The western powers have also tried to control who runs African countries.For thier economic interest

This article focuses on the continuation of inequalities between Africa and Europe as the result of the racism of transatlantic slavery. Modern racism and images of Africans (for example as corrupt and unable to help or govern themselves) will relate to this. However, we should also remember that despite the ravages of slavery, vibrant, coherent African cultures survived and continue to develop and have a strong dynamic to this day.

Independence and inspirational Africans
Also, we should remember the successful struggles of African nations to organise independence movements and military struggles to overthrow the European masters from their colonies, despite the heavy odds against them and the consequent losses in the process. The leaders that emerged from this period, such as Kwame Nkrumah, Thomas Sankara and Nelson Mandela, have become inspirational voices across the world.

Colonisation
The exploitation of Africa began with the wars inspired to procure enslaved people and the export of the most fit and strong members of Africa's population. It continued with colonisation in the nineteenth century.



Map of Africa from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1890
Colonies were areas of Africa and other regions (such as India) which became placed under direct governmental control by European powers, effectively extensions of those European countries. The Europeans took mineral and agricultural products from these colonies at the cheapest possible price. The colonies also provided markets for manufactured European goods. Manufacturing by Africans in African colonies (and in the Caribbean) was forbidden and African enterprise was diminished or eliminated in every possible way.

Western extortion of Africa continues, as do wars within the continent, often fought with guns supplied by westerners wanting the cheapest access to vital raw materials. The slaughter in Darfur (western Sudan) in the early twenty first century is partly if not mainly due to this, as is, for example, the situation in the Niger delta in Nigeria.

Power struggles
The western powers have also tried to control who runs African countries. The best documented case of western involvement in the murder of elected heads of state is that of Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, murdered with the complicity of Belgium and the USA in 1961. Lumumba was a pan-Africanist and believed in the necessity of freeing Africa from European economic domination. The USA got involved in his removal from power for two reasons.

Firstly, they were interested in the Congo's copper, diamonds, cobalt, oil, uranium, and other minerals. Secondly, the 1960s were the time of the Cold War between the United Soviet States of Russia (the USSR) and the USA. In this paranoid era the USA needed someone it could trust and encourage to derail any moves by the USSR to influence Africa or procure materials. It paid Mobutu Sese Seko to help in the murder of Lumumba and then helped him organise a coup d' état in 1965 (he was given an aeroplane, for example).

The corrupt Mobutu then ruled until 1997, acting as the USA's watchdog. He suppressed all attempts in his own country to stop exploitation by the neo-colonial powers and helped to crush any such movements in neighbouring countries. For this the USA 'gave him well over a billion dollars in civilian and military aid', much of which ended up in his own pocket: his private wealth was 'estimated at $4 billion' (Adam Hochschild, King Leopold's Ghosts, London 2000, p.303).

Congo became impoverished despite its vast mineral wealth, partly because of corruption and partly because of the huge profits permitted to the non taxpaying foreign investors. Riots ensued and Mobutu was overthrown in 1997. (See also 'The Assassination of Lumumba' by Ludo de Witte). China has now been added to the list of foreign investors manipulating Congo.

Recent investigations also confirm the contemporary allegations of the USA's involvement in the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah, the socialist, pan-Africanist president of Ghana in 1966.

Climate and food supply
Other forms of exploitation are perhaps less obvious. Climate change, caused mainly by the west, is expected to have the greatest effect on sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. Food prices have risen. As a result, free school meals supplied by the World Food Programme are being cut, for example by 50% in Kenya. Agricultural subsidies by the USA and the EU make imported food cheaper in Africa than locally produced rice, chicken, tomatoes and so on, and limit the export of crops such as cotton.

According to a World Development Movement report it is the EU that benefits from bilateral trade agreements. Assessing the development impacts of two existing EU bilateral trade agreements with South Africa and Mexico, the new report 'Raw Deal' shows how one sided these deals have been in favour of the EU. For example, there has been an almost 50% increase in food and drink imports by South Africa from Europe see

Years of Deceit: United States Openly Admits Bin Laden Long Dead

Conservative commentator, former Marine Colonel Bob Pappas has been saying for years that bin Laden died at Tora Bora and that Senator Kerry's claim that bin Laden escaped with Bush help was a lie. Now we know that Pappas was correct. The embarrassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn't nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.

However, since we lost a couple of hundred of our top special operations forces hunting for bin Laden after we knew he was dead, is someone going to answer for this with some jail time? Since we spent 200 million dollars on "special ops" looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that? Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that? Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the US? This is a criminal act if there ever was one.

In 66 pages, General Stanley McChrystal never mentions Osama bin Laden. Everything is "Mullah Omar" now. In his talk at West Point, President Obama never mentioned Osama bin Laden. Col. Pappas makes it clear, Vice President Cheney let it "out of the bag" long ago. Bin Laden was killed by American troops many, many years ago.





© Unknown
America knew Osama bin Laden died December 13, 2001. After that his use was hardly one to unite America, but rather one to divide, scam and play games. With bin Laden gone, we could have started legitimate nation building in Afghanistan instead of the eternal insurgency that we invented ourselves.

Without our ill informed policies, we could have had a brought diplomatic solution in 2002 in Afghanistan, the one we are ignoring now, and spent money rebuilding the country, 5 cents on the dollar compared to what we are spending fighting a war against an enemy we ourselves recruited through ignorance.

The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people. We don't even know if he really was an enemy, certainly he was never the person that Bush and Cheney said. In fact, the Bush and bin Laden families were always close friends and had been for many years.

What kind of man was Osama bin Laden? This one time American ally against Russia, son of a wealthy Saudi family, went to Afghanistan to help them fight for their freedom. America saw him as a great hero then. Transcripts of the real bin Laden show him to be much more moderate than we claim, angry at Israel and the US government but showing no anger toward Americans and never making the kind of theats claimed. All of this is public record for any with the will to learn.

How much of America's tragedy is tied with these two children of the rich, children of families long joined through money and friendship, the Bush and bin Laden clans.

One son died in remote mountains, another lives in a Dallas suburb hoping nobody is sent after him. One is a combat veteran, one never took a strong stand unless done from safety and comfort. Islam once saw bin Laden as a great leader. Now he is mostly forgotten.

What has America decided about Bush?

We know this: Bin Laden always denied any ties to 9/11 and, in fact, has never been charged in relation to 9/11. He not only denied involvement, but had done so, while alive, 4 times and had vigorously condemned those who were involved in the attack.

This is on the public record, public in every free country except ours. We, instead, showed films made by paid actors, made up to look somewhat similar to bin Laden, actors who contradicted bin Ladens very public statements, actors pretending to be bin Laden long after bin Laden's death.

These were done to help justify spending, repressive laws, torture and simple thievery.

For years, we attacked the government of Pakistan for not hunting down someone everyone knew was dead. Bin Laden's death hit the newspapers in Pakistan on December 15, 2001. How do you think our ally felt when they were continually berated for failing to hunt down and turn over someone who didn't exist?

What do you think this did for American credibility in Pakistan and through the Islamic world? Were we seen as criminals, liars or simply fools? Which one is best?

This is also treason.

How does the death of bin Laden and the defeat and dismemberment of Al Qaeda impact the intelligence assessments, partially based on, not only bin Laden but Al Qaeda activity in Iraq that, not only never happened but was now known to have been unable to happen?

How many "Pentagon Pundits," the retired officers who sold their honor to send us to war for what is now known to be domestic, political, dirty tricks and not national security are culpable in these crimes?

I don't always agree with Col. Pappas on things. I believe his politics overrule his judgement at times. However, we totally agree on bin Laden; we simply disagree with what it means. To me lying and sending men to their deaths based on lies is treason.

Falsifying military intelligence and spending billions on unnecessary military operations for political reasons is an abomination. Consider this, giving billions in contracts to GOP friends who fill campaign coffers, and doing so based on falsified intelligence is insane. This was done for years.

We spent 8 years chasing a dead man, spending billions, sending FBI agents, the CIA, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, Special Forces, many to their deaths, as part of a political campaign to justify running America into debt, enriching a pack of political cronies and war profiteers and to puff up a pack of Pentagon peacocks and their White house draft dodging bosses.

How many laws were pushed through because of a dead man?

How many hundreds were tortured to find a dead man?

How many hundreds died looking for a dead man?

How many billions were spent looking for a dead man?

Every time Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stood before troops and talked about hunting down the dead bin Laden, it was a dishonor. Lying to men and women who put their lives on the line is not a joke.

Who is going to answer to the families of those who died for the politics and profit tied to the Hunt for Bin Laden?

The sun is setting on European neo-colonialism

On Tuesday 22 March 2011 the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, took time off from fulminating about the ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya to warn President Mugabe that he should beware the tide of revolution sweeping down from North Africa. The clear implication was that since the European ex-colonial powers were able to get the UN Security Council to back their policies that Mugabe and, presumably, Laurent Gbagbo in the Ivory Coast would become fair game for the exercise of their military might and that the ‘international community’ could impose a new government in any country it chose by virtue of how the ‘international community’ viewed the benevolence of that government’s rule.

In short, the ex-colonial powers assert they have the right to determine who governs whom in Africa, irrespective of the African constitutions, elections and sovereignty. This has always been the position of France and Chirac and Sarkozy but it is a rare statement by the British who couched their language more carefully. It didn’t stop them from sending troops to post-colonial Tanganyika, Zanzibar, Kenya, Uganda, Sierra Leone, among others, to ‘restore order’, but they withheld from making such a baldly outrageous assertion before.

This series of crises in North Africa and parts of the Middle East have broken the restraints on their megalomaniacal grasping for power and influence and allowed them to pretend that they know what is best for everyone and that they have a deep-seated commitment to democracy, fair play and human rights; except in those countries which have oil or are good customers for their weapons industries. This is part of a long tradition which followed directly from the colonial ethos.

Despite the seizure of power by Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front from British colonialism and its Unilateral Declaration of Independence the British did nothing to impede the Rhodies in their creation of a breakaway state. They didn’t act because they were the “kith and kin” of the Rhodies. That is, they were white. This didn’t impede the British from brutalising the Kikuyu in Kenya who weren’t white. There are few who argued then or can argue now that the Rhodesian Front was acting to support the human rights and dignity of the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia. They were acting for the white population in Southern Rhodesia and imposed a form of junior apartheid on the African population. The British Government refused to act. Now that Southern Rhodesia is Zimbabwe and run by elected African leaders operating under a Constitution they feel they do have the right to intervene and change the government. The Zims aren’t kith and kin; they are Black. What sheer hypocrisy and self-delusion.

This has always been the posture of the French. Its actions over the years in Ivory Coast are a good example of the lure of neo-colonialism. The long period of political dominance of Felix Houphouet-Boigny was a period of accommodation to the will of France. It was a colony in all but a name. It had a flag, a national anthem and a seat in the UN, but otherwise was operated as if colonialism had never ended. At the death of Houphouet-Boigny the French did all they could to hold the system together but Bedie wasn’t strong enough to do so. Moreover, Bedie attacked the immigrants from the neighbouring countries as intruders and established the notion of ‘Ivoirite”, a local form of xenophobia. As they were primarily Muslims from Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali this added the dimension of an ‘oppressed minority’ to the equation. The brief military takeover of Guei led to the first election in which the candidate of the Ivoirian masses was elected to office; the university lecturer and trades unionist Laurent Gbagbo and his politically-active wife Simone Ehivet. They began to question the strict controls that the French had maintained over the country and the monopoly positions granted to French corporations. The French found this odious and, having warned Gbagbo and offered him large rewards to change his policies, they vowed to oust him from power. They enlisted the help of a Burkinabe immigrant, Alassane Ouattara, who had been brought in to assist with the economic planning by Houphouet-Boigny. Ouattara rested his claim to power on his affiliation with the Muslim migrants and the Muslim northerners. They lost at the ballot box and staged an attempted coup when Gbagbo left for a meeting with the Pope.
This rebellion quickly faltered and was in danger of being wiped out in Bouake and Korhogo by loyalist forces when the French landed paratroopers to protect them. This effectively split the country between North and South. Despite periodic attempts at coups by the North against Gbagbo, the Gbagbo government remained in power. The ‘international community’ (that is France and its friends) insisted on power sharing and a range of other demands on the Government of the Ivory Coast. In a range of treaties between the rebels and the government (Linas-Marcoussis, Accra, Pretoria, Ouagadougou) the key demand on the rebels which they signed up to was that they disarm so that elections could take place. They never disarmed. When the recent election took place, despite the lack of disarmament, the rebel soldiers surrounded the voting places in the North and rigged the ballot boxes. The representative of Ouattara announced unofficially that Ouattara had won the election. The Constitutional Court which was charge under the Constitution said that Gbagbo had won.

This same ‘international community’ took the French lead and recognised Ouattara as the President of the country despite the constitution. The people had elected Gbagbo and he refused to leave office. That has meant that the United Nations forces which worked with the French soldiers in Ivory Coast have armed the rebels and conducted warfare against Gbagbo and his troops. They imposed sanctions against the Ivory Coast and have allowed violence to take place against the populations in areas they and the rebels control.

Gbagbo and his government are not leaving. President Sarkozy ordered Gbagbo to leave the country within forty-eight hours. The Ivory Coast demanded that the French leave and to take their UN thugs with them. This has not yet been resolved. The UN force, the UNOCI have armed the rebels, given them N uniforms and supported them in their rampage against the civil population. They are trying to create a situation in which Gbagbo’s troops rise to the bait and retaliate. Then they can weep their crocodile tears about the attacks on human rights and demand military intervention. The UNOCI just sacked its commander, the Bangladeshi General Hafiz who said it was not the job of the UNOCI to kill Ivoirian citizens. He has been replaced by the genocidal Général Gankoudé Berena of Togo who is famous for his role in the Rwanda genocide where he commanded a brigade; in Guinea-Bissau where he supervised a bloodbath; and at home in Togo where he killed scores of students in the Bay of Lome. This is the kind of peacekeeping the UN has set up in the Ivory Coast.

The UN threatens to attack Gbagbo and to oust him but has no mandate to do it on their own. They are relying on using military forces from other African countries. Until now the other African countries have shown more sense and refused to do so.

The French have ben he main force behind this attack on Gbagbo since 2000. It has backfired badly on them. French business leaders are complaining to Sarkozy that their businesses in the country are being ruined. Their banks have been taken over and they will lose their cocoa by the end of March. Sarkozy promised them that he would oust Gbagbo within a week. This is clearly unlikely to happen. Moreover the French don’t dare attack Gbagbo themselves as there are over fourteen thousand French nationals in the country who are, effectively hostages to French behaviour.

This self-destructive behaviour was equally true in Libya. France's biggest corporations are concerned about President Nicolas Sarkozy’s gung-ho approach concerning Libya: he was the first to recognize the Libyan insurgent leadership and to call for a no-fly zone over the country. Some groups like Total and Alstom are worried about their assets in the country and their local employees while others fear the Libyan regime could publish documents concerning on-going negotiations. A few months ago Dassault Aviation was still deep in talks to sell Rafale fighters to Tripoli, aircraft that Libya wanted to be equipped with Scalp cruise missile and Exocet AM 39 missiles. Suez was keen on landing a water supply contract for Tripoli and Benghazi. Its adviser in Libya was Tunisia’s Slah Knifen who is close to Saif El Islam Gaddhafi and also acts as EADS’ adviser in Libya. Sarkozy has screwed up French business in both countries.
Why are the French, and to a large degree the British, so caught up in this benighted endeavour? The answer is that they are desperate. France’s economy is smaller than that of California; Britain’s is smaller than Texas. They are in desperate financial straits and growing poorer and deeper in debt every year. As they grow poorer and weaker Africa is growing and expanding at a marvellous rate.. Over the last six years the French have been losing their power in Africa, They are not in the same economic league as the Chinese, Russian and US corporations. They can’t afford to support the economic basket cases of Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, and the Central African Republic. The Ivory Coast has oil, gas, cocoa, coffee, cotton and timber. It is a rich country and the French are being frozen out. It is too late to get their dominant position back. France has already lost and only the hope of installing Ouattara may allow them to get back in, even a little bit. That is what the battle in the Ivory Coast is about.

Africa is going through boom time. Its economies are among the fastest growing in the world. The rates of growth of many African economies are multiples of European growth rates. African stock markets are expanding. In 1989 there were five African stock exchanges. Now there are twenty, including two regional exchanges. African banks are spreading across the world. The insatiable markets for commodities in China and India have opened new doors for African business. There is a rapid and spreading prosperity in Africa and very little of any of this has to do with France or Europe in general. The Ivory Coast doesn’t have to sell its cocoa to Europe; Asia is happy to take it along with the oil. The sun has already started its descent on Europe and there is no way for them to change this. Africa has a wonderful future and is on the cusp of great prosperity. Fortunately, their former colonial masters can only stare and grimace in envy as Africa becomes integrated into the global economy and moves on to become an economic powerhouse as they fade and wither. Their threats of violence and intervention are primitive and demeaning.

Gary K. Bush in ocnus

Blaise Compaoré, une autre complaisance française

Alors que les élections récentes au Togo, en Guinée et en Côte d'Ivoire ont été si disputées et si commentées par les médias internationaux, personne ne s'étonne aujourd'hui que Blaise Compaoré ait été réélu le 25 novembre dernier président de la république du Burkina Faso, pour la quatrième fois consécutive, avec un score de 80,15 % dès le premier tour de scrutin. Blaise Compaoré est pourtant connu pour avoir pris le pouvoir dans le sang le 15 octobre 1987, lors du coup d'Etat au cours duquel fut assassiné son prédécesseur et jadis ami, le très populaire Thomas Sankara.

Longue de plus de 23 ans, la présidence de Blaise Compaoré est depuis sans partage, si ce n'est celui des armes ukrainiennes livrées via son pays à plusieurs rébellions sanguinaires dont celle du RUF en Sierra Leone, ou celui des contrats d'exploitation des infrastructures burkinabé, lesquels sont régulièrement attribués à des groupes français comme Bolloré, qui sécurise la route de l'uranium entre les installations d'Areva au Niger et les ports d'expédition ivoiriens et togolais.

Est-ce la raison pour laquelle Blaise Compaoré est si choyé par les gouvernements français successifs depuis son élection ? Est-ce la raison pour laquelle ce président autoritaire est devenu un pôle de stabilité si important en Afrique de l'Ouest qu'il a été désigné avec la bénédiction de l'Union européenne comme "facilitateur" entre les parties dans les scrutins récents de ses trois pays voisins ?

La "visite de travail" qu'il effectue à Paris les 17 et 18 janvier en compagnie d'une délégation de la Cédéao pour rencontrer le président Nicolas Sarkozy en plein imbroglio ivoirien laisse en tout cas penser que Blaise Compaoré reste à Paris un partenaire de choix. Cette complaisance envers un chef d'Etat mal élu ressemble au soutien affiché jusqu'au dernier moment à l'ex-dictateur tunisien Zine el Abidine Ben Ali : même origine françafricaine moribonde, même rempart prétendu contre l'islamisme radical, mêmes intérêts géostratégiques inavouables. Une telle complaisance doit cesser, d'autant que la France fait actuellement valoir son attachement au respect de résultats électoraux transparents dans un pays voisin et très lié au Burkina Faso.

If God is supposed to protect us from evil and is supposedly omnipotent (everywhere at any time) why doesn't he save us from present evil already?!

I don't know if I will get lots of hate from religious nuts or not so I'm posting this to see the reaction.Religion is one of the most phony,yet interesting, human topics ever.Here are 6 things that prove that God does not exist and that every religion is wrong (in the last reason)If God is supposed to protect us from evil and is supposedly omnipotent (everywhere at any given time) and omnibenevolent (the ultimate in good),why doesn't he save us from the present evil already?!
2. If God already knows the future and created us in his image, then humanity is destined to know everything He knows and we will not have the true free will we have. An example is this very post. If I knew what the reaction would be, like "God", I wouldn't be writing this.
3. If God is omnipotent and not everyone believes in Him, He would do a better job gathering believers.
4. Why would a supernatural being create a universe? Because He was bored to death? He can't desire it because the concept of desire is subjectively human.
5. Ma and Pa told me that God meant to make us imperfect. Why the hell would God make us imperfect if He, according to the Bible, expects so much from us as individuals. They never gave me a straightforward answer, or even a relevant one.
6. Religion is very inconsistent about the idea of God and what He wats from us (if God can even feel desire). So that also proves, not only the non-existence of God, but the inaccuracy and incorrectness of many, if not all, religions.

Now I would love to stick around and watch the discussion unfold, but I have a Rush concert to catch in an hour. See ya. I respond to your comments later.
If God is supposed to protect us from evil and is supposedly omnipotent (everywhere at any time) why doesn't he save us from the present evil already?!

Oil, IMF And Election Theft; The Makings Of An Ivory Coast Coup

Newly discovered oil, an IMF henchman and good old fashioned election robbery are the ingredients of the west’s latest electoral coup attempt, this time in the west African country of the Ivory Coast.

The real winner of the Ivorian election was President Gabagbo, who as required under the Ivorian Constitution, was declared the victor by the Ivorian Constitutional Court, the only party empowered to do so by Ivorian law. The west’s attempt to install their own puppet as President is part and parcel of the western policy of “crisis management” used to control Africa and exploit its resources.

Very few readers outside of the Ivory Coast have any background in this matter so lets start by reviewing recent Ivorian history.

For decades the French supported Felix Boigny ruled Cote D’Ivoire. During his reign the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its evil twin the World Bank forced one of their local henchmen upon Boigny as his “Prime Minister”, Monsieur Ouattara.

During this time an Ivorian academic named Laurent Gabagbo came to the fore as a spokesperson for a popular movement opposed to the rape and pillage imposed on the Ivorian people by the draconian social spending cuts mandated by the IMF and World Bank. Professor Gabagbo was soon thrown into prison with much of the credit for such laid at Prime Minister Ouattara’s door.

After the death of President Boigny in 1993 an election was held, previous to which Ouattara had lost an internal power struggle and left the country, going back to working directly for the western financial mafia.

By 1999 relations between the new Ivorian president and the French and USA had grown increasingly tense and that year a military coup supported by the west overthrew the elected government. Behind the scenes pulling the strings was Ouattara and his western godfathers.

By 2002 the western policy of crisis management had lead to a nasty civil war between northern and southern Ivorians. This conflict developed into an ethnic/religious based war with eventual President Laurent Gabagbo leading the south, mainly Christian and Ivorian nationalist movement versus Ouattara with his western overlords funding his operation based in the north and a more muslim, high percentage of immigrants demographic.

The west, mainly the French, have sided openly with the northern based rebellion and the French air force went so far as to bomb the Ivorian military supporting Gabagbo. A stalemate developed with the south lead by Gabagbo and the north under the control of various local warlords

After years of international pressure, the French and USA, along with the UN, forced another election in the Ivory Coast which was held at the end of 2010 with the two main candidates being Ouattara and Gabagbo.

Before the election the polls predicted a victory for President Gabagbo. While vote counting was under way, several hundred thousand votes from northern Ivory Coast where Ouattara has his base of support were challenged by President Gabagbo’s camp and subsequently disqualified by the Ivorian Constitutional Court who declared President Gabagbo the winner. Under the Ivorian constitution, the Election Commission can only tabulate and pass on its findings to the Ivorian Constitutional Court which is the sole power allowed to declare the winner. As such, under Ivorian Law President Gabagbo won the election.

The western supported “independent election commission” disputed the Ivorian Constitutional Court ruling, having marched from a meeting with the USA and French ambassadors to a press conference to declare Ouattara the real winner. The west, with the support of the UN in-Security Council announced that they, not the Ivorian Constitutional Court would declare the winner, and proceeded to try and install Ouattara as president. The Ivorian people in the south were outraged and declared their support for Ivorian sovereignty and the leadership of President Gabagbo in large demonstrations.

Ouattara, the “Independent Election Commission” and their western handlers tried to play hardball, refusing to allow a review of the disputed votes, refusing to even talk to Gabagbo. President Gabagbo prepared to wait out the crisis, continuing to operate as he has done for several years as the leader of at least the southern half of the Ivory Coast.

Ouattara, with all the international recognition seemed to suffer from delusions of grandeur and called for a nation wide general strike.

When the next day made it apparent that Ouattara couldn't even mobilize support amongst his base in the north for the strike it became clear that he was little more than what he was, another African puppet dancing to his masters tune. Ouattara recently called for another general strike, which failed miserably, again.

Ever more desperate, Ouattara, who remains holed up in a 5 star hotel protected by thousands of UN “peacekeepers” and a combat alert French Air force ten minutes away, has repeatedly called for a military invasion of the Ivory Coast and his installation as “the rightful President of the Ivory Coast”. Gabagbo remains calm and the standoff continues.

Compared to the rest of west Africa the Ivory Coast historically has been fairly well off economically. Not only is the Ivory Coast the cocoa capital of the world, large offshore oil deposits have been discovered which have the potential to turn the Ivory Coast into even more of an economic and political power in the region.

The Ivory Coast is surrounded by neighbors who have fallen victim for many years to a series of wars and ethnic cleansing resulting from decades of “crisis management” imposed on them by the west. Millions have fled their homelands for reason of economic turmoil compounded by periodic civil wars and have been settling throughout the Ivory Coast for decades now. With the north having the highest percentage of immigrants, up to 40%, some 25% of the people living in the Ivory Coast today are non-citizens. Living and working in an adopted land are one thing, holding an Ivorian passport and voting in an Ivorian election is another matter. The pre-election polls conducted of documented Ivorians reflected the results announced by the Ivorian high court, and only a flood of suspect last minute votes from areas with high concentrations of non-Ivorians allowed any pretense of an Ouattara victory.

Ouattara’s western handlers now realize that the only way to remove Gabagbo would be by force and the only force capable of doing so, no matter the bluster by Nigeria’s President Bad Luck Johnson, is the French army and air force, a sizable contingent of which is stationed on Ivorian soil.

Even the French peacock Sarkozy seems to have realized what a disaster it would be to have the French military killing Africans and is loath to order such. The UN “peacekeepers” are mainly from Bangladesh and of little more than symbolic use. Time seems to be on Gabagbo’s side with Ouattara alternating between taking a military invasion line and trying other, behind the scenes efforts to destabilize the southern Ivory Coast.

About the only weapon in the west's arsenal against the Gabagbo government are financial and economic sanctions, both of which have been imposed. Even this has been resisted with the director of the West African Central Bank, the main center of financial transactions in the region, resigning over western pressure to cut off funding to the President Gabagbo’s government.

Cracks have begun to appear in the seemingly unanimous support for the western coup attempt, with President of Angola pointing out the obvious legality of Gabagbo’s victory due to the ruling of the Ivorian Constitutional Court. So far the so called “free press in the west” has continued their propaganda campaign on behalf of the attempted coup and maintained a white out of the basic facts in this conflict.

If the Ivory Coast, at least the southern, Gabagbo lead part, can withstand these attacks for the next months, possible years, it is seems that the Ivory Coast electoral coup attempt by the west has failed. As for all the talk in the west about “supporting democracy in Africa” one only has to remember the west's support for the completely bogus Ethiopian 99% election victory by Meles Zenawi, the most hated man in the Horn of Africa if not the entire continent. With over a dozen “elections” slated in Africa over the next year or two stay tuned for more “buy, rig or steal” electoral coups, all part of the west's “crisis management” policy in Africa. In other words, create a crisis and then manage or manipulate such the better to loot and pillage Africa’s natural and human resources. When it comes to “democracy” nothing seems to be to low for the increasingly desperate attempts by the former colonial powers in the west and their godfather in the USA to continue imposing their rule on Africa. For without Africa’s oil and mineral wealth the western economies will slowly grind to a halt, leaving Europe and the USA little choice but more futile attempts to enforce what was once their unchallenged rule.

Thomas C. Mountain is the only independent western journalist in the Horn of Africa, living and reporting from Eritrea since 2006. In a previous life he was publisher of the Ambedkar Journal, an educator, activist and founding Director of the Honolulu Medical Marijuana Patients Coop. thomascmountain at yahoo dot com

The so called military intervention "constitutes a gross manipulation

The very same criminal gang that have attacked Iraq&Afghanistan have today lauched one of the most catastophic military attack on a sovereign Libya
The very same criminal gang that have attacked Iraq and Afghanistan have today lauched one of the most catastophic military attack on a sovereign state( Libya)beginning what the open minded people believe will be yet another mass slaughter of innocent civilians.What is obvious to all but the most duped and apathetic is that once again we have another war launched by the imperialist powers thinly veiled as a “humanitarian intervention”,backed by an arm twisted UN resolution, dressed up as a mission of peace driven by the use of heavy bombardment and murder, where the truth lies diametrically opposed to the propaganda being pushed by the castrated capitalist mainstream media. Nothing is what it seems; the lies and deceptions are far dangerouse than the world may have thought.
The similarities with Iraq go well beyond the date of the opening salvo indeed, there are many consistencies between the current aggressive attack on Libya and numerous other military interventions and acts of aggression carried out by the US, NATO and their criminal allies in recent years.
Largely fabricated case for humanitarian intervention based on violence stoked by special forces troops and CIA,MI6 covert operations inside libya, with the consistent demonisation of the leader recast as a mass murdering tyrant to justify a heavy saturation bombing campaign in the name of human rights and justice. Any historical context that might cast the so-called “Allies” in a negative light for instance large-scale sales of weapons to the new enemy figure is carefully omitted from the narrative.
The imperialist aggressors are specifically responsible for the deaths of over a million civilians in Iraq and more than 70,000 in Afghanistan, which are downplayed by the term collateral damage.
The so called United Nations was formed by the nations that joined together against Germany in the Second World War. These countries formed a body called the Security Council, made themselves permanent members and granted themselves the power of veto ,such action is authocratic and illegal by democratic standard.The rest of the world were not part of that process during that time.The United Nations was formed in line with those three countries. That happened in the absence of some 165 countries, that is, one country was present and eight were absent.
If a country,like Libya for instance, were to exhibit military aggression against France or the United states, then the entire Organization would respond because France or the US is a sovereign State Member of the United Nations and the entire UN share the collective responsibility to protect the sovereignty of all nations. However, 65 aggressive wars have taken place since the formation of the UN without any United Nations action to prevent them.
Eight other massive, deadly wars, whose victims number some two to thress million civilians, have been waged by Member States that enjoy veto powers(US,Britain,France,Russia). Those countries that would want other countries to believe they seek to maintain the sovereignty and independence of peoples actually use military aggressive force against other sovereign states who are also member of the UN. Why would an open minded person believe that these aggressors want to work for peace and security of the world ?Instead they have resorted to aggressive wars and hostile behaviour. The US,Britian,France,Russia with the exception of China who was unanomously granted membership through UN voting process enjoy the veto they granted themselves as permanent members of the Security Council.
This intevention is illegal by all standard.
The so called military intervention "constitutes a gross manipulation" of the United Nations (UN) Charter and of the authority of the UN Security Council, and shows the "double standards which characterize its behavior."It is highly illegal from a realistic point of view
The "UN Resolution adopted by the Security Council does not authorize in any way these attacks on Libyan territory, which constitutes a violation of the international law,it is illegal by all standard.The war mongering cliq carrying out the military attacks against Libyan territory "have already started causing death, injury and suffering to innocent libyans and other civilian infrastructures.The events taking place in libya should not be a news to the conscious and the informed fellows,it's nothing new to me,because there are fundamental causes behind the strategy aimed at ruining Libya. Years ago, it was designated as a target by the architects of the "NEW WORLD ORDER"(NWO) , and the air raids against Libya were just a matter of time."
The question arising under this circumstances is: in the world of today, where force prevails over right, are there healthy political forces capable of preventing the devastation of yet another stable and prosperous country? I do believe that such forces exist.HELL is on earth.
The so called military intervention "constitutes a gross manipulation" of the United Nations (UN) Charter and of the authority of the UN Security Council, and shows the "double standards which characterize its behavior."It is highly illegal from a realistic point of view
The "UN Resolution adopted by the Security Council does not authorize in any way these attacks on Libyan territory, which constitutes a violation of the international law,it is illegal by all standard.The war mongering cliq carrying out the military attacks against Libyan territory "have already started causing death, injury and suffering to innocent libyans and other civilian infrastructures.
Seems it wont be wrong afterall to believe that the issue in Libya is far beyond "Qadhafi 42years dictatorship", though thats part of it and its being used to justify : protesters turned to armed to teeth rebels, france recognising the rebel government, seriously considering no-fly zone over Libya, arab league hypocritically or maybe self-servingly calling for no-fly zone over Libya for balance of power, imperialists disguisng their lust for Libyan Oil as humanitarian and democratiic champions. If we do our arithmetics, the losers remain Africa and Pan-Africanism. Outsiders can never love u more than u. Their are so many other peaceful avenue to reign in sit-tight dictators. Imperialist did not use it because they were benefitting from the dictators. Look at the mucky UK-Libya oil-related deal that led to release of Abdul-Basit Meghrahi? Look at the secret advances UK made to the rebels before their secret servicen were captured & locked up? Look at France's unilateral recognition of the rebel council? That one reminds me of the race at sharing Africa by the Imperialist in the olden days. Look at the fight for African slavery reparation? What happened to the champion? he die of America tea & hand-shake dem give him in Abuja Nigeria !
Attack on Libya is not new, the devils only used the situation in Arab word today to carried out their pre-planned agenda...................see the article that was written in 2002 by one of the British newspaper.......MI6 'halted bid to arrest bin Laden'
Startling revelations by French intelligence experts back David Shayler's alleged 'fantasy'about Gadaffi plot
Martin Bright , home affairs editor
The Observer, Sunday 10 November 2002 01.48 GMT
Article history
British intelligence paid large sums of money to an al-Qaeda cell in Libya in a doomed attempt to assassinate Colonel Gadaffi in 1996 and thwarted early attempts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.
The latest claims of MI6 involvement with Libya's fearsome Islamic Fighting Group, which is connected to one of bin Laden's trusted lieutenants, will be embarrassing to the Government, which described similar claims by renegade MI5 officer David Shayler as 'pure fantasy'.

The allegations have emerged in the book Forbidden Truth , published in America by two French intelligence experts who reveal that the first Interpol arrest warrant for bin Laden was issued by Libya in March 1998.

According to journalist Guillaume Dasquié and Jean-Charles Brisard, an adviser to French President Jacques Chirac, British and US intelligence agencies buried the fact that the arrest warrant had come from Libya and played down the threat. Five months after the warrant was issued, al-Qaeda killed more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

The arrest warrant was issued in connection with the murder in March 1994 of two German anti-terrorism agents, Silvan and Vera Becker, who were in charge of missions in Africa. According to the book, the resistance of Western intelligence agencies to the Libyan concerns can be explained by MI6's involvement with the al-Qaeda coup plot.

The Libyan al-Qaeda cell included Anas al-Liby, who remains on the US government's most wanted list with a reward of $25 million for his capture. He is wanted for his involvement in the African embassy bombings. Al-Liby was with bin Laden in Sudan before the al-Qaeda leader returned to Afghanistan in 1996.

Astonishingly, despite suspicions that he was a high-level al-Qaeda operative, al-Liby was given political asylum in Britain and lived in Manchester until May of 2000 when he eluded a police raid on his house and fled abroad. The raid discovered a 180-page al-Qaeda 'manual for jihad' containing instructions for terrorist attacks.

The Observer has been restrained from printing details of the allegations during the course of the trial of David Shayler, who was last week sentenced to six months in prison for disclosing documents obtained during his time as an MI5 officer. He was not allowed to argue that he made the revelations in the public interest.

During his closing speech last week, Shayler repeated claims that he was gagged from talking about 'a crime so heinous' that he had no choice but to go to the press with his story. The 'crime' was the alleged MI6 involvement in the plot to assassinate Gadaffi, hatched in late 1995.

Shayler claims he was first briefed about the plot during formal meetings with colleagues from the foreign intelligence service MI6 when he was working on MI5's Libya desk in the mid-Nineties.

The Observer can today reveal that the MI6 officers involved in the alleged plot were Richard Bartlett, who has previously only been known under the codename PT16 and had overall responsibility for the operation; and David Watson, codename PT16B. As Shayler's opposite number in MI6, Watson was responsible for running a Libyan agent, 'Tunworth', who was was providing information from within the cell. According to Shayler, MI6 passed £100,000 to the al-Qaeda plotters.

The assassination attempt on Gadaffi was planned for early 1996 in the Libyan coastal city of Sirte. It is thought that an operation by the Islamic Fighting Group in the city was foiled in March 1996 and in the gun battle that followed several militants were killed. In 1998, the Libyans released TV footage of a 1996 grenade attack on Gadaffi that they claimed had been carried out by a British agent.

Shayler, who conducted his own defence in the trial, intended to call Bartlett and Watson as witnesses, but was prevented from doing so by the narrow focus of the court case.

During the Shayler trial, Home Secretary David Blunkett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed Public Interest Immunity certificates to protect national security. Reporters were not able to report allegations about the Gadaffi plot during the course of the trial.

These restrictions have led to a row between the Attorney General and the so-called D-Notice Committee, which advises the press on national security issues.

The committee, officially known as the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, has objected to demands by the prosecution to apply the Official Secrets Act retrospectively to cover information already pub lished or broadcast as a result of Shayler's disclosures. Members of the committee, who include senior national newspaper executives, are said to be horrified at the unprecedented attempt to censor the media during the trial.

Shayler claims Watson later boasted that there had been MI6 involvement in the Libyan operation. Shayler was also planning to call a witness to the conversation in which the MI6 man claimed British intelligence had been involved in the coup attempt.

According to Shayler, the woman, an Arabic translator at MI5, was also shocked by Watson's admission that money had been paid to the plotters.

Despite the James Bond myth, MI6 does not have a licence to kill and must gain direct authorisation from the Foreign Secretary for highly sensitive operations. Malcolm Rifkind, the Conservative Foreign Secretary at the time, has repeatedly said he gave no such authorisation.

It is believed Watson and Bartlett have been relocated and given new identities as a result of Shayler's revelations. MI6 is now said to be resigned to their names being made public and it is believed to have put further measures in place to ensure their safety.

A top-secret MI6 document leaked on the internet two years ago confirmed British intelligence knew of a plot in 1995, which involved five colonels, Libyan students and 'Libya veterans who served in Afghanistan'.

Ashur Shamis, a Libyan expert on radical Islam said: 'There was a rise in the activities of the Islamic Fighting Group from 1995, but many in Libya would be shocked if MI6 was involved.'
They can never love Africa more than Africans