Your browser does not support the HTML5 canvas tag.
Από τον Τσίπρα ως τον Κόρμπιν και τον Σάντερς: δεν είναι αυτή η Αριστερά που θέλουμε / Already confirmed: Civil liberties under attack! / The EFD-IMF sociopaths(?) continue to play their games over the Greek ruins / How the global financial mafia sucked Greece's blood / ECB's economic hitmen / The German Thatcher confirms bureaufascists' plans! / Η Μέρκελ επιβεβαιώνει τα σχέδια των γραφειοφασιστών! / Explaining the Greek paradox / Proxy wars everywhere, the planet already in flames ... / "Proxy" πόλεμοι παντού, ο πλανήτης είναι ήδη στις φλόγες ... / Ένας παγκόσμιος "proxy" πόλεμος κατά της ελευθερίας έχει ξεκινήσει! / McCarthyism 2.0 against the independent information / Ο επικεφαλής του "σκιώδους συμβουλίου" της ΕΚΤ επιβεβαιώνει ότι η ευρωζώνη είναι μια χρηματοπιστωτική δικτατορία! / It has started: A global proxy war against freedom! / Βαρουφάκης: Το ΤΧΣ δεν ελέγχεται από το δημόσιο! / Η Ευρώπη συνθλίβεται από τους φασίστες, τους ισλαμοφασίστες, τους γραφειοφασίστες και τα αφεντικά τους / Europe crushed by the fascists, islamofascists, bureaufascists and their masters / Δεν γίνεται έτσι "σύντροφοι" ... / Panama Papers: When mainstream information wears the anti-establishment mask / The Secret Bank Bailout / The head of the ECB “shadow council” confirms that eurozone is a financial dictatorship! / A documentary by Paul Mason about the financial coup in Greece / The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century / First cracks to the establishment by the American people / From Tsipras to Corbyn and Sanders: This is not the Left we want / Clinton emails - The race of the Western neo-colonialist vultures over the Libyan corpse / Επιχείρηση Panama Papers: Το κατεστημένο θέλει το μονοπώλιο και στις διαρροές; / Operation "looting of Greece" reaches final stage / IMF says ... "neoliberalism"! / France officialy enters the neo-Feudal era! / The US establishment just gave its greatest performance so far ... / A significant revelation by WikiLeaks that the media almost ignored / It's official: the US is funding Middle-East jihadists! / Οι αδίστακτοι νεο-αποικιοκράτες του 21ου αιώνα

19 January, 2017

More hard evidence that Europe progressively being reduced into a large Orwellian state

Report – Dangerously disproportionate: the ever-expanding national security state in Europe

Hundreds of people were killed and wounded in a spate of violent attacks in European Union (EU) states between January 2015 and December 2016. They were shot by armed men, blown up in suicide bomb attacks and deliberately run over as they walked in the street. These callous crimes did not just target individuals; they were also attacks on societies, on how people live and what people think. The need to protect people from such wanton violence is obvious and urgent. Upholding the right to life, enabling people to live freely, to move freely, to think freely: these are essential tasks for any government. But they are not tasks that can be achieved by any means. Crucially, they are not tasks that should, or can, be achieved by riding roughshod over the very rights that governments are purporting to uphold.

Amnesty International

Key points:

  • Individual EU states and regional bodies have responded to the attacks by proposing, adopting and implementing wave after wave of counter-terrorism measures that have eroded the rule of law, enhanced executive powers, peeled away judicial controls, restricted freedom of expression and exposed everyone to government surveillance. Brick by brick, the edifice of rights protection that was so carefully constructed after the Second World War, is being dismantled.

  • This report aims to give a bird’s eye view of the national security landscape in Europe. It shows just how widespread and deep the “securitization” of Europe has become since 2014. The report reflects a world in which fear, alienation and prejudice are steadily chipping away at the cornerstones of the EU: fairness, equality and non-discrimination. 
  • Illustrative examples of human rights violations or concerns that appear throughout the report have been drawn from 14 EU member states and from counter-terrorism initiatives at the UN, Council of Europe and EU levels. The countries profiled in various sections of the report are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). UN Security Council Resolution 2178, which was adopted at rocket speed in September 2014, required states to pass laws to counter the threat of “foreign terrorist fighters”. Since then, a large number of counterterrorism measures have been proposed or implemented in most European states. Instead of strengthening the European human rights system, these measures have been steadily dismantling it, putting hard won rights at risk.

  • The recent wave of counter-terrorism measures also breaches one of the foundational principles of the EU, that of non-discrimination. Often, the measures have proved to be discriminatory on paper and in practice, and have had a disproportionate and profoundly negative impact, particularly on Muslims, foreign nationals or people perceived to be Muslim or foreign. Men, women and children have been verbally and physically abused. Passengers have been removed from planes because they “looked like a terrorist”. Women have been banned from wearing a full body swimsuit on the beach in France. Refugee children in Greece have been arrested for playing with plastic guns. Instances of discrimination appear in every section of this report, highlighting that certain forms of discriminatory action by the state and its agents are increasingly seen as “acceptable” in the national security context. They are not.

  • One of the most alarming developments across the EU is the effort by states to make it easier to invoke and prolong a “state of emergency” as a response to terrorism or the threat of violent attacks. In a number of states, emergency measures that are supposed to be temporary have become embedded in ordinary criminal law. Powers intended to be exceptional are appearing more and more as permanent features of national law.

  • Given the febrile state of European politics, electorates should be extremely wary of the range of powers and extent of control over their lives that they are prepared to hand over to their governments. The rise of far right nationalist parties, anti-refugee sentiment, stereotyping and discrimination against Muslims and Muslim communities, intolerance for speech or other forms of expression – risk that these emergency powers will target certain people for reasons that have nothing at all to do with a genuine threat to national security or from terrorism-related acts. Indeed, this is happening in Europe already.

  • The threshold for the triggering and extension of emergency measures has been lowered – and runs the risk of being reduced even further in coming years. While international human rights law is clear that exceptional measures should only be applied in genuinely exceptional circumstances - namely “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation” - the disturbing idea that Europe faces a perpetual emergency is beginning to take hold.

  • There are many countries in Europe, particularly those with little history of terrorism, in which hard-line governments of whatever political persuasion will be tempted and increasingly able to impose states of emergency in response to the first serious terrorist attack they face. These governments will enjoy a range of sweeping powers whose use is unlikely to be restricted to those involved in the commission of terrorist acts. This has already proven to be case in France, where the extension – by a mainstream political party – of emergency powers well beyond the period of uncertainty that followed the Paris attacks has contributed significantly to the normalizing of the notion that a general threat of terrorist attacks threatens the very life of the nation.

  • Ultimately, however, the threat to the life of a nation – to social cohesion, to the functioning of democratic institutions, to respect for human rights and the rule of law – does not come from the isolated acts of a violent criminal fringe, however much they may wish to destroy these institutions and undermine these principles - but from governments and societies that are prepared to abandon their own values in confronting them.

Key common features of these counter-terrorism initiatives include:

  • expedited processes where legislation is fast-tracked to adoption with little or no consultation with parliaments, experts and others in civil society;

  • derogation from human rights commitments in law or practice with often detrimental effects on people’s lives;

  • consolidation of power in the hands of the executive, its agencies and the security and intelligence apparatus, often with little or no role for the judiciary in authorizing measures or providing effective scrutiny;

  • ineffective or lack of independent oversight mechanisms to monitor implementation of counter-terrorism measures and operations, identify abuses and hold people accountable for human rights violations;

  • imprecise and overly broad definitions of “terrorism” in laws, in violation of the principle of legality and leading to numerous abuses;

  • standards of proof reduced from the traditional criminal standard of “reasonable suspicion” to mere “suspicion,” and in some states to no formal requirement of suspicion at all;
  • tenuous, and sometimes no, link between so-called preparatory acts or inchoate offences and the actual criminal offence; 
  • use of administrative control measures to restrict people’s freedom of movement and association as a proxy for criminal sanctions, which would offer the people in question better safeguards against abuse; 
  • criminalization of various forms of expression that fall short of incitement to violence and threaten legitimate protest, freedom of expression, and artistic freedom;
  • fewer possibilities to challenge counter-terrorism measures and operations, in particular due to the state’s use of secret evidence typically not disclosed to a person affected by the measures or their lawyer; 
  • states invoking national security concerns and the “threat of terrorism” to arbitrarily target migrants and refugees, human rights defenders, activists, political opponents, journalists, minority groups, and people lawfully exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly; and

  • lack of attention to the needs and protection rights of particular groups, including women and children.

Full report:


Πως το Αμερικανικό βαθύ κράτος ωθεί τον Τραμπ στο πιο επικίνδυνο παιχνίδι

Ίσως το χειρότερο σενάριο

του system failure

Μπορεί να φαίνεται εντελώς παράδοξο το γεγονός ότι ο Ντόναλντ Τραμπ επιδιώκει καλές σχέσεις με τη Ρωσία την ίδια στιγμή που προκαλεί και απειλεί την Κίνα, αλλά τελικά μπορεί να βγαίνει νόημα. Αν ο σκοπός σου είναι να συντρίψεις τους δύο μεγαλύτερους αντιπάλους σου, δεν θα ρισκάρεις να τους αντιμετωπίσεις ταυτόχρονα και τους δύο. Που σημαίνει ότι πρέπει να κρατήσεις κάποια, έστω ελάχιστη ισορροπία.

Εφόσον συμπεριφέρεσαι με μια εντελώς προβοκατόρικη και εχθρική διάθεση κατά του ενός (Κίνα), πρέπει να είσαι πολύ φιλικός με τον άλλο (Ρωσία). Αλλιώς θα βρεθείς σίγουρα αντιμέτωπος και με τους δύο. Και αυτό ακριβώς κάνει ο Τραμπ αυτή τη στιγμή!

Είναι σίγουρο ότι οι μηχανισμοί του κατεστημένου έχουν μελετήσει σε βάθος την προσωπικότητα του Τραμπ (και ουσιαστικά τον ήξεραν από πριν) και έτσι τα συστημικά ΜΜΕ τον 'μανουβράρουν' όπως θέλουν. Έτσι, την ίδια στιγμή που τα μίντια εστιάζουν στον Τραμπ, δίνοντάς του 'ανοιχτό γήπεδο' για άλλη μια μεγαλειώδη παράσταση, στην οποία κάνει τον 'αντάρτη' κατά του κατεστημένου, ο Ομπάμα κινείται επιθετικά κατά της Ρωσίας, στέλνοντας περισσότερο στρατό στην Ευρώπη (για πρώτη φορά στρατεύματα σε Νορβηγία, Πολωνία), παρόλο που η θητεία του τελειώνει μόλις σε λίγες ημέρες. Ο Πούτιν δεν ρισκάρει να προχωρήσει σε σοβαρά αντίποινα, προφανώς επειδή ελπίζει ότι ο Τραμπ θα ακυρώσει αυτές τις εχθρικές ενέργειες. Μάλλον ελπίζει μάταια.

Την ίδια στιγμή, ο Τραμπ είναι ιδιαίτερα εχθρικός απέναντι στην Κίνα, προκαλώντας την οργή των Κινέζων αξιωματούχων. Με πρόσχημα το γνωστό αφήγημα ότι 'οι Κινέζοι κλέβουν τις δουλειές των Αμερικανών', επιχειρεί να δικαιολογήσει αυτή τη στάση, αλλά στην πραγματικότητα, ανησυχεί κυρίως για την Κινεζική επιθετική οικονομική επέκταση που απειλεί τα συμφέροντα του Αμερικανικού μεγάλου κεφαλαίου.

Το κατεστημένο πιέζει τον Τραμπ να δηλώσει υποταγή στην αντι-Ρωσική ατζέντα σε τέτοιο βαθμό, που ακόμα και ο ίδιος ο Πούτιν αρχίζει να τον υπερασπίζεται ανοιχτά. Και όσο γίνεται αυτό, θα πρέπει να κάνει τους Κινέζους όλο και πιο νευρικούς και θυμωμένους. Να λοιπόν μια καλή αρχή για μια ρήξη στην Σινο-Ρωσική συμμαχία. Αλλά και πάλι, ούτε ο Πούτιν, ούτε οι Κινέζοι θα τσιμπήσουν το δόλωμα έτσι εύκολα.

Αλλά γιατί το Αμερικανικό βαθύ κράτος επιλέγει ως πρώτο στόχο την Κίνα; Μάλλον επειδή αποτελεί την βασική οικονομική απειλή, χωρίς ωστόσο να έχει (προς το παρόν) τη στρατιωτική ισχύ της Ρωσίας.

Φαίνεται πως η Ταϊβάν και η διαφιλονικούμενη περιοχή της Νότιας Κινεζικής Θάλασσας χρησιμοποιούνται απλά ως πρόσχημα προκειμένου οι ΗΠΑ να προκαλούν την Κίνα συνεχώς. Ο απώτερος γεωπολιτικός στόχος των ΗΠΑ βρίσκεται στην Κινεζική ενδοχώρα, κοντά στα Ρωσικά σύνορα.

Σύμφωνα με ένα από τα πολλά σενάρια, οι ΗΠΑ προκαλούν έναν σύντομο πόλεμο, αλλάζουν το καθεστώς στην Κίνα τοποθετώντας τη δική τους μαριονέτα και πιθανώς, προχωρούν σε διάσπαση της Κίνας με αφορμή αμφισβητούμενες επαρχίες (Θιβέτ, Ξινγιάνγκ - Δεν είναι έκπληξη ότι, πρόσφατα, η Κίνα απάντησε αστραπιαία σε ανάλογες δηλώσεις που έκανε ο Τραμπ, λέγοντας πως η πολιτική της 'ενιαίας Κίνας' δεν είναι διαπραγματεύσιμη).

Τα φιλοαμερικανικά καθεστώτα, θα ξεπληρώσουν τα δολάρια που θα πάρουν για τις 'έγχρωμες επαναστάσεις' τους με τη διάθεση των εδαφών τους για νέες Αμερικανικές βάσεις. Με την Κίνα νικημένη και διαλυμένη, η Ρωσία θα βρεθεί πλήρως περικυκλωμένη από ΝΑΤΟ και Αμερικανικά στρατεύματα έχοντας ταυτόχρονα απολέσει τον μεγαλύτερο σύμμαχο. Θα γίνει ο επόμενος στόχος.

Ο απώτερος στόχος του Δυτικού νεοφιλελεύθερου κατεστημένου, θα ήταν ενδεχομένως η διάσπαση της αχανούς Ρωσικής επικράτειας και η εγκαθίδρυση φιλοδυτικών καθεστώτων, με στόχο, όχι μόνο την κατάκτηση των πολύτιμων πλουτοπαραγωγικών πηγών, αλλά και την οριστική επιβολή του νεοφιλελεύθερου δόγματος σε "αχαρτογράφητες" περιοχές και πληθυσμούς.

Ωστόσο, έχουμε δει αμέτρητες Αμερικανικές αποτυχίες τελευταία. Ο Ομπάμα απέτυχε πλήρως να εκπληρώσει τους στόχους όσον αφορά τη Συρία. Και η κατάσταση είναι εκτός ελέγχου σε Συρία/Ιράκ και Λιβύη, για να μην αναφέρουμε και τις τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις και τις επιθέσεις αυτοκτονίας ακόμα και σε Δυτικό έδαφος. Το πιθανότερο είναι ότι το Αμερικανικό βαθύ κράτος θα αποτύχει και πάλι να εκπληρώσει τους στόχους του όσον αφορά την Κίνα και τη Ρωσία. Αλλά τα πράγματα αυτή τη φορά είναι πολύ πιο σοβαρά, γιατί μιλάμε για δύο μεγάλες πυρηνικές δυνάμεις.

Ο Τραμπ θα κάνει τραγικό λάθος αν πιστέψει ότι ο Πούτιν θα περιμένει την διάλυση της Κίνας χωρίς να αντιδράσει. Γιατί ο Πούτιν γνωρίζει καλά ότι αν πέσει η Κίνα, η Ρωσία θα είναι το επόμενο θύμα των γερακιών της Ουάσιγκτον.

Από τις πρώτες κιόλας μέρες της θητείας του, ο Τραμπ θα πρέπει αμέσως να προχωρήσει σε δύο βασικές κινήσεις, αν θέλει να αποδείξει ότι δεν είναι η πιο εύκολα χειραγωγήσιμη μαριονέτα του κατεστημένου. Πρώτον, θα πρέπει να αποσύρει τα Αμερικανικά στρατεύματα από την Αν. Ευρώπη και τη Νορβηγία. Δεύτερον, θα πρέπει να σταματήσει να προκαλεί επικίνδυνα την Κίνα και να προσπαθήσει να βρει τρόπους συνεννόησης και συνεργασίας προς όφελος τόσο της Κίνας, όσο και των ΗΠΑ. Σε αντίθετη περίπτωση, οι ψυχοπαθείς που κινούν τα νήματά του, μπορεί να βάλουν φωτιά σε όλο τον πλανήτη μέσα από έναν πυρηνικό πόλεμο.


Ο Τραμπ ετοιμάζεται για ανοιχτή σύγκρουση με Ρωσία-Κίνα όπως ακριβώς έχει σχεδιάσει το βαθύ κράτος των ΗΠΑ

Ο Όργουελ ζει στις αντιτρομοκρατικές νομοθεσίες της Ε.Ε.

Σαρωτικοί νέοι νόμοι οδηγούν την Ευρώπη σε μια βαθιά επικίνδυνη κατάσταση μόνιμης εθνικής ασφάλειας, υποστηρίζει η Διεθνής Αμνηστία δημοσιεύοντας εκτενή Έκθεση που αφορά στη σχέση μεταξύ των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων και των αντιτρομοκρατικών μέτρων που έχουν ληφθεί από 14 κράτη-μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Η Έκθεση, με τίτλο «Επικίνδυνα δυσανάλογη: η διαρκώς διευρυνόμενη “εθνική ασφάλεια” στην Ευρώπη» αποκαλύπτει πώς μία πληθώρα νόμων και τροπολογιών, που ψηφίστηκαν με ιλιγγιώδη ταχύτητα, υπονομεύουν θεμελιώδεις ελευθερίες και αποδομούν τις εγγυήσεις για την προστασία των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων, που έχουν τόσο σκληρά κατακτηθεί.

«Στον απόηχο μιας σειράς φρικτών επιθέσεων, από το Παρίσι μέχρι το Βερολίνο, οι κυβερνήσεις βιάστηκαν να “περάσουν” ένα κύμα δυσανάλογων μέτρων», δήλωσε ο John Dalhuisen, Διευθυντής της Διεθνούς Αμνηστίας για την Ευρώπη.

«Από μόνα τους αυτά τα μεμονωμένα αντιτρομοκρατικά μέτρα είναι αρκετά ανησυχητικά, αλλά στο σύνολό τους, διαμορφώνουν μία κατάσταση στην οποία ανέλεγκτες εξουσίες καταπατούν ελευθερίες που για καιρό θεωρούσαμε δεδομένες».

Η Έκθεση, η οποία βασίζεται σε διετή έρευνα που διενεργήθηκε σε 14 κράτη-μέλη της Ε.Ε. καθώς και σε αναλύσεις μέτρων που λήφθηκαν σε παγκόσμιο και ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, αποκαλύπτει το βαθμό στον οποίο οι νέες νομοθεσίες και πολιτικές που αποσκοπούν στην αντιμετώπιση της απειλής της τρομοκρατίας, έχουν συνθλίψει εγγυήσεις για την προστασία των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων.

Σε πολλές χώρες, τα αντιτρομοκρατικά μέτρα που έχουν προταθεί ή τεθεί σε εφαρμογή έχουν διαβρώσει το κράτος δικαίου, έχουν ενισχύσει τις εκτελεστικές εξουσίες, έχουν απογυμνώσει τους δικαστικούς ελέγχους, έχουν περιορίσει το δικαίωμα της ελεύθερης έκφρασης και έχουν εκθέσει τους πολίτες σε ανέλεγκτη παρακολούθηση εκ μέρους των κυβερνήσεων. Ο αντίκτυπος αυτών των μέτρων στους αλλοδαπούς και τις εθνικές και θρησκευτικές μειονότητες είναι ιδιαίτερα βαρύς.

«Ενώ η απειλή που θέτει η τρομοκρατία είναι δίχως άλλο πραγματική και πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί με αποφασιστικότητα, ο ρόλος των κυβερνήσεων πρέπει να είναι η παροχή ασφάλειας στους πολίτες τους ώστε αυτοί να απολαμβάνουν τα δικαιώματά τους κι όχι να τα στερούνται στο όνομα της ασφάλειας», δήλωσε ο John Dalhuisen.

«Οι κυβερνήσεις της Ε.Ε. χρησιμοποιούν τα αντιτρομοκρατικά μέτρα για να παγιώσουν υπερεξουσίες, να στοχοποιήσουν συγκεκριμένες ομάδες με μεροληπτικό τρόπο και να αφαιρέσουν ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα υπό το πρόσχημα της υπεράσπισής τους. Κινδυνεύουμε να δημιουργήσουμε κοινωνίες στις οποίες η ελευθερία θα αποτελεί την εξαίρεση και ο φόβος τον κανόνα».

* Η Διεθνής Αμνηστία πραγματοποιεί Συνέντευξη Τύπου – Δημόσια Συζήτηση την Πέμπτη 19 Ιανουαρίου 2017, 12:00-14:00, στο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο Αθηνών (Ακαδημίας 60, Αθήνα)




Η Γαλλία εισέρχεται επίσημα στη νεο-Φεουδαρχική εποχή!

Obama’s legacy in Africa: terrorism, civil war & military expansion

Independent geopolitical analyst Eric Draitser examines the effect of the Obama administration on Africa. What he finds is less hope and change, and more chaos and death.

by Eric Draitser of

The corporate media is predictably churning out nauseating retrospectives of Obama’s presidency, gently soothing Americans to sleep with fairy tales about the progressive accomplishments of President Hope and Change.

But amid the selective memory and doublethink which passes for sophisticated punditry within the controlled media matrix, let us not forget that in Africa the name Barack Obama is now synonymous with destabilization, death, and destruction.

The collective gasps of liberals grow to a deafening roar at the mere suggestion that Obama is more sinner than saint, but perhaps it would be useful to review the facts and the record rather than the carefully constructed mythos being shoehorned into history books under the broad heading of “Legacy.”

Africa’s future is up to Africans’

In the summer of 2009, little more than six months after being inaugurated, President Obama stood before the Ghanaian Parliament to deliver a speech intended to set the tone for his administration’s Africa policy. In addressing a crowd of hundreds in the Ghanaian capital, he was, in fact, speaking directly to millions of Africans all over the continent and throughout the diaspora. For if Obama represented Hope and Change for the people of the United States, that was doubly true for African people.

In that mostly forgettable speech, Obama declared:

We must start from the simple premise that Africa’s future is up to Africans … the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants.

Building prosperity, shedding corruption and tyranny, and taking on poverty and disease, he said “can only be done if you take responsibility for your future. And it won’t be easy. It will take time and effort. There will be suffering and setbacks. But I can promise you this: America will be with you every step of the way, as a partner, as a friend.

Despite being the First Black President, Obama’s words and deeds with respect to Africa perfectly embody “the White Man’s Burden” — that desire to help those poor, lowly wretches whose poverty, corruption, disease, and violence must be the product of some natural deficiency. Surely, five centuries of colonialism, combined with Obama-style imperial arrogance, had nothing to do with it.

But let us take Obama’s words at face value and evaluate whether Obama was able to live up to those high-minded and idealistic goals throughout his two terms in office.

Obama repeatedly stressed African agency, arguing that the United States and the West cannot solve Africa’s problems for her. Instead, he argued that the United States will be a “partner” and a “friend.” And yet, within two years of the pledge to let Africans resolve their own problems, U.S.-NATO jets were dropping bombs on Libya in support of al-Qaida-linked terrorists who would topple and brutally assassinate Moammar Gadhafi, perhaps the single strongest voice for African independence and self-sufficiency.

Considering the tens of thousands of deaths and the utter destruction and dissolution of Libya into warring tribal militias and multiple fragmented governments barely able to be called legitimate, it is particularly galling that Obama stood before the United Nations and declared the U.S.-NATO war on Libya to be a success. Exactly one month before Gadhafi’s heinous torture and assassination, Obama arrogantly stated on Sept. 20, 2011:

This is how the international community should work in the 21st century — more nations bearing the responsibility and the costs of meeting global challenges. In fact, this is the very purpose of this United Nations. So every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping Libyans reclaim their country. It was the right thing to do.

Yes, the very same president who two years earlier proclaimed that “Africa’s future is up to Africans” was a champion of French, British, Italian, and U.S. military forces imposing their will on a prosperous and independent African nation, transforming it into a chaotic and bloody failed state. So much for Hope and Change.

But of course the tragic story of Libya does not stop with just the destruction of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the assassination of Gadhafi. Rather, the war on Libya opened the floodgates for weapons smuggling, terrorism and destabilization all over the African continent. According to a 2013 report by the U.N. Security Council’s Group of Experts:

Cases, both proven and under investigation, of illicit transfers from Libya in violation of the embargo cover more than 12 countries and include heavy and light weapons, including man-portable air defense systems, small arms and related ammunition and explosives and mines.

The report continued, warning that “illicit flows from the country are fueling [sic] existing conflicts in Africa and the Levant and enriching the arsenals of a range of non-State actors, including terrorist groups.

The proliferation of weapons from Libya continues at an alarming rate.

Indeed, those weapons flowing from Libya have directly fueled the civil war in Mali, facilitated the rise of Boko Haram in Nigeria, empowered the terror group al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, and led to the rise of terrorist gangs and death squads in Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, and elsewhere on the continent. In effect, Obama’s war on Libya was the opening salvo of a continent-wide destabilization the effects of which are still being felt today and likely will continue to be felt for years, if not decades, to come.

With these troubling facts in mind, we return to Obama’s speech in Ghana, where he haughtily pronounced that the West is not responsible for Africa’s problems. Naturally, any student of colonialism and African history would immediately object to such selective memory. One wonders whether decades from now, when the legacy of the wars and terrorism that grew out of Obama’s policies is still being felt, another president will stand before Africa and again chastise her for not solving her own problems.

Obama: The smiling face of neo-colonialism

Were Obama’s crimes against peace in Africa limited only to the war on Libya and its effects, one could simply call it a blunder of historical proportions. But Obama had much more blood to spill in Africa while expanding the U.S. military footprint there.

Primary among these initiatives to grow the U.S. military presence in Africa was the expansion of the U.S. Africa Command, or AFRICOM. In June of 2013, Ebrahim Shabbir Deen of the Johannesburg-based Afro-Middle East Centre noted:

[AFRICOM] has surreptitiously managed to infuse itself into various African militaries. This has been accomplished mainly through military-to-military partnerships which the command has with fifty-one of Africa’s fifty-five states. In many instances, these partnerships involve African militaries ceding operational command to AFRICOM.

In fact, while President George W. Bush was responsible for the establishment of AFRICOM, it was Obama who expanded it into a continental military force into which national military forces have been subsumed. In effect, Obama was able to make African nations, and especially their militaries, into wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Pentagon and U.S. military-industrial complex. But it’s ok, Obama did it with a smile and with the credibility of the “native son” of the continent.

Similarly, Obama is directly responsible for the ongoing bloodshed in South Sudan, where he championed the separatism which led to the creation of that country and the predictable civil war which has followed. Obama declared in 2011 upon the formal independence of South Sudan that: “Today is a reminder that after the darkness of war, the light of a new dawn is possible. A proud flag flies over Juba and the map of the world has been redrawn.” But Obama may have spoken too soon, as the darkness of war drags on in the devastated country where a “new dawn” seems about as likely as Obama admitting his failure.

And while Obama, as usual, waxed poetic about independence and freedom, the reality is that his backing of South Sudan was more about gaining a geopolitical advantage against China than about high-minded ideals.

Similarly, Obama used the expanded capabilities of U.S. military and CIA in Africa to greatly increase the Pentagon and Langley’s presence in Somalia. As Jeremy Scahill reported in The Nation in December of 2014:

The CIA runs a counterterrorism training program for Somali intelligence agents and operatives aimed at building an indigenous strike force capable of snatch operations and targeted ‘combat’ operations against members of Al Shabab, an Islamic militant group with close ties to Al Qaeda. As part of its expanding counterterrorism program in Somalia, the CIA also uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters … Some of the prisoners have been snatched off the streets of Kenya and rendered by plane to Mogadishu.

It should be noted that the policies — the crimes against peace — highlighted here represent only a fraction of the eight years of Obama policies on the continent; a complete accounting of Obama’s crimes against Africa would likely require a book-length analysis. The intent here is to illustrate that the man who stood before Africa professing to be a friend was as much friend to Africa as the hangman is to the condemned.

Were it someone other than the first black president, perhaps there might have been an outcry at the rape and plunder of the continent, the militarization and destabilization of Africa. And yet, throughout the past eight years, there has been a deafening silence from liberals whose ideals and values apparently extend only as far as party loyalty allows.

In a beautifully precise term coined by Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, Obama represented not the lesser, but “the more effective,” evil. And when it came to Africa, that was doubly true. Who but Obama could have destroyed nations, fomented terrorism, plundered the wealth, and militarized and destabilized the entire continent all while flashing a hypnotic grin?

For the African people, however, Obama’s perfect teeth and intoxicating smile hide a forked tongue. And as for Obama’s Africa “legacy,” it can be found in the graveyards of Libya, Nigeria, and beyond.



13 million pages of secret CIA documents now available online

The CIA has published online nearly 13 million pages of declassified records, including papers on the US role in overthrowing foreign governments and the secret ‘Star Gate’ telepathy project.

The range of documents, known as the CREST (CIA Records Search Tool) database, covers an array of materials related to the Vietnam War, Korean War and Cold War. One example is data on the Berlin tunnel project (code-named Operation Gold), which was a joint CIA and British intelligence scheme to carry out surveillance on the Soviet Army HQ in Berlin during the 1950s.

In all, more than 12 million documents are accessible, covering the history of the CIA from its creation in the 1940s up to the 1990s – with intelligence officials giving assurances that the half-century of data is in its entirety, with nothing removed.

"None of this is cherry-picked," CIA spokesperson Heather Fritz Horniak told CNN. "It's the full history. It's good and bads."

For instance, details are provided on the CIA’s participation in the 1973 coup in Chile which saw the rise of the Pinochet regime, as well as on the infamous MK-Ultra project, dubbed the CIA mind control program, which involved experiments – some of them illegal – on human subjects, to develop drugs and procedures for interrogation and torture.