Nato's war against a sovereign African state

The use of Western troops in Africa – particularly in the case of France – the use of its paratroopers, first in Ivory Coast, and now in Libya, represents a new strategic declaration of war against Africa, the African interest, and the African continent. In NATO’s disregard of AU, there is without doubt a remanifestation of that ontological disease of the Western mind that regards Africa as simply a place without history and without agency. It is not surprising that Sarkozy is leading this war in Africa. Here was a man who came to Africa, at the Cheik Anta Diop University in Dakar to declare that “the African man has not entered history;” he is still a hewer of wood fit only for the enlightened charity of France and the West. 
Rastafari Speaks

By Obi Nwakanma
The use of Western troops in Africa – particularly in the case of France – the use of its paratroopers, first in Ivory Coast, and now in Libya, represents a new strategic declaration of war against Africa, the African interest, and the African continent. In NATO’s disregard of AU, there is without doubt a remanifestation of that ontological disease of the Western mind that regards Africa as simply a place without history and without agency.

France and Great Britain, leading a NATO alliance, are effectively at war in Libya on the pretext of a United Nations’ mandate. The United States, led the early charge against Libya’s Ghadaffi from the air, but has taken something of a back seat, and allowed Britain and France to continue what can now be considered a war of aggression against a sovereign African state, far beyond the mandate of the UN.

They have been bombing Libya relentlessly from the air. They have killed Ghadaffi’s son in a direct personal attack on the home of the Ghadaffis. The relentless strafing of Tripoli, the Libyan capital, in the past two weeks has also led to serious civilian casualties which the Libyan authorities have reported and which NATO has denied. The NATO alliance at the fore of this new colonial war in Africa has now moved beyond its mandate to seek regime change; to undermine the sovereignty of Libya, and create a civil war situation in this North African country and member-nation of the African Union.

The French have positioned their aggression against Libya as a fight to free Libyans from the tyranny of Moumar Ghadaffi. They have not hidden the fact that they wished to make it impossible for a transition of power from Ghadaffi to a newer generation of Libyan nationalists who may follow in the state policies of Ghadaffi, particularly as it affects oil. It is not a secret that Libya sits on the vastest oil field in Africa and that Ghadaffi has prevented the international oil cartel from exploiting Libya’s oil and had forced them to comply with the strictest standards in oil production.

It is no longer a secret that behind this NATO alliance war on Libya, and far beyond the “do-good” face it places or wears as its mask as its reason for bombing Libya to smithereens, is the quest to control the oil fields of Libya, guarantee Western access to energy sources in the face of growing concern over the rise of China and India and their own emergent gluttony for oil, and, of course, solve the problem of an intransigent African nationalist challenge to Western shenanigans. It is the 19th century all over again.

Libya is the first flashpoint in the resource war that is bound to once more make Africa the battlefield of the great industrial powers. Once they take out Ghadaffi, that challenge to organise and fund a formidable African resistance against a new colonial mandate using the UN will weaken.

The new scramble for Africa will more than likely commence. It is, therefore, ridiculous that Nigeria, a more than likely victim of this potential threat sits idly, voting with those who have launched a new aggressive war on Libya. The Nigerian government under President Goodluck Jonathan has failed to understand the wider dimensions of this NATO campaign on Libya.

The Nigerian delegation was among those African countries who sided with the voters in the UN to commence the operations in Libya. The mandate, of course, was for a low-grade, protective operation against the potential of the Libyan military use of force against civilian populations, particularly in Benghazi, the so-called outpost of the Libyan resistance.

Last week, at the G-8 meeting in France, and, in justifying America’s participation in the fight in Libya, the US President Barack Obama said it was a pre-emptive action by the NATO alliance, presumably the world’s chief defenders of humane mores and democratic freedom, to prevent a possible massacre of wide proportions against the Libyan civilian opposition against Ghadaffi. But the Libyan opposition is not a civilian opposition, it is an armed rebellion.

The UN decision in which Nigeria participated basically tied the hands of the legitimate government of Libya behind its back, gave ammunition to a fringe rebellion, and has aided a civil war in Libya in which Libya’s national Armed Forces was prevented through relentless air attack from defending the territorial integrity of the Libyan state for which it is established. The West has aided a small fissiparous and ill-organised militia to destroy an African country.

It is like NATO deciding to bomb the Nigerian Armed Forces if it goes after the increasingly organised Boko Haram militia in the North. Nigeria has in voting with France and Great Britain and the NATO alliance given ammunition to the new conquest of Africa and this is why she is seen roundly in Africa and by most Africans as the handmaiden of the West. This image of Nigeria as a consistent ally of the West against the interests of a free, independent, and prosperous continent is why most Africans and African nations do not take Nigeria seriously, and even, in fact, are amused by its claims of leadership in Africa.

They think her quest for the UN seat is a joke given the weakness of its leadership and the inconsistency of its foreign policy. But contrast this with the strategic position of the South Africans on this matter, leading the African union to demand an immediate NATO cessation of the bombing of Libya. Last week, Jacob Zuma, the South African President went to Tripoli for consultations with the Libyan authorities, and the African Union issued a demand for NATO to stop bombing Libya.

It is a follow-up to AU’s earlier intervention in which they have proposed a negotiated settlement between Tripoli and Benghazi. But NATO countries, busy setting up new embassies, and cutting new oil deals with the Libyan rebels against the long-term interest of Libya, are fobbing off any attempts for the Africans to sort out the situation in Libya and ease off Ghadaffi with less sanguinity. It is remarkable that Nigeria’s own president has continued to play possum to this NATO disregard of the African Union. Indeed, within the week of Zuma’s visit to Tripoli, NATO announced heightened military action against Ghadaffi’s Libya, and the use of more direct boots on the Libyan streets.

The use of Western troops in Africa – particularly in the case of France – the use of its paratroopers, first in Ivory Coast, and now in Libya, represents a new strategic declaration of war against Africa, the African interest, and the African continent. In NATO’s disregard of AU, there is without doubt a remanifestation of that ontological disease of the Western mind that regards Africa as simply a place without history and without agency. It is not surprising that Sarkozy is leading this war in Africa. Here was a man who came to Africa, at the Cheik Anta Diop University in Dakar to declare that “the African man has not entered history;” he is still a hewer of wood fit only for the enlightened charity of France and the West.

At the core of Sarkozy’s racist mind lies this quest to cut Libya and Ghadaffi down to size and seize her property – the oil. But here is the irony: the West had to wait for a weakened Ghadaffi, weakened by his decision to dismantle his nuclear arsenal and open up to the West, before the NATO alliance in a joint and cowardly effort decided to attack him from the air using a UN mandate.

What is the lesson here? Nigeria must be alert to its duties to the continent and join the AU effort to more forcefully demand NATO’s cessation of her bombing operations in Libya, failing which it must then regard further operations in Libya as an open act of war and aggression against an African country. Africans have a right to defend themselves and their continent by all means necessary. Perhaps, it is time to re-open the discussions about an African High Command.

Ten reasons why the U.S. war in Libya is a CIA operation

 The U.S.-led attack on Libya is an American operation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), planned and initiated long before any “protests” started in Libya this February.
Under the guise of “protecting innocent civilians,” the U.S. military, Africom, NATO, and the United Nations are now bombing Libya, raining destruction upon the Libyan economic and military infrastructure and killing untold numbers of innocent Africans. Here are just 10 of the many obvious reasons why this so-called “spontaneous” protest was from beginning to end another CIA operation.

Mathaba.net

1. The United States' motives are suspect. The “humanitarian” concern expressed by the American government has not taken long to evaporate. The claim that Col. Muammar Gadhafi was “slaughtering his own people” cannot be substantiated by any independent evidence, and no “journalists” are even asking for evidence. The White House's policy advisor and Israeli lobby official Dennis Ross claimed that “up to 100,000 people could be massacred, and everyone would blame us for it.” Ross has produced no proof of a massacre—and Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen both confirmed, “We've seen no confirmation whatsoever.” Russian military has been monitoring the unrest via satellite from the very beginning, and they say that the claimed “slaughter” is imaginary. CIA √

2. The world media have shown a shocking lack of curiosity. Just as with the U.S. debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan, the New York Times leads a coordinated campaign of propaganda, rumor-mongering, and the demonization of Muammar Gadhafi. Some articles appear to be written in advance and closely follow the prescription of the Washington consulting firm Wirthlin Group, which determined that “the message most likely to motivate public support for war on Iraq was the perception of Saddam Hussein as an evil madman who even committed atrocities against his own people and had to be stopped.” The major media's appetite for this “killing-his-own-people” line is textbook CIA propaganda and belies the fact that they are at this very hour operating from a swank hotel that is under Gadhafi's total control in Tripoli. Even though they continue to spread unsubstantiated “rapes” and “cluster bombings,” and “fears of massacres,” and child-targeting, these “journalists” don't appear to be frightened for their lives. CIA √

3. The “rebels” are Al-Qaeda. When Col. Gadhafi first claimed that the rebels were members of Al-Qaeda, no one believed him. But according to a 2007 report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point titled “Al-Qa'ida's Foreign Fighters In Iraq,” eastern Libya—the very center of the current uprising—is a well-known Al-Qaeda stronghold. The same people the U.S. is fighting three wars to destroy are the “rebels” the U.S. is protecting, supplying, training, and attempting to install into power in Libya. And if the West Point military analysts knew this to be true in 2007, why did they not bomb those Al-Qaeda strongholds in the way they are bombing Gadhafi's forces now? CIA √

4. Rebel “leaders” are CIA agents. The “rebel” leader, a man named Khalifa Hifter, left the Libyan government and set up his own militia financed by the CIA. He then spent two decades living within minutes of CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, he had no apparent source of income. Shortly after the 2011 “protests” began, the CIA airlifted him into Benghazi and told the press to start calling him the “leader” of the rebels. CIA √

5. The Libyan uprising is not “spontaneous.” The incident that allegedly spurred the Libyan “rebellion” was the arrest of an activist lawyer on February 15, 2011. This ignited a wave of protests that spilled over onto the Internet and other media. But an unusually large number of YOUTUBE videos and TWITTER messages have emerged that are suspiciously similar and seem to be a product of the Pentagon's recently uncovered project to develop software that allows it to secretly manipulate social media sites to influence Internet conversations and spread propaganda. These suspicious “free Libya” sites all claim to be homegrown, but YOUTUBE and other social media sites cannot be accessed by Internet users in Libya. The “revolution” websites are all in English even though the language of Libya is Arabic, with English rarely spoken and only in the big cities. Despite their dubious origins, professional media groups like CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox News, and Al Jazeera have amplified these anonymous and uncorroborated video postings as legitimate news sources.
And some of the “spontaneous” websites are clearly fraudulent. One that calls itself “LIBYAN REVOLUTIONARY CENTRAL” (http://www.feb17.info/) was created on February 14—A DAY BEFORE the original protest. And the website is registered in Ohio as a non-profit organization with a 501c3 tax exempt ID number! CIA √

6a. Whites are desperate for Libyan oil. America and Europe are dependent on the type of oil that is only found in Libya. It is a very high quality “sweet” oil with low sulfur content. Europe's refineries cannot process other types of high sulfur oil, so when Gadhafi recently suggested he could find better customers for Libyan oil in India, China, and Russia, it made Europe desperate for an immediate Libyan “uprising.” CIA √
6b. New oil infrastructure already in place. Only days after the “spontaneous” protests the “rebels,” who were mostly seen in grainy cell phone videos chanting slogans and waving banners, had organized themselves into a sophisticated corporate entity and announced their formation and launching of the “Libyan Oil Company” to supervise oil production for all of Libya, and their creation of the “Central Bank of Benghazi” as a monetary authority. The French government instantaneously recognized these new business entities formed by “the rebels” even though it was still publicly wondering who the rebel leaders were. CIA √

7. CIA history in Libya: The CIA has a LONG documented history of attempts to overthrow Col. Gadhafi. At least four major CIA operations, some in partnership with the Israeli Mossad, have been conducted since 1972. Gadhafi's use of oil revenues to organize and uplift Africa from its colonial destruction is EXACTLY the opposite of America's foreign policy, which has always sought to strip Africa of its raw resources to enrich the multinational corporations. Col. Gadhafi has invested billions of dollars in projects to help emerging African countries become independent. He has worked to establish a “United States of Africa”—an effort to unite Africa to finally overcome the damage caused by centuries of European colonialism. It was Gadhafi who drove the African Union's efforts toward a single African Parliament, a single currency, and a single army. The CIA has no other function than to stop this kind of Black unity and progress. CIA √

8. Libyan invasion planned prior to 9/11. In a 2007 filmed interview, 4-star United States Army Gen. Wesley Clark discussed a Pentagon memo under Donald Rumsfeld that, in his words, “describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” CIA √

9. The U.S. companies in Libya are invisible. Many U.S. corporations that have been, are now, and will continue to do business in Libya are UNDER NO PRESSURE to leave or “give back” their profits, or alter their business activity with Gadhafi's so-called “murderous regime.” Curiously, they have achieved a status different from that of The Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, which also had a business relationship with Libya—but for comparatively infinitesimal sums. The U.S. companies in Libya whose Libyan business arrangements have yet to be questioned are many, and include:

1. Chevron Oil
2. ConocoPhillips
3. Hess Corporation
4. Marathon Oil Corporation
5. Occidental Petroleum
6. Sheraton Hotels
7. Exxon Mobil
8. Dow Chemical
9. Halliburton 
10. Raytheon
11. Motorola
12. Four Seasons Hotels
13. Shell Oil
14. United Gulf Construction
15. Valmont, and White & Case
16. Marriott Hotels
17. Intercontinental Hotels 

In reality, the CIA works for the multinational corporations to tenaciously protect their world interests. CIA √

10. Rape is charged. A distraught, English-speaking, Arab woman fortuitously finds her way from days of gang rape by Gadhafi's soldiers into the only hotel in Tripoli where foreign journalists are encamped (apparently dropped off by her tormentors) where she reports of her ordeal to the gathered media who immediately, unquestioningly, broadcast the brutal crime to the world as proven fact. She claimed that she was detained at a checkpoint, tied up, abused, then led away to be gang raped—all whilst her assailants were defending Tripoli against a Western bombing campaign. “They defecated and urinated on me and tied me up,” she said, her face streaming with tears. “They violated my honor, look at what the Gadhafi militiamen did to me.”
Everybody who heard this woman's claims—except 100 percent of the Western media—immediately remembered October 1990, when a sobbing 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl gave unsworn testimony in a Congressional hearing chaired by Zionist congressman Thomas Lantos in which she described what she saw in a Kuwaiti hospital with her own eyes: “While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where … babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.”
The girl was actually the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador, and had been coached by the public relations firm Hill and Knowlton to give false testimony. Three months passed between the hearing and the start of the first Gulf War during which the fabricated incubator story was repeated over and over again by seven U.S. senators and ten times by President G.H.W. Bush himself. It was recited as fact in congressional testimony, on TV and radio talk shows like Nightline, and at the UN Security Council. It is cited as the single most persuasive reason that the American public backed the first Iraq War. None of those involved with the hoax have ever faced legal reprisals. CIA √

The number ten is arbitrary, and does not represent the full extent of possibly the most brazen CIA overthrow attempt in their long and murderous history. That which drives the entire Western industrial infrastructure—petroleum oil—is the only thing on the minds of the charlatan leaders of the West, and the world watches in horrified awe as each blunder they make is exposed to the light in almost real time. The poor Libyan people and their revolutionary African champion Muammar Gadhafi are under severe assault by the very same people who only yesterday assured him he was their partner and friend. It is a 6,000-year-old history of tricks and deceptions that The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught us about, and it has now run its course and is bringing a well-deserved demise to Western rule.

Western Barbarism and Liberalism

Sometimes the august character of the United States and the nobility of Western intentions are raised to the level of pure logic. There are a lot of people who watch television across the world and sometimes they begin to genuinely believe the "national identity" of the United States, as "defined by a set of universal political and economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets." The quotes are from the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government School at Harvard University, Samuel Huntington.
The belief that the United States has custody of these glorious values should make us accept that the brutal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the barbaric bombings of Libya are in fact nobilities based on the US' solemn duty to maintain its "international primacy" for the benefit of the entire world, especially for those lesser peoples suffering at the hands of tyrants and dictators who are brutal enough to rid their countries of white privilege - people like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; tyrannical enough to deprive colonially privileged whites of "their" land, giving it to "unskilled black farmers".

Wafawarova Writes 

By Reason Wafawarova

THE clear and unambiguous doctrine behind US foreign policy and that of its lap-dog allies in the West is founded on the undesirable reality of very little, if any challenge from Western commentary and scholarship, even among the few critics.

The execution of the doctrine of liberalism has elicited despicable barbarism and brutality from Washington and other Western power centres in a way that does not only contradict the preached values from the West, but also makes it clear that international peace is a value that the West has very little respect for.

The barbaric Western aggression in Libya is being fronted by values of liberalism and the world must accept that Nato has an inalienable right to bomb any targets the Western generals may unilaterally define as legitimate "military installations" or "command centres" including hospitals, people's houses and of course Colonel Gaddafi's residence.

In fact, the Western elites believe they have a legitimate right to openly declare their intention to assassinate Gaddafi, and William Hague of Britain is quite convinced that such an announcement is perfectly fabulous for the good of this world.

Barack Obama is equally convinced that it is perfectly in order for the CIA to "covertly arm" the rebels from east eastern Libya. He is so convinced that he believes there is nothing amiss in openly declaring something that is meant to be covert.

The major theme that guides the behaviour of US presidents is what is called "American exceptionalism": the doctrine that the United States is unlike other nations, even unlike other great powers, past and present, because it has a "transcendent purpose": what is often described as "equality and freedom" throughout the world, since the US has an indisputable self-allocated role of leading the world.

Realism as propounded by Hans Morgenthau, founder of the tough-minded realist school of international relations, is premised on this doctrine of "American exceptionalism".

This kind of realism specifically avoids sentimentalities and keeps to the hard truths of state power in a rather anarchic world, one well exemplified by the burning Libya today.

As an honest and exceptionally competent scholar, Morgenthau did acknowledge that the historical record of the United States is quite inconsistent with the intended "transcendent purpose" as provided by the nobilities upon which the foundations of America are rooted.

He however explains that the contradictions and seeming hypocrisy and double standards must not mislead us into discrediting the necessities and justifications for the doctrine of realism, especially in the pursuit of "freedom and happiness".

He sternly warned that we should not "confound the abuse of reality with reality itself". Of course reality itself is the "national interest" of the United States, the "national purpose", which is well-defined by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it".

So, history is about how those in power reflect the historical record itself, just like history itself is often a record written by victors and those in power. The actual historical record can only serve to explain the "abuse of reality".

Obama may abuse his powers in Libya and, we must be careful not to confuse this "abuse of reality" with "reality itself": the sacrosanct "national purpose" of wanting to liberate the oppressed civilians of Libya, themselves armed to the teeth with weapons "covertly" supplied by the United States.

Morgenthau makes it very clear that those of us who fall into the trap of confusing "reality" with "the abuse of reality" are committing "the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds."

Sometimes the august character of the United States and the nobility of Western intentions are raised to the level of pure logic. There are a lot of people who watch television across the world and sometimes they begin to genuinely believe the "national identity" of the United States, as "defined by a set of universal political and economic values," namely "liberty, democracy, equality, private property, and markets." The quotes are from the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government School at Harvard University, Samuel Huntington.

The belief that the United States has custody of these glorious values should make us accept that the brutal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the barbaric bombings of Libya are in fact nobilities based on the US' solemn duty to maintain its "international primacy" for the benefit of the entire world, especially for those lesser peoples suffering at the hands of tyrants and dictators who are brutal enough to rid their countries of white privilege - people like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; tyrannical enough to deprive colonially privileged whites of "their" land, giving it to "unskilled black farmers".

Indeed, Libyans deserve to be freed from the 41-year tyranny of Muammar Gaddafi - the despicable tyrant that provided them free education, free health, turned for them a desert into green land, and made Libya arguably the richest country on the African continent.

Democratisation of other nations is quite an acceptable doctrine, at least to those who wield the bludgeon against weaker nations - supposedly run by tyrannical leaders with no idea about the glorious glitter of Western freedoms and liberties.

In one or another form, the doctrines from the West are commonly adopted, whether explicitly or tacitly. Usually it is for good reasons, whose familiarity is undoubtable in many places, Zimbabwe included.

So noble are these values that the West is so eager to impose them upon all others - so determined that they end up "abusing reality": regularly violating the same values in order to deal with tyrannies and dictatorships out there that do not seem to understand and appreciate the righteousness of the atomic bomb-wielding Westerners. This is why we must ululate and cheer in utter happiness as the West burn Libya to ashes in their most noble search for Gaddafi - indeed why we must endorse the hunting down of Gaddafi as a legitimate resolve to assassinate a deserving victim.

He is another Saddam, or so we must believe!

After all, it cannot be wrong if Obama endorses it. He is the man who told us at his inauguration that "if there are those who ever doubted America, today is your answer".

We can never doubt America with Obama in charge. He is the God given living answer to all our questions about America. So, Gaddafi must suffer what he should.

Michael Desch once explained, "Indeed, it is precisely American liberalism that makes the United States so illiberal today."

The United States has what appears to be unparalleled zeal to bring to others the values that define its own national identity, and often there is no regard for excesses.

The principles that inspire American action in the world are evidently imperialistic in nature, and what we have in Libya is a business war, and not a war for human rights. Right wingers like Desch and others have at best provided superfluous evidence that indeed the United States and its Western lackeys are inspired by humanitarian causes.

Washington's record of undermining democracy and its support for vicious monsters is well documented, including Mussolini, Hitler, the monstrous Central America's right wing dictatorships of the post World War II era, and the likes of Joseph Mobutu of Congo.

David Schmitz concluded that "throughout most of the 20th century, the United States supported right wing dictatorships in violation of America's political ideals" including its declared commitment to "the promotion of democracy and human rights."

It is quite clear that the United States has a history that mocks greatly its declared ideals. But, the doctrine that US leaders are committed to these violated ideals is treated as an "unchallengeable article of faith, sacrosanct, holy writ," as Noam Chomsky cynically puts it.

If Obama is wrong in his resolve to assassinate Gaddafi, which in fact he is; the only minor problem we have is simply "abuse of reality", just like George W Bush's noble intention of "promoting democracy" could have been slightly tainted by the lie, sorry; the faulty intelligence that claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, real dedicated believers in the nobility of American values like Dick Cheney were quite convinced that Hussein had an alliance with Al Qaeda, an assertion that can only be questioned by clueless conspiracy theorists who think that demanding evidence that Osama bin Laden was killed and buried at sea is a sane idea.

These are the people who cannot figure out that releasing pictures of a dead Osama bin Laden is a massive security threat to the peace of this world. They do not have an idea what the monstrous Arab supporters of this arch-terrorist are capable of.

This world owes its safety after Osama's death to Obama, the genius president of the United States who vehemently hid the inciting pictures of a dead Osama, denying his barbaric supporters cause for raucous anger.

When it became apparent that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and that there was no such thing as a link between him and Al Qaeda, right wing intellectuals simply jumped on the democratisation bandwagon - the very way they are jumping over each other in telling us how Libya badly needs a Gaddafi-free democracy, regardless of the number of Libyans who might be supporting him.

Obama postures as a man of high values and honour, and when he embarks on the democratisation programmes he succeeded from Bush and those he initiated himself; journalism and intellectual commentary must take his initiatives to be the merest truisms. When we point out the imperialistic motives behind the US foreign policy, and the need for a fairer and more just world; we are met with prominent critics who argue that it is fundamentally important that we do not go too far in our idealism.

One such warning came from respected Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. He sternly warned that "granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy" may lead the US to neglect its own legitimate interests in its dedicated service to others. David Ignatius of the Washington Post labelled Paul Wolfowitz an "idealist-in-chief" whose "passion for the noble goals of the Iraq war might overwhelm the prudence and pragmatism that normally guide war planners."

Of course, the attacks are quite misleading when one considers the record of Wolfowitz - himself a warmonger of repute with utter contempt for human rights and democracy, including his support for General Suharto of Indonesia; an easy winner in the international ranking of most corrupt leaders, and an unforgettable murderer and torturer of our era.

But, Suharto was no ordinary dictator as defined by the Western political system. He offered great profits to foreign investors to whom he opened Indonesia's rich resources for plunder, and was therefore very popular in the West, just like the women-oppressing house of Saudi leaders are the darlings of the women-freeing Westerners today. Oil binds the two together.

When Bush decided to invade Iraq in 2003, there were European countries that decided to follow the will of the majority of their populations and refused to join the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq. These Donald Rumsfeld called the "Old Europe".

There are other European governments that ignored an even larger majority of the population and decided to take their orders from Washington. These were called the "New Europe".

The first group was bitterly condemned by Washington for respecting democratic opinion within their own countries. Indeed there is no such thing as democracy if such a thing stands opposed to a master like the United States.

That is why Zimbabwe can never know democracy for as long as it produces Robert Gabriel Mugabe and his Zanu-PF as winners. Democracy is ranked quite lowly when it comes to obedience to the global master.

So, the French leadership under Chirac was mocked as "freedom fries" for refusing to go to war alongside the United States.

It appears Nicolas Sarkozy is making spirited atonement for this errant bit of French history; as he seems quite determined to lead even the Americans in the murderous onslaught of Libya, at least by the measurement of zeal and novice eagerness.

The favourites of "New Europe" were all hailed as the hope for democracy. Italy's Berlusconi was honoured with a visit to the White House and, he was highly exalted as a dedicated ally of the US, before he was duly punished by angry Italians who voted him out of power in protest to his ill-thought lackey behaviour.

Spain's Aznar was honoured with an invitation to join Bush and Blair in announcing the war - regardless of the fact that he carried with him a tiny 2 percent support for this cause from the Spanish population. Like his Italian counterpart, he too suffered heavily from the wrath of voters and was ousted from power the same way Bush himself, Blair, and John Howard of Australia paid for the aggression they spearheaded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Turkey decided to follow the will of 95 percent of its population and refused to join the invasion. That was democracy at its practical best.

The "idealist-in-chief" was absolutely outraged. Wolfowitz joined Colin Powell in condemning the Turkish government. The two targetted their wrath at the Turkish military; denouncing it for failing to compel the government to follow Washington's orders.

They demanded that Turkey apologise and recognise that it was their responsibility to help America, whatever their ridiculous population believed.

Today, Pakistan is being attacked similarly for its alleged failure to help America in its search for Osama bin Laden.

Those Pakistanis who have openly expressed grief over the reported death of Osama have been condemned as unthinking lunatics that the Pakistan government must accordingly deal with.

So determined to "promote democracy" and to the "noble goal" was George W Bush that the reverence for his resolve could not be tarnished, at least by the liberal press.

There was a dramatic refutation that unfortunately failed to halt the misguided reverence for America's love for democracy and freedom. The population of Palestine voted in an election that was recognised to be free and fair in 2006.

This was despite the Bush administration's intervention in an effort to gain victory for its favoured candidate, Mahmoud Abbas. The wrong side won the election, and of course, this was unacceptable for Washington. The US decided to instantly punish the people of Palestine for their irresponsible voting behaviour.

There was severe punishment of the people of Palestine for their unforgivable democratic errors, and Europe "toddled along the US and Israel very politely" as described by Noam Chomsky.

Israel cut off water to Gaza, bombed and destroyed power plants and destroyed the sewer system. As usual there were pretexts given, like claims that Hamas was hurling rockets and missiles at peace loving Israelis, or that Hamas was a terrorist organisation, whatever that means.

In reality, the population of Palestine were being punished for voting the wrong way, being induced to shift their support to Washington's favourite.

This is the same reason the West is refusing to lift the murderous illegal economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe.

The sanctions are meant to shift the population's support in favour of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the British/US political project that masquerades as a political party going by the name Movement for Democratic Change.

The fact that this man is now the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe under a coalition government with his political rivals from Zanu-PF is a sign good enough to encourage the Westerners that indeed barbarism can lead to liberalism. This is why the ruinous sanctions must remain.

The benchmark for their lifting is the departure of Mugabe and Zanu-PF from Zimbabwe's political stage, or more precisely the installation of the treacherous and Western-backed Tsvangirai as the president of Zimbabwe.

Clearly, the people of the lesser nations can be strangulated and bludgeoned until they produce a democracy in line with the wishes of the global masters.

So, let barbarism liberate Libya. This is what international affairs have come to.

The brazen brutality of Nato in Libya has sent the African Union into deafening silence. The fear in the African leaders is unmistakable. Hopefully, Zimbabwe's chairing of the African Union Peace and Security Council will produce a better resolve to stop the madness happening in Libya.

South Africa made a terrible mess of it all, and President Zuma voted for the shedding of the blood of Libyans at the UN Security Council.

Zimbabwe is meant to be economically strangulated into a democracy, just like Libya will be bombed into a liberal democracy. And all this is in violation of the same values that the West preaches so much about.

Africa we are one and together we will overcome. It is homeland or death!