THE CASE OF SALIFU: I Will Kill My Own Son

Nana Oye Lithur

By Ekow Mensah

The radio was blaring in the small hours of the morning and the voice on it belonged to a guy who referred to himself simply as Salifu.

He was responding to a straight forward question posed by the presenter of the morning show. What will you do if our son walked up to you and said he was gay?

Salifu was frothing at the mouth and swearing. He had been filled with so much religious fervour and his intolerance level had picked.

“How dare him? How could my own son walk up to me and say he is gay. I will kill him and kill myself. God doesn’t like that and I can’t take it. It would be a big disgrace” he thundered.

First, let us accept that Salifu is a Moslem as he claims and that his revulsion at the son’s social conduct is influenced by his religious convictions.

Any close examination of those convictions would reveal that they are just pretensions without any dept.

If Salifu believed in an all knowing, all powerful and caring God, his reaction would be to pray to that deity to change his son’s sexual orientation instead of his decision to commit dual murders.

It must be obvious that Salifu does not believe that God can change the sexual orientation of his son and therefore he would take matters into his own more competent hands.

In any case if the all powerful God so hated homosexuality why would he allow Salifu’s son to become a gay?

Religious gurus would answer this simply by claiming that God moves in mysterious ways and that ordinary humans cannot always explain the ways of God.

If this were the case, then why would Salifu be desperately trying to act for God when his mystery becomes manifest in the son of a religious zealot who has become gay?

Any passing knowledge of Islam will show that it considers murder as one of the highest crimes and yet Salifu would commit murder and suicide to do his God’s will.

Our world is too full of contradictions and the level of intolerance must be shocking.

Editorial

FOCUS ON ISSUES

What are the important issues uppermost on the minds of our rulers today?

Little consideration is given to how the working class and peasants participate in decision making.

Issues like the spread of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) which are only creating markets for multinational companies are being overlooked.

There is also the distraction of the present football style political dichotomy rather than arguing and differing on issues.

Whilst the mainstream political organizations ignore these issues, groups like Food Sovereignty Ghana and other civil society organizations have emerged to take up issues.

We at The Insight support these grass roots initiatives and call progressives to also support such causes.

The Western Reaction to the Zimbabwe Election

President Elect-Robert Mogabe

By Dr. Gary K. Busch

There is a great deal more to the Western objections to the evaluation by the African Union and SADC verdict that the recent elections in Zimbabwe were free and fair than just a disquiet that the elections did not produce the result that some sections of the West wanted. These objections tell the world that these Western powers who object so strongly to the victory of Mugabe and ZANU-PF are humiliated by the fact that they are increasingly irrelevant to political developments in Africa and largely impotent in controlling the political and economic ties among African nations and the international community. There is a growing, if reluctant, realisation by the United Kingdom that Zimbabwe doesn’t need them; want them or rely on them for political, military or economic interactions. The British are, to an ever-increasing state, irrelevant to Zimbabwe; and indeed to Africa as a whole.

British rule over Zimbabwe ended in 1965 with the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front. Other than the few months at the end of the Rhodesian War when Abel Muzorewa’s Government reverted to British colonial control to negotiate the Peace Accords establishing Zimbabwe in 1979, Britain’s control over Rhodesia/Zimbabwe effectively ended in 1965. There is, in reality, no one in Zimbabwe under the age of fifty who ever lived under British colonial rule. In fact, the median age in Zimbabwe is less than twenty years. That means that the largest sector of people in Zimbabwe not only never lived under British rule, they also didn’t live under Rhodesian Front rule. Independence was around thirty-five years ago and the bulk of Zimbabweans were not even alive at the time. Theirs is not the politics of colonialism or anti-colonialism; it is the politics of a nation beset by a concerted campaign by the international community against it.

In addition, during the post-independence period most of the kith and kin that the British saw as a group whose rights they had to defend, have left the country. One would be hard-pressed to find more than a few thousand kith and kin left in Zimbabwe. The British bought some time for these kith and kin by insisting on the several entrenched clauses in the Zimbabwe Constitution at independence which protected the land rights and tenure of the white farmers for ten years after independence, but reneged on the promises to the new state that at the end of the ten years they would assist financially with the cost of transition from white-ruled farms to a wider participation in land ownership. The conflict this engendered led to the seizure of white farms and the expropriation of some of their lands. The British, whose refusal to conduct its policy towards Zimbabwe according to its obligations, used these seizures as evidence of the supposed failure of ZANU to act fairly.

In response, the British undertook a policy of almost two decades of political and economic subversion against the Zimbabwe government and encouraged its international partners in Europe and North America to follow its lead in combatting Mugabe and sanctioning the country and its political leadership. It created the MDC political party and promoted its leaders in Parliament, the European Union and NATO in their efforts to oust Mugabe and the ZANU-PF. The efforts of the MDC to take power in the last election precipitated a period of violence and mayhem which led to the doomed coalition of Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Mutumbara.

The coalition was doomed because it was accompanied by a unique and epic failure of the Zimbabwe dollar to retain its value. Spiralling inflation finally drove the country to abandon the Zimbabwe dollar (which had traded at one Zimbabwe dollar equalling one US dollar and sixty cents at independence). The US dollar and sterling were accepted as the currencies for Zimbabwe’s accounts. This destruction of the currency and the impact of the international sanctions imposed by Britain, the European Union and the United States had a devastating effect on the Zimbabwe economy and political structures. It has taken over six years to recover from that crisis. The Zimbabwe economy has almost recovered from that crisis despite the sanctions and the imposition of foreign currencies as the reserve currency.

The role of the U.S. in undermining Zimbabwe and its economy was no better than the British. The U.S. has always viewed the African nationalists of Southern Africa as their enemy based on the relentless Cold War policies of combatting the Soviet Union in every theatre. The nationalists of the ANC and, PAC in South Africa; ZANU and ZAPU in Rhodesia; MPLA in Angola; FRELIMO and COREMO in Mozambique; and the several governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (starting with Lumumba) were all viewed as too close to the Soviet Union and thus the enemies of the U.S. America has been fighting wars in Africa since the 1950s – in Angola, the DRC, Somalia, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Libya, Djibouti among others. In some countries they used US troops, but in most cases the US financed, armed and supervised the support of indigenous forces. In its support of the anti- MPLA forces in Angola it sent arms and equipment to the UNITA opposition. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Larry Devlin of the CIA was an unofficial branch of Mobutu’s government; the US ran its own air force at WIGMO. US airmen supported the South African forces in the Caprivi from WIGMO. The hostility and opposition of the U.S. to African nationalism took many forms.

The U.S. cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council in 1970 when Ambassador Charles Yost vetoed against a resolution on interdicting the international sale of Rhodesian chromite ore. The U.S. argued that the beneficiary of the sanction against Smith’s Rhodesia would be the Soviet Union which was also selling chromite ore. [I was challenged by Congressman Brad Morse at a Congressional Hearing on Rhodesia at which I was testifying when I suggested that the use of the U.S. veto on this issue was shameful because the British had already used its veto and the U.S. veto was gratuitous.] It has been a unique feature of U.S. African diplomacy that the Cold War legacy of opposition to African nationalism continues to shape U.S. policy; especially under the guidance of such neo-cons as Susan Rice. The U.S. sanctions against Zimbabwe were established by the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (ZDERA) and continue to today. The U.S. has threatened to continue these sanctions because of its uncertainty about the re-election of Mugabe and ZANU-PF.

So, at one time, the combined censure against Zimbabwe by the UK and the U.S. might have had a profound impact. Today, these sanctions are an irritant, not an insoluble problem. The world has changed since 2001 and the UK and the U.S. are increasingly irrelevant to the progress of Zimbabwe. In the late 1990s President Mugabe saw the handwriting on the wall as he offered his military support to Kabila’s DRC which was being attacked and invaded by the U.S. surrogate armies of Uganda and Rwanda It was clear that the U.S. and the International community didn’t want Kabila to win or for Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe to emerge as saviours of the DRC’s national integrity. Mugabe pointed out that the future lay in the East; the expansion of African ties with Asia, particularly China and Malaysia.

ZANU-PF has had a long and close relationship with the Peoples Republic of China. It was China which sustained the ZANU army in its garrisons in Mozambique during its long military campaign against the Rhodesian Front. The Russians supported Nkomo’s ZAPU in Lusaka, Zambia but the ZANU developed ties to China. This relationship has continued to grow after independence. The Chinese continue to be the main economic partners of Zimbabwe. As the West abandoned and sanctioned the vast mineral resources of Zimbabwe their mines, ore sources and processing plants were taken over by Chinese investors. Chinese banks and financial institutions stood behind these investments and channelled lots of money into Zimbabwe. The Chinese military-industrial corporations armed the Zimbabwe army with the latest equipment. In short, while the international community was lecturing Zimbabwe and teaching it lessons in the IMF, World Bank and other Bretton Woods agencies the Chinese sent money and investment and took goods despite the sanctions.

It is not that the Chinese are Zimbabwe’s only customers. Despite the rantings of the British about the election, ambassadors from Norway, Sweden and Denmark have already staked out an expanded path of economic relations with Zimbabwe. It wasn’t two days after the election that German bankers contacted the country with offers to help set up internationally accepted letters of credit confirmed by German banks. There are now serious discussions in Zimbabwe (as well as Angola and some others) about adopting the Chinese Yuan as an official currency. The farms have largely recovered and are producing ever-increasing levels of food production for Africa and for exports to the East. Public spending is expanding, according to a study by the Cato Institute by a factor of ten. The economy is recovering from its catastrophic state despite the West and the direction of growth is firmly to the East.

The election of Mugabe and ZANU was not a tribute to the political system for its sketchy improvement in the lives of Zimbabweans or its support for the grasping of wealth by well-connected politicians and military leaders. Unfortunately that accompanied the imposition of sanctions. The people of Zimbabwe don’t really care much for the existing politicians but they knew that the addition of the MDC to the equation only made things worse. With stability they hope that there will be more wealth tricking down and an absence of civil strife.

It is a bit rich for the U.S. to complain about unfair elections in Zimbabwe at a time when U.S. voting rights are being ripped away from the Constitutional structures established in the 1960s in several states and impediments for the registration of voters are cutting away millions of Americans from the voting rolls. When they say that political satire reached its apogee with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Henry Kissinger, electoral satire reached its apogee in the 2000 election of George Bush.

Zimbabwe will get on and thrive in the next years under Mugabe and ZANU’s leadership with or without the continuation of sanctions. The West has moved itself away from relevance and influence in Africa. Impotence and irrelevance are not solved by removing sanctions and no complaints by the UK or the U.S. about elections is likely to change this.

Burkina Faso: With or Without Campaore, Times of Uncertainty

Blaise Campaore of Bourkina Faso

By ICG Africa Report

For the first time since 1987, succession is being openly discussed in Burkina Faso. Under the current constitution, President Blaise Compaore, in power for more than a quarter century, is not allowed to contest the presidency in 2015. Any attempt to amend the constitution for a fifth-term bid could provoke a repeat of the 2011 popular uprisings. However, even if Compaore abides by the constitution and leaves power in 2015, his succession may still prove challenging as he has dominated the political scene for decades, placing severe restrictions on political space. International partners must encourage him to uphold the constitution and prepare for a smooth, democratic transition.

Preserving Burkina Faso’s stability is all the more important given that the country is located at the centre of an increasingly troubled region, with the political and military crisis in neighbouring Mali possibly spilling over into Niger, another border country. Burkina Faso has been spared similar upheaval so far thanks to its internal stability and robust security apparatus, but deterioration of the political climate in the run-up to 2015 could make the country more vulnerable. A presidential election is also due in 2015 in Cote d’ Ivoire, a country with which Burkina Faso has very close ties. This special relationship and the presence of a significant Burkinabe community in the country mean that a political crisis in Ouagadougou could have a negative impact on a still fragile Cote d’ Ivoire.

Burkina Faso also holds significant diplomatic influence in West Africa. Over the past two decades under Blaise Compaore’s rule, the country has become a key player in the resolution of regional crises. The president and his men have succeeded, with much ingenuity, in positioning themselves as indispensable mediators or as watchdogs helping Western countries monitor the security situation in the Sahel and the Sahara. A crisis in Burkina Faso would not only mean the loss of a key ally and a strategic base for France and the U.S., it would also reduce the capacity of an African country in dealing with regional conflicts. The collapse of the Burkinabe diplomatic apparatus would also mean the loss of an important reference point for West Africa that, despite limitations, has played an essential role as a regulatory authority.

There is real risk of socio-political crisis in Burkina Faso. Since coming to power in 1987, Blaise Compaore has put in place a semi-authoritarian regime, combining democratisation with repression, to ensure political stability something his predecessors have never achieved. This complex, flawed system is unlikely to be sustained, however. It revolves around one man who has dominated political life for over two decades and has left little room for a smooth transition. In fact, there are few alternatives for democratic succession. The opposition is divided and lacks financial capacity and charismatic, experienced leaders; and none of the key figures in the ruling party has emerged as a credible successor. If Compaore fails to manage his departure effectively, the country could face political upheaval similar to that which rocked Cote d’Ivoire in the 1990s following the death of Felix Houphouet-Boigny.

Another threat to Burkina Faso’s stability is social explosion. The society has modernised faster than the political system, and urbanisation and globalisation have created high expectations for change from an increasingly young population. Despite strong economic growth, inequalities are widespread and the country is one of the poorest in the world. Repeated promises of change have never been fulfilled, and this has led to broken relations between the state and its citizens as well as a loss of authority at all levels of the administration. Public distrust sparked violent protests in the first half of 2011 that involved various segments of the society, including rank-and-file soldiers in several cities.

For the first time, the army appeared divided between the elites and the rank and file, and somewhat hostile to the president, who has sought to control the defence and security apparatus from which he had emerged. The crisis was only partially resolved, and local conflicts over land, traditional leadership and workers rights increased in 2012. Such tensions are especially worrying given the country’s history of social struggle and revolutionary tendencies since the 1983 Marxist-inspired revolution.

Blaise Compaore’s long reign is showing the usual signs of erosion that characterises semi-autocratic rule. Several key figures of his regime have retired, including the mayor of Ouagadougou, Simon Compaore not a relative of the president who managed the country’s capital for seventeen years; and billionaire Oumarou Kanazo, who until his death was a moderate voice among the Muslim community. In addition, the death of Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi, a major financial partner, was a blow to Compaore’s regime.

President Compaore has responded to these challenges with reforms that have not met popular expectations and have only scratched the surface. Further, he has remained silent on whether he will actually leave office in 2015. He has concentrated power, in the country and within his Congress for Democracy and Progress (CDP) party, in the hands of a small circle of very close allies and family members, including his younger brother Francois Compaore, who was elected to parliament for the first time on 2 December 2012. The president’s silence and his brother’s political ascent continue to fuel uncertainty.

President Compaore has less than three years left to prepare his departure and prevent a succession battle or a new popular uprising. He is the only actor capable of facilitating a smooth transition. By upholding the constitution and resisting the temptation of dynastic succession, he could preserve stability, the main accomplishment of his long rule. Any other scenario would pave the way for a troubled future. Similarly, the opposition and civil society organisations should act responsibly and work to create conditions for a democratic process that would preserve peace and stability. International partners, in particular Western allies, should no longer focus exclusively on Compaore’s mediation role and the monitoring of security risks in West Africa; they should also pay close attention to domestic politics and the promotion of democracy in Burkina Faso.

Tony Blair: Libya, Lockerbie, Arms and Betrayals

Fmr. British Prime Minister Tony Blair

By Felicity Arbuthnot

This will surely have you falling down with surprise. According to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by the (UK) Sunday Telegraph, the August 2009 release from Scotland’s Barlinnie jail of Libyan Abdelbaset al- Megrahi, accused of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, hinged on an oil and arms deal, allegedly brokered by roving war monger (sorry, roving Peace Ambassador) Tony Blair.

At this point it should be said that anyone who has read John Ashton and Ian Ferguson’s meticulous Cover up of Convenience (i) on the Lockerbie tragedy could only regard Mr al-Meghrahi’s conviction as between very unsafe and very questionable.

The British Labour Party, which Blair headed for ten years, until 27th June 2007, have always insisted that the release had no connection with commercial deals. After leaving Downing Street, Blair visited Libya some six times.

On 8th June 2008, the then British Ambassador to Libya, Sir Vincent Fean, sent Tony Blair’s private office a thirteen hundred word briefing on the UK’s eagerness to do business with Libya, according to the Telegraph. (ii) Blair flew to Tripoli to meet Colonel Quaddafi, just two days later, June 10th. Quaddafi paid: Blair, always lavish with other’s money had requested, and was granted, the Colonel’s private jet for the journey.

Sir Vincent’s key objective was for: Libya to invest its £80 billion sovereign wealth through the City of London, according to the Telegraph, which also cites the Ambassador writing of the UK being : privately critical of then President George Bush for shooting the US in the foot by continuing to put a block on Libyan assets in America, in the process scuppering business deals. Britain however, was voraciously scrambling to fill the fiscal gap.

Unlike the US and UK who abandon or drone to death their own citizens who are in trouble, or even accused of it, Libya’s Administration had stood by their man and seemed to be prepared to do even unpalatable deals to free him and had long been pressuring the UK to release al-Megrahi.

In May 2007, a month before he left Downing Street, Blair had made his second visit to Libya, meeting Colonel Quaddafi and his Prime Minister Al Baghdadi Ali al-Mahmoudi in then beautiful and now near ruined city of Sirte.

Surely coincidentally, on this trip, a deal was seemingly thrashed out, including prisoner transfer, just before British Petroleum (BP) announced their approximate £454 million investment to prospect for £13billion worth of oil in Libya.

Also, states the Telegraph report: At that meeting, according to Sir Vincent’s email, Mr Blair and Mr Al Baghdadi agreed that Libya would buy a missile defence system from MBDA a weapons manufacturer part-owned by Britain’s BAE Systems. This seemed to (also) hinge on a Memorandum of Understanding for a Prisoner Transfer Agreement: which the Libyans believed would pave the way for al-Megrahi’s release. Various sources state that the arms deal was worth £400 million, and up to two thousand jobs in the UK. Sir Vincent referred to the arms deal as a legacy issue. Blair’s legacy, as ever, synonymous with destruction.

Ironically, it was Blair who credited himself with persuading Colonel Quaddafi to abandon and destroy his weapons programmes after his visit to the country in March 2004 (placing that Judas kiss the Colonel’s cheek) as a step to Libya returning to the fold of the duplicitous international community. With friends like Blair, enemies are a redundancy.

When Blair returned to Libya in June 2008, the Telegraph contends that the British Government, then under Gordon Brown, Blair’s former Chancellor of the Exchequer (who left the national coffers near empty) used the opportunity: to press the case for the arms deal to be sealed. At the time, Britain was on the brink of an economic and banking crisis and Libya, though the Libyan Investment Authority had billions of pounds in reserves.

Saif al-Islam, Quaddafi’s son, expressed the concern over the arms deal being voiced from within the Libyan military, given their close ties to the Russian defence equipment camp.

An earlier discovery by the Sunday Telegraph shows, in letters and emails, that Blair held hitherto undisclosed talks with the Colonel in April 2009, four months before al-Megrahi’s release. (iii)

Again he was flown at the expense of the Colonel, in his private jet: In both 2008 and 2009, documents show Mr Blair negotiated to fly to the Libyan capitol ... in a jet provided by Quaddafi. Blair’s Office denies the claims, saying they were transported in a Libyan government plane.

By the time of the 2009 visit: Libya was threatening to cut all business links if al-Megrahi stayed in a British jail. Blair seemingly attempted to pour oil on troubled waters by bringing American billionaire, Tim Collins to that meeting to advise Quaddafi on building the beach resorts he was planning, on the Libyan coast.

Further adding to the murk, a spokesperson for Collins stated: Tim was asked to go by Tony Blair in his position as a trustee of Mr Blair’s US faith foundation. Tim had no intention of doing any business with Quaddafi.

However: Sources in Libya said Quaddafi had discussed with Mr Collins opening beach resorts along the Libyan coast, but that Mr Collins had dismissed the idea because the Libyans would not sanction the sale of alcohol or gambling at the resorts.

Blair’s spokesperson said of the visit:  ... Tony Blair has never had any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the Government of Libya and he has no commercial relationship with any Libyan company or entity. A Blair first, seemingly, given the impression that he never touches down anywhere without emerging with a lucrative contract or a large cheque.

However, Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, is quoted as saying : Mr Blair is clearly using his Downing Street contacts to further his business interests.

In a further coincidence, the Prisoner Transfer agreement for Mr al-Megrahi was signed the day before Blair’s 2009 visit.

When al-Megrahi, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, was released in August 2009, the British media and politicians were outraged. Scotland had done a deal and was benefiting financially from Libya. The latest revelations prove Scotland did no financial deals. When Mr al-Megrahi failed to die, politicians and media were even more outraged. They were a shaming spectacle.

Mental mind set can be a huge force in prolonging life in even the most serious cancer patients. No doubt in al-Megrahi’s case, being back in a home and with a family he loved contributed to his extra time. He survived long enough to see his country destroyed by the devious forces the West embodies and at which Blair excels. Megrahi died in September 2012.

Incidentally, Ambassador Fean reportedly expressed relief at al-Megrahi’s release: He noted that a refusal of Megrahi’s request could have had disastrous implications for British interests in Libya. They could have cut us off at the knees.

Quaddafi, however, never signed the arms deal.

Footnote: The 2004 visit by Blair was arranged by Saif al Islam, who Blair seemingly knew well and had allegedly even offered suggestions on his PhD thesis when Saif was studying at the London School of Economics.

In September last year Saif al-Islam’s lady friend of six years, appealed, passionately, to Blair to intervene to save the life of his now captured, maimed and death penalty-facing friend: The two are old friends – it is time that Mr Blair returned some loyalty. Mr Blair is a man of God as a Christian he has a moral duty to help a friend in need, she has commented. (v)

Seemingly there has been no response from Blair’s office. Further, an extensive search for a comment on the appalling death of Colonel Quaddafi his former host and private ‘plane provider and the demise of much of his family from this Peace Envoy and man of God, has come up with absolutely nothing.

To mangle a quote: Beware of British offering deals.

Notes

i. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/04/lock-a24.html

ii. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10206659/Lockerbie-bomber-release-linked-to-arms-deal-according-to-secret-letter.html

iii. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8771192/Libya-Tony-Blair-and-Col-Gaddafis-secret-meetings.html

iv. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-gaddafi-britain-lockerbie-bomber

v. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197304/Saif-Gaddafis-girlfriend-calls-PM-save-life.html

The Battle for Oil in Central Africa

Joseph Kony

By Timothy Alexander Guzman

The Obama administration recently sent the highest ranking official to discuss its support for the Ugandan government’s involvement in various conflict zones in East Africa that includes Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Sudan and continue its effort to stop Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).

Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter is the “highest-ranking DOD official ever to visit Uganda” according to the U.S. Department of Defense official website www.defense.gov press release.  The report said that the agenda discussed between Carter and Ugandan political and military leaders was to confirm Washington’s commitment to the Ugandan military operations in the region:

The visit gave him a chance to discuss a range of regional security challenges with Ugandan partners – including the conflicts in Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo – and ending the longstanding threat to civilians and to regional stability posed by Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, known as the LRA

Is Washington sincere in its concern to stop the LRA from terrorizing East Africa or is it to counter China’s influence in the region? It is assumed that Washington’s goal is to capture or kill Joseph Kony and members of the LRA.   AFRICOM’s propaganda is aimed at the African population to justify its presence.

But is Joseph Kony dead or alive?  Since the KONY2012 video that went viral, CBS news reported later that same year that Ugandan soldiers were starting to question themselves if they were actually “chasing a ghost”:

An Internet campaign that’s gone viral aims to capture notorious rebel leader Joseph Kony, but Ugandan foot soldiers who have spent years searching for the man are starting to ask a question their top commanders prefer to ignore: Is it possible he is dead?

Ugandan army officials say the Lord’s Resistance Army leader is alive and hiding somewhere within the Central African Republic. Rank-and-file soldiers, however, say intelligence on Kony is so limited that if he dies, or is already dead, his foes might never know and could wind up chasing a ghost through this vast Central Africa jungle.

Is Joseph Kony being used in Africa as was Osama bin Laden in the Middle East for the “War on Terror”?  The U.S. government stated that al-Qaida’s influence in Somalia is linked to the al-Shabaab militant group so it needs to increase its support financially and militarily to the Ugandan government.  The DOD report also stated how Ugandan soldiers were involved in Somalia:

“Senior defense officials traveling with Carter said the United States commends UPDF soldiers involved in AMISOM for their commitment and selfless support to the Somali people and to the fight against al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida-linked militant group and U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization fighting to create a fundamentalist Islamic state in Somalia.

 The African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) is leading the fight against the LRA with the Uganda People’s Defense Force (UPDF).  “Uganda is a key partner in terms of security and stability in the region,” a senior defense official said. “Not only do they tend to security within their borders, but … they’re operating in the region trying to track down LRA, which is something that affects four different countries in the region. It’s not just Uganda, it’s the Democratic Republic of Congo, it’s South Sudan, and it’s the Central African Republic” the report said.  Uganda, under Western influence was instrumental in negotiations that led to South Sudan’s independence back in 2011.  They are also a member of the African Union Peace and Security Council.  President Obama’s statement on America’s influence on South Sudan’s Independence is clear:

 This historic achievement is a tribute, above all, to the generations of southern Sudanese who struggled for this day. It is also a tribute to the support that has been shown for Sudan and South Sudan by so many friends and partners around the world. Sudan’s African neighbors and the African Union played an essential part in making this day a reality.  And along with our many international and civil society partners, the United States has been proud to play a leadership role across two Administrations. Many Americans have been deeply moved by the aspirations of the Sudanese people, and support for South Sudan extends across different races, regions, and political persuasions in the United States.  I am confident that the bonds of friendship between South Sudan and the United States will only deepen in the years to come.  As Southern Sudanese undertake the hard work of building their new country, the United States pledges our partnership as they seek the security, development and responsive governance that can fulfill their aspirations and respect their human rights.

The U.S. Department of Defense states that Uganda and its neighbors were victims of Kony’s atrocities where thousands were murdered, raped and even kidnapped:

Uganda and most of its neighbors have been victims and now are taking the fight to Joseph Kony and his followers. For more than two decades, according to a U.S. Africa Command fact sheet, the LRA murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children. In 2011, the LRA committed more than 250 attacks. In 2012, the United Nations estimated that more than 465,000 people were displaced or living as refugees across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan as a result of LRA activity in 2011.

The U.S. Department of Defense says AFRICOM and the United Nations reported that Joseph Kony’s victims were from the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan. It is also known that these countries including Uganda (estimated to have over 6 billion barrels of oil) have abundant natural resources. The Central African Republic has a vast amount of gold, diamonds, and uranium, timber and oil.  The Democratic Republic of the Congo has copper, cobalt, niobium, tantalum, petroleum, diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, uranium, coal, hydropower, and timber.

South Sudan’s main natural resource is oil, but it also contains gold, silver, iron ore and copper.  These African states also have agricultural resources such as peanuts, tobacco, cotton, coffee, rice, palm oil and many other resources that can be used for many industries.  They have resources Washington needs so that the Military-Industrial Complex can wage war on Iran, China and Russia at a moment’s notice.  Recently, the New York Times published an article called ‘A New Anti-American Axis?’ stated that China and Russia are working in conjunction to weaken American Superpower status around the world.  The tone of the New York Times declares both countries actions are unacceptable to Washington in the case of whistle blower Edward Snowden:

 The flight of the leaker Edward J. Snowden from Hong Kong to Moscow last month would not have been possible without the cooperation of Russia and China. The two countries’ behavior in the Snowden affair demonstrates their growing assertiveness and their willingness to take action at America’s expense.

Beyond their protection of Mr. Snowden, Chinese-Russian policies toward Syria have paralyzed the United Nations Security Council for two years, preventing joint international action. Chinese hacking of American companies and Russia’s cyberattacks against its neighbors have also caused concern in Washington. While Moscow and Beijing have generally supported international efforts to end Iran’s nuclear weapons program, they clearly were not prepared to go as far as Washington was, and any coordinated shift in their approach could instantly gut America’s policy on the issue and endanger its security and energy interests. To punctuate the new potential for cooperation, China is now carrying out its largest ever joint naval exercises — with Russia.

The Obama Administration is now focusing on China’s interests in Africa.  China is negotiating with many African countries in the region that has much needed natural resources for its economy.  Washington has been paying attention to the Middle East and Latin America’s natural resources for most of its existence. As the Department of Defense stated in its report concerning the LRA:

In May 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Lord’s Resistance Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, which reaffirmed U.S. commitment to support regional partners’ efforts to end LRA atrocities in central Africa. In October 2011, Obama authorized the deployment to central Africa of 100 U.S. forces whose mission is to help regional forces end the threat posed by Kony. 

The multiyear U.S. strategy seeks to help the governments of Uganda, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan, and the African Union and the United Nations end the LRA threat to civilians and regional stability, defense officials said. Its four objectives are to increase civilian protection, apprehend or remove Kony and senior LRA commanders from the battlefield, promote defections of those who follow Kony and urge them back into the community and provide continued humanitarian relief to affected communities, they added.

In a 2011 report by the World Resources Institute (WRI) called “Avoiding the Resource Curse: Spotlight on Oil in Uganda” stated what  was also discovered in Uganda:

In 2006, commercially-viable quantities of oil were found in the Albertine Graben in western Uganda. The Albertine Graben, the northern portion of the Albertine Rift,5stretch­es from the border of Uganda, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in the north to Lake Edward on the Uganda-DRC border in the south—a distance of over 500 kilometers and an area of about 23,000 square kilome­ters.

The Ugandan government has established nine oil prospect­ing blocks in the Albertine Graben, of which five blocks have been allocated to oil companies for prospecting purposes (Figure 1).By mid-2009, over $700 million had been spent on oil exploration in the region. Oil companies have drilled in only three of the nine exploration blocks, but have already found more than 2.5 billion barrels of oil.

The report also stated that 6 billion barrels of oil is located within Uganda’s Albertine Graben.

Some analysts estimate that Uganda’s Albertine Graben may hold more than 6 billion barrels of oil.  Projected production of 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day would significantly increase revenues for the government and, if well managed and invested, could improve economic growth, reduce poverty and promote development in Uganda.

On September 2010, President Barack Obama’s statement concerning a new U.S. law in the United Nations summit’s ‘Millennium Development Goals’ as reported by the WRI:

“We know that countries are more likely to prosper when governments are accountable to their people. So we are leading a global effort to combat corruption— which in many places is the single greatest barrier to prosperity, and which is a profound violation of human rights. That’s why we now require oil, gas and mining companies that raise capital in the United States to disclose all payments they make to foreign governments. And it’s why I urged the G-20 to put corruption on its agenda and make it harder for corrupt officials to steal from their people and stifle their development.”  

             

Back in 2007, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) had a press release titled “Pentagon Official Describes AFRICOM’s Mission, Dispels Misconceptions” reported that Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs said:

 “Although this structure is new, the nature of our military engagement on the continent will not change,” she said. “It will remain primarily focused on conducting theater-security cooperation to build partnership capacities in areas such as peacekeeping, maritime security, border security, counterterrorism skills.” 

 AFRICOM’s mission is to control resources in the continent although Whelan tries to clarify its“misconceptions”.  “Some people believe that we are establishing AFRICOM solely to fight terrorism or to secure oil resources or to discourage China. This is not true,” she said.  Then she mentions the natural resources Africa has and why many people will benefit from U.S. involvement.  In reality, major U.S. oil corporations and the Military-Industrial Complex will benefit in an open-market environment, meaning American interests will be the main focus of AFRICOM.

“Natural resources represent Africa’s current and future wealth, but in an open-market environment, many benefit,” she continued. “Ironically, the U.S., China, and other countries share a common interest — that of a secure environment in Africa, and that’s AFRICOM’s objective.

Whelan also said that “AFRICOM is about helping Africans build greater capacity to assure their own security.”  The report said “The United States does not seek to compete with or discourage African leadership and initiative, Whelan said. Rather, AFRICOM will benefit its partners on the continent prevent security issues from escalating without U.S. intervention.” African nations are aware of U.S. interventions since World War II to stop the rise of communism.  The U.S. government intervened in more than 50 countries through Coups, direct military actions and assassinations of its political leaders.

The agenda is for the control of the natural resources throughout Africa.  If Washington can counter China by influencing governments through military and financial aid, then the possibility of exploiting oil and other commodities will benefit the Military-Industrial Complex and Wall Street.

Washington wants to control the majority of oil in Africa so that the petrodollar would continue to dominate world oil markets.  With a looming war on the horizon, Middle East oil would become difficult to obtain for the U.S. military machine especially if Iran is attacked.  Iran would block the flow of oil with a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.  The U.S. military needs oil to sustain a long-term war against its perceived adversaries namely Iran, China and Russia.  Can the United States overstep China’s influence in Africa?

With the U.S. involved in coups, wars and political manipulation of governments in the past and present, China seems more favorable to most governments in Africa.  Why?  China is not overthrowing governments or invading countries, they negotiate with the intention of doing business with the country for the long-term.  China seeks business partners for its own economic growth with investment projects in many African nations.  As for America’s future in the African continent, it seems the Africa Command (AFRICOM) and its new drone base in Niger

does not seem to win the “hearts and minds” of most African governments and its people.  Then again, the U.S. can intimidate countries within Africa with its military and intelligence apparatus by either implementing a coup, assassinating a political leader (Patrice Lumumba of the Congo) or even a direct military intervention.  The question is will Africa stand up to the most powerful empire in history or will it continue to allow Western powers (U.S. France and Britain) to exploit its natural resources?

US: Do as I say, not as I do

US President Hussein Obama

By Mike Chester

On Tuesday July 30, an American judge found Bradley Manning innocent of “aiding the enemy.” Were a typical American asked who the real enemy is, the answer would, invariably be “congress” or the government itself.

Few Americans understand what or who “Al Qaeda” is or is not, especially since they have, of recent, become America’s ally against the government of Syria. 

No one is surprised at the Manning verdict, but many around the world are disgusted by it, particularly those who have tired of America’s hypocrisy.

Only a week ago, the US government ordered the defacto release of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, in a prisoner swap with Pakistan. She had been considered one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists.

Both Siddiqui and Manning had suffered years of torture before their tribunals, the end result long predetermined.

Questions we won’t see asked, not in the American press certainly, is how a nation whose former leaders stand indicted around the world for capital offenses, war crimes of every description, can still consider “show trials” such as that Bradley Manning was subjected to as “justice?”

Who or whatever Edward Snowden is, heroic whistleblower or “Assange-like” showman and distraction, one thing for certain, no nation on earth, not Russia, not anyone, can every deliver anyone to the United States for trial and call it anything but “rendition” or kidnapping.

Since Edward Snowden allegedly revealed secret practices of the National Security Agency (NSA), the US has been loudly proclaiming that he should be returned to the US to stand trial. They constantly reference the “Rule of Law” as their basis. They have sought his return from the Moscow airport where he is supposed to currently reside. This despite the fact that the US and Russia do not have an extradition treaty in place. They have gone as far as to offer a sort of plea deal to Russia that if he is returned, the US promises not to seek the death penalty in his trial.

The United States would have a more credible position if they did not routinely violate international law and ignore extradition requests from countries that do have extradition treaties with them.

In 2002, President George W. Bush announced that The United States was withdrawing from the international treaty that set up The International Criminal Court (ICC) even though the treaty had been signed in 2000 by then president Bill Clinton.

This withdrawal infuriated world leaders that believed that the US was taking this action because it feared that its leaders and soldiers would be subject to prosecution as war criminals if the US accepted the treaty.

At that time, the Washington Working Group on the ICC, a group of organizations supporting the court, said withdrawing from the treaty was a "rash action signaling to the world that America is turning its back on decades of US leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."

Judge Richard Goldstone, the first chief prosecutor at The Hague war crimes tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, stated:

"I think it is a very backwards step. It is unprecedented which I think, to an extent, smacks of pettiness in the sense that it is not going to affect in any way the establishment of the international criminal court. The US have really isolated themselves and are putting themselves into bed with the likes of China, Yemen and other undemocratic countries.”

Shortly after removing itself from the ICC, the US made a pre-emptive strike on Iraq; this, despite the fact that Iraq posed no threat to the United States.

During the following ten years, it has been alleged that the US used illegal weapons and tactics in the war, including the probable use of small-scale “tactical” nuclear weapons. Evidence of their use has recently surfaced largely due to the work of Dr. Chris Busby. After many years of dealing with red tape, Dr. Busby went to the Fallujah region of Iraq to research the effects of depleted uranium use. 

What he found was that that fertility had been suppressed and the region was plagued with the onslaught of horrific birth defects. His hypothesis was that this was caused by the use of depleted uranium but he found that samples taken from the local population indicated that it wasn’t just depleted uranium but pure, weapons-grade U-235 that was used in the area.

The use of nuclear weapons is strongly prohibited by international law except in defending against a nuclear attack, and those ordering or carrying out such an attack would be subject to prosecution as war criminals.

Recently, President Obama has re-joined the ICC, but lately the cases that they are handling appear to be rigged to support war criminals rather than punish them. Low level crimes and small players are being brought before the court on flimsy evidence and are being found not guilty. Presidents are being set, so that when the real criminals are brought before the court, they will also be found not guilty. This is intended to create an acceptance of the martial law that is on the horizon in the west. There have been several arrest warrants issued for members of the Bush administration, but no one really expects them to be acted upon. 

The flouting of international law by the US is not limited to high level officials. In 2003, suspected terrorist Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr was kidnapped off a street in Milan, Italy. He was thrown into a van and subjected to rendition, first by a secret CIA “black site,” and later by Egyptian police, who, he says, tortured him for the US. Nasr was released four years later, after an Egyptian court ruled that he was not guilty of anything.

Robert Seldon Lady, who at that time was the CIA station chief in Rome, Italy, along with 21 other CIA operatives, were indicted by the Italian courts. They asked for the accused to be extradited by the US to stand trial. Despite the long-time mutual extradition treaty between the US and Italy, the request was ignored.

The Italians were forced to try them in absentia. Lady, as station chief and mastermind of the kidnapping, was found guilty along with 13 others (eight men were acquitted) and was sentenced, also in absentia, to nine years in prison.

Following his sentencing, Italy obtained an international warrant for his arrest and sought to have him extradited by the US to accept his punishment, but the US refused.

In an interview in GQ magazine in 2007, Lady himself virtually admitted his guilt by saying:

""I worked in intelligence for 25 years and almost no activity I did in those 25 years was legal in the country where it happened. When you work in intelligence, you do things in the country in which you work that are not legal. It's a life of illegality."

Lady seemed to vanish following his conviction, and was thought to be hiding out in Central America. He was arrested in Panama two weeks ago on an international fugitive warrant. At that point, Italy made clear that it was seeking his extradition, but on July 19, Lady was allowed to escape to the United States, which has no intention of returning him to Italy. Since the US has great influence in Panama, it is almost certain that they applied the necessary pressure for his “accidental” escape.

The US has clearly thumbed its nose at international law in this case. Documents leaked in 2010 by the US Department of Defense show that Defense Secretary Robert Gates had secretly worked with then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to have the CIA agents’ case dropped, with Berlusconi promising to “do what he could,” and complaining that the Italian courts were run by “a bunch of leftists.”

Berlusconi has recently been tried and convicted of corruption in a tax-evasion case and he has been sentenced to four years in prison. More recently, he was also tried and convicted of sex with an underage girl, and was sentenced to an additional seven years in prison.

When Snowden went public with his allegations that the NSA is spying on the electronic communications of all Americans, and on hundreds of millions of other people around the world, including US allies, the Obama administration began attempting to coerce countries of Europe, Asia and especially Latin America, to not grant him asylum. Even Russia, where Snowden is currently holed up because the US has cancelled his US passport, has been threatened and pressured to keep them from granting him even temporary asylum. The US position is that other nations of the world must "follow the rule of law," and hand Snowden over to the US for prosecution.

Snowden and his attorneys have pointed out, it is a right under international law to seek humanitarian asylum. That doesn’t matter to the US, though. They are strongly warning all countries that those who offer Snowden asylum, or even safe passage, will “pay a price” not just immediately but “for years to come.”

The Obama administration, like the Bush/Cheney administration before it, clearly considers that the rule of law only applies to the weak and the poor. The administration makes it clear that international law doesn’t apply to the US.