Cameron and Sarkozy smash up Libya.
The African Union called for an immediate cessation to the bombing of Libya. This call was ignored and censored by the British and French media who are now, with honourable exceptions, embedded into their respective governments policy of military intervention.
The panel representing the AU calling for cessation comprises Presidents Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz of Mauritania, Amadou Toumani Toure of Mali and Sassou Nguesso of Congo.
The legitimate contribution of the high ranking representatives of the African Union, including the South African president Jacob Zuma, to a negotiated solution to a civil war in a country on the African continent, was sabotaged and subsequently dismissed out of hand by NATO and in particular by the two most important former colonial powers in Africa, France and Great Britain. They gave clear instructions to their puppets in Bengazi to reject any negotiation in return for the promise of NATO bombs.
The British and French governments, throw backs to the time of Margaret Thatcher and the Apartheid era, showed a complete disregard for the dignity and for the right of the representatives of the African continent to settle its own affairs. Although the state media in both Britain and France gave an initial welcome to the AU's proposals, this was followed by an immediate clampdown. The British media then showed nothing of the meeting of the African delegation in Tripoli. Stated that Zuma was Gaddafi's 'friend' and then showed an angry crowd around the brave AU representatives in Benghazi.
_________________________________
... the overriding sense Cameron and Sarkozy give is not one of educated mature politicians ... rather it is one of political infantilism and regression. 40 something is the new 18.
_______________________________
To demonstrate the importance the African Union gave the mission, Jacob Zuma, president of the most powerful and morally influential country in Africa, South Africa, joined the delegation calling for a peaceful negotiated settlement.
Jacob Zuma himself is well placed to advise the warring Libyans. Together with Mac Maharaj, Jacob Zuma is credited with stopping a civil war and the break up of South Africa. He foiled the attempt of the Apartheid South African security forces to balkanise that country and stopped civil war by winning Zulus to the ANC, and away from Inkatha and Buthelezi before the elections in 1994. All this more than qualified Zuma to help the Libyans negotiate a settlement and help avoid a carve up of Libya by foreign powers.
After sabotaging the African Union diplomatic effort Britain and France invoked the guarded support of some members of the Arab League. In doing so, the British representative, foreign secretary Hague, demonstrated the deepest possible hypocrisy. The Arab League governments are still primarily made up of the very dictators that the people of the Middle East and North Africa are trying to get rid of in this so called 'Arab' spring.
The single lone figure of a stooge from the Emirates, that disgusting satrapy, that funk hole for dirty money, was the only Arab the British and French could conjour up at a recent NATO conference to support their aggressive military intervention. This must have reminded both Arabs and Africans of the old tactics and impudence of European colonialism and neo-colonialism.
Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose!
The wild, rag-tag, and increasingly ferocious, grouping of anti-Gaddafi forces are much less respectable than the Kosovan Liberation Army ever was. And that's saying something. Naturally they feel disinclined to negotiate a peaceful settlement. They have been primed on what actions they must take in order to guarantee the support of France and Great Britain. Moreover, if they, the 'rebels', are already calling in air strikes, following the pattern of the murderous strategies the British and US soldiers use in Afghanistan, then there is very little need for them to negotiate an outcome is there? The Mad Max puppets road to power will be paved by NATO bombers.
_________________________________
Cameron and Sarkozy are interested in smashing up Libya...Their solutions are Alexandrine, vicious and unrealistic.
__________________________________
There has been no election whatsoever and yet the French government has already recognised the Benghazi coalition as the legitimate transitional government of Libya. It is not necessary to watch the Battle for Algiers again to recall the French government's ruthlessness in the pursuit of its strategic interests. African politics is a fixed horse race to them. They supported the genocidally inclined opposition to the former dictator of the Ivory Coast, Gbagbo, to the hilt in the name of democracy, bombing him in his palace and capturing him.
But just in case you believe in France's democratic credentials, remember the relatively recent coup d'etat that the French government organised in Congo Brazzaville after the legitimate government of that country requested a higher share of ELF's petrol earnings. The response of the French was to organise a coup d'etat and then legitimise the puppet government of Congo Brazzeville who held a fake election in 2010 - in return for leaving ELF's petroleum earnings unmolested.
______________________________________
Sarkozy, that self styled little Napoleon, that right wing goat, is playing to cheap French nationalist sentiment.
_____________________________________
Negotiated settlement was the objective of the African Union.But this is not the objective of Britain and France. Why? Sarkozy, that Napoleonic goat, is playing to cheap French nationalist sentiment. It is no coincidence that both Sarkozy and Cameron have attacked the existing tolerant multicultural set up in their respective countries appealing to the worst, most recidivist elements in France and the United Kingdom in a hope to build up electoral support at home.Cameron and Sarkozy are interested in smashing up Libya and Gaddafi, in breaking and destroying, because they have no understanding or respect for the internal processes of North African countries. Their solutions are Alexandrine, vicious and unrealistic.
The overriding sense Cameron and Sarkozy give is not that of mature educated politicians taking important decisions, rather it is one of political infantilism: 40 something in politics is the new 18.
Clearly the Anglo-French military intervention in Libya is unwarranted. Fewer and fewer people agree with it now. It has gone too far. The fact that Cameron only days before the uprising in Libya began was on a tour to sell arms to Arab dictators shows how sinister and self interested the British involvement in Libya really is. The man is an unprincipled spiv and archetypal representative of British upper class interests. No one who has any self respect on the international scene should give him the time of day.
Isn't the only real peace the peace of the grave. A messy compromise is a desirable outcome to this conflict in Libya. But, in the end, if Britain and France do manage to pave the way into power for a puppet government of dubious opportunists, they will be creating yet another serious and unstable locus in North Africa with very dangerous consequences.
These right wing British and French governments may comfort themselves by looking back at history; since the war the dictators installed and sponsored by France and Great Britain - Bahrain an excellent example - have governed most of the Middle East and North Africa without democracy to the benefit of the former colonialists for half a century. Why shouldn't a puppet government in Libya continue to do the same?
Military intervention is a cynical and vile cast of the dice by Great Britain and France. It is a bet placed against the true aspirations of the Libyan people for reform, democracy and a stable and prosperous country.
A Mad Max army of Islamic fundamentalists and all-sorts prepare for government.
The African Union called for an immediate cessation to the bombing of Libya. This call was ignored and censored by the British and French media who are now, with honourable exceptions, embedded into their respective governments policy of military intervention.
The panel representing the AU calling for cessation comprises Presidents Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz of Mauritania, Amadou Toumani Toure of Mali and Sassou Nguesso of Congo.
The legitimate contribution of the high ranking representatives of the African Union, including the South African president Jacob Zuma, to a negotiated solution to a civil war in a country on the African continent, was sabotaged and subsequently dismissed out of hand by NATO and in particular by the two most important former colonial powers in Africa, France and Great Britain. They gave clear instructions to their puppets in Bengazi to reject any negotiation in return for the promise of NATO bombs.
The British and French governments, throw backs to the time of Margaret Thatcher and the Apartheid era, showed a complete disregard for the dignity and for the right of the representatives of the African continent to settle its own affairs. Although the state media in both Britain and France gave an initial welcome to the AU's proposals, this was followed by an immediate clampdown. The British media then showed nothing of the meeting of the African delegation in Tripoli. Stated that Zuma was Gaddafi's 'friend' and then showed an angry crowd around the brave AU representatives in Benghazi.
_________________________________
... the overriding sense Cameron and Sarkozy give is not one of educated mature politicians ... rather it is one of political infantilism and regression. 40 something is the new 18.
_______________________________
To demonstrate the importance the African Union gave the mission, Jacob Zuma, president of the most powerful and morally influential country in Africa, South Africa, joined the delegation calling for a peaceful negotiated settlement.
Jacob Zuma himself is well placed to advise the warring Libyans. Together with Mac Maharaj, Jacob Zuma is credited with stopping a civil war and the break up of South Africa. He foiled the attempt of the Apartheid South African security forces to balkanise that country and stopped civil war by winning Zulus to the ANC, and away from Inkatha and Buthelezi before the elections in 1994. All this more than qualified Zuma to help the Libyans negotiate a settlement and help avoid a carve up of Libya by foreign powers.
After sabotaging the African Union diplomatic effort Britain and France invoked the guarded support of some members of the Arab League. In doing so, the British representative, foreign secretary Hague, demonstrated the deepest possible hypocrisy. The Arab League governments are still primarily made up of the very dictators that the people of the Middle East and North Africa are trying to get rid of in this so called 'Arab' spring.
The single lone figure of a stooge from the Emirates, that disgusting satrapy, that funk hole for dirty money, was the only Arab the British and French could conjour up at a recent NATO conference to support their aggressive military intervention. This must have reminded both Arabs and Africans of the old tactics and impudence of European colonialism and neo-colonialism.
Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose!
The wild, rag-tag, and increasingly ferocious, grouping of anti-Gaddafi forces are much less respectable than the Kosovan Liberation Army ever was. And that's saying something. Naturally they feel disinclined to negotiate a peaceful settlement. They have been primed on what actions they must take in order to guarantee the support of France and Great Britain. Moreover, if they, the 'rebels', are already calling in air strikes, following the pattern of the murderous strategies the British and US soldiers use in Afghanistan, then there is very little need for them to negotiate an outcome is there? The Mad Max puppets road to power will be paved by NATO bombers.
_________________________________
Cameron and Sarkozy are interested in smashing up Libya...Their solutions are Alexandrine, vicious and unrealistic.
__________________________________
There has been no election whatsoever and yet the French government has already recognised the Benghazi coalition as the legitimate transitional government of Libya. It is not necessary to watch the Battle for Algiers again to recall the French government's ruthlessness in the pursuit of its strategic interests. African politics is a fixed horse race to them. They supported the genocidally inclined opposition to the former dictator of the Ivory Coast, Gbagbo, to the hilt in the name of democracy, bombing him in his palace and capturing him.
But just in case you believe in France's democratic credentials, remember the relatively recent coup d'etat that the French government organised in Congo Brazzaville after the legitimate government of that country requested a higher share of ELF's petrol earnings. The response of the French was to organise a coup d'etat and then legitimise the puppet government of Congo Brazzeville who held a fake election in 2010 - in return for leaving ELF's petroleum earnings unmolested.
______________________________________
Sarkozy, that self styled little Napoleon, that right wing goat, is playing to cheap French nationalist sentiment.
_____________________________________
Negotiated settlement was the objective of the African Union.But this is not the objective of Britain and France. Why? Sarkozy, that Napoleonic goat, is playing to cheap French nationalist sentiment. It is no coincidence that both Sarkozy and Cameron have attacked the existing tolerant multicultural set up in their respective countries appealing to the worst, most recidivist elements in France and the United Kingdom in a hope to build up electoral support at home.Cameron and Sarkozy are interested in smashing up Libya and Gaddafi, in breaking and destroying, because they have no understanding or respect for the internal processes of North African countries. Their solutions are Alexandrine, vicious and unrealistic.
The overriding sense Cameron and Sarkozy give is not that of mature educated politicians taking important decisions, rather it is one of political infantilism: 40 something in politics is the new 18.
Clearly the Anglo-French military intervention in Libya is unwarranted. Fewer and fewer people agree with it now. It has gone too far. The fact that Cameron only days before the uprising in Libya began was on a tour to sell arms to Arab dictators shows how sinister and self interested the British involvement in Libya really is. The man is an unprincipled spiv and archetypal representative of British upper class interests. No one who has any self respect on the international scene should give him the time of day.
Isn't the only real peace the peace of the grave. A messy compromise is a desirable outcome to this conflict in Libya. But, in the end, if Britain and France do manage to pave the way into power for a puppet government of dubious opportunists, they will be creating yet another serious and unstable locus in North Africa with very dangerous consequences.
These right wing British and French governments may comfort themselves by looking back at history; since the war the dictators installed and sponsored by France and Great Britain - Bahrain an excellent example - have governed most of the Middle East and North Africa without democracy to the benefit of the former colonialists for half a century. Why shouldn't a puppet government in Libya continue to do the same?
Military intervention is a cynical and vile cast of the dice by Great Britain and France. It is a bet placed against the true aspirations of the Libyan people for reform, democracy and a stable and prosperous country.
Comments