Stop Killings in Africa

GUNS OF THE WEST. It’s easy not to notice that the pillar of the development of Western countries is to feed on the blood of innocent men, women and children in Africa. Gold, diamonds, oil, coffee, cocoa, cotton and all the riches of the continent of black people are exploited by Western nations with no regard for the human lives lost or ruined in the process. Apparently, history is repeating itself again in the 21st century.

Their vision for a united Africa conflicts with the colonially divided Africa and their governments.

Despite the fact that Western governments continue to cry out loud that peace and democracy in the world are their goals, it seems clear that the same people who a few centuries ago were enslaved by the West still have to bear the killings, massacres and vandalism of the white man. It is very disturbing to find that for the first time in UN history, war was declared on a people without first having explored any track to solve the problem peacefully in order to protect and preserve lives. Must we conclude that the African people have always been sub-human to be used for testing the weapons and destructive power of so-called superpowers?

In the country of Libya, the popular hero and American President, Barack Obama, and the charismatic President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, have engaged in yet another war, supposedly with the intentions of restoring democracy by overthrowing Libyan President Moammar Gaddafi. The western media accused Gaddafi of being an oppressive dictator who was killing his own citizens. While the UN, backed by western powers, launched air strikes against a country that has never posed a threat to America, massive protests are being staged in American cities to end the oppression of the US government and Sarkozy’s government faced civil unrest and riots in 2008. Western powers proudly claim to have the knowledge and authority to solve the world’s problems while they are unwilling to admit their own.

In Libya, the rebel army, armed and supported by the United Nations, have killed Moammar Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton, upon hearing the news was recorded gloating cheerfully, saying, “We came, we saw, he died.” This barbaric statement is a perfect example of the disregard for human life that the colonial leaders have.

The US Secretary of Defense has just announced that they are sending 100 commandos to Central Africa claiming that Al Qaeda is now using the region as a stronghold. The irony is that one of the rebel leaders in Libya, Alamin Belhaj, who is being credited with chasing Gaddafi from Tripoli, worked with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Belhaj, who is well known as a radical “Islamist” is now in control of Libya’s capitol and a member of Libya’s new transitional government, with the full support of the “Global Community.” How do the ends justify the means? The UN is “freeing” the Libyan people by putting them in the hands of Belhaj who easily qualifies as a terrorist by any common standards. The only difference between Belhaj and Osama bin Laden is that Belhaj is now supporting western interests. If he decides at some point to withdraw his support or refuse to cooperate, we will see more bloodshed in Libya before we see democracy.

Moammar Gaddafi, former ruler of Libya was overthrown and later killed by Libyan rebel army.

Why would the UN sponsor terrorists to kill the leader of a sovereign nation? The common speculation is that it was for control of the country’s oil. However, after Gaddafi’s government was overthrown, he was still killed. Was there some reason why he was targeted personally?

In 2008, Gaddafi met with over 200 traditional African Kings and leaders. In this meeting, he was proclaimed the African “King of Kings” by the delegation. He called for a united Africa, stating, “We want an African military to defend Africa, we want a single African currency, we want one African passport to travel within Africa.” These goals, and the fact that he sought the support of the Kemetic (traditional African) leadership instead of the African governments (which are mostly puppets of Europe and the US) to unite the continent are definitely grounds for assassination. One only has to look back to the 1960’s leaders who were killed for this same reason to see this is true.

Alamin Belhaj, who trained with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan is among the rebel leaders backed by the UN.

Let’s turn our attention now to another case of imperialist tactics. In the Ivory Coast, civil war and unrest have continued since 2002. This fighting had mostly been between two factions: The government of the Ivory Coast under Laurent Gbagbo and the rebels in the North under Alassane Ouattara. In 2010, the two faced off in the first elections held since 2000. The most common reports are that Ouattara won the popular vote and that Gbagbo refused to step down. However, the situation is more complicated than it appears on the surface.

The elections had been delayed for 5 years after Gbagbo’s term expired in 2005. This process was delayed mostly due to the ongoing civil war. A peace and disarmament process began in 2007 as both sides removed their troops from the dividing lines of the county’s northern and southern regions. Following the peace treaty, residents of the Ivory Coast, many of whom had no documentation, had to be registered to vote. This process was orchestrated by the French owned defense contractor, Sagem. Some of Sagem’s products include drone aircrafts, military fighter jets, helicopters and missiles.

When the elections occurred, the count of the votes took place in the UN headquarters in Abidjan, the nation’s capital, which was also Ouattara’s base of operations at the time. The announcement of the votes took place after the legal deadline for the announcement. On these grounds and on the grounds that intimidation of voters occurred in the North (possibly similar to how Jim Crow laws intimidated Black American voters in the southern US) Gbagbo’s government declared that the announcement by the UN was invalid.

In a country that is supposedly an independent nation-state, why are they not allowed to register their own voters and hold their own elections? Why is the same country that colonized them now controlling this “independent” nation’s elections? Why does France have a say in who becomes the president of another country? Why is the law of the Ivory Coast’s government undermined when the international community is involved?

When President Gbagbo refused to step down, there was no talk of a recount of the votes, When the President of the country ordered the UN and other foreign troops to leave his country, they launched airstrikes on his palace and provided cover to the rebel forces who captured him in his palace. The UN legitimized this by announcing to the world that the one they picked as President was the only legitimate leader of the country. Gbagbo is now facing charges of war crimes in the international courts while Ouattara, who is no less of a war criminal than Gbagbo, has been sworn in as president of the Ivory Coast.

Laurent Gbagbo (above), elected president of Ivory Coast

What’s the difference between Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara? It’s a simple matter of allegiance. Gbagbo has a history of resisting colonial exploitation. Ouattara served as Director of the African Department of the International Monetary Fund and the Governor of the Central Bank of West African States. He was also Prime Minister of Ivory Coast under Félix Houphouët-Boigny. Boigny was Ivory Coast’s 1st president and ruled for 33 years until his death. Ouattara is simply the candidate that western powers wanted in office. Since the French were in control of the election process, it would have been easy for them to manufacture results in favor of Ouattara.

When Félix Houphouët-Boigny died, only two nations were ruled by leaders or a longer period, Cuba by Fidel Castro and of North Korea by Kim Jong-il. However, Boigny was never vilified as a dictator as we see now in the case of Moammar Gaddafi. This is because Boigny supported Western interests. Despite every slant the Western media uses to portray friends of the West as good and enemies of the West as evil, “good vs. evil” by Western standards is simply a matter of those who will allow the western states to exploit the people and resources of a country vs. those who refuse.

Africa should therefore leave the United Nations since reform is not on the agenda. Recent actions of the UN in Africa have shown that its goals are not what it claims. It seems to serve the interests of powerful countries at the expense of supposedly poor. It just takes one word from the American and/or French President for the UN or NATO to pull the trigger and launch missiles into someone else’s country. The only way to be heard is by using the Chinese’ method: all 50 African countries have to leave the United Nations. This method of nonviolence is the only weapon of justice available to us, the poor and weak. We should simply leave the United Nations since it has been structured to serve only those in power. This will show our disapproval of this idea of an organization established solely to crush the weak. At least they will not have the signatures of African countries as they pursue their diabolical plans.

What is happening today is the same scenario seen before with China. Today, America, France and their puppet, the UN, who supposedly have always fought against terrorism have now decided to support the rebellion, led by Ouattara, in Ivory Coast, and the insurgents in Libya. A head of state who says no to oppression and neo-colonialism automatically becomes the target of the colonial nations. What makes it worse is these politicians, representing people with no culture, grant themselves the duty of changing the world in their own image. If the United Nations unanimously authorized Mr. Obama and Mr. Sarkozy to be the next heroes to engage in campaigns of killings and bombings, making orphans and widows in Africa, for whatever the reason, let’s admit that there is no difference between Hitler and Obama or between Sarkozy and Mugabe. They all have their ideologies which they consider putting into action. Therefore, what would the ICC (International Criminal Court) rule in this case of two powerful cowboys trained to commit war crimes against humanity? Will they be judged for their actions?

Noting that these powerful countries have assigned themselves the authority to police the world, feeding into a rhythm which gives light to a profound, warmonger spirit face to face with African peoples, this policy of government of the people, by the people and for the people is almost scary.

The recent actions of the UN in Ivory Coast, Libya and many other countries display their belief in a policy of government of the people by the United Nations, America, France and the French and Americans.

Peace in Africa