Why They Killed Professor Awoonor

Prof. Kofi Awoonor

The gratuitous violence and spectacular overkill by a mysterious gang of supposed “terrorists” does nothing to further the aims of either Somali nationalism or sharia law, as espoused by the original Al-Shabaab movement, which seeks the withdrawal of Kenya forces from Somalia 

As the events at the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi unfolded, it became clear that the bloody spectacle was staged by a shadowy entity, which the Kenya foreign minister described as “Al Qaeda”. Her statement was based on the presence of other foreign assailants, including passport holders of the U.S. and Britain , under the command of a Western woman believed to be the so-called “White Widow”.

The obvious outcome of this bloody spectacle is not Kenyan military withdrawal from Somalia as desired by Al Shabaab rebels, but quite the opposite effect of hardening support for intervention by a majority of Kenyans who were previously opposed to cross-border troop stationing. It took a televised massacre to overturn the East African public’s aversion to military cooperation with former colonial masters and the Israelis.

The net effect of the conflicting reports from the mall and suspect photos raises troubling questions: What powerful elite group has the money to organize such an elaborate ruse to sway public opinion? Who can control a secret network inside the Kenyan military and the mass media? What is their motive? How do they benefit?

Primal Motives

From the onset of the police-military siege of Westgate, Israeli intelligence agencies assumed a key advisory role to the Kenyan police and directed the public-information releases, according to news reporters on the scene. As in many sensitive police-intelligence operations, information releases to the media are “strategic”, a euphemism for psychological operations.

Psy-ops are aimed at controlling the options for the criminals and shaping public attitudes about the event’s causes and outcomes.

Israeli experts were pre-positioned inside the mall, being in charge of the private security company whose plainclothesmen posed for “action shots”. The perfectly lit photos were taken during a lengthy power blackout in the nearly windowless mall. The viewer is led to believe as in Hollywood movies that a handgun is a match against automatic rifles. A large force of Mossad agents was still stationed inside Nairobi since the investigation of a mystery fire that had destroyed the capital’s Jomo Kenyatta Airport on August 8.

Nairobi , due to its logistical position and concentration of Jewish business interests, is the Israeli regional intelligence center for East Africa . Despite the 2002 terrorist attacks on an Israel plane over Kenya and hotel in Mombasa , the primary interest is not solely terrorism.

The two priorities for Israeli operations in East Africa are:

to open a second military front against Iranians, who allegedly channel aid, including weapons, to Hamas via Sudan ;

and in league with Western energy corporations to oust Asian oil companies from South Sudan by building an alternative pipeline to a proposed mega-port on Kenya’s Indian Ocean coast.

 Pipeline Wars

Prior to the independence of South Sudan in July 2011, the U.S. and Europe imposed sanctions against the central government in Khartoum while financing and covertly arming separatist forces in the southern districts neighboring Kenya and the Darfur region bordering Chad. The sanctions-based exclusion of Western energy corporations provided a rare opportunity for Asian oil companies to win bids for exploration rights and production in the vast reserves of southern Sudan.

The dominant foreign petroleum operators are China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), Sinopec, Petronas of Malaysia, and India ’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). The state companies of Egypt and Yemen also hold stakes in Sudanese oil. The exploration and extraction operations are usually run as consortiums – such as Dar, Greater Nile and Sudd – that include several players in partnership with Sudapet ( Sudan state oil) and, since independence Nilepet ( South Sudan ). The crude oil flows through the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline, constructed by CNPC started in the late 1980s and since expanded over a distance of 1,300 kilometers to Port Sudan on the Red Sea .

The creation of the Republic of South Sudan , with its capital Juba , was the game-changer. The Heglig and Bamboo oil fields are well inside its boundaries and the borderline Abyei reserve remains contested and is likely to be divided between the uneasy neighbors. South Sudan now controls 80 percent of Sudanese oil reserves, estimated by BP at 6.6 billion barrels. Another noteworthy point underlying Western support of the breakaway insurgencies is that the petroleum belt stretches along a northwesterly axis into the heart of the Darfur region.

Israel Makes Its Move

The Foreign Ministry in Juba posted this January 18, 2013, report on its New Delhi embassy website, titled “South Sudan signs oil deal with Israel ”:

“ South Sudan says it has signed an agreement with several Israeli oil companies, a potentially significant strategic move that will consolidate the Jewish state’s relations with the fledgling, oil-rich East African state. South Sudan’s petroleum and mining minister, Dhieu Dau, announced the oil deal last week after he returned from a visit to Israel.

It will also bolster Israeli moves to counter Iranian inroads into the Red Sea and a major gunrunning route from the Revolutionary Guards base at Bandar Abbas in the Persian Gulf to the Gaza Strip via Sudan . Sudan has become a battleground in the mostly clandestine war between Israel and the Islamic Republic, which funnels missiles and other arms for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip through the Red Sea.

South Sudan, which became independent of Arab-ruled Sudan in July 2011 after a decades-long civil war, is locked in a frequently violent confrontation over its oil reserves with the military-run Khartoum regime, an ally of Iran , under President Omar al-Bashir.”

The bilateral deal can be summarized as: Israel will form a military alliance with South Sudan against Khartoum and Tehran , to be repaid with Sudanese oil exports to be controlled by Israeli energy companies.

Infrastructure Intrigues

Although unnamed so far, the Israeli oil companies with key technologies include pipeline operator Zion Oil and exploration company Shemen Oil, which conducts drilling in the former Rothschild-owned fields on Azerbaijan ’s Caspian Sea coast. Israeli companies, by themselves, lack the scale of financial and technical resources necessary for a proposed $3 billion mega-project that will include a 1,000-kilometer pipeline and railways from Juba to Lamu on the Kenya coast, along with docks for supertankers and a massive portside refinery.

The ambitious Juba-Lamu project was launched by former Kenyan President Mawai Kibaki, whose administration was beset by corruption allegations. Environmental groups have raised objections to a petroleum port and refinery near the UNESCO heritage site of Lamu Island , brushed off by officials as a small matter when billions of dollars are at stake. The Westgate Mall attack has surely convinced Kibaki’s successor, President Uhuru Kenyatta, to drop any objections and go with the flow.

A top figure in East African infrastructure construction is Joseph Schwartzman, owner of the H. Young engineering company and business leader of Nairobi ’s Israeli community.

Schwartzman, closely allied with business interests in South Africa and Israel , is an outspoken opponent of the Chinese role in African infrastructure projects. His neoconservative old-school instincts were expressed in a 2009 remark, reported in The Nation ( Nairobi ):

“Chinese companies’ presence in Kenya is not beneficial to the country. Their presence has only one purpose: transfer of hard currency back to China .”

In an unintended way, he is correct. In contrast with more beloved homelands, Beijing has zero to gain from charitable projects like waging proxy wars and staging false-flag massacres inside shopping centers.

U.S. Leads From Behind

Israel ’s African oil dreams gain muscle from the participation of heavyweights like the Vitol energy trading company, which has signed aboard for the Juba-Lamu pipeline. Despite the arms-length appearance of this Europe-based trading house, it is an asset for the American corporate-and-state power structure. The Israeli-U.S. alliance is so widely distrusted worldwide, based on a proven record of misdeeds and skullduggery, their agents have to operate under the cover of sock-puppet companies.

Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil trader, is a Geneva-headquartered holding company that owns a string of oil terminals, including Rotterdam , the world center for spot-market trading. Founded in 1966 by two Dutchmen, the firm is now run by an English CEO named Ian Roper Taylor and American-born corporate president Miguel “Mike” Loya. Oxford graduate Taylor worked for Shell Oil, a firm linked with the Rothschild group, prior to joining Vitol, while Harvard MBA Loya was an executive at ExxonMobil.

Earning notoriety as the oil trader for rogue states, Vitol took a lead role in the Iraq oil-for-food deal and defied U.N. sanctions against Serbian energy imports. More recently during the Libya insurrection against the Gadhafi regime, Vitol transported the first shipment of light crude out of insurgent-controlled Tobruk, aboard a tanker that somehow managed to pass through a NATO blockade. It also delivered $1 billion in gasoline and diesel for the rebel convoys during the assault on Tripoli . None of this derring-do is remotely possible unless the company acted on orders from the CIA.

Taylor personally became embroiled in a lawsuit against a collective of Scottish artists, who accused him of being the main Tory financier of advertising campaigns and lobbyists opposed to Scotland independence. Britain ’s North Sea oilfields are located in the territorial waters of Scotland . When and if independence is achieved, Shell and BP, now protected by the Crown Estate, would be forced to pay a fair price to the government of free Scotland , which would be a full EU member. For an apolitical rogue trading company, Vitol takes on many high-risk positions on behalf of the Anglo-American elite, thus acting more like a privateer than a pirate.

A Different Nigerian Fraud

Vitol’s position in Africa, anchored at a refinery in Mombasa , is strengthened by a partnership with Helios Investment Partners in the joint acquisition of Shell-BP retail fuel stations across the African continent. Although only a minor consumer of the crude output from South Sudan , local filling stations are important for influencing the logistics and transportation sector, which is influential in infrastructure policy.

Ostensibly a long-awaited pan-African investment fund, Helios is just another Oreo cookie from the old bag of neocolonialist tricks. The two principals holding together this confection are Nigerians, while the sweet filling comes from Dallas , Texas . Tope Lawani and Babatunda Soyoye are both former employees of the London branch of Texas Pacific Group (tpg), headquartered in Dallas and San Francisco.

Tope and Baba were trained in takeovers and buyouts by TPG boss David Bonderman, a Los Angeles-born business attorney who studied Arabic language in Cairo . A corporate raider who targets troubled companies, Bonderman finances his hostile takeovers with help from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Carlyle and Blackstone. His acquisitions of Asian firms are done through the subsidiary Newbridge Capital. Bonderman also serves on the board of the American Himalayan Foundation, a project of Richard Blum, the husband of Senate foreign-intelligence queen Dianne Feinstein.

The Helios takeovers of African telecom firms and cell-phone networks are funded by prominent investors including Lord Jacob Rothschild, Madeleine Albright,  the World Bank’s IFC division and the U.S. government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Globalist financial power, aligned with Zionism, is being focused on a still-fledgling African economy, with all eyes now staring at the South Sudan-Kenya pipeline.

Whatever the PR hype about New Africa’s potential, the underlying motivation of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment and Israeli elite is to deny African resources to the rising Asian industrial centers. Sudan offered China its first major oil exploration contract, and since then India ’s state petroleum firm has teamed up with Chinese companies there. As a Muslim-predominant oil-producing country at the center of Asia, Malaysia with its technology-adept Petronas oil firm is a target of Israeli and American political subversion and even a proxy invasion.

The surest method of curtailing Asian industrial and military strength is through the “Asian premium”, an added fee for every barrel of oil that passes through the Strait of Malacca . The steady stream of tankers is watched over by the Israel-U.S. agents posted in Singapore . An Israeli nuclear ally, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has quietly pushed Toyota Tsusho, the giant carmaker’s holding company, to enter talks with South Sudan on the Juba-Lamu pipeline deal. (The term nuclear ally refers to the presence of Israeli technicians and security staff from Dimona at the Fukushima No.1 plant at the time of the March 2011 meltdowns.) The Zionist-neocolonialist stranglehold on Asia’s energy jugular must be broken, and place to do it is Kenya.

 Children of Ham

Beyond the twin objectives of countering Iran and controlling African petroleum output, Israeli policymakers harbor a third ambition of a visionary nature: to establish a Hamitic-controlled region stretching from the Horn at Somalia across Ethiopia and agriculture-rich Uganda and into the mineral resources of Central Africa.

No nation on Earth is today more race-conscious than Israel , which seeks to establish an alliance of so-called Lost Tribes and descendants of Ham, the country cousins of the Semitic people. Whenever an expansionist power conjures up ancient ancestral memories, it is a sure-fire formula for aggression and massacres. Africa , be warned.

The Old Testament myth of Noah’s sons – Seth, founder of the Semites; Ham, of related peoples in Africa; and Japhet in Asia – is being used as a mirror image of the Aryan beliefs of another modern racial-obsessed cult. DNA studies of questionable authenticity are being used by Israeli geneticists to justify political footholds in Judeo-Christian Ethiopia and to churn out propaganda support for the “superior” herding Tutsi versus the “inferior” peasant Hutu in Rwanda and Eastern Africa. By stressing a common heritage, intelligence agents assigned to Jewish-funded charities for Somali, Iraqi and Afghan refugees in, say, Minnesota , London or Marseilles can selectively recruit naïve young Muslim immigrants for penetrating Islamist movements.

Just months before the Kenyan mall attack, according to a Guardian report by Simon Tisdall, a hardline faction led by Ahmed Abdi Godane assassinated the founders of Al Shabaab known by the noms de guerre Al-Afghani and Burhan. By design and certainly not accident, all Israelis inside the Westgate Mall were allowed to leave unharmed – while even Kenyans of Muslim faith were butchered. In the Syrian conflict, too, the more brutal foreign fighters are closely cooperating with the Israeli Defense Force against moderate rivals.

The Westgate Mall hostage crisis was a overblown spectacle in the vein of “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” or a Quentin Tarantino blood-fest. The so-called White Widow, so reminiscent of Patty Hearst, is a clone of the vengeful female assassins from “Kill Bill” and “Inglorious Bastards”. The initial 30 assailants are now whittled down to eight suspects, with the remainder mysteriously gone as in “Ocean’s Eleven” or “Mission Impossible”. The smokescreen caused by bombs that collapsed the parking garage, and the gallons of red liquid on the floors were Hollywood special effects, as if blood never coagulates nor change color. Every detail from the siege demands forensic reexamination for slip-ups in fakery. Westgate was not West End . Nairobi was a bad show, poorly scripted, sloppily directed and clumsily acted. A much more convincing performance should be expected from the CIA and Mossad. It would be a slapstick comedy if not for the fact that so many innocent bit actors were murdered in cold blood by the intelligence services.

A Hard Road to Peace

On the road to development and cooperation, the weak link has been the lack of a security arrangement between the African Union and Asia ’s regional groupings, including SAARC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and ASEAN. Western military advisory groups and intelligence agencies, which create more terrorism and conflict than they can ever suppress, must be uprooted from every inch of Africa . In their stead, competent and professional law enforcement and security forces should be financed and trained under a cross-continent program to protect the resources of Africa for the benefit of African people and to carry forth the worldwide struggle against the systemic deprivation that causes impoverishment and injustice.

Today the only viable path ahead, against the incessant wars, horrendous crimes and dirty tricks perpetrated by the Western neocolonialists and their Zionist allies, is to remain faithful to the spirit of the 1955 Bandung Conference, as reaffirmed at 2005 Bandung 2 with the drafting of the New Asian-African Strategic Partnership (NAASP). Those past promises must be transformed from mere words on paper into real deeds on the soil, seas and skies of Mother Africa.

Author: Yoichi Shimatsu, a Hong Kong-based science writer, is former editor of the Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo and earlier with the Pacific News Service in San Francisco. 

Editorial

WHOSE TERRORIST

Over the last couple of weeks, the alarm bells have been ringing loud and clear over the possibility of a terrorist attack in Ghana.

Indeed, informed persons have said that the most serious threat comes from Boko Haram in Nigeria which has decided to export its brand of radicalism to other West African states.

The Information points to the fact that Nigerian diplomatic institutions, banks and churches are the prime targets.

The Ghanaian security agencies say that they are on top of their game and are doing everything possible to prevent an attack.

The Insight believes that the fight against terrorism can only succeed if the general public fully cooperates with the security services.

All suspicious movements and events will have to be reported to the appropriate or relevant agencies.

It is important for citizens to also avoid over crowded places and to be on the look out for suspicious parcels and items.

Above all we need to develop a strong attitude of anti-terrorism no matter whose terrorist is at work.

Terrorism is simply terrorism and must be fought.

Can a revolution purge Nigeria’s problems?

By Levi Obijiofor

Every country has its problems but Nigeria’s problems are undeniably untreatable. The Nigeria we know today is a caricature of its former image in the global community. There are problems everywhere. The economy is in a bad condition. Our healthcare system is a disaster. That explains why politicians and members of the privileged class rush to overseas medical facilities for their yearly medical check-up.

The universities are no better. They are underfunded. Their research outputs are poor. They lack innovative teaching practices probably because they also lack science and technology equipment. Academic staff of our universities are widely regarded as active industrial relations militants who have learnt to adopt radical tactics to draw public and federal government’s attention to the crumbling facilities that are used – shamefully -- to support teaching and learning and research. These conditions offer no encouragement to students and their parents. It is this depressing academic environment that has compelled wealthy parents to send their children to foreign universities because ours are ill-equipped and badly managed.

If you ask anyone how best to restore Nigeria to its previous status as a country that offers quality university education, as a continental leader, a unifying force in Africa, and a peace broker in the continent, chances are you will receive countless suggestions. When it comes to how to reform the nation, everyone has ready-made opinions. However, most people believe Nigeria is no longer admired or respected in various spheres in the international community. Many countries would rather avoid Nigeria than openly engage with us as a partner in economic development. This is what happens when a nation is perceived and treated as a Pariah in the world. Why should Nigeria be dreaded rather than be seen as a highly regarded country in Africa and beyond?

Despite the long history of Nigeria’s contribution to economic and human resource development of African countries, despite the noble role Nigeria played in international inter-governmental organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and other international organisations, it is rare to find positive references to Nigeria in public discourse at regional, continental or global level, even by African countries that have benefited from our benevolence in various ways. What happened?

How did a nation that used to serve as a reference point in the world suddenly lose its appeal? How did we plunge so rapidly into the bottom of the ravine so much so that even small and impoverished countries that used to rely on our financial assistance now take pride in poking their fingers into our eyes? We can only reminisce about our glorious past because our present image is tattered. Talk about our marvellous achievements in sports and you feel like replacing today with yesterday. At the 2012 London Olympic Games, our sports men and women returned with no medals of any colour.

The agricultural sector is as good as dead. The symbols of the successes we recorded in agriculture have disintegrated. The renowned groundnut pyramids of Kano have fallen apart. The cocoa farms in the southwest are no longer what they used to be. The oil palm industry in the southeast operates only at local community level. Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia that once visited Nigeria to understudy the success of our oil palm business are now exporting oil palm produce to Nigeria. What a paradox! Where we should be teaching other countries how to engage in various forms of agricultural production, we are now being taught by other countries.  

We can no longer feed our population. Every year, our food import bill soars and, despite pledges by senior government officials and ministers to slash our food import expenditure, we continue to spend more money on food importation. A country that cannot feed its population lives at the mercy of other countries. In 2010, Nigeria spent over N991 billion on importation of rice and wheat. In the same year, according to Minister of Agriculture Akinwunmi Adesina, “Nigeria spent N635 billion on import of wheat, N356 billion on import of rice, N217 billion on sugar importation and despite the huge marine resources spent N97 billion importing fish.”

These problems and many others, including leadership challenges, have overwhelmed us. It is not that we do not know that the country is descending into a deep hole. The trouble is we don’t know how to stop the rapid disintegration. It is perhaps for this reason, the lack of effective leadership, the widespread corruption, the looting of federal treasury, growing insecurity and the ongoing slide toward anarchy that the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, suggested on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 that Nigeria was due for a revolution. Nearly four weeks after his call, Nigeria’s former representative at the United Nations (UN), Yusuf Maitama Sule, also called for a revolution free of bloodshed.

At a lecture he delivered as a guest of the Nigerian Institute of Management, Tambuwal said: “The most compelling reasons for revolution throughout the ages were injustice, crushing poverty, marginalisation, rampant corruption, lawlessness, joblessness, and general disaffection with the ruling elite.”

Tambuwal was absolutely correct in his analysis of the existing climate of discontent in Nigeria. He may have spoken to the applause of the audience but did he realise that in his capacity as a member of the ruling class, he could become one of the casualties of a revolution, if we were to have one? His call was altruistic but frightening, coming from a man who is also a member of the aristocracy. When a revolution starts in Nigeria, Tambuwal and his parliamentary peers will find no hiding place to escape the anger of the poor and the homeless.

Maitama Sule said he was calling for a Mahatma Gandhi-style revolution. He said: “When Murtala Muhammed came into power, within six months, he started giving this country a sense of direction. Did he kill anybody?”

Calls for a revolution suggest to me we have reached a blind alley through which we can make no further progress. The only way out of our current pain, it seems, is for everyone to undertake an upheaval that will radically transform the nation. However, there is something murky, dangerous, and uncertain about a revolution. All revolutions do not always end the way the organisers intended. Things can get out of hand. A revolution that goes off course can lead to political and social instability. It can produce more anarchy than social order. It can destabilise rather than yield the stability we need to advance our economy. If you are in doubt, ask the people in Egypt.

When the “Arab spring” swept across North Africa and the Middle East in 2011 -- from Tunisia to Libya to Egypt and to Yemen – everyone celebrated the rise of popular democracy and the downfall of dictatorship. But look at what is happening in Egypt. Long after the situation in Libya and Tunisia has arguably stabilised in a relative sense, Egypt is still restless. In just one day last week, more lives were lost than during the uprising that occurred in 2011.

In Syria, the opposition and government forces are engaged in sporadic bombing runs that have not resulted in either the overthrow of the government or the crushing of the insurgents. A revolution might start off as a non-violent uprising but it can quickly degenerate into lawlessness that could be difficult to guide in a particular way. This is why anyone advocating a revolution in Nigeria should be cautious so we do not fall into the same chaos that has gripped Egypt and Syria.

If you believe that things have to get worse in Nigeria before they get better, perhaps a revolution might serve us best. Hopefully, when the fire from the revolution’s frontline has cooled off, a new Nigeria will emerge triumphant. It will be a Nigeria in which the leaders will be accountable to the people. It will be a new Nigeria in which the people will be free to scrutinise their leaders. It will be a new Nigeria in which the institutions of society operate effectively and productively.

I have heard people argue passionately that, for things to work in Nigeria, we need to get rid of many people who have served in government directly or indirectly. I am not persuaded by that argument. Nigeria did not get to its current predicament through the stupid actions or activities of presidents and military dictators only. We must include in the list of those who underdeveloped Nigeria people like state governors, National Assembly members, state legislators, federal ministers, special advisers and special assistants, state commissioners, members of government departments and agencies, and ordinary people who engage in criminal activities that have contributed to Nigeria’s ghastly profile in the world. 

When you add all these, you will find that only a few people will be spared. So, who wants to start a revolution that could end up wiping off our entire population? I do not share in the call for a revolution for two key reasons. There is hardly a bloodless revolution. The sheer number of people who have served in one way or another in government or government departments and agencies, including ordinary citizens with criminal record implies there will be far too many people who will be incinerated in a revolution. Who will be spared in a revolution and who will be assassinated?

Action that began the Angolan people’s struggle

By Alicia Céspedes Carrillo

February 4, 1961 marked the beginning of the armed struggle of the Angolan people against Portuguese colonialism.

After World War II, with the aftermath of destruction and social uncertainty in Europe and around the world, progressive decolonization was a fact and this reality was embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. Portugal, which was economically dependent on its role as a commercial intermediary, partially based its economy on the wealth obtained from natural, social and economic resources of its colonies.

Decolonization, as a result, would harm its interests. In order to avoid submitting to a decolonization process, Portugal used legislative reform in relation to colonies and slavery, re-designating their offshore colonies as overseas provinces, with cultural differences.

As a result, the UN Secretary General charged the Fourth Commission of the General Assembly with looking into and confirming whether, according to pertinent established parameters on the subject, Portuguese territories enjoyed self-determination or not. Four years later, the Fourth Commission presented the United Nations XV General Assembly with a list of 12 principles, including the grounds upon which they categorized Portuguese possessions as non-self-determining. The commission's report concluded that "there was a prima facie obligation to transmit information … on territories geographically separate and ethnically and/or culturally distinct from the administering country." With these guidelines establishing the legal framework for categorizing non-self-determining territories, the General Assembly decided to categorize Portuguese territories as "non-self-determining", in line with Chapter XI of the Charter and its legal requirements. In other words, they were colonies.

Nevertheless, the Portuguese government ignored the U.N. recommendations and resolutions, attempting to withhold from the African people their right to long-awaited freedom, after being subjugated and enslaved for almost 500 years. Far away, the Fascist Portuguese government, using their repressive forces, including the PIDE (International State Defense Police), Secret Police and other bodies, who in a single wave of indiscriminate detentions against members of the clandestine revolutionary movement of Luanda, primarily, charged many rebels in what became known as the "Trial of the Fifty".

Oddly, on the PIDE list of detainees appears the name of Francisco Javier Hernández described as a Cuban seaman.

According to reports from members of the Angolan clandestine movement, this Cuban was a crew member on a ship that traveled between the colonies, Brazil and Portugal who, along with Angolan crew members, joined in the effort, acting as a courier and support in delivering documents and information to revolutionaries in the colonies. Presumably he was a member or affiliate of the seamen's union to which his colleagues belonged. After being taken out of prison, nothing was ever heard of Francisco Javier again, and given the way he was removed, it is assumed that he was one of those later murdered by repressive fascist organizations. Subsequent efforts to determine details of his disappearance have been unsuccessful.

The randomness of the arrests and the suffering imposed on detainees created the mood in the prisons and around the country. Demands for independence were silenced by the use of prison, deportation, torture and repressive measures. The United Nations Declaration of December 1960 (Resolution 1514) declared that "The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation." Among the revolutionary forces arose the progressive conviction that the Portuguese metropolis was not willing to concede a change regarding its overseas territories. Meanwhile, in the case of Angola, the Angolan Liberation Movement (MPLA) established in 1956, with an extensive political and diplomatic background, declared that given Portuguese intransigence, the only recourse was to proceed to armed struggle - the only route to independence.

Thus on April 4, 1961, rejecting the Portuguese designation of Angola as an overseas province, and demonstrating the fallacy of this designation, the clandestine MPLA movement in Luanda, with three rebel commands, staged an armed assault on various Portuguese military installations in the city, principally the São Paulo civil prison, the city police precinct and the rural police post, with the daring objective of freeing political prisoners and drawing attention to the struggle’s just cause.

Near the Estación Nueva train station in the Rangel shanty town area they set up a rebel command post, which was later moved to the Pedreros district in the capital itself. The house functioned as the base of General Commander, Paiva Domingos da Silva, who was accompanied by two of the oldest curandeiros and a girl aged seven or eight, the "queen", named Engracia, who was given the task of watching over the "iron cauldron". Preparations for action involved not only strategic and military planning but also a religious invocation in which all the combatants participated. The order was given on February 2 for the uprising on February 4. On the night of the 3rd the conspirators gathered at the home of combatant Imperial Santana, second in command of the operation; ten groups that were to attack the Portuguese installations departed at 3.30am on February 4. The revolutionaries took advantage of the fact that there were many foreign journalists in the capital covering the expected arrival in Luanda of the ship Santa María which had been steered off course by its retired Portuguese captain, Henrique Galvão, a former deputy in Salazar's 1947 government.

Henrique Galvão had spoken out against Salazar's dictatorship in a public letter in which he had denounced the situation in Angola. He was arrested as a result but managed to escape from prison in 1960.

The MPLA followed the progress of the Santa María with great interest, although they claimed to have no direct relationship with it. They considered the action not an act of piracy, as Salazar's government was claiming to the rest of the world, but rather a prelude to other acts which would be carried out later. On January 27, before being allowed to disembark, the MPLA required Galvão to define his position with regard to the liberation movement and to separate his insurrection plan from that of the MPLA.

The outcome of the MPLA's planned attack on the oppressor's installations and other related offensives was expressed in the communiqué that the MPLA's Directive Committee published entitled Massacres in Luanda.

"…in the early hours of February 4, groups of Angolan nationalists mounted an armed attack on military and civil prisons in Luanda. There was heavy fighting with the oppressive colonial forces in their endeavor to take over detention centers housing hundreds of political prisoners.

"The communiqué issued by the Angolan General Government informs of seven fatalities on the side of the colonial troops and nine nationalists, as well as a number of casualties and numerous captives. On February 5, during the funeral organized by the fascist administration for its seven soldiers, there were further confrontations between Angolan patriots and the colonial army, with a resulting four fatalities.

"Naturally, the official figures of our fallen in this battle against the political apparatus installed in Luanda by Salazar's dictatorship does not bear any relation to true facts.

"The Directorate of the MPLA calls for the attention of the international community … for a considerable time the people of Luanda, incensed by the repressive methods of the Portuguese Gestapo (the PIDE, International State Defense Police)... that does not exclude any mass extermination method – from poisoning food given to prisoners to summary execution of 25 of them in November 1960... This is proof of how the Portuguese government … insists on maintaining its class-based domination and system of oppression... These events are proof of how the action against Salazar's dictatorship marked the beginning of Angola's first War of Independence".

"The armed insurrection in fact proved the lie in the Portuguese government's version that the incidents were "undertaken by a small group of foreign terrorists who had infiltrated the Portuguese overseas province to create disorder … and attempting to create an international environment which would give rise to the break-up of Portugal..." Cynical words from the Portuguese government trying to justify itself in the face of the horrifying situation of the Angolan people and to hide behind the hackneyed term, "foreign terrorists".

This action, like the assault on the Moncada Garrison, was not successful, but, like Moncada, it ignited the flame of revolution which ended with the triumph of the Angolan people. After decades of military, political and diplomatic struggle, the sacrifice of the Angolan people was not in vain, they can be proud of having defended their independence and sovereignty and they can continue to build, with social justice, an ever more flourishing country.

China countering US clout in Africa

Chinese President Xi Jinping

By Nile Bowie

At a recently held meeting of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, China’s leaders unveiled a dramatic long-term plan to integrate some 400 million countryside dwellers into urban environments by concentrating growth-promoting development in small and medium sized cities.

In stark contrast to the neglected emphasis placed on infrastructure development in the United States and Europe, China spends around $500 billion annually on infrastructural projects, with $6.4 trillion set-aside for its 10-year mass urbanization scheme, making it the largest rural-to-urban migration project in human history. China’s leaders have mega-development in focus, and realizing such epic undertakings not only requires the utilization of time-efficient high-volume production methods, but also resources - lots and lots of resources. It should come as no surprise that incoming Chinese president Xi Jinping’s first trip as head of state will take him to Africa, to deepen the mutually beneficial trade and energy relationships maintained throughout the continent that have long irked policy makers in Washington.

The new guy in charge - who some analysts have suggested could be a populist reformer that empathizes with the poor - will visit several African nations with whom China has expressed a desire to expand ties with, the most prominent being South Africa. Since establishing relations in 1998, bilateral trade between the two jumped from $1.5 billion to 16 billion as of 2012.

Following a relationship that has consisted predominately of economic exchanges, China and South Africa have now announced plans to enhance military ties in a show of increasing political and security cooperation. During 2012’s Forum on China-Africa Cooperation meeting, incumbent President Hu Jintao served up $20 billion in loans to African countries, which were designated for the construction of vital infrastructure such as new roads, railways and ports to enable higher volumes of trade and export. In his address to the forum, South African President Jacob Zuma spoke of the long-term unsustainability of the current model of Sino-African trade, whereby raw materials are sent out and manufactured commodities are sent in.

Zuma also stated, "Africa's past economic experience with Europe dictates a need to be cautious when entering into partnerships with other economies. We certainly are convinced that China's intention is different to that of Europe, which to date continues to attempt to influence African countries for their sole benefit." Xi’s visit highlights the importance China attaches to Sino-African ties, and during his stay, he will attend the fifth meeting of the BRICS, the first summit held on the African continent to accommodate leaders of the world’s most prominent emerging economies, namely Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. The BRICS group, which accounts for around 43% of the world's population and 17% of global trade, is set to increase investments in Africa’s industrial sector threefold, from $150-billion in 2010 to $530- billion in 2015, under the theme "BRICS and Africa: partnership for development, integration, and industrialization".

With focus shifting toward building up the continent’s industrial sector, South Africa is no doubt seen as a springboard into Africa and a key development partner on the continent for other BRICS members. Analysts have likened the BRICS group to represent yet another significant step away from a unipolar global economic order, and it comes as no surprise. As Eurozone countries languish with austerity cuts, record unemployment and major demand contraction, the European Union in South Africa's total trade has declined from 36% in 2005 to 26.5% in 2011, while the BRIC countries total trade increased from 10% in 2005 to 18.6% in 2011. The value and significance of the BRICS platform comes in its ability to proliferate South-South political and economic ties, and one should expect the reduction of trade barriers and the gradual adoption of economic exchanges using local currencies. China’s ICBC paid $5.5 billion for a 20% stake in Standard Bank of South Africa in 2007, and the move has played out well for Beijing - Standard has over 500 branches across 17 African countries which has drastically increased availability of the Chinese currency, offering yuan accounts to expatriate traders.

It looks like the love story that has become of China and Africa will gradually begin shifting its emphasis toward building up a viable large-scale industrial base. Surveys out of Beijing cite 1,600 companies tapping into the use of Africa as an industrial base with manufacturing's share of total Chinese investment (22%) fast gaining on that meted out to the mining sector (29%). Gavin du Venage, writing for the Asia Times Online, highlights how Beijing’s policy toward Africa aims to be mutually beneficial and growth-promoting, “Chinese energy firm Sinopec teamed up with South African counterpart PetroSA to explore building a US$11 billion oil refinery on the country's west coast. Refineries are notoriously unprofitable, with razor-thin margins. Since South Africa has no significant oil or proven gas reserves itself, the proposed plant would depend on imports, and would have to serve the local market to be viable. The plant will therefore serve the South African market and not be used to process exports to China. This is only the latest of such investments that demonstrate a willingness by Chinese investors to put down roots and infrastructure in Africa. It also shows that China's dragon safari is about more than just sourcing commodities for export.”

Indeed, and Beijing’s dragon safari is loaded with a packed itinerary, with Mao-bucks flying everywhere from Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to Nigeria and Angola. Xi Jinping will also grace the Angolan capital of Luanda, where China had provided the oil-rich nation with some $4.5 billion in loans since 2002. Following Angola’s 27-year civil war that began in 1975, Beijing played a major role in Angola's reconstruction process, with 50 large-scale and state-owned companies and over 400 private companies operating in the country; it has since become China's largest trading partner in Africa with a bilateral trade volume at some $20 billion dollars annually. Chinese Ambassador Zhang Bolun was quoted as saying how he saw great potential in further developing Sino-Angolan relations and assisting the nation in reducing its dependence on oil revenues while giving priority to the development of farming, service industries, renewable energies, transport and other basic infrastructure.

Chinese commercial activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have significantly increased not only in the mining sector, but also considerably in the telecommunications field. In 2000, the Chinese ZTE Corporation finalized a $12.6 million deal with the Congolese government to establish the first Sino-Congolese telecommunications company, while the Kinshasa exported $1.4 billion worth of cobalt to Beijing between 2007 and 2008. The majority of Congolese raw materials like cobalt, copper ore and a variety of hard woods are exported to China for further processing and 90% of the processing plants in resource-rich southeastern Katanga province are owned by Chinese nationals. In 2008, a consortium of Chinese companies were granted the rights to mining operations in Katanga in exchange for $6 billion in infrastructure investments, including the construction of two hospitals, four universities and a hydroelectric power project, but the International Monetary Fund intervened and blocked the deal, arguing that the agreement between violated the foreign debt relief program for so-called HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Countries) nations.

China has made significant investments in manufacturing zones in non-resource-rich economies such as Zambia and Tanzania and as Africa’s largest trading partner, China imports 1.5 million barrels of oil from Africa per day, approximately accounting for 30 percent of its total imports. In Ghana, China has invested in Ghanaian national airlines that serve primarily domestic routes, in addition to partnering with the Ghanaian government on a major infrastructural project to build the Bui Hydroelectric Dam. China-Africa trade rose from $10.6 billion in 2000 to $106.8 billion in 2008 with an annual growth rate of over 30 percent. By the end of 2009, China had canceled out more than 300 zero-interest loans owed by 35 heavily indebted needy countries and least developed countries in Africa. China is by far the largest financier on the entire continent, and Beijing’s economic influence in Africa is nowhere more apparent than the $200 million African Union headquarters situated in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia - which was funded solely by China.

China’s deepening economic engagement in Africa and its crucial role in developing the mineral sector, telecommunications industry and much needed infrastructural projects is creating "deep nervousness" in the West, according to David Shinn, the former US ambassador to Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. During a diplomatic tour of Africa in 2011, former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton insinuated China’s guilt in perpetuating a creeping “new colonialism”. When it comes to Africa, the significant differences in these two powers' key economic, foreign policy strategies and worldviews are nowhere more apparent. Washington has evidently launched its efforts to counter China's influence throughout the African continent, and where Beijing focuses on economic development, the United States has sought to legitimize its presence through counterterrorism operations and the expansion of the United States Africa Command, better known as AFRICOM - a outpost of the US military designated solely for operations on the African continent.

During an AFRICOM in 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller cited AFRICOM’s guiding principle of protecting “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market,” before emphasizing how the increasing presence of China is a major challenge to US interests in the region. 

Washington recently announced that US Army teams will be deployed to as many as 35 African countries in early 2013 for training programs and other operations as part of an increased Pentagon role in Africa - primarily to countries with groups allegedly linked to al-Qaeda. 

Given Mr. Obama’s proclivity toward the proliferation of UAV drone technology, one could imagine these moves as laying the groundwork for future US military interventions using such technology in Africa on a wider scale than that already seen in Somalia and Mali. Here lays the deep hypocrisy in accusations of Beijing’s purported “new colonialism” - China is focused on building industries, increasing development, and improving administrative and well as physical infrastructure - the propagation of force, which one would historically associate with a colonizer, is entirely absent from the Chinese approach.

Obviously, the same cannot be said of the United States, whose firepower-heavy tactics have in recent times have enabled militancy and lawlessness, as seen in the fallout of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's 2011 bombing campaign in Libya with notable civilian causalities. As Xi Jingping positions himself in power over a nation undertaking some of the grandest development projects the world has ever known, Beijing’s relationship with the African continent will be a crucial one. 

While everything looks good on paper, Xi’s administration must earn the trust of their African constituents by keeping a closer eye on operations happening on the ground. The incoming administration must do more to scrutinize the conduct of Chinese conglomerates and business practices with a genuine focus on adhering to local environmental regulations, safety standards and sound construction methods. 

The current trajectory China has set itself upon will do much to enable mutually beneficial economic development, in addition to bolstering an independent Global South - a little less red then how Mao wanted it, but close enough.

"We are living in a new era of friendship and collaboration with Cuba and Latin America" - Russia

By Aliana Nieves Quesada

The international role that Russia has recovered in recent years is undeniable. Its current political weight in international forums has allowed it, to a certain degree, to play a balancing role in the correlation of global forces. This, in conjunction with stable economic development, has enabled the nation to extend its collaboration outward and to cross the Atlantic in search of new links with Latin America.

The recent visit to Cuba by Valentina Matvienko, President of the Russian Federation Council, served to stimulate inter-parliamentary relations and demonstrated current wide-ranging possibilities for cooperation between Cuba and Russia. Matvienko belongs to the governing United Russia Party, and was city governor of St Petersburg from 2003 through 2011, when she took up her role as head of the Federation Council. In an interview with Granma, the political leader, considered the third most important figure in Russia today, detailed the results of her visit and Russia's position in relation to recent international events.

What do you hope your visit has achieved in relations between Cuba and Russia?

During my visit, we signed a joint agreement between our Parliament Chamber and the Cuban National Assembly, in a context of the active development which our countries have enjoyed in recent years. Taking this into account, it is very important that our parliaments join the process of consolidation of bilateral relations. A powerful stimulus for this initiative was Cuban President Raúl Castro's visit to Russia in 2012, and also Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev's visit to Cuba in February 2013. We are happy to have found a solution for regulating the debt. The technical details of the agreement are being worked out so that it can be promptly endorsed and approved in our Parliament.

What other aspects can be advanced?

Despite the fact that trade relations have grown recently, they still do not reflect the potential and possibilities of our two countries. The value of our trade exchange is approaching $270 million, according to 2012 figures, which is insufficient. We are currently negotiating a broad range of projects relating to energy, and Russian companies such as Zarubezhneft are actively involved in oil prospecting in Cuban waters, and this work is going to continue.

Scientific and technical exchanges now have a special place. We can perceive prospects in activating our contact in the area of technology. Nor should our collaboration in education be overlooked; we are interested in Cuban students taking courses in Russian universities. Tourism is also important to us, and we know that, for Cuba, it plays a primary role in the economy. The number of Russian tourists to Cuba is rising each year. Younger generations are interested in Cuba, they study and research about Cuba and this is important for the continuation of our collaboration.

How important to Russia are relations with Latin America?

Our country has developed very active relations with Latin America. Today, we are also in a phase of reestablishing relations of friendship and collaboration with all the countries in the region.

The integrationist movement CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), in which Cuba has a clear leading role, is highly attractive in terms of our political perspectives. Our interest in developing relations with this mechanism is demonstrated by the upcoming visit to Russia of Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, as part of the CELAC troika.

The Russian and U.S. parliaments have recently approved laws such as the Magnitsky List in the United States and the Dima Yakovlev Law in Russia, which would seem to indicate a gradual deterioration of relations between Moscow and Washington. What is the perspective of the Russian government in this context, within President Barack Obama's second term in office?

We believe that parliamentary diplomacy plays a very important role in intergovernmental relations. For this reason, we strongly support our contacts with the U.S. Congress and Senate. But not everything is simple. We have a series of problems and differences which we need to discuss and find solutions agreeable to both sides. Through our country’s Parliament, we have directly addressed the U.S. Congress to ask for the elimination of the economic blockade of Cuba. We have also addressed the need to liberate the five Cuban antiterrorists, who are unjustly incarcerated. The margin of our relations with the United States Congress is ample and we want to advance in dialogues.

The detention and expulsion of a U.S. diplomat, an official at the U.S. embassy in Russia in the service of the CIA was recently announced. Is this related to the much-mentioned growing rivalry between the two countries?

Regarding the detention of the U.S. spy, this happens periodically in various countries. It is a fact that he was arrested for illegal activities in the territory of another country. He was caught, as they say, red-handed, and of course the Russian Federation has taken measures to deport him. But this is a sovereign and just decision, we do not believe that this could seriously affect relations between the United States and Russia. We understand the significance these things have at both the bilateral and international level. Our contacts are not exempt from problems, but we believe that there is no need to exaggerate the situation.

Many people think that the recent attack in Boston, on the part of two citizens of Chechen origin, could change the U.S. perspective on the phenomenon of terrorism in the region, which has so much damaged stability and security in Russia. Perhaps they will now begin to perceive it in another way...

They were U.S. citizens of Chechen origin. For its part, the Russian Federation had warned the United States that they represented a terrorist threat, but regrettably, Washington did not react. I should like what happened to really make the United States stop politicizing these issues, open its eyes and realize that terrorism represents a threat to all governments. I hope it does not damage the image of the Chechen people because, unfortunately, terrorists do not have nationality, and in spite of everything, I would like this act to lead the U.S. to closer cooperation with the Russian government and the rest of the international community in the battle against terrorism. I would imagine that a change of position will come about.

Could such cooperation between the United States and Russia help to reach an agreement on the future of Syria?

The international community is profoundly concerned about what is happening in Syria. We will always adopt a policy of non-interventionism in the internal affairs of third countries. We believe that a dialogue must take place in Syria, in order to resolve the problems which exist, and that blame for the conflict cannot be laid on just one side. The violence taking place right now within the country is the fault of both sides, who have not as yet sat down at the negotiating table to reach an agreement. We have always acted against violence and for an urgent ceasefire. We have always been against the opposition being armed. Russia is going to continue playing a leading role in preventing the interference of third countries in Syria's internal affairs and will continue promoting dialogue in order to establish peace.

President Kennedy recognized U.S. responsibility for Batista dictatorship and Cuba’s underdevelopment in the 1950’s

President John Kennedy

On October 24, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was interviewed by journalist Jean Daniel Bensaid, who worked for the French daily newspaper L′Express.

While visiting the U.S., Jean Daniel met Ben Bradlee, from Newsweek magazine, and told him of his plans to travel to Cuba, to interview Fidel. Bradlee informed Kennedy, who expressed interest in meeting Jean Daniel, and asking him to convey a message to Fidel.

Dr. Néstor García Iturbe (*) in his article "Cuba – Estados Unidos - Kennedy," written 49 years ago and published October 19, 2012, presents a long excerpt from the French journalist’s interview with Kennedy, in which the President acknowledges U.S. responsibility for the Batista dictatorship and the humiliating economic colonization of Cuba in the 1950’s.

"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime.

"I approved of the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins.

"In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."

As García Iturbe points out in his article, the statement could not have been welcomed by Batista supporters in the U.S., including members of the 2506 Brigade who participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion or among those beginning to make their first incursions into U.S. politics. It will not please current Cuban-American politicians who attempt to sugar-coat this era of misery and terror in Cuba.

Certainly it was not well-received by the CIA or the Pentagon, where the solution to the Cuba issue was not dialogue, but rather invasion.

•(*) Member of the Union of Cuban Writers and Artists, the Advanced Institute of International Relations Scientific Council and an adjunct member of the Cuban International Law Association. Writer for various Cuban and international publications and regular lecturer at universities in Cuba, the U.S. and other countries.

Russia Threatens America

Russian President Vladimir Putin

By RIA Novosti

The US missile defense system is no match for the new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that Russia tested this week, a senior Russian official said Friday.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who oversees the defense industry, hailed Thursday's tests as a success and dubbed the new ICBM a "missile defense killer."

"Neither current nor future American missile defense systems will be able to prevent that missile from hitting a target dead on," he said, during an event organized by the ruling United Russia party.

The Russian Defense Ministry was more modest in its appraisal of the test, carried out by the Strategic Missile Forces at the Kapustin Yar testing site, between Volgograd and Astrakhan, on Thursday.

"The test launch was a success as the [simulated] warhead hit a designated target within the set time frame," said a Defense Ministry statement issued Thursday.

The US missile defense system in Europe, which NATO and the US say is aimed at countering threats from North Korea and Iran, has been a particular source of friction in US-Russian relations for a number of years.

Russia and NATO formally agreed to cooperate over the European missile defense system at the 2010 NATO summit in Lisbon, but talks foundered, in part over Russian demands for legal guarantees that the system would not target its strategic nuclear deterrent.

In mid-March, the US announced that it was modifying its planned missile defense deployment to Poland, dropping plans to station SM-3 IIB interceptors in the country by 2022.

Russian officials responded by saying that this did nothing to allay their concerns over US missile defense in Eastern Europe, and reiterated their demand for legally binding agreements guaranteeing that Russia's strategic nuclear forces would not be targeted.

Although analysts were quick to interpret the US change in plan as a concession to Russia, possibly intended to pave the way for further bilateral talks on nuclear arms reduction, US officials repeatedly refuted this suggestion.

Speaking after a bilateral meeting with the Polish foreign minister on Monday, US Secretary of State John Kerry stressed the United States' continued commitment to that element of the missile defense system.

"We are on track to deploy a missile defense site in Poland by 2018 as part of NATO's modernized approach to our security," Kerry said.