Document:Understanding the War in Libya

 article  by Michel Collon dated 2011-04-27

---

Subjects: 2011 Attacks on Libya
Source: Investig'Action (Link)

Translated from French

Wikispooks Comment

---

It is hoped that these translations retain much of Michel Collon's idiosyncratic style. They represent a comprehensive overview of the globalising, neo-imperialist agenda and methodologies of the US/UK/NATO axis of western countries in general, together with solid, shocking detail about the deceptions and real intent of the same Axis in its Spring 2011 intervention in Libya.

★ Start a Discussion about this document

---

Part One

Questions to be asked in every war

27 times. The United States bombed sovereign countries in 27 interventions/wars since 1945. Each time, we were told that these acts of war were "fair" and "humanitarian." Today, we are told that the Libyan intervention is different from previous ones. But this was also said last time, and the time before, and the time before..... It was said every time. Isn’t it time to write down the questions we should ask in every war in order to avoid being manipulated?

Money is always available to start a war ?

In the most powerful country of the world, forty-five million people live below the poverty line. United States ‘schools and public services are crumbling because the state has "no money". In Europe too, "no money" for pensions or for creating jobs. But when the greed of bankers causes a financial crisis, in just a few days billions is found to save them. This has allowed these same bankers to distribute U.S. $ 140 billion last year as rewards and bonuses to their shareholders, traders and speculators. For war too, it seems easy to find billions. However, it is our taxes that pay for these weapons and this destruction. Is it wise to burn hundreds of thousands of dollars for each missile, or to waste fifty thousand euros per hour with an aircraft carrier? - Unless of course war is a good deal for some. Meanwhile, a child dies of hunger every five seconds and the number of poor is growing on our planet despite promises.

What is the difference between a Libyan, a Bahraini and a Palestinian? Presidents, ministers and generals solemnly swear that their objective is only to save the Libyans. But at the same time, the Sultan of Bahrain is massacring unarmed demonstrators with the help of the two thousand Saudi soldiers sent by the United States! Meanwhile, in Yemen, the troops of dictator Saleh, a U.S. ally, are killing 52 demonstrators with machine guns. These facts have been disputed by no one, but at the same time, the U.S. Minister of War, Robert Gates, has just declared: "I do not think it's my role to intervene in the internal affairs of Yemen" ^[2].

Why this "double standard”? - Because Saleh obediently hosts the US Fifth Fleet and says yes to everything Washington requires of him? Because the barbaric regime of Saudi Arabia is an accomplice of multinational oil companies? Are there "good dictators" and "bad dictators?? How can the U.S. and France claim to be humanitarian? When Israel killed two thousand civilians by bombing Gaza, did they establish a "no fly zone"? No. Did they impose any sanctions? None. Worse: Javier Solana, then in charge of Foreign Affairs of the EU said in Jerusalem: "Israel is a member of the European Union without being a member of its institutions. Israel is part of all the programs " of Research and Technology of Europe 27. Adding: "No country outside the continent has the kind of relationship that Israel enjoys with the European Union".

On this point, Solana told the truth - Europe and its arms manufacturers work closely with Israel for the production of drones, missiles and other weapons that cause death in Gaza. We should remember that Israel expelled seven hundred thousand Palestinians from their villages in 1948, still refuses them their rights and continues to commit multiple war crimes. Under the occupation, 20% of the current Palestinian population has visited or stayed in Israel's prisons. Pregnant women are forced to give birth tied to their beds and immediately returned to their cells with their babies! But these crimes are committed with the active complicity of the U.S. and the EU.

The life of a Palestinian or a Bahraini is not worth that of a Libyan “good Arabs” and “bad Arabs” ?

For those who still believe in the humanitarian war …

In a televised debate I had with Louis Michel, former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Commissioner for Development Cooperation, the latter swore – hand on heart – that this war was intended to “accord to the conscience of Europe” . He was supported by Isabelle Durant, Belgian leader of the Greens and European. Thus, “peace and love” environmentalists have mutated going to war

The problem is that every time we speak of humanitarian war, and every single time these “left” people like Durant get caught in it. Wouldn’t it be better for them to read what the U.S. leaders really think instead of just listening to them on television?

Listen for example, about the bombing against Iraq, to the famous Alan Greenspan, who was long director of the Federal Reserve of USA. He wrote in his memoirs : ‘I am saddened that it is politically incorrect to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war was mainly for oil “ ^[3] . Adding “Officials from the White House told me: ‘Well, unfortunately we can not talk about oil’.” ^[4]

Listen, about the bombing against Yugoslavia, to John Norris, director of Strobe Talbott who was then U.S. Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, in charge of the Balkans. Norris wrote in his memoirs : “What best explains NATO’s war is that Yugoslavia resisted the broad trends in political and economic reforms (meaning refusing to give up Socialism), and it is not our duty to the Kosovo Albanians.“ ^[5]

Listen, about the bombing against Afghanistan, what the former U.S. Minister of Foreign Affairs Henry Kissinger said : “There are trends, supported by China and Japan, to create a free trade area in Asia. An opposing Asian bloc combining the most populous nations in the world with great resources and some of the most important industrial countries would be inconsistent with American national interest. For these reasons, America must maintain a presence in Asia … “ ^[6]

This confirmed the strategy put forward by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was in charge of foreign policy under Carter and was the inspiration for Obama concerning “Eurasia (Europe + Asia) remains the chessboard on which the battle takes place for global primacy. (…) The way the United States ‘manage’ Eurasia is critical. The largest continent on the globe is also the geopolitical axis. Any power that controls it, thus controlling two of the three most developed and more productive regions. 75% of world population, the majority of natural wealth in the form of companies or deposits of raw materials, some 60% of the world.“ ^[7]

The left, learned nothing from the media lies of previous humanitarian wars?

When Obama says it himself, wouldn’t you believe him either? On 28 March, Obama justified the war against Libya thus: "Aware of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to resolve the many challenges facing the world. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. Given the costs and risks of the intervention, we must measure our interests whenever faced with the need for action. America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from defeating those who oppose him." Isn’t clear ? So, some say "Yes, yes, the U.S. acts as if they find their interest too. Failing to intervene everywhere, at least they will be saving these people. "?False. We will show that only interest will be protected. No values??. First, every U.S. war claimed more victims than there were before (in Iraq, one million direct and indirect victims !). Then, the intervention in Libya is preparing other victims too...

Who refused to negotiate? As soon as you express doubt about the purpose of this war against Libya you are made to feel guilty: "You refuse then to save the Libyans from a massacre?" - Badly posed question. Let’s suppose that everything we’ve been told really happened. First, should we stop a massacre by means of another massacre? We know that by bombing our armies will kill many innocent civilians. Even if, as in every war, the generals promise that it will be "clean"; we're used to this propaganda. Second, there was a much simpler and more effective way to save lives immediately. All Latin American countries have offered to immediately send a mediation mission headed by Lula. The Arab League and African Union supported this approach and Gaddafi had agreed (also offering to send international observers to verify the cease-fire). But the insurgents in Western Libya refused mediation. Why? "Because Gaddafi is not behaving in good faith," they say. Possible. Whereas, the insurgents and their Western protectors have always behaved in good faith - really? It is useful to recall how the United States behaved in all previous wars every time a cease-fire was possible ... In 1991, when Bush attacked Iraq because it invaded Kuwait, Saddam Hussein offered to withdraw and that Israel must also evacuate from the illegally occupied territories in Palestine. But the U.S. and European countries refused six negotiating proposals. ^[8] In 1999, when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, Milosevic accepted the conditions imposed in Rambouillet, but the U.S. and NATO have added one more condition, one that they KNOW to be unacceptable: the total occupation of Serbia. ^[9] In 2001, when Bush's son attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden to an international tribunal if they provided evidence of his involvement, but Bush refused to negotiate. In 2003, when Bush's son attacked Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein offered to receive inspectors, but Bush refused because he knew that the inspectors would find nothing. This was confirmed by the disclosure of the memo of a meeting between the British government and leaders of the British secret services in July 2002: British officials hoped their ultimatum was drafted in unacceptable terms so that Saddam Hussein would reject them immediately. But they were far from certain that this would work. So, there was a Plan B: the aircraft patrolling the "no fly zone" throwing many more bombs in the hope that this will cause a reaction that would give an excuse for a broad bombing campaign. ^[10] - (Also see WikiSpooks' Downing Street Memo pages)

So, before asserting that "we” always tell the truth while "they" always lie, and also that "we” are always looking for a peaceful solution, while "they" do not want to compromise, we should be more careful ... Sooner or later, the audience will learn what really happened during backroom negotiations, and will realize once again that it was manipulated. But it will be too late, and we will not raise the dead.

Libya is like Tunisia and Egypt ?

In his excellent interview published a few days ago by Investig'Action, Mohamed Hassan asked the right question: "Libya : popular revolt, civil war or military aggression?” In light of recent research, it is actually possible to answer all three. A spontaneous revolt, quickly recovered and transformed into a civil war (which had been prepared), served as a pretext for military aggression, which also had been prepared. Nothing falls from the sky in politics. Let me explain... In Tunisia and in Egypt, the popular revolt grew increasingly over a few weeks, organizing itself gradually and uniting on clear claims, which helped to expel the tyrants. But when analyzing the ultra-fast sequence of events in Benghazi, one is intrigued. February 15, demonstration by relatives of political prisoners during the rebellion of 2006. Event severely repressed, as has always been the case in Libya and other Arab countries. And just two days later, re-demonstration, but this time the demonstrators were armed and passed directly to escalation against the regime of Gaddafi. In two days, a popular revolt becomes a civil war! Quite spontaneously? To find out, we must examine what lies under the vague term "Libyan opposition". In our opinion, four components with very different interests:

1. A democratic opposition.
2. Dignitaries of Gaddafi "returned” by the West.
3. Libyan clans dissatisfied by the sharing of the wealth.
4. Fighters with Islamist inspiration.

Who made this "Libyan opposition" ?

In this tangle, it is important to know who are we dealing with. And most important, which faction was integrated in the strategies of the major powers?

Democratic Opposition. It is legitimate to have claims against the Gaddafi regime, a dictatorial and corrupt one like other Arab regimes. The people have the right to want to replace an authoritarian regime by a more democratic system. However, these claims are far less organized and without a specific program. Also abroad, there are Libyan revolutionary movements, also quite disparate, but all opposed to foreign interference. For various reasons that we will clarify later, It is not these democratic elements that will have much to say today under the banner of the USA and France,

Dignitaries "returned". In Benghazi, a "provisional government" was established and is led by Jalil Mustafa Abud. "This man was, until 21 February, Minister of Justice of Gaddafi. Two months earlier, Amnesty had placed him on the list of the most appalling responsible for violations of human rights in North Africa” ^[11]. It is this individual who, according to the Bulgarian authorities, had organized the torture of the Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor detained by the regime for a long time. Another "strong man" of this opposition is General Abdul Fatah Younis, former Minister of the interior of Gaddafi and former Chief of the political police.

Understandably, Massimo Introvigne, representing the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) for the fight against racism, xenophobia and discrimination, says that these characters "are not the 'sincere democrats' of Obama's speech, but among the worst instruments of the regime of Gaddafi, who aspire to drive out the Colonel to take his place." ^[12]

Unhappy Clans. As pointed out by Mohamed Hassan, the structure of Libya remained highly tribal. During the colonial period, under the regime of King Idris, the clans of the east dominated their oil wealth and advantage. After the 1969 revolution, Gadhafi has relied on the tribes of the west and east has been disadvantaged. It is regrettable, and a democratic government must ensure fairly fight discrimination between regions. One can also wonder whether the former colonial powers did not encourage dissatisfied tribes to undermine national unity. This is not the first time. Today, France and USA rely on the clans of the east to take control of the country. Divide and rule, the old classic of colonialism.

Elements of Al Qaeda. Cables released by Wikileaks warned that eastern Libya was proportionally the largest exporter in the world of "fighters - martyrs" in Iraq. Reports from the Pentagon described an "alarming scenario" on the Lybian rebels of Benghazi and Derna. Derna, a town of barely 80,000 inhabitants would be the first source of jihadists in Iraq. Similarly, Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief in Libya, reports among the rebels a lot of "Islamic extremists who can create problems" and that "odds [are] high that the most dangerous individuals can have an influence If Gaddafi is expected to fall." ^[13].

Obviously, all this was written when Gaddafi was still "a friend". But it shows the complete lack of principles of the US and its allies. When Gaddafi repressed the Islamist revolt in Benghazi in 2006, it was with the West's weapons and support that he did it. So, sometimes they’re against the “bin Laden” style fighters. And, some other times, they use them. One must know.

Among these various "opposition", which element will prevail? It may also be a goal of the military intervention of Washington, Paris and London to ensure that "good" prevails? Good from their point of view of course. Later, they’ll use the "Islamic threat" as the pretext to settle permanently. Anyway, one thing is certain: the Libyan scenario is different from the Tunisian or Egyptian scenarios. Over there, there were "united people against a tyrant”. Here, with part of the population supporting Qaddafi, we are in a civil war. And in this civil war, the role played by U.S. and French secret services is no longer so secret…

What was the role of secret services ? In fact, the Libyan case didn’t start in February in Benghazi, but in Paris October 21st, 2010. According to the revelations of Italian journalist Franco Bechis (Libero, 24th of March) it was that day that the French secret service had prepared the revolt of Benghazi. They then "returned" (or perhaps even before) Nuri Mesmari, Chief of Protocol of Gaddafi, who was almost his right hand against him. He was the only one who enters the residence of the Libyan leader without knocking. Coming to Paris with his family for a surgery, Mesmari didn’t meet any doctor there, but on the other side, he would talk to several officials of the French secret services and Sarkozy's close aides, according to the latest web Maghreb Confidential. On November 16th, at the Hotel Concorde Lafayette, he prepared a large delegation that would go two days later to Benghazi.

Officially, this delegation included officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and leaders of the following firms : France Export Céréales, Agrimer France, Louis Dreyfus, Glencore, Cargill and Conagra. But according to the Italian services, the delegation also included several French soldiers disguised as businessmen. In Benghazi, they would meet Gehan Abdallah, a Libyan colonel who was ready to desert, according to Mesmari. In mid-December, Gaddafi, suspicious, sent an emissary to Paris to try to contact Mesmari, but France arrested him. Other Libyans came visiting Paris on December 23rd, and it is they who will lead the revolt in Benghazi with the militia of Colonel Gehan. Especially as Mesmari provided many secrets to the French about the Libyan defense. From all this, it is clear that the revolt in the east is not as spontaneous as we’ve been told. But that's not all, It's not just the French ...

Who now runs the military operations of the "Libyan National Council" anti-Qaddafi? A man who just arrived from the USA on the 14th of March, according to Al Jazeera. Described as one of the two "stars" of the Libyan uprising by the right oriented British newspaper Daily Mail, Khalifa Haftar is a former colonel in the Libyan army, who was in the United States. He was among the main military commanders of Libya until the disastrous expedition in Chad in the late 80s. He emigrated after that to the USA and lived in Virginia for the last twenty year. Without any known source of income, but at a small distance from the offices of... the CIA. ^[14] The world is so small. How can a top Libyan military man enter the United States in peace, a few years after the Lockerbie terrorist attack, for which Libya has been condemned, and live peacefully for twenty years next to the CIA? He necessarily had to offer something in exchange. Published in 2001, the book “African Manipulations” by Pierre Péan retraces the connections of Hitler with the CIA and the creation, with the support of the latter, of the Libyan National Liberation Front. The only achievement of the said Front will be the organization in 2007, in the USA, of a "National Convention" funded by the National Endowment for Democracy ^[15], traditional intermediary of the CIA, often used to reward organizations who serve the United States ...?

In March this year to a date not disclosed, Obama signed a secret order authorizing the CIA to conduct operations in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi. The Wall Street Journal, which recounts this March 31, adds:

"The CIA officials acknowledge that they have been active in Libya for several weeks, like other Western services.”

All this is no longer top secret, it appeared since a while on the Internet, and what is surprising is that the mainstream media didn’t even mention it. However, we have already seen many examples of "freedom fighters" as well armed and financed by the CIA. For example, in the 80's, the terrorist militia contras, set up by Reagan to destabilize and overthrow Nicaragua's progressive government. Didn’t we learn anything from history? Doesn’t this "left" European who is applauding the bombing use the Internet ? Is it any wonder that the Italian services denounce the exploits of their French colleagues like this and that they then denounce their U.S. colleagues?

Only if one believes the stories about the friendship between "Western allies". We will talk about it...

Part Two

Multiple Goals

In this war against Libya, Washington is pursuing several objectives at the same time:

1. Taking control of oil.
2. Ensuring the safety of Israel.
3. Preventing the liberation of the Arab world.
4. Hindering the African unity.
5. Setting up N.A.T.O. as the watchdog of Africa.

It does involve many objectives. This was also the case for the wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and in Afghanistan. Indeed, such a war costs a lot and entails major risks for the image of the United States, especially when it does not win. If Obama triggers a war of this kind, it means he expects major advantages from it.

First goal : taking control of all oil reserves

Some say that this time, the war is not for oil, because apparently, the quantities of Libyan oil are minor in the global oil production and that anyway, Gaddafi was already selling his oil to Europeans. Yet they do not understand what the "world oil war" consists of.

With the worsening of the general crisis of capitalism, the world’s leading economic powers engage in fiercer and fiercer competition. The seats are precious in this musical chairs game. To secure a chair for their multinationals, each superpower must fight on all fronts : capturing markets and profitable labor force areas, getting big public and private contracts, securing commercial monopolies, controlling the states which will grant it favors. And first and foremost ensuring domination over coveted raw materials. Particularly, oil.

In 2000, as we analyzed the wars to come in our book entitled Monopoly, we wrote: "He who wants to rule the world, must take control of oil. All of it. Wherever it may be." If you are a superpower, securing your own oil supplies is not enough. You yearn for more oil, you want mileage out of it. Not only for the huge profits, but particularly as you ensure yourself a monopoly, you will be able to deprive your too inconvenient rivals of it, or subject them to your own conditions. You will hold the perfect weapon. Blackmail? Yes indeed.

Since 1945, the United States has been prepared to do anything to secure this monopoly on oil. For instance, a rival country such as Japan was dependent upon the USA for 95% of its supplying with energy. Enough to guarantee its obedience.

However, balances of power in international relations change, the world is turning multipolar and the United States faces the rise of China, Russia’s recovery, and the emergence of Brazil and of other southern countries. It becomes more and more difficult to maintain a monopoly position.

Libya’s oil represents only about 1% or 2% of global oil production. Fair enough! But it is of higher quality, easier to extract, it is thus a very profitable business. And above all, it is situated near Italy, France and Germany. It would be more expensive to import oil from the Middle-East, Black Africa, or Latin America. There is definitely a battle for Libya’s black gold. Especially for a country such as France, which embarked on a nuclear program that has become very hazardous.

In this context, we need to recall two facts:

1. Gaddafi wanted to increase Libya’s contribution to oil supply from 30% to 51%.
2. Last March, Gaddafi had complained that Libya’s oil production was at its lowest. He had threatened to replace Western firms which had left the country with Chinese, Russian, and Indian ones. A coincidence? - Really? - Every time an African country becomes interested in China, it gets itself into trouble.

Here is another clue: Ali Zeidan, the man who put out the figure of "six thousand civilian casualties" - who were supposedly the victims of Gaddafi’s bombings - is also the spokesman for N.T.C. (National Transitional Council), that opposition government which is recognized by France. Well, as such, Zeidan has declared that Libya will "honor the contracts that had been signed with oil companies", however the future government "will be grateful to the nations that helped us" ! Therefore, this is definitely another war for oil. Yet, Libya is not the sole target.

What are these rivalries between U.S.A, France and Germany for ?

If the war against Libya is just a humanitarian one, we do not understand why those who fight it argue with each other. Why Sarkozy rushed to be the first to bomb the country? Why was he vexed when N.A.T.O. offered to take command of all the operations in Libya? He argued : "NATO is unpopular in the Arab countries". This does not make sense. As if he was so popular there after providing Israel and Ben Ali with such protection !

Why were Germany and Italy so doubtful about the war? Why did Italian secretary Frattini first declare that "Libya’s sovereignty and territorial integrity have to be protected" and that "Europe should not export democracy in Libya". ^[16] Are they just mere diverging viewpoints regarding humanitarian effectiveness? I guess not, it is all about economic interests. As Europe is confronted with the crisis, rivalries are consequently growing stronger and stronger. Just a few months ago, European leaders came one after the other in Tripoli, embracing Gaddafi and pocketing big Libyan contracts. Those who had got them, would do very well not to overthrow him. Those who had not, would better do so. Which country was Libya’s top oil customer? Italy. Which was the second one? Germany. Now let us have a look at European superpowers’ investments and exportations. Which country got the most contracts in Libya? Italy. Which was the second one? Germany.

It was the German firm BASF which had become the main oil producing company in Libya, with its two billion euros of investment. It was the German firm DEA, a subsidiary company of water giant RWE, which got more than forty one thousand square kilometers of oil and gas fields. It was the German firm Siemens which was instrumental in the huge investments in the gigantic project entitled "Great Man Made River ": the biggest irrigation project in the world, a network of pipelines which draw water from the Nubian aquifers to the Sahara desert. More than 1,300 wells, which are often more than five hundred meters deep, and once all alterations have been completed, will supply 6.5 millions cubic meters of water everyday in Tripoli, Benghazi, Sirte and other cities. ^[17] 25 billion dollars that attracted the covetousness of some countries! Besides, with these petrodollars, Gaddafi had embarked on a very ambitious program to renew infrastructure, build schools and hospitals and industrialize the country.

Taking advantage of its economic strength, Germany formed special economic partnerships with Libya, Saudi Arabia and countries of the Arabian Gulf. It thus does not want to spoil its image in the Arab world. As far as Italy is concerned, we have to remember that it colonized Libya with incredible roughness, playing on divisions between western and eastern tribes. Today, with Berlusconi, Italian companies got some nice contracts. They have thus a lot at stake. On the other hand, France and Great Britain, which did not get the tastiest pieces of the cake, go on the offensive in order to revise the sharing of the cake. And the war in Libya is just an extension of the economic struggle by other means. The capitalist world is not so nice. Economic rivalry is transposed to the military field. In a period when Europe is in crisis and dominated by an ultra successful Germany (particularly thanks to its policy of low salaries), France breaks off its alliances and now turns towards Great Britain in order to restore the balance. Paris and London are greater military powers than Berlin, and try to play this card in order to make up for their weakness on the economic level.

Second goal : Ensuring the safety of Israel.

In the Middle-East, everything links up. As Noam Chomsky explained to us in an interview ^[18] : "From 1967 onwards, the government of the United States has considered Israel as a key investment. It was one of the community police stations in charge of the protection of the oil producing Arab dictatorships." Israel is the cop of the Middle-East.

However, Washington faces a new problem : because of the many crimes Israel committed (Lebanon, Gaza, the humanitarian flotilla), the latter becomes more and more isolated. Arab peoples demand the end of this colonialism. As a result, now the cop needs protection. Israel cannot survive without being surrounded by Arab dictatorships which could not care less about their peoples’ will to support the Palestinians. That is why Washington protected Mubarak and Ben Ali, and will do the same for the other dictators.

The United States is worried about "losing" Tunisia and Egypt in the years to come. It would indeed change the balance of power in the region. After the war against Iraq in 2003 - which also served as a warning and a means of intimidation directed at all the other Arab leaders - Gaddafi had felt the threat. As a consequence, he had multiplied concessions - which were sometimes excessive ones - to the Western powers and their neoliberalism. It had weakened him at the internal level of social revolts.

When you give in to the IMF, you do harm to your people. But if tomorrow Tunisia and Egypt become leftists, Gaddafi will undoubtedly be able to reconsider these concessions. A resistance axis between Cairo-Tripoli-Tunis, standing up to the United States and determined to make Israel give in would be a nightmare for Washington. Overthrowing Gaddafi is thus prevention.

Third goal : preventing the liberation of the Arab world.

Nowadays, who rules over the whole Arab world, over its economy, its resources, and its oil? We know it is not the Arab peoples. It is not the dictators in power either. They certainly are in the forefront but the true rulers are behind the scenes.

American and European multinational companies are the ones which decide what those countries will produce or not, determine salary scales, whom will make the most of oil revenues and which ruler will be imposed there. Those multinationals are the ones which make their shareholders grow richer at the Arab peoples’ expense.

Imposing tyrants in the whole Arab world leads to serious consequences : only multinational companies benefit from oil and other natural resources, they are not used to diversify the local economy and create jobs. Moreover, multinational companies impose low salaries on the tourist industry, on the small industries and on the subcontracting services.

As a result, these economies remain dependent, unbalanced and do not fulfill peoples’ needs. In the years to come, unemployment will increase, for 35% of the Arabs are under the age of 15. Dictators are multinationals’ employees, in charge of securing their profits and crushing protest movements. Their role is to hinder social Justice.

Three hundred million Arabs spread over twenty countries, yet rightly seeing themselves as a single nation, face a decisive choice : either accepting the maintenance of colonialism or becoming independent by taking a new path ? All around, the world is changing fast : China, Brazil and other countries are liberating themselves politically, so much so that their economy is making progress. Will the Arab world remain behind ? Will the subordination to the United States and Europe remain, a weapon that is used against the other nations in this great global economic and political battle ? Or will the hour of liberation eventually strike ?

This possibility terrorizes strategists in Washington. If the Arab world and oil slip out of their hands, that is the end of their domination over the world. Because the United States, a superpower which is in economic and political decline, is more and more questioned : by Germany, Russia, Latin America, and China. Moreover, a lot of southern countries long to develop South-South relations, which are more profitable than the subordination to the United States. The latter is finding it more and more difficult to maintain itself as the greatest global power, capable of plundering whole nations and waging war wherever it pleases. Let’s say it again : If tomorrow the Arab world unites and frees itself, if the United States loses the oil weapon, it will simply become a second-rate power within a multipolar world. However, it will be a big step forward for humanity. International relations will usher in a new course and peoples of the South will eventually be able to decide their own fate and be done with poverty.

Those for whom democracy is a threat

Former colonial or neocolonial powers swear that they have changed. After having financed, armed, advised and protected Ben Ali, now the United States, France and other countries are flooding us with moving statements. For instance, Hillary Clinton said: "We support Arab peoples’ desire for democracy".

This is an utter lie. Certainly the United States and its allies certainly do not want democracy in the Arab world, nor does they want the Arabs to be able to decide on their oil or on any other wealth of theirs. So they did whatever they could to slow down the democracy process and keep the former leaders in power. And, when this plan fails, they impose their own chosen leaders whose task will be to crush peoples’ resistance. For instance, the Egyptian government has recently took tough anti-strike actions.

Justifying the war against Libya with the idea that after the events that happened in Tunisia and Egypt, Washington and Paris supposedly have "understood" and want to ease their conscience or at least restore their reputation, is thus just a big lie. Actually, the western policy with regard to the Arab world forms a whole that applies under three various forms:

1. Keeping repressive dictatorships in power.
2. Replacing Ben Ali and Mubarak with pawns under the control of the West.
3. Overthrowing the regimes in Tripoli, Damascus and Tehran in order to colonize again those "lost" countries.

Three approaches to achieve a unique goal : keeping the Arab world under western domination to continue exploiting it.

Democracy becomes a threat when only the interests of a tiny social minority are represented. What frightens the United States, is the fact that social discontent practically broke out in all the dictatorships in the Arab world. In Iraq - the Western media did not mention it by the way - many strikes broke up in several industries. Among them : the oil, textile and electricity supply industries, and other ones. In Kut, U.S. troops even surrounded a textile plant on strike. People demonstrated in sixteen of the eighteen provinces, irrespective of which community they belong to, against the corrupt government which abandons its people in poverty. In Bahrain, under the people’s pressure, the king finally promised a financial aid to the value of $2,650 for every family. In Oman, sultan Qaboos bin Said replaced half of the government members and increased the minimum salary by 40%, and ordered that fifty thousand jobs be created. Even Saudi king Fahd released thirty six million dollars to help low and medium income families!

Obviously one question immediately arises to all the simple people : but if they had all that money, why were they hiding it in their coffers? The following question be : how many other billions have they stolen from their peoples in complicity with the United States? And the last one: how can we put an end to this theft?

"Facebook revolutions", a huge American plot or real revolutions?

A misinterpretation spread on the internet : revolutions in the Arab world would have been triggered and manipulated by the United States. It would have pulled the strings in order to carry out well-controlled changes and be able to attack Libya, Syria and Iran. Everything would have been "made-up". The argument which supports this being : more or less official organizations had invited to the U.S.A. and formed Arab "cyber activists" who were instrumental in the spreading of the news and who symbolized a brand new type of revolution, the "Facebook revolution".

The argument of the huge plot does not hold together. Actually, the United States did everything they could to keep Mubarak - a very useful dictator - in power as long as possible. However, it knew that he was suffering from poor health and "finished". Of course it always draws up a plan b, and even a plan c. Plan b consisted in replacing Mubarak with one of his deputies. But, given the deep anger of the Egyptian people, there was little chance that it would work.

So, it had also prepared one, even several plan c’ s, as it does by the way for basically every country it wants to control. What does it consist of ? It bribes beforehand a few rebels and intellectuals - with them realizing it or not - and thus "invest" in the future. When the time comes, they are brought into the forefront. How long this will work is another issue, so long as people are mobilized and that a government, be it a face-lifted one, cannot resolve the demands of the people, if its objective is to keep these people in a state of exploitation.

Talking about the Arab revolution movement as being a "Facebook revolution" is a myth that is convenient for the U.S.A. We have pointed since a long time the crucial importance of new means of information and mobilization on the internet, however it would be absurd to think that Facebook would replace social struggles and revolutions. This idea is convenient for big capitalists - whose representative was Mubarak - but in fact, what they fear most, is a workers’ opposition movement, because it directly endangers their source of profit.

The workers’ role

Facebook is a means of struggle, not the essence of revolution. Presenting things in this way is a means to hide the role of the laboring class - in a broad sense - which would be replaced with internet. Actually, a revolution is an act through which those at the bottom dismiss those at the top, through a radical change not only of the members of the government but particularly of social exploitation relations.

Oops!! According to our official great thinkers, we cannot use the phrase "class struggle" any longer; it is supposedly out of date and even improper. Too bad for you, stockbroker Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, said some time ago : "There is class warfare in the US all right, but it is my class, the rich class that is making war, and we are winning." ^[19] Well, Mr. Buffet, you should never swear to it before the end of the show ! He who laughs last…

But the events in Tunisia and Egypt strengthen the idea of "class struggle", in agreement with Mr. Buffet... When did Ben Ali pack up his bags and leave? On January 14, when Tunisian workers were involved in a general strike. When did Mubarak leave the throne? When a great strike of Egyptian workers halted textile firms, post offices, and even official media. Joel Beinin, professor in Stanford university and former head of the American university in Cairo, explains to us: "These last ten years, a big wave of social revolts had touched more than two million workers who participated in more than three thousand strikes, sit-ins, and other forms of protest. This was the background of the revolutionary uprising of the last few weeks…However, these past few days we saw dozens of thousands of workers link their economic demands to the demand that Mubarak’ s regime be abolished… " ^[20]

The Arab revolution has just begun. After the first victories of the people, the ruling class, which is still in power, tries to appease the people by making tiny concessions. Obama wanted the people to calm down as quickly as possible, and everything to go back to square one. It can work for a while, but the Arab revolution is under way. It may take years, but it will be difficult to stop.

Fourth goal : hindering the African unity

The richest continent on Earth, with a profusion of natural resources, Africa is also the poorest one. 57% of the population live below the poverty line, that is with less than $1,25 per day.

The key to this mystery? Multinationals do not actually pay for these raw materials, they steal them. In Africa, they plunder resources, impose low salaries, unfavorable agreements and detrimental privatizations, blackmail and put any form of pressure to the weak states and cripple them with an unjust Debt, put subservient dictators in power, trigger civil wars in the coveted regions.

Africa is strategically important for multinationals, because their prosperity depends on the plundering of these resources. If gold, copper, platinum, coltan, phosphate, diamonds and agricultural produce were paid a fair price, multinationals would be much less rich and the local populations would be done with poverty. For American and European multinationals, it is absolutely vital to prevent Africa from uniting and being free. It must remain dependent. Here is a well stated example showed by Jean-Paul Pougala, an African author.

The story begins in 1992, when forty five African countries created RASCOM in order to have an African satellite and drop the call costs on the continent. The calling rate from and to Africa was then the highest one in the world, because each year Europe collected a five hundred million dollars tax on phone conversations, even on those within the same African country, for voice transit on European satellites such as Intelsat.

An African satellite cost only 400 million dollars payable for in one go, so there would be no need to pay 500 million dollars per year anymore. Would any banker not finance such a project? The most difficult equation to solve was how can a slave free himself from the servile exploitation by his master if he is asking for the latter’s help in order to achieve this goal? So, the World Bank, the IMF, the U.S.A., and the European Union needlessly dangled these countries for fourteen years. In 2006, Gaddafi had put an end to the needless begging from so-called Western benefactors who practice usurious loans; so the Libyan guide put 300 million dollars on the table. The African Development Bank offered 50 millions, and the West African Development Bank gave 27 millions. As a result of this, for the first time in its history, Africa has had its very first communication satellite since 26 December 2007. China and Russia followed suit, this time selling their technology and so new satellites were launched: a South African one, a Nigerian one, an Angolan one, an Algerian one, and even a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. And now, we are expecting in 2020 the very first satellite 100% technologically African and built on the African soil, particularly in Algeria. This satellite has been made to compete with the best ones in the world, but costing ten times less, a real challenge.

This is how a simple token gesture of a measly 300 million dollars can change the life of a whole continent. Gaddafi’s Libya made the West lose not only 500 million dollars per year but also billions of dollars of debts and interests that the debt itself could generate indefinitely and exponentially, thus contributing to the maintaining of the secret system whose goal is to despoil Africa…It is Gaddafi’s Libya which offers Africa its first true modern-day revolution, providing universal coverage of the whole continent for telephony, television, broadcasting and many other uses such as telemedicine and distance learning. for the first time, a low-cost connection becomes available on the whole continent, even in rural areas thanks to the radio bridge system called WMAX." ^[1]

Well, here is something we have not been told about nasty Gaddafi ! That he was helping African people to free themselves from the stifling tutelage of the West. Might there still be other secrets of this kind that remain unmentioned ?

Gaddafi challenged the I.M.F. and Obama plays the pickpocket

Yes he did. By supporting the development of the "African Monetary Fund" (AMF), Gaddafi committed the crime of challenging the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We know that the FMI, which is controlled by the United States and Europe and whose president is Dominique Strauss-Kahn, purely and simply blackmails the developing countries. It lends them only if those countries accept to get rid of their companies in favor of multinationals, place unprofitable orders, or cut their budgets on health and education. In short, the IMF is very harmful. Well, just as the Latinos launched their "Banco Sur" in order to counter the IMF and its arrogant blackmail and decide on the financing of projects that are truly beneficial for them, now the AMF might start offering a freer path for the Africans. Which are the countries that finance the AMF? Algeria gave 16 billion, and Libya gave 10 billion. Together they supplied 62% of its capital.

But, Obama just robbed the Libyans of thirty billion, an act that went unnoticed to the media. How did that happen? On March 1, - long before the U.N. resolution was passed - he ordered the U.S. Department of the Treasury to freeze Libyan deposits to the U.S.A. Then, on March 17, he managed to insert into the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 a little sentence which would allow the freeze of the deposits of the Libyan central bank but also of the Libyan National Oil Corporation. We know Gaddafi amassed riches that allowed him to invest in big European companies, in big development plans in Africa - and maybe in some European election campaigns too, but this does not seem to constitute any efficient form of life assurance! -… In brief, Libya is quite rich (with its cash reserves of 200 billion dollars) and it attracted the covetousness of one superpower which is heavily in debt - the United States. So, to embezzle the dozens of billions of dollars of the Libyan national bank, in other words to go through the pockets of the Libyan people, Obama simply called all this a "potential financing source for Gaddafi’s regime." and there you have it! A real pickpocket.

However hard he tried to coax the West by multiplying concessions to neoliberalism, Gaddafi still worried the leaders of the United States. The American embassy in Tripoli deplored the resistance movements in a wire dating back to November 2007: "Those who run Libya politically and economically are more and more pursuing nationalist policies as regards power industry." Does anybody refusing privatization all over the place deserve bombings? War is definitely the continuation of economy by different means.

Fifth goal : Settling NATO as the watchdog of Africa.

At first, NATO was supposed to protect Europe from the "Soviet military threat". So, once the USSR collapsed, NATO should have disappeared too. But the very opposite that happened…

After having bombed Bosnia in 1995, Javier Solana, NATO's general secretary, said : "The experience acquired in Bosnia may act as a model for NATO’s operations in the future." At that time, I wrote : "Actually, NATO is asking for a limitless sphere of action. Yugoslavia was the testing ground for the preparation of the next wars. Where will they take place?" ^[21] Then I suggested this answer: "First axis - Eastern Europe. Second axis - The Mediterranean and the Middle East. Third axis - The third world in general." Here we are, this very program is happening now.

As soon as 1999, NATO bombed Yugoslavia. A war to subject the country to neoliberalism, as we saw it. As I was studying the comments of American strategists, I pointed out a sentence from one of them, whose name is Stephen Blank : "NATO’s operations will increasingly take place ‘out of area’. Its main function would consist of being the vehicle for the integration of a steadily increasing number of regions into the western economic, security, political, cultural community." ^[22]

Subjecting an ever more increasing number of regions to the West! Then I wrote: "NATO is an army which serves globalization, it is the multinationals’ army. Step by step, NATO is definitely turning into a watchdog of the world." ^[23] And I named the countries that would probably be the next targets of NATO forces : Afghanistan, the Caucasus, and a return to Iraq… just to begin with.

Now that all of this really did happen, some people are asking me : "Did you have a crystal ball?".

There is no need to have a crystal ball, you only have to analyze the documents - which are not even classified - from the Pentagon and from the big offices where plans of action are elaborated and understand their logic.

In fact, this logic of Empire is very simple:

1. The world is a source of profits.
2. If you want to win an economic war, you have to be the leading superpower.
3. And for that, you have to control raw materials and also be in control of the strategic regions and routes.
4. Any opposition to that control must be crushed - through corruption, blackmail, or war, whatever.
5. In order to remain the leading superpower, it is absolutely necessary to prevent the rivals from allying themselves against the master.

NATO expansion : already into three continents

In order to defend its economic interests and become the watchdog of the world, NATO leaders spread panic: "Our sophisticated, industrialized, and complex world had been assailed with a good many of fatal threats : climate change, drought, famine, cyber safety, and energy issues." ^[24] non military matters, but social and environmental ones are used as excuses for increasing armament and military interventions.

Actually, NATO’s goal is to substitute itself for the U.N. With the militarization of the world, our future becomes increasingly dangerous. And of course this has a terrible cost. The United States allow, for the year 2011, a record military budget of 708 billion dollars. That is to say 2,320 dollars per inhabitant! That is twice as much as Bush during the first days of his mandate. Moreover, U.S. secretary of Defense Robert Gates constantly urges Europeans to spend more: "The demilitarization of Europe is an obstacle to security and to a lasting peace in the 21st century." ^[25] European countries had to promise Washington not to decrease their military spending. It is a great deal for arms factories. The world-wide expansion of NATO has nothing to do with Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein or Milosevic. It has to do with a global strategy to maintain the domination on the planet and its resources, maintain the profits of the multinationals, and prevent peoples to choose their own path. NATO protected Ben Ali, Mubarak and the tyrants in Saudi Arabia, it will protect those who will succeed them, and it will only crush those who oppose the Empire.

In order to become the watchdog of the world, NATO is indeed moving forward step by step. A war in Europe against Yugoslavia, a war in Asia against Afghanistan, and now a war in Africa against Libya. That comes to three continents by now ! It had been tempted to intervene in Latin America too, by organizing operations against Venezuela two years ago. But then it was too risky, because Latin America is more and more united and refuses U.S.A.’s "watchdogs."

Why does Washington absolutely want to settle NATO as the watchdog of Africa? Because of the new balance of power in international relations that we studied earlier - the decline of the United States, which is being questioned by Germany, Russia, Latin America, China, and even by small and medium Third World countries.

Why don’t we talk about Africom?

What worries Washington the most is China’s growing power. Proposing more egalitarian relations with Asian, African and Latin-American countries, buying raw materials at better prices and without using colonial blackmail, proposing more attractive loans, and achieving infrastructure projects useful for development, China offers an alternative to the subordination to Washington, London or Paris. So what can be done to block China’s rise ?

The trouble is that a power in economic decline has less means of applying financial pressure, even on African countries, the United States thus decided to play its best card - the military card. We have to bear in mind that its "defense" expenditure is higher than those of all the other countries in the world put together. For many years, it has been moving forward its pawns on the African continent. On October 1, 2008, the USA set up AFRICOM (Africa command). All of Africa (except Egypt) was placed under the unified command of the US, including the US Army, the US Navy, the US Air Force, the US Marine Corps Forces and the US Special Operation Command (landings, coups, clandestine operations…). The aim being to repeat the same process with NATO in order to support the US forces. Washington, which sees terrorists everywhere, found some in Africa too. And they just happened to be around Nigerian oil and other coveted natural resources. So, if you want to know where the next episodes of the famous "war on terror" will take place, just look for oil, uranium and coltan on the map, that’s all.

Besides, as Islam is spread among many of those countries, including Nigeria, now you already know the next scenario for intervention. The true objective of Africom is "stabilizing" Africa’s subordination to the US to prevent Africa from liberating itself and becoming a dependent force that might ally itself with China and Latin America. Africom is an essential weapon in the United States’ project of global domination. The US wants to be able to lean on Africa and its natural resources which would be under its exclusive control in this great battle to be in control of Asia and its sea routes. Indeed, the decisive economic battle of the 21st century is already taking place in Asia. But it is a big job, with opponents such as a very strong China and a group of emerging economies that would be well advised to join forces. So Washington wants to be in control of all of Africa and close the door on China.

The war against Libya is thus a first step to impose Africom on the whole African continent. It ushers in an era of new wars, not an era of pacification. In Africa, in the Middle-East, but also all round the Indian Ocean, between Africa and China.

Why the Indian Ocean? Because if you look at a map, you can see it is the gate to China and the whole of Asia. So, in order to be in control of this ocean, Washington tries to subject several strategic regions:

1. The Middle-East and the Persian Gulf, hence its tension towards countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, and Iran.
2. The horn of Africa, hence its aggressiveness towards Somalia and Eritrea. We will come back on these geostrategies in our forthcoming book entitled Understanding the Muslim world - interviews with Mohamed Hassan.

Gaddafi’s big crime

Let us go back to Libya. Within the context of the battle to control the dark continent, North Africa is a major objective. By developing about ten army bases in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, as well as in other countries in Africa, Washington would lead the way for itself to establish a complete network of army bases over the whole continent.

But Africom met with strong opposition from African countries. In a highly symbolical way, none of them was willing to host Africom’s headquarters. So Washington had to headquarter it in…Stuttgart in Germany, which is very humiliating. From this viewpoint, the war to overthrow Gaddafi is basically a very clear warning to the leaders in Africa, who might be tempted to follow a too independent path. Here is Gaddafi’s big crime:

Libya had accepted to be linked neither with Africom nor with NATO. The United States used to have an important army base in Libya. But Gaddafi shut it in 1969. Obviously, the aim of this current war is particularly to reoccupy Libya. It would be a strategic outpost to intervene militarily in Egypt if the latter escapes from the control of the U.S.

Which countries in Africa are going to be the next targets?

So, the next question is: "after Libya, who is next?" Which other African countries might be attacked by the United States? This is simple. If Yugoslavia had also been attacked because it refused to join NATO, one only has to check the list of countries which refused to join Africom, under U.S. military command. There are five of them: Libya, Sudan, the Cote d’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea. These are the next targets.

Sudan has been divided and put under the pressure of international sanctions. Zimbabwe is also under international sanctions. The Cote d’Ivoire has been imposed a civil war fomented by the West. Eritrea has been imposed a terrible war by Ethiopia - an instrument of the U.S. in that region - and it is also under sanctions.

All these countries were or will be the subject of propaganda or disinformation campaigns. It does not matter either they are ruled by virtuous and democratic leaders or not. Eritrea is trying an autonomous social and economic development experience, refusing the "financial assistance" that the World Bank and the IMF, which are under the control of Washington, wish to impose on it. This small country is achieving the first successes in its development, but it is under international threat. If other countries "go bad", the United States will also have its eye on them. Especially Algeria. In fact, following one’s chosen path is quite risky.

And for those who still think that all this is just a conspiracy theory, that the USA does not plan so much wars but improvises in reaction to current events, here is what ex-general Wesley Clark declared (supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe between 1997 and 2001, who supervised the bombings in Yugoslavia):

In 2001, in the Pentagon, a general told me : ‘I just received a classified memo from the Secretary of Defense : we will take seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and finally, Iran.’ ^[26]

There is a difference between dreams and reality, but the plans are already in place. They are just delayed.

Part Three

To unlock this debate, the information battle is key. And this battle can be fought by us all, wherever he is, according to people we meet, listening to what influences them, verifying information with them, patiently … To effectively conduct this debate, it is very important to study the experience of misinformation in previous wars.

The 5 principles of war propaganda applied to Libya

This experience, we have summarized in the “five principles of war propaganda”, as outlined in our book Israel, talk about In every war, the media wants to convince us that our governments are well and why they apply these five principles:

1. Obscure economic interests.
2. Invert the victim and the aggressor.
3. Hide history.
4. Demonize.
5. Monopolize the news.

These five principles were applied again against Libya - see above. Finally, draw attention to the fourth - the demonization of the opponent. Going-to-war must still persuade the public that they are not acting to obtain economic or strategic advantage, but to eliminate a serious threat. In every war for decades the opposing ruler was always presented as cruel, immoral and dangerous, with the worst atrocity stories. Afterwards, many of these stories – and sometimes all – were deflated and found to be downright false, but regardless, they had served their purpose - to manipulate the emotions of the public to prevent analysis of the interests really at stake .

We did not have the means to go to Libya. By contrast, we were in Yugoslavia, under the NATO bombings, and we found, and proved that NATO had systematically lied. #^[27] We have seen the same in Iraq. As for Libya, it looks great, but so far we have not had the means to properly test the media information presented. The Investig’Action team still lacks the necessary resources. But several commentators have already identified strong indications of misinformation. For example, “six thousand dead were victims of the bombing of Qadhafi on civilians” . Where are the pictures? Were there no cameras, no cell phone there as there were in Gaza, Tahrir Square, in Tunis or in Bahrain? No reliable evidence, denials by Russian satellites or observers of the EU, yet the news has looped endlessly and no one dares to contradict it for fear of being accused of “complicity”.

A civil war is never lace, but this is true on both sides. Partial information will always try to make us believe that atrocities were committed on one side and that we therefore need to support each other. But we must be very careful about such stories.

Who informs us

What you should be able to show us around is that the demonization does not fall from the sky. It is broadcast by the media that take advantage, without saying so. And it’s still always the first question to ask in a war: What is the story of the other side ?

Why in Europe and the United States are the media so thoroughly against Gadhafi? And why in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Russia, does it instead describe a new imperialist crusade? Are they all wrong? Westerners always know everything better? Or is something else going on? So, should we blindly follow our media or test it's stories?

We were thoroughly watered on the negative sides of Gaddafi. But we pointed out the positive aspects. We talked about his support for African development projects. We said we knew that Libya, according to the UN has the highest “Human Development Index” (HDI) throughout Africa, ahead of the darlings of the West such as Egypt or Tunisia; Life expectancy is 74 years; Illiteracy reduced to just 5%; an education budget of 2.7% of GDP and that of Defence just 1.1%.

Distinguish two different issues

There are a lot of intimidation in the intellectual debate on Libya. If you denounce the war against Libya, they accuse you of supporting anything done by Gaddafi. Not at all. There are two very different problems.

On the one hand, the Libyans have every right to choose their leaders, and change through whatever means they deem necessary. The Libyans! Not Obama or Sarkozy or Cameron. While sorting through the charges against Gaddafi, between what is really established and what is propaganda, a reasonable person may well wish that the Libyans have a better leader.

On the other hand, when Libya is under attack because hackers want to get its hands on its oil, its reserves and its strategic position, then it must be said that the Libyan people will suffer even more under the power of the pirates and their puppets. Libya loses its oil, its companies, the reserves of its national bank, social services and dignity. Neoliberalism applying its sales revenues have plunged many people into poverty.

But a good leader never emerges from the suitcases bombs of invaders. What the US has brought to Iraq is Al-Maliki and a small group of corrupt officials who sold their country to the multinationals. In Iraq there is still no democracy, but they also lost their oil, electricity, water, schools and everything that gives life a little dignity. What has the United States provided in Afghanistan? Karzai is one that reigns over nothing but a district of Kabul, while US bombs hit villagers, wedding parties, schools - whilst the drugs trade has never been so good.

Leaders who are imposed on Libya by Western bombs would be worse than Gaddafi. So, we must support the legal government of Libya when he resists what is really a neocolonial aggression. Because all solutions prepared by Washington and its allies are bad; whether the overthrow or assassination of Gaddafi, or either splitting the country into two or “Somaliazation”, ie a low intensity civil war of long duration. All these solutions will bring suffering to the people.

The only solution in the interest of the Libyans is negotiating with international mediators who are not party to the conflict, as Lula. A good agreement implies respect for Libyan sovereignty, maintaining the unity of the country, preparing for democratic reforms and an end to regional discrimination.

Enforcing the law is the opposite of “right of interference”

We are told that the United States today are much more respectful of international law at the time of the cowboy Bush, and that this time there was a UN resolution. This is not the place to discuss whether the UN really represents the democratic will of the people or if the votes of many states are the subject of buying and pressures. But we will simply note that the resolution 1973 violates international law and, first of all, the Magna Carta … the UN itself.

Indeed, Article 2 § 7 states:

“ Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially the domestic jurisdiction of any State. “

Suppressing an armed insurrection is the responsibility of a State even if one can regret the consequences. Anyway, if bombing armed rebels is REALLY considered an intolerable crime, then there is an urgent need to judge Bush and Obama for what they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Similarly, UN Charter Article 39 limits the cases where the constraint member is authorized: “The threat against the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression” (against another country). Libya did not match any of these three cases, and this war is therefore also illegal. A note, just for laughs, even the NATO treaty states as Article 1: “The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle by peaceful means all international disputes in which they may be involved".

We present this “right of humanitarian intervention” as a novelty and a great step forward. In reality, the right of interference has been practiced for centuries by colonial powers against countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. By the strong against the weak. And it is precisely to stop this gunboat diplomacy that new rules of international law were enacted in 1945. The United Nations Charter specifically prohibits a strong country invading weak countries and the principle of state sovereignty is progress in history. To cancel this 1945 progress and return to the "right of intervention" is to revert to colonial times.

So for us to approve a we now have to play a chord: the right of intervention is be needed to save people in danger. Such excuses were also used in earlier times by France, Great Britain or Belgium in colonial times. And all the imperial wars of the United States have all been made with this kind of justification.

With the United States and its allies in policing the world, the right of interference obviously always belongs to the strong against the weak, and never the reverse. Does Iran have the right to intervene to save the Palestinians - or Venezuela the right to intervene to end the bloody coup in Honduras? - or Russia the right to intervene to protect Bahrainis ???

In reality, the war against Libya is a precedent that paves the way for armed intervention of the United States or its allies in any Arab , African or Latin American country. Today, we will kill thousands of Libyan civilians “to protect them,” and tomorrow we will kill Syrian or Iranian or Venezuelan or Eritrean civilians “to protect them”, while the Palestinians and all other victims of ‘the Strong’ continue to suffer dictatorship and massacre. …

Showing that Western intervention violates the law and brings us back to colonial times is a theme central to the debate.

What to do

The United States has called the war against Libya “Odyssey Dawn". Their code names always contain a message to our unconscious. The Odyssey, in classic ancient Greek literature, recounts the twenty year journey undertaken by Ulysses across the universe. In half-words, we are told here that Libya is the first act of the long journey from the United States to (re) conquer Africa.

They thus attempt to halt their decline. But ultimately, this will be in vain, the US will inevitably lose their throne. Because this decline is not due to chance or special circumstances, it is due to their very mode of operation. In 1865, the famous theorist of liberal capitalism, Adam Smith supported US President Abraham Lincoln in abolishing slavery “The economy of any country that practices slavery of blacks is in the process of initiating a descent into hell that will be tough the day when other nations will wake up. “

But in fact the U.S. has replaced domestic Black slavery with another. In the twentieth century, they built their prosperity on domination and pillage of entire countries, they lived like parasites and they have thereby weakened their internal economic capacities. Mankind has an interest in this system being permanently terminated. Even in the population of the United States there is interest. It's factories are closed, it's jobs destroyed, houses are confiscated - all to pay the bonuses of bankers and war spending. Europe’s population also has an interest in an economy which serves its people rather than multinational corporations and their wars.

We’re at a turning point, what “Dawn” will we choose? That announced by the United States, and which will lead to twenty or thirty years of incessant warfare on all continents? Or a true dawn - another system of international relations, where no one will impose its interests by force and where each people chooses its path freely?

As in every war of the last twenty years, there is much confusion in the European left. It manifests as pseudo-humanitarian discourse relayed by the media because blind people forget to listen to another version, to study previous wars, to test the information they are being fed.

Our site Investig’Action – michelcollon.info strives to help everyone learn to inform and discuss. But our means are too limited compared to mainstream media. We therefore call all those who can to Join our network of volunteer researchers to develop analysis strategies of the United States and other major powers, the analysis of economic and political relations as well as wars in preparation.

A world without war, it depends on all of us.

References

1. ^ 
2. ^  Sunday Times , Sept. 16, 2007.
3. ^  Washington Post , Sept. 17, 2007.
4. ^  Collision Course , Praeger, 2005, p.xiii.
5. ^  Does America Need a Foreign Policy ?, Simon and Schuster, 2001 111.
6. ^  The Grand Chessboard , Paris 1997, p. 59-61.
7. ^  Michel Collon, Attention Media Brussels, 1992 92.
8. ^  Michel Collon, Monopoly – NATO to conquer the world, Brussels 2000, page 38.
9. ^  Michael Smith, The real information memos to Downing Street, Los Angeles Times , June 23, 2005.
10. ^ 
11. ^  McClatchy Newspapers (USA), March 27.
12. ^  Eva Golinger, Code Chavez, CIA against Venezuela, Liege , 2006
13. ^  Marianna Lepore, The war in Libya and Italian interests, inaltreparole.net, 22 février.
14. {{note|14} Ron Fraser, Libya accelerates German-Arabian peninsula alliance, Trumpet.com, 21 mars
15. ^  Michel Collon, Israël, parlons-en !, Bruxelles 2010, p. 172.
16. ^  New York Times Magazine, novembre 2006.
17. ^  Interview radio Democracy now, 10 février.
18. ^  J-P Pougalas, Les mensonges de la guerre contre la Libye, palestine-solidarite.org, 31 mars
19. ^  Michel Collon, Poker menteur, Bruxelles, 1998, p 160-168.
20. ^  Nato after enlargement, US Army War College, 1998, p. 97.
21. ^  Michel Collon, Monopoly – L’Otan à la conquête du monde, Bruxelles 2000, pp. 90 et 102).
22. ^  Assemblée commune Otan – Lloyd’s à Londres, 1er octobre 2009.
23. ^  Nato Strategic Concept seminar, Washington, 23 février 2010.
24. ^  Interview radio Democracy Now, 2 mars 2007
25. ^  Kosovo, NATO and the media, debate between Michel Collon, Jamie Shea (NATO Spokesman) and Olivier Corten (Professor of International Law), June 23, 2000, DVD Investig’Action.