By
Ekow Mensah
After
all the noise about the intended destruction of the Achimota Forest, there are
indications that about 9000 hectares of forest in the Subri Forest Reserve has
been sold.
A letter from the Forestry Commission
referenced FC/A.30/SF. 11/15 dated August 14, 2013 confirms the transaction.
The
letter was addressed to the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC).
The
letter reads in part “we refer to your letter No. DIC/388/01 dated 19th
July, 2013 in connection with the divestiture of Subri Industrial Plantation
Limited (SIPL) and the transfer of assets to plantations Soifinaf Limited
(Socfinaf) for the purpose of developing a rubber Plantation .
“The
Commission has taken note of the further clarification and consequently taken a
position and interest in it due to the fact that Government funds were used in
the establishment of the plantations and the management of the entire forest
reserve”.
Interestingly,
the forestry Commission has appointed Messrs Maripoma Enterprise Limited to be
allocated all the Gmelia tress that would be harvested to make way for the
rubber plantation.
Messrs Maripoma Enterprise Limited has also
been given the timber rights to the natural forest trees.
Interestingly
Maripoma Enterprise has no experience in logging or forestry.
Its instrument of incorporation lists its
business as “General Merchants, General Building Construction, Road and Civil
Engineering”
A major worry for forestry watchers is that
already about 1000 hectares of the forest has been cleared.
The
company has moved about 20 excavators to site and its is clearing the forest at
a rate of about 25 hectares per day.
Experts say that even if the forest has to be
cleared it should have been done in a programmed manner to ensure that all of
it is not lost within a short period.
A source at the Forestry Commission insisted
that the planting of rubber will restore the forest in due course.
The problem however is that the rubber trees
will not mature instantly and therefore the forest could suffer degradation
atleast in the period maturation.
The big question however is can there be any
justification for selling any more of the country’s forest reserves?
Editorial
THE CEDI
The
debate over the falling value of the cedi has been ignited once again by the
Vodo-economics of Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams.
As
far as he knows the cedi has been falling because the devil has had his hand on
the head of the President, Vice President, Minister of Finance and the Governor
of the Bank of Ghana.
Perhaps, the Archbishop needs to be reminded
that the cedi has been falling for more than 40 years and that the people on
whose heads he claims the devil has placed his hands got into their current
positions only a few years ago.
Indeed,
the Vice President got into his current position only a year ago and Governor
became head of the Central Bank only a few months ago.
May
be, the devil has been around for more than 40 years, in which case his hands
would have been on the heads of Mr Kufuor, Mr Rawlings, General Akufo, General
Acheampong, Busia and all of them.
The
question is, why did the Archbishop wait for President Mahama to become head of
state before trying to remove the hand of the devil?
The Insight is convinced that there is nothing
spiritual about the fall in the value of the cedi.
The cedi is falling largely because of the
implementation of the neo-Liberal agenda which has turned Ghana into a
dependent state.
The
way out of the mess is that we need to produce the things we need for our
survival and to make sure that our resources are exploited for the benefit of
our people.
The
answer is production! Production! And production!
There
is no magic to it.
NKRUMAH WILL BE JUDGED
 |
| Osagyefo Dr Kwame Nkrumah |
The
Dawn Broadcast in which the deposed Kwame Nkrumah forbade his Former Ministers
and party functionaries from carrying on business is to be the yardstick by
which he himself should be judged, Supreme Court judge said this morning.
Mr
Justice Apaloo who is the Chairman of the Commission appointed by the National
Liberation Council to inquire into the properties of the ex- President was
addressing the first sitting of the Commission at the law school.
Other
members of the Commission are Mr. R. Ocannsey, Chief Accountant, Bank of Ghana
and Mr. Abayefa Karbo, a legal practitioner. The Secretary to the Commission is
Mr. G.T. Oddoye, Senior Assistant Secretary, establishment Secretariat.
Mr
Justice Apaloo recalled the terms of the dawn broadcast and another dawn
broadcast by the then President on September 29, 1961, in which he imposed a
limit to property acquisition by ex-Ministers and former M.Ps
“Although
he did not announce a similar restriction on himself” Mr. Justice Apaloo added,
“the dawn broadcast seems the yardstick by which he himself ought to be
judged”.
Mr
Justice Apaloo disclosed that Kwame Nkrumah sought legislation to enforce his
injunction in the September 1961 broadcast.
He
therefore asked Cabinet to approve a bill on February 8, 1966, “to prohibit
members of the Central Committee and other party officials from owning or
having interest either directly or indirectly in business concerns”.
The
bill entitled “State Officials Business Interest (Prohibition) Act 1966 was
drafted and was due to be published in the gazette just before the overthrow of
the former government on February 24 1966”…he said.
“If
the evidence to be produced before this enquiry satisfies us that
notwithstanding his own professions. Kwame Nkrumah owned property in excess of
£20, 000 and was himself engaged in business interest then this commission
would have to give consideration to the question whether the former President
was sincere both to himself and to his country. When he led the country to
believe that both the carrying on of business and the ownership of large
property are incompatible with socialism which he often preached”. Mr. Justice
Apaloo said.
He
explained that the duty of the commission was to find facts “and when the evidence
lead us to a certain conclusion, he will state those facts plainly without any
embellishments or embroidery.
He
appealed to the public to co-operate .the commission adjourned to next
Monday.
First
published in Evening News of Monday, March, 21, 1966).
 |
| US President Hussein Obama |
Political Doublespeak: State of the Union Or State Of
Obama?
The
political classes in our country seem to relish moments of high ritual and
symbolic occasions with TV news routinely bringing these events to a country
more engaged with awards shows and sporting contests.
The
State of the Union, the annual presidential projection of power enjoys a
special status because it showcases the prowess of the incumbent to weave a
self-congratulatory narrative before what is in effect a peanut galley to cheer
him on. Widely understood is that the Congress is at a new low in public
approval.
Even
when half the office holders, cabinet members, Supreme Court Judges (minus 3)
and military brass is sitting on its hands, with some glowering hostility, the
acoustics make it seem as if the Speechifier-in-chief’s every word is receiving
a standing ovation. His guests joined in to make it appear as if it was a pep
rally or he had won the lottery.
Obama
may not be a brilliant politician or program implementer, but he is a good
speaker and his speech was crafted like a Hollywood script, sprinkled with
humor and closing with a crescendo of bi-partisan patriotic adulation for an
injured soldier—the modern equivalent of manipulative flag waving. With wife
Michelle beaming love for the obsessive and sicklywarrior with his l0
“deployments,” the goal was to reinforce the halo that Obama was hoping would
turn around his low approval ratings.
He
knew going in that he was doing it as much for his own morale and that of his
posse in suits. He read the Washington Post: “Amid the avalanche of coverage of
President Obama’s fifth State of the Union — he’s reading the speech! — it’s important to
remember one simple fact: The State of the Union’s ability to shape public
perception of a president and his agenda is, um, way overrated.”
The
newspaper reporting this reality sandwich to the White House hopesters carried
5,069 items containing the phrase “State of the Union” appearing on its website
, hyping an event that they clearly cared more about than the public.
And
that’s not just for this year. The Huffington Post reported, “Public Opinion And
History Agree: The State Of The Union Won’t Change Anything.”
Their
political analysts write, “The pattern of State of the Union addresses failing
to make much of a dent in public opinion isn’t new, or unique to Obama’s
presidency. It’s held largely true for the
past five presidents’ addresses.
A
new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows the State of the Union may be of minor
importance to most Americans. Only 35 percent said that they watched last
year’s address, and even fewer — 6 percent — said that they could recall its
contents “very well.” Another 23 percent said they remembered it “somewhat
well,” while a combined 70 percent said they didn’t remember it very well (28
percent) or didn’t remember it well at all (42 percent).”
So
much for the impact of this political uber-coverage!
And
what of the speech itself? The New York Times was blistering in its assessment
“A
man who entered the White House yearning for sweeping achievements finds
himself five years later threatening an end run around gridlock on Capitol Hill
by using executive orders, essentially acknowledging both the limits of his
ability to push an agenda through Congress and the likelihood that future
accomplishments would be narrow.”
The
National Journal was equally sarcastic, “It was a good speech about a modest
agenda delivered by a diminished leader, a man who famously promised to reject
the politics of ‘small things’ and aim big—to change the culture of Washington,
to restore the public’s faith in government, and to tackle enduring national
problems with bold solutions. … “
Was
that was he was doing? Quite the opposite, writes Ron Fournier who began his report
with a question, “Is that all there is?”
He
added,
“Tuesday
night was no such moment. It was, instead, a moment in miniature: an executive
order to raise the minimum wage for future federal contractors, and another to
create ‘starter’ retirement accounts; summits on long-term unemployment and
working families; and scores of promises to ‘continue’ existing administration
programs.”
William
Deane, formerly of CBS and now editor of Our Missing News.com wrote:
“I
can’t remember a State of the Union message–and I’ve heard or read about 50 of
them– that has declared a go-it-alone policy-if-you-Congress-don’t-do-it-my-way
…We understand President Obama’s frustration over a “just say no,” Congress,
but the Congress has that right. The president’s unprecedented: Come
along with me or else I’ll do it on my own is bound to anger the GOP majority
and invite some form of retaliation.“
There
was no love in media land either. Wrap, the Hollywood website reported that one
Republican Congressman audibly threatened a reporter to knock him off the
balcony. For all the show of unity, many in the audience were seething with
disgust.
The
Tea Party was in the end furious, not with Obama who is their perennial target,
but House Speaker Boehner who they denounced in the speech’s aftermath as a
traitor and sell-out. They issued a declaration of war on the Speaker, claiming
he is warring on them.,
From
their official statement issued after the big speech,
“John
Boehner declared war against the Tea Party. Publicly and privately, Speaker of
the House, John Boehner is waging war on the Tea Party, conservative
Republicans, and our values.”
Obama
may not have won much support but it seems clear that the main conflict in
Washington has moved from the Republican-Democratic axis to a food fight among
Republicans. This development must be dismaying to GOP strategists who believed
that they had a chance to take over the Senate because of all the discontent
with Obamacare.
Liberals
must be dismayed too, especially when Obama embraced drones and spying,
justified as necessary to stop terrorist and cyber attacks. His call to close
Guantanamo has been echoing for five years with the White House opposed and the
Congressional Torture Caucus still wedded to punishing terrorists who in many
cases never have been.
Writing
in the Globalist published in Europe, Editor Stephen Richer asked about the
President, “Why has he been so captured by the apparatus? The bubble in the
White House is one reason. Relative youth and inexperience another. Fear of
being held accountable “in case something happens” a third. But let’s keep
personality traits and political considerations to the side.Obama’s hesitation
to stand up for democratic controls of the intelligence machinery is indicative
of a fundamental misconception of American freedom.”
Maura
Stephens, an anti-fracking activist in upstate New York, was aghast at Obama’s
stance on extracting natural gas, writing:
“It
was very ironic that the day we were honoring Pete Seeger — a hero of peace and
the environment — that President Obama would double down on fracking claims.
Seeger has been one of our champions in the fight against fracking in New York
State, coming to virtually all of our rallies.”
No
one in the media pointed out that Seeger sang with Bruce Springsteen at Obama’s
2009 inauguration. On the day that every newspaper carried heroic obits, Obama
said nothing.
There
were other criticisms of his unwillingness to challenge the over reliance on
tests in schools and new standards to close the unequal gap between wages for
women and men. That issue woke the audience up, but no new initiatives were
floated.
These
critics forget that what Obama was ultimately selling was himself.
My sense: we are back to square one.
The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming
Monsanto’s
talk of ‘technology’ tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed
where genetic engineering is a means to control seed,
“Monsanto
is an agricultural company.
We
apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world \produce more
while conserving more.”
“Producing
more, Conserving more, Improving farmers lives.”
These
are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside pictures of smiling,
prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra. This is a desperate attempt
by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in
India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent
of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.
Control
over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is the source of
life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life, especially the life
of farmers.
Monsanto’s
concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world
is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto
vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers
in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.
Through
patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting
rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.
Patents
on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not
“creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception
that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while
Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for
farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing
to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests
and superweeds.
The
entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed
Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to
deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed with Monsanto’s entry: First,
Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements,
and concentration over the seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been
the farmers’ common resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto,
for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed.
Third, open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO
hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity.
Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now
had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease,
drought and crop failure. Fifth, Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory
processes and, in fact, started to use public resources to push its
non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships
(PPP).
In
1995, Monsanto introduced its Bt technology in India through a joint-venture
with the Indian company Mahyco. In 1997-98, Monsanto started open field trials
of its GMO Bt cotton illegally and announced that it would be selling the seeds
commercially the following year. India has rules for regulating GMOs since
1989, under the Environment Protection Act. It is mandatory to get approval
from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the ministry of
environment for GMO trials. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and
Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not
start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002.
And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops.
But
it had changed Indian agriculture already.
Monsanto’s
seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of
superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of
monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides and agrarian distress
which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control
has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the
cotton belt.
An
internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had
this to say to the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton farmers are in a
deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in
2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”
The
highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this is also where the
highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced
— Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high costs of seed and chemicals have
created a debt trap. According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent
rural debt is due to purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt
grows. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.
The
ultimate seeds of suicide is Monsanto’s patented technology to create sterile
seeds. (Called “Terminator technology” by the media, sterile seed technology is
a type of Gene Use Restriction Technology, GRUT, in which seed produced by a
crop will not grow — crops will not produce viable offspring seeds or will
produce viable seeds with specific genes switched off.) The Convention on
Biological Diversity has banned its use, otherwise Monsanto would be collecting
even higher profits from seed.
Monsanto’s
talk of “technology” tries to hide its real objectives of ownership and control
over seed where genetic engineering is just a means to control seed and the
food system through patents and intellectual property rights.
A
Monsanto representative admitted that they were “the patient’s diagnostician,
and physician all in one” in writing the patents on life-forms, from
micro-organisms to plants, in the TRIPS’ agreement of WTO. Stopping farmers
from saving seeds and exercising their seed sovereignty was the main objective.
Monsanto is now extending its patents to conventionally bred seed, as in the
case of broccoli and capsicum, or the low gluten wheat it had pirated from
India which we challenged as a biopiracy case in the European Patent office.
That
is why we have started Fibres of Freedom in the heart of Monsanto’s Bt
cotton/suicide belt in Vidharba. We have created community seed banks with
indigenous seeds and helped farmers go organic. No GMO seeds, no debt, no
suicides.
Vandana
Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco
feminist.Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored more than 20 books and
over 500 papers in leading scientific and technical journals.She was trained as
a physicist and received her Ph.D. in physics from the University of Western
Ontario, Canada. She was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993. She is the
founder of Navdanya http://www.navdanya.org/
NATO’s War on Libya – Not a Humanitarian Intervention
 |
| NATO Forces |
Review of
Maximilian Forte’s book "Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and
Africa"
Maximilian
Forte’s book on the Libyan war, Slouching
Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa ( Baraka Books,
2012), is another powerful (and hence marginalized) study of the imperial
powers in violent action, and with painful results, but supported by the UN,
media, NGOs and a significant body of liberals and leftists who had persuaded
themselves that this was a humanitarian enterprise. Forte shows compellingly
that it wasn’t the least little bit humanitarian, either in the intent of its
principals (the United States, France, and Great Britain) or in its results.
As
in the earlier cases of “humanitarian intervention” the Libyan program rested
intellectually and ideologically on a set of supposedly justifying events and
threats that were fabricated, selective, and/or otherwise misleading, but which
were quickly institutionalized within the Western propaganda system. (For the
deceptive model applied in the war on Yugoslavia, see Herman and Peterson, “The
Dismantling of Yugoslavia,” Monthly
Review, October 2007; for the propaganda model applied to Rwanda,
see Herman, “Rwanda and the New
Scramble for Africa,” Z
Magazine, January 2014)
The
key elements in the war-on-Libya model were the alleged acute threat that
Gaddafi was about to massacre large numbers of civilians (in early 2011), his
supposed use of mercenaries imported from the south (black Africans!) to do his
dirty work, and his dictatorial rule. The first provided the core and urgent
rationale for Security Council Resolution 1973 [R-1973], passed on March 17,
2011, which authorized member states “to take all necessary measures…to protect
civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan
Arab Jamahirija, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force
in any form…” Its fraudulently benign and limited character was shown by this
exclusion of an occupation force, as presumably any actions under this
resolution would be limited to aircraft and missile operations “protecting
civilians.” Its deep bias is shown by its attributing the threat to civilians
solely to Libyan government forces, not to the rebels as well, who turned out
to greatly surpass the government forces as civilian killers, and with a racist
twist.
As
Forte spells out in detail, the imperial powers violated R-1973 from day one
and clearly never intended to abide by its words. That resolution called for
the “immediate establishment of a cease-fire and a complete end to violence,”
and “the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis” and to
facilitate “a dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a
peaceful and sustainable solution.” Both Gaddafi and the African Union called
for a cease fire and dialogue, but the rebels and imperial powers were not interested,
and the bombing to “protect civilians” began within two days of the
war-sanctioning resolution, without the slightest move toward obtaining a cease
fire or starting negotiations.
Forte
also shows that it was clear from the start that the imperial-power-warriors
were using civilian protection as a “figleaf” cover for their real
objective—regime change and the removal of Gaddafi (with substantial evidence
that his death was part of the program and carried out with U.S.
participation). The war that followed was one in which the imperial powers
worked in close collaboration with the rebel forces, serving as their air arm,
but also providing them with arms, training and propaganda support. The
imperial powers, and Dubai, also had hundreds of operatives on the ground in
Libya, training the rebels and giving them intelligence and other support,
hence violating R-1973’s prohibition of an occupation force “in any form.”
Forte
shows that the factual base for Gaddafi’s alleged threat to civilians, his
treatment of protesters in mid-February 2011, was more than dubious. The
claimed striking at protesters by aerial attacks, and the Viagra-based rape
surge, were straightforward disinformation, and the number killed was small—24
protesters in the three days, February 15-17, according to Human Rights
Watch—fewer than the number of alleged “black mercenaries” executed by the
rebels in Derna in mid-February (50), and fewer than the early protester deaths
in Tunis or Egypt that elicited no Security Council effort to “protect
civilians.” There were claims of several thousand killed in February 2011, but
Forte shows that this also was disinformation supplied by the rebels and their
allies, but swallowed by many Western officials, media and other gullibles.
That the actual evidence would induce the urgent and massive response by the
NATO powers is implausible, and the rush to arms demands a different rationale
than protecting civilians in a small North African state. Forte provides it,
compellingly—Obama and company were seizing the “window of opportunity” for
regime change.
Forte
demonstrates throughout his book that from the beginning of the
regime-change-war the bombing powers were not confining themselves to
protecting civilians, but were very often targeting civilians. He shows that,
as in Pakistan, they used “double-tapping,” with lagged bombings that were sure
civilian killers. They were also bombing military vehicles, troops and living
quarters that were not attacking or threatening civilians. They also bombed
ferociously anywhere their intelligence sources indicated that Gaddafi might be
present. Forte also shows that the rebels were merciless in brutalizing and
slaughtering people viewed as Gaddafi supporters, and in the substantial parts
of the country where Gaddafi was supported, the rebels’ air-force (i.e., NATO)
was regularly called upon to bomb, and it did so, ruthlessly.
Forte’s
book title, Slouching
Towards Sirte, and his front cover which shows devastated civilian
apartment buildings in that city, focus attention on the essence of the
NATO-rebel war. Sirte was Gaddafi’s headquarters, and its populace and army
remnants resisted the rebel advance for months, so it was eventually bombed
into submission with a large number of civilians killed and injured. Forte
notes that when NATO finally caught up with Gaddafi and bombed and decimated
the small entourage that was with him on the outskirts of Sirte, this was
justified by NATO because this group could still “threaten civilians”! This was
a town that had to be destroyed to save it—for the rebels, who Forte shows
(citing Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN and other observers)
executed substantial numbers of captured Gaddafi supporters. This was a major
war crimes scene. The civilians in Sirte needed protection, from NATO and the
rebels.
R-1973
explicitly mentions Benghazi as a massacre-threatened town, but Forte points
out that no document or witness was ever turned up during or after the war that
indicated any Gaddafi plan to attack Benghazi, let alone engage in a civilian
slaughter. Furthermore, Forte notes that “the only massacre to have occurred
anywhere near [Benghazi] was the massacre of innocent black African migrant
workers and black Libyans falsely accused of being ‘mercenaries’….” The rebels
and their air force smashed a stream of towns in Eastern Libya, killing and
turning into refugees many thousands of civilians. The destruction of Sirte,
similar to what R-1973 and the “international community” claimed to fear for
Benghazi, and the lynching of Gaddafi, elicited no “grave concern” over
“systematic violations of human rights,” or call for any Chapter 7 response
from the Western establishment. So in this Kafkaesque world the rebels and NATO
behaved just as the “international community” claimed Gaddafi would behave, and
the civilian casualties that resulted from the rebel-NATO combination vastly
exceeded anything done by Gaddafi’s forces, or any probable civilian deaths
that would have resulted if NATO had stayed away.
This
conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the rebels, from the beginning,
pursued a race war. Forte stresses the importance in rebel actions of the
hatred flowing from the rebels to Gaddafi forces and those deemed his
supporters, which the rebels took to include anybody with a black skin. Many
thousands of blacks were picked up by rebel forces, accused without the
slightest proof of being mercenaries, and often executed. Among the many cases
that Forte describes, in one a hospital was destroyed and dozens of its black
patients were massacred. The largely black population of the sizable town of
Tawargha was entirely expelled by the rebels. This racism pre-dates the
2011-2012 war, and resulted in part from Gaddafi’s policies reaching out to
other African states, his relatively liberal treatment of black immigrants, and
his inadequate counter-racist educational and economic-social policies that
would alleviate distress at home. But Gaddafi was not a racist, whereas large
numbers of the rebel forces (the “democratic opposition” in Western propaganda)
were, and their successes, with NATO’s help, allowed them to perform as a lynch
mob in many places (as Forte documents).
The
racist character of the war was reflected in the frequent focus on “black
mercenaries” allegedly imported and used by Gaddafi. This was reiterated time
and again by the rebels and their supporters and propagandists. Forte shows
that this claim was not merely inflated, it was a lie. There were no black
mercenaries brought in by Gaddafi. But the claim of the threat posed by his
alleged resort to “mercenaries” (read: black mercenaries) was repeated by
officials (e.g., Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton) and the mainstream media, and
found its way even into R-1973 (“Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by
the Libyan authorities”). The charge was reiterated often by the rebels in
justifying their systematic abuse of blacks during the war.
Note
that for a Western target there are “mercenaries” whereas for big time killers
there are “contractors.” We may note also that while the word “genocide” was
often used to describe Gaddafi’s threat to the rebels and their supporters, in
fact, the only facet of this conflict in which a special ethnic group was
targeted for mistreatment and removal, and on a large scale, was the rebel
focus on, and treatment of, black people. This point has, of course, escaped
Western commentators on human rights.
There
is another important race element involved in the Libyan war and regime change.
Gaddafi was a devoted supporter of the idea of African independence, unity and
escape from Western domination. He was a central figure in the organization of
the African Union, served as its chairman, and called repeatedly for a United
States of Africa, and for African lending and judicial authorities that could
free Africa from subservience to the IMF, World Bank and international justice.
He also invested substantial sums in African institutions, including schools,
hospitals, mosques and hotels. Forte shows that this Africanist thrust troubled
U.S. and other Western authorities, often frustrated at Gaddafi’s frequent
unwillingness to help Western investors as well as threatening Western plans to
advance their military-political-economic position in Africa. Thus, regime
change and Gaddafi removal dealt a major blow to African unity and breathed new
life into AFRICOM and the West’s power in the scramble for control and access
in this resource rich but fragmented and militarily weak area.
The
performance of the UN and International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Libyan war
and regime change program displayed once again their subservience to the
imperial powers and their facilitation of Western aggression and war crimes.
These imperial powers succeeded in getting R-1973 passed, though it was loaded
with bias and thoroughly politicized and hysterical claims of threats to
civilians, and crucially gave them authority to commit mayhem and create
another failed state. The Chinese and Russians foolishly signed on to this
Resolution, apparently not realizing that its “protecting civilians” thrust was
a cover that would be immediately violated and that they were contributing to
their own ouster from Africa. As the evidence rapidly accumulated that the
imperial powers were killing directly and facilitating rebel killings of
civilians, and were carrying out and supporting serious war crimes, although
these were sometimes recorded by UN personnel on the ground in Libya, there was
no UN response or constraint imposed. The reliable Ban Ki-Moon found NATO and
rebel behavior beyond reproach (“Security Council Resolution 1973, I believe,
was strictly enforced within the limit, within the mandate”). The UN Human
Rights Council removed the Libyan government’s representative based on a report
from a human rights group affiliated with the Libyan rebels, without requiring
evidence or allowing Libya to reply. Ban Ki-Moon allowed rebel representatives
to replace those of the Libyan government, again without a hearing and in
violation of UN rules.
The
ICC performance was even more dismal, with head Luis Moreno-Ocampo rushing to
indict Gaddafi without bothering with an investigation, and swallowing the
claims of “black mercenaries” being imported by the villain and his supplying
Viagra to encourage a rape program (Susan Rice also swallowed this charge).
Although R-1973 does call for the ICC to prosecute anybody “responsible for or
complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial as well
as naval attacks,” it should not surprise that there was no trace of ICC
enforcement against NATO or rebel officials.
Human
Rights groups also did poorly, with both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International welcoming the NATO intervention, although both eventually put out
reports calling attention to NATO and rebel abuses. But these reports were weak
and bias- “balanced.” And in contrast with their very early support of
intervention, they failed to call for action against imperial and rebel war
crimes. Forte cites compelling evidence that the early figure of 6,000 Gaddafi
government killings, which was influential in shaping UN action and media (and
liberal-left) opinion, was passed along by the rebels and swallowed by the
mainstream with no independent confirmation required.
Forte
has a very good account of how effectively the pro-rebel side manufactured
claims of civilian abuses via web sites and Twitterers far distant from Libya
(London, Geneva, Cairo), but regularly stating the claims were “confirmed” by
unnamed “witnesses.” These, plus direct rebel and imperial power official
claims, and a remarkable will-to-believe, helped create a fearsome image of
Gaddafi misbehavior and threats. Once again the propaganda system did its job
of demonization and hysteria stimulation, with effects possibly exceeding those
for Serbia (concentration and rape camps) and Iraq (“weapons of mass
destruction” and urgent threat). And a substantial chunk of the Western left
succumbed once again, sometimes reluctantly agreeing that bombing to protect
civilians was here justified, but remarkably silent in the face of the growing
evidence of bombing OF civilians and a de facto race war and war of aggression
for regime change.
Forte
points out that the facts of a race war and war of aggression against an
important African state were clearly recognized by Africans. There was a sharp
divide, with African leaders, journals and academics assailing the NATO war and
Western elites applauding it. Africans were very conscious of the fact that the
UN and NATO powers simply ignored the AU, preferring to deal with the Arab
monarchies and the rebels. Forte cites leaders of South Africa, Liberia,
Nigeria, Uganda, and other Africans all of whom are strong in their positive,
even if sometimes qualified, views of Gaddafi and his role, and outraged at
this new spurt of Western intervention (which they often call re-colonization).
Forte also has several pages on the close relationship between Mandela and
Gaddafi, the former indebted to him because of his steadfast support in the
years when the ANC was a “terrorist” organization for the imperial powers.
Forte
also stresses throughout how strongly opposed Gaddafi was to Al Qaeda and
Islamic extremism. He fought them at home and sought to interest U.S. officials
in their threat. It is one of many ironies that Al Qaeda and Islamic extremism,
firmly embedded in the rebel ranks, were provided the air force by NATO that
ushered these democrats into shared power. They are now a force helping stoke
chaos in the “liberated” Libya. But this chaos, like the civilians killed and
injured by NATO and its allies, only hurts those victims, not the real villains
in Washington, London and Paris.
•
First published in Z Magazine, February 2014
America’s
Political Prisoners
As a society becomes criminal in wars of conquest, crimes of
aggression and genocide are mirrored within the society’s treatment of its own.
Imprisonments under mechanisms of the “war on terror” extend concern for
political prisoners to prisoners of war, “enemy combatants,” and all who fall
into the current machinery of persecution, prison, and what the middle classes
are gradually realizing is the torture of prolonged solitary confinement. The
unifying element in this summary of recent news, is the dehumanization of the
victims, by a political system to further its own ends, which are increasingly
anti-human.
The
Center for Constitutional Rights is furthering “No Separate Justice: a
Post-9/11 Domestic Human Rights Campaign ,” to vigil at the Metropolitan
Correctional Center (MCC) the first Monday of each month starting February.
Prisoners detained under “war on terror” measures are held there for years,
some in solitary confinement. Prolonged solitary confinement is recognized as
torture. The Feb. 3rd vigil focuses on Fahad Hashmi who faced a 70 year
sentence for storing a friend’s luggage containing clothing for Al-Quaeda. He
is serving 15 years in Colorado on a plea bargain. CCR says he has been held in
solitary confinement seven years.
Elders
Sister Megan Rice, Michael Walli, and Greg Boertje-Obed i were to be sentenced
Jan. 28th for entering the Oak Ridge Y-12 National Security Complex, which
processes uranium for bombs. The trespass embarrassed the facility’s security
company. Refusing a plea bargain, the three were convicted of sabotage for
cutting a hole in the fence and symbolic acts of writing, pouring their blood,
and hammering on a stone. Judge Amul Thapar has ordered they pay $52,953
damages. They should be released but face sentences of up to thirty years.
Taken to the court in shackles Sr. Rice is almost 84; according to their lawyer
she is “freezing cold in jail.” Due to a snowstorm the sentencing was delayed
until February.ii
Menard
Illinois:
On
January 15th about 21 prisoners at the Menard Correctional Center High Security
Unit entered a hunger strike peacefully protesting conditions at Menard and
asking for basic personal rights (ie. access to nail clippers). The protest was
met with intimidation, deprival of prisoner belongings, alleged beatings off
camera, assault with injury to Armando Velasquez.iii
James
Anaya, UN Special rapporteur on Indigenous rights met with Leonard Peltier in
prison. The rapporteur has previously requested Peltier’s freedom but efforts
for executive clemency have been ignored.iv Peltier’s case clarifies a betrayal
by the Justice Department and Judiciary of rights struggled for by generations
of Americans.
Micmaq
Warriors imprisoned from a raid on their encampment October 17thv are being
refused their spiritual right to worship, at the Southeast Regional
Correctional Center. Denied access to sage for smudging, the Land Defenders
Aaron Francis and Germain Jr Breau remain in prison without trial. Six Micmaq
Warriors were initially detained. Denied access to a spiritual elder and
spiritual rights they were allowed to see the Center’s Christian chaplain; the
prayer groups were based on the Bible…vi
A
report from Reprieve (U.K.) Jan. 12th 2014, reveals 33 prisoners currently on
hunger strike with 16 being force-fed. Under conditions at Guantanamo the men
simply want to die. Guantanamo’s chain of command has committed a war crime.
Hunger strikers are assigned to the most penurious Camp V Echo. 155 Guantanamo
prisoners remain, with 77 who wait though cleared for release.vii
Vancouver:
Lucia
Vega Jimenez, a Mexican hotel worker, accused of not paying her bus fare (do
the buses give receipts ?) and subsequently robbed of several thousand dollars,
was imprisoned, then held at Vancouver International Airport’s Canadian Border
Services holding cells for deportation back to Mexico. The facility allows no
visits from lawyers, family or religious personnel. She died in custody, age
42. Media sources indicate she was found hanging in a shower stall for some
time. Canada Border Services contracts out the facility’s security to a private
company, “Genesis Security.” The RCMP finds no indication of a crime. A priest
providing ‘last rights’ at the hospital confirmed her death a suicide. News of
the death was entirely suppressed for a month before release.viii
Colombia:
FARC
(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) has requested the release of Simon
Trinidad, a former lawyer and a FARC leader. The U.S. extradited him to the
States and holds him in a maximum security Colorado penitentiary on a 60 year
sentence with no parole.ix The request was made during recent peace talks held
in Cuba. FARC’s spokesman, Ivan Marquez, said Simon Trinidad for ten years is
held in solitary, not allowed a newspaper or book or cards to play solitaire;
an emergency appeal was made for the attention of human rights organizations.x
The treatment of Trinidad, familiar in U.S. prison treatment which may hold as
many as 80,000 prisoners in solitary confinement, is not included in sentencing
but an extra-judicial initiative to destroy a person’s mind, will,
understanding. In this instance the treatment is a war crime.xi
In
all instances, the prisoners are victims of the State, political prisoners
persecuted for political purposes. Without a codified definition of “political
prisoner” recognized by law enforcement and judicial systems of North America,
– without admitting that some are imprisoned simply because they are a threat
to power, society accedes to the injustice. People who break no laws for their
personal advancement become “criminals” for affirming the interests of
humanity.
The
State criminalizes that portion of the population which insists on necessary
change. As the State becomes more unjust, as economic interests supersede human
necessities, as extremes of poverty and wealth replace a common interest, more
people go to prison, with longer sentences. The profits of the prison industry
which increasingly uses forced labour (slavery) on production lines for
Starbucks, MacDonalds, Boeing, Victoria’s Secret,xii are second to the State’s
control of the general population by fear of prison.
Use
of law enforcement to control the population loses the connection between law
and justice. When people are denied legal recourse to counter crimes of the
powerful in court they turn to “politics” and become targets for surveillance,
false arrests, incitement, ‘set-ups’, sting operations, entrapment. The
injustice undermines respect for law as an agreement among free people.
In
the U.S. the importance of high profile political prisoners such as Leonard
Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal has multiplied a hundred fold since the 1980′s. In
a sense political prisoners are becoming the people’s power plants. The
targeting of Black Panthers by COINTELPRO, the destruction of the American
Indian Movement leadership, the persecution which continues past prosecution
into extrajudicial punishment within the prison system, were once accepted as
standard – the American way. Currently the norm is deeply questioned by any
standard of human rights.
Political
prisoners may be a step ahead of the people. Some put aside their fear of a
system which threatens everyone within it, to say and do what’s needed for
human survival. Under oppression everyone becomes a political prisoner.
Notes
i “2013 suppressed news,” June 14, 2013, nightslantern.ca
[access:< http://nightslantern.ca/2013bulletin.htm#14jun >].
ii “Judge Orders Activists to Pay Full Restitution,” Travis
Loller (AP), Jan. 27, 2014, ABC News; “Snow delays sentencing for Tennessee
nuclear facility break-in,” Melodi Erdogan (Reuters), Jan. 28, 2014, Chicago
Tribune.
iii “Menard hunger strikers endure beating, threats by
nurses but vow, ‘We will not let them break us’,” Alice Lynd, Jan. 26, 2014,
SFBayView; “Update from Menard hunger strikers: We need outside support, force
feeding threatened,” Alice Lynd, and “Menard prisoners’ demands,” Alan Mills,
Jan 21, 2014, SFBayView.
iv “UN Special Rapporteur Meets with Leonard Peltier in
Prison,” Levi Rickert, Jan 24, 2014, TulaLipNews.com; “Night’s Lantern
Political Prisoner Updates,” nightslantern.ca [access:< http://nightslantern.ca/prison/2prisoners.htm#lp >].
v “2013 suppressed news,” Oct. 19, 2013, nightslantern.ca
[access:< http://nightslantern.ca/2013bulletin.htm#19oct >].
vi “Jailed Mi’kmaq Warriors Denied Access To Spiritual
Practises,” Jan. 21, 2014, Warrior Publications; “Coady Stevens, Mi’kmaq
Warrior, speaks on conditions in New Brunswick prison,” Miles Howe, Jan. 23,
2014, Halifax Media Co-op.
vii “Number on Guantanamo Hunger Strike Doubles in under a
Month,” Reprieve, Jan 12, 2014, Global Research; “Political Prisoner Updates,”
nightslantern.ca [access:< http://nightslantern.ca/prison/2prisoners.htm#g >].
viii “Mexican woman who died after CBSA arrest hung herself
rather than be deported,” Kim Pemberton, Jan. 28, 2014, The Vancouver Sun;
“Action alert: Death of Lucia Vega Jimenez in migrant detention,” Jan. 29,
2014, no one is illegal; “Mexican woman dies in Canada Border Services
custody,” David P. Ball, Jan. 27, 2014, Vancouver 24 hours; “Mexican woman who
died after being detained at YVR reportedly arrested over unpaid transit
ticket,” Amy Judd and Peter Meiszner, Jan. 29, 2014, Global Toronto; “Death
before deportation,” Jan. 30, 2014, As It Happens /CBC.
ix Simon Trinidad is the war name of Juvenal Ovidio Ricardo
Palmera Pineda. His statement at being sentenced is available at Red Diary (I
resist, therefore I exist) [access:<
http://reddiarypk.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/ricardo-palmeras-statement/ >];
ref. “North American Political Prisoners: The War on the Poor,” May 9, 2008,
nightslantern.ca [access: < http://nightslantern.ca/prison/fprisoners.htm >] and subsequent
[access: < http://nightslantern.ca/prison/2prisoners.htm#wp >].
x“FARC appeals for rebel leader’s release from US prison,”
Carlos Batista (AFP), Jan. 18, 2014, News Daily.
xi For example, Geneva Conventions, “Convention (III)
relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949″ ICRC,
Article 13 demands the captured be “humanly treated.” Article 22 forbids
internment in penitentiaries. Article 38 specifically requires intellectual
pursuits be allowed. The Conventon’s protection cannot be waived by the
prisoner and applies to acts prior to capture.
NSA and Britain’s GCHQ Mapping
By
Eric London
New information made public by Edward Snowden reveals that
the governments of the United States and United Kingdom are trawling data from
cellphone “apps” to accumulate dossiers on the “political alignments” of
millions of smartphone users worldwide.
According
to a 2012 internal UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) document,
the National Security Agency (NSA) and GCHQ have been accumulating and storing
hundreds of millions of user “cookies” —the digital footprints left on a
cellphone or computer each time a user visits a web site—in order to accumulate
detailed personal information about users’ private lives.
This
confirms that the main purpose of the programs is not to protect the population
from “terrorism,” but to facilitate the state repression of working class
opposition to widening social inequality and social counterrevolution. The
programs do not primarily target “terrorists,” but workers, intellectuals, and
students.
The
collection of data regarding the “political alignment” of cellphone users also
suggests that the governments of the US and UK are keeping lists of those whose
“political alignments” are of concern to the government. Previous revelations
have shown how the NSA and GCHQ “flag” certain “suspects” for additional
surveillance: the most recent revelation indicates that suspects are “flagged”
at least in part based on their “political alignment.”
The
legal rationale behind this process points to a growing movement to criminalize
political thought in the US and UK.
If,
as the revelations indicate, determining a user’s “political alignment” is a
primary goal of this program, then it is also likely a factor in determining
whether the government has a “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the user
is a “terrorist suspect.” If this is the case, the web sites a user visits may
raise the government’s level of suspicion that the user is engaged in criminal
activity, and may thereby provide the government with the pseudo-legal pretext
required to unlock the content of all his or her phone calls, emails, text
messages, etc.
Such
a rationale would amount to a flagrant violation of both the First and Fourth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Not only does the Fourth
Amendment protect against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the First
Amendment also proscribes the government from monitoring individuals based on
their political beliefs. The elimination of such a fundamental democratic right
would be a dangerous step towards the imposition of a police state
dictatorship.
The
new report also details the depth of the mobile-app spying operation.
A
2009 “brute-force” analysis test performed by the NSA and GCHQ of what the New York Times
describes as a “tiny sliver of their cellphone databases” revealed that in one
month, the NSA collected cellphone data of 8,615,650 cellphone users. Data from
the GCHQ test revealed that in three months, the British had spied on
24,760,289 users. Expanded to a full year, this data shows that in 2009, the
NSA collected data from over 103,000,000 users, while GCHQ collected data from
over 99,000,000 users: and this coming from only a “tiny sliver” of a month’s
data!
“They
are gathered in bulk, and are currently our single largest type of events,” one
leaked document reads.
The
program—referred to in one NSA document as “Golden Nugget!”—also allows the
governments to receive a log of users’ Google Maps application use. Such
information allows the intelligence apparatus to track the exact whereabouts of
surveillance victims worldwide. One chart from an internal NSA slideshow asks:
“Where was my target when they did this?” and “Where is my target going?”
An
NSA report from 2007 bragged that so much geo-data could be gathered that the
intelligence agencies would “be able to clone Google’s database” of all
searches for directions made via Google Maps.
“It
effectively means that anyone using Google Maps on a smartphone is working in
support of a GCHQ system,” a 2008 GCHQ report noted.
Additional
presentation material leaked by Snowden shows that in 2010 the NSA explained
that its “perfect scenario” was to “target uploading photo to a social media
site taken with a mobile device.” The same slide asks, “What can we get?” The
answer, according to the same presentation, includes the photographs of the user,
buddy lists, emails, phone contacts, and “a host of other social networking
data as well as location.”
The
agencies also use information provided by mobile apps to paint a clear picture
of the victim’s current location, sexual orientation, marital status, income,
ethnicity, education level, and number of children.
GCHQ
has an internal code-name system for grading their ability to snoop on a
particular cellphone user. The codes are based on the television show “The
Smurfs.” If the agencies can tap the phone’s microphone to listen to
conversations, the codename “Nosey Smurf” is employed. If the agencies can
track the precise location of the user as he or she moves, the codename
“Tracker Smurf” is used. The ability to track a phone that is powered off is named
“Dreamy Smurf,” and the ability to hide the spy software is coded “Paranoid
Smurf.”
That
the intelligence agencies have cheekily nicknamed codes in an Orwellian
surveillance program after animated characters from a children’s show is a
telling indication of the contempt with which the ruling class views the
democratic rights of the population of the world.
Additionally,
the agencies have been tracking and storing data from a series of cellphone
game applications, including the popular “Angry Birds” game, which has been
downloaded over 1.7 billion times.
The
tracking of data from online games like “Angry Birds” further reveals that
these programs are not intended to protect the population from “terrorism.” It
would be indefensible for the NSA and GCHQ to explain that they suspected to
glean information about looming Al Qaeda plots from a mindless cellphone game.
Yet
this is precisely how the NSA has attempted to justify these programs.
“The
communications of people who are not valid foreign intelligence targets are not
of interest to the National Security Agency,” an agency spokeswoman said. “Any
implication that NSA’s foreign intelligence collection is focused on the
smartphone or social media communications of everyday Americans is not true.
Moreover, NSA does not profile everyday Americans as it carries out its foreign
intelligence mission.”
In
an added indication of its anti-democratic character, the US government is
therefore employing the technique of the “Big Lie” by denying what has just
been proven true.
In
reality, the revelations have further exposed President Barack Obama’s January
17 speech as a celebration of lies.
The
president told the nation that the spying programs do “not involve the NSA
examining the phone records of ordinary Americans.” He also said that the US
“is not abusing authorities to listen to your private phone calls or read your
emails,” and that “the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t
threaten our national security.”
He
added in reference to the “folks” at the NSA that “nothing I have learned
[about the programs] indicated that our intelligence community has sought to
violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow
citizens.”
But
the evidence is mounting that the governments of the US and UK are compiling
information regarding the “political alignments” of hundreds of millions across
the globe. All those responsible for carrying out such a facially anti-democratic
campaign—including President Obama, David Cameron, their aides, and the leaders
of the security apparatus—must face criminal charges and immediate removal from
office.
No comments:
Post a Comment