Bodies of black men hanging from highways. Bound and tortured bodies of Africans dumped along the roadsides. Am I talking about Libya or Louisiana?

And all under the approving eye of the first Black President of the USA.

The lynching of Africans in Libya has been so bad that African leaders across the continent have been forced to raise their voices in protest. When the President of Nigeria, the USA’s unofficial enforcer in West Africa leads an African wide outcry against the lynching of his citizens in Libya one would assume that it was heard in the Obama White House.

With the murder or expulsion of most of Libya’s African migrant population well on its way came the massacre and ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Black Libyans.

And all the while Barack Obama and his band of criminal cohorts in the western capitals and television news channels strung together words like “pro-democracy”, “freedom fighters” and “liberation” to describe the orgy of looting and lynching being carried out.

When Black Libyans took up arms to defend their families and homes from the Libyan lynch mobs they found themselves the beneficiaries of “pro-democracy” high explosives, delivered from on high by a freedom loving NATO air force.

Bombed from on high, lynched on the ground, the only choice is to flee for your lives and that is what hundreds of thousands of Black Libyan have been forced to do.

And all under the approving eye of the first Black President in the White House.

Should we be surprised at such serpentine behavior by the first Black President? Isn’t this the guy who raised over $500 million to help him buy the White House, with $300 million of that from Wall Street?

Isn’t this the guy who surrounded himself before his election with the very worst criminals from the Clinton White house such as Anthony Lake, Susan Rice, Gayle Smith and Eric Holder?

But isn’t Barack Obama supposed to know what it’s like to be a black man in AmeriKKKa? Didn’t he used to attend a militant black church where the minister preached the Lord’s damnation upon the racist and genocidal rulers of the USA?

The brutal truth is that, like the shepherd’s dog taken as a pup from its mother to suckle at the tit of a sheep, Barack Hussein Obama spent those most critical teenage years being the only black kid in a school of thousands (Note; this writer attended the same school as Barack Obama, Punahou, some half a dozen years before him).

Punahou is one of the most elite schools in the USA, founded in Hawaii by Yankee missionaries who so famously brought the bible and took the Hawaiians land.

Today Punahou’s alumni include names that adorn the headquarters of multinational corporations like Dole Foods.

Barack Obama discovered what the white man wanted to hear from a black boy at an early age and apparently never forgot it.

From Punahou eventually to Harvard, Obama learned what the elite needed to hear if you wanted to get ahead even if it meant black is white, up is down and wrong is right.

So today we have the spectacle of a son of an African, the first Black President in the White house, broadcasting his approval for all the world to see that Libya or Louisiana, if lynching Africans is what it takes, God Bless the USA…and no where else.

Thomas C. Mountain is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He can be contacted at thomascmountain at yahoo dot com.

After some 8,000 bombing raids, with estimates of 4 bombs used per attack NATO has already dropped over 30,000 bombs on Libya. That’s almost 200 bombs per day for 6 months, some tens of thousands of tons of high explosives. With an estimated 2 Libyans killed per bomb and without a single NATO casualty the Western regimes have massacred over 60,000 Libyans in the past half year with the rebels themselves having said there have been 50,000 Libyan deaths. One hell of a humanitarian intervention isn’t it?

How the “civil war” in Libya has proceeded can best be described in light of the events of August 21. On that Sunday afternoon a BBC film crew showed a rebel column fleeing the approaches to Zawiya outside of Tripoli. With their tails between their legs, glancing fearfully over their shoulders as they fled wildly back down the road from whence they came, even the BBC presstitute on the scene could not contain his disgust at the sight. Once again the rebels had run into stiff resistance and had shown their true mettle by fleeing the fight.

The next morning a France24 reporter recounted how later that Sunday night she had accompanied these same rebels as they drove almost unopposed through Zawiya into Green Square in the heart of Tripoli, this time passing row upon row of bombed out still burning buildings.

This has been NATO’s war and while the world may not understand this, the Libyan rebels certainly do.

A major problem for NATO and its Libyan Quisling League a.k.a the National Transitional Council (NTC) is that most of rebel military is now under the leadership the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a self described affiliate of Al Queda in the Maghreb (North Africa). The “general” in command of the mainly ethnic Berber rebel fighters that have captured the Libyan capital, known as the Tripoli Military Council, is the head of the LIFG. One of his top commanders is head of the Benghazi based rebel army. With the recent murder of “General” Younnis, former head of the Libyan secret police and once considered the most feared man in the country, the LIFG has now taken over leadership of almost all of the most effective fighting forces of the Libyan rebellion.

Quite an accomplishment and Al Queda in the Maghreb’s sincere thanks must go to the USA and its allies in NATO.

As the former LIFG terrorists turned “freedom fighters” go house to house arresting and executing “Gaddafi supporters” and “African mercenaries” in Tripoli life for the ordinary people of the city has become one of survival. Without water for almost two weeks now, without cooking gas or fuel for their cars and with food in short supply the future for the people of Tripoli remains uncertain.

Some reports in the international media have claimed that the Great Man Made River (GMMR), the irrigation system that supplies northern Libya with almost all its water was bombed by NATO. Other reports claim that “Gaddafi loyalists” still control the southern water wells and have shut off the water supply. If the later is true then even Benghazi’s water supply is in jeopardy. In any case, Tripoli is going to be dependent on imported water for quite some time and how a city of almost 2 million is to survive using water imported via water trucks is a question the western media has stopped talking about.

The “Transitional National Council” now recognized as “the legitimate government of Libya” by NATO governments and their allies is made up of many former high ranking Libyan Government officials and is increasingly caught in a tough spot. With the African Union trying to block the release of Libyan Government funds held in western banks, there is little time to spare if this NTC’s control is to remain in place.

South African President Jacob Zuma has condemned the NTC leaders as embezzlers and demanded they return the tens of millions of dollars the NTC top leaderships is charged with stealing during their days in office in the Libyan government before the AU lifts its opposition to Gaddafi government funds being released to the NTC.

NATO leaders are having to scramble to keep the NTC afloat. Images of pallets stacked 6 feet high with 200 million Libyan Dinars flown in from London show just how touch and go it has become for the NTC’s attempts to maintain its influence. While NATO’s “Friends of LIbya” circus held in Paris promises the release of Libya’s $billions held ransom by the west, implementing these promises is another matter all together. Corruption and incompetence mark the NTC leadership’s past and it will come as no surprise to hear reports of massive embezzlement of these funds in the future.

How much longer the LIFG/Al Queda lead rebel armies will stand by and allow their former bitter enemies in the TNC to remain in power is the $60 billion question. Already the rebel “government” in the port city of Misrata has announced they do not recognize the authority of the TNC and rally’s demanding the removal of the former Libyan government officials in the TNC have been reported taking place on an almost daily basis there.

In the mean time the vast reaches of the southern Libyan desert has not been conquered by NATO and almost all of Libya’s water and much of its oil remains outside of the control of the NTC.

With hundreds of villages and small towns scattered across an immense area Col. Gaddafi and his supporters still have a vast area at their disposal. With Algeria fighting Al Queda in the Maghreb their border on Libya’s western flank remains open and allows opponents of the NATO backed rebels a safe haven. The NTC has already raised the alarm about a nasty long term insurrection based in southern Libya using Algeria as base.

So far the Al Queda lead rebel fighters and the west’s bully boys in the NTC have yet to begin to eat each other, though it seems almost inevitable that internal warfare amongst the rebels will take place. We may yet see NATO warplanes bombing its erstwhile allies in the Libyan rebellion.

The one thing that is clear is that the Libyan Tragedy has just begun and that the capture of most of northern Libya by the NATO backed rebels is just its first phase. 30,000 bombs over Libya killing some 60,000 Libyans marks the beginning rather than the end of this disaster.

Thomas C. Mountain was a member of the 1st US Peace Delegation to Libya in 1987 and is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He can be reached at thomascmountain at yahoo dot com.

They had taken place at a makeshift hospital, in a tent marked clearly with the symbols of the Islamic Crescent. Some of the dead were on stretchers, attached to intravenous drips. Some were on the back of an ambulance that had been shot at. A few were on the ground, seemingly attempting to crawl to safety when the bullets came.

Around 30 men lay decomposing in the heat. Many of them had their hands tied behind their back, either with plastic handcuffs or ropes. One had a scarf stuffed into his mouth. Almost all of the victims were black men. Their bodies had been dumped near the scene of two of the fierce battles between rebel and regime forces in Tripoli.

To read the entire article: Rebels settle scores in Libyan capital

By Kim Sengupta in Tripoli. Saturday, 27 August 2011

For more pictures: Click Here

NATO air attack on Libya’s state TV [Reuters]

NATO Friday night attacked the Libyan television station in Tripoli killing three people and injuring 15 others in direct violation of their own UN Resolution 1973 which stipulates they may attack military targets “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi” and to impose a ‘no-fly zone’.

It has long become clear that the UN Resolution is just a pretext for regime change in Libya, yet NATO continues to look us straight in the eyes as they tell the wildest whoppers, and this time to justify attacking a hostile press.

The attack “was necessary,” said NATO spokesman Colonel Roland Lavoie, “as TV was being used as an integral component of the regime apparatus to systematically oppress and threaten civilians.”

If that were true, why did it take four months for NATO to discover this? Of course, it is not true. What is true is they attacked the TV the day rebel commander, General Abdel Fattah Yunis, was killed by another rebel faction. I believe NATO did not want Tripoli to explain to the Libyan people what had happened and certainly does not want public opinion to know the tribal nature of the rebellion and the large presence of al-Qaeda sympathizers in its ranks.

But whatever the case, there can be no justification for bombing the press, even a hostile press.

Libyan TV director, Rabea Mukhtar, said this is the second time his TV has been attacked by NATO. “What is there inside?” he asked. “Are there weapons inside them? What is inside Libyan Television to attack?”

Mukhtar went on to warn NATO they could “bomb us again four or five times, we will continue doing our duties…”.

The director of Libyan TV’s English Channel, Khaled Bazelya, said bombing is an act of “international terrorism… We are employees of the official Libyan TV. We are not a military target.”

The West’s Long History of Bombing the Press

But NATO and the US have a ling history of attacking the press. On April 23, 1999, during the needless Kosovo War, a NATO missile blew up Serbian Radio and TV in Belgrade, killing 16 people and using the same excuse.

On November 13, 2001, a US missile hit Al-Jazeera’s office in Kabul. On April 8, 2003 a US missile hit an electric generator at Al-Jazeera’s offices in Baghdad leading to the death of one reporter and hurting a second.

In April 2003 they shelled the Basra hotel where Al-Jazeera reporters were the only guests. Al-Jazeera reporters have been arrested with at least one sent to Guantanamo.

On November 22, 2005, according to minutes received by The Daily Mirror , US President George W. Bush, in a White House meeting in April 2004, speculated with his good friend, then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, about a US bombing raid on Al-Jazeera world headquarter is Doha, Qatar and other locations. The Mirror says Blair convinced Bush to take no action. The UK government run BBC came to the rescue saying that Bush’s comments could have been intended as “some kind of joke.” The Independent countered “official note takers don’t normally record jokes”. The Pentagon denied the story.

On July 12, 2007, a US helicopter killed a group of men in Baghdad including two Reuters staff. The US denied any knowledge of the incident until Wikileaks put the secret helicopter video online showing clearly the US soldiers not only shot unarmed civilians but also shot the wounded and those who came to help them.

Of the 189 journalists killed in Iraq since the invasion, at least 18 have been killed by the US. The Geneva Conventions stipulate that parties that have “no active part in the hostilities” shall “in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.” This includes journalists and media technicians.

But then again, UN rules outlaw foreign intervention for regime change and the Nuremburg trials banned pre-emptive war. That does not stop NATO powers from doing both: Iraq, Ivory Coast, Libya….

Yes, information is a weapon. That is why NATO has professional spin-doctors and tells us lies while looking us straight in the eyes such as the French Defense Minister, Gérad Longuet, on May 1st when he said there is no information of Islamic Fundamentalists in the Libyan rebellion.

If the US wants to bomb media they say is “inciting to violence against civilians” they can start by bombing Fox News, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh who never hesitate to tell a whopper if it can stir up hate.

By George Kazolias

George Kazolias is an American Journalist based in Paris and a Professor of Global Communications at the American University in Paris. He runs the blog kazodaily.

According to the Amnesty observer, who is fluent in Arabic, there is not one confirmed instance of rape by the pro-Gadaffi fighters, not even a doctor who knew of one. All the Viagra mass rape stories were fabrications.

Smells like foreign intervention in Libya by Carlos Latuff March 9, 2011. Source: theuglytruth.wordpress.com

Amnesty could not verify a single “African mercenary” fighting for Gaddafi story, and the highly charged international satellite television accounts of African mercenaries raping women that were used to panic much of the eastern Libyan population into fleeing their homes were fabrications.

There were no confirmed accounts of helicopter gun ships attacking civilians and no jet fighters bombing people which completely invalidates any justification for the No-Fly Zone inSecurity Council resolution used as an excuse for NATO to launch its attacks on Libya.

After three months on the ground in rebel controlled territory, the Amnesty investigator could only confirm 110 deaths in Benghazi which included Gadaffi supporters.

Only 110 dead in Benghazi? Wait a minute, we were told thousands had died there, ten thousand even. No, only 110 lost their lives including pro-government people.

No rapes, no African mercenaries, no helicopter gun ships or bombers, and only 110 ten deaths prior to the launch of the NATO bombing campaign, every reason was based on a lie.

Today according to the Libyan Red Crescent Society, over 1,100 civilians have been killed by NATO bombs including over 400 women and children. Over 6,000 Libyan civilians have been injured or wounded by the bombing, many very seriously.

Compared to the war on Iraq, these numbers are tiny, but the reasons for the Libyan war have no merit in any form.

Saddam Hussein was evil, he invaded his neighbors in wars that killed up to a million. He used Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) in the form of poison gas on both his neighbors and his own people, killing tens of thousands. He was brutal and corrupt and when American tanks rolled into Iraq the Iraqi people refused to fight for him, simply put their weapons down and went home.

Libya under Col. Gadaffi hasn’t invaded their neighbors. Gadaffi never used WMD’s on anyone, let alone his own people. As for Gadaffi being brutal, in Libya’s neighbor Algeria, the Algerian military fought a counterinsurgency for a decade in the 1990’s that witnessed the deaths of some 200,000 Algerians. Now that is brutal and nothing anywhere near this has happened in Libya.

In Egypt and Tunisia, western puppets like Mubarak and Ben Ali had almost no support amongst their people with few if anyone willing to fight and die to defend them.

The majority of the Libyan people are rallying behind the Libyan government and “the leader”, Muammar Gadaffi, with over one million people demonstrating in support on July 1 in Tripoli, the capital of Libya. Thousands of Libyan youth are on the front lines fighting the rebels and despite thousands of NATO air strikes authentic journalists on the ground in western Libya report their morale remains high.

In Egypt the popular explosion that resulted in the Army seizing power from Mubarak began in the very poorest neighborhoods in Cairo and other Egyptian cities where the price of basic food items like bread, sugar and cooking oil had skyrocketed and lead to widespread hunger. In many parts of Egypt’s poor neighborhoods gasoline/benzene is easier to find then clean drinking water. Medical care and education is only for those with the money to pay for it. Life for the people of Tunisia is not that much better.

In contrast, the Libyan people have the longest life expectancy in the Arab world. The Libyan people have the best, free public health system in the Arab world. The Libyan people have the best, free public education system in the Arab world. Most Libyan families own their own home and most Libyan families own their own automobile. Libya is so much better off then its neighbors every year tens of thousands of Egyptians and Tunisians migrated to Libya to earn money to feed their families, doing the dirty work the Libyan people refused to do.

When it comes to how Gadaffi oversaw a dramatic rise in the standard of living for the Libyan people despite decades of UN inSecurity Council sanctions against the Libyan economy honest observers acknowledge that Gadaffi stands head and shoulders above the kings, sheiks, emirs and various dictators who rule the rest of the Arab world.

So why did NATO launch this war against Libya?

First of all Gadaffi was on the verge of creating a new banking system in Africa that was going to put the IMF, World Bank and assorted other western banksters out of business in Africa. No more predatory western loans used to cripple African economies, instead a $42 billion dollar African Investment Bank would be supplying major loans at little or even zero interest rates.

LIbya has funded major infrastructure projects across Africa that have begun to link up African economies and break the perpetual dependency on the western countries for imports have been taking place. Here in Eritrea the new road connecting Eritrea and Sudan is just one small example.

What seem to have finally tipped the balance in favor of direct western military intervention was the reported demand by Gadaffi that the USA oil companies who have long been major players in the Libyan petroleum industry were going to have to compensate Libya to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for the damage done to the Libyan economy by the USA instigated “Lockerbie Bombing” sanctions imposed by the UN inSecurity Council throughout the 1990’s into early 2000’s. This is based on the unearthing of evidence that the CIA paid millions of dollars to witnesses in the Lockerbie Bombing trial to change their stories to implicate Libya which was used as the basis for the very damaging UN sanctions against Libya. The government of the USA lied and damaged Libya so the USA oil companies were going to have to pay up to cover the cost of their governments actions. Not hard to see why Gadaffi had to go isn’t it?

Add the fact that Gadaffi had signaled clearly that he saw both Libya’s and Africa’s future economic development linked more to China and Russia rather than the west and it was just a matter of time before the CIA’s contingency plan to overthrow the Libyan government was put on the front burner.

NATO’s war against Libya has much more in common with NATO’s Kosovo war against Serbia. But one still cannot compare Gadaffi to Saddam or even the much smaller time criminals in the Serbian leadership. The Libyan War lies are worse than Iraq.

By Thomas C. Mountain

Thomas C. Mountain is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. He can be reached at thomascmountain at yahoo dot com.

Every time US drones mistake a wedding or a funeral or some other party for an ‘Islamic militant gathering’, the missile fired causes carnage on the scale of Oslo. This has been going on for ten years and the number of drone strikes has doubled since Obama came into office. For example, of the 258 air strikes in Pakistan, 248 have taken place since 2008 (The Long War Journal). Drones have killed tens of thousands in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. That the US should be bombing in these countries at all is an outrage.

Drones: Should we not be outraged when American kids playing a deadly video game with joy-sticks, sometimes thousands of miles away from their target, kill people who did nothing to them, or us for that matter? And is this not one of the most cowardly acts you can think of? What if a Pakistani drone killed hundreds of people mistakenly taken for ‘Christian Fundamentalists’ in Cincinnati?

How many military videos does wekileaks have to release before we see that our soldiers are having fun killing unarmed people from a cowardly safe distance? If you have not seen one go here:

Click here to view the embedded video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Shooting the wounded, torture, secret prisons in Bagram, Mogadishu ,Guantanamo, extra-judicial executions … where’s the outrage?

In the first six months of this year alone, Israel has shot hundreds of unarmed protesters, killing scores. For example, on June 6, Tsahal shot dead 23 unarmed people and wounded 350 more in the Golan. The Jewish state was mildly chastised for shooting before they even tried tear gas.

When western supported Bahraini and Saudi troops shoot unarmed protesters seeking better lives, there is hardly a whimper. When US trained and equipped special-forces in Yemen shot down hundreds of protesters, Washington said nothing for three months. Then the US called on the thug President Saleh to step down and hand power over to another pro-American kleptocrat while the US continued to pound the country with Hellfire missiles from drones. The ‘collateral damage’ (i.e. dead civilians) from these attacks is pushing people “who never hurt US interests” into the arms of more radical groups (interview with Abdul Jabbar, The National).

The British medical review The Lancet along with John Hopkins University published a second Iraqi survey on October 11, 2006 which estimated there were 654, 965 excess deaths related to the war (2.5% of the population). Civilians died in droves during the US invasion and subsequent street battles with Iraqi Insurgent/Resistance fighters.

How many martyred cities like Falluja, 90% destroyed, are there in Iraq and Afghanistan? We can only mimic US Army Major Phil Cannella in Vietnam who explained to Peter Arnett “we had to destroy the village to save it,” after Ben Tre was wiped off the map on February 7, 1968.

And what do we say of the 200 000 Blackwater type mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan; those we euphemistically call “civilian contractors”? Each and every one of them is an Anders Behring Breivik, murdering with impunity in our name. Even the idea of privatizing and subcontracting war should spark outrage.

It is estimated that the embargo on Iraq from 1990 led to the deaths of over five hundred thousand children under the age of five (UNICEF). In an interview on May 12, 1996, then US Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes if the embargo was worth the price in lives. Her response was “We think the price is worth it.”

And yes, the instability caused by the US (and Israel) has led to Muslims killing other Muslims on the Oslo scale daily.

Our use of selective outrage is not new.

How many people died under US bombs in the first Gulf War like the one that killed over four hundred civilians in Baghdad’s Amiriyah bomb shelter on February 13, 1991? What could be more cowardly than the US air attack on fleeing Iraqi troops on Iraq’s Highway 8 (the Highway of Death) on February 26 – 27, 1991. A US pilot said “It was a turkey shoot. Like shooting ducks in a barrel.” The war was over. The Iraqis had abandoned Kuwait. The attack was cowardly mass murder.

This year France went to war against, I believe, the legitimate government of Ivory Coast to put a puppet in power whose Coup d’Etat had failed in 2002. The French backed and armed rebels killed thousands as they marched on the capital, Abidjan. Since the take over, there have been many more killings. But the western press and governments are not nearly as interested as they were when people got killed in attacks on the forces of a government they did not like. Almost total silence. Very often ‘theirs’ and ‘ours’ determines the worthy dead from the unworthy to quote Chomsky and Hermann.

In Libya, the rebels supported by NATO systematically executed the Black African prisoners they took, accusing them of being mercenaries. Most were merely migrant workers. Where is the outrage? It is known that NATO bombs are killing civilians in Libya and all of this, I believe, because Qaddafi threatened to nationalize the country’s oil and create an African Central Bank which would make the IMF and World Bank useless and, more importantly, powerless. There was nothing spontaneous about the Benghazi revolt as far as I am concerned. The flags had been industrially made and were in the streets the first day. The posters and banners, in several languages, were professionally printed in a country without private printers and were out the first day. The ‘rebels’ were armed and ready on the very first day. How is it reporters have not picked up on this. Where is the outrage?

The reality is some deaths are worth more than others. Every now and then a Twin Towers(9/11/01), London underground bombing (7/7/07), Madrid metro bombing (11/3/05) or Oslo killing spree comes along and because more worthier people are killed, we get outraged.

By George Kazolias

George Kazolias is an American Journalist based in Paris and a Professor of Global Communications at the American University in Paris. He runs the blog kazodaily.

Source: diasporadical.com

Background
Following the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on July 1998 and its entry into force on July 1, 2002 in response to the widespread incidents of armed conflict and related atrocities and the need to promote global justice and fight impunity; African states positively and quickly accepted and embraced the statute and its court. A majority of African states including leading and influential states like Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana and Kenya have ratified the Rome Statute with Tunisia being the 32nd African state and 116th in the world to do so in June 2011.

The challenges and impact of armed conflict in many parts of the African continent and the common objectives between the African Union (AU) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the fight against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression are the main reasons for the initial favorable response to the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court by many African states. In this regard, the Constitute Act of the African Union adopted by African states in July 2000 acknowledges in its Preamble that conflicts in Africa ‘constitutes a major impediment to the socio-economic development of the continent’ whilst its operating principles as per Article 4, reject impunity and allow the African Union to ‘intervene in internal affairs of a Member State in response to incidents of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.’ Interestingly, both the African Union and the Rome Statute came into operation the same month and year – July 2002!

However, relations between the AU and the ICC soon soured as the Court began to act against African leaders following the issuance by the Court of warrants of arrest and the indictment of President Bashir of the Sudan for war crimes, six Kenyan leaders including the Deputy Prime Minister of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, for the 2008 post-election violence and recently, Colonel Qadhafi the Libyan leader, for war crimes.

The tensions and disputes between the AU and the International Criminal Court arose when the AU resolved on July 13, 2009 at the Thirteenth Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union held in Sirte, Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, not to cooperate with the Court in the arrest and surrender of the Sudanese president. The AU’s decision was based on its perceived impact the indictment of President Bashir by the International Criminal Court would have on the peace process pertaining to the conflict in Darfur.

In its Sixteenth Ordinary Session held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on January 30-31, 2011, the AU again took a stand that the decision by Chad and Kenya to host the indicted Sudanese president on July 21, 2010 and August 27, 2010 respectively and not to assist the ICC in effecting the arrest and surrender warrant against him was in pursuit of ‘peace and stability’ in the region. In the same session, the AU supported and endorsed Kenya’s request to the UN Security Council for the deferral of the ICC’s investigation and prosecutions (Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the ICC) in relation to the 2008 post election violence; citing once more, the ‘ongoing peace building and national reconciliation process’ and the need to ‘prevent the resumption of conflict and violence.’

ICC Logo

Recently, the African Union in its 17th Summit held in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea, from June 30 to July 2, 2011 – whilst reiterating its commitment to fight impunity – once against restated its requests to the UN Security Council for proceedings by the International Criminal Court against President Bashir of Sudan and the six Kenyan leaders to be deferred. The Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of Members States of the AU also supported the position taken by Chad, Kenya and Djibouti to receive and not execute the warrant of arrest against President Bashir whilst in their respective territories. In the same vein and in response to the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC against Colonel Qadhafi, the AU decided that ‘AU Member States shall not cooperate in the execution of the arrest warrant’ and further requested the UN Security Council to defer the prosecution of the Libyan leader ‘in the interest of justice as well as peace.’

These decisions of the AU have been taken notwithstanding the fact that the International Criminal Court was responding to referrals by the UN Security Council in the case of President Bashir and Colonel Qadhafi (South Africa and Nigeria supported the UN Security Council resolution on Libya), whilst the action against the Kenyan leaders was a consequence of Kenya’s ratification of the Rome Statute in 2005.

The position taken by the African states raise several worrying concerns in relation to the commitment to fight injustice and impunity in a continent that is the most ridden and torn apart by incidents of armed conflict and the respect for international agreements and obligations by African leaders.

Commitment to Fight Injustice and Impunity

Armed conflict and its continuation in many parts of the African continent such as Somalia, Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), has exerted a heavy toll on life, property and economic and social development of the region. The continent and the Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, remains, according to the Global Peace Index 2011 report released in May 2011, the least peaceful region and makes up 40% of the world’s least peaceful countries with Somali being the least peaceful country in the world.

Sudan, according to a report by Oxfam – Protection of Civilians in 2010 – has the highest number of internal displaced persons (around 5 million) as a result of the ongoing conflict while there were over 15 000 conflict related incidences of rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2010.

Armed conflict has also had a devastating impact on Africa’s economic development. Violence, according to the Global Peace Index 2011 report, cost the global economy more than $8.12 trillion in 2010 and this translates to a loss of around $3 trillion for Africa’s economy for its 40% share of the world’s violence and conflict. A 2007 report by Oxfam, the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) and Saferworld – Africa’s missing billions: International arms flows and the cost of conflict – indicated that armed conflict costs the African continent an estimated $18 billion a year and that Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan and Uganda lost almost $300 billion due to armed conflict between 1990 and 2005.

To view document in detail: http://tinyurl.com/67qwzam

Failure to hold most perpetrators of the conflict in the region accountable through effective and successful criminal prosecutions and sanctions – and the resultant impunity – have contributed to much of the on-going and prolonged high levels of conflict. It is in this context and in view of the devastating impact of armed conflicts on Africa lives and economic development that the decision of African heads of State and Government in the African Union not to support and co-operate with the International Criminal Court in the Sudan, Kenya and Libya matters is perplexing and worrying.

The International Criminal Court, in terms of the Preamble of its founding statute – the Rome Statute – and Article 1 acts in a complementary manner to national criminal systems and cannot as per Article 17 of the Rome State, deal with any matter that is genuinely ‘being investigated or prosecuted’ by any state and will only intervene where the state in question is unwilling or unable to do so. In this regard, the action against the Kenyan leaders for the 2008 violence would not have happened if Kenya had genuinely investigated and prosecuted these leaders or if there was an AU mechanism to do so – justice delayed is justice denied.

The lack of an African regional criminal court has led to the intervention of the International Criminal Court in the matter pertaining to the leaders of Sudan and Libyan. African leaders should therefore be blaming themselves for this situation instead of complaining about foreign/western interferences in regional matters and perceived biasness of the International Criminal Court.

The irony and what further questions the sincerity and commitment of African heads of state and governments in the fight against injustice and impunity is the fact that the African Court on Human Rights meant to address violations of human rights has not been effective and has not received much support from the African Union. This court has only had two matters since it began operating in November 2006 – in its first case against Senegal, the court turned down an application against the former brutal leader of Chad, Hissene Habre, and in the second case, the court made a ruling against the Libyan government for human rights violations on March 25, 2011 in response to incidents of armed conflict in the country but it is not clear if Libya bothered to respond and what the AU did to ensure respect for the findings of its own court. The failure to bring into operation the new Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights since its adoption on July 1, 2008 – which only needs 15 ratifications by African states and currently has three ratifications – is another question mark on the commitment of African leaders. However, the decision or intention to accord criminal jurisdiction to the African Court of Justice and Human Rights in order to try ‘serious international crimes committed on the Africa soil’ is a positive development that should be supported.

Respect for International Agreements

African leaders were not forced to sign and ratify the Rome Statute and did so with full knowledge of the implications and consequences of this statute and the International Criminal Court. The decision by African leaders not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in its action against the leaders of Sudan, Libya and Kenya is contrary to the provisions of the Rome Statute the majority of African states are party and the binding provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. What is also interesting to note is that African states constitute the biggest block of countries that have ratified the Rome Statute and are now the biggest official opponents of its court – the International Criminal Court.

African Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Source: awcnow.org

The Preamble of the Rome Statute states that: “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international co-operation.” This as the Preamble further provides, is “to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.” Article 86 of the Rome Statute in pursuant to these provisions, requires states to fully cooperate with the Court ‘in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within its jurisdiction’ and states that fail to do so may be reported to the ‘Assembly’ of States Parties (assembly of states that have ratified the statute) or to the Security Council if the Court was acting on a matter referred to it by the Council. The AU decision not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court is thus in violation of these provisions which, interestingly, are in line with those of Constitutive Act – the founding statute of the African Union!

The decision by the AU is also contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the investigations and prosecutions occasioned by resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Articles 2(5) and 25 of the Charter require all member states give ‘assistance in any action’ taken by the UN and to ‘accept and carry out decisions’ of the Security Council. The AU decision, regardless of whether African leaders in the AU might have genuine concerns about the interventions of the International Criminal Court in the region or not, is not in line with the provisions of Article 52(1) of the Charter which states that:

“Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.”

And in case of uncertainties or doubts in the interpretation of Article 52, the Charter of the United Nations makes it very clear that decisions and obligations of the UN prevail over those of regional bodies like the AU. Article 103 of the Charter in this context, provides that:

“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”

What is further difficult about the AU’s position is that several African countries that supported the decision not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court have incorporated the Rome Statute into their national legal systems. South Africa for example, enacted the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 in order to make the Rome Statute part of its national laws – the Preamble of the South African legislation explicitly commits South Africa to ‘carry out its obligations in terms’ of the Rome Statute. Article 2(6) the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, makes any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya part of its laws. This means that a number of African heads of state and government that supported the AU decision not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court acted contrary to their own national laws.

Conclusion

Decisions by African leaders in the AU in response to the International Criminal Court have created unnecessary tension between the UN and the African Union as a regional body and undermine necessary efforts to prevent further incidents of armed incidents in the African continent in particular. These decisions are also not in accordance with international standards and the objectives and operating principles of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. And in the case of South Africa and Kenya, these decisions are in contravention of the respective national laws of these countries.

The latest the decision of the AU not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court ironically comes during the month the global community is celebrating the International criminal justice day – 17 July – the historic day in which the Rome Statute was adopted by the global community to promote global justice and fight impunity in an attempt to prevent the devastating impacts of armed conflict.

The decision by the government of Botswana not to associate itself with the latest decision of the AU is thus commendable and should hopefully influence other African leaders to see the light and act accordingly in the interests of promoting peace and justice in the continent.

The conduct of African leaders also highlights the need for African people to hold their respective leaders accountable for decisions these leaders make or purport to make on their behalf in international and regional forum and to get more involved in activities of the African Union as provided for by the operational principles of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. It is also important that African people put pressure on their leaders to ensure that the regional court is effective and is supported by the AU and African leaders – the slow pace in the ratification of the Protocol on the Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights which could also address international crimes is not a good sign.

Africa needs more commitment from its leaders and people to end armed conflict and its devastating impacts on African lives and Africa’s development. The fight against injustice and impunity is crucial in this regard- much of the conflicts in the region would probably not have happened or would have occurred at far limited scales if the perpetrators of these conflicts were aware that they will be eventually arrested and prosecuted for acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity they commit.

By Tseliso Thipanyane

Tseliso Thipanyane, independent consultant on human rights, democracy and good governance and former chief executive officer of the South African Human Rights Commission. Tseliso is Director-Editorial and Marketing at AfrobeatRadio. He can be reached at tseliso@afrobeatradio.com.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi right, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy stand while national anthems are being played, at the Bab Azizia Palace in Tripoli, in this July 25, 2007, file photo. European defense and aviation group EADS said Friday it had finalized two military contracts with Libya to supply anti-tank missiles and communications systems. French Defense Minister Herve Morin said the contracts had not yet been formally signed, despite the comments of a Libyan official, who said Thursday in Tripoli that Libya had signed the contracts. (AP Photo/Michel Euler, File)

Mauvaise foi: that is what the French call a bare-faced lie you tell to a person you know is aware you are lying but you pretend everything is up front and normal. This year, in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya, the French have demonstrated they are the masters at mauvaise foi.

UN Resolution 1970 imposed a military embargo on Libya but this week we learned the French have been parachuting arms to the rebels since the beginning of June. The French response? It is not in violation of the resolution because it is to “protect civilians”.

Ah, yes, UN Resolution 1973 which imposed a no-fly-zone to “protect civilians”. Lets see how that panned out. France, the UK and the US opened hostilities as Gaddafi’s forces were about to regain control of Benghazi on March 19. To “protect civilians” Gaddafi’s infrastructure was attacked through-out the country, especially his radar and anti-aircraft batteries. Normal when you want to impose a no-fly-zone.

But quickly, from the first days, mission creep set in and NATO aircraft began giving combat support to the rebels to help them advance on loyalist forces all in the name of “protecting civilians”.

Then NATO began targeting Libyan leaders, including Gaddafi himself, in violation not only of the UN resolutions but of international law. Civilians have died by the scores under NATO bombs in this war to “protect civilians”.

As a matter of fact, mauvaise foi has gone so far that Obama pretends it is not even a war and so he does not have to consult Congress. Not a war? It certainly looks like one when you are on the receiving end of a Cruise missile.

It was not long before France recognized the rebels as the official government of Libya while denying the war was about ‘regime change’. The French must take us all for perfect idiots. But then again Obama says “Gaddafi must go” while also denying this is about regime change.

And what of the African Union hypocrisy, condemning the NATO attack on Libya while most sat back and applauded the French intervention in Cote d’Ivoire which overthrew elected President Gbagbo to put French puppet Ouattara in power.

AU Secretary General Jean Ping, former member of Omar Bongo’s clique of kleptocrats, is worried about the “Somaliazation” of Libya and contagion to neighboring countries. But he is hardly bothered by the Burkinabe backed, equipped and often manned rebels who stole democracy from the Cote d’Ivoire. Is it because Gbagbo does not have billions tucked away and invested around the continent?

I have received reports from very reliable sources that Chadian soldiers killed while fighting against the rebels in Libya are coming home in body-bags by the dozens. The grieving families have been banned from holding public mourning. President Idriss Deby does not want the world to know his troops are in Libya backing Gaddafi, the way Gaddafi backed him in the past. It would be interesting for the mainstream press to investigate this but the press has been failing miserably by being “on side” in Libya.

France has troops and fighter aircrafts in Chad under a longterm military operation called ‘Epervier’. Would it not be ironic if the aircraft in N’djamena were flying sorties into Libya and targeting Chadian men? (I understand the French fighter-planes that were staioned in Abeché are no longer there). “Oh, what a lovely war” to quote Teddy Roosevelt after the conquest of Cuba in 1898.

The Spanish America war was also a war “to protect civilians’. We know how well that worked out for the Cubans (with Batista among others) and the people of the Philippines (over a million-and-a-half dead). Ah, beware imperialist liberators. They speak with forked-tongues but their Tomahawks are real and deadly and their mauvaise foi knows no limit.

By George Kazolias

George Kazolias is an American Journalist based in Paris and a Professor of Global Communications at the American University in Paris. He runs the blog kazodaily.

Yemen Demonstrations. Source The Jawa Report

“There is no way this is going to end up well for the United States. Every tribe in Yemen has received missiles from American drones. The US aided and financed Saleh all these years. They covered for him up to just two weeks ago. The Yemenis won’t forget this. The crack troops we saw Friday fighting the tribes are the anti terrorist forces equipped and trained by the United States.”

This is what I said on a France 24 debate Friday night to which Steven Erlanger of the New York Times responded “that was never the intention. They were armed and trained to fight al Qaeda.”

Funny how it is never “the intention” American trained troops loyal to tyrants and kleptocratic dictators shoot at their own people but they always end up doing so. This is typical of the kind of public opinion the New York Times is trying to create behind America’s (pro-Israeli) policies.

Another more dangerous example of this came out last Tuesday when the New York Times wrote that the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report in which it said “it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon.”

Now, in my book “evidence” means “proof”. Yet Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now on Friday “the word ‘evidence’ was not in what the IAEA said.” He went on to say “They’ve been saying repeatedly that they have concerns about certain information they have. They don’t describe it as evidence.”

Is this not the same thing as the WMDs and the aluminum tubes that became the smoking guns to get public opinion behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Hersh in an article in the New Yorker says his sources inform him that despite spies on the ground and top notch technology US officials have been unable to find decisive evidence that Iran is moving enriched uranium to an underground weapon-making center.

What we have in The New York Times is a clear agenda to create public opinion in favor of an act (war with Iran) which would have incalculable consequences. I cannot believe that using the word ‘evidence’ is a mistake. If it were a mistake, given their record for getting it wrong and helping to get us into war, then the paper should run a front page erratum.

But listening to Erlanger Friday, I could see they are in damage control mode in a Middle East which is completely outside Washington’s control.

It is no accident how they insist on the Islamic fundamentalist nature of tribal leaders in Yemen and ignore that the area in which the Libyan rebellion began has sent the most fighters to al Qaeda in Iraq. While they are quick to point out Qaddafi’s killing of opponents, they pass under complete silence the mass murders of sub-Saharan immigrant workers at the hands of the rebels.

In an April 11 article in the New Yorker called After the Uprising, Dexter Filkins (who also writes for the New York Times), points out what a corrupt and thuggish regime the US has been backing in Yemen; a crony and Kleptocratic tribal regime where government members, two dozen of whom are from Saleh’s family, line their pockets and buy off tribal leaders while doing nothing for their people: nothing!

This means the New York Times knows and it seems to me this is what American public opinion needs to know; that the US is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to jerks whose behavior can only push their people to radicalism and make them justifiably hate the US. Hundreds of Yemenis have been killed by US drone missiles and tribal leaders say most of them are civilians, not al Qaeda. What right does the US have to bomb Yemen anyway?

Another interesting omission in the mainstream press is how much money Qaddafi put back into his country and his people: water works, subsidized electricity, free universal health care, housing, free education including paying those who want to study abroad, roads … . Or how about the fact that in 2009 Qaddafi began threatening he would nationalize Libyan oil? If these things were made a topic, public opinion might be able to draw the conclusion that NATO’s “crusade” against Qaddafi is in fact about oil.

Filkins writes “Yemen is not Egypt: it has virtually no middle class, a weak civil society, a marginal intelligentsia and no public institutions that operate independently of Saleh.” Half the population is illiterate.

Compare that to Libya which had prior to the war Africa’s highest standard of living and nearly universal literacy. The regime even gave married couples $50 000 as a wedding gift to get started.

It is with these kinds of comparisons that people can make intelligent decisions. But what people are being fed by the New York Times and al is incomplete and biased; it can only be meant to support war and aggression.

It is these double standards that has now led the Arab street to ignore Washington or in the words of The Independent’s Robert Fisk “who cares what Obama says?” Well, I guess the Israelis still do.

Fisk writes “Obama’s failure to support the Arab revolts until they were all but over lost the US most of its surviving credit in the region.” But the US press chooses to highlight the forty billion dollars the G-8 decided to award Egypt and Tunisia at the summit in Deauville, as if they can buy back what they lost in the Arab Spring.

The French press is no better. At the end of April, nearly two months into the war, French Defense Minister Gerard Longuet told the daily Libération that thus far the bombing had cost France 50 million euros. There was no follow up question asking him to justify that figure. It is obviously a lie. The first night the US shot 120 cruise missiles at a million dollars a pop! France has flown thousands of sorties and has used extremely expensive ordinance not to mention an air-craft carrier and battle group off the coast. Fifty million euros? Please.

Longuet also said he had no proof of an Islamist presence in the rebellion. That’s strange. Nicolas Pelham had no trouble sitting down to tea with them as he attests in his articles in the New York Review of Books. The Libération reporter should have come back with an aggressive question here too but preferred to play the role of loyal stenographer rather than journalist.

Should the press not point out that the rebel Libyan National Transition Council is made up of the same “thugs” who worked with Qaddafi for decades? What about the tribal nature of this rebellion led by the Cyrenaican tribes of King Idris who was ousted by Qaddafi in 1969? The rebel flag is the flag of the monarchy! Would public opinion be in favor of war to restore an Islamic monarchy? Even if it is in the name of oil?

The press is not failing the people. It is operating in the interests of the banks and oil companies whose interests, I believe, are not those of the people in the Middle East, nor ours. There are good reporters out there who want to inform the public (Fisk, Filkins, Hersh, Pelham) but are prevented from getting it into the mainstream media by Editors at the top who have a different agenda.

By George Kazolias

George Kazolias is an American Journalist based in Paris and a Professor of Global Communications at the American University in Paris. He runs the blog kazodaily.

The US is at war in Africa. It has been at war as an integral part of the Cold War. It has had practical experience in African wars. America has been fighting wars in Africa since the 1950s – in Angola, the DRC, Somalia, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Libya, Djibouti to name but a few counties. In some countries they used US troops, but in most cases the US financed, armed and supervised the support of indigenous forces. In its support of the anti- MPLA forces in Angola, it sent arms and equipment to the UNITA opposition. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Larry Devlin of the CIA was an unofficial branch of Mobutu’s government; the US ran its own air force at WIGMO. US airmen supported the South African forces in Kwando, Fort Doppies and Encana bases in the Caprivi from WIGMO. At these bases one could also find soldiers from Southern Rhodesia (in their DC3s) and German, French, Portuguese and other NATO troops.

One of the largest of these bases was at Wheelus Field, in Libya… Wheelus Air Base was located on the Mediterranean coast, just east of Tripoli, Libya. With its 4,600 Americans, the US Ambassador to Libya once called it “a Little America. During the Korean War, Wheelus was used by the US Strategic Air Command, later becoming a primary training ground for NATO forces. Strategic Air Command bomber deployments to Wheelus began on 16 November 1950. SAC bombers conducted 45-day rotational deployments this staging areas for strikes against the Soviet Union. Wheelus became a vital link in SAC war plans for use as a bomber, tanker refuelling and recon-fighter base. The US left in 1970.

Another giant base was Kagnew Field in Asmara. The base was established in 1943 as an Army radio station, home to the U.S. Army’s 4th Detachment of the Second Signal Service Battalion. Kagnew Station became home for over 5,000 American citizens at a time during its peak years of operation during the 1960s. Kagnew Station operated until April 29, 1977, when the last Americans left Kagnew Station.

However, with the end of the Cold War, the US has found itself fighting a much more difficult and insidious war; the war with Al Qaida. This is much less of a war that involves military might and prowess. It is a war against the spread of drug dealing, illicit diamonds, illicit gold and the sheltering of Salafists (Islamic militants) who use these methods to acquire cash which has sustained the Al Qaida organisation throughout the world. The political dichotomy between the Muslim North in Africa and the Christian/Animist South is not only a religious conflict. It is a conflict between organised international crime and states seeking to maintain their legitimacy.

There are now several ‘narco-states’ in Africa. The first to fall was Guinea-Bissau where scores of Colombian Cartel leaders moved in to virtually take over the state. Every day an estimated one tonne of pure Colombian cocaine is thought to be transiting through the mainland’s mangrove swamps and the chain of islands that make up Guinea-Bissau, most of it en route to Europe. As reported by Johnathan Miller[i]

“Western narcotics and intelligence agencies believe that up to two small twin-engine aircraft carrying up to 800kg of cocaine are landing on airstrips in Guinea- Bissau every night, having crossed the Atlantic from South America. The street value of a tonne of cocaine on the streets of European capitals is roughly £50m.”

Guinea-Bissau’s Interior Minister, Major Baciro Dabo, and the head of the navy, Jose Americo Bubu Na Tchutu, are alleged to be key facilitators of the trade.

This was equally true of Guinea under President Lansana Conte whose wives (and her brother) were shown to be kingpins in the Guinean drug trade. Many in the National Army were compromised and active participants. This drug trade has spread to Senegal, Togo, Ghana and Nigeria. There are very few jails anywhere in the world which are not home to West African ‘drug mules’ tried or awaiting trial or execution. This drug trade is spreading like wildfire in West Africa, offering remuneration to African leaders, generals or warlords well in excess of anything these Africans could hope to earn in normal commerce.

In countries like Nigeria there are several important businessmen, with many legitimate businesses and deep political attachments, who also deal as ‘druggies’ in this international exercise. The authorities know who they are but find it difficult to proceed against them. In West Africa, as in most area of the world, lots of money buys immunity and, often, impunity from the law. The ‘mules’ are picked up and punished but the ‘big men’ go free.

This burgeoning drug business was an offshoot of the political, economic and military connections which were made by Al Qaida in pursuit of their takeover of the “Blood Diamond” business in West Africa.

During the civil wars in Sierra Leone the Revolutionary United Front (‘RUF’) took over the diamond fields in the country; initially at Koon. The diamonds were mined by RUF rebels, who became infamous during Sierra Leone’s civil war for hacking off the arms and legs of civilians and abducting thousands of children and forcing them to fight as combatants. The country’s alluvial diamond fields, some of the richest in the world, were the principal prize in the civil war, and they have been under RUF control for the past four years.[ii] Small packets of diamonds, often wrapped in rags or plastic sheets, were taken by senior RUF commanders across the porous Liberian border to Monrovia, where they were exchanged for briefcases of cash brought by diamond dealers who flew several times a month from Belgium to Monrovia, returning to Pelikaanstraat in Antwerp.

The man in charge was by Ibrahim Bah, a Libyan-trained former Senegalese rebel and the RUF’s principal diamond dealer. After fighting with the Casamance separatist movement in Senegal in the 1970s, Bah trained in Libya under the protection of Col. Moammar Gaddafi. He spent several years in the early 1980s fighting alongside Muslim guerrillas against Soviet forces in Afghanistan where he participated in the creation of Al Qaida. He then left to fight alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon. He returned to West Africa, to Ouagadougou, where he is sheltered and protected by the President, Blaise Campaore. Campaore was already using Burkina Faso as a depot for arms to the RUF, Liberia and the rebels of the Ivory Coast. He took, and takes, his share of the blood diamond money whether they are sold to Al Qaida or Hezbollah.

The involvement of principal figures of Al Qaida in the blood diamond business is well documented.[iii] The Al Qaida and Hezbollah involvement in the illegal trade in diamonds, gold and other gemstones has tied in organised criminal activities with Islamic fundamentalism in the region, provoking a clash between the Islamists and the Christian/Animists. It has sparked civil unrest, as with Boku Haram in Nigeria and created a criminal enterprise which has taken over the Ivory Coast.

With the French-inspired and funded rebellion against the government of Gbagbo in 2001 the country was divided. The legitimate government of Gbagbo ruled in the South but the country was divided by a military line provided by the French Force Licorne and the United Nations peacekeepers. The North was free and protected to get on with its own businesses. It was run by tin pot warlords who drew their strength from their marauding bands of mercenaries, misfits and sociophobes who created little kingdoms of their own which they ran with rapacious style. They paid no taxes, they paid no rents; they paid no duties and they provided no social services. They stole everything they could find and shipped it out, usually via their home base in Burkina Faso.

In Burkina Faso, under the aegis of Blaise Campaore, they were introduced to the buyers from Hezbollah and Al Qaida. Ivory Coast has diamond mines. Illicit diamond mining in the northern part of Ivory Coast still continues and provides a healthy stream of diamonds to Al Qaida, especially Al Qaida in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

There are four big mines – Bobi, Diarabala, Seguela and Tortiya. The US sent a CIA team in to discover what was happening, now that Ouattara is notionally President. They attempted to trace the origin of around 300,000 carats produced locally last year and which generated earnings of roughly USD 25 million. The business is mainly controlled by two warlords, Issiaka Ouattara AKA “Wattao” and Herve Toure AKA “Vetcho.” The diamonds are smuggled out mainly through Mali and Guinea before ending up on the international market in Tel Aviv. These warlords are the backbone of the new Ivory Coast Army and tied closely to the Prime Minister, Soro.[iv] With the support of Campaore and the needs of the new Army, it is very unlikely that Soro will heed the call of his feeble President to stop the sale of blood diamonds to Al Qaida or to stop paying Campaore.

This thievery was repeated in the cotton and timber businesses. It was the Lebanese of Hezbollah who provided the motor scooters which the rebel irregulars imported duty-free to the Ivory Coast. Outright theft, as in Ibrahim ‘IB’ Coulibaly, who broke into a warehouse belonging to the United States agri-giant Archer Daniels Midland on the northern outskirts of Abidjan last month and sent at least 3,000 tonnes of cocoa to Ghana, was not a unique event. President Ouattara’s troops killed Coulibaly.

This litany of crime, corruption and the funding of Al Qaida and Hezbollah by the rebels in the Ivory Coast north was well known to everyone. Now they are in charge. Blaise Campaore is still in business. The cause of Al Qaida has been promoted on the basis of a notional anti-Muslim bias by the Gbagbo government. The reach of AQIM is now further south as all of the Ivory Coast is added to its reach.

The question one is bound to ask is what imp of the perverse overtook the US Government to support such a program. The US actively intervened to push the UN to take an active role in the military offensive against Ivory Coast civilians. It encouraged the amoral weasels of France to attack and kill civilians. The US has been in Africa, dealing with Africans since 1945. Agencies like the DEA are fighting a brave fight in trying to suppress the drug trade and the selling of blood diamonds. What perverse instinct of self-destruction has created a US policy which rewards its deadliest enemies and punishes its most loyal allies?

Words cannot express the utter stupidity and self-destructiveness of US policy in allying itself to the rabble of Ouattara and his friends. What government in Africa will ever trust or deal openly with such a maniacal formulation of national interest on the part of the US. The US is at war in Africa. To win, or survive, requires helping one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies. What imp of the perverse can have gotten things so wrong; and so often?

By Dr. Gary K. Busch

[i] Miller, Johnathan, “Drug barons turn Bissau into Africa’s first narco-state”, Independent 18/7/07
[ii] Farah, Douglas, “Al Qaeda Cash Tied to Diamond Trade” Washington Post 2/11/01
[iii] For a good, detailed account see “Global Witness “For a Few Dollar$ More: How al Qaeda moved into the diamond trade” April 2003.
[iv] Africa Miining Intelligence 31/5/11

Gary K. Busch is an international trades unionist, an academic, a businessman and a political affairs and business consultant for 40 years, and has traveled and worked extensively in Africa.