an unfolding reality.

It is a necessity to research the backgrounds and affiliations of all political groups and NGOs, and assess both their funding and their affiliations. The National Endowment for Democracy is indisputably disingenuous in both their stated cause and their actions. Their board of directors alone betrays their motto of “Supporting freedom around the world,” as it is almost entirely made up of corporate-fascists, Neo-Conservative warmongers, and corporate lobbyists. The organizations, opposition groups, media outlets, and NGOs, they support seek to destabilize and destroy the nations they infest.

Exposing and fighting this disingenuous enterprise is important. Equally important is to identify the corporate-financier interests driving its true agenda and the global elites’ overarching plan of achieving global hegemony. Boycott these interests entirely out of business, and replace them with business models, institutions, and bodies of governance that truly serve “we the people.”

http://libya360.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/u-s-funded-activist-becomes-president-of-tunisia/

HUMANITARIAN WAR IN LIBYA? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!
LIBYA AND THE BIG LIE: USING HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS TO LAUNCH WARS

http://youtu.be/2D0LEW6vGF8

http://youtu.be/4B-BKWf9G4M

© Copyright 2011 by Libya 360°

This page may be republished for non-commercial purposes as long as reprints include a verbatim copy of the article/page in its entirety, respecting its integrity and cite the author and Libya 360° as the source including a live link to the article/page.

Subscribe to Libya 360° for critical updates on the Imperialist war waged upon Libya: http://libya360.wordpress.com/

THE BRUTAL MURDER OF MUAMMAR AND MU’TASSIM GADDAFI

The New Forests Company | Oxfam: British Corporation Mass Murdering Ugandans in UN Sanctioned Land Grab

British Corporation Mass Murdering Ugandans in UN Sanctioned Land Grab

September 26, 2011

Beneath fraud, media spin, & UN stamps of approval, awaits an unfolding nightmare for the people of Africa and the world.

by Tony Cartalucci

The New York Times recently reported in an article titled, “In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out,” that the British “New Forests Company” has evicted over 20,000 people from their land in Uganda to make way for tree plantations. Homes were burnt, people, including women and children, were brutalized and murdered during the long eviction process. However, the New York Times states that in this case “the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.”

 

The “group” the New York Times is referring to is Oxfam, which published a report titled, “The New Forests Company and its Uganda plantations,” detailing the activities of New Forests in Uganda and the evictions the New York Times gingerly describes in its article.

Who is The New Forests Company?

Meet “New Forests,” a UK-based firm that claims to be a “sustainable and socially responsible forestry company with established, rapidly growing plantations and the prospect of a diversified product base for local and regional export markets which will deliver both attractive returns to investors and significant social and environmental benefits.” Their corporate website is not short of the color green, nor of African people smiling and prospering, so apparently, we are left to believe, New Forests has made good on their mission statement.

Image: Taken from New Forests’ website, they proudly display the swath of destruction their company is responsible for, of course, instead of depicting the displacements, murders, and thuggery they are committing against the people of Africa, they place images of thriving trees.
….

Meet Robert Deveruex, chairman of New Forests, one of the founding shareholders of The Virgin Group and former chairman of Soho House Group. He has spent a great deal of time and energy making what his corporation is doing in Africa appear to have a philanthropic spin. In an August 2010 Guardian article titled, “Robert Devereux donates £4m of art collection to set up African charity,” Devereux claims of his New Forests company that it “has a huge community development programme. It’s not philanthropy. We go to the community and we say, ‘We want to co-invest with you. If you provide what labour and materials you can, we’ll provide money for things that you can’t get.'” Devereux, however, never mentioned what happens if the community says, “no thanks.”

Photo: Robert Devereux, a long time investor, a long time con-artist spinning his company’s despoiling of Africa as some sort of cutting-edge investment strategy that makes money and “helps” people. Even as Devereux made his disingenuous statements in 2010 regarding New Forests, the villagers in Uganda he was “helping” had already filed a court case a year earlier protesting the British company’s encroachment on their land.
…

Meet New Forests executive director and CEO Julian Ozanne, who previously worked for the Financial Times, advised US and European investment banks on business and political risk in Africa and worked for the global corporate-fascists nexus, the World Economic Forum. Also serving as a New Forest director is Jonathan Aisbitt, chairman of the investment firm, The Man Group, and previously a partner and managing director at the now notorious Goldman Sachs.

There is also Avril Stassen, who is not only a director at New Forests but is also currently a principal at Agri-Vie Investment Advisers, which claims to be “focused on food and agribusiness in Sub-Sahara Africa with a mission to generate an above average investment return, as well as demonstrable socio-economic development impacts through its equity investments in food and agribusinesses.” In other words, buying up land in African nations people depend on to live, to instead broaden foreign investors’ portfolios and profits, all under the cover of feel good rhetoric and pictures of smiling Africans pasted all over their website and annual reports. A good website that seems to be keeping watch on Agri-Vie is Farmlandgrab.org, which in one short URL explains exactly the game Agri-Vie is playing.

And finally, meet Sajjad Sabur, also a director at New Forests, as well as a managing director at HSBC, heading the mega-bank’s “Principal Investments Africa” branch which targets African businesses with management buyouts, growth capital and recapitalization “opportunities.” Sabur’s HSBC investment arm has actually invested in New Forests.

Quite clearly, this looks more like the profile of a Wall Street-London corporate-fascist hit team than anything at all involving humanitarian, environmental, or social concerns. And judging by Oxfam’s report and the subsequent attempt by the New York Times to mitigate the gravity of what the largest banks in the world are doing to Africa, it seems like a corporate-fascist hit is just what is unfolding in Uganda at New Forests’ hands.

Globalization is Modern Day Imperialism by Anglo-American Bankers

Backtracking to New Forests’ mission statement, apparently “social responsibility” equates to murdering or displacing tens of thousands of Ugandans in their own nation, and “attractive returns” equates to the extraction and exportation of Ugandan resources for a corporation’s shareholders 4,000 miles away. What we are told is of significant “benefit” to society and the environment looks more like a textbook case of imperialism, perpetrated by British, surely new to being socially and environmentally responsible, but certainly not to imperialism nor gimmicks used to mask it behind noble causes.

The New York Times reveals that the World Bank is also an investor in New Forests along with HSBC, and that the true nature of the scam goes beyond merely displacing tens of thousands to grow trees, but that the trees are being used for the purpose of selling contrived carbon credits, not even to provide tangible resources for economic activity. The New York Times also implicates the United Nations, which granted New Forests permission to “trade” with the Ugandan government regarding its 50-year lease to grow trees in the landlocked nation.

The government of Uganda, led by President-for-life Yoweri Museveni for the last 25 years, was the result of a protracted civil war led by Museveni himself. After seizing power, he was immediately lauded by the West, embraced the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s plans for restructuring his newly conquered nation, and has been running it as a dictator ever since. It is no surprise that Museveni is now selling his own people out, no doubt in exchange for his perpetual, unhindered rule, transiting a vast corporate media black hole enjoyed by regimes servile to Wall Street and London worldwide.

The globalist New York Times has a long tradition of apologizing not just for Anglo-American bankers as they defile the planet, but defending their accomplices, Museveni apparently one of them. In a 1997 New York Times article titled, “Uganda Leader Stands Tall in New African Order,” Museveni is praised for his extraterritorial meddling throughout neighboring African states. The New York Times claims, “not only has Mr. Museveni resurrected his own impoverished nation from two decades of brutal dictatorship and near economic collapse, but he is also widely seen as the covert patron of rebel movements like the one that has just toppled Mobutu Sese Seko, the longtime dictator of Zaire.” The article then brushes off accusations that Museveni is dictator of a single party system of governance by providing Museveni’s own defense, that Uganda is pre-industrial and not ready for multiparty democracy.

How resurrected Uganda is from poverty is a matter of debate, and certainly, the concept of poverty has taken on all new dimensions for over 20,000 Ugandans forced from their land by Anglo-American bankers and their willing accomplices in the Ugandan government. How Museveni plans on bringing Uganda past its “pre-industrial” state by handing over land to foreigners to grow trees on for the next 50 years, leaving his own people homeless, jobless, and destitute for an entire generation is also a profound mystery.

What we are watching in Africa is the grotesque reality that is globalization peaking through the thick layer of lies, propaganda, spin, liberal ideologies, and imagery used to dupe the Western world, and increasingly many in the developing world. It is a reality that entails theft on a massive scale, human exploitation, mass-murder, collective punishment, and intimidation. For those that think Uganda is an isolated anomaly and are somehow able to dismiss the backgrounds of New Forests which represents an entire network designed specifically to exploit and strip mine all of Africa, one need look no further than Southeast Asia’s Cambodia. There, half way around the world from Uganda, another Western backed dictator-for-life, Hun Sen, has literally sold half his country to foreign investors, displacing hundreds of thousands at gunpoint in a nearly identical Wall Street-London land-grab.

Globalization is a multi-billion dollar packaged update of the British Empire’s “spreading of civilization.” Designs of dominion and exploitation have historically always been accompanied by excuses seen as palatable for the masses who were expected to support and carry these designs to fruition for the ruling elite. While it is no longer fashionable to kill black and brown people while accusing them of being “savages,” it is still quite fashionable to consider them “undemocratic,” “backwards,” “overpopulating,” “terrorists,” and above all, “detriments to our environment.” At least, New Forests and New York Times seem to think so.

Once again, the choice we the people have, upon learning of this, is to either detach in cowardice and apathy, or identify the corporations, banks, and institutions leading this “globalization,” expose them, boycott them, and ultimately replace them. Those of New Forests guilty of displacing, even murdering people simply for profit in a foreign nation, thousands of miles from their shores, don’t belong in business anymore.

The darkest villains we face on earth today are not cave dwelling Islamic fundamentalists, Libyan colonels, or Americans selling sliver coins, instead, the most dangerous, degenerate, and detrimental members of the human race reside on Wall Street and in London’s financial institutions.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/british-corporation-mass-murdering.html

U.S. Funded Democracy Centre Reveals It’s Real Reason for Supporting the TIPNIS Protest in Bolivia: REDD $$$

November 23rd, 2011

by Cory Morningstar

DI NO AL REDD – Rapido Enriquecimiento con Desalojos, usurpación de tierras y Destrucción de biodiversidad. SAY NO TO REDD – Reaping Profits from Evictions, Land Grabs, Deforestation and Destruction of Biodiversity

“Bolivia is and will remain a country who desperately struggles to resist Imperialism and fight for their autonomy – against all odds.”

The Democracy Centre, Avaaz and Amazon Watch are the main three NGOs, heavily funded by U.S. interests (Rockefellers, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Ford Foundation and Soros to name a few), who led the recent International campaign in which they denounced and demonized Bolivian Indigenous leader Evo Morales and his government. This destabilization campaign focused on the TIPNIS protests. A violent confrontation between TIPNIS protestors (influenced/funded by U.S. NGOs/USAID/CIDOB) and the police was the vital opportunity needed in order to execute a destabilization campaign that the U.S. has been strategically planning for decades. (Declassified Documents Revealed More than $97 Million from USAID to Separatist Projects in Bolivia | Evo Morales Through the Prism of Wikileaks – Democracy in Danger).

A key demand put forward by the TIPNIS protestors were that Indigenous peoples would directly receive financial compensation for ‘offsetting’ carbon emissions. This policy, known as REDD/REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), has been denounced as the commodification and privatisation of the forests by many, including those within the climate justice movements. The ‘People’s Agreement’ created at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth (April 2010) clearly condemned REDD, stating that it violates “the sovereignty of our Peoples.” REDD has been promoted as a mechanism to allow developed countries to continue to pollute while undermining the right for underdeveloped countries to develop their economies. Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environment Network stated unequivocally that “The carbon market solutions are not about mitigating climate, but are greenwashing policies that allow fossil fuel development to expand.”

Morales survived the orchestrated attempt to destabilize his government. No one’s fool, Morales did something completely unexpected that few if anyone had even considered: he granted the Indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS every single demand which the protestors, under foreign/outside influence had sought (although he made clear that on the issue of REDD, the ‘People’s Agreement’ adopted at the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth would guide any future decision on this issue). Completely caught off guard by Morales response, and realizing, perhaps for the first time, whose lives would ultimately be affected by the outcomes of the demands, and how, one anxious protestor commented “we’re screwed“.

Video: Manipulation: Indigenous Peoples Alto Xingu-STOP pushing us for REDD (running time: 9:26)

Morales has been a world leader in his vocal opposition to REDD stating that “nature, forests and indigenous peoples are not for sale.” At the opposite end of the spectrum are the foundations (who serve as tax-exempt front groups for corporations and elites) who finance the NGOs who have led the campaign to discredit Morales are most all heavily promoting and investing in REDD. CIDOB is involved in pilot REDD projects funded by the NGO called FAN (Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza) which is funded by a slew of foreign interest entities/states and corporate NGOs such as USAID, Conservation International, European Union, American Electric Power, BP-Amoco and Dow Chemical‘s partner, The Nature Conservancy. Indeed, when it comes to the world’s most powerful NGOs voicing any dissent to the false solution of REDD, the silence is deafening. (http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/10/26/manufacturing-consent-on-carbon-trading/)

The money behind the REDD scheme is in the trillions.

Above: Indigenous Peoples Alto Xingu – Stop Pushing Us For REDD – Photo: Rebecca Sommer

It is revealing to note that while the corporate NGOs worked feverishly to shine an International spotlight on the tear-gassing of the TIPNIS protestors by Bolivian police, a slaughter of 100,000 Libyan civilians was underway in an Imperialist, NATO-led invasion under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention’. This invasion was made possible by the fabrication of events and lies put forward by 78 NGOs. To this day, there is no evidence to back these lies. The NGOs were and remain silent on this latest atrocity as the U.S./Euro Imperialist destabilization campaigns escalate in the Middle East in a race towards global domination.

The Democracy Centre makes clear it’s opposition to the Bolivian Morales government’s position on REDD in its policy statement on REDD drafted by staffer Kylie Benton-Connell [1]

In this report, the Democracy Centre both denies/ignores the involvement of USAID in the CIDOB promoted REDD Amazonia project via its funding to FAN, and argues that “The REDD Amazonia project is important, because it keeps the possibility of these kind of projects alive in Bolivian institutions, in a context where the national government is swimming against the tide of international REDD politics.”

Furthermore, Benton-Connell reiterates the Democracy Centre’s opposition to the Bolivian Morales government’s position and the Centre’s support for REDD in her article published on November 21, 2011 (link below and also published on the Democracy Centre’s website):

” The decision linking forest conservation to carbon markets may well be finalized at the UN climate negotiations in Durban at the beginning of December, unless it is blocked by dissident countries.”

Moreover, Benton-Connell tells us:

“… if today’s Bolivian government or a future one drops its opposition to carbon markets, and an international agreement is reached on trading in forest carbon, revenue streams could become much larger.”

Benton-Connell continues that the problem is not REDD itself, but how REDD is organized. She states:

“The fates of many ordinary people in Bolivia — and of similar communities across the globe — will be in play as technocrats discuss plans for forest carbon trading at the upcoming UN climate negotiations in Durban. As Marcos Nordgren Ballivián, climate change analyst with Bolivian organization CIPCA told us last year: “tensions already exist, and with a new source of profits such as REDD could prove to be, it might cause problems … But we’ll have to see how REDD is organized, because that will define, of course, if these conflicts are worsened.”

The following text appears 8 March 2010 in an article titled Getting REDDy to Cross the Finish Line, Two Decades in the Making: “It’s hard to imagine with all the progress REDD has achieved, that it all started less than 20 years ago with the Rio Summit in ’92, when the makings of a global sustainability architecture in the form of a climate treaty began to take shape. But a forestry treaty had yet to happen … With over 20 years of experience in the forestry sector, Michael Northrup, Program Director of Sustainable Development at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, was invited by the Pinchot Institute for Conservation to give a Distinguished Lecture, ‘After Copenhagen: Implications for U.S. Climate, Energy, and Forest Policy’ at the high brow, exclusive Cosmos Club. Northrup casually described to the 30 or so people in the room where we are with REDD today and how we got here. Plus he played the “name game” as he knew most of the people in the room.”

Of course, Rockefeller is not alone in its quest to lead and dominate on the promise of “green capitalism”; other members of the elites will not be left behind to feed on the breadcrumbs. For example, The Climate and Land Use Alliance, whose member foundations include the ClimateWorks Foundation (Avaaz partner), the Ford Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and multi-million dollar corporate NGOs – Greenpeace International and Rockefeller’s WWF have joined forces to push forward the false solution of REDD.

“The big business conservationists and their professionals didn’t buy off the movement; they built it.” –Katherine Barkley and Steve Weissman, “The Eco-Establishment“, in: Ramparts (eds.), Eco-Catastrophe, Harper and Row, 1970

Video: President Morales Speaks to Imperialism (UN Gen Ass, Sept 21, 2011)(Running time: 8:02)

Let us close while we reflect upon the words of author Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti:

“In the recent conflict over the construction of a highway through the TIPNIS indigenous territory, history repeated itself once again: indigenous people renounced all possibility of progress and integration in favor of the hidden political objective of the US to boycott the projects of crop-substitution and development center in the Chapare, wherein lies the core of the anti-imperialist consciousness of the Bolivian people. Once again, foreign interests have ensured that the Indians act against their own interests. This shows that a priority issue for the new agenda of president Morales should be to continue deconstructing the control mechanisms of the Western powers. “Philanthropy” has always been one of the most dangerous mechanisms.”

The article: http://www.alternet.org/water/153161/will_programs_to_off-set_carbon_emissions_fuel_further_conflict_in_bolivia%27s_forests?page=entire

For further reading on the International Campaign to Destabilize Bolivia: http://wrongkindofgreen.org/category/the-international-campaign-to-destabilize-bolivia/

[1] Benton-Connell worked with the Democracy Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia from February 2010 to June 2011, where she authored the report “Off the Market: Bolivian forests and struggles over climate change.”

Bolivia: Rumble Over Jungle Far from Over

Sunday, November 20, 2011 | Green Left Weekly

By Federico Fuentes

March from TIPNIS arrives in La Paz.

Despite the government reaching an agreement with indigenous protesters on all 16 demands raised on their 10-week march onto the capital, La Paz, the underlying differences are far from resolved.

On October 24, Bolivia’s Plurinational Legislative Assembly approved a new law banning the building of any highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS).

Many groups supported the highway, which would have connected the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, and provide poor rural communities with greater access to markets and basic services.

However, it was opposed by 20 of the 64 indigenous communities in TIPNIS. It became the central rallying point of the march led by the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the Bolivian East (CIDOB).

The march gained much sympathy, particularly among urban middle class sectors, after police meted out brutal repression against protesters on September 24.

Bolivian President Evo Morales immediately denied giving any orders to repress the protest. Apologising for the terrible event, Morales ordered a full investigation into the police attack.

Nevertheless, some important mobilisations in solidarity with the marchers were held in the days afterwards.

In response, government supporters took to the streets on October 12. Hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples, campesinos (peasants), miners and neighbourhood activists from El Alto flooded the capital.

Having reached La Paz on October 19, march leaders sat down with Morales and government ministers for two days to reach agreement on their demands.

These demands ranged from opposition to the highway to land reform and the right of indigenous peoples to receive funds in return for converting forests within their traditional lands into carbon offsets.

It did not take long for the dispute to reignite, this time over the word “untouchable”, which was inserted into the TIPNIS law at the request of march leaders.

According to the government, the term “untouchable” required the immediate expulsion of all logging and tourism companies operating within TIPNIS, in some cases illegally.

However, march leaders who opposed the highway defended the industrial-scale logging within TIPNIS.

This includes two logging companies who operate more than 70,000 hectares within the national park and have signed 20 year contracts with local communities.

The government denounced the presence of a tourist resort within TIPNIS, equipped with two private airstrips to fly foreigners willing to pay US$7600 to visit the park.

Of this money, only $200 remains with local communities that have signed the contract with the foreign company.

Rather than defending some kind of romanticised “communitarianism”, much of the motivation behind the march was an attempt by community leaders to defend their control over natural resources as a means to access wealth.

The same is true of many of those groups that have demanded the law be overturned and the highway go ahead. Campesinos and coca growers see the highway as an opportunity to gain access to land for cultivation.

These differences underpin the divergent views regarding the new land law being proposed by campesino groups, but opposed by groups such as CIDOB.

The CIDOB advocates large tracts of land be handed over to indigenous communities as protected areas. Campesino groups are demanding more land be distributed to campesino families.

These differences have led to a split in the Unity Pact, which united the five main campesino and indigenous organisations despite longstanding differences.

This is perhaps the most important divisipn to have opened up within the Morales government’s support base. But is far from being the only one.

The TIPNIS march served as a pretext for opposition parties based among the urban middle classes to break down government support in these sectors.

On October 16, Bolivians took part in a historic vote to elect judges to the Constitutional Tribunal, the Agro-environmental Tribunal and Magistrates Council.

The corporate media used exit poll figures to announce that most had nullified their votes as opposition parties had called for. But the final result showed a different picture.

As votes from rural areas began to be counted, the supposed crushing victory for null votes was whittled away. The final results showed valid and null votes tying at 42%.

The opposition tried to turn the vote into a referendum on Morales.

Despite attempts to portray the null vote as a “progressive” protest vote against Morales, the results clearly showed that opposition to the election of judges was strongest in the right-wing controlled departments of the east and in the urban middle and upper class sectors.

In rural and poor urban areas, such as El Alto, valid votes overwhelming won out.

The null votes came from the same middle class sectors that came out onto the streets of La Paz in support of the indigenous march, and who spat out racist epitaphs against Morales and indigenous government supporters when they marched through the capital.

Meanwhile, territorial conflicts between various departments and local councils scrambling for resources and access to central government funding continue to provide headaches for the government.

Morales called a national summit for December to bring together the country’s social movements to collectively come up with a new “national agenda”.

The likelihood, however, of achieving consensus for a national development plan among competing social organisations, all with their own sectoral interests and who have seen that it is possible to twist the government’s arm by protesting, will no doubt be a difficult task.

[Federico Fuentes edits Bolivia Rising.]

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49515

Will the ICC Act? Indictment against NATO

"The violation of international and humanitarian law, supporting and financing terrorism, dismantling of countries, genocide, and terrorism started in Serbia and as it seems, it will end up in Syria and Iran. And then, who is the next station on the line Eastwards? The civilian casualties have been countless. Libya is the most recent one and it has a special place due to the huge amount of evidence and bravery of its people."

16.11.2011

Is the International Criminal Court at The Hague a real court which respects and uphold international law, or is it an insult to the precept that international law is applied fairly and is Mr. Moreno Ocampo in fact working against his profession, destroying the notion that the world community’s so-called international forum is impartial? Let us see.

In addition to the case we presented in this column on November 5, 2011*, here is a seven-point indictment against NATO, which shall be delivered tomorrow at the ICC. We will charter its progress, we will charter the correspondence and we will examine very carefully the way in which it is received and acted upon. Due to the fact that numerous attempts will be made to hack and to interfere, we shall take the opportunity to disseminate this material widely across the Internet and thank those who wish to do so, believing that the more public opinion is informed about the criminal nature of NATO’s actions and the more the ICC is scrutinised, the nearer we shall be towards having a world community which acts with one set of weights and measures, implemented equally on all.

Indictment against NATO:

1. Violation of international law

2. War of aggression

3. Crimes against humanity

4. Genocide

6. Terrorism

7. Financing of terrorism.

Accused countries, separately, members of UN are as follows:

Belgium Bulgaria Canada Denmark France Greece Italy Jordan Netherlands

Norway Qatar Romania Spain Sweden Turkey UAE UK USA

During the past decade NATO countries have deliberately violated international and humanitarian law, undertaking wars of aggression, crimes against humanity, genocide, supporting and financing terrorism. All of this was done under a false pretext and with the help of mass media which spread false and fabricated lies all around the globe.

The first one to start with is Serbia, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq and finally ended up with the crimes committed in Libya, leaving come cities look like WWII just ended[1]. It is enough to see the picture of city of Sirte[2] which resembles Dresden after WWII.

Being aware of the fact that there is no strong international mechanism which could impose sanctions or mechanisms which could take them accountable and liable for the above-mentioned crimes, NATO as an organization as well as its member countries separately commenced crimes that were hitherto unheard of. The pilot project for such actions was bombardment of Serbia.

A war crime is a war crime, whether it was announced or not nor has it limitation of legal proceedings. For that purpose quoted are all countries devastated and ruined by NATO and its member countries separately, but the focus will be only on Libya, for it is the last and the best documented case.

The pretext and the framework for the attack on Libya by NATO countries was United Nations resolution 1973, which authorized a ban on flights and measures "to protect civilians and civilian populated areas" whilst excluding "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"[3].

The hidden goal was a regime change in Libya which was confirmed by former NATO military commander General Wesley Clarke, in that as early as 2001, the Pentagon was instructed to prepare for war against Libya[4], long before Libya became mentioned in the mass media for being "a problem" and its citizens in need for protection. At the very least, this is an undoubtedly confessed act of colonialism.

In the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV)[5]). In particular, according to this resolution:

"Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

Evidence:

NATO attacks are coordinated with the military activities of rebel groupings, so that NATO basically bombs them into areas, including the capital and other cities in Libya. The coordination of NATO’s aerial bombing and naval blockade of Libya with rebel forces is unquestionably an act of participation on behalf of one of the belligerent forces against the other – the government of Libya. And in that sense it is a perfect parallel to what happened in Yugoslavia in 1999, where NATO bombed the country mercilessly for 78 days in coordination and in conjunction with the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army[6].

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law".

Evidence:

NATO operations in Libya: Operation Unified Protector. There were over 21,000 air missions flown over Libya since March 31, of which almost 8,000 are combat sorties. And what is documented even in Western news sources, is that Muammar Gaddafi’s hometown was attacked by NATO warplanes and earlier, a couple of days ago, the major governmental compound in Tripoli was attacked by as many as 64 missiles[7].

"In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression".

Evidence:

The Libyan Leadership, the military and political establishment were accused of serious war crimes which later on proved to be a false flag event.

On 30th July NATO bombed the Libyan TV Station[8]. NATO said the air strikes aimed to degrade Libyan ruler Gaddafi’s "use of satellite television as a means to intimidate the Libyan people and incite acts of violence against them".

"Striking specifically these critical satellite dishes will reduce the regime’s ability to oppress civilians while [preserving] television broadcast infrastructure that will be needed after the conflict," said a Nato statement.

This is nothing more and nothing else than a pure Psychological operation which is planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military, and economic activities available to the US.[9]

The purpose of United States psychological operations (PSYOP) is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to US objectives.

NATO gave false statements to delude the vast majority of the world’s population and to gain public support by spreading false and fabricated news and information about the facts in Libya. Later on in Qatar NATO set up the stage resembling a Green Square in Tripoli to show how Tripoli had fallen even though that place was nowhere near Tripoli"[10].

A documentary which reveals all about media propaganda called "Libya, forbidden truth about Libya" made by Milovan Drecun is available on youtube[11].

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence.

Evidence:

Bearing in mind that siege tactics have been outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, in particular, Article 14 of the second Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states, "Starvation of civilians as a method of combat is prohibited. It is therefore prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless for that purpose objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations, and supplies and irrigation works."

NATO countries and member countries separately punished civilians who were against NTC and against foreign intervention throughout Libya. This is a clear crime against humanity.

To list just a few Sample Crimes:

21.03.2011. Tens of civilians killed on 31st of March in Gharyan city in western Libya (video).
07.04.2011. — NATO bombers killed 15 rebels and wounded 22 on the outskirts of Brega.
20.04.2011. TRIPOLI NATO Bombing The Libyan Arab Association For Human Rights (video).
27.04.2011. — NATO attacked the city of Misrata, killing 12 people and wounding 5 others.
30.04.2011. — The bombing of the Downs Syndrome School in Tripoli (video).
30.04.2011.— NATO killed inocent civilinas: The youngest son of our great leader Saif Al arab gaddafi was only 29 years old, grandchildren of our Great Leader, Saif Mohammed Muammar Gaddafi was one year and 3 months (born on 30 January 2010) , Carthage Hannibal Muammar Gaddafi was 2 years and 9 months old (born on 2 August 2008) and Mastura Humaid (daughter of Aisha) was 4 months and half (she was born on 15 December 2010) (video).
09.05.2011. — 600 civilians are reported dead after getting into trouble on thier boat. They send urgent SOS messages to NATO, but they were ignored (video).
13.05.2011. The 11 imams (spiritual leaders of Islam) that were killed. The imams were killed in a NATO bombing in the city of Brega (east), which also injured about 50 people. (video)
17.05.2011.—The NATO attack on Libya’s Anti-Corruption Agency on May 17 was extremely convenient for some Westrern politicians (video).
12.06.2011. — The bombing of the University of Tripoli. Death toll not yet established. (link) or photo evdence.
15.06.2011. — At least 12 people were killed and two injured when a NATO air strike hit a bus Wednesday evening in Libya’s Kikla city (video).
19.06.2011. — 9 civilians were killed by a NATO air strike on Tripoli (video).
19.06.2011. — Massacre of Al-Hamedi family 15 civilians, including 3 children, were killed by another NATO air strike on Sorman (link).
19.06.2011. — Firetracs was bombed (video).
22.06.2011. — The bombing of the Great Man made Waterway irrigation system, which supplies most Libyans with their drinking water. Water for 4,5 million INOCENT CIVILIANS IN LIBYA (video).
22.06.2011. — Zliten – many civilians were chopped into pieces. (link)
28.06. 2011. — NATO air strike killed 16 civilians (one whole family killed) and more than 20 injured in public market in Tawergha east of Misurata (video).
04.07.2011. — NATO bombing civilian checkpoint in ZWARA. (video)
15.07.2011. — At least 12 people were killed and 2 injured when a NATO. The air strike hit the bus with inocent civilians in Kikla City. (video)
17.07.2011. — Multiple urban areas were bombed simultaneously this morning. Anywhere from 60 to 75 bombs may have been dropped mostly in the areas of Tajura and Seraj, according to eyewitness reports. (video)
23.07.2011. — The bombing of the factory which makes the pipes for the water system, and the murder of 6 of its employees.
24.07.2011. NATO bombing cattle and poultry project in Torghae city (video).
24. 07.2011. Libya war: NATO Press Briefing, 15 civilians are dead in Tawergha (video).
24.07.2011. —The bombing of the Hospital at Zliten. Resulting in the murder of a minimum, of 50 civilians many of them children.(video).
25.07.2011. NATO bombed food storage in Zlitan.(video).
25.07.2011. — 20 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes in Bir al Ghanam. (video)
30.07.2011. — NATO warplanes also repeatedly bombed a Libyan television station, killing 3 and injuring 15.
02.08.2011. — Law School In Zlitan (Zliten) (video).
04. 08.2011. — Woman and two children (video).
07.08.2011. — NATO bombed today the vegetable market in Tripoli (link).
08.08.2011. — Libya: NATO MASSACRED 85 CIVILIANS: 33 CHILDREN, 32 WOMEN and 20 MEN (video)…

The persistent on-going bombing of the civilian population in Zliten, Sirte and Tripoli, death toll not yet established.

All4Peace & LibyaSOS.

http://libyasos.blogspot.com/2011/11/operation-unified-protector-nato-in.html

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.

Evidence:

Supply of French Milan anti-tank missiles, Swedish Carl Gustav 84mm rifles, 68mm rockets and mortars and Maadi assault rifles from Egypt; this, in addition to the British, French and Italian military advisors helping the terrorists. The Great SocialistPeople’sLibyan ArabJamahiriya monetary assets were frozen and later on given to the National Provisional Council. Not to mention the bombardment on behalf of rebel forces.

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter. The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.

Evidence:

NATO made acquisition of Libyan land to set up exterritorial military base.

Similarly, the U.S. has substantially upgraded air bases in Afghanistan, including those bordering Central Asian nations and close to the Iranian border, and there is no indication they are ever going to abandon them, as they are not going to abandon military bases in Iraq and other places. It is a lot easier to bring NATO into one’s country or have it forced in than to get it out[12].

No State may use or encourage the use of economic political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State."

Evidence:

NATO countries organized, assisted, foment, financed and incited civil strife in Libya by political and other types of measures to coerce Libya to subordinate its natural resources by putting in power puppet regime, who openly declared that the companies from the countries who helped them in a military coup to overthrow the regime, will sign lucrative contracts in the oil sector.

1. Mahmoud Jibril – a university lecturer educated, and for several years resident, in the US and whose studies was mentored by a renowned CIA case officer working for CIA in Iran during the CIA/staged coup there in 1953[13].

2. An American economics professor by the name of Ali Tarhouni[14].

3. A senior Al-Qaeda asset/educator/leader previously operating in Afghanistan and Iraq but who currently acts under the name of Bel Hadj[15] as the Commander in Chief for the NTC as well as military dictator of Tripoli.

According to the evidence obtained, NATO and its member countries separately violated every single article and paragraph of General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV).

As for crimes of genocide, the tribes and civilians who were against NTC and foreign intervention were systematically deprived of right to life, right to property, right to association, right to free speech, by bombing, killing, arbitrary arresting, abducting, forceful disappearance.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the groups conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.[16]"

Evidence:

"They carpet bombed the country … their deliberate tactic was to create a humanitarian disaster and to militarily clear the way, without any humanitarian regards, without any regards for human life," said Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, from the Canadian-based Centre for Research on Globalization, on Monday[17].

NATO regularly uses cluster bombs which are very hard to be removed from the sites. A Human rights investigation in Libya has found that it was the US and its Western allies who cluster bombed the troubled city of Misratah back in April.

The HRI said it has convincing evidence that the cluster bombing blamed on pro-Gaddafi forces was actually carried out by the US navy[18]. Civilians are the victims of the cluster bombs, mostly children and civilians who are not acknowledged with this kind of weapon.

We need not enumerate the DU amunition types used in Iraq 1991, Serbia/Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001-04 and Iraq 2003. They have been dispensed by all air / ground and sea systems on innocent civilians. DU burns intensely and is very hard. It releases Uranium Oxide. The aerosol contains particles of 0.5-5 microns in size, once they are in the air or dust it is inhaled or ingested, including from contaminated soil. Once in the lungs one such particle is equivalent to having one X-Ray per hour, for life. Because it is impossible to remove, the victim is gradually irradiated. Still births, birth defects, leukemia, damaged central nervous systems and other cancers have been common in children born since 1999. Child leukemia has risen 600 % in areas of Iraq as reported by the Netherland Visie Foundation. Beyond just the health consequences, DU munitions are in fact, weapons of Silent Mass Destruction in so far as the consequences of their usage are vast, indiscriminate and violate all Human Rights Conventions.

Finally, if NATO’s mission in Libya has ended, then why are NATO aircraft strafing Tuareg villages in southern Libya?

Conclusion:

The war in former Yugoslavia was just a pilot project and a base to realize different types of scenarios in multi-ethnic countries with the aim to find out the best ways how to conquer certain countries with great natural resources and potentials which are of interest to global corporations. Please see the documentary Weight of chains. [19] This film takes a critical look at the role that the US, NATO and the EU played in the tragic break-up of a once peaceful and prosperous European state – Yugoslavia. The film, bursting with rare stock footage never before seen by Western audiences, is a creative first-hand look at why the West intervened in the Yugoslav conflict, with an impressive roster of interviews with academics, diplomats, media personalities and ordinary citizens of the former Yugoslav republics.

The violation of international and humanitarian law, supporting and financing terrorism, dismantling of countries, genocide, and terrorism started in Serbia and as it seems, it will end up in Syria and Iran. And then, who is the next station on the line Eastwards? The civilian casualties have been countless. Libya is the most recent one and it has a special place due to the huge amount of evidence and bravery of its people.

It is obvious that the criminal activities of NATO are its modus operandi, are deliberate and callously carried out with the aim to allow material gain to private corporations by destroying and dismantling "inappropriate" countries and their facilities.

NATO and each country which participated in these atrocities and crimes against humanity have to be accused, indicted, found guilty and they have to pay reparations to each victim in the name of humankind.

Written by:

Nada Pejnovic and Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

(*) http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-11-2011/119534-indictment_nato-0/

[1] http://www.habermonitor.com/img/kaddafinin-hayalet-sehri-sirte—foto.jpg

2 http://www.worldbulletin.net/resim/250×190/2011/11/03/sirte-12.jpg

3 http://daccess-

ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/268/39/PDF/N1126839.pdf?OpenElement

section 4 and 6

4 Testimony of General Wesley Clark, 2007-03-02 on Democracy Now!

5 http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/348/90/IMG/NR034890.pdf?OpenElement

6 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26327

7 http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/22/nato-libya-data-journalism-operations-country

8 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26327

9 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/30/nato-bombs-libya-tv-transmitters

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29

11 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BA86y4-vbOs/TlJckhZrfAI/AAAAAAAACL0/UN3Ms8gwmwM/s1600/0006553t.jpg

12

13 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26327

14 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/oppo-a02.shtml

15 http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/uw-faculty-member-ali-tarhouni-namedfinance-minister-by-libyan-opposition-1

16 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html?_r=1

17 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/genocide.htm

18 http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/09/report-tripoli-nato-carpet-bombed-libya

19 http://voxrox.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/A-Cluster-Bomb-Victim.jpg

20 http://www.weightofchains.com/about.html

Annex 1: http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-UW.pdf

USA manual on how to support insurgencies (which can also be called terrorist groups)

Annex 2: Detailed participation of NATO countries in Libya

USA: c. 8,500 personnel, 153 aircraft, 12 vessels, 228 cruise missiles, 2,000 sorties

UK: 1,300 personnel, 28 aircraft, 3 vessels, 18 cruise missiles, 1,300 sorties

France: 800 personnel, 29 aircraft, 6 vessels, 1,200 sorties

Italy: 12 aircraft, 4 vessels, 600 sorties

Canada: 560 personnel, 11 aircraft, 1 vessel, 358 sorties

Denmark: 120 personnel, 4 aircraft, 161 sorties

Norway: 140 personnel, 6 aircraft, 100 sorties

Sweden: 122 personnel, 8 aircraft, 78 sorties

Belgium: 120 personnel, 6 aircraft, 1 vessel, 60 sorties

Spain: 500 personnel, 7 aircraft, 1 vessel

Turkey: 7 aircraft, 6 vessels

Netherlands: 200 personnel, 7 aircraft, 1 vessel

Jordan: 30 personnel, 12 aircraft

UAE: 35 personnel, 12 aircraft

Qatar: 60 personnel (risible, there were thousands of mercenaries), 8 aircraft

Romania: 205 personnel, 1 vessel

Bulgaria: 160 personnel, 1 vessel

Greece: 1 vessel

Source:http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/05/22/Libya_Coalition_Sorties1200.jpg

Annex 3: Cost

c. 50,000 USD per aircraft per hour

c. 500,000 USD each cruise missile

Costs with board and lodging of personnel

Cost of ammunition and transportation

Other Logistics

Annex 4: Participation of Special Forces

The participation of Special Forces has been approached, and the countries involved do not discuss this issue. Those who have family members or friends who have disappeared connected to the armed forces certainly know what happened to them.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/16-11-2011/119646-indictment_second-0/

http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/2011/11/17/will-the-icc-act-indictment-against-nato/

FLASHBACK 2001 – The History of “Pro-Democracy” Regime Change: In Bed With the NED. The National Evisceration of Democracy

antiwar.com – 2001-05-05

This article was first published in 2001 by antiwar.com

by George Szamuely

There was good news recently in Washington. Six new directors joined the board of the US Government agency, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The six included such stalwart democrats like former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley "Demented Bomber" Clark, former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke and Francis Fukuyama, who since his 1989 National Interest article "The End of History" has been ideologist-in-chief of post-Cold War neoconservatism.. Another new member is someone by the name of Julie Finley, described in the NED handout as "a prominent Republican Party activist who, as a Founder and Board Member of the US Committee on NATO, has worked actively on issues related to NATO expansion and the conflict in the Balkan region." A NATO expansionist and a Balkan activist – it does not sound as if "democracy’ is high on her agenda. Last year we learned that upon her departure from Foggy Bottom, Madeleine "Hideous Harridan" Albright would become president of the National Democratic Institute, an organization the NED bankrolls.

Of the six, NED president Carl Gershman declared: "This group offers an incredible breadth of experience in foreign policy and American politics. We are incredibly fortunate that such a group of distinguished citizens will be supporting and helping to guide NED in its mission to promote democracy around the world." We know the political creed of these "distinguished citizens": They are all fanatically devoted to the following propositions: That the United States is the last stop on humanity’s historic journey. That the United States has the right, even the duty, to do whatever is necessary to persuade humanity of the truth of this insight. That through their lucrative business connections they intend to make a huge sum of money for themselves and their friends by promoting a US-sponsored "pro-business" and "pro-democracy" agenda. That whatever the United States does, no matter how barbaric.

The NED is one of the many institutions of the Cold War that not only managed to survive the fall of the Soviet Union, but also to grow in power and prestige. Americans are barely aware of its existence or, if they are, the magic word "democracy" in its name frees it from serious scrutiny. Founded in 1983, the NED took over functions that were once the responsibility of the CIA. During the early decades of the Cold War, the CIA would intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries with the objective of thwarting Communist influence. In "democratic" European countries the CIA would covertly promote center-left political parties, non-Communist trade unions and even highbrow journals. In "non-democratic," usually non-European, countries CIA operations tended to be a little nastier. Following the embarrassing revelations about the CIA during the 1970s, a lot of its hitherto covert operations now received open Congressional appropriations. The NED thus became the successor organization to the CIA covert operations arm once run by the likes of William Colby and Frank Wisner.

During the Cold War, the US government acquired some very bad habits. One of them was an eagerness to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. With supreme arrogance, the NED decides to bankroll certain foreign politicians and to undermine others. Politicians who pursue policies favored by Washington will receive US largesse. Those who pursue policies frowned on by Washington will find themselves the object of a campaign of vilification, originating in Washington and transmitted back via the well-oiled NED machine. It is important that we remind ourselves that in the United States any organization in receipt of money from a foreign government must register as a foreign agent. It is illegal for foreign governments to contribute to an American political party. Evidently, different standards are expected of others. The NED’s commitment to democracy is the same as that of the US government. Elections are deemed "democratic" when they result in the victory of people favored by Washington. They are deemed "undemocratic" when they result in the election of people out of favor in Washington. Before the elections last September in Yugoslavia, the US Government made it clear again and again that a victory by Milosevic would only have come about through fraud. In other words, irrespective of how anyone voted, Washington would only accept one result as the "democratic will of the people."

The extent of the NED involvement in pre-Kostunica Yugoslavia was revealed in the 1998 testimony of Paul McCarthy before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. McCarthy, a program officer at the NED, boasted that, among the many recipients of NED moolah were "the newspapers Nasa Borba, Vreme and Danas, an independent TV station in eastern Serbia, TV Negotin, the prominent news agency BETA, and the important Belgrade station, Radio B-92." Naturally, such media are always described in the NED literature as "independent."

One of the organizations currently being bankrolled by the NED is the Serbian "youth" organization Otpor. According to the NED, it has been doing so since August 1999. Recently, the NED and the International Republican Institute (IRI), which is also funded by the NED, jointly sponsored a forum for Otpor leaders. According to NED literature, Otpor’s notorious "he is finished" posters "helped to galvanize public opinion against Slobodan Milosevic. Otpor’s enormous get-out-the-vote campaign made a critical difference in helping Vojislav Kostunica defeat Milosevic at the ballot box… Subsequently, Otpor’s activists played a crucial role in the street demonstrations that followed the elections and led to Milosevic’s ultimate downfall on October 5."

NED goes on to say that Otpor will continue to do "grassroots political work as a watchdog that will exert pressure on the new government to quickly implement democratic reforms they view as crucial to Yugoslavia’s return to life as a ‘normal’ country." The NED does not specify what "grassroots" work entails. However, it explains, "this extensive grassroots network can work to fill the political vacuum that was created when the Democratic Opposition of Serbia defeated Milosevic, and was left with no serious political rival. Without any ‘loyal opposition’ to pressure the new regime, Otpor intends to keep important reform issues in front of the public and Serbia’s new leaders to make sure that democratic progress continues." Note the repeated emphasis on "grassroots" activism along with the vague nature of the organization’s goals. "Reform," "democratic progress," "normal country" – the NED invariably uses such vacuous trivia to disguise its true agenda.

"At its second National Congress," the NED enthuses, "Otpor…outlined six key areas of reform that the group will monitor, including economic reform, judicial reform, reform of the state security forces, creation of a truly independent media sector, reform of the university and educational system and foreign policy." Sounds like a tall order. Which direction Otpor wants to push these institutions is not spelled out. However, it comes as no surprise when we soon learn that "Otpor’s first major campaign was a nationwide effort to pressure the regime to arrest Slobodan Milosevic." Imagine! So many things to reform! So little time to do it! Yet even so Otpor’s first priority is also that of Washington.

Otpor, continues the NED, "cited concrete examples of major hurdles the new regime must overcome, including the need for more than 800 experienced judges; the creation of a police and security force not led and staffed by officers loyal to Milosevic; the establishment of an official Truth Commission to document the crimes of the Milosevic regime and its cronies against Serbs and others; and the creation of a graduate program to provide training for a new generation of civil servants." Let us examine this list item by item. How does Otpor know that Serbia requires 800 – as opposed to 500 or 2000 or 5 – experienced judges? Moreover, "experienced judges" cannot be manufactured out of thin air since they are the products of, well, experience, which takes years, if not decades, to acquire. What exactly is "experience," by the way? Presumably, the courts in Serbia have been adjudicating disputes and punishing miscreants much like anywhere else. Evidently, those are not the judges Otpor and the NED are talking about. One must assume, therefore, that Otpor is essentially calling on the United States to insist on the appointment of its own judges.

This is revealed by the remaining items on the agenda. The police and security forces are to be purged of all elements "loyal to Milosevic." What constitutes "loyalty" is not spelled out. However, given that Milosevic had been in power in Serbia for 13 years, Otpor and its US sponsors evidently envisage a wholesale change of staff. Note that the sole purpose of the "Truth Commission" will be to "document the crimes of the Milosevic regime and its cronies against Serbs and others." This is clearly very different from the objective of the Truth Commission of South Africa, which had sought to compile a record of crimes committed by all sides. Moreover, in order to discover the "truth" about the past, the Desmond Tutu’s Commission had offered immunity from prosecution to anyone who came forward and openly admitted to wrongdoing. Yet with all the talk of creating spanking-new security services, appointing 800 new judges, not to mention the arrest and prosecution of Milosevic, the last thing Otpor and its US controllers have in mind is the establishment of "truth." The only crimes being talked about are either ones committed by Milosevic of ones committed by Serbs against "others."

The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has a very different take on Otpor. Its recent report about the December parliamentary elections in Serbia, describes how Otpor’s "He’s finished" campaign was "followed up with a similar poster campaign…consisting of the slogan ‘Overi!’ or ‘Be sure’ – ie that he is finished off. The ‘Overi!’ slogans were printed in a rather sinister way, in menacing black letters and sometimes with Slobodan Milosevic’s face. It is a matter of considerable concern that ‘Overi’ is Mafia slang for the three shots which contract killers pump into an already dead body in order to be sure that the victim has, indeed, been finished off. It hardly bodes well for Serbian democracy that such vocabulary is associated with the new era." Indeed. It is even more disturbing that US taxpayers should underwrite such blatant threats of violence.

The BHHRG report goes on: "Otpor also ran a poster campaign with the equally sinister slogan, ‘We are watching you,’ an apparently direct reference to George Orwell’s 1984. The motif of these posters is a bulldozer, a reminder of the heroic vehicle that headed the ‘march on Belgrade’ from Cacak on October 5; it also, no doubt, emphasizes the DOS’ attitude towards its opponents. The Socialists have alleged that menacing leaflets of this nature have been sent to the homes of Socialist Party activists. Finally, Otpor has not hesitated to recruit underage persons for its purposes, an action which is strictly incompatible with the duty of political organizations not to exploit the young." This then is what the NED is pleased to call "grassroots political work." The task the Us Government has assigned to Otpor is to act as the local bully scaring people into not voting for the socialists or the nationalists.

What remains interesting is why the US Government continues to underwrite Otpor. The goals it outlines are also the goals of the Djindjic regime. So why the duplication of beneficiaries? Evidently, Washington does not trust the new regime in Belgrade. Therefore, an alternative regime has to be manufactured and kept on the sidelines. Should Belgrade once again fall out of favor in Washington, there will be new leaders to champion. Doubtless, the NED is already grooming the next "Djindjic." "Yugoslavia," warns the NED, "risks the same fate as its neighbor Romania, which had an important democratic election, but failed to consolidate its democratic gains and soon slipped back into a political culture of nationalism where reformers became divided, were corrupted, and eventually were defeated by former communists."

This then is the warning the United States is issuing to all its clients. Do not dare to vote for the "old" parties and slip back into the "political culture of nationalism"! Or we will unleash our paid thugs. This then is "democracy" as the National Endowment for democracy understands it.

antiwar.com

NGOs Who Led the Way for the NATO/Imperialist Invasion of Libya, the Slaughter of Libyan Civilians and the Brutal Assassination of Mu’ummar Qaddafi

Source: Martin Iqbal: http://empirestrikesblack.com

·The Libyan League for Human Rights is a Switzerland based NED-affiliated Zionist-globalist mainstay

· The LLHR provided the false testimony of massacres of civilians in Benghazi/Tripoli to the UN Human Rights Council in February

· The NTC Media, Education, and the Oil & Finance Ministers, are ALL members of the LLHR, and the fraudulent reports originated from the NTC

· 1994 CSIS conference including NED & NFSL figures: “Any military attack must eliminate Qaddafi to be at all successful”

· 22 Feb, 2011: Zionist mainstay ‘UN Watch’ writes ‘Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in Libya’, signed by 70 NGOs http://bit.ly/pqHY2C

· When Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir of the LLHR was asked how he organised the NGOs so fast, he laughed and said “They are all affiliated”

Watch: Humanitarian War in Libya – There is no evidence!

http://youtu.be/j4evwAMIh4Y

http://youtu.be/MmahzMfw6T4

Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in LibyaSent by 70 NGOs to the US, EU, and UN, 21 February 2011 We, the undersigned non-governmental, human rights, and humanitarian organizations, urge you to mobilize the United Nations and the international community and take immediate action to halt the mass atrocities now being perpetrated by the Libyan government against its own people. The inexcusable silence cannot continue. As you know, in the past several days, Colonel Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are estimated to have deliberately killed hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders across the country. In the city of Benghazi alone, one doctor reported seeing at least 200 dead bodies. Witnesses report that a mixture of special commandos, foreign mercenaries and regime loyalists have attacked demonstrators with knives, assault rifles and heavy-caliber weapons. Snipers are shooting peaceful protesters. Artillery and helicopter gunships have been used against crowds of demonstrators. Thugs armed with hammers and swords attacked families in their homes. Hospital officials report numerous victims shot in the head and chest, and one struck on the head by an anti-aircraft missile. Tanks are reported to be on the streets and crushing innocent bystanders. Witnesses report that mercenaries are shooting indiscriminately from helicopters and from the top of roofs. Women and children were seen jumping off Giuliana Bridge in Benghazi to escape. Many of them were killed by the impact of hitting the water, while others were drowned. The Libyan regime is seeking to hide all of these crimes by shutting off contact with the outside world. Foreign journalists have been refused entry. Internet and phone lines have been cut or disrupted. There is no question here about intent. The government media has published open threats, promising that demonstrators would meet a “violent and thunderous response.” Accordingly, the government of Libya is committing gross and systematic violations of the right to life as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Citizens seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly are being massacred by the government. Moreover, the government of Libya is committing crimes against humanity, as defined by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Libyan government’s mass killing of innocent civilians amount to particularly odious offences which constitute a serious attack on human dignity. As confirmed by numerous oral and video testimonies gathered by human rights organizations and news agencies, the Libyan government’s assault on its civilian population are not isolated or sporadic events. Rather, these actions constitute a widespread and systematic policy and practice of atrocities, intentionally committed, including murder, political persecution and other inhumane acts which reach the threshold of crimes against humanity. Responsibility to Protect Under the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, you have a clear and unambiguous responsibility to protect the people of Libya. The international community, through the United Nations, has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect the Libyan population. Because the Libyan national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their population from crimes against humanity, should peaceful means be inadequate, member states are obliged to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter, including Chapter VII. In addition, we urge you to convene an emergency Special Session of the UN Human Rights Council, whose members have a duty, under UNGA Resolution 60/251, to address situations of gross and systematic violations of violations of human rights. The session should: Call for the General Assembly to suspend Libya’s Council membership, pursuant to Article 8 of Resolution 60/251, which applies to member states that commit gross and systematic violations of human rights. Strongly condemn, and demand an immediate end to, Libya’s massacre of its own citizens. Dispatch immediately an international mission of independent experts to collect relevant facts and document violations of international human rights law and crimes against humanity, in order to end the impunity of the Libyan government. The mission should include an independent medical investigation into the deaths, and an investigation of the unlawful interference by the Libyan government with the access to and treatment of wounded. Call on the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Council’s relevant Special Procedures to closely monitor the situation and take action as needed. Call on the Council to remain seized of the matter and address the Libyan situation at its upcoming 16th regular session in March. Member states and high officials of the United Nations have a responsibility to protect the people of Libya from what are preventable crimes. We urge you to use all available measures and levers to end atrocities throughout the country. We urge you to send a clear message that, collectively, the international community, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council will not be bystanders to these mass atrocities. The credibility of the United Nations — and many innocent lives — are at stake. Sincerely, 1. Hillel C. Neuer, United Nations Watch, Switzerland 2. Dr. Sliman Bouchuiguir, Libyan League for Human Rights, Switzerland 3. Mary Kay Stratis, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc., USA 4. Carl Gershman, President, The National Endowment for Democracy, USA 5. Yang Jianli, Initiatives for China, USA – Former prisoner of conscience and survivor of Tiananmen Square massacre 6. Yang Kuanxing, YIbao – Chinese writer, original signatory to Charter 08, the manifesto calling for political reform in China 7. Matteo Mecacci, MP, Nonviolent Radical Party, Italy 8. Frank Donaghue, Physicians for Human Rights, USA 9. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, Stop Child Executions, Canada 10. Bhawani Shanker Kusum, Gram Bharati Samiti, India 11. G. Jasper Cummeh, III, Actions for Genuine Democratic Alternatives, Liberia 12. Michel Monod, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Switzerland 13. Esohe Aghatise, Associazione Iroko Onlus, Italy 14. Harris O. Schoenberg, UN Reform Advocates, USA 15. Myrna Lachenal, World Federation for Mental Health, Switzerland 16. Nguyên Lê Nhân Quyên, Vietnamese League for Human Rights, Switzerland 17. Sylvia G. Iriondo, Mothers and Women against Repression (M.A.R. Por Cuba), USA 18. David Littman, World Union for Progressive Judaism, Switzerland 19. Barrister Festus Okoye, Human Rights Monitor, Nigeria 20. Theodor Rathgeber, Forum Human Rights, Germany 21. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Center, Juba – Southern Sudan 22. Carlos E Tinoco, Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia, A.C., Venezuela 23. Abdurashid Abdulle Abikar, Center for Youth and Democracy, Somalia 24. Dr. Vanee Meisinger, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women’s Association, Thailand 25. Simone Abel, René Cassin, United Kingdom 26. Dr. Francois Ullmann, Ingenieurs du Monde, Switzerland 27. Sr Catherine Waters, Catholic International Education Office, USA 28. Gibreil Hamid, Darfur Peace and Development Centre, Switzerland 29. Nino Sergi, INTERSOS – Humanitarian Aid Organization, Italy 30. Daniel Feng, Foundation for China in the 21st Century 31. Ann Buwalda, Executive Director, Jubilee Campaign, USA 32. Leo Igwe, Nigerian Humanist Movement, Nigeria 33. Chandika Gautam, Nepal International Consumers Union, Nepal 34. Zohra Yusuf, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Pakistan 35. Sekou Doumbia, Femmes & Droits Humains, Mali 36. Cyrille Rolande Bechon, Nouveaux Droits de l’Homme, Cameroon 37. Zainab Al-Suwaij, American Islamic Congress, USA 38. Valnora Edwin, Campaign for Good Governance, Sierra Leone 39. Patrick Mpedzisi, African Democracy Forum, South Africa 40. Phil ya Nangoloh, NamRights, Namibia 41. Jaime Vintimilla, Centro Sobre Derecho y Sociedad (CIDES), Ecuador 42. Tilder Kumichii Ndichia, Gender Empowerment and Development, Cameroon 43. Amina Bouayach, Moroccan Organisation for Human Rights, Morocco 44. Abdullahi Mohamoud Nur, CEPID-Horn Africa, Somalia 45. Delly Mawazo Sesete, Resarch Center on Environment, Democracy & Human Rights, DR Congo 46. Joseph Rahall, Green Scenery, Sierra Leone 47. Arnold Djuma, Solidarité pour la Promotion Sociale et la Paix, Rwanda 48. Panayote Dimitras, Greek Helsinki Monitor, Greece 49. Carlos E. Ponce, Latina American and Caribbean Network for Democracy, Venezuela 50. Fr. Paul Lansu, Pax Christi International, Belgium 51. Tharsika Pakeerathan, Swiss Council of Eelam Tamils, Switzerland 52. Ibrahima Niang, Commission des Droits Humains du Mouvement Citoyen, Senegal 53. Virginia Swain, Center for Global Community and World Law, USA 54. Dr Yael Danieli, International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, USA 55. Savita Gokhale, Loksadhana, India 56. Hasan Dheeree, Biland Awdal Organization, Somalia 57. Pacifique Nininahazwe, Forum pour le Renforcement de la Société Civile, Burundi 58. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Center, Southern Sudan 59. Michel Golubnichy, International Association of Peace Foundations, Russia 60. Edward Ladu Terso, Multi Media Training Center, Sudan 61. Hafiz Mohammed, Justice Africa Sudan, Sudan 62. Sammy Eppel, B’nai B’rith Human Rights Commission, Venezuela 63. Jack Jeffery, International Humanist and Ethical Union, United Kingdom 64. Duy Hoang, Viet Tan, Vietnam 65. Promotion de la Democratie et Protection des Droits Humains, DR Congo 66. Radwan A. Masmoudi, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy, USA 67. María José Zamora Solórzano, Movimiento por Nicaragua, Nicaragua 68. John Suarez, Cuban Democratic Directorate, USA 69. Mohamed Abdul Malek, Libya Watch, United Kingdom 70. Journalists Union of Russia, Russia 71. Sindi Medar-Gould, BAOBAB for Women’s Human Rights, Nigeria 72. Derik Uya Alfred, Kwoto Cultural Centre, Sudan 73. Sr. Anne Shaym, Presentation Sisters, Australia 74. Joseph Rahad, Green Scenery, Sierra Leone 75. Fahma Yusuf Essa, Women in Journalism Association, Somalia 76. Hayder Ibrahim Ali, Sudanese Studies Center, Sudan 77. Marcel Claude Kabongo, Good Governance and Human Rights NGO, DR Congo 78. Frank Weston, International Multiracial Shared Cultural Organization (IMSCO), USA 79. Fatima Alaoui, Maghrebin Forum for environment and development, Morocco 80. Ted Brooks, Committee for Peace and Development Advocacy, Liberia 81. Felly Fwamba, Cerveau Chrétien, DR Congo 82. Jane Rutledge, CIVICUS: World Alliance of Citizen Participation, South Africa 83. Ali AlAhmed, The Institute for Gulf Affairs, USA 84. Daniel Ozoukou, Martin Luther King Center for Peace and Social Justice, Cote d’Ivoire 85. Dan T. Saryee, Liberia Democratic Institute (LDI), Liberia Individuals Dr. Frene Ginwala, former Speaker of the South African National Assembly Philosopher Francis Fukuyama Mohamed Eljahmi, Libyan human rights activist Glenn P. Johnson, Jr., Treasurer, Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc., father of Beth Ann Johnson, victim of Lockerbie bombing

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1330815&ct=9135143

LIBYA: Stop the War ‘leaders’ are trying to stifle debate by illegally expelling those who criticise them

Posted on October 8, 2011 by Red Youth

On 23 September, the CPGB-ML received an email from the Stop the War Coalition informing us of a decision by the “officers group” to “reject the affiliation” of our party. We were told that this was on the basis that the CPGB-ML had been “publicly attacking Stop the War Coalition” in its publications.

We responded as follows:

No basis for expulsion

First: we have been affiliated for many years to the coalition. Therefore it is not now possible to reject our affiliation. If it can be proved that we have failed to comply with StW’s constitution in some way, then we would have to be expelled.

Second: assuming for a moment that such a case can be made, what authority does the officers group have to make such a decision? We would be interested to see the rule that allows the officers to act without any kind of procedure and without any mandate from the membership via a national conference.

Third: it is perfectly clear that there is no such case to answer. You accuse us of “attacking Stop the War”. Comrades, the organisation belongs not to the officers but to the members. What we have done is to criticise the leadership of the coalition – not because we have failed to uphold the aims and objectives of the coalition but because it is our belief that they have done so.

We would be interested to see any proof that our organisation has stopped opposing imperialist war – including the concomitant racist backlash and erosion of civil liberties. According to StW’s founding statement, these are the only membership criteria and our party fulfils them amply.

No cooperation with war crimes

In 2009, StW national conference passed a resolution, proposed by our organisation, calling on the coalition “to do all in its power to promote a movement of industrial, political and military non-cooperation with all of imperialism’s aggressive war preparations and activities among British working people”.

In 2010, national conference passed a further motion on non-cooperation with war crimes by an overwhelming majority (our recollection is that just one person present voted against). It specifically drew attention to the propaganda aspect of imperialist war and called on the coalition to “draw in as many members and supporters as possible to an ongoing campaign to hold the media to account for their pivotal role in apologising for, covering up and normalising British, US and Israeli war crimes”.

Not only has the Stop the War leadership failed to implement these resolutions, it has actually been helping the propaganda effort in support of the criminal imperialist war against Libya.

StW leaders and the war against Libya

Stop the War leaders have accepted Nato propaganda that characterised its agents in Benghazi as a ‘popular’ movement and a part of the anti-imperialist ‘Arab spring’. They have even mobilised demonstrations in support of these agents, while characterising the popular Libyan government as a ‘brutal dictatorship’.

And today, while those who continue to resist Nato’s assault are being carpet bombed in cities all over Libya, Stop the War leaders continue to prop up the imperialist propaganda effort by:

– accepting and promoting the imperialist lie that Gaddafi’s government has already fallen and that the stooges of the ‘NTC’ have formed a new government;

– accepting and promoting the imperialist lie that the ‘fall’ of the Gaddafi government is a cause for popular celebration in Libya;

– accepting and promoting the imperialist lie that the ‘rebels’ are expressing the popular will of the people and thereby bringing ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘justice’ to Libya;

– keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the resistance that is being mounted by the legitimate government of Libya, its armed forces and the armed citizens;

– keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the real character of the ‘rebels’, despite the wealth of evidence now available;

– keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the terrible crimes that have been and are being committed by Nato’s ‘rebels’ against the people of Libya (massacring of black people; massacring of pro-government supporters, raping of women, looting and burning of homes);

– keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the terrible crimes committed by Nato’s bombers and special forces, including the targeting of civilians, water and electricity supplies, schools, mosques, hospitals and libraries, the imposition of sanctions to prevent the import of medical supplies and food, the theft of Libya’s wealth and resources, the use of chemical and nuclear weapons, including depleted uranium-tipped missiles, and the carpet bombing of civilian populations that has resulted in a death toll of well over 50,000 so far;

– keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the gains made by ordinary Libyans since the Green revolution in 1969, which have brought them from being the poorest people in the world to the richest in Africa, with a standard of life for ordinary Libyans comparable to that in parts of western Europe;

– keeping the imperialist media’s silence about the critical support given by Libya to anti-imperialist movements all over the world, and especially its support to the African struggle to break free from the chains of the IMF and the World Bank and the diktat of imperialist corporations and governments.

In so doing, Stop the War’s leaders have proved themselves unfit for their positions. We call on them either to correct their line immediately, or to resign and allow a national conference to elect new, more suitable leaders who are prepared to carry out StW policy thoroughly and completely.

Hold the leaders to account

We call on the Stop the War Coalition’s members to hold their leaders to account. We need an organisation that is truly willing and able to work amongst the British people to promote a movement of industrial, political and military non-cooperation with all of imperialism’s aggressive war preparations and activities.

Only then will we be able to claim that we are not complicit in the war crimes of the British government, armed forces, media and corporations. And only then will we have the remotest chance of actually stopping the war.

About Red Youth

Red Youth is a revolutionary youth organisation in the UK. We were established early in 2010 by young members and supporters of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist – Leninist). We are active in a number of places across Britain with members as young as 14. If you’d like to get involved, get in touch!

http://redyouthuk.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/stop-the-war-leaders-are-trying-to-stifle-debate-by-illegally-expelling-those-who-criticise-them/

NGOs plot against Evo Morales | Moscow News

INTERNATIONAL

© RIA Novosti. Mikhail Fomichev

NGOs plot against Evo Morales

by Vicky Pelaez at 13/10/2011 21:02

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi

Bolivia seems to have entered a long-awaited period of calm, and many expect its indigenous president, Evo Morales, to follow through on his plan to rebuild the country on the principles of social justice and solidarity. But these expectations may never transpire, as Washington looks set to undermine the Bolivian leader’s authority using international NGOs – one of the most sophisticated and efficient tools for this purpose.

Bolivia, which still ranks among Latin America’s poorest nations, was for centuries exploited by the Spanish conquerors before it fell into the clutches of multinational companies and their local oligarch associates. This is why when Morales dared launch fundamental reforms in the country; he became one of the main targets for globalization champions.

In May 2008, Morales aborted an attempt of a military coup. In April 2009, he dismantled a mysterious terrorist group led by the mercenary Eduardo Rosza-Flores. A general strike in the mining province of Potosi in 2010 dealt a heavy blow to the Bolivian economy. Plus, four of the country’s nine regions, namely Tarija, Santa Cruz, Beni and Pardo, where major oil and natural gas deposits are located, have since 2006 been stepping up their struggle for autonomy.

Local indigenous groups, backed by the Movimiento Sin Miedo (Movement without Fear) and the Confederación Obrera Boliviana (the Bolivian Labor Confederation), have been holding anti-government protests for several weeks now. They took to the streets following Morales’ decision to build a highway between Villa Tunan and San Ignacio de Mojos with a view to stepping up the process of national integration. All this is unfolding against a backdrop of daily verbal attacks from international NGOs operating in the country.

The U.S. – Spain Council, an organization that aims to promote cooperation between Spain and the United States, sponsors conferences in Bolivia where American associates, such as Lindsay Robertson, Stephen Greetham and Amanda Cobb-Greetham, urge indigenous Bolivian communities to fight for their rights. They argue that in the United States, it is the Native Americans who are considered the only legitimate owners of the land’s natural wealth. Such statements are striking in their cynicism, as we all know only too well about the ongoing misery of North America’s Indian communities.

© RIA Novosti. / Fedotov

Historically, Bolivia was exploited

The NGOs were created as tools to promote globalization across the world, paving the way for transnationals. Accomplishing this “from above” seemed impossible because of the inefficiency of the governments then in power. So it was decided to act “from below” instead, creating new local grassroots organizations and infiltrating into those that already existed. Initially, NGOs were to be bankrolled by the State Department through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), with guidance from the CIA.

Other Western nations applauded the creation of these NGOs as vehicles through which they could promote their own interests, in addition to the common globalization agenda. Oil majors such as Shell and BP exploited these “vehicles” to expand their global reach. Many individuals also benefited.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, NGOs rushed to usher their new “children” in Russia and other ex-Soviet countries into the “brave new world.” According to U.S. professor Robert Bruce Ware, more than 450,000 non-governmental organizations had launched operations in Russia by 2005, all keen to proselytize their gospel of democratic governance and human rights. Indicatively, they were especially keen to reach out to the most distant of the country’s provinces, seen as the most promising, Libyan style, in terms of staging anti-government revolts.

Now U.S. Senator Richard Lugar has proposed adopting legislation to legalize the use of social media in Latin America to instigate revolutions, such as those that have recently swept across Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. This will be a new challenge for NGOs coming over to apply their African experience.

Over his five years in office, Morales has reduced the percentage of those living on just 2 dollars a day to 49%, down from 60%, and cut the proportion of people living in extreme poverty to 25%, from 37% previously.

But with Lugar’s motion in place, this and other achievements by the present Bolivian leader lose their relevance.

Morales stands in the way of transnationals, so the United States wants him overthrown.

Read other articles of the print issue "The Moscow News #79"