Monthly Archives: September 2011

American Jewish Committee behind “humanitarian intervention” in Libya


Image Detail

In his recent article, “Libya and the Big Lie: Using Human Rights Organizations to Launch Wars,” Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya writes:

One of the main sources for the claim that Qaddafi was killing his own people is the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR). The LLHR was actually pivotal to getting the U.N. involved through its specific claims in Geneva. On February 21, 2011 the LLHR got the 70 other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to sent letters to the President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton., and the U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine.


According to the Jerusalem Post, however, the 70 “rights groups” were organised by UN Watch, whose executive director Hillel Neuer, was quoted as saying that:

“the muted response of the US and the EU to the Libyan atrocities is not only a let-down to the many Libyans risking their lives for freedom, but a shirking of their obligations, as members of the Security Council and the Human Rights Council, to protect peace and human rights and to prevent war crimes.”

The Post article does not mention, however, that UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, a key component of the Israel lobby.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 29, 2011 in Uncategorized


The Middle Powers Amid the Arab Revolts

The UN Security Council has been a key arbiter of international action regarding the upheavals in the Arab world in 2011. In late February, the Council issued Resolution 1970 calling for an “immediate end to the violence” in Libya, imposing sanctions and an arms embargo, and asking the International Criminal Court to investigate the regime of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. Less than a month later, on March 17, the Council passed Resolution 1973 authorizing NATO “to take all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians, leading to Qaddafi’s eventual fall from power. In late September, the Security Council will also take up the request of Palestinian leader Mahmoud ‘Abbas for full UN membership for a state of Palestine.

But the Security Council has thus far abstained from involvement in several other domestic crises in Arab states, notably the uprisings in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, despite the brutal repression employed by all three governments. In the cases of Bahrain and Yemen, the inaction is fairly easy to understand: A central US goal in the Gulf is maintaining regime stability. The Bahraini royal family is shielded from international censure by the United States, which anchors its Fifth Fleet on the Gulf island. The US also protects the Yemeni regime, its ally in the fight against far-flung franchises of al-Qaeda.

For months, the Security Council was likewise quiet about Syria, confining itself to a presidential statement on August 4 calling weakly “on all sides to act with utmost restraint.” On September 28, European members of the Security Council put forward a draft resolution that “demands an immediate end to all violence” in Syria. Reportedly, the draft was watered down considerably from an original floated a month earlier, omitting any reference to sanctions in an effort to secure passage.

In explaining the impasse over Syria, the media has focused on divisions among the “permanent five” Security Council members with long-standing interests in the Middle East, particularly the US and Russia. [1]Russian leaders, valuing their ties with Syria and smarting from what they regard as NATO’s unwarranted exploitation of UNSC 1973 to carry out regime change in Libya, have gone so far as to echo the Syrian regime’s labeling of oppositionists as “terrorists.” Backed by China, Russia has repeatedly vowed to “prevent a repeat of the Libyan scenario in Syria.” [2] It is not clear that the US would push for a Libyan-style resolution for Syria if it could. Washington seems to be betting that the Syrian regime will collapse without a nudge from outside. But the Security Council’s paralysis vis-à-vis Syria and its disunity regarding Libya have another cause, namely, the attitudes of the rising middle powers India, Brazil and South Africa, which make up the trilateral group known as IBSA.

IBSA and the Arab Revolts

IBSA’s full official name is the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum. Its founding Brasilia Declaration, released in June 2003, says the group brings together “three countries with vibrant democracies, from three regions of the developing world, active on a global scale, with the aim of examining themes on the international agenda and those of mutual interest.” The Declaration identifies the three states’ common interests in “reforming” the Security Council to include more permanent members, ideally each of themselves, and in ensuring a more equitable distribution of the economic benefits of globalization. In statements over the years, the IBSA states have also framed themselves as “like-minded” with regard to universal freedoms and human rights. Most recently, on the margins of the sixty-sixth session of the UN General Assembly, the IBSA foreign ministers issued a statement reiterating that “IBSA, as like-minded countries, will continue to strive to contribute to a new world order whose political, economic and financial architecture is more inclusive, representative and legitimate.”

The formation of IBSA is seen by many international relations scholars as part of a trend toward multi-polarity as US dominance erodes. [3]IBSA states are also examples of “middle powers,” states that international relations theory expects to exhibit similar interests in compensating for their relative lack of “hard power” with active diplomacy. “Hard power,” the field’s term for material capabilities like military strength, is a central determinant of what states can and cannot do, especially in trying to influence the behavior of others. Other currencies of influence are also significant; these include “soft power” (gained through financial means or active public diplomacy) and “norm entrepreneurship” (promotion of values such as human rights).[4] Yet it remains an empirical reality that, in general, state actions are defined more by hard power. Hence, middle powers are those states that have sufficient hard power to allow them a global reach, yet are limited in what they can do. Middle powers are constrained in their ability to influence outcomes in world politics, but they seek relevance in global affairs by supporting institutional architectures and norms that hold the potential to diminish the dominance of hard power. In 2011, all three of the middle powers Brazil, India and South Africa are sitting on the UN Security Council, giving IBSA a chance at proving its relevance by flexing its diplomatic muscles.

So far, however, the Arab revolts have exposed IBSA as a Security Council player without consistent or coherent positions. South Africa surprised some observers by voting for UNSC 1973 authorizing the no-fly zone and other measures “to protect civilians” in Libya. Along with Russia, China and Germany, India and Brazil abstained from the March vote. Each registered statements condemning the Qaddafi regime’s use of force to quash protests, but conveying reservations about the proposed NATO intervention and what might follow. Maria Luisa Viotti, Brazil’s representative at the UN, explained: “We are not convinced that the use of force as contemplated in the present resolution will lead to the realization of our most important objective — the immediate end of violence and the protection of civilians. We are also concerned that such measures may have the unintended effect of exacerbating tensions on the ground and causing more harm than good to the very same civilians we are committed to protecting.”

IBSA has paid little to no attention to Bahrain and Yemen as the crises in those two countries boiled beneath the surface of global politics.

Syria has been a different story. Early in August, amidst a severe police and army crackdown on protesters across the country, an IBSA delegation met with Syrian officials to express grave concern and condemn the use of force by all parties. This position lent credibility to the regime’s arguments that most of the protesters were using force, in contradiction of most reports from unofficial sources at the time. The IBSA delegation further confirmed its commitment to Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity vis-à-vis external intervention, while acknowledging the “reforms” promised by President Bashar al-Asad. Later in August, with the regime’s use of force uninterrupted, India abstained from the vote on a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for an investigation into human rights violations in Syria. The statement of the Indian delegate emphasized the need “for every society to have the means of addressing human rights violations through robust mechanisms within themselves. International scrutiny should be resorted to only when such mechanisms are non-existent or have consistently failed.”

In September, the IBSA states confirmed their overall stance, agreeing with Russian spokesmen that there would be no UN sanctions and no reprise of UNSC 1973 in the Syrian case. This act of bandwagoning and the de facto endorsement of the Syrian regime in August seem to call a core element of IBSA’s raison d’être into question. If support for democratization and respect for human rights are absent from Chinese and Russian diplomacy, they are supposed to be IBSA’s selling points as a grouping of “like-minded” states. IBSA claims only to be a forum for sharing of information and ideas, not a unified bloc. Yet its members’ policies toward the Arab revolts reflect a reality that they have perhaps not fully confronted: Domestic and regional pressures are serious hindrances to the collective initiatives to which they aspire.

IBSA’s Broader Canvas

In their foreign policy rhetoric, leaders of IBSA states are defenders of human rights, equality and the rule of law, particularly international law. That all three of the Brazilian, Indian and South African peoples have waged historic struggles against colonialism and authoritarian rule places a moral responsibility on IBSA governments to support societies resisting oppressive regimes. But however genuine the IBSA states may be in their sympathy for popular movements, their policies toward the crises in the Arab world are heavily influenced by domestic considerations and geostrategic imperatives, not least of which is that all three wish to be the dominant power in their respective neighborhoods — and to be treated as such by the world’s great powers.

Among the three states forming IBSA, South Africa has the most articulate aspirations to regional leadership, a goal that became realistic following the end of apartheid in 1994. To consolidate its bid for this role, the post-apartheid state under President Thabo Mbeki positioned itself rhetorically within the “global South,” for instance expanding its involvement in the Organization for African Unity, now the African Union. Its economic policy, though neoliberal in orientation and Western in inspiration, was framed as liberating for the world’s poorer countries, aiming to create a “G-7 of the South.” The Mbeki government embarked upon a “butterfly strategy,” seeking to meld the Brazilian and Indian wings economically to the African body. [5] The tensions in this aspired-to role became apparent with regard to the Libya question, when the new president, Jacob Zuma, appeared to criticize the initial NATO bombardments despite South Africa’s vote for UNSC 1973. The Youth League of the ruling African National Congress denounced the yes vote, as did the retired Mbeki, and South Africa’s ambassador to the UN rushed to deny reports that he had cast it after receiving a phone call from the White House or being chased down the hallway by UN Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. [6] African countries, in general, were suspicious of the second Security Council resolution on Libya. In many circles inside and outside Pretoria, the NATO operation was regarded as an unsavory neo-colonial initiative. For example, South Africa shares its fellow African states’ apprehensions about AFRICOM, the Pentagon’s newest regional command, which has yet to find a home base in Africa and which some fear could land in post-Qaddafi Libya.

After Tripoli fell to the rebels, South African diplomats rushed to deny another report, that their government had offered Qaddafi safe haven. Meanwhile, Pretoria dragged its feet releasing Libyan assets to the rebels’ transitional government. Because of its wavering position on Libya, Western-oriented liberals in South Africa derided the government as having a “schizophrenic” foreign policy or even being a “rogue democracy.” [7] With regard to Syria, it appears that Pretoria has opted for the politically safer position in the African sphere: concern for the norm of sovereignty.

A central goal for successive Brazilian regimes since the mid-1980s has been a bridge-building foreign policy aimed at improving relations in South America without compromising Brazil’s established trade with the developed economies. Today, Brazil is seen as the driving force of IBSA, and it has been particularly active in challenging global trade regulations that disfavor the south. [8] This stance signals the keen Brazilian interest in leadership not just in South America, but also of global South initiatives. At the same time, Brazil has important economic ties with Europe that it wants to safeguard, and its own European dimension is central to its national identity and worldview. Since it was European powers that pushed most vigorously for UNSC 1973, the Brazilian position in this debate therefore seems curious. Its delegate’s statement regarding the resolution was forthright: Brazil is uneasy about legitimating the use of force by major powers in regional theaters and uneasy about any use of force without a clear blueprint. Praising the “spontaneous, homegrown nature” of the Arab revolts up to mid-March, the Brazilian delegate worried that NATO intervention would “change that narrative in ways that can have serious repercussions for the situation in Libya and in the broader Middle East.”

Brazil’s position toward the Arab revolts — abstention from the Libya resolution and de facto backing of the Syrian regime — seems to have emerged from a combination of true concern for human rights and discomfort with the uncertainty inherent in supporting major power interventions. It may be as well that the Brazilian foreign policy elite has no fully developed worldview regarding the country’s global relations.

At first glance, India’s position is also perplexing. In the post-September 11 era, India has generally gravitated closer to the US, in an attempt to gain leverage in its long-running conflict with Pakistan. India shares the US concerns about the future of the Afghan-Pakistani relationship and the role of Iran in the adjacent security complex. By this reading, India would have been well served by a strong commitment to NATO in the vote on UNSC 1973 and the pursuant military operation. After abstaining from that vote, however, India appealed for an end to the NATO strikes in Libya, while indicating support for the Libyan people’s aspirations, and not the regime. With regard to Syria, India has opposed sanctions on the regime and (alongside Brazil and South Africa) sent a fact-finding mission to the country. Again, New Delhi appears to be bucking Washington without benefit.

But if one revisits the Indian elites’ calculus of the national interest, their position on Libya and Syria is not such a mystery. The relationship with Pakistan is unfriendly, but stable (with no apparent incentives to alter the equilibrium) and the US is unlikely to abandon adjacent theaters in Asia. Domestic factors thus gain in salience. The Indian position emanates from a concern for setting interventionist precedents for international actors in areas where human rights and political inclusion cause friction and/or violence between social actors and governing regimes. [9] In India’s case, the disputed status of Kashmir could someday prove to be a lightning rod for external criticism, especially with the region’s record of unrest and contested political authority.

In sum, the IBSA group’s confused positions on the Arab revolts become somewhat understandable once it is clear how these states are pulled in contrasting directions by various demands. As in all other states, their foreign and domestic policies constitute inseparable domains. As is typical of middle powers, the IBSA states are proceeding with caution, as they know they lack much of the main currency in world politics: hard power. They are important military producers and exporters in their own neighborhoods, and they are developing considerable economic capacities. But they still do not have the capabilities, such as large navies or air forces, to be global players — or to defend against encroachments by powerful states. [10] Unlike other states in the contemporary world, however, the IBSA states are rising middle powers with global aspirations. Their rather reserved diplomacy might not be curious if their concerns were limited to their own regions. But this grouping of middle powers has professed the shared aim of creating a new international architecture — one characterized by democratization, human rights and peace. Expanded global roles will not only leave them burdened with new responsibilities in distant theaters, but will also leave them open to greater scrutiny and all sorts of pressure.

A Voice of the South

Middle powers classically fear the erosion of the norm of sovereignty, which is supposed to make states immune to external intervention. Tough resolutions at the Security Council, imposing sanctions or authorizing military action, mean de facto acceptance of great power interference in the affairs of smaller states. Over the long term, further damage to the norm of sovereignty might see IBSA governments themselves facing greater infringements on their domains or the foreign policies they devise in pursuit of their national interests. African critics of the Libya intervention raise pointed questions in this respect: What does the emerging doctrine of “the responsibility to protect” entail? Who will define the doctrine, who will decide when intervention is necessary and who will choose the means? The Libya intervention sets the precedent that the West decides and the rest of the world follows.[11]

Yet if the IBSA states limit themselves to protecting the sovereignty norm in their tenure on the Security Council, they will expose themselves as shortsighted. Their muddled positions on the Arab revolts to date do not serve their vision for a new international architecture because they are perceived as diplomatically immature. IBSA has yet to produce a “niche” product of its own — be it diplomatic, military or economic. [12] If the niche is to be human rights and better living conditions for peoples in the southern hemisphere, then IBSA’s positions on Libya and Syria do not fit. If the brand is to be building institutional constraints on the interventionist tendencies of major powers, IBSA is forgoing that opportunity as well. [13]

IBSA is a forum, not a formal structure like NATO or the African Union. In this respect, IBSA represents a mini-revival of the Non-Aligned Movement, which emerged in 1955 at the Afro-Asian Conference in Bandung and then developed into a bloc in the UN General Assembly. The leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement were respected around the world as doers and independent thinkers who rejected the polarizing allegiances of the Cold War in favor of developing their post-colonial societies on their own terms. Yet the Movement was riven internally, its sheer number of members meaning that its declarations and posturing far outweighed its concrete impact on world politics. With only three members, IBSA does not have to meet the same fate.

At the seventh Trilateral Commission meeting on March 8, the Brazilian, Indian and South African foreign ministers “underscored that the concurrent presence of all three IBSA countries in the Security Council during the year 2011 provides a unique opportunity to work closely together in order to bring their perspectives into the work of the council and strengthen the voice of the South.” One way for IBSA to “strengthen the voice of the South” would be to advance its own ideas about when outside intervention on behalf of oppressed peoples might be legitimate and when state sovereignty should be inviolate. IBSA can leave a lasting imprint by redefining why, when and how the Security Council should pursue collective action in the service of international peace and security. In so doing, IBSA can reduce the space for great power infringement on the sovereignty of middle powers.

As autumn arrives, Syria is witnessing protracted social unrest, with neither the regime nor opposition actors able to impose a settlement. And before long, the IBSA states will have another important issue on their plate at the Security Council, one which will demand serious weighing of options and consequences: the question of Palestinian statehood. While their individual positions might be relatively synchronized, the Security Council will be an important venue for the IBSA states to demonstrate the degree of their commitments on both issues. It will be interesting to observe how much their diplomacy has matured over the course of 2011, and what type of resolutions they will be collectively willing to propose or adopt.


[1] Christian Science Monitor, September 19, 2011.
[2] Voice of Russia, September 5, 2011.
[3] See Dries Lesage and Pierre Vercauteren, eds., Contemporary Global Governance: Multipolarity vs. New Discourses on Global Governance (Brussels: Peter Lang, 2009).
[4] See Joseph Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
[5] Chris Alden and Marco Antonio Vieira, “The New Diplomacy of the South: South Africa, Brazil, India and Trilateralism,” Third World Quarterly 26/7 (2005), pp. 1082-1083.
[6] Prakash Naidoo, “Consistently Inconsistent,” Financial Mail(Johannesburg), May 5, 2011.
[7] Greg Mills, “South Africa’s Stance on Libya Furthers Rogue Trend,”Mail and Guardian (Johannesburg), September 2, 2011.
[8] Gladys Lechini, “Middle Powers: IBSA and the New South-South Cooperation,” NACLA Report on the Americas 40/5 (September-October 2007).
[9] See C. Raja Mohan, “India, Libya and the Principle of Non-Intervention,” Institute of South Asian Studies Insights 122 (April 2011).
[10] Ruchita Beri, “IBSA Dialogue Forum: An Assessment,” Strategic Analysis 32/5 (September 2008).
[11] See Kwame Akonor, “The War in Libya: The African Union’s Mistake of Policy and Principle,” Inter Press Service, June 10, 2011.
[12] Andrew F. Cooper, ed., Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers After the Cold War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997).
[13] Daniel Flemes, Emerging Middle Powers’ Soft Balancing Strategy: State and Perspectives of the IBSA Dialogue Forum, Working Paper 57 (Hamburg: German Institute of Global and Area Studies, 2007).

1 Comment

Posted by on September 29, 2011 in Uncategorized


Russia warns of Syria terror threat

Russia warned on Wednesday that “terrorist organisations” could arise in Syria if President Bashar al-Assad’s regime fell under pressure from ongoing street protests.


President Dmitry Medvedev last week also said that some of those taking part in the Syrian demonstration had links to ‘terrorists’ Photo: AFP


The comments marked the latest salvo in a heated war of words between Russia and the West over its traditional regional ally – a country listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the United States.

The foreign ministry’s new challenges and threats department chief Ilya Rogachyov said Western military intervention was threatening to create new hotbeds of extremist activity in a region already shaken by war in Iraq.


“If the Syrian government is unable to hold on to power, there is a high probability that radicals and representatives of terrorist organisations will become entrenched,” the Interfax news agency quoted the top foreign ministry official as saying.

Russia has been attracting increasing international anger over its continued support for Syria despite a government crackdown on protests that the United Nations estimates to have killed around 2,600 people.

Moscow has refused to support Western sanctions against Assad’s regime and argued that equal pressure should also be placed on the protesters who refuse to engage Assad in direct talks.

President Dmitry Medvedev last week also said that some of those taking part in the Syrian demonstration had links to “terrorists”.

Russia intends to send a group of senators to Syria in the coming days to come with its own ground report and has previously vowed to continue supplying arms to Assad’s government.

The standoff highlights growing tensions that began nearly a decade ago when US-led forces invaded Iraq and escalated further with this year’s Nato-led campaign in Libya.

Moscow enjoyed wide authority in the region in the Soviet era and has watched with increasing alarm as Western pressure and a public frustration helped push veteran regional leaders from power.

Rogachyov cautioned that it was premature to say whether new governments such as the one being set up in Libya would be able to survive and ensure security and peace.

“Strange things are happening in Libya,” Interfax quoted Rogachyov as saying during a lecture in Russia’s second city of Saint Petersburg.

“Weapons stores have been burgled and no one knows what happened,” he said. “We can say with a high degree of probability that the weapons fell into the hands of the regional department of al-Qaeda.”

Russia heavily criticised the Nato-led campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces after abstaining on a UN vote that authorised the action.

Read more:

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 28, 2011 in Uncategorized


Is the revolt in Libya implementing the North American genocide model?


Worrisome parallels appear to exist between the North American genocide and current events in Libya with regard to the clash of aboriginal tribalism with modernity sponsored and to a degree engineered and perhaps fabricated by imperialism. I say “appear to exist” rather than “do exist” for while I have reliable information establishing the fact and the means of the North American genocide the information available for Libya is bedeviled with propaganda. I neither have direct access to the parties on the ground nor a master of arts degree in the Libyan constitutional history and a law doctorate in the jurisprudence of the life and death struggle between constitutional democracy and imperialism there, although I do have that personal experience and professional qualification regarding North America.


Yesterday an article of mine, upon which I’d like to build here, was published as “The futility of political reform without judicial reform,” Reader Supported News, 6 September 2011, Its point was that political arguments against the American empire substitute endless rhetoric for legal action that immediately is available and urgently needed if the war, genocide and possibly the ecocide of the planet is to be prevented in good time pursuant to the rule of (existing) law.

The critical fact is that the constitution of each of the ostensibly constitutional democracies comprising the empire already precludes those crimes against humankind and nature and, secondly, the principle of constitutional supremacy is already established as the foundation of constitutional democracy, its sine qua non.

What is needed is a court case in the United States Supreme Court that is counter-counterrevolutionary: i.e., 1776: 1st was the American revolution establishing constitutional democracy including protection for the sovereignty of the Indian tribes and foreign Nations ; 1871: 2nd was the judicial counterrevolution by obstructing and ignoring that protection in aid of replacing constitutional democracy with empire; 2011: 3rd can and hopefully will be the judicial counter-counterrevolution reinstating constitutional democracy by fulfilling the judicial duty imposed by the judicial oath of office to uphold the principle of constitutional supremacy upon which the existence of constitutional democracy is contingent.

Only the United States Supreme Court can perfect the counter-counterrevolution because that is where the critical counterrevolution occurred and Washington is the imperial center.

Once that particular court reestablishes that the constitution precludes the imperial war machine being put into the field except to repel an invasion by an Indian tribe or foreign Nation the constitution’s military officers will be true to their military code of honor. Each of them, the same as each politician and each judge as stipulated by article VI of the constitution, swears or affirms to uphold the principle of constitutional supremacy.

That principle is the sine qua non of constitutional democracy. When considered in conjunction with the article V amendment clause which requires that the People be informed, and do by a substantial majority consent to any modification of their constitution in order for the modification to be legal, constitutional supremacy establishes the exclusive nature of the People’s sovereignty. And that, by definition, is what constitutes constitutional democracy as opposed to mere representative democracy such as that of the United Kingdom whose parliament is not constitutionally restrained. See, W’Lawpsh, “Argument,” Might is Not Right,

I have no doubt each military officer presently and honestly albeit mistakenly believes that by being stationed abroad in peace time, by invading other nations other than in retaliation for invasion and by providing the means for revolutionary regime changes by violent force of arms, he or she is fulfilling their duty to serve and protect constitutional democracy’s fundamental principle of constitutional supremacy. The officers are mislead by the politicians’ and judges’ obstruction and ignoring of the amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses and their constitutive precedents.

In any event I personally do not have evidence that the military of the People any more than the People as a whole fully are informed and on that basis freely do consent to the fact the political and judicial branches are in dereliction of that same duty to uphold constitutional supremacy against all challenges, especially from themselves, because really the constitution and the empire is invulnerable to attacks from outside, a risk of which the framers of the constitution acutely were aware and took pains to forestall.

The court case to reinstate constitutional democracy need only present to the US Supreme Court the former constitutional democracy’s superior law precluding war other than in retaliation, along side the imperial politicians’ inferior laws initiating wars for commercial advantage and, having done that, ask for a declaration upholding the supremacy of the constitution by declaring the federal laws of non-defensive wars null and void for unconstitutionality.

The only difficulty is that the courts of the nations comprising the empire since 1871 willfully have obstructed and ignored court cases restricted to the constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal and foreign National sovereignty.
The framers of the constitutions took into account the inevitability that politicians with great military power sooner or later exceed their restricted delegated jurisdiction and assume “plenary power” which is to say sovereignty over weak Indian tribes and foreign Nations.

The failsafe device addressing this risk was the creation of the Supreme Court of the United States and the delegation to it of independent and impartial third-party adjudicative jurisdiction over sovereignty disputes between the sovereign United States on the one hand, and on the other the equally sovereign Indian tribes and foreign Nations. Being a constitutional court as opposed to a federal or state court the Supreme Court has no master other than the constitution itself. That is what makes it a third party with regard to sovereignty disputes.

The framers provided for judicial review of political excess of jurisdiction by means of just such a judicial declaration of constitutional paramountcy over conflicting ordinary laws. Specifically, the constitution’s commerce, defence and treaty clauses jointly establish political jurisdiction to regulate trade with those other sovereign entities, to defend against war initiated by them, and otherwise to respect their sovereignty by dealing with them upon the basis of negotiated consent recorded by treaties.

Nonetheless ever since 1871 the political branch habitually has initiated war if and when weaker sovereignties refuse to be dictated to and the judicial branch has enabled this counterrevolution by obstructing and ignoring court cases that seek declarations of unconstitutionality by reason of this excess of delegated jurisdiction.

Political and judicial obstructing and ignoring is not an alternative to compliance with the constitution’s mandatory amendment clause which expressly and explicitly stipulates it is the only procedure capable of modifying the People’s terms of conditions of government. That is the meaning of the adage “government of, by and for the People.”

By obstructing and ignoring court cases based upon the question of constitutional jurisdiction to override the sovereignty of Indian tribes and foreign Nations the judicial branch intentionally permits the political branch to exceed the jurisdiction delegated to it by the People’s constitution and, in the course of the resulting imperial war, to commit the crime of genocide with impunity.

The reasonably foreseeable and probable consequence of the unconstitutional wars caused by the judicial obstruction and ignoring is not only genocide but in due course will be planetary ecocide if the commercial excess that is the purpose of the wars is not stopped in time. The cumbersome phrase “reasonable and probable consequence” is a term of legal art. For criminal law purposes a person is presumed to intend the “reasonable and probable consequences” of his acts. A person who commits a criminal act such as for example putting deadly poison in another’s drink is presumed without further proof by the prosecution to have had a guilty intent. It is the conjunction of the guilty act and the guilty intent that rebuts the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

While the judicial obstruction and ignoring is prima facie criminal for breach of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, the purpose of the test case brought by the Mahican and Mi’kmaq tribes is not punishment pursuant to a criminal law prosecution. Their test case is a civil law proceeding designed to prevent genocide.

It is quite simple really: if the judges will address the constitutional question of the war power vis-à-vis Indian tribes and foreign Nations, since the constitution is so unequivocal and mandatory it is certain the judges will declare the Appropriations Act, 1871, and the War Powers Act, 1973, null and void by reason of their conflict with the amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses as settled by the constitutionally constitutive precedents.

That counter-counterrevolutionary declaration by reinstating constitutional democracy will stop future imperial wars from happening and, correspondingly, prevent the genocide that is the reasonably foreseeable and probable consequence of such wars.
Not only is punishment beside the point but neither do the Mahican and Mi’kmaq suitors seek money damages for the deaths and serious bodily and mental harm done to ancestors. To do so obscenely would be to seek to profit from the death and torture of others. This generation only wants to stop the horror for the future on behalf of their own people and other potential victims including the planet itself.


Today I read the article by Nil Nikandrov, “Revolt in Libya: A Message to Chávez,” Voltaire Network,
In part, it elaborates upon the strategy adopted to this juncture by Venezuela of relocating its oil revenue assets outside of imperial control. Libya started down the same path but too late and it remains to be seen whether Venezuela’s defensive strategy is capable of greater success.

To the old-way indigenous people of North America current events in Libya are reminiscent of the war and genocide inflicted against them by means of the divide and conquer coups staged by the European nations and their successors the governments of the United States and Canada over the past 519 years.

The Indians’ tribal lands have been invaded and occupied; their sovereignty usurped; and their peoples dispossessed, ostensibly with the intent of saving their souls and extending peace, order and good government under the auspices of constitutional democracy and the rule of law, pursuant to what now is called the R2P or responsibility to protect doctrine, formerly known as the white man’s burden.

Those natives historically who collaborated and do still collaborate with the invaders do so for hope of advantage and fear of prejudice, i.e., for federal money, sinecures and privileges (such as the obscene Indian casino industry) and also to avoid being killed or oppressed unto self destruction.

The old-way indigenous peoples are the constitutional Indians who resist the unconstitutional federal law and in consequence pursuant to it are made victims of these latter years of the half millennium of war and genocide. The federal law Indians of the United States and Canada are the collaborators and co-perpetrators.

It has always been thus and always will be for this is the hallmark of the phenomenon of imperialism. E.g., Libyan Tribal Council, “Manifesto of the Libyan Tribal Council of 26 July 2011: The war promoted by western leaders is condemned by 200 Libyan tribes,” Voltaire Network, Tripoli, Libya,, 25 August 2011. The message is the same as that given so futilely by the constitutional North American tribes with regard to the federal law puppet governments established by the United States and Canada to aid and abet the genocide in the modern era subsequent to 1871 and, for this reason, the article is quoted here in full.

The genocide-by-chicanery technique perfected in North America plainly is being applied there. As witness:

“By this letter to the extraordinary African Summit, convening in Addis Ababa, the notables of the Eastern tribes of the Great Jamahiriya confirm their complete rejection of what is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi which hasn’t been nominated nor elected by Tribal representatives but rather imposed by NATO.

“What is called the Transitional Council in Benghazi was imposed by NATO on us and we completely reject it. Is it democracy to impose people with armed power on the people of Benghazi, many of whose leaders are not even Libyan or from Libyan tribes but come from Tunisia and other countries?”

“The Trial Council assures its continuing cooperation with the African Union in its suggestions aimed at helping to prevent the aggression on the Libyan people…”

“The Tribal Council condemns the crusader aggression on the Great Jamahiriya executed by the NATO and the Arabic regressive forces which is a grave threat to Libyan civilians as it continues to kill them as NATO bombs civilian targets.…”

“We do not and will not accept any authority other than the authority that we chose with our free will which is the People’s Congress and Peoples Committees, and the popular social leadership, and will oppose with all available means, the NATO rebels and their slaughter, violence and maiming of cadavers. We intend to oppose with all the means available to us the NATO crusader aggressors and their appointed lackeys.”

“According to one representative of the Libyan Supreme Tribal Council, “The tribes of Libya have until today not fully joined in repelling the NATO aggressors.”

“As we do, we serve notice to NATO that we shall not desist until they have left our country and we will ensure that they never return.”

Reading that manifesto makes an old-way adherent of the tribal sovereignty system in North America very suspicious of the news reports concerning what is really happening in Libya when the reports say the purpose of NATO’s involvement is to introduce constitutional democracy under the rule of law to that country, because that was said of the genocidal eradication of the tribes here.

Tribalism all too often is confused with hereditary systems that inherently are undemocratic, at least in the political discourse promoted by the North American media and by the governments of Canada, the United States, England and France. The people of those countries, their military and that of their NATO allies take for granted that making war against tribes is good not only for the west but for the tribes themselves. They assume it lifts them out of the dark ages, brings them enlightenment and the rule of law. Anthropologists know better but no one pays attention to them other than other anthropologists.

This conventional wisdom certainly is wrong regarding the tribes of North America and may be wrong regarding tribes elsewhere. The parties promoting the misconception know better because they are more fully informed than the average person who takes news reports and government propaganda at face value even though they know governments rarely tell the truth unless caught out in the lie and not even then in most cases as the liars just wait out the minor interest raised by the occasional exposé of lies.

Exposés of government and business or finance industry lying are mundane, no longer big news that changes governments or modifies media circulation figures or advertising revenue.

The truth about tribal peoples was learned by the early imperialists engaged in the European invasion of the Americas. For example, the Colonial Office of the British Privy Council had a long and intimate experience of the actual state of affairs among the Indian nations or tribes of North America. Upon the basis of this, the Direction of the King delivered by the Lords of Trade to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern District of North America, and dated 10 July 1764 (E.B. O’Callaghan et al., eds., Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York, 15 Vols., Albany, 1856-83, 7:634) instructed, “a steady and uniform attachment to, and love of Justice and Equity is one of their first principles of Government.”

Tribal government in North America was and to the extent it survives still is the most perfect form of direct and pure democracy known to humankind. There were no leaders with jurisdiction to dictate to the indigenous people here. There was no word for “chief” with a meaning analogous to that English word. However there were many words for the different offices of persons charged with the responsibility of serving different aspects of the peoples’ needs. In the Algonkian language of northeastern North American the word for the spokesperson who carries out the peoples’ instructions about what to say to the European newcomers was ogima, sagimaw or sachem and so on, all being part of the linguistic chain that ranged northwards up the Atlantic coast and swept north and west over the Great Lakes to the Rocky Mountains.

That is why the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (UK) enacted regarding the treaties whereby the Crown could in accordance with colonial constitutional law legally acquire territorial jurisdiction and possession from the sovereign tribes:

“We do with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement but that. if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands the same shall be Purchased only for Us in our Name at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie.”

Indian “chiefs” had no jurisdiction under either Indian law or colonial law to sell the aboriginals’ land or any aspect of it out from under the Indian people. There were no dictators. Maybe the tribes of Libya are the same in this regard as the tribes of northeastern North America.

And, in contrast with the discovering European governments that in virtue of their discovery acquired the sole jurisdiction as against the others to negotiate with the tribes for the acquisition of jurisdiction and possession, the tribal governments were not and are not pathological liars. There is a reason that is so. It is tied in with the totem system which constituted the basis for the tripartite adjudication process that regulated and regulates all aspects of all public meetings of the people, meeting all the people at which every person has the right to be heard and the duty to listen with respect. Two totems argued an issue back and forth until they came to consensus on the true way based upon the traditional laws applied to the evidence of the relevant facts. Then, that decision was turned over to a third totem group which debated whether the absolute truth had been the basis for the decision. If so, the decision was ratified as unanimous. If not the issue was handed back to the first two for reconsideration in the light of the concerns identified by the third, and so on until the truth was ascertained as objectively as possible in human affairs. Maybe the tribes of Libya are the same.

The evidence indicates that Euro-American representative democracy based upon simple majority vote is not nearly so punctilious concerning either the views of all the people or fidelity to truth. Rather it is by nature both dictatorial and opportunistic. Under it an individual person is largely irrelevant unless he is very rich, powerfully connected and male. The two party system does not serve nearly so adequately as the aboriginal tripartite system “justice” (as the application of truth to affairs) within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States of America:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In 1760 many of the tribes of northeastern North America united and designated a spokesperson named Pontiac as coordinator of the defence of this part of the world against the British empire and for a time achieved a significant measure of military success. Pontiac and others like him over the ages were demonized with names like today’s all purpose word terrorist (“merciless savages” in the Declaration of Independence) even though in truth they had not invaded but were defending against invaders.

The Indians’ territorial defence coordinated by Pontiac regarding their lands not ceded by treaties in accordance with the colonial constitutional law ultimately was unsuccessful because tribal peoples who live directly from the lands and waters as hunter-gatherers and fishing peoples cannot win wars of attrition against industrial powers.

Maybe Libya is the same. Maybe Kaddafi is more like Pontiac as a tribal spokesperson than a dictator like the monarch of Saudi Arabia or any of the myriad other dictators put and kept in power round the world to suppress direct democracy and popular struggles for the same values as those identified by the American constitution. It is hard to tell since the imperial governments, the elites they serve, and the judicial branch that obstructs and ignores the constitution, and the rich who own the media are one. Imperialism preempts truth when it is not opportune because if it didn’t it couldn’t do what imperialism by its very nature and character does: grow by means of war and the threat of war as against those who decline to be bought.

The collaborating federal law Indians of North America call themselves First Nations and Tribal Councils though they are neither and the delegated jurisdiction they exercise as glorified municipalities allows them to enact dog bylaws and garbage collection, subject to disallowance at the discretion of the federal government. Their chiefs and elected councils are petty dictators in terms of dispensing the federal benefits and privileges to the families members of those in office at any given time and these perquisites, though less substantial than the rewards monarchs and dictators put and kept in power elsewhere in the world, are in essence bribes for suppressing the people in return for the imperial rape of the peoples’ environment.

In sum, the phenomenon of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer is the experience of the tribal peoples inflicted by coups instigated, armed, paid for and logistically directed if not directly fought by imperialist NATO and its agent the United Nations.

Maybe it is the same with Libya. Maybe the revolting persons are opportunists, chancers like the collaborating federal Indians whose leadership aids and abets the genocide of their own people, for profit and position.


The genius of the American empire consists in the beguiling success of its propaganda and the brilliant technological progress of its science. The propaganda has modified the mindset of humankind in virtue of the global conversion of consciousness from the certainty that all creation is a single self, into modernity’s diametrically opposed consciousness where each individual knows himself to be a separate self whose gratification is the meaning of life.

The science puts the empire on the brink of achieving fusion power so long, at least, as the global oil supplies controlled by the empire aren’t exhausted before fusion comes online. With fusion power the empire can eliminate competitors for the other resources needed to satisfy its unlimited wants, because that revolutionary source of power is inexhaustible, clean, cheap and self generating in perpetuity. Nuclear weaponry is to fusion weaponry as sticks and stones are to guns. Michio Kaku, Physics of the Future: How science will shape human destiny and our daily lives by the year 2100; Knopf Doubleday PG, 2011.

The existential challenge facing all peoples, therefore, is to identify the means whereby the empire can be re-converted back to a set of constitutional democracies.

Here follows the specific means.

The great maritime powers of Europe in the Americas—France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain and United Kingdom—established the “discovery doctrine” that originated the constitutional law much later codified by the commerce, defence and treaty clauses of the United States’ constitution which itself in turn became the model for each of those European nations and, in due course, was reiterated as the basis for modern international law and global human rights law.

A very long and consistent series of court cases, from 1789 when the US constitution was adopted to 1871 when it was abrogated, settled this as being the state of the supreme law. Furthermore, this same law was applicable to foreign Nations no less and no more than to the Indian tribes.

The only thing that could alter that supreme law would be compliance with the amendment clause, that being the clause specifically reserving to the People the exclusive power of enlarging, diminishing or reapportioning the jurisdiction of each branch of the People’s government: legislative, executive and judicial. No such repeal has been enacted and none is being proposed in so far at least as the sovereignty of Indian tribes and foreign Nations is concerned, as that sovereignty is protected and guaranteed as aforesaid by the commerce, defence and treaty clauses and their constitutive precedents.

In 1871 the US Congress enacted ordinary legislation, as opposed to processing a constitutional amendment, which ordinary legislation unconstitutionally pretended to repeal the constitution’s treaty clause. It ordered the President not to make and the Senate not to ratify any more treaties with Indian tribes for the consensual acquisition by the United States of the tribes’ territorial sovereignty and possession. Congress then incorporated municipal councils under federal law to serve as puppet Indian quasi-national governments and paid them to aid and abet in the genocidal eradication of the old-way sovereign tribal governments and their adherents.

In 1973 the War Powers Act unconstitutionally enacted the President can declare an emergency if he or she thinks a foreign Nation threatens the economy and, upon the basis of such declaration, forthwith can initiate preemptive war to dispose of the threat, thusly putting the rest of the world in the same position as the Indians.

There is a test court case presently in limbo that brings all this to a head. It is in limbo because the Clerk of the US Supreme Court simply sends back the documents commencing it on the ground the ordinary federal law preempts consideration of constitutional law that renders the ordinary law null and void for prima facie and blatant non-compliance with the constitutions’ amendment, commerce, defence and treaty clauses and their voluminous constitutive interpretive precedents. This is an instance of the historical pattern of obstruction and ignoring of the critical constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty and, by necessary implication, of the sovereignty also of foreign Nations.

The conflict of laws to which the test case is restricted directly puts in issue the conflict between the constitution protecting Indian tribal sovereignty and the 1871 statute of Congress abrogating it and, indirectly, between the constitution protecting foreign national sovereignty and the 1973 statute of Congress abrogating it. Libya has been invaded and occupied under the auspices of the latter much the same, from all that appears, as the territory of the Mahican and Mi’kmaq tribes who complain of the war and genocide in the test case.

The Indian case genuinely is irrebutable as a matter of law alone. That is the reason the judicial branch engages in genocidal chicanery to evade it. The case contains no arguable error of law capable of being identified. The case does not present a controversy. It presents a previously settled issue and seeks confirmation of the previous settlement in circumstances where, in the absence of a duly processed constitutional amendment, by definition of the principle of constitutional supremacy there can be no arguable dispute.

Since the case is in limbo relative to the US Supreme Court the only available legal solution is to go to the counterpart courts of France, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain and United Kingdom and ask them to prevent the genocide-in-progress by reading their own constitutional law and, upon that basis, to declare that the US Supreme Court should address the constitutional question in order to prevent the genocide otherwise attributable to obstructing and ignoring it. The Mahican and Mi’kmaq complainants in the test case are those tribes’ old-way governments and the named public ministers individually are the only governments and officials recognized at constitutional law.

As such they have neither the money nor the contacts to permit them to go to Europe and deal with the courts there precisely because their capital, namely the land and its resources, have been stolen from them in the course of the war and genocide inflicted and being inflicted against tribalism in North America under the auspices of the unconstitutional federal law.

Accordingly they need a measure of help to take their case out of the limbo into which the criminal obstruction of the US Supreme Court Clerk has cast it. This is all spelled out in detail in the above mentioned Mahican and Mi’kmaq tribes, “Argument,” Might is Not Right,

Please examine it with care. Criticism is welcome with regard to the law presented although not with the regard to the political phenomenon of whether imperialist war and genocide is a good thing. The constitution precludes it and for that reason whether it is good or bad from a political perspective is not legally arguable, other than in relation to a constitutional amendment pursuant to the Article V amendment clause.


I went to Venezuela three years ago to try to get Chávez to help with the legal avenue, in view of the things he is reported to have said about liberty, equality and fraternity and so on, including especially about the rights of indigenous peoples in his own country and round the world. What I found not only in Venezuela but throughout South and Central America is that, political rhetoric aside, the feeling is that since North Americans got rich confiscating the Indians’ capital now it is Latin America’s turn. And it is a hypocritical double standard for anyone in North America or Europe to presume to criticize Latin America for its treatment of Indians and their lands.

In short the global capitalist system is built upon stolen capital and nobody anywhere in power is willing even to contemplate addressing the constitutional law that indicts the theft. In consequence, nowhere in the world does constitutional democracy under the rule of law actually exist. And that is the death knell for the peoples of the earth and the earth itself for only constitutional democracy under the rule of law can establish peace, welfare and justice in time to save us from the ravages and vicious selfishness of imperialism.

All it will take is for one court to free the truth and the others, seeing it set free, will uphold their oaths rather than be seen unequivocally, notoriously and genocidally to be in breach.

No case before this test case has attempted to bracket the several national courts of the constituents of an empire upon the basis of the common constitutional position that links them.
Never before has there been a stepping stone precedent available like the decision of US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who in 2004 held the 1871 ordinary legislation was prima facie unconstitutional instead of obstructing and ignoring the constitutional question, and he invited the question back into his Court.

Nor has there ever been a precedent available like that of Spain’s constitutional court which in 2005 declared the principle of the universal extraterritorial jurisdiction of all courts to enforce the genocide convention when it appears the courts of the country where the genocide is occurring are letting it happen by judicial inactivity :obstructing or ignoring it.

Finally no other case has been prepared over a forty year period like this test case wherein every conceivable alternative remedy in the North American courts and the international courts has been exhausted in both the civil and criminal law contexts. This test case is the final stone left unturned.

And it is unfair and unjust to conclude the rule of law is a failure unless and until it has been given every opportunity to function. Certainly discouragement with the rule of law is justified but giving up on it while a reasonable chance it can be made to work still exists, is not.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “Truth is the summit of being: justice is the application of it to affairs…; and whatever instances can be quoted of unpunished theft, or of a lie which somebody has credited, justice must prevail, and it is the privilege of truth to make itself believed.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 13, 2011 in Uncategorized


Arab Spring Over, Islamists, Generals and Old Regimes Battle for Power From Tunisia to Syria



There are countless great sources for those following the Middle East’s political clock by the movement of its second- and minute-hands. But for those looking to track the movement of the hour-hand, there are few better options than the New York Review of Books tag-team of Hussein Agha and Rob Malley. The former Palestinian negotiation adviser now at Oxford (Agha) and the former Clinton Administration Mideast adviser now with the International Crisis Group (Malley) have produced a magisterial body of analysis of the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an ongoing series of essays high in the nutrients of original observation and prescient prognosis. And now they’ve turned their unsentimental attention to the Arab Spring that has shaken up the region stretching from Algeria to Syria and Yemen over the past nine months, warning that the heady optimism of “Twitter revolutions” has given way to a season of Arab counterrevolution.


The regimes targeted in the Arab Spring were products, Agha and Malley note, of the dashed optimism of an earlier era of revolutionary in the decades following World War II, which produced regimes promising to restore Arab dignity through modernization and social justice, yet which became corrupt, authoritarian shells bereft of all legitimacy — or even “authenticity” — and beholden to outside powers. The decrepitude of those regimes eventually forced their own citizens into open rebellion.


In Tunisia and Egypt, they won round one in spectacular fashion. Elsewhere, things got messier, as regimes had time to adapt and shape their response. Violence spread, civil war threatened, foreign powers joined the melee, and centrifugal powers—sectarian, ethnic, tribal, or geographic—asserted themselves.

The Arab awakening is a tale of three battles rolled into one: people against regimes; people against people; and regimes against other regimes.


In most cases, the political momentum and initiative has already shifted from those at the forefront of the revolutionary upsurge who lacked organizational structure, recognizable leadership or a clear strategic perspective — the youthful demonstrators of Tahrir Square, for example — to more established power structures: The remnants of the old regime with deep structures of organized patronage; the security forces; and the Islamist parties whose many years in the field under the cosh of the secret police have given them a certain Bolshevik resilience. And the wider context, the Arab rebellions have become a regional geopolitical  battleground for such established power players as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the emergent influentials such as Turkey and Qatar, and Western powers looking to reconfigure their role as a result of U.S. imperial downsizing.


 The sense grows that what happens anywhere will have a profound impact everywhere. NATO fought in Libya and helped oust Qaddafi. Iran and Saudi Arabia play out their rivalry in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria; Qatar hopes to elevate its standing by propelling the Libyan and Syrian opposition to power; in Syria, Turkey sees an opportunity to side with the majority Sunnis yet simultaneously fears what Damascus and Tehran might do in return: could they rekindle Kurdish separatism or jeopardize Ankara’s delicate modus vivendi in Iraq? Iran will invest more in Iraq if it feels Syria slipping away. As they become buoyed by advances in Libya and Syria, how long before Iraqi Islamists and their regional allies rekindle a struggle they fear was prematurely aborted?


The risk of regional conflict fueled by ethnic and sectarian breakdowns in any number of states has risen sharply, with the decisions that will shape events in the hand of cold-eyed men with guns rather than the young people armed only with their cell-phones, their courage and their idealism that dominated coverage of the first wave of protest.


The real action, much to their chagrin, takes place elsewhere. The outcome of the Arab awakening will not be determined by those who launched it. The popular uprisings were broadly welcomed, but they do not neatly fit the social and political makeup of traditional communities often organized along tribal and kinship ties, where religion has a central part and foreign meddling is the norm. The result will be decided by other, more calculating and hard-nosed forces.


Among those, Agha and Malley argue, the best-placed are the military, and the Islamists, who aren’t as tainted by the past as are the generals:


Virtually everywhere they are the largest single group as well as the best organized. In Egypt and Tunisia, where they had been alternatively—and sometimes concurrently—tolerated and repressed, they are full-fledged political actors. In Libya, where they had been suppressed, they joined and played a major part in the rebellion. In Syria, where they had been massacred, they are a principal component of the protest movement.

Living in the wilderness has equipped them well. Years of waiting has taught them patience, the cornerstone of their strategy. They learned the art of survival and of compromise for the sake of survival. They are the only significant political force with a vision and program unsullied, because untested, by the exercise of, or complicity in, power. Their religious language and moral code resonate deeply with large parts of the population.


But, they note, mindful of the alarm they raise in the West — and the fact that recent history shows, in Algeria in 1990 and in the West Bank and Gaza in 2006, that Western powers will happily encourage authoritarian putsches when Islamists win elections — reinforce the patience and caution of the Islamists. Rather than a Bolshevik-like power grab, Agha and Malley argue, “They will build coalitions. They will lead from behind.” That means emphasizing democracy and political pluralism, business-friendly economics and a restraint on confrontation with the West and Israel. And in one of their most interesting observations, they add:


 Quietly, the Islamists might present themselves as the West’s most effective allies against its most dangerous foes: armed jihadists, whom they have the religious legitimacy to contain and, if necessary, cripple; and Iran, whose appeal to the Arab street they can counteract by not shunning the Islamic Republic and presenting a less aggressive, more attractive, and indigenous Islamic model.


Indeed, while the secular liberal opposition gets the most attention in Western media, where they can offer an indigenous mirror image to Western values, Agha and Malley write that “In Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, the most significant future rivalry is unlikely to be between Islamists and so-called pro-democracy secular forces. It might well be between mainstream Islamists and Salafists.” Indeed, the Arab Spring is over. For Agha and Malley, it’s going to look very different from what was imagined in the heady days of Tahrir Square:


The Arab world’s immediate future will very likely unfold in a complex tussle between the army, remnants of old regimes, and the Islamists, all of them with roots, resources, as well as the ability and willpower to shape events. Regional parties will have influence and international powers will not refrain from involvement. There are many possible outcomes—from restoration of the old order to military takeover, from unruly fragmentation and civil war to creeping Islamization. But the result that many outsiders had hoped for—a victory by the original protesters—is almost certainly foreclosed.


Posted by on September 12, 2011 in Uncategorized


Libya: V Day + 3 Weeks Genocide, rebel infighting, failed offensives mark 3 weeks after NATO’s “victory” in Libya

by Tony Cartalucci

Desperate to declare NATO’s mission in Libya a victory ahead of the September 19, 2011 deadline on their contrived UN Security Council resolution, already violated in every conceivable manner possible, NATO planes in tandem with NATO special forces obliterated Tripoli ahead of swarms of Libyan rebel troops led by notorious Al Qaeda thug Abdulhakim Hasadi (aka Balhaj.) Three weeks later, NATO’s proxy Libyan representative, long-time globalist and servant of the West Mahmoud Gibril Elwarfally, touched down at Tripoli’s airport, one of the few enclaves held by rebels in the city, to give the impression that his “National Transitional Council” (NTC) actually controls the capital and therefore the country.In reality, Gibril (also spelled Jabril) is in control of nothing, apparently not even his own rebel forces, and stunts such as landing in Tripoli are desperate ploys to portray a sense of strength and resolve to garner continued “international support” as NATO’s deadline quickly approaches. Libya‘s rebellion, despite the corporate-media’s disingenuous presentation, is divided along tribal and ethnic lines, with most of Libya’s rebels being motivated, not by aspirations for liberal-democracy, but rather by ideological extremism cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi. As NATO enables these violent ideologues to expand their control over the country, they are systematically committing war crimes including large-scale theft and looting, exiling entire civilian populations from cities, and wholesale genocide. They are also reportedly turning their weapons on one another.

To compound Gibril’s precarious situation, the few fighters he has that are following orders are stretched thin between attempting to hold parts of Tripoli, holding other towns and cities beyond their Benghazi stronghold, and attempting to siege entire cities still standing defiantly against NATO and rebel conquest. The cities of Bani Walid and Sirte, both claimed by rebels as ripe to fall “within hours” have now entirely balked rebel advances, causing many forces to flee with reports that fighters coming back from the front lines are overwhelmed and demoralized.

Despite heavy, and quite obviously indiscriminate bombing by NATO for the better part of two weeks, resistance in these two cities is still fierce enough to keep the rebels well at bay. It is quite apparent that initial reports by Gabril’s “NTC” that only 60-150 Qaddafi fighters remained in Bani Walid, were yet another lie and that the entire city’s civilian population is putting up resistance. The number of “resisters” has gone up piecemeal as the rebel operation drags on, with the number of “Qaddafi soldiers” fighting in Bani Walid well past 1,000 now.

Bani Walid is predominately made of members of Libya’s one-million strong Warfalla tribe, and is decidedly not interested in NATO’s sponsored “Benghazi liberation.” In the wake of NATO’s bombing campaign and special forces entering Tripoli and their setting the stage for looting, torture, and genocide, and after months of reporting on the Libyan rebels’ penchant for war crimes, the London Telegraph has finally admitted in short that the rebels are in fact genocidal racists. In the Telegraph’s article “Gaddafi’s ghost town after the loyalists retreat,” it is reported that rebels have taken the city of Tawarga, where the entire civilian population was either killed, rounded up, or exiled.

The article notes “racist undercurrents” within the Libyan rebellion, a factor independentanalysts have been warning about since NATO intervened in March. The report also quotes rebel leaders as saying in regards to the vast amount of property left behind by the exiled population, “the military council will decide what will happen to the buildings. But over our dead bodies will the Tawargas return.” Another rebel commender concluded, “Tawarga no longer exists.” Of course, exiling an entire civilian population from their homes and arbitrarily seizing their property is a grievous war crime, and in this particular case, a war crime done under NATO cover, with US and British diplomatic recognition of the war criminals remaining steadfast, and even many of the arms and the training used to carry out such war crimes courtesy of NATO.

With the fate of Tawarga befalling an increasingly larger number of cities and towns amidst NATO’s campaign of “liberation,” increasingly fierce resistance throughout Libya, including by the entire populations of both Sirte and Bani Walid, is not unexpected. They indeed face NATO sanctioned door-to-door genocide, exile, theft, looting, torture, and in essence everything in reality that NATO falsely accused Qaddafi of doing to justify their military intervention in the first place. Libya is turning out to be a NATO-led Hitlerian campaign of conquest, complete with collective punishment and ground troops carrying out appalling atrocities. The rebels are literally led by a US State Department and UK Home Office listed terror organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), who’s commander Abdulhakim Hasadi has openly admitted to fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan. What’s worse is that these facts are not revelations, but well-known inconvenient truths NATO, with the help of the corporate-media, has tried to bury, spin, or otherwise obfuscate until the point of no return in their Libyan intervention had been reached.

As NATO races to dress up their failed operation in Libya as a success so that they can escape an upcoming September 19 vote on continuing the UN mandate under which this crime against humanity is being committed, the lies will become more acute and the atrocities infinitely more brutal and widespread. Now more than ever do Libyan’s require a robust alternative media to cover the truth, “read between the lies” of the corporate-news networks, and ensure that this nation of 6 million is not buried by NATO in deception or the stark silence of public apathy.

For more information on Libya, please see the Libya Archives.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 12, 2011 in Uncategorized


”După Libia, urmează Siria şi Iranul!”-Webster Tarpley

Rebelii controlează o mare parte din teritoriul Libiei, dar războiul nu s-a încheiat. Cu toată intervenţia NATO, regimul Gaddafi încă rezistă.

Chiar dacă liderul libian va fi învins în scurt timp, jurnalistul de investigaţie Webster Tarpley e şi el de părere că războiul început în Libia se va extinde în Orientul Mijlociu.

”Gaddafi trebuia să cadă în martie, dar el a pus beţe-n roate, şi-a asumat poziţia de blocare vis-a-vis de maşinăria subversivă NATO şi i-a ţinut cu mâinile legate 6-7 luni. Dacă rezistenţa lui Gaddafi va dispărea, ceea ce nu prea cred, toate aceste active militare pe care în prezent le vedem desfăşurate în centrul Mediteranei vor fi mutate în estul Meditaranei, şi acolo Hezbollah şi Siria, şi apoi Iranul, ar face bine să fie atente, pentru că şi ele sunt ţinte”, susţine Tarpley.

Jurnalistul spune că rezistenţa regimului Gaddafi nu trebuie subestimată.

”Ţineţi minte, totul se va duce spre Iran şi Rusia, din cauza importantei baze maritime din Tartus, Siria, care este baza navală a Rusiei în Mediterana. Aşadar, dacă lucrurile se calmează în Libia, asta înseamnă doar că războiul se va muta spre est, dar eu cred că mai e de dus încă un război lung în Libia. Să-l comparăm pe Gaddafi cu molahul Omar, care a fost acum zece ani. Molahul Omar încă operează fără probleme; cred că Gaddafi se poate descurca mai bine de-atât. Deci nu vă așteptaţi ca Gaddafi să fie încolţit prea curând, dar chiar de-ar fi, are o familie mare, care face parte dintr-un mare trib. Organizarea tribală în Libia e ideală pentru a conduce o mişcare de rezistenţă în condiţiile date”, încheie Tarpley.


Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2011 in Uncategorized