WORSE THAN AIDS

Minister of Health Sherry Ayittey

By Ekow Mensah

The world of medical science is just about to be confronted with a challenge that will make the fight against AIDS look like child play.

Doctors say a new sexually- transmitted super bug could ultimately prove more deadly than AIDS.

The antibiotic – resistant strain of gonorrhea HO41 was reportedly discovered in Japan two years ago in a female “Sex worker”.

 Foxnews.com which carried the news quoted Alan Christianson, , a doctor of naturopathic medicine as saying ,“ This might  be a lot worse than AIDs in the short run because the bacteria is more aggressive and will affect people more quickly”.

Researchers say that getting gonorrhea from this strain might put someone into septic shock and death in a matter of days.

William Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition of STD Directors in the United States said,  “ its an emergency situation. As time moves on, its getting more hazardous.”

It is still not clear if the Health authorities in Ghana are on top of this new development and have or are preparing for the possible outbreak of this new type of gonorrhea.

So far the fight against AIDs in Ghana appears to be going well with officials indicating that the rate of new infections have gone down by more than 50 percent.

Editorial

KANTAMANTO

The decision by the Accra Metropolitan Assembly to build a modern market  to replace  the one destroyed by fire is refreshing.

The old market did not have adequate facilities for disaster management. There were no access roads even for fire tenders.

It is our hope that the modern market which will replace the old Katamanto market will have such basic facilities as places of convenience, bathrooms, decent places for cooking and eating as well as day nurseries.

What happened at Katamanto can happen everywhere else in the country and it must provide lessons for tackling safety at all market places.

Perhaps, the time has come to replace the makeshift markets spread across the country which pose serious risks to traders, buyers and society.

This is 2013 and the people of Ghana deserve better than markets which are a danger to all who use them.

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN WORLD DOMINATION.

         

FOR HOW LONG CAN IT LAST FROM NOW?   

David Cameron (L) Hussein Obama (R)

By Peter Kofi Amponsah

 `

The strategy of any state is based on its history, geopolitical situation and potentialities. This fully applies to Ghana as well, and it is very important for those in the frontline of the struggle for political power to fully appreciate this fact. For, as a writer put it, “without strategy, there is only drift”.

 OUR HISTORY

“History shows us that from the time of the signing of the Bond of 1844, which gave to Britain the means of imposing her political control over our country, there have been repeated efforts from patriotic citizens at various times to loosen the grip of alien domination. I traced the struggle for freedom from the signing of the Bond of 1844 with Great Britain, to the founding of the Convention People’s Party and the attainment of independence.

The flag of imperialism was lowered and over the ramparts we proudly hoisted our national flag, symbol of our hard-won freedom and the banner of the hope of Africa’s total redemption. Our Party flag has a rightful place beside this symbol of our nationhood, for it was under the red, white and green banner that the battle for freedom was fought and won.” Kwame Nkrumah. I Speak of Freedom. Page 161-162.

 GEOPOLITICAL  SITUATION

Today, Ghana, like most African states is in the grip of neo-colonialism under Western Europe and America. The term neo-colonialism was invented by Kwame Nkrumah in 1942 and was first used in his book entitled “Toward Colonial Freedom” to describe the phenomenon of exploiting other people abroad without actually ruling them. So what exactly do we mean by the term neo-colonialism?

Neo-colonialism has been defined as a political, economic, military and ideological form of colonialism, practiced in the developing countries by the imperialist powers in the context of the disintegrating colonial system. It sets out to maintain the position of imperialism in the politically independent, but economically backward countries by indirectly controlling their economies.

Some of the new visible institutions or instruments for neo-colonialist control of Africa, are the Lome Conventions, AGOA, and NEPAD. I will explain the role of these instruments later. However, the current African leaders’ approach to the situation and the entire development of the continent has been most disappointing.

 POTENTIALITIES

Our inability to make effective use of our potentials or to take advantage of the opportunities created by the new world situation constitute the most tangible proof of unpardonable leadership failure in Africa today. 

For example, today, with the massive shift in the economic balance of power from Western Europe and America to Asia, African leaders are still dancing around their former colonial powers which have completely lost the capacity to maintain their present standard of living without prolonging our underdevelopment in various ways.

 AFRICAN CITIZENS

African citizens are being taken for granted everywhere in the world because Africa is poor despite its colossal natural resources. Africa will continue to be poor because it is underdeveloped, and Africa is underdeveloped because African leaders are joking with the urgent need to accelerate the development of science and technology. The way African citizens are treated everywhere in the world has a direct relationship with Africa’s poverty emanating from its scientific and technological backwardness.

Africa is the second largest continent in the world after Asia with a total land area of bout 30million square kilometers, and with the population of about one billion. It is about three and half times the size of the USA, and ten times the size of India. Therefore, the present tragic and humiliating beggar image of the continent is totally unacceptable.

We must clearly understand the pace of development at which our critical situation demands if we are to modernize and take our rightful place among the technically advanced nations of the world.

Looking at the way in which some of our African leaders are behaving, it is clear that our diplomacy lack the necessary dynamism and ability to adequately react to the changing situation and identify subsequent stages in the development of international political process.

Today, the world we knew is now history. We are currently at the  boundary between two epochs, where the forces of an obsolescent society are in conflict with the forces of a new society in birth.

The current upheaval in the world is a clear manifestation of the death-bed struggle of the existing social order. The sweeping changes that began during the terminal decade of the twentieth century have already altered the picture of the world to which we have been accustomed including the established idea of what many countries are and what their positions in the world affairs are.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

The Anglo-American world domination is now coming to an end, and decades later, the funeral announcement of the English language itself may take place.  It is important for strategic policy planners to take note of this, because a sound knowledge of the trend of the world’s overall development, and the new technological revolution is necessary for the study of the world economy and the formation of strategies for national economic development. 

This statement is supported by the fact that the changes taking place in the world would not point to an English speaking world or even a world using English most extensively as a second language.

The USA, which has for many years been the economic power house that propels the claims of English to be the future language of the world is now declining in relative terms as an economic super power.

                                                                                                                 

The US’s possibilities and influence on the world scene have been waning. What was exclusively an American advantage – access to advanced technology, an enormous market and a colossal mass of capital – is now available to the EU, Japan, China, Russia, and India.

Again, the original EEC had about 323 million people, and only 50 million or so is English speaking. The EU will not be English speaking. In fact, it now has twenty official languages   

                .

2.We have witnessed the rise of Japan and the four Tiger Club of Asia, and are witnessing the rise of many countries in Asia such as China, India and Malaysia.  Japan’s power and position has been achieved with a work force of only 60 million. India and China have each work force several times larger. Many experts say that the future lies more with what is happening in China or India than with Japan.

3.Russia is both an European and an Asian power, and now that Russia, China, India, Japan, and the other major Asian powers such as Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and Iran are coming together, and with capital and technology to develop Siberia and the Northern parts of the pacific, those parts of the world will become the driving economic powers in the 21^st century. Non of these peoples is English speaking.

Asia’s first trans-national highway the construction of which will begin any moment from now will contribute tremendously to regional economic integration. The 140,000 kilometer (87,000 mile) highway from Japan to western Russia, would extend across 32 countries along several routes, stretching through China to Indonesia, and as far west as Russia’s border with Findland.

HARD CURRENCY RESERVES

With this kind of situation, it is impossible for the present Anglo-American world domination to continue, especially when the epicenter of the world economic growth has already shifted to Asia. For example, the top ten countries in the world listed in July 2008 by volume of accumulated hard currency reserves does not include Britain or even the USA.

THE NEXT ECONOMIC SUPER POWER

China is emerging as the next economic super power. It has a global trade, production, and the necessary scientific and technological infrastructure of a big power. These are the statistics of a potential economic super power.

This has already taken place. China’s reserves now have overtaken those of Japan at the end of February 2006. They now stand over $3.2 trillion. Russia has moved from the 9^th position in 2004 to the 3^rd position.

RUSSIA AND AMERICA

The aristocrats of world science and military technology, Russia, and America, appear to be seeking to shift the epicenter of the most ruthless competitive economic struggle on to the high technology market. It is suspected that these two powers are planning to relocate the manufacture of certain sensitive equipment in outer space, under the condition of microgravity, so that some of them could be hundreds of times superior to those manufactured on the Earth.

If this happens, they are likely to be joined later by the EU, Japan, China, and India.Before the end of the cold war, the arms race between these two powers began to take the form of a contest to extend their military power into outer space, characterized by expansion from a battle-support role to its overall militarization.

Their stress on improving military strength had shifted from an emphasis on offensive nuclear forces to a completely new generation of laser directed energy weapons used for both offensive and defensive measures. Their rivalry for superiority had turned from the nuclear domain to that of outer space, and their military strategy had added space strategy to conventional and nuclear strategies.

DEMAGOGUERY

If the demagogic masks behind which the USA and Britain conceal the real motives of their presence in Iraq are removed, one thing becomes clear- it is with this that they are attempting to hamper positive developments on the international scene for their selfish interests. However, the vigilance of the other European powers this time, has foiled the dangerous plans, and debunked the hopes of restoring the positions they have lost in the world affairs by fraudulent means as was the case with the first world war from 1914-1918.

 THE BRITISH EMPIRE

According to reports, at the end of the nineteenth century, the worldwide power of the British Empire was threatened by the rise of an array of continental European nations that was growing strong on the basis of American system “economic methods” adopted by the Russian Finance Minister Sergei Witte during the 1890s and advocated by significant pro-industry forces in Germany and France.

The First World War brought the British empire a new lease of life.

It was widely believed that the World War 1 was a conspiracy by Britain to sabotage the above-mentioned economic programme by the European nations and to save its Empire . Napoleon was convinced that the war was caused by England’s intrigues. See War and Peace, By Leo Tolstoy p.715

Before the end of that war, Russia was plunged into its Bolshevik Revolution. Germany was saddled with war reparations so onerous, that they set the stage for the disaster of Nazi rule, and world war 11 instead of a world economy powered by the Great Eurasian infrastructure projects like Trans-Siberian and Berlin-Baghdad railways, the British Empire, with its financial structures and its ability to loot the colonial ‘rim’ territories, as the geo-politicians called them, had the upper hand.

 This was the legacy of the Versaille system, fixed by the victorious Anglo-American elite and their French partners after world war 1.

Its institutions were the League of Nations, and the post –World War 11 modifications established with the division of Europe at Yalta in 1945 and the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF. Its purpose was Anglo-American world domination, in sometimes uneasy partnership with Russia.

TURNING POINT

Today, the US and Britain are at a turning point, which by implication requires a search for fresh solutions to the shortcomings that are responsible for the rapid decline of their global influence.

They decided on war, because while the World War 1 was said to have been caused through a conspiracy by Britain to save her empire, as was explained above, the USA, made a considerable economic gains from both the First and the Second World Wars.

THE FIRST WORLD WAR

World War 1 facilitated an even greater upswing in the US economy. The country was put in an extremely favourable position. Military operations swept through nearly every European country but did not touch the American continent. While the war inflicted incalculable losses upon the European peoples by snuffing out millions of lives and destroying thousands of factories and residences and even entire industrial districts, the USA did not undergo anything of the kind. The American army began to participate in the hostilities only in summer of 1918, that is at the close of the war.

The human losses suffered by the USA were minor compared to those of other countries, totalling 120 thousand dead in action and from disease and 230 thousand wounded. Consequently, the USA did not experience the massive destruction of its productive forces which was inflicted upon Europe.

The USA took advantage of this situation to reap windfall profits. It functioned as a supplier of munitions, foodstuffs and raw material to the belligerent nations. Between 1914 and 1919 American exports rose from $2.4 to $7.4 billion, attaining more than a threefold increase.

The enormous resources now at the disposal of the corporations provided for major new investments in American industry. The ensuing industrial upsurge further increased the proportion of American production in world industrial output. By 1920, it accounted for approximately 50% of world output of coal, 60% of iron and steel production, about 67% of oil extraction and 85 percent of world automotive output.

Thus, the first important result of US development between 1914 and 1918 was a further increase in economic might and a strengthening of its position as the economically most powerful country in the world.

It was of even more significance that as a result of World War 1 the international financial position of the USA was fundamentally altered. Before the war it had lagged considerably behind the other imperialist states in the export of capital. According to data, from 1914, American foreign investment amounted to $3 billion, a figure ten times less than British, six times less than French, and 4.5 times less than German foreign capital investments. On the other hand European investments in the USA stood at $5billion in 1914, significantly exceeding American foreign investments.

MILITARY PURCHASES

Payments for the enormous military purchases from the USA by the Entente countries significantly reduced US foreign indebtedness. By 1919 European long-term investments in the US had been cut to $3 billion. At the same time the needs generated by the war served to stimulate an enormous upsurge in the export of American capital.

The pre-eminent form taken by such exports was that of loans for the military needs of the European countries. By the outset of the 1920s these loans had reached the sum of $11 billion. In addition, during the war American private investments abroad more than doubled, reaching $6.5 billion by 1919.

Thus, the second important consequence of the war was the transformation of the USA from debtor status to that of one of the basic creditors of the European countries.

THE SECOND WORLD WAR

Again, in 1940-1944, that is during the Second World War, the Americans received vast military orders amounting to about 175 billion dollars. The lack of human resources and to ensure maximum production of machines with minimum number of personnel forced the US industrialists to invest large amount of dollars for innovations that would have been considered unprofitable before the war, or not promising quick returns. Automation received powerful stimulus and the USA found itself on the verge of scientific and technological revolution.

The revolution began in Western Europe under the influence of the USA, and the countries affected, owed much of their post war economic development to it.

The Anglo-American world domination as we all know has many contradictory features which still persist to this day and manifest themselves in various ways, including some of the most serious forms of the inter-imperialist conflict. The problem of Africa today takes its origin from a complex mixture of this conflict and neocolonialism, and I will explain.

 THE AFRICAN CONTINENT

It is true that the developing world covers a vast area, but the continent of Africa has become the imperialist powers’ main battlefield, for the following reasons: (1) Africa on the whole was the most backward continent. (2) Africa was the most clear-cut embodiment of the colonial system of imperialism: African territories formed part of six colonial empires, and the rivalry between the colonialists is deeply rooted in the history of this area. (3) The colonial regimes in Africa were the last to fall.(4) Africa is remarkably well endowed. Its raw material power and human resources are of considerable interest to the imperialist countries, despite the structural changes that have taken place in the material production of the capitalist world economy.

All these factors prompt imperialist expansion in Africa, and, since interests of the different powers clash, contradictions and conflict result. Since the collapse of the colonial empires the imperialist powers have been trying to carry out a new political re-division of Africa.

USA AND BRITAIN

Despite the military situation and Britain’s increasing financial dependence on the USA, the Churchill government used more than just words to resist American aspirations.

 A good example is the two countries relations with regard to the Lend-Lease arrangement. During negotiations over the quantity of Lend-Lease supplies and procedure for their delivery and payment the US government insisted that in exchange for American aid Britain should open the markets of the British Empire to American goods and abolish preferential customs tariffs.

The discussion which began in Argentia Bay about which we will talk later, continued. The USA was not satisfied with the compromised article included in the Atlantic Charter.

Despite Churchill’s fierce resistance, the hopelessness of the situation forced the British to back down. Article 7 of the Anglo-American Lend-Lease agreement signed on the 23 February 1942 stipulated that after the war Great Britain would remove all impediments to international trade and reduce tariffs. However, Churchill’s compliance with the American demand was only a trick.

A JOINT DECLARATION

Grave concern was aroused in London by the fact that the USA had taken the initiative in devising a preliminary plan for a general international trusteeship system. To this end a special committee, headed by Under-Secretary of State Sumner Welles, was set up in the State Department in the second half of 1942. Accordingly, in February 1943 Whitehall suggested to the White House that a joint declaration on colonial policy should be published.

The British draft of the document stated that responsibility for governing colonies and seeing to their defence needs should remain with the appropriate colonial powers. Bearing in mind the differences in the stage of development attained by the various colonies, these powers would gradually lead them to self-government. No specific timetable was laid down. The sole concession made by Britain lay in the proposal to establish regional Commissions to promote international co-operation over the improvement of living standard in the colonies.

A document of this kind was clearly unacceptable to a United States government that was trying to unlock the gates of the British colonial empire. The British Cabinet, in turn, rejected a draft prepared by the State Department, since the term ‘independence’ occurred in a description of the future status of the colonial peoples.

Although the document was referring not to granting of independence but simply to the establishment of a timetable for granting it, Washington was informed that the memorandum and draft resolution would not be acceptable to His Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom in their present form. In the meantime the USA’s interest in the colonies of the European metropolises, especially the African ones, continued to grow.

The rivalry was spurred on during the war years (1939-45). Despite the specific features of the war situation, colonial issues occupied a considerable place in relations between Western allies, among which were the two main metropolises, Great Britain, and France, and their principal opponent, the USA

Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah

KWAME NKRUMAH

It is therefore not surprising from what we have said so far, that Kwame Nkrumah was regarded by both Britain and France as the most dangerous politician on the African continent. The fact that he had his higher education in America, and the depth of his knowledge about the colonial system of imperialism which was demonstrated in his first book, entitled: Towards Colonial Freedom, increased their fears.

One of the propaganda methods Britain employed to counter this threat posed by Nkrumah’s penetrating knowledge of imperialism was to create doubts about the quality of American education, particularly in the Gold Coast.

Here, our people were made to look down on a society that was intellectually, economically and technologically more advanced than any European power. How can the educational system of such a country be inferior to that of Britain or France, for example?

The fallacy of this assertion has been exposed by a study conducted by some scholars at the Soviet Academy of Sciences. That study revealed that “in the history of Sociology and political science, the 20^th century will be known as the American century. According to these scholars, from the time when over one hundred years ago, the department of Sociology was founded at Chicago University, the USA has been the only country in the world where the fundamental research in the field of social and political problems of life has been conducted on a truly vast scale. Today the studies by American social scientists embrace the whole gamut of vertical objects- from individuals and small groups to complex organizations, parties and the state.”

They observed, that “having assimilated at the beginning of the century achievements of the advanced European thought, including the Marxist theory the Americans have built on this basis a grandiose complex of various branches of social sciences.

THE AMERICAN VISION

In the final stages of the Second World War the military and political leadership of the US had already come to the conclusion that in the post war world its main opponent would be the Soviet Union. The American vision of the world was determined by the unique combination of historical circumstances that resulted from the collapse of Hitlerism in Europe and Japanese militarism in Asia as well as the fact that the economic potential of the vanquished and victors alike, with the exception of the US itself, had been seriously weakened.

The US had a huge army and enjoyed a monopoly on Atomic weapon, a weapon many times more powerful than any means in the military arsenals of the West European countries. This was the basis for the postwar economic, political and military hegemony of the USA in the capitalist world. The US also became a banker-country, a creditor country, an exporter country, a great naval and air power, the epicenter of the world communications.

It pioneered the scientific and technological revolution and the Western European countries affected by it developed under the influence of the US. It has the world’s oldest political party. For these reasons, all the attempts therefore to play down the quality of American education were complete nonsense.

Today, America’s power may be declining in relative terms, but at that time, without the US, there was no power in the entire western world that could have challenged the Soviet Union, militarily, intellectually or technologically

THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

It was said several times that Kwame Nkrumah was many years ahead of his time. This is true, but I also strongly believe that the US educational system in which he had his higher education played a key role. That system had certain flexibility that did not exist anywhere in the world at that time. A kind of flexibility that helped interested individuals to develop intellectual capacity for creative solution of practical problems.

Therefore, the intellectual environment in which he had his higher education contributed immensely to his greatness. His overwhelming prognostic capability has revealed the inadequacy of his intellectual opponents and the defects in them. But this will be the subject matter of another article.

Mrs Malcom X declared some time ago that “Kwame Nkrumah’s brilliance baffled the world”. She said this in a speech on the occasion of the opening of the Kwame Nkrumah Mausoleum  in 1992 in Accra.

From what we have said so far, it is fair to give some credit to the US educational system in particular and the American society in general for his greatness. He was clearly an example of some of the virtues in that society. His ability to unite the entire country and for the people to think as Ghanaians first. Ghanaians were very proud of their country and no nation could take Ghanaian citizens for granted anywhere in the world when Nkrumah was in power. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     This was clearly a remarkable achievement and it was evidently inspired by America. His fight for a continental union government of Africa was also inspired by the US example. His industrialization policy with emphasis on the rapid development of scientific and technological infrastructure was based on American example.

 AMERICA’S MAJOR STRENGTH

America’s major strength is its more skilful use of knowledge. The time it takes an American company to carry out complete restructuring or to make a new idea a reality is incredibly short by British standards.

The investment-research-discovery-innovation-production mechanism has not yet been optimized in Europe. The links between industry and higher education and research remains weak. A researcher has no chance of working in private sector and in a university laboratory at the same time. Private company owners often do not even know what university laboratories are doing and give them no material support. Although, industry, higher education and the state are self-contained entities, it is precisely to the alliance of the three that the USA largely owes its successes.

It is therefore ridiculous from this assessment, for anyone to suggest that the US educational system is in any way inferior to those of the Western European countries.

The problem of the colonial possessions, and particularly Britain’s African colonies, proved to be a stumbling-block in Anglo-American relations throughout the war years. It was the cause of frequent disagreement at meetings between Roosevelt and Churchill.

THE ATLANTIC CHARTER

The conflict began before the USA entered the war at the consultations held between the two leaders in August1941 in Argentia Bay, near the Newfoundland coast. This was the meeting that resulted in the declaration of war aims known as the Atlantic Charter.

The eight points of the Charter proclaimed the main objective of the war to be the destruction of nazi tyranny, and mentioned a few general democratic principles. In particular, it was stated that the USA and Britain respected the right of all peoples to choose their own form of government, and also that both powers sought the restoration of the sovereign rights and independence of those peoples which had been deprived of them by force.

In both Africa and Asia most of the politically conscious opinion believed not without reason that these Charter provisions applied to the colonies as well. American propaganda supported this view.

However, immediately he returned to England, Churchill gave his version of what the Charter meant. In his report to Parliament on the 9 September 1941 he declared: ‘At the Atlantic meeting we had in mind, primarily, the restoration of the sovereignty, self-government and national life of the states and nations of Europe now under the Nazi yoke, and the territorial boundaries which have to be made. So that is quite a separate problem from the progressive evolution of the elf-governing institutions in the regions and peoples which owe allegiance to the British Crown’. See Parliamentary Debates, Fifth Series, House of Commons, Vol. 374 col. 69

In other words, Churchill unequivocally excluded from the jurisdiction of the Atlantic Charter Britain’s colonial empire. Shortly after, Roosevelt rejected Churchill’s interpretation, stating on the 22 February1942 that the Charter applied to the whole world and so to the British empire as well. A similar assertion was made in May 1942 by the US Under-Secretary of State, Sumner Welles: “The principles of the Atlantic Charter must be guaranteed to the world as a whole – in all oceans and in all continents”. See R. B.Russel, A History of the United Nations Charter. The Role of the United States, 1940-1945, Wash., 1958 p.83

LEGAL SEIZURE OF FRENCH COLONIES

Now, this is a very small part of Anglo-American disagreement on the colonial issues, more will be revealed later. However, the repercussions of Britain’s repeated attempts throughout the war to effect the legal seizure of French colonies have not died down to this day. In supporting de Gaulle as leader of the Free French movement, the British had a secondary aim which was to use de Gaulle in order to take over the French colonies.

But it had already become clear in 1942 that de Gaulle was determined to resist London’s plans, in spite of the military situation. The conflict took on such proportions that the British government even began to look round for a substitute for de Gaulle, who was said by Churchill not to be making a proper contribution to victory over the axis powers. Only the absence of a suitable candidate foiled this attempt.

The British continued to do everything possible to prevent de Gaulle from establishing control over France’s colonial possessions. In the spring of 1942, London and Washington turned down his suggestion that ‘Free French’ National Committee be recognized as the provisional government. In May 1942, without informing de Gaulle, the British landed troops on Madagascar. Worse still, from April to July1942 the British government did not allow de Gaulle out of London and prevented him from visiting the Lebanon and Syria, both territories mandated to France.

Nevertheless, he managed to make his way to the Middle East, where he saw with his own eyes that British undertakings ‘not to pursue any political aims in the states of Levant and not to encroach on France’s position in the area’ were not being honoured.

CHURCHILL AND DE GAULLE

Upon his return to London, a complete breakdown in relations between him and Churchill was barely staved off. But since de Gaulle needed British support and he was necessary to Churchill in view of the forthcoming inevitable Anglo-American confrontation after the North Africa landings, the conflict was smoothed over.  However, the most serious contradictions over the colonial issue during the war arose between the USA and Great Britain.

Events of today have been prepared by long and far-reaching historical problems. Consequently, a description of the general evolution of inter-imperialist contradictions in Africa is a necessary preliminary to a study of certain aspects of them.

The basis of many of the contradictions among the Western powers and their present-day rivalry dates precisely from the Second World War period. This makes it very important to use this information as our guide in tackling the problems in French speaking Africa.

Therefore, those who have taken it upon themselves to help solve the problem of Africa must appreciate this situation, for, it is impossible to fully comprehend the roots of the problems in Africa today without taking into account the depth of mistrust among the Western powers dating back to the Second World War.

Given the situation as it then was, Washington simply wrote off the other European colonial powers, which had been defeated in the war: France, Belgium and Holland. Only Great Britain stood in its way, and American businessmen had longed for the opportunity to lay their hands on the British empire.

SECRET PLAN

Again, there was also a secret plan to the effect that in the event of Germany losing the war, both London and Washington expected to divide the ‘French heritage’ for they doubted the ability of France to recover its great power status. However, they kept it as a member of the anti-Hitler coalition. General de Gaulle was aware of all these plans, and readers will soon discover that the attitudes of the USA and Britain towards France during the war provided a significant role in influencing the direction of France’s future foreign policy.

Roosevelt supposed that after the liberation of France, the USA with some assistance of Britain would be able to retain its military control for many years over the French colonies in North Africa. This position of USA coloured Franco-American relations. In his memoirs, de Gaulle recalls how even during the war the USA   attempted to take over North Africa and to prevent France from reasserting herself as a sovereign state.

If we take pains to put historical facts together properly, we will be able to understand what is happening today. This will enable us to avoid certain unpleasant situations which we may unexpectedly find ourselves face to face with.

It is unrealistic to expect that the relations of deep mutual mistrust that have taken shape over the years among France, the USA, and Britain will suddenly give way to trust and proper behaviour by themselves. It is important to recognize the fact that there are long-standing political differences between France and the USA. These differences manifest themselves in various forms to this day.

INTER-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLE

The inter-imperialist struggle rages throughout Africa. It involves practically all the independent African states, but the main centers of rivalry can be pinpointed quite easily. Anglo-American contradictions are concentrated in the countries that once made up British Africa. Franco-American contradictions are located in the French-speaking countries. It is these territories that form the major battlefield for the contradiction between the USA and the EU.

It was the gravity of the Franco-American contradictions that compelled the government of France to take far- reaching measures in the history of its post-war foreign policy in 1966.

FRANCE’S WITHDRAWAL FROM NATO

In 1966 de Gaulle took the offensive over the highly important issue of French membership in the military arm of NATO. He told a press conference on February 21 that now conditions had developed in the world: the East European countries no longer threatened the West whereas defence against them was the reason why a US protectorate was organized in Europe under the cover of NATO’ the United States had been involved in conflicts in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, that might have led to a global conflagration.

In such a contingency France, whose communications, armed forces, ports and air bases were under US command, might have been drawn into war without its consent. The will of France to do as it sees fit, he said firmly in conclusion, was incompatible with a defense organization in which it found itself subordinate.

The French government declared that as from July 1,1967, it was going to restore a single national command over its armed forces and was recalling its personnel from the staffs of the Supreme, Central European and South European Allied Commands of NATO and the organizations subordinate to them, as well as from the NATO Military College. It asked all Allied headquarters to leave French territory by April 1, 1967.

AMERICANS’ TROJAN HORSE

It was a bomb exploded in the sphere of international relations. Anti-French passions ran high in Washington but got it nowhere. Paris’s decision was irrevocable. De Gaulle’s independent course also met with resistance in Britain. Franco-British differences over fundamental problems of NATO and the European Economic Community were sharp. De Gaulle regarded Britain as Americans’ Trojan Horse in Western Europe. He held that British ruling quarters constantly took their cue from the US administration. He hated to say so in public.

NATO COMMAND STRUCTURE

Theoretically the NATO Supreme Allied Commander is subordinate to the higher bodies of the bloc and through them to the governments of the member states. But at the same time the US constitution does not permit the President to delegate his authority as commander-in-chief to a person who is partially or fully responsible to the governments of other sovereign states.

The point is, however, that the Supreme Allied Commander is also in command of US troops in Europe and is thus subordinate to the American command and to its commander-in-chief, i.e. the President. There is no doubt that in a situation of armed conflict this American general, despite his international title would take orders from Washington in everything including the use of nuclear weapons.

From the moment NATO was formed the Americans have always considered that in relation to the use of nuclear weapons they are not bound by any obligations to their allies.

Later a number of agreements were drawn up within NATO providing, should the use of nuclear weapons seem likely, for consultations between members through the NATO council and Defence Planning Committee, as well as directly between heads of government. These are the so-called Athens Guiding Principles with the additions and alternations to them made in 1968 and 1969. But this was after France’s withdrawal from the NATO military structure.

One of the most important results of World War 11 according to experts, was the impetus it provided to the collapse of the colonial system. For the US ruling circles this both presented difficulties and seemed to open up no small opportunities.

The difficulties were presented in restraining the revolutionary democratic movements against which the European metropolis such as Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain were powerless. The opportunities were seen in replacing the decrepit colonialist, the target of the revolutionary upsurge, with powerful American monopolies under the shield of the US government.

AMERICAN NEO-COLONIALISM

This marked the birth of American neo-colonialism which accompanied its economic and political submission of the colonies of the debilitated allies with certain liberation slogans, including a condemnation of the old colonialism with the aim of facilitating American penetration of the old territorial demesnes of the European powers while superficially recognizing the principle for the peoples who had liberated themselves from the colonial yoke.

As soon as the US government had strengthened its position in Europe with the help of the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, and by initiating negotiations on the conclusion of a military pact with the European countries under the Marshall Plan, it concerned itself with the colonies and underdeveloped countries of Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

IMPERIALIST CONTAINMENT STRATEGY

Despite the global scope of imperialist doctrines and foreign policy plans and actions Washington always gave priority to Europe, particularly in the 1940s. The US government could not be confident in the security of its worldwide holdings until it had established its military and political dominance in Europe where the front positions of imperialist containment strategy were located. On April 4, 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, signed the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) on behalf of the United States.

A proper understanding of the above historical developments is a must for every African politician, otherwise, our continent will remain a hidden battle ground of proxy wars among the imperialist powers to the detriment of its development.

CHIRAC WARNS TABO MBEKI

The French President, Jaques Chirac was reported to have told the South African President, Tabo Mbeki, to “understand the soul of West Africa” to broker a peace deal in Cote d’Ivoire. “West Africa is West Africa. It has its own characteristics. You have to know it well”. See Daily Graphic, February 5, 2005. Page 5.

In my view, the French President was referring to the above-mentioned historical developments.

Today, events in the Ivory Coast has forced the current French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to establish a very good relation with the US. He is the first French President since the Second World War to do that, and the reasons for this strategic move are now very clear, because without the strong support of the US, it would have been impossible for France to get the support of the UN for its present action in the Ivory Coast.

THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

It is also important to understand  the role played by some of the international financial institutions, particularly the IMF, and the World Bank to deepen the underdevelopment of Africa.

Most African leaders continue to see the continent’s problems not as they really are, but as those who want to perpetuate the continent’s underdevelopment want them to see these problems. In other words, most African leaders continue to remain in an ideological captivity of foreign interest groups to the detriment of their people. Efforts to tackle this critical issue will not succeed until much that is rotten within the leadership of Africa is swept away.

Those African leaders tortured with malignant lust for power, but whose minds appear to be heavily fortified against the urgent need to accelerate the development of scientific and technological infrastructure of their countries must no longer be allowed to prolong the agony of the African people.

THE IMF AND THE WORLD BANK

There are aspects of IMF and the World Bank activities that are not made public and are hushed up in every possible way. Most people are still not aware that without IMF credits, world monopoly capital would not be able to use the channels of world trade for neocolonialist plunder of the developing countries. It must be understood that international financial organizations shamelessly interfere in the internal affairs of the developing countries, undermining their foreign and domestic policies and their legislations to make room for neocolonialist exploitation.

The dominant position of the major Western countries in the management of these organisations ensures the inclusion of terms in many agreements that primarily meet the interests of these countries (as confirmed by the many years’ practice of the Fund and the Bank).

LOAN TO INDIA

A clear example of this was the decision taken by the IMF in November 1981 to grant the then biggest loan in its history ($5.8 billion) to India, and to conclude a corresponding international agreement.

The terms of this agreement as has been noted in developing countries, were truly crippling for India, which impelled India to draw only 3.1 billion SDR ( of which 1.55 billion were actually her own funds and 1.55 billion were loans) out of the line of credit of 5 billion SDRs ( the time of the loan agreement equal to$5.8 billion ) in the period between November 1981 and July 1983. In January 1984, India officially informed the Fund that she declined to borrow the rest of the sum set aside for her.

Several works published immediately after the IMF’s taking of the above-mentioned decision cited the loan terms, under which the government of India was compelled to take on obligations, for example, to fulfil the Fund’s recommendations regarding the economic, financial, budget, and tax policy ( during the term of the agreement) to adopt measures aimed at easing legislative restrictions so as to encourage foreign investment in India’s private sector, to create an ‘attractive climate’ for the business of transnational corporations in India ( which would ensure her technological dependence on industrially developed countries), to pursue a ‘realistic policy’ in the field of exchange rates, to set limits to loans the government would obtain from local banks and on the international money market.

Under the terms of the IMF loan India had no right to conclude bilateral trade and payment agreements without the Fund’s prior consent during the period of the use of the  loan. See The IMF Loan: facts and figures; government of West Bengal. Calcutta, 1981 pp 6,8-10,17,40-45,105-07.  

INDIA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM BOGUS AGREEMENT

The withdrawal of India from this bogus loan agreement has not led to the collapse  of  India’s economy. Rather, India today is not only a super power in software technology, but is also one of the top ten countries in the world in terms of accumulated hard currency reserves.

All these show that the programmes pursued by the Fund and the Bank are ideological programmes which are not based on economic science. They are based on an exploitative neocolonialist economic ideology. In its choice of projects for financing, the Bank is guided not by their economic significance for the developing countries, but by the interests of private corporations in the Western world.

It invests the capital at its disposal in its own name, regardless of who is its actual owner. In this way it ensures the profitability and guarantees the safety of the capital, irrespective of its origin, invested through its mediation in the developing countries.

The Bank and its affiliates will not support any step if it is not in conformity with their ideological principles.

THE VICTORS’ CLUB

Before it became known as an Anglo-American institution for world domination, the UN was described as a victors’ club. A club of those who won the war. The premise of the ‘‘victors’ club’’ according to Dr Frederick Wills, was to control raw material supplies, deny technology to the underdeveloped countries, and exploit their population terribly. This new form of colonialism was largely conducted under ‘private’ auspice, by multinational corporations backed up by the potential use of armed force by UN Security Council permanent members.

A shameful example  of this was what they did in  the Congo, and here I quote: “I agree with you entirely that the colonial countries are conspiring against Congolese independence and territorial integrity and that, in the pursuit of their wicked designs, they are now openly using the United Nations and its flag”. See  Challenge Of The Congo, by Kwame Nkrumah.  Page 115.

The emergence of the multinational or transnational corporations in the leading imperialist states, the USA above all, has  resulted not only in stupendous corporate profits, but also in  the impudent plunder of peoples, and what is more, the manipulation of their destinies.

‘American multinationals provide country-by-country liaison, intelligence, and conduits – the sinews to bind a global new world order to the directions of the financial mafia’. Their objective is to obtain control of the wealth of the world for their own use.

Imperialism depends on the trans-nationals, whose subsidiaries enjoy the status of national enterprises in the respective countries, and the system of links between them and their parent companies, a system that has been given the trappings of commercial relations, are used as a flexible, camouflaged, and thereby dangerous instrument of modern neo-colonialism.

BRITAIN’S DEVIOUS PLAN

Our research findings about the role of Britain in our underdevelopment, if published in full, will shock every citizen of this country, because of the enormity of respect that the people of Ghana, including myself, have for Great Britain.

“Besides financial straitjackets, the British left a devious, but extensive apparatus prepared to bring down any African leader who fought for real independence.’ ‘The colonial security and intelligence authorities established a number of organisations to oversee the transition”.

According to Executive Intelligence Review,“Much of the extensive British civil service which ran the colonies stayed in place after independence. Frequently, leadership in the new nations’ intelligence services, or such crucial posts as private secretary to the head of state, would be held by the same people who held them before independence”.

“The British had made sure that they sent the best and the brightest of potential young African leaders to be educated in British doctrine at Oxford, Cambridge, Sussex, or the London School of Economics. They invariably received degrees in law or politics. The engineers, scientists, and agronomists needed to build modern nations were not trained”. See Tiny Rowland, The Ugly Face of Neo-colonialism in Africa.

PURSUIT OF EMPIRE BY OTHER MEANS

When it became obvious that Britain could no longer prevent her colonies from gaining their freedom, a secret policy known as “pursuit of empire by other means” was developed under the control of Sir Andrew Cohen Head of the Africa division in the British colonial office from 1946 to 1951. He later became the Governor-General of Uganda. He was known as ‘the king of Africa’ because of his control over British policy for the continent.

Under this policy, Britain’s visible empire was to become an invisible one. There would be a shift toward black majority rule in colonial Africa, but this would be a sham independence. Africa was to be looted the same as always, but under private auspices instead of London in its own name.

This is why the British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement on Africa recently is regarded as hypocritical or even an insult by those who really know the role his country played in the present tragedy of Africa.

Kwame Nkrumah, the greatest African politician of the twentieth century, was the most hated African leader by the British establishment. This is the statement that made him an enemy to the British and other imperialist powers: “The peoples of the colonies know precisely what they want. They wish to be free and independent, and to be able to feel themselves on an equal with all other peoples, and to work out their own destiny without outside interference, and to be unrestricted to attain an advancement that will put them on a par with other technically advanced nations of the world”. See Towards Colonial Freedom. By Kwame Nkrumah. Page 42.

It is clear that this statement is incompatible with the above policy of ‘pursuit of empire by other means’, under which Britain’s visible empire, would become an invisible one for the purpose of looting Africa’s resources.

President Patrice Lumumba of Congo

PATRICE LUMUMBA

Again, the next greatest African leader, Patrice Lumumba, who held the same views on Africa as Kwame Nkrumah was brutally murdered by the colonialists and the imperialists, because he believed that “political independence was not enough to free Africa from its colonial past; the continent he said, must also cease to be an economic colony of Europe”. His speeches, according to the report, set off alarm signals in Western capitals.

“Belgian, British, and American corporations by now had vast investments in the Congo, which was rich in copper, cobalt, diamonds, gold, tin, manganese, and zinc. An inspired orator whose voice was rapidly carrying beyond his country’s borders. Lumumba was a mercurial and charismatic figure. His message, Western governments feared, was contagious. Moreover, he could not be bought”.

“Anathema to American and European capital, he became a leader whose days were numbered. According to the report, less than two months after being named the Congo’s first democratically chosen prime minister, a US National Security Council subcommittee on  covert operations, which included CIA Chief Allen Dullers, authorized his assassination”. See King Leopold’s Ghost. By Adam Hochschild. Page301

According to Kwame Nkrumah, it was after 1908 that the great mining companies began to develop their power and influence. The Union Minier du Haut-Katanga (founded in 1906) produced its first ton of copper in 1911. Seventeen years later, in 1928, its copper output had reached seven per cent of world production. In 1907 diamonds were discovered in Kasai by a prospector of Forminiere (Societe Interrnational Forestier et Miniere)

By 1929 the Congo was the second largest producer of diamonds in the world, the largest being, of course, South Africa. Mineral products had by then taken the place of rubber as the mainstay of Congo economy.

By 1967 the Congo was producing sixty per cent of the world’s output of Cobalt, eight per cent of Copper and four per cent of Zinc. Among the most valuable commodities mined in the Congo were iron ore, coal, tin, uranium, germanium, gold and silver. There was hardly any country in Africa, Asia or Latin America which had such rich and varied mineral resources. See Challenge of the Congo by Kwame Nkrumah page 11-12.

Commenting on the above situation, Nkrumah writes: “Seen in the light of the vast complicated web of foreign economic interests in the Congo, the disastrous years  since independence are not difficult to explain. The richer the natural resources of a country, the more determined the neo-colonialists to tighten, and extend if possible, their hold over it”.

BRITAIN’S CALCULATED STRATEGY

The truth is that the former colonial powers never intended that economic development should succeed. The most serious aspect of this was Britain’s well-calculated and insidious strategy to block scientific and technological knowledge to the African people.

Let us not forget the fact that during the process of its colonization, the British set up trading companies, often under royal charter to take over different parts of Africa, which were then annexed to the empire. These included the Royal Niger Company, established in 1886, which paved the way for formal British rule from 1897, in what is now Nigeria. Another was the British East Africa Company, established in 1887 to control the area of modern Kenya and Uganda, annexed under British rule by 1895.

CECIL RHODES

Most important of all were the activities of Cecil Rhodes in Southern Africa. The group centered around Rhodes had by far the greatest impact of the European imperialist. It shaped the evolution not only of Southern Africa, but of the entire continent’s economics and politics, down to this day.

With financing from the Rothschild family, Rhodes consolidated control over most of the gold and diamond mines in what today is the Republic of South Africa, by the late 1880s. From there he pushed northward into an area (modern Zimbabwe) rumoured to hold even greater riches than South Africa.

In 1888, Rhodes obtained a vague but extensive mining concession from the Matabeles’ Chief Lobenguela and gave it to British South Africa Company organized for the purpose …Four years later, the Matabeles were attacked and destroyed by Rhodes’ lieutenant Dr Jameson and their lands taken by the company. Rhodes also financed the conquest of Nyasaland (modern Malawi).

 “The slaughter and slavery inflicted against Africans by Arab and European slave traders over the previous several centuries were compounded by what the colonial powers, especially Britain, now did”.

Rhodes and his fellow marauders slew not only Africans who stood in their way, but white settlers as well. Such a conflict was what the British refer to as the “Boer War” of 1899 to 1902. See Tiny Rowland, The  Ugly Face Of Neo-colonialism in Africa. By an Investigative Team of Executive Intelligence Review.

EXPLANATION

Explaining the problems that the British were confronted with at that time, Kwame Nkrumah writes: “Britain, in an attempt to reconcile the inherent contradictions within her capitalistic economy, has two courses only left to keep her home population from starvation; either her population must be dispersed in the colonial territories, or she must guarantee subsistence to them by exploitation of the colonies. The former, if put into action, will ultimately necessitate agitation for dominion status or no less than independence by the white settlers, as was the case in colonial America or in the Union of South Africa. The latter is natural, since Britain or any other colonial power depends on the exports of her manufactured goods and cheap imports of raw materials”. See  the introduction of Towards Colonial Freedom.

GHANA’S INDEPENDENCE

By the time Ghana had her independence in 1957, Washington was in the grip of anxiety over the growing influence of socialist ideas in Africa. The growing readiness of Britain, France and Belgium to yield to the National Liberation Struggle forced the US to run to catch up with a procession which it would have liked to believe it was leading.

As was explained above, Washington saw that the African colonies would inevitably attain their freedom and so made a virtue out of political necessity. There was no alternative to a show of anti-colonialism. Open support of the colonialists was ruled out by that time, and a neutral position might prove damaging to later politics.

Of the ideological formulas with which the USA concealed its expansionist drive into Africa the most important was anti-colonialism. This gave rise to sharp differences between the British, the French and the Americans at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, after the landing of Anglo-American troops in North Africa.

By that time it was quite certain that Roosevelt regarded Britain and France not only as allies, but also as rivals. He said at the time that “the English mean to maintain their hold on their colonies. They mean to help the French maintain their hold on their colonies”.

The expansion of the United States of America itself as a country was always achieved through force of arms, and therefore one is not surprised about what is happening today in Iraq, except that this time, it will be a different story altogether.

When the founding fathers of the American State were discussing the Declaration of Independence, armed American units were heading north to subdue neighbouring Canada. In 1803, the United States doubled its territory with the acquisition of Louisiana.

American researchers listed 114 wars the US fought in the 19^th century, including the war with Mexico.(1846-1848) which resulted in the US annexing two-thirds of Mexican territory.

In 1846 the Southern planters provoked a war against Mexico. And a year later the advancing American forces took the Mexican capital. On February 2, 1848, peace treaty was signed in Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico therefore lost California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, i.e. about two-thirds of its territory.

In the second installment of my article entitled: ‘War of Liberation Or A Naked Armed Robbery’, which appeared in the Daily Graphic of January 7, 2004, I said: “The truth is that America’s capacity to sustain her present standard of living by a competitive economic means is now in doubt. A dubious method now has to be found. Besides, there is now a worldwide suspicion that the US has in fact, printed too much dollar without adequate cover”.

But the experience of Singapore, Taiwan and other countries have shown that it is not the acquisition or conquest of foreign possessions, but the proper use of one’s own that makes a state as well as an individual actually rich. As a writer put it: “Land –grabbing by force and skill are cruel games of political insanity and false calculations of power”.

CONCLUSION

America does not need to do what it is doing now in Iraq and elsewhere to maintain its influence in the world. It is still leading the world in many aspects of human development to the admiration of all. America is still a country with the greatest opportunities in the world.

It is still the only country in the world that provides a home for every race on this planet. Nobody is seeking to destroy America. America’s real enemy which is seeking to destroy her to the disappointment of the rest of the world, is the greed, hypocrisy, and the duplicity of standards of the United States government.

The Boston Bombing Web of Lies

By Julie Lévesque

As with many “terrorism” related events since 9/11, the Boston bombing official narrative proves to be a web of lies as important facts are revealed. It turns out that the FBI has lied about its knowledge of the alleged suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, already being presented as guilty not only in the mainstream press but by the President himself.
According to the suspects’ mother, the FBI had been following them for years:

The FBI originally feigned ignorance over the identity of the two Boston bombing suspects, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as they appealed to an unwitting public to help them “identify” and “find” the suspects. […]

Russia Today, in an article titled, “‘They were set up, FBI followed them for years’- Tsarnaevs’ mother to RT” stated of the suspects’ mother:
But her biggest suspicion surrounding the case was the constant FBI surveillance she said her family was subjected to over the years. She is surprised that having been so stringent with the entire family, the FBI had no idea the sons were supposedly planning a terrorist act.
She would say of the FBI to Russia Today:

They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me…they were telling me that he [the older, 26-y/o Tamerlan] was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites… they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step…and now they say that this is a terrorist act! Never ever is this true, my sons are innocent!

[…] The FBI would then be forced to concede that indeed it had interviewed the suspects, in 2011, two years before the Boston bombings.  (Tony Cartalucci Boston Bombing Suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev Reported Killed, Was Alive When Detained: Tamerlan’s Aunt, Global Research, April 22, 2013.)

We were also told that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed in an exchange of gunfire after he and his brother had robbed a 7-Eleven:
When the shootout ended, one of the suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, a former boxer, had been shot and fatally wounded. He was wearing explosives, several law enforcement officials said. (Katharine Q. Seelye, William K. Rashbaum and Michael Cooper 2nd Bombing Suspect Caught After Frenzied Hunt Paralyzes Boston, The New York Times, April 19, 2013.)

With a bomb strapped to his chest, one of the Boston Marathon suspects was killed early Friday after he and his accomplice brother robbed a 7-Eleven, shot a police officer to death, carjacked an SUV and hurled explosives in an extraordinary firefight with law enforcement, authorities told NBC News. (Pete Williams, Richard Esposito, Michael Isikoff and Erin McClam, NBC News, One Boston Marathon suspect killed; second suspect, his brother, on loose after firefight, NBC News, April 19, 2013.)
The events surrounding Tamerlan’s death reported by the media are simply not true. It turns out that Tamerlan’ aunt identified him as a  “naked, cuffed, clearly alive and well detainee seen in video aired by CNN”:

Was Tamerlan Assassinated?
The Boston Globe 
confirmed that Marathon Bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was in custody, contradicting earlier reports that he had been killed in crossfire. If he was in custody and is now dead, does that not suggest that he might have been the object of  an extrajudicial assassination? The circumstances of his death remain to be clarified.
Moreover, the 7-Eleven robbery was actually unrelated to the Tsarnaev brothers:
There was a 7-Eleven robbery in Cambridge last night, but it had nothing to do with the Boston Marathon bombing suspects.

Margaret Chabris, the director of corporate communication at 7- Eleven, says the surveillance video of the crime was not taken at a 7-Eleven and that the suspect that did rob the 7-Eleven does not look like Tamerlan or Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

“The suspect in the photos for that particular 7-Eleven robbery looks nothing like the suspects,” Chabris says. “The police or someone made a mistake. Someone was confused.”
[…] Again, they might be guilty. But as Glenn Greenwald notes:

The overarching principle here should be that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is entitled to a presumption of innocence until he is actually proven guilty. As so many cases have proven – from accused (but exonerated) anthrax attacker Stephen Hatfill to accused (but exonerated) Atlanta Olympic bomber Richard Jewell to dozens if not hundreds of Guantanamo detainees accused of being the “worst of the worst” but who were guilty of nothing – people who appear to be guilty based on government accusations and trials-by-media are often completely innocent. Media-presented evidence is no substitute for due process and an adversarial trial. (Washington’s Blog, Boston Terror Narrative Starts Falling Apart, Global Research, April 23, 2013)

On April 19 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was arrested and brought to a hospital. According to Reuters, “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was wounded during at least one of two gun battles with police on Friday, suffering gunshot wounds to his head, neck, legs and hand [...]“. On April 24, the Huffington Post reported:

Two U.S. officials say the surviving suspect in the Boston bombings was unarmed when police captured him hiding inside a boat in a neighborhood back yard.
Authorities originally said they had exchanged gunfire with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for more than one hour Friday evening before they were able to subdue him. (Adam Goldman and Pete Yost, Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Reportedly Unarmed When Arrested In Boat, Officials Say, Huffington Post, April 24, 2013.)

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was unarmed and obviously brutalized by police 
We still don’t know what really happened in Boston and who committed the attacks even though the mainstream media report that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has admitted being guilty. What we know for sure is that the official Boston bombing narrative is filled with lies and that since 9/11 and in the context of the fictitious “War on Terror”, Western governments, intelligence agencies and mainstream media have proven to be untrustworthy sources of information on alleged “terrorist attacks” or “foiled terrorist plots”.

Canada’s Complicity in the War on Terror
Three days after Boston was locked down, invaded by a colossal police-military apparatus on a surreal “teenagehunt”, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police made a very timely announcement: they had foiled a terrorist plot targeting a Via Rail passenger train. Or so they say.

In a very absurd press conference where three RCMP officers repeatedly answered questions with “we cannot comment as the investigation is ongoing”, the only information they seemed very eager to disclose was that the suspects “received guidance from Al-Qaeda in Iran”.

While the Canadian mainstream media take these RCMP allegations at face value, independent news outlets suspect hidden political motives behind the highly publicized announcement:

Neither the police nor government have given any reason as to why, after allowing the accused to remain at large for months, they were suddenly arrested Monday afternoon and in a very high-profile manner. […]

Speaking Tuesday after Jaser’s arraignment in a Toronto court, his lawyer, John Norris, drew attention to the timing of the police-government announcement that they had uncovered Canada’s first “al-Qaeda-sponsored” terror plot. Said Norris, “The timing of the arrest is a bit of a mystery and certainly I would like to hear the RCMP’s explanation for that. They have been very clear that there is no risk of public safety and it is surprising to say the least that this arrest would be made now, close on the heels of what happened in Boston and timed perfectly with what was happening in the House of Commons yesterday.”

On Friday, the Conservative government announced that it was changing the House of Commons’ agenda, scheduling third and final reading of its “Combating Terrorism Act” (Bill S-7) to begin Monday and conclude this week. Bill S-7 gives the state vast new powers. These include: the right to hold terrorism suspects for 72 hours without charge, to convene “investigative hearings” at which those believed to have information about an imminent terrorist attack are stripped of their right to remain silent, and the power to place restrictions for up to a year on the movements and rights of persons deemed by the state to be terrorist suspects but against whom they have insufficient evidence to lay charges. […]
US authorities have been quick to trumpet the Canadian claims of a thwarted terrorist attack—claims that boost their own efforts to portray North America as under siege from terrorists and justify a vast expansion of the national-security apparatus and coercive powers of the state. The US ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, issued a statement Monday saying the arrests of Esseghaier and Jaser “were the result of extensive cross-border cooperation” and had underscored “that we face serious and real threats.” […]

At Monday’s press conference, the RCMP asserted that Esseghaier and Jaser had acted under the “direction and guidance” of “al-Qaeda elements located in Iran.”
The RCMP said that they had no evidence of Iranian government involvement. […]
The Harper Conservative government, which has declared itself Israel’s strongest ally and has expanded Canada’s decades’ old military-strategic alliance with Washington, broke off diplomatic relations with Teheran last summer. In justifying this action, Conservative Foreign Minister John Baird labeled Iran “the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today.” (Keith Jones Canadian Government unveils “Terror Plot” as it Adopts Draconian New Law, World Socialist Web Site, April 24, 2013.)
We may recall a “terrorist plot” revealed in late November 2001. According to mainstream reports, Ahmed Ressam, who was convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport in 1999, had also planned to bomb a Montreal area with “the most visible concentration of Jews in Canada — a vibrant area of some 5,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews who stand out because of their traditional outfits of black coats and hats for men, long skirts and wigs for women. » (Ingrid Peritz, Montreal’s brush with terror, The Globe and Mail, November 30, 2001.)

The Globe stated further:
Members of the Hasidic community in Outremont responded with shock after hearing that Mr. Ressam and Samir Ait Mohamed wanted to detonate a bomb in the area because it was predominantly Jewish.

The stated choice of explosives — a bomb on a gasoline truck — evoked the detonating power of the fuel-laden planes that ripped through the World Trade Center. (Ibid.)
Samir Aït Mohamed happened to be a fake Algerian refugee and “an informant for Canadian law-enforcement authorities [RCMP].” (Mike Carter, Montreal bomb plot revealed in Ressam case documents, Seattle Times, November 30, 2001.)

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was also involved in a terrorist plot. Joseph Gilles Breault, a.k.a. Youssef Mouammar or Abou Djihad, had threatened to attack the Montreal metro with a biochemical weapon in 1998. He was a CSIS agent.
With that in mind, the latest RCMP “exploit” raises even more questions on this revived Al-Qaeda threat focused on Iran. Who’s behind Al-Qaeda in Iran?:

As the FBI reels from what now appears to be revelations it was directly involved in the Boston Marathon bombings, a deluge of FBI “success” stories have been “serendipitously” splashed across Western headlines. Among them was an allegedly “foiled” terror attack in Canada, reported to be the work of terrorists supported by “Al-Qaeda operatives in Iran.” The Globe and Mail, in its report, “Canada joins U.S. in alleging al-Qaeda has operatives based in Iran,” states:

[…] The Sunni-based al-Qaeda and Shia Iran belong to different branches of Islam that have been at odds historically. But in recent years U.S. officials have formally alleged that Iran has allowed al-Qaeda members to operate out of its territory.”

[…] Hersh in his 2008 New Yorker piece titled, “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran,” spelled out a damning indictment of US involvement in bolstering, arming, and funding terror organizations, not linked to, but described as actually being Al Qaeda [...]:

One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefiting from U.S. support. (Tony Cartalucci, Who is Behind “Al Qaeda in Iran”?, Global Research, April 23, 2013.)

Otherwise the brothers’ links to Chechen terrorists makes very little sense, since the latter, like many other terrorist groups and/or so-called freedom fighters depending on the strategy of the day, have been supported by the US:

What is abundantly clear is that the US government is not committed to fighting terrorists.
Quite the opposite. US intelligence has been recruiting and grooming terrorists for more than thirty years, while at same time upholding the absurd notion that these terrorists, who are bona fide CIA “intelligence assets”, constitute a threat to the American Homeland.  These alleged threats by “An Outside Enemy” are part of a propaganda ploy behind the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT).

[...] The development of an Islamist terrorist militia in different countries around the World is part of an intricate US intelligence project.

While the Tsarnaev brothers are casually accused without evidence of having links to Chechen terrorists, the important question is who is behind the Chechen terrorists?
In an utterly twisted logic, the protagonists of the ‘Global War on Terrorism” directed against Muslims are the de facto architects of “Islamic terrorism.” (Michel Chossudovsky, BOSTON TRUTH: The “Chechen Connection”, Al Qaeda and the Boston Marathon Bombings, Global Research, April 22, 2013.)

Even former US Ambassador Craig Murray says the “Chechen Connexion” story is surreal:
We are asked to believe that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was identified by the Russian government as an extremist Dagestani or Chechen Islamist terrorist, and they were so concerned about it that in late 2010 they asked the US government to take action. At that time, the US and Russia did not normally have a security cooperation relationship over the Caucasus, particularly following the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. For the Russians to ask the Americans for assistance, Tsarnaev must have been high on their list of worries.
In early 2011 the FBI interview Tsarnaev and trawl his papers and computers but apparently – remarkably for somebody allegedly radicalised by internet – the habitually paranoid FBI find nothing of concern.

So far, so weird. But now this gets utterly incredible. In 2012 Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is of such concern to Russian security, is able to fly to Russia and pass through the airport security checks of the world’s most thoroughly and brutally efficient security services without being picked up.
He is then able to proceed to Dagestan – right at the heart of the world’s heaviest military occupation and the world’s most far reaching secret police surveillance – again without being intercepted, and he is able there to go through some form of terror training or further Islamist indoctrination. He then flies out again without any intervention by the Russian security services.

That is the official story and I have no doubt it did not happen. I know Russia and I know the Russian security services. Whatever else they may be, they are extremely well-equipped, experienced and efficient and embedded into a social fabric accustomed to cooperation with their mastery.

This scenario is simply impossible in the real world. (Craig Murray, The Boston Bombings and the FBI: “Official Tsarnaev Story Makes No Sense”, 21st Century Wire, April 22, 2013.)
The idea that Tamerlan was, in fact, a US intelligence asset seems closer to the truth, since according to a Russian newspaper, he attended a US-sponsored workshop in the Caucasus, the goal of which was to destabilize southern regions of Russia:

Today, Russian newspaper Izvestia alleges that the older Boston Tamarlan bombing brother attended a workshop – sponsored by an American organization – on destabilizing the Russian satellite states:

At the disposal of “Izvestia” has documents Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, confirming that the Georgian organization “Fund of Caucasus” [here's their website], which cooperates with the U.S. non-profit organization “Jamestown” (the board of directors of NGOs previously entered one of the ideologists of U.S. foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski), was engaged in recruiting residents North Caucasus to work in the interests of the United States and Georgia.

According to the reports of Colonel Chief Directorate Counterintelligence Department Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia Gregory Chanturia to the Minister of Internal Affairs Irakli Garibashvili, “Caucasian fund” in cooperation with the Foundation “Jamestown” in the summer of 2012 conducted workshops and seminars for young people of the Caucasus, including its Russian part. Some of them attended Tsarnaev Tamerlane, who was in Russia from January to July 2012.
“Caucasian fund” writes Tchanturia was established November 7, 2008, just after the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, “to control the processes taking place in the North Caucasus region.” Accordingly, the Department of the Interior Ministry counterintelligence case was brought intelligence operations called “DTV”. Main purpose is to recruit young people and intellectuals of the North Caucasus to enhance instability and extremism in the southern regions of Russia. (Washington’s Blog, Was Boston Bomber “Radicalized” at a U.S. Sponsored Counterterrorism Workshop, Global Research, April 24, 2013.)
Overall, the Boston tragedy is clearly and sadly being exploited to revamp the “War on terror”, justify the police state apparatus in the US and other Western countries such as Canada, and legitimize attacks on our rights and liberties.

May Day: A meaningless anachronism

By Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

May Day: a meaningless international day commemorating what, since 2000, has been rendered an insult to the working person. Instead of what is supposed to be a day of unity and solidarity, we witness an empty shell, a has-been and a perfect example of what our world has become.

Let us be honest about May Day: it has passed into the gray area of cloud cuckoo land, a meaningless "international day" commemorating a meaningful benchmark in bygone years which today, since 2000, has been rendered an insult to the working person. Instead of what is supposed to be a day of unity and solidarity, we witness an empty shell, a has-been and a perfect example of what our world has become.

The amazing victories scored by heroes over the years, guaranteeing workers' rights, guaranteeing women's rights, putting an end to slave labor, to child labor, implementing legislation to protect working families and provide public services have touched us all since the end of the Great Patriotic War (Second World War).

For around forty-five years, from 1945 to 1990, the Soviet Union and the COMECON bloc saw their controlled economic model providing a backdrop for public services mirrored by their western interlocutors whose gut reaction to economic and social policy was, at best, reactionary. Was, is and always has been.

So it comes as no surprise that the reactionary forces gradually chipped away at the gains made under the Welfare State. While the COMECON model continued to provide free and excellent education and healthcare, social mobility, a society based upon meritocracy, guaranteed job, free housing, subsidized or free public utilities, safety on the streets, security of the State, zero unemployment, zero homelessness, a buffer against western filth such as drug addiction, pornography and street crime... the western equivalent went further and further backwards to the Medieval era.

And come the voluntary transformation of the COMECON countries at the beginning of the 1990s (in the same wave of enthusiasm which saw the European Union being created at the same time... now look at what they have done...) the scourge of the west passed to the east.

And what a wonderful system they have created to substitute what we had. Education has become a business, students come out of secondary school unable to read, count or write, higher education is a business, post-Bologna students are considered inferior to pre-Bologna students in Europe, job security is a joke, full employment is a chimera, healthcare is another business, getting a home is a drama, keeping it is another...

Yes, let us all celebrate May Day and the wonderful victories it achieved for the working person. What is left? Working 19 hours a day to retain a job to pay the bank and eke out an existence to put bread on the table. Welcome to the Third Millennium.