Document:The Destabilization of Africa
| Global power block machinations over the mineral wealth of Africa |
article by Carla Stea dated 1 January 2014Subjects: The Grand Chessboard, Africa/Mineral wealth, South Sudan
Source: Global Research (Link)
Wikispooks Comment
A clear exposition of the devastating effects of global power-block rivalry over the mineral wealth - especially oil - of Africa. It uses the UN Security Council debate over atrocities in South Sudan on 24 December 2014 as a a compelling illustration of its title.
Author's Note
On 24 December 2013, the United Nations Security Council voted to increase peacekeeping forces in South Sudan, whose independence from the North (Republic of the Sudan) US-NATO powers celebrated only recently. Democratic elections in South Sudan did not, however, lead to peace and stability. Now, two ethnic groups, in South Sudan, the Dinka and Nuer are slaughtering each other. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated:
“We have reports of horrific attacks. Innocent civilians are being targeted because of their ethnicity. This is a grave violation of human rights, which could fuel a spiral of civil unrest across the country.”
★ Join the Discussion about this document
The Destabilisation of Africa. A Machiavellian Intrigue of Colossal Proportions
South Sudan, which contains vast oil reserves, borders Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spread of its crisis would further destabilise a significant part of Africa. Clearly, Western-style “democratic elections,” the panacea touted by Western agencies such as National Endowment for Democracy, and related Western NGOs, have not only failed to provide stability and enhanced standards of living for many countries where they have been implemented (or imposed, militarily by US-NATO intervention, such as in Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan), but are beginning to appear to be the precursor of ethnic and social violence and disintegration in many notable instances in Africa, and not only in Africa.
On 20 September 2013, at the opulent Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya endured a deadly terrorist attack that slaughtered more than 40 people, including several Europeans. The Al Qaeda affiliated al-Shabab, the Islamic jihadist group based in Somalia took responsibility for the attack, ostensibly in reprisal for Kenya’s participation in the African Union’s mission to combat Shabab’s domination of large areas of Somalia.
Less than two months later, in Security Council action – or more accurately described – inaction) on 15 November, the Security Council failed to support a resolution submitted by the African Union, in accordance with Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to defer, for 12 months, prosecution of Kenyan President Kenyatta and Deputy-President William Ruto. The deferral would enable President Kenyatta to concentrate his efforts on combating the terrorism that is destabilising Kenya, terrorism by the jihadist group who imposition of barbaric Sharia law includes the burial of young girls up to their necks in sand, and then stoning these innocent children to death.
The African Union pleaded for this deferral to prevent the serious distraction of the Kenyan President’s attention from his efforts to combat this recent upsurge of terrorism in Kenya. The UN Security Council failed to adopt this resolution, thereby abdicating its primary responsibility to protect peace and security. The Security Council’s failure to adopt this African Union resolution could also be perceived as a “double message” in the effort to eliminate terrorism. Following the vote, in explanation, each country spoke.
Mr. Mehdiyev (Azerbaijan):
“Our decision to vote in favour of the draft resolution before us today is based on the following understanding. First, Kenya and the region in which it is situated are facing complex security challenges. Kenya is a front-line State in and one of the key regional contributors to the fight against international terrorism. In that connection, the judicial proceedings against the country’s senior officials would undoubtedly create serious obstacles to the normal functioning of State institutions in Kenya and thereby pose a threat to the ongoing efforts to ensure and promote peace and stability in the region. Azerbaijan understands the concerns of Kenya and the African Union, and deems them legitimate and reasonable.”
Mr. Gasana (Rwanda):
“Terrorism is the most serious threat to international peace and security. It affects all the people of the world, without discrimination, from the World Trade Center in New York to the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Fortunately, we have countries; we have leaders. We are committed to the fight against terrorism, and Kenya and its President and Deputy President are with us. They are at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism, and we are grateful for their commitment and determination in the fight against Al-Shabaab in Somalia – a country where African blood is shed on behalf of this Council, which is supposed to bear the primary responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.
In that regard, His Excellency President Kenyatta and Deputy President William Roto should be respected, supported, empowered at this time – not distracted and undermined. That is why, after the vote this morning, Rwanda is expressing its deep disappointment over what transpired regarding the request for the deferral of the cases against the President and Deputy President of Kenya, despite the proactive efforts of Africa to engage the Security Council in a legitimate process in the interest of the maintenance of international peace and security.
That is why this is actually the right place, The failure to adopt the draft resolution before us today, which has been endorsed by the countries of the entire African continent, is a shame; indeed, it is a shame. Let it be written today in history that the Security Council failed Kenya and Africa on that issue.”
“It is not that, in coming before the Council today, we have sought confrontation. No we have not. We believed that the request was reasonable. We believed that the request was legitimate, as it was based on the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). …We were therefore hoping that, after extensive consultations, the Council would express solidarity with Kenya and with Africa, by negotiating in good faith and adopting the draft resolution. That did not happen, as some members of the Council even refused to negotiate on any single paragraph. We profoundly regret that.
Our colleagues who did not vote in favour of the draft resolution have argued – as members have heard – that the Kenyan situation does not meet the threshold needed to trigger the application of Article 16 of the Rome Statute. They have explained that article 16 shall be applied only when the investigation and prosecution could create, or worsen, a situation threatening international peace and security.
I am here and I am wondering: If a terrorist attack by members of Al-Shabaab – an Al-Qaeda-linked movement that has killed more than 70 innocent victims and wounded 200 others – does not meet the threshold line that other situations have crossed, then which one would? If a clear and present threat of terrorism against the Kenyan people, resulting from their determination and courageous intervention in Somalia, does not meet the threshold, what other threat can be alleged to do so? Are we in the wrong place today? No.”
“May I request that all members of the Council recall why article 16 of the Rome Statute was proposed in the Council more than 10 years ago. Let me repeat that question. May I request that all members of the council recall why article 16 of the Rome Statute was proposed more than 10 years ago. That article was not proposed by an African State – not at all. It was proposed by some of the Western Powers present at the Council table to be applied solely in their interest. In other words, article 16 was never meant to be used by an African State or any of the developing countries. It seems to have been conceived as an additional tool for the big Powers to protect themselves and protect their own. Is that not so? That is how it appears here today.”
The [UNSC] President (spoke in Chinese)
“Kenya has long been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism and has been playing an important role in maintaining peace and stability in the Horn of Africa, Eastern Africa and the entire African continent. Deferring the ICC proceedings against the leaders of Kenya is not only a matter of concern to Kenya, but also a matter of concern for the entire African continent. It is in fact an urgent need in order to maintain regional peace and stability. It is therefore a matter of common sense that the international community should help the Kenyan leaders to focus their attention on discharging their mandate and to continue their role in maintaining peace and stability in Kenya and the wider region, in exercising their jurisdiction, international judicial institutions should abide by the norms of international relations, follow the principle of complementarity and respect the judicial sovereignty, legal traditions and current needs of the countries concerned. …. China believes that the request of the African countries is reasonable and well founded on the basis of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Their objective is to maintain peace, stability and security in the region and to effectively fight terrorism. They request that the democratically elected leaders of Kenya be accorded basic respect in matters of African peace, security and stability. …The Council should therefore heed and positively respond to the common call of the African Union and the vast majority of African leaders. China will continue to support the efforts of Kenya, the African Union and most African countries to find a real solution to the issue under consideration.”
Not only have democratic elections failed to enhance the quality of life and standard of living in numerous African countries – and elsewhere; Kenya is a country in which democratic elections in December 2007 unleashed horrendous inter-ethnic slaughter and violent destabilisation in a country that had hitherto been a model of stability and economic and social development for Africa and the developing world. How can the sudden eruption of such clan and tribal warfare be explained in a country that had, for decades, not undergone such violent inter-ethnic conflict and destabilization?
Recently a highly placed diplomatic source accredited to the United Nations observed a pattern emerging in African countries where western NGOs with links to US intelligence were based and operating: previously non-existent inter-ethnic violence suddenly erupted, and this phenomenon was occurring in even the most stable countries. One of these western NGOs, in particular, was based and operating in Kenya since 2003, a full four years before the sudden eruption of inter-ethnic warfare and violent destabilization that followed the December, 2007 democratic elections.
One can only question the “coincidental” nature of these violent inter-ethnic occurrences in many previously stable African countries. Recalling that Russian President Putin prohibited USAID and particular Western NGO’s from operating in Russia, one can only conclude that he was trying to spare Russia from the fate observed in too many African countries, and elsewhere.
In his book “The Grand Chessboard,” (1997) Zbigniew Brzezinski openly states, in Chapter 1:
Hegemony of a New Type: “The American global system emphasizes the technique of co-optation (as in the case of defeated rivals – Germany, Japan and lately even Russia) to a much greater extent than the earlier imperial systems did. It likewise relies heavily on the indirect exercise of influence on dependent foreign elites.”
This “indirect exercise of influence on dependent foreign elites” could be the hidden trigger provoking and inciting the violent ethnic and political conflict that appears to be rapidly spreading, undermining previously functioning economies and national structures and institutions.
Who benefits? A substantial part of China’s oil supply comes from Africa. Chinese contracts with African nations are more equitable than those of US-NATO countries, and therefore have preferential status in many African countries, with China contributing to the construction of infrastructure, and offering considerably higher payment for oil extracted. It is, however, very much in China’s interest that internal stability prevail in these African countries, in order to perpetuate this arrangement. Chaos, spreading terrorism, civil conflict disrupt the functioning of these arrangements, and may ultimately serve the purpose of driving China out of Africa.
In the corridors of power at the United Nations, and elsewhere, is whispered that it is part of large-scale geopolitical engineering to disrupt and deprive China of its oil supply in Africa, thereby implementing the first part of “hegemony of a new type.” What follows this “new type of hegemony” is a Machiavellian intrigue of colossal proportion.
