Amnesty International: A Criminal Organisation in the Service of Western Imperialism

Benghazi, Libya, June 24, 2011. (Hassan Ammar/AP Photo)

August 28, 2012

by Metro Gael

Last year the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation launched a brutal war of aggression on Libya killing thousands of civilians and replacing an independent, responsible government with gangs of hooligans, Wahabite terrorists and outright criminals. What was once Africa’s richest and most successful state was bombed into oblivion, its impressive infrastructure destroyed, its thousands of people’s committees and people’s assemblies closed.

Universities, schools, and hospitals were bombed by French, British and American jets. Thousands of Libyans were blown to bits. Libya’s revolutionary leader, Muammar Al Gaffafi, was presented to the ignorant readers of the Western press as a brutal dictator, in spite of the fact that he had held no official position in Libya since the mid 1970s. →

FLASHBACK | The Velvet Slipper And The Military-Peace Nonprofit Complex

The following excerpts are from the article The Velvet Slipper And The Military-Peace Nonprofit Complex written by Michael Barker. The article in its entirety can be read at Swans Commentary where it was published February 18, 2011.

The political clout of the military-peace nonprofit complex is growing apace, and too many people at home and abroad are in danger of being lulled and then crushed by an oligarchy capable of wearing both the velvet slipper and the iron heel. Such anti-democratic developments hold no surprises to opponents of the oligarchy, but apologists for the velvet slipper who seek to teach anti-democratic intelligence agencies about the power of nonviolent activism must be identified and excluded from further involvement with progressive social movements. A good example that springs to mind is Lester Kurtz, who — in addition to residing on the advisory board of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict — recently responded to an article that challenged the fact that he had given a lecture to the CIA, by “arguing”: “I spoke as an independent academic and in no way as a representative of the ICNC when my government asked me to dialogue with members of its intelligence community. I feel that it is my duty as a citizen to educate others…” and “was glad to give my modest input…” (17)

In his timeless novel The Iron Heel (1907), Jack London was all too aware of John D. Rockefeller and his plutocratic ilk’s desire to crush humanity “under the iron heel of a despotism as relentless and terrible as any despotism that has blackened the pages of the history of man.” Yet London recognized the other dangers that capital posed to an increasingly powerful revolutionary movement, as he warned how the oligarchy complemented their violence against organized labor by providing selective subsidies to conservative unions much as the Rockefeller Foundation went on to do in the wake of the Ludlow Massacre of 1914. (1) But in 1907, when London first published his book, the art of capitalist philanthropy was not fine-tuned, and so if he were writing today, London might well have authored a second book titled The Velvet Slipper. →

Beware the Anti-Anti-War Left

Why Humanitarian Interventionism is a Dead End

Louvain, Belgium

Ever since the 1990s, and especially since the Kosovo war in 1999, anyone who opposes armed interventions by Western powers and NATO has to confront what may be called an anti-anti-war left (including its far left segment).  In Europe, and notably in France, this anti-anti-war left is made up of the mainstream of social democracy, the Green parties and most of the radical left.  The anti-anti-war left does not come out openly in favor of Western military interventions and even criticizes them at times (but usually only for their tactics or alleged motivations – the West is supporting a just cause, but clumsily and for oil or for geo-strategic reasons).   But most of its energy is spent issuing “warnings” against the supposed dangerous drift of that part of the left that remains firmly opposed to such interventions.  It calls upon us to show solidarity with the “victims” against “dictators who kill their own people”, and not to give in to knee-jerk anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism, and above all not to end up on the same side as the far right.  After the Kosovo Albanians in 1999, we have been told that “we” must protect Afghan women, Iraqi Kurds and more recently the people of Libya and of Syria.

It cannot be denied that the anti-anti-war left has been extremely effective. The Iraq war, which was sold to the public as a fight against an imaginary threat, did indeed arouse a fleeting opposition, but there has been very little opposition on the left to interventions presented as “humanitarian”, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia to detach the province of Kosovo, the bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, or the current intervention in Syria.   Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The fundamental ambiguity of the anti-anti-war left lies in the question as to who are the “we” who are supposed to intervene and protect.  One might ask the Western left, social movements or human rights organizations the same question Stalin addressed to the Vatican, “How many divisions do you have?”  As a matter of fact, all the conflicts in which “we” are supposed to intervene are armed conflicts.  Intervening means intervening militarily and for that, one needs the appropriate military means. It is perfectly obvious that the Western left does not possess those means.  It could call on European armies to intervene, instead of the United States, but they have never done so without massive support from the United States.  So in reality the actual message of the anti-anti-war left is: “Please, oh Americans, make war not love!” Better still, inasmuch as since their debacle in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Americans are leery of sending in ground troops, the message amounts to nothing other than asking the U.S. Air Force to go bomb countries where human rights violations are reported to be taking place. →

WATCH: Libya–Race, Empire, and the Invention of Humanitarian Emergency

Libya: Imperial Humanists and Helpless Others

[…continued from the previous article; see the list of related articles at the bottom of this page, plus information on the latest book, Slouching Towards Sirte]

The empire that speaks of “dignity” first invented the image of the helpless Libyan begging for us to “stop standing idly by”—because we, in the West, are tasked with authoring the history of Libyans, according to this logic—and after inventing the image we went about destroying Libya until the image could materialize. Now U.S. officials tell the media that, “the Libyans have barely re-established full control of their country,” and that the post-Gaddafi government “has limited tools at its disposal,” with Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official adding that, “the Libyans in just about every endeavor are just learning to walk, let alone run”. They are, in other words, infants. Hence Obama rushed in Marines, drones, and CIA agents to hunt down those that attacked the consulate in Benghazi. According to the U.S., the Libyans themselves do not know who the attackers are; this matter requires U.S. intelligence. Destruction is creation, and in the chaos ensuing from the U.S./NATO unraveling the country, interventionists feel free to inscribe their preferred myths of history—“where they make a desert, they call it peace” (Tacitus, 98, ch. 30).

It’s also interesting to reflect on the contradictory and bifurcated image created of ourselves by the humanitarian imperialists. On the one hand, as civilized Westerners we are something akin to angels. Our actions and thoughts reign high above history, residing in an altostratus of unimpeachable rectitude. In our teleological view of our own progress, we are at the highest point of human cultural evolution, ours being the highest stage of human achievement. We are the standard by which others are measured. We are what the future of all humanity looks like. The absence of our institutions and values in other societies is a measure of their inferiority. We should help them. We should help them to become more like us. These various “savage” others can be raised to our level of dignity, if we help them to acquire “prosperity” through the advance of “opportunity.” Fixated on providence and destiny, we of course resent history, because while history carries the inevitability of change (and we think of ourselves as the paragon of “change” that others must follow), history also means the inevitable decline of empire. As much as we resent history, we find particularity loathsome: some differences simply defy polite tolerance, and demand our corrective intervention. High up in the clouds, perched on the wings of our stealth bombers, we preach the ideology of universal, individual human rights.

On the other hand, both NATO propaganda and the public advocacy of humanitarian imperialists are based on certain assumptions of humanity thereby creating another image of ourselves that is not about dignity, but rather impulse—not even impulse, maybe more something like mere pulsation. This is an image of humanity that is fundamentally founded on consumerism and instant gratification. The vision of our humanity that liberal imperialists entertain is one which constructs us as shrieking sacks of emotion. This is the elites’ anthropology, one that views us as bags of nerve and muscle: throbbing with outrage, contracting with every story of “incubator babies” (first in Iraq, now again in Syria), bulging up with animus at the arrest of Gay Girl in Damascus, recoiling at the sound of Viagra-fueled mass rape. From mass hysteria in Twitter, to hundreds of thousands signing an online Avaaz petition calling for bombing Libya in the name of human rights (the same Avaaz that had a petition calling for the release of the non-existent “Gay Girl in Damascus”), we become nerves of mass reaction. We cannot “stand idly by” because that would be what thinking people would do. In our state of frenzy, we scream for action via “social media,” thumbs furiously in action on our “smart” phones. What should we do? Whatever, “do something…stand up and be counted”. If we do not act, we should be held responsible for the actions of others. When we do act, we should never be held responsible for our own actions. Then again, our “action” merely consists of asking the supremely endowed military establishment to act in our name.

This is a vision of us as an audience, a body of public opinion harnessed to a feed bag. One image of us as such an audience was strikingly described in William Gibson’s Idoru (1996):

“Personally I like to imagine something the size of a baby hippo, the color of a week-old boiled potato, that lives by itself, in the dark, in a double-wide on the outskirts of Topeka. It’s covered with eyes and it sweats constantly. The sweat runs into those eyes and makes them sting. It has no mouth…no genitals, and can only express its mute extremes of murderous rage and infantile desire by changing the channels on a universal remote. Or by voting in presidential elections.”[1]

Lacking in any dignity in the political and media elites’ constructions of us as reactive bags of emotion, their anthropology as I call it, is also accompanied by NATO’s implicit sociology: societies can be remade through a steady course of high-altitude bombings and drone strikes. It’s like schooling an unruly child with heavy caning, and if that does not work there is always “indefinite detention”.

But remade into what? It was Obama’s stated intention to “install democracy” in Libya through foreign military intervention, which is an amazing indictment of what he means by democracy. Obama announced his “commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will”. The question is though, do Libyans want democracy? What do Libyans understand by democracy? These questions persisted in spite of the July 2012 elections for a national congress. With a 62 percent turnout of registered voters—not a spectacular figure if we had believed that there was a massive and popular yearning for elections—and with 80 percent of eligible voters registered, this meant that the actual turnout of all those who were eligible to vote was little more than 48 percent. After supposedly being crushed by the tyranny of Gaddafi, less than half of Libyans bothered to vote. A British survey that preceded the elections, the “First National Survey of Libya” conducted by Oxford Research International in association with the Institute of Human Sciences, University of Oxford, and the University of Benghazi, presented some interesting results.[2] Only 13 percent of those surveyed said democracy (either “Libyan-style” or “Western-style”) should be installed in a year’s time, with the total number rising to only 25 percent when the time period was stretched to five years. The majority simply rejected democracy. The largest number, 26 percent, wanted to see a single, strong Libyan leader (with another 12 percent choosing a small group of strong leaders), for the next year; the numbers declined to only 22 percent plus 9 percent respectively when choosing for the next five years. Also, 62 percent wanted to maintain a politically centralized nation, rejecting the demands for autonomy by eastern Libya. Just under 50 percent wanted to see any prosecution of former regime supporters, with 66 percent wanting this for former regime members. Also, 53 percent of respondents said that the Muslim Brotherhood should play no role in the political future of Libya—and indeed, religious parties fared poorly in the elections. A further 16 percent said they were prepared to use violence for political ends. It’s also true that the survey reported that 80 percent of Libyans thought that regime change was “absolutely right”; the same number also reported being “very careful with people” out of a lack of trust, and with tens of thousands of armed men roaming the streets, one has to wonder if they would express outright disagreement with the revolution to British outsiders accompanied by academics from Benghazi. What is interesting is that roughly a third of those surveyed manifested an overall pattern of preference for the political system that they had lost, added to a predominant lack of trust overall, and a strong current that prefers violence.

For some, violence and elections worked well together. On the eve of the election, gunmen shot down a helicopter carrying polling materials near the eastern city of Benghazi, killing one election worker. Previously, an election candidate had also been murdered. Following the NTC’s issuing of draft electoral laws, several tribal leaders and militia commanders in Libya’s east declared self-rule, “set up their own council and formed their own army, while saying that they would boycott elections and even work to prevent Saturday’s vote from taking place”. Over 216,000 had registered to vote in Benghazi’s own election in May 2012 for an autonomous Cyrenaica Congress. Misrata, like Benghazi, also sacked its rebel city council, amidst plenty complaints of corruption, and elected an autonomous one. Days before the July national congressional election, militia members from eastern Libya took over oil refineries in the towns of Ras Lanouf, Brega and Sidr, shutting down the facilities to pressure the NTC to cancel the elections. As a result, protesters shut off half of all of Libya’s oil exports. Angry protesters and militia fighters attacked election offices, setting fire to ballot papers and other voting materials, in Benghazi and Ajdabiya. In a sudden move to appease Islamists, the NTC even stripped the parliament waiting to be elected of its responsibility in drafting a constitutional panel, now saying this would be directly elected in a separate vote. On the day of the election itself, “acts of sabotage, mostly in the east of the country, prevented 101 polling stations from opening,” according to the chairman of the electoral commission. With militias firmly in control of Libya’s cities and towns, frequently engaged in deadly assaults on each other, British journalists could only conclude: “Gaddafi has been replaced by what is in effect a patchwork quilt of local dictatorships,” echoing statements I made previously.

After touting itself to foreign audiences as a force for democracy, it was interesting to see what the NTC meant by democracy in the electoral and other laws that they decreed since January 2012. Workers could not run as candidates, given the requirement that candidates must have a professional qualification; anyone who ever worked at any level of the former government was barred, unless they could demonstrate, “early and clear support for the February 17th revolution”; those with an academic degree that involved study of Gaddafi’s Green Book, which was previously a prerequisite to professional advancement, were also barred; also, anyone who received any monetary benefit under Gaddafi could be prohibited from participation—as Massaoud El Kanuni, a Libyan constitutional lawyer, realized, these “criteria could be used against three-quarters of the country”. The NTC would then continue its practice of holding meetings in secret, not even releasing the names of its ruling members. What was known was that Khalifa Hifter, a Libyan exile on the payroll of the CIA, was now Libya’s most influential army officer, especially after Gaddafi defector, General Abdul Fatah Younes, was mysteriously assassinated by forces aligned with the NTC during the middle of NATO’s war. NTC leaders who were officials in Gaddafi’s government clearly exempted themselves from their own laws—they were above the law. Meanwhile, the great mass of Libyans who benefited under Gaddafi, or had any “connections” whatsoever, were to be forgiven of nothing. Yet, insurgent militias guilty of widespread and ongoing atrocities, were to be forgiven of everything: before the elections, the NTC passed a law granting immunity to all of the “revolutionaries.” In addition, the NTC passed a series of laws that criminalized free speech and any ties to the former government in sweeping terms, as if to codify the reign of terror that had been unleashed since Gaddafi’s overthrow: the authorities were to take action against individuals who participated in “official and unofficial bodies of the former regime,” as they pose a “threat to the security or stability” of Libya, with punishments ranging from surveillance to travel bans to barring them from residence in certain parts of the country; “glorification” of Gaddafi or the former regime was also criminalized and punishable by a prison sentence (that the anti-glorification law was later repealed meant little, it simply legalized the ongoing practice of de facto persecution, and its original passage would have been enough to scare some); another law banned spreading “news reports, rumours or propaganda” that could “cause any damage to the state,” with the penalty being “life in prison”; there would also be a prison sentence for anyone spreading information of rumours that could “weaken the citizens’ morale” during “conditions of war,” and Libya was still defined as being at war; there would also be prison sentences for anyone who “attacks the February 17 revolution, denigrates Islam, the authority of the state or its institutions”; and, another law confiscated all property and funds belonging to persons who served in the former regime, that is except for those passing this law (source). NTC Chair, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, threatened: “we will be tough towards people who threaten our stability”. This language echoed that of interim Defence Minister, Osama al-Juwali, who threatened Bani Walid (a pro-Gaddafi bastion that liberated itself from NTC rule) that forces loyal to the NTC would strike it with an “iron fist”. Where’s that anti-Stalinism now?

That this language, the repression and persecution, and the laws above, constitute a “democratic” transformation and “liberation from dictatorship” is something deserving of mockery and condemnation—especially as citizens of NATO states have literally paid to bring this about. But instead of either mockery or condemnation, Western leaders have offered celebratory congratulations. Obama called the elections “another milestone in the country’s transition to democracy,” a statement parroted by the media, while the European Union hailed Libya’s “first free elections” as the “dawn of a new era,” and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that Libyans had “sacrificed their lives or suffered lasting injury in order to win the right of the Libyan people to build a new state founded on human dignity and the rule of law”—“as if this were now a reality”.

What remains a reality is that Libya continues to be a society at war with itself, not just as a matter of interpretation, but as a matter of the new national security laws. Neither officially, nor in practice, has the war ended. Not only are there still militarily active resistance units that supported Gaddafi, and refuse to admit defeat, but the government and opposing militias themselves also live in fear of possible overthrow. Taking matters to an extreme, Gaddafi is blamed for virtually everything that has transpired since his death, including getting blame for the torture and mass detentions by those who overthrew him. When the U.S. diplomats were murdered in Benghazi, Libyan government officials immediately saw the hand of “Gaddafi sympathizers”. If Gaddafi is to blame for everything, it would mean that he still has power over Libyans, and there has been no real revolution. Worse yet, by consistently blaming Gaddafi, Libya’s new rulers disclaim any responsibility for themselves, which once again is a defeat for dignity as a reiteration of the “helpless Libyan.”

The “helpless Libyan” was of course very popular to those making careers of “helping” and “protecting” others. If Libyans were not helpless, then they would be made so. Once protected, they would be thankful: “One, Two, Three, merci Sarkozy!”. Gratitude is good (even if you have to go all the way to Benghazi to get it). Gratitude provides important symbolic capital, which can then be converted into actual capital: tales of success and victory in countering “genocide,” when properly mass mediated and aided by viral Internet campaigns, can be used to appeal for donations from the public, to offer paid memberships, and seek financial support from states, while retaining a dubious identity as a NGO. In the case of thanks offered to states, gratitude translates into something akin to subordinate acquiescence, offering legitimation and thus serving as a lubricant for power. Thus French President Nicolas Sarkozy could tell his warrior-philosopher, Bernard-Henri Lévy:

“The role I am playing goes beyond my person, or my mandate. It is the position of France in the Arab world on which the dawn is rising. It is the world order, the style of international relations for the approaching decades that we are in the process of defining. It is an event of long-term import [de longue portée]. A slow earthquake. All this is worth a little patience. Let’s keep in contact. Thank you for what you have done.”

Notions of protecting civilians, preventing genocide, ending human rights abuses, putting war criminals on trial, providing humanitarian relief, all of these are rarely even of secondary concern to the key Western actors in actual practice, except as weapons. Sarkozy is at least frank: this story is about empire. Lévy, anxious to show how much of an insider he was in the power group that crushed Libya, unfortunately makes the mistake of providing information that entirely nullifies all of his other claims, such as the grotesque ones that Gaddafi brought war on himself, or the need to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, and so on (source). Lévy is not harmless enough to be judged a mere court jester, which would be his obvious calling–he’s a heavyweight amongst quacks, widely repudiated as such by other French philosophers.

The worst thing one could do to the dogmatic upholders of the “responsibility of protect” doctrine, is to take them seriously and to judge the outcomes of the interventions they endorse, on the very same terms they have chosen. Rather than the protection of civilians that key R2P advocates applauded as the defining feature of the intervention in Libya, what we have seen is a wide range of systematic and recurring actions that demonstrate the exact opposite of civilians being protected. My book demonstrates, through documented cases, a consistent pattern in NATO actions where the safety of civilians was either ignored, or civilians were themselves the chosen targets, or certain civilians were armed and supported in threatening the lives of other civilians. Apart from cases, and speaking in terms of a broader framework, war itself cannot but escalate the costs to human lives, and NATO’s intervention not only prolonged the war, it escalated the war and directly destroyed countless civilian lives both directly and indirectly. If we really wanted to see “civilians” being “protected,” then we needed a counter force to protect Libyans from NATO. Moreover, NATO’s intervention did not stop armed conflict in Libya, as that continues to the present. Massacres were not prevented, they were enabled, and many occurred after NATO intervened and because NATO intervened. The only issue on which NATO spokespersons and R2P advocates can score a rhetorical “win” is on Benghazi having been “saved”—saved, that is, from a fictitious massacre that was not in the offing, and even then one must be possessed of a certain racist bend of mind to talk about lives “saved” in Benghazi when we know of the horrors committed there against countless black Africans and black Libyans. Only if the latter do not count, as if they were to be subtracted from the “humanity” that “human rights” advocates claim as their devout concern, can one possibly make a claim that lives were saved in Benghazi. In addition, it takes a determined partisan to simply dismiss the documented revenge killings that took place, and continue to take place in Benghazi against persons known or imagined to have been loyal to Gaddafi. The implicit agreement tacitly binding NATO and R2P advocates was simply that certain lives were worth saving, and many more were not. Their answer to the killing, real or imagined, that they claimed to find so abhorrent was to introduce more killing. If this intervention is what they imagine to be “humanitarian,” does it mean that they are capable of even worse?

Intervention, as the one that occurs in Libya, is fundamentally opposed to dignity: the very act of intervention implies that there is some deficit or deficiency that requires the curative power of foreign actors. The Libyans are somehow inadequate in this frame of mind, not even their numbers are sufficient; hence we “iPad imperialists” must join their struggle: “we are all Libyans now.” Except we are not, and never can be, nor should we ever pretend to assume someone else’s identity. Imperial hubris (wars seen as “cake walks”) is well accompanied by imperial narcissism (“they will greet us as liberators”), and now we can add imperial personality disorder (I am them, they are all I).

Once foreign military intervention occurs, it scorches the earth in a way that unleashes new forces, and creates new deadly consequences that can be exploited for the purposes of further intervention. As we see in the rapid, militarized response of the U.S. to the killing of its ambassador and staff in Benghazi, intervention begets intervention. More intervention is needed to solve the problems caused by intervention.

The next time that empire comes calling in the name of human rights, please be found standing idly by.

Notes

[1] My many thanks to Brendan Stone, host of CFMU 93.3 FM, “Unusual Sources,” for bringing this quote to my attention.

[2] I received data compiled by the survey, along with two written reports and two PowerPoint presentations, from the British authors of the report.

References

Abunimah, Ali. (2011/8/8). “How CNN Helped Spread a Hoax about Syrian Babies Dying in Incubators”. Electronic Intifada, August 8.

Agence France Presse. (2012/7/7). “Libya Unrest ‘Prevents Voting in 101 Centres’”. Agence France Presse, July 7.

————— . (2011/3/23). “Libyan Rebels Foresee Democratic Regime”. Herald Sun, March 23.

————— . (2012/2/17). “Libya Marks Revolution Day amid New Warning”. ABC News (Australia), February 17.

Al Arabiya. (2012/1/6). “Qaddafi Brought War upon Himself, Says Architect of Libyan Intervention”. Al Arabiya, January 6.

Associated Press (AP). (2012/7/6). “Fears of Violence, Calls for Boycott Threaten to Mar Vote in Libya”. CP24, July 6.

————— . (2012/2/21). “Elections in Libya’s Misrata Show a Splintered Nation”. CTV News, February 21.

BBC. (2012/1/25). “Libyan Defence Minister in Restive Bani Walid for Talks”. BBC News, January 25.

————— . (2012/7/6). “Libya Election Helicopter ‘Shot Near Benghazi’”. BBC News, July 6.

Dozier, Kimberly. (2012/9/15). “US Scrambles to Rush Spies, Drones to Libya”. Associated Press, September 15.

Gibson, William. (1996). Idoru. New York: Berkley Books.

Gumuchian, Marie-Louise, & Shuaib, Ali. (2012/7/6). “Half of Libya’s Oil Exports Hit by Protests”. Reuters, July 6.

Huffpost Hill. (2011/3/22). “Obama: We’re Promoting Democracy in Libya”. Huffpost Hill, March 22.

Morrow, Will. (2012/1/13). “Libya: TNC Releases Anti-Democratic Draft Electoral Laws”. World Socialist Web Site, January 13.

Murphy, Dan. (2011/6/13). “The Gay Girl in Damascus Hoax, ‘Mass Rape’ in Libya, and Press Credulity”. Christian Science Monitor, June 13.

Oborne, Peter, & Cookson, Richard. (2012/5/18). “Libya Still Ruled by the Gun”. The Telegraph, May 18.

Reuters. (2012/5/19). “Vote in Libya’s Benghazi Tests Support for Autonomy”. Reuters, May 19.

Shaoul, Jean, & Marsden, Chris. (2012/7/11). “The Real Significance of Libya’s Elections”. World Socialist Web Site, July 11.

Shuaib, Ali. (2012/5/14). “Libya Election Candidate Killed in Remote South”. Reuters, May 14.

Soguel, Dominique. (2012/5/3). “Libya Grants Immunity to ‘Revolutionaries’”. Agence France Presse, May 3.

Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. (98). De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae.

Walden, George. (2011/12/29). “How is Bernard-Henri Lévy Possible?” The Times Literary Supplement, December 29.

---

The Dignity Series

• Keep Your Money: A Series on Dignity
• A Tear for Africa: Humanitarian Abduction and Reduction
• Zimbabwe: “Keep your money, keep your power, and keep away from us”
• Still Standing: Zimbabwe
• Stay Up, Zimbabwe: Pan-Africanism, Caribbean Solidarity, and Dignity
• Libya: Empire or Dignity
• Libya: Imperial Humanists and Helpless Others

A Tear for Africa: Humanitarian Abduction and Reduction

“Inciting hatred and racial fear by spreading false rumours, which then resulted in violence with a genocidal aim? Is that not a crime under international law any longer? Or does the law by implication never apply to the white people who called for it? This is interesting, to see how Amnesty International makes business for itself at both ends of genocide, and never, of course, never, offering as much as an apology or a simple admission to being wrong.

Instead, what accomplished humanitarian elites, whether in the media, NGOs, think tanks…or the Swedish government, like to do when speaking of their favourite topics (such as female genital mutilation…in Africa, not their own kind), is to celebrate themselves. And they celebrate themselves with a nice big slice of n*gger cake:”

 

Helpless, pleading, wanting, needing, small, weak, staring at you, black–this is the anti-bogeyman invented by Western humanitarianism, what passes as morality in the ideology of empire (yet again). Past the time of a London Missionary Society, we now have the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the moral dogma of a white, western elite that projects its abusive notion of “protection” everywhere it is not wanted. Hence we have the “smug self-congratulation” marking Obama’s “Atrocity Prevention Board” and empowering the U.S. to undertake global police work. Part of a long history of casting wars as “humanitarian,” the “moral compass” of Western imperialism has an appropriately nautical sound in this commercial that declares the U.S. Navy to be “a force for global good” (nautical or extraterrestrial perhaps: the images are inspired by the opening of Star Wars, and the narration echoes Darth Vader). Well past the time of “emancipation,” we can now help Africans by owning them yet again–as children, in that state of infancy that we have long associated with primitiveness itself. We thus have the perfect therapy for the racial fear of blackness: shopping, that is, shopping for humans. Whole peoples in need of our “protection” (and the military-industrial racket of defense contractors and mercenaries that makes “protection” possible)–finally, our guilt washed away in their gratitude. For just the price of a cup of coffee–and the occasional high-altitude bombing by faceless “heroes” who never confront their victims–you too can buy yourself a piece of Africa, “the new frontier”. Then you can monitor and police its subordination, with AFRICOM.

Adoption: Abduction

A massive earthquake just happened. Hundreds of thousands dead and homeless. A nation destroyed. Moments later, disembarking from a night flight, returning from Haiti where few other planes could land, a group of very large white Americans, waddling and smiling through the airport, pushing double strollers displaying their newly harvested tropical produce: Haitian babies, spirited away from home. In many cases, they were simply stolen. In other cases, stolen for the sake of some very “Christian” people.

There is a lot more behind the African adoption craze than the simple desire of the large infertile ones to claim the fruit of others’ loins. Many already know that an industry has sprouted that serves as a conveyor belt for babies from Africa, passed straight into the hands of the “gimme” crowd in Europe and North America. A Web search for “Africa Adoption” returns a river of links to agencies such as: Sunrise Adoption/Africa, Americans for African Adoptions Inc. (from the managing director: “When you look into the eyes of a hungry African child, if you have any heart, you will not walk away and forget”–no, instead you will snatch the child apparently), and a few more. Each of these are part of a complex that serves up images of staring African children, lost, needing you (even when they have parents). Not usually listed as such in any international trade statistics compiled by the enemy, children are another of Africa’s exported commodities, forming part of a growing commercial industry. “The number of children from Africa being adopted by foreign nationals from other continents has risen dramatically,” the BBC said very recently, quoting this 2012 report from the African Child Policy Forum:

In the past eight years, international adoptions increased by almost 400%, the African Child Policy Forum has found. “Africa is becoming the new frontier for inter-country adoption,” the Addis Ababa-based group said. But many African countries do not have adequate safeguards in place to protect the children being adopted, it warns. The majority of so-called orphans adopted from Africa have at least one living parent and many children are trafficked or sold by their parents, the child expert group says. More than 41,000 African children have been adopted and taken out of home countries since 2004, the ACPF report says.

The adoption scandals have been plenty in number of the years, but there is nothing like imposed protection and enforced gratitude to keep the gates open to an abducted continent.

There is, I think, an important conceptualization of “abduction” that needs to be developed (different from the sense found in Alfred Gell’s Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory, also see here). Specifically, what I mean is that in order for one to presume to “care” for another, that other must be seen as living in a state of some sort of neglect and unfulfilled need. That other thus becomes like an object, that is first seized so that it can be set free. It is an object set low within a hierarchy, one that resembles old cultural evolutionist schemes where Europeans were always on top, and Africans locked far down below, in a Permanent Paleolithic time zone. Western “humanitarianism” thus works as an imperialist ideological framework: that object, “Africa,” needs our “protection” (we are the prime actors, they the recipients). This requires that we do at least two things that one would expect of imperialists. First, we need to construct images of “Africa” as a dark place of gaunt, hungry, pleading quasi-humans, where we effectively open the door to ourselves, and usher ourselves in as their self-appointed saviours. This is not the same thing as abduction in the form of kidnapping (not yet anyway): it is more of a virtual abduction, an imaginary capture that places “Africa” on a lower scale of welfare and self-fulfillment, and implies our “duty” to rescue them by “raising” them “up” to where we are. Second, we can work to ensure that the material conditions of need are effectively reproduced: we can do that with “aid” (see below), with “investment” (an odd word, because in practice it means taking away), with “trade” (where the preconditions are that Africans privatize themselves), and with direct military intervention to bomb back down to size any upstart that threatens to repossess his dignity (Libya). This too then is a capture. And then there is actual capture: seizing children, indicting “war criminals,” or inviting students to come on over and “learn” like we do so that they can become “educated”–or stay there, and let our students examine you. Humanitarians just cannot get over themselves, in other words, and they never tire of telling stories of their own greatness.

Examples abound, and they will keep on abounding as time passes, as they have in the past with an endless slew of stereotypes of “broken, helpless Africans”. We thus have the Christian Children’s Fund of Canada (CCFC), producers of awful Christmas-time videos that surely warrant a boycott, whose website produces a majority of pictures of desperate African children, or smiling African children (because they received our aid).

Blood Is Thicker Than Coffee (But Propaganda Is a Lot Like Cake)

The websites of Save the Children and Act for Peace similarly offer the same amount of African poverty pornography that remind you that you are the giver and that the power to breathe dignity into these dark objects is all yours. That also helps to numb and distract you from your own powerlessness in your own society, unless of course you happen to be one of the “one percent”. “For just the price of a cup of coffee”…the everyday humanitarian has such lofty sentiments, but they rarely include direct political action to get their own society from intervening in and harming African nations to begin with. If you care that much, cancel the debt, stop the bombing, and you can keep your coffee.

“Poor starving African children” is not just virtually a category of its own on YouTube, it is the actual title of some videos, like this one:

http://youtu.be/KUGtE7QZV6Y

Very similar to the video above, there is this one from some R2P missionaries, the International aid agency of the National Council of Churches in Australia which is responsible for this R2P video–note which group of people predominates in the images shown:

One could also mention the infamously exploitative and lying “Stop Kony” campaign of conveniently pious imperialists, led by a mentally discordant junior celebrity, not heard from since his naked public rampage against Satan (see more Kony references below). That makes him guilty of “masturbating in public”…twice. Do we sometimes steal other people’s dignity because we lack any ourselves? It’s easy to take apart the motives of someone like Jason Russell, who at another time declared his campaign to be an “adventure” and that “we can have fun while we end genocide….We’re gonna have a blast”:

The more relevant point however is that Russell is showing himself to be an excellent entrepreneur in the field of abduction: seizing African children, as the victims of a Lord’s Resistance Army that is a mere shadow of its former self, in order to back further U.S. military intervention in Uganda, where the LRA is not present but where U.S. special forces are. Neither AFRICOM nor the International Criminal Court could be more thankful for this viral imperial moralism, and the mindless crowd hype that propelled it. Of course, it’s not just Uganda that “benefits” from #Kony2012, but other nations of central Africa as well that are part of AFRICOM’s hunt for the “big game” that Joseph Kony has become, as official U.S. moralism easily blends with militarism. This has become everything that “Save Darfur” dreamt it could be. A clearer case than “my humanitarianism requires your abduction” could not be made better than the Stop Kony campaign. Or, maybe I speak too soon: “Stuff White People Link n. 135: Humanitarian Intervention”.

Amnesty International has been excellent at cashing in on atrocities, reporting rumours of “African mercenaries” in Libya, only to backtrack (after many of us popularized #RacistRebels incessantly in the Twitter news stream): now AI is finding black Libyans and Sub-Saharan Africans targeted for ethnic cleansing, mass displacement, torture, rape and murder–and AI can now announce that there never were any such mercenaries. Either way, Amnesty wins, its budget is ensured as it ensures its relevance to any profitable crisis, not to mention its recent public support for the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan to “save its women” (an angle ZA covered here, here, here, and here). AI’s double-stand on Libya has been well documented and exposed in the video documentary, “The Humanitarian War,” by Julien Teil:

Inciting hatred and racial fear by spreading false rumours, which then resulted in violence with a genocidal aim? Is that not a crime under international law any longer? Or does the law by implication never apply to the white people who called for it? This is interesting, to see how Amnesty International makes business for itself at both ends of genocide, and never, of course, never, offering as much as an apology or a simple admission to being wrong.

Instead, what accomplished humanitarian elites, whether in the media, NGOs, think tanks…or the Swedish government, like to do when speaking of their favourite topics (such as female genital mutilation…in Africa, not their own kind), is to celebrate themselves. And they celebrate themselves with a nice big slice of n*gger cake:

Abduction yet again, this time with an assault on a human dessert cart. It’s an amazing picture of a European cannibalistic feeding frenzy of fantasy, a black cake saturated with neocolonial racism, and the promotion of very paternalistic attitudes towards African women, however much some of the Swedes above may fancy themselves “feminist”. It also seems that these characters took the bait of a clever artist, and ate it.

Sure, pick on Europeans. Say what you want, but at least “Spain is not Uganda”. Yet, by some measures that Europeans cherish, the argument turned against the Spanish Minister’s feeling of “natural” superiority over African primitives: Spain’s unemployment level is 24%, while Uganda’s is 4.2%; Spain’s GDP growth was –0.1% while Uganda’s was 5.2% in 2010; nor is Uganda currently the subject of emergency “bailout” plans. A good example of successful abduction, this is not, but it was nonetheless an attempt.

To Study, Study, Study You Is To Own, Own, Own You: And I Do, and I Do

Perhaps as many as 20% of the graduate students in the Department that year chose to do their “fieldwork” in Africa. In what kinds of locations? You should be able to guess by now: a garbage dump, a cemetery, and a hospital for AIDS victims. Then they shared stories of how being white women earned them endless drooling commentary from African men. They won three times: capturing Africans in their most miserable state, scoring themselves a high “hotness” rating, and getting an advanced degree.

African feminist Ifi Amadiume shared this story of a young, white, female anthropologist:

“I asked a young White woman why she was studying social anthropology. She replied that she was hoping to go to Zimbabwe, and felt that she could help women there by advising them how to organize. The Black women in the audience gasped in astonishment. Here was someone scarcely past girlhood, who had just started university and had never fought a war in her life. She was planning to go to Africa to teach female veterans of a liberation struggle how to organize! This is the kind of arrogant, if not absurd attitude we encounter repeatedly. It makes one think: Better the distant armchair anthropologists than these ‘sisters’.”

Surely we are not all so crass? “One of the intended outcomes of my research about this community is to share with them my analysis of their situation, so they can better organize their own praxis and self-representation; that by having an outsider hold a mirror up to them, they can benefit from further self-examination.” AnthroFail subtitles itself with “Anthropology: You’re doing it wrong”. Yes, but “fieldwork”–fieldwork makes everything so much better–we should be sending out more of ours to do fieldwork in their societies. At the very least, we can harvest more African data for the American or British journals. Then “open access” will make everything better again.

Aid: Degrade

“We give oh so much aid to Africa, that it just proves how great we are. Africans are not better off? Well, that may be, but then that shows how rotten they are. We win again!” I have heard similar assertions so often, that I now have a question: why don’t you all lobby the U.S. Congress or the Canadian House of Commons to officially rewrite your respective national anthems so you can include the words between the quotation marks? When you’re that great, you should at least sing about it, especially in your football stadiums and hockey arenas. I will not challenge the fact of their “giving,” but I will question the taking–better yet, Kenyan economist James Shikwati has already done so:

“Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

“When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program–which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa …

SPIEGEL: … corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers …

“Hunger should not be a problem in most of the countries south of the Sahara. In addition, there are vast natural resources: oil, gold, diamonds. Africa is always only portrayed as a continent of suffering, but most figures are vastly exaggerated. In the industrial nations, there’s a sense that Africa would go under without development aid. But believe me, Africa existed before you Europeans came along. And we didn’t do all that poorly either.

“AIDS is big business, maybe Africa’s biggest business. There’s nothing else that can generate as much aid money as shocking figures on AIDS. AIDS is a political disease here, and we should be very skeptical.

“If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.”

As Shikwati explains elsewhere in the interview, Africa’s “hunger problems” as we see them could easily be solved by greater intra-Africa trade, and by breaking down European-drawn borders–in other words, by letting the African Union work. But we don’t much like the real leaders who pushed hard to realize the full potential of the African Union–we instead prefer to see them like this.

Abduction always stands against dignity–and though done much better by many others, many times before, this essay was a necessary second installment in a series of six on Dignity.

References

ACPF. (2012). Africa: The New Frontier for Intercountry Adoption. Addis Ababa: The Africa Child Policy Forum.

AGOA: The U.S. Africa Growth and Opportunity Act.

Allimadi, Milton. (2012). “Invisible Children, Makers of KONY2012, Spied For Ugandan Regime–WikiLeaks”. Black Star News, April 8.

Amnesty International. (2011). “Libya: Organization Calls for Immediate Arms Embargo and Assets Freeze”. Amnesty International, February 23.

— . (2011). “Tawarghas must be protected from reprisals and arbitrary arrest in Libya”. Amnesty International, September 7.

— . (2011). “New Libya ’stained’ by detainee abuse”. Amnesty International, October 13.

— . (2012). “Libya: Deaths of detainees amid widespread torture”. Amnesty International, January 26.

AOPIG. (2001). African Oil: A Priority for U.S. National Security and African Development. Washington, DC: African Oil Policy Initiative Group.

Araia, Semhar. (2012). “Joseph Kony 2012: It’s fine to ‘Stop Kony’ and the LRA. But Learn to Respect Africans”. Christian Science Monitor, March 8.

BBC. (2012). “Adoption from Africa: Concern over ‘dramatic rise’.” BBC News, May 29.

— . (2012). “Spain is Not Uganda. Discuss”. BBC News, June 12.

Benesch, Susan. (2004). “Inciting Genocide, Pleading Free Speech (media in Rwanda)”. World Policy Journal, Volume XXI, No 2, Summer.

Black Acrylic. (2012). “The Anti #Kony2012”. Black Acrylic, March 8

BSN. (2012). “KONY 2012, Invisible Children’s Pro-AFRICOM and Museveni Propaganda”. [Editorial] Black Star News, March 8.

Chossudovsky, Michel. (2012). “JOSEPH KONY, AMERICA’S PRETEXT TO INVADE AFRICA: US Marines Dispatched to Five African Countries”. Global Research, March 16, 2012

Davis, Whitney. (n.d.). “Abducting the Agency of Art”.

Durden, Tyler. (2012). “Uganda is Not Spain”. Zero Hedge, June 12.

Fisher, Max. (2012). “The Soft Bigotry of Kony 2012”. The Atlantic, March 8.

Forte, Maximilian C. (2009). “In Afghanistan It’s Now All About the Little Girls”. Zero Anthropology, August 9.

FriaTider. (2012). “Shocking photos show Swedish Minister of Culture celebrating with ‘n*g*er cake’”. FriaTider, April 17.

Gell, Alfred. (1998). Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ghanea, Nazila. (2011). “Prohibition of Incitement to National, Racial or Religious Hatred in Accordance with International Human Rights Law.” United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Glazebrook, Dan. (2012). “The imperial agenda of the US’s ‘Africa Command’ marches on”. The Guardian, June 14.

Gosztola, Kevin. (2012). “Why Most Wars Are ‘Humanitarian Interventions’”. The Dissenter, April 15.

Guanaguanare. (2012). “Would You Have Eaten the Cake?” Guanaguanare: The Laughing Gull, April 22.

Hanifi, M. Jamil. (2009). “Engineering Division, Instability, and Regime Change with Naheed, Neda, and Allah”. Zero Anthropology, July 31.

— . (2009). “Afghanistan’s Little Girls on the Front Line, Part 2”. Zero Anthropology, August 17.

— . (2010). “Is TIME’s Afghan ‘cover girl’ really a victim of mutilation by the Taleban?” Zero Anthropology, August 5.

Harvard Law Review. “International Law. Genocide. U.N. Tribunal Finds That Mass Media Hate Speech Constitutes Genocide, Incitement to Genocide, and Crimes against Humanity. Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiza, and Ngeze (Media Case), Case no. ICTR-99-52-T (Int’l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda Trial Chamber I Dec. 3, 2003)”. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 117, No. 8 (Jun.), pp. 2769-2776.

Haywood, Eddie, and Lantier, Alex. (2011). “US deploys Special Forces troops to central Africa”. World Socialist Web Site, October 17.

Holligan, Anna. (2012). “Invisible Children’s Kony campaign gets support of ICC prosecutor”. BBC News, March 8.

International Stability Operations Association formerly known as the International Peace Operations Association

Mason, John Edwin. (2012). “A Brief History of African Stereotypes, Part 1: Broken, Helpless Africa”. John Edwin Mason, March 9.

Michael, Marc. (2012). “Stuff White People Link n. 135: Humanitarian Intervention”. Jadaliyya, April 11.

Moreno, Antonio. (2011). “U.S. Imperialism Creeps Into Uganda, Central Africa Under Guise of Human Rights”. Anti-Imperialism.com, November 14.

Puryear, Eugene. (2012). “What’s behind Kony 2012? U.S. military intervention cannot be a force for progressive change”. Liberation, March 8.

Savage, Charlie, and Shanker, Thom. (2012). “U.S. Drug War Expands to Africa, a Newer Hub for Cartels”. The New York Times, July 21.

SourceWatch: Amnesty International

Spiegel. (2005). “For God’s Sake, Please Stop the Aid!” Spiegel Online International, April 7.

Straziuso, Jason. (2011). “Somalia, Libya, Uganda: US increases Africa focus”. Associated Press, October 27.

Timmermann, Wibke Kristin. (2006). “Incitement in international criminal law”. International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 88 Number 864, December.

Van Stokkom, Henk. (2012). “The Invisible Christians of #Kony2012” Digital Archive, March 19.

Vine, David. (2012). “Yes, Let’s #STOPKONY, But What Happens If the Bad Guy Is Us?” Huffington Post, March 14.

VOA. (2009). “Scandal in Chad Raises Adoption Debate”. VOA News, October 27.

Walt, Stephen M. (2012). “Is the ‘Atrocity Prevention Board’ a good idea?” Foreign Policy, April 24.

Using NGOs to Coerce Nations

by Sandhya Jain

Source: The Pioneer

May 8, 2012

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

Syria: Another “Humanitarian War” Based on Lies & Deceit

Mini-Documentary Exposes Imperial Expansion Through “Humanitarian Interventionism”

April 13th, 2012
Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The Paris-based Centre for the Study of Interventionism (CSI) and Julien Teil, director of “Lies behind the “Humanitarian War” in Libya: There is no evidence!” has recently released a short documentary exposing how a cartel of Western nations and their Arab proxies are purposefully creating chaos inside targeted nations and then using it as a pretext to invade, topple governments, and replace them with preselected client regimes, and in effect threatening the very concept of national sovereignty.

The documentary particularly focuses on Syria and features video of Syrian opposition members sitting at the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) “round-table” having praise heaped upon them, and in particular Washington-based Syrian “activist” Radwn Ziadeh, for their complicity in betraying their nation and people for the corporate-financier interests that constitute NED’s board of directors. →

Keith Harmon Snow Discussing Western NGOs and Africa

Human rights investigator and award-winning journalist Keith Harmon Snow, detailing the corrupt NGOs and their portrayal of Africa in order to illicit funds. Snow must be considered one of our finest Western reporters for obtaining true independent grassroots news from the continent of Africa.

Within the lecture, Snow discusses the psyops/propaganda strategically orchestrated behind the “Save Darfur” campaigns/movements which, in 2004, began to saturate the populace. At the helm of this “movement” was “The Center for American Progress”.

The Center for American Progress, is closely connected with the same players that founded and financed Avaaz. Today, with Avaaz at the forefront, the non-profit industrial complex has been appointed trusted messenger of a grotesque and disturbing ideology; nothing less than a complete reflection and validation of the U.S. administration’s rhetoric intended to justify the annihilation and occupation of sovereign states under the false pretense of “humanitarian intervention” and “responsibility to protect”. →

[PODCAST] R2P or: How the Left Learned to Stop Worrying and Embrace Wars of Imperial Aggression

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

If the last three years have taught us anything, it is that the so-called anti-war liberal left can be made to become cheerleaders for the same war agenda that they pretended to deride during the Bush Administration. How was this accomplished? A developing doctrine of international law called “Responsibility to Protect.” Join us this week as we expose the liberal “war is peace” agenda and ponder how best to disarm it.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode. →