By: Antonio Cesar Oliveira

How can you call someone a dictator a leader who overthrew a corrupt monarchy, modernized the country, won the highest HDI in Africa, and applied a direct democracy system of government?

Gaddafi has always supported revolutionary movements around the world. When the media – in the service of the U.S. – praised the apartheid regime South Africa, young Gaddafi in Libya trained and sent them back with the best weapons to win freedom in South Africa.

Suddenly the press began a daily attack on the leader Muammar Gaddafi, to distill hatred, spreading lies, forging videos for what? What does it prove? The crimes of the Libyan government? Apparently this journalistic line was caused by popular uprisings in Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt.

In fact, it is more a question of one more terrorist strategy of the government of the United States of America to recover influence in the Arab world. In Egypt, the government fell in U.S. confidence. Mubarak was merely an agent of U.S. and Israel interests in the region. With the fall of Mubarak, Iranian ships began to circulate in the vicinity of Israel, causing unease and anger in the diplomatic environments subservient to imperialism and Zionism.

After losing Egypt, the U.S. government tries to divide and weaken Libya, and this effort receives support from the supporters of Bin Laden, and thousands of Egyptian refugees that over the years have taken refuge in eastern Libya, fleeing the repression in Egypt. After the Egyptians came Algerians, Tunisians and Somalis, followers of Al Qaeda. They enjoyed the hospitality of the Libyans and then the next thing they stabbed them in the back, triggering a revolt that has left tens of victims, through sabotage, terrorism and destruction of public property.

But who is this Qaddafi that the media suddenly started to attack in all forms, and even in a most cowardly form? Gaddafi led a revolution to overthrow King Idris, a puppet of Italian and American interests in the region. At the time, the largest U.S. military base abroad was in Libya, Qaddafi and his supporters surrounded the base and gave 24 hours for all invading foreigners to leave the country.

In power, Gaddafi did not like the Arab monarchs, did not build palaces with gold, not buy luxury yachts or collections of imported cars. He devoted himself to rebuilding the country, ensuring better living conditions for the people. Today Qaddafi is not president or prime minister of Libya, but the media wants him to resign a post which does not exist.

The lies of the media cannot hide the fact that Gaddafi has supported the struggles of peoples for liberation in Nicaragua, Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Africa and many other countries, specifically concretely helping the people who fought for liberation. In practice, Gaddafi has always been a benefactor of mankind, but for the mercenary media, a benefactor is one who creates wars in search of profits for the arms industry or to dominate the world, as were the wars created by the U.S. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other countries.

This utterly ridiculous gossip of wealth and strange customs have always been exploited by the media, it was with Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and etc. It is enough to be a serious ruler that does not seriously kneel down and cower in fear before the United States and is not intimidated to be demonised and disparaged by the mercenary media.

Another fact that the media cannot falsify is the HDI (Human Development Index) measured by UN officials. These data indicate, for example, that Libya had in 1970, a situation a little worse than Brazil (HDI of 0.541, against 0.551 of Brazil.) The Libyan index surpassed the Brazilian years later, and in 2008 was well ahead: 0.810 (ranked 43rd), compared to 0.764 (ranking 59th). All three sub-indices that comprise the HDI is higher in the African country: income, longevity and education.

In the HDI recast the difference remains. Libya is ranked the 53rd (0.755) and Brazil 73rd (.699). Libya is the country with the highest HDI in Africa. Therefore, the best distribution of income, and health and public education are free. And almost 10% of Libyan students receive scholarships to study in foreign countries.

So what kind of dictatorship is this? A dictatorship would never allow this kind of policy for the benefit of the people.

Gadhafi wrote the Green Book, the Third Universal Theory, which deals with controversial and real issues. He complains, for example, about the falsification of democracy through parliamentary assemblies. In most countries that consider themselves democratic, including the United States of America, political parties are organized criminal gangs to loot the people’s money in legislative assemblies, City Councils, House of Representatives, etc.

This observation – and a book in publication – certainly irritate and anger them? The defenders of parliamentary democracy? The Green Book, written by Gaddafi, says that workers should be involved and self-employed, and that the land must be of those who work it and those who live in the house. And power shall be exercised by the people directly, without intermediaries, without politicians, through popular congresses and committees, where the whole population decides the fundamental issues of the district, city and country. These words, which everyone knows are true, revolt and irritate those few who benefit from the falsification of democracy, especially the capitalist regimes.

But the press will keep on on forging the news, boiling hatred by spreading lies, because it is following orders from the U.S. government, very interested in the large oil reserves of Libya.

Major newspapers and television channels in the world use news agencies from the United States, all biased, misleading and deceptive. The lies that the news agencies sell buy public opinion, and most people? By naivete or misinformation they behave like puppets, repeating whatever the U.S. government determines and imposes.

This is not the first nor will it be the last, the Libyan Arab people face powerful foreign powers. Again the Libyan people will win, because they have the leadership of Muammar Qaddafi, an effective, strong and honorable guide.

In a rare interview with Western journalists in January 1986, only months before the U.S. terrorist bombing of Libya, the Leader of the Revolution spoke frankly about his life and how he had been misunderstood by the West. Meeting the journalists in his tent he told of how he admired former US Presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and of other world leaders he admires like “Egypt’s late Gamal Abdul Nasser, India’s Mahatma Gandhi, Sun Yat-Sen of China and Italy’s Garibaldi and Mazzini.” (Really, I’m a Nice Guy, Kate Dourian, Tripoli, Libya.)

He spoke of his favourite book The Outsider by British author Colin Wilson and others he likes such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Roots. Throughout this interview the profound thinking and innate humanity of Muammar Qadhafi shone through.

He also stated in another interview: “I see the press as being the messengers between me and the world to tell them the truth.”

——————————————————————————————–
Article Translated into English and appended by: Lisa Karpova of Pravda.Ru
Copyright © 1999-2011, [PRAVDA.Ru]
——————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————–
The curious case of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
——————————————————————————————–

By: Sergei Balmasov

The aggression against Libya that began in the late evening on Saturday continues. NATO forces dominated by the Americans, British and French continue rocket and bomb attacks on Libyan territory under the framework of the operation Odyssey Dawn.

This did not come as a surprise to anyone. The West’s plan to overthrow Gaddafi by the opposition has failed, and the countries of the “golden billion” directly started the aggression. They point out that the operation was sanctioned by the UN. Russia and China have abstained, and now the West is trying to use it in their interests. However, it is important to mention that the Security Council imposed a no-fly zone over Libya and did not sanction the bombing of that country.

It is no accident that secretary general of the Arab League Amr Moussa spoke against Operation Odyssey Dawn. According to him, the West’s actions did not match the originally stated goal of a no-fly zone and protection of the civilians.

The question arises as to why the Western powers that talk about peace for the Libyan people allegedly bombed by Gaddafi are destroying this peace themselves? Currently Tripoli has claimed there were 64 victims of the aggression, most of whom are women and children.

Numerous sources, including health care workers from Russia working in Libya, confirm this information. In particular, they point out that one of the cruise missiles struck the building of a hospital in Tripoli. This is not surprising as NATO high-precision weapons have already shown its effectiveness against civilian targets in Yugoslavia and bomb shelters in Iraq.

As in the case of an attack on Iraq and Yugoslavia, Libya faced several opponents. Western powers do not act one by one, which is not surprising, because the golden billion countries have the same goal – prosperity by robbing all the others and, above all, through obtaining cheap raw materials.

Yet, this time the attack had new elements. The French were the first ones to attack Libya. They are the most zealous of all the other participants of the aggression. In his desire to punish the “dictator oppressing his own people” Sarkozy’ has surpassed even the Americans.

What is going on? We can certainly admit that he was angry over the fact that Gaddafi has recently refused to buy his fighter Rafale, opting for the Russian Sukhoi Su-35. According to various sources, the deal amounted to half a billion dollars. However, this is not the only explanation of the unexpected cooling of Sarkozy towards the colonel who was earlier welcomed by Paris as the dearest guest.

Experts Sergey Demidenko and Sergei Fedorov shared their thoughts in an interview with Pravda.ru.

Sergei Fedorov, a senior research fellow with the Institute of Europe, an expert on France: “It is no accident that Sarkozy has turned against al-Gaddafi. In recent years, the French public opinion has been strongly critical of his policies toward North African regimes. This is happening not only in relation to Gaddafi, whom Sarkozy heavily courted for signing of arms and oil deals, but also Tunis Ben Ali and Mubarak of Egypt. Many in France were greatly interested in things like the reasons of his purchasing a luxurious mansion in Egypt, or why Sarkozy until the last moment has supported Ben Ali and how he and his ministers have benefited from this?

The Tunisian affairs of the current French president had cost him dearly. As a result of the scandal concerning relations of his cabinet with Ben Ali a number of ministers, including Minister of Foreign Affairs, had to resign.

After Tunisia and Egypt, the revolt broke out in Libya. It would have looked bad if Sarkozy was reminded of his bowing before Gaddafi. Therefore, for him a small victorious war was a tool to make the public forget about the past. Fortunately, France has more than two centuries of experience as the champion of “liberty, equality and fraternity.” Sarkozy is now appealing to these values, trying to act as a defender of the Libyan population allegedly subjected to genocide by Gaddafi.

Sergey Demidenko, an expert of the Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis:

“There are a few reasons that made Sarkozy run ahead of the American democratic “locomotive.” First, it is oil and gas. This is not only that the production of Libyan black gold brings huge profits due to low production costs of the types of this resource highly prized in the West. And not only because at this point only a quarter of the geological map of the country has been researched.

The main reason that made the West try to eliminate Gaddafi is the fact that the latter used “oil weapon” for blackmailing purposes. Many European countries are dependent on the Libyan oil and gas, including France.

A year ago, Gaddafi threatened to deny oil to those countries that have been witnessed to disapprove of Islam. Now the policy under the ongoing crisis conditions is not favored by the West.

We must not forget that the Colonel was a difficult negotiator. He signed only the contracts with foreigners that were beneficial for him. However, the West needed the guarantee of uninterrupted supply of oil and gas on more favorable terms than those dictated by Gaddafi.

A rebellion against him was staged. The population generally supported it. That, however, is not surprising: it is enough to say that many preferred to just draw benefits than work. All this prosperity was provided to the people by Gaddafi. For this reason, in some few days his troops have moved the rebels to Benghazi and their protection was the reason for the intervention.

Not by chance, Sarkozy became the main proponent of the intervention. “Democratic society” vigorously criticized his connection with the North African regimes. It appeared as if France, the champion of “liberty, equality and fraternity,” sold out for the money of the African tyrants.

Of particular interest are the former secret backroom dealings between Gaddafi and Sarkozy. The colonel has threatened to make public the facts of him sponsoring his election campaign. For Sarkozy in the present moment it is very, very unpleasant. At any case, so far he was not able to clarify the situation regarding the origin of the $50 million spent additionally. Whatever the case is, he will not forgive Gaddafi certain things.”

For some reason, nobody rushes to strike at Bahrain and Saudi Arabia who are brutally suppressing Shiites riots on their territories and that really documented numerous civilian casualties. Apparently, France, like the U.S., has its own persons who are forgiven everything because the kings of the Persian Gulf have been playing by the rules that suit the West.

——————————————————————————————–
Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
Copyright © 1999-2011, [PRAVDA.Ru]
——————————————————————————————–

Youtube Playlist: American Empire — Neo Colonialism & Hypocrisy

Youtube Playlist: Western Colonialism & Neo-Colonialism

————————————————————————————————————————————————

————————————————————————————————————————————————

BBC: Close your eyes and try to imagine the scenes of jubilation across Africa if a team from the continent were to win the 2010 World Cup.

A celebration like no other, one billion people reveling in one of the greatest sporting and cultural achievements.

For the first time in its 80-year history, football’s blue riband competition is coming to the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped land.

How better to mark the occasion than with a first African champion?

“Winning the World Cup would be one of the proudest moments in the history of that country and our continent as a whole,” former South Africa striker Shaun Bartlett told BBC Sport.

“Every African nation has its internal problems but football can do wonders for people and nations, which is a huge incentive.”

Nobody is saying it is going to happen but the groundswell of opinion suggests South Africa 2010 is the best opportunity yet. [ READ MORE ]

The Genius of Pele

The 2010 Draw:

Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay, France

Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, Korea Republic, Greece

Group C: England, USA, Algeria, Slovenia

Group D: Germany, Australia, Serbia, Ghana

Group E: Netherlands, Denmark, Japan, Cameroon

Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia

Group G: Brazil, Korea DPR, Côte d’Ivoire, Portugal

Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Honduras, Chile

[ READ MORE ]

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Before the September 11 attacks, Washington’s Neo-cons had waited in frustrated hope for an event that would serve as the excuse needed to enable them to rouse public support for a war against Iraq and other “rogue states” where they were sure American power could easily dispatch. Their project for the New American century proposed to remake the oil-rich-Middle-East in America’s image. Vice President Dick Cheney was also dreaming to restore the imperial presidency that had been lost with Richard Nixon’s Watergate.

In 1999, when George W. Bush was considering for the Presidency, he contracted with Houston Journalist Micky Herskowitz for a ghost-written autobiography. No more than two months passed before Bush’s team of advisors dismissed Herskowitz. The gregarious governor was telling Mickey too much. What’s interesting about the Russ Baker interview with Mickey Herskowitz is the reasons Bush gave for wanting to attack a small country: he wanted to emerge from his father’s shadow and become more popular.

From a strategic point of view the most effective way to fight terrorism is by intelligence operations and police work. However, for all the above reasons, militarizing the fight into a perpetual state of “war” would most easily facilitate the expansion of presidential powers.

On the other side of the world, the extremist Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were also making their plans. The people and government of Muslim nations from Algeria and Egypt, to Saudi Arabia and the Sudan, wanted to run the extremists out of their country, because they were inflicting violence to those they considered “not Muslim enough.” In Algeria the radicals had began eliminating each other over perceptions that many of their own members were not “pure enough.” For these reasons extremist Osama bin Laden had been chased from Saudi Arabia to the Sudan and then back to the caves of Afghanistan. Even in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar, concerned for the well-being of his Taliban government, had ordered bin Laden to quit giving interviews to the western press declaring jihad against Israel and the U.S.A.

Rudyard Kipling had described “Afghanistan” as the “place where empires go to die.” Bin Laden knew that, and believing that Israel and its supporter, the United States, were instruments of oppression for the muslim people, was looking for an opportunity to drag the United States into a long and costly war similar to that they had engaged the Soviet Union in the 1980s. They hoped to slowly wear Americans down as they had already succeeded with the Soviet forces. Their goal was to provoke such a heavy military response from the Americans that would offend the Muslim world, destabilize the region, and increase the oil prices (which were cheap through the previous two decades) bringing further damage to the American economy while the Middle East was prospering.

Of course Bin Laden was taking the risk that Americans would strike and destroy al-Qaeda in a way it would not alienate U.S. from the rest of the Muslims. But that did not happen. The Bush administration was not focusing its attention on bin-Laden, because they were planning to attack Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Instead of using U.S. troops to seal the border, President Bush relied on hired Pakistanis, who were receiving money also from Al-Qaeda! In the battle of Tora Bora the local “allies” who had mixed sympathies towards al-Qaeda, let many of them escapeâ?¦ Marine officials, who foresaw Al-Qaeda’s strategic withdrawal from Tora Bora were not allowed to patrol the border and seal off bin Laden’s caves. Some reports suggest that bin-Laden had escaped by the end of November, 2001. A witness present in the Tora Bora claims that Osama escaped around December 10, 2001.

“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. March 13, 2002. Six months after September 11.

President Bush should be grateful to Osama Bin Laden for his re-election in 2004, when the race for presidency was neck-to-neck with Democrat Kerry. While the Neo-con political adviser Karl Rove was orchestrating Bush’s image as “resolute” and Kerry’s as “weak flip-flopper,” Osama bin Laden released a tape saying “Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.” Bin Laden knew that by demanding the Americans to surrender, they would proudly want to fight back and consequently vote for the “resolute” presidential candidate Bush instead of the “weak” Kerry. Bin Laden knew that Bush would continue his clumsy war in Iraq that depleted our economy and deteriorated diplomatic relations with Middle East.

The war on Iraq was not as easy as Americans had expected. Sad to admit, the “war on terror” made Americans fall in bin Laden’s trap, resulting to all the things that Bin Laden had wanted. One of the things that bin Laden demanded years ago was the oil should cost $144 barrel, Charles Edmund writes in “W got his war” of The Coyote Report.

—————————————————————————-
About The Author: Coddie Adwar writes exclusively for THE COYOTE REPORT, a POLITICAL NEWS BLOG, the home of “GOOD RIDDANCE BUSH, THE END OF AN ERROR“ bumper stickers. and “W GOT HIS WAR” e-book written by Charles Edmund Coyote Get a FREE CHAPTER on how we let bin LADEN escape from Tora Bora.
—————————————————————————-

by Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad Shamsaddin

A shameful and disreputable representative of America’s most racist elites, who is a former ambassador to several African countries, gave – a few days ago – two speeches in order to embellish the role played by America in Africa. This inimitable person is Phillip Carter III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

To go through his two speeches, one may momentarily imagine that Africa reached such development and prosperity that is going to adhere to the ….. European Union.

This is the role of the missionaries of evil: they promise eudemonia and they deliver pestilence. The representatives of hypocrisy and prefab disaster see positive development everywhere, even where unspeakable degradation is obvious to all the locally concerned people who after all are the ultimate reality to be taken into consideration.

Read the criminal lies of the apostle of hypocrisy and the defender of the utmost criminality, Phillip Carter III!

Try to find in his speech the persecuted Nubians of Sudan who are asked to leave their homelands so that the Sudanese dictator builds a dam in the Nile; try to read a reference to the massacred Ogadenis of the criminal, terrorist pseudo-state ‘Ethiopia’ which gave Hitler an unsurpassed lesson on how inhumanity works! Search for a denunciation the well financed by colonial England and the pro-English American establishment warlords of Somalia!

In vain! Phillip Carter III has no time for them, and after all, they don’t disturb him at all; they serve him and his invisible masters. And their target to exterminate a great number of African masses through various methods.

Phillip Carter III hates Africans, and more particularly the Hamites and the Kushites of the North and the East.

Why?

Ask him!

Search in his speeches for a sentence in which Phillip Carter III condemns the racist Amhara and Tigray elites that propagate the criminal and inhuman program of ‘Ethiopianism‘, aiming at the cultural, national or physical extermination of a dozen of Kushitic African nations!

You will find nothing!

Why?

Because they are his (and his invisible masters’) servants.

Do your ingenious best to find in his speeches a clause for the independence of Darfur, the self-determination of Oromia, and the liberation of Kabylia from the Pan-Arabist pestilence of the colonial regime of Algiers, the puppets of the French…..

Again nothing!

Make an effort to detect the idea Phillip Carter III has about the oppressed tribes of Nigeria that struggle for independence! Attempt to imagine what this false prophet of American help intends to deliver to the multi-divided Afars and how he plans to terminate the criminal involvement of Rwanda and Uganda in Congo.

You will find nothing; all Phillip Carter III cares about is how he will identify new gangsters of nations like Meles Zenawi, new puppets like Kibaki, and new renegades like Rayale and AbdillahiYusuf of Somalia.

He will call them ‘new leaders of Africa“, and they will prove to be the latest gangsters.

At a certain moment, you will find his comical words about ‘democratic institution building’; this shows what excellent skills the disreputable ambassador has in Science Fiction.

It is up to you to denounce the felony Phillip Carter III; in fact, every African and every Human must.

Protest against his fallacious purposes, write to express your indignation; call his office (Bureau of African Affairs (AF) 6234) in the State Department: 202-647-2447 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/112065.pdf). I republish here his two speeches, and his official biographical sketch.

Do not let him believe that you don’t know him — as one of America’s foremost enemies of Africa.

The United States’ Unprecedented Commitment to Africa, 2000 to 2008 and Beyond
Phillip Carter III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

The World Affairs Council of Arizona
Washington, DC
November 20, 2008

Good evening and thank you.

Since 1918, the World Affairs Council has opened the door for local citizens to engage in diplomacy through education and awareness of international issues — and through hosting global leaders.

The U.S. Department of State is proud to partner with you — and looks forward to continuing this successful relationship.

I would like to note that the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of African Affairs is celebrating our 50th Anniversary this year. Created in 1958 by President Eisenhower, the bureau sought to change what had been a traditionally Eurocentric policy view of Africa.

We at the State Department are proud of the anniversary, and look forward to working with our sub-Saharan partners and organizations like your own, to advance Africa’s future as we transition into our next half century.

U.S. Policy in Africa

Over the past eight years, the United States has made an unprecedented commitment to Africa — this current Administration has gone further than any previously in engaging and assisting the continent. We are working with our sub-Saharan partners to pioneer a new era of growth and development in Africa.

The partnerships and programs forged during the past eight years have supported significant African progress — and have laid a foundation for sustaining that support in subsequent administrations.

Tonight — I would like to highlight these partnerships and programs — but also sneak a peak — towards the future and potential of the continent in the 21st century.

Over the past eight years, the United States has changed its approach to Africa. As part of our broader mission to build and sustain a network of democratic states that respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system – we have partnered with African leaders, governments, and civil society organizations to combat disease, build peace, expand prosperity, and improve governance.

We have defined success not just in the narrow terms of resolving specific crises, but in the broader sense of supporting Africans in building institutions and adopting policies that sustain long-term growth, freedom, and justice.

The U.S. commitment to Africa reflects a recognition that our success and security increasingly depend on conditions in distant lands, and that we are at greater risk if Africa is a place where extremist ideologies are fostered, states are failing, and violence and instability spread across borders.

To challenge these potential risks, the United States has committed to fostering growth and development in Africa. At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit, President Bush announced that the United States would double its assistance (bilateral and multilateral) to sub-Saharan Africa from a base of $4.4 billion in 2004 to $8.7 billion by 2010.

By increasing investments in health and education, stimulating growth, improving the investment climate, and making trade work for Africa — the U.S. is on track to meet that pledge.

Programs and Initiatives

I would like to highlight some of the programs initiatives that have spurred African growth and development.

Millennium Challenge Account (MCA)

The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) is a revolutionary foreign assistance program that seeks to reduce poverty through sustainable economic growth by awarding sizeable grants — not loans — to countries that practice good governance, seek to take responsibility for their own development, and are committed to achieving results. Of the 18 compacts signed to date – eleven totaling over $4.8 billion have been signed with sub-Saharan African countries.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is a program that rewards reforming African countries with U.S. trade preferences — this initiative has helped to reduce barriers to trade, increase exports, create jobs, and expand business opportunities for African and U.S. entrepreneurs.

With 41 countries presently qualified, AGOA has helped increase two-way trade between the U.S. and eligible African economies to over $50 billion — more than six times the level in 2001, the first full year of AGOA.

Agriculture and Food Security

The United States is also the world’s largest donor of food aid, providing over $5.5 billion to fight global hunger in 2008 and 2009. The Presidential Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA) is a multi-year initiative launched in 2002, providing a total of $1 billion for 2006-2010, and aims to increase agricultural growth and raise rural incomes.

PEPFAR

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the largest commitment ever by a single nation toward an international health initiative.

When President Bush launched PEPFAR, approximately 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Today, PEPFAR supports lifesaving treatment for over 1.7 million people worldwide, care for 6.6 million people living with HIV/AIDS, and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission during nearly 12.7 million pregnancies, allowing nearly 200,000 children to be born HIV free.

The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI)

The President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) was established in 2005. The U.S. has committed $1.2 billion in new malaria funding to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 African countries. In 2007, the Malaria Initiative reached more than 25 million people with effective prevention and treatment interventions.

Africa Education Initiative

In 2002, President Bush established the Africa Education Initiative (AEI), a multi-year $600 million initiative focused on increasing access to basic education in over 40 Sub-Saharan African countries through scholarships, textbooks, and teacher training programs. By 2010, AEI will have trained nearly one million teachers, provided 550,000 scholarships for girls, and distributed 15 million textbooks.

Peacekeeping

The United States has been the most important contributor to African force generation efforts through our Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program and large scale provision of peacekeeping equipment. Since 2005, the United States has directly trained nearly 60,000 African peace keepers in 22 countries. Of these troops, over 82% have deployed to African Union and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Terrorism

The Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Partnership is a multi-year effort, funded at about $150m per year, to leverage and coordinate military, law enforcement, development, and public diplomacy elements to enhance the capacity of the trans-Sahara region to deter and defeat terrorism, and counter extremist ideology. We are seeking to build on the success of this program with a parallel East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative, to counter the terrorist elements that destroyed our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam ten years ago, and continue to threaten regional stability.

Conclusion

Over the past eight years, a renewed commitment to the African continent has been started or carried forward in large part on a fundamental, bipartisan agreement of what needs to be done — such as brokering peace agreements, training African peace keepers, PEPFAR, or MCC. While much has been accomplished, the United States Government will continue to build on the foundation laid by this and previous administrations. We still have a way to go — but with greater security, disease prevention, and political and economic freedom, the African continent of the 21st century can strive to reach its potential.

Thank you very much.

Released on December 3, 2008
———————————————————-

Address to the First Annual International Conference on Africa
Phillip Carter III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

The Africa Initiative Project,
Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
November 21, 2008

Good afternoon and thank you all for being here. I would like to thank Arizona State University for hosting us this afternoon — and especially The Africa Initiative Project for bringing us together for their first annual conference.

This conference is very important – it not only allows for a deeper understanding of African history – but contemporary U.S.–Africa Affairs. Combining a rich historical perspective – with an interdisciplinary vision and awareness for the future – provides a great means to address challenges on the African continent.

We at the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs are also celebrating an important milestone this year – our 50th Anniversary. Building upon a half century of accomplishment, the Bureau looks to the next fifty years with great hope and excitement.

U.S. Policy in Africa

Over the past eight years, the United States has made an unprecedented commitment to Africa — this current Administration has gone further than any previously in engaging and assisting the continent. We are working with our sub-Saharan partners to pioneer a new era of development in Africa.

This afternoon, I would like to highlight our policy priorities on the continent.

Democratic Institution Building

The first defining priority is Democratic Institution Building — we are engaged in supporting the rise of freedom and democracy throughout sub-Saharan Africa. During the past two decades, progressive democratic reform has adapted to local values, customs, and practices. Outgrowths of democratic, well-governed states that adhere to the rule of law, support the will of their people, and contribute responsibly to the international system are developing.

We have partnered with these nations to build democratic institutions, conduct free and fair elections, and govern justly. These outcomes mark an important historical shift. In the past four years alone, there have been more than 50 democratic elections throughout Africa. Almost three-quarters of sub-Saharan nations are now classified by Freedom House as ‘Free’ or ‘Partly Free’ – up from less than half in 1990.

Despite significant progress, recent elections in Kenya and Zimbabwe have hindered these advances. These elections, marked by voting irregularities, contestable results, and post election violence, demonstrate that the path to democracy is often challenging.
Notwithstanding these impediments, the United States will continue to work with our international partners to support democratic institutions, promote free and fair elections, and expand freedom and prosperity for the benefit of all.

For example, we will continue to strongly support the democratic transition in Liberia — and to strengthen democratic institutions in post-conflict countries, such as the DRC and Burundi.

Although conflict resolution is an essential part of our foreign policy objectives, we believe that to sustain long term peace and stability on the continent – it is not enough to just end wars – but we must move beyond post-conflict transformation to consolidate democracies.

Economic Growth and Development

Our second foreign policy priority is the expansion of Economic Growth and Development.

At the 2005 Gleneagles G-8 Summit, the United States committed to doubling its assistance (bilateral and multilateral) to sub-Saharan Africa from a base of $4.4 billion in 2004 to $8.7 billion by 2010 — We are on track to meet that pledge.

To accelerate growth in Africa, the United States implemented the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), a revolutionary foreign assistance program that seeks to reduce poverty through sustainable economic growth by awarding sizeable grants — not loans — to countries that practice good governance, seek to take responsibility for their own development, and are committed to achieving results. Of the 18 compacts signed to date since the programs inception in 2004, eleven totaling over $4.8 billion have been signed with sub-Saharan African countries – Senegal and Malawi are in the process of developing compacts – and another eight African nations have MCC threshold programs to help them qualify for full compact.

The United States Government has also enacted the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a program that rewards reforming African countries with U.S. trade preferences — this initiative has helped to reduce barriers to trade, increase exports, create jobs, and expand business opportunities for African and U.S. entrepreneurs.

With 41 countries presently qualified, AGOA has become a cornerstone of our trade and investment policy in Africa — it has helped increase two-way trade between the United States and eligible African economies to over $50 billion — more than six times the level in 2001, the first full year of AGOA.

Programs such as MCC and AGOA are strengthening African economic health and underscore our cardinal interest in the continent’s economic affairs. Not surprisingly, in 2007, sub-Saharan Africa experienced a growth rate of 6.5% – one of its highest in decades.

Disease

The third U.S. foreign policy priority in Africa is the fight against Disease. As the leading cause of death on the continent, disease is one of the greatest challenges to Africa’s future. Rising to meet this challenge – the United States is partnering with sub-Saharan nations to target the prevention, care and treatment of disease — most especially HIV/AIDS, malaria and neglected tropical diseases.

To address the severe and urgent HIV/AIDS crisis, President Bush led the world into action with The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR is the largest commitment ever by a single nation toward an international health initiative. Through PEPFAR, the U.S. Government has already provided $18.8 billion in HIV/AIDS funding, with a reauthorization of up to $48 billion for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria over the next five years.

When President Bush launched PEPFAR, approximately 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Today, PEPFAR supports lifesaving treatment for over 1.7 million people worldwide, care for 6.6 million people living with HIV/AIDS, and prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission during nearly 12.7 million pregnancies, allowing nearly 200,000 children to be born HIV free.

Responding to the malaria crisis, the President launched the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI) in 2005. The U.S. has committed $1.2 billion in new malaria funding to reduce malaria-related deaths by 50 percent in 15 African countries. In 2007, the Malaria Initiative reached more than 25 million people with effective prevention and treatment interventions.

In the fight against what we call ‘neglected tropical diseases,’ – the President – in February 2008 – announced a five year – $350 million initiative to eliminate the burden of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) as a major threat to health and economic growth in the developing world. Focusing on seven major diseases, from snail fever to hookworm, this initiative aims to provide integrated treatment for more than 300 million people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Through the prevention and treatment of disease, programs such as PEPFAR and PMI are touching the lives of millions. In collaboration with our regional partners, we will continue to develop sustainable healthcare infrastructure so African nations can address these challenges through their own national institutions.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict Resolution represents our final foreign policy priority on the continent. In the past seven years we have seen the end of major conflicts in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire, North-South Sudan, Ethiopia-Eritrea and Angola. Although the current peace is fragile in several of these countries — and challenges persist in Darfur, Eastern Congo and Somalia — Africa has demonstrated a trend toward conflict resolution and stability.

I would like to highlight three distinctive areas demonstrating this trend – peacekeeping, counter-terrorism and maritime safety.

Firstly – through our participation in the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), the United States, along with our G8 partners, is committed to building global peace and security by training and equipping 75,000 peacekeepers worldwide by 2010. The United States has been the most important contributor to African force generation efforts through our Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program and large scale provision of peacekeeping equipment. Since 2005, the United States has directly trained nearly 60,000 African peacekeepers in 22 countries. Of these troops, over 82% have deployed to African Union and United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Secondly – to combat terrorism, the United States is pursuing a multidisciplinary regional approach in the trans-Sahara region, as well as the Horn of Africa.

The Trans-Sahara Counter-terrorism Partnership is a multi-year effort, funded at about $150m per year, to leverage and coordinate military, law enforcement, development, and public diplomacy elements to enhance the capacity of the trans-Sahara region to deter and defeat terrorism, and counter extremist ideology. We are seeking to build on the success of this program with a parallel East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative, to counter the terrorist elements that destroyed our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam ten years ago, and continue to threaten regional stability.

Lastly – the United States is also partnering with African nations to support progress in strengthening maritime security — particularly — anti-piracy measures – in sub-Saharan Africa. The ability of African nations to control their coastal waters is critical to regional trade and economic growth – control of sovereign natural resources, including fisheries – the delivery of critical humanitarian assistance to Somalia – and efforts to stem the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and humans on the continent.

Conclusion

In closing, the United States Government is committed to work with our African partners to promote democratic institution building, conflict resolution, economic growth and development, and the prevention, care and treatment of disease throughout the African continent.

When African nations cultivate freedom, prosperity and justice, their populations are more likely to reject extremist ideology, build strong economies that benefit all people, and replace disease and despair with healing and hope. These are unwavering priorities of the United States Government today, tomorrow and in the months and years ahead.

Thank you very much.

Released on December 3, 2008
———————————————————-

Phillip Carter – Official Biographical Sketch

Phillip Carter was appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs in August 2008. He previously served as Ambassador to the Republic of Guinea. Mr. Carter has also served as the Director for West African Affairs and the Deputy Director in the Office for East African Affairs at the U.S. State Department.

Prior to that assignment, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) at the U.S. Embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar and DCM in Libreville Gabon. Before his arrival in Gabon in 1997, he was an international financial economist in the State Department’s Office of Monetary Affairs in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. During this period, he dealt with international debt and capital matters and served as the Department’s point-person on International Monetary Fund issues with Africa.

From 1992-1994, he served as the Economic and Commercial Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Prior to Bangladesh, Mr. Carter was the Economic and Commercial Officer in Lilongwe, Malawi for three years. From 1987-1989, he worked in the Department’s Office of Caribbean Affairs as a desk officer responsible for bilateral matters concerning the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and the Eastern Caribbean, as well as regional economic issues such as the Caribbean Basin Initiative. From 1982-1986, he served as the Deputy Principal Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Winnipeg, Canada and as vice consul at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City.

Mr. Carter received a Masters degree in International and Development Economics from Yale University and earned a Bachelors degree in Economics and History from Drew University where he was a member of the International Economics Honor Society (Omicron Delta Epsilon). He is the recipient of a Superior Honor Award, The Franklin Award, and several individual and group Meritorious Honor Awards. He speaks French and Spanish. A member of the Senior Foreign Service, Phillip Carter holds the rank of Counselor.

———————————————————-

By Khamati Shilabukha

In the past few years, there have been efforts to re-position Africa in the globalising world to take care of relationships among its states and the rest of the world.

The association of African states was restructured from the Organisation of African Unity, to the African Union. Many would argue that this is merely a change in name and not in the character of the organisation.

Proponents of the “new” outfit argue that it is meant to generate a new awareness of who we are. Many also hold the view that Africans are too divided to evolve into a meaningful regional identity.

This argument stems from the myriad conflict situations in the continent. The conflicts are both intra-national and international, with the former more prevalent.

Intra-national conflicts are often the result of internal (political/economic) power squabbles. Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Rwanda, Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Algeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya are some examples of countries that have experienced such conflicts. They have all received adequate media coverage. But the other genre of conflict has not received the same kind of coverage, yet it is crucial in the pursuit of a global and modern Africa.

This conflict derives from all forms of discrimination including racism and xenophobia. It is vicious and has gone on for some time. These forms of discrimination are serious, and efforts have been made to put them on the global agenda.

The most appropriate example is the current attacks on foreigners in South Africa. The question that begs answers is, why at this time in Africa? All sectors of a society have an obligation to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. We need to examine the extent to which as leaders, scholars and policy makers, we can intervene in this scourge called xenophobia.

It is argued that xenophobia is a result of poor intercultural communication. Members of one culture do not understand, appreciate and accommodate those from another culture. They lack adequate information to deal with such people with the least stress and threat.

But acquiring such information does not come easy and the poor management of communication often leads to strife. This could be the case in South Africa. One major source of information that allows us a wide world view and a more holistic perception and appreciation of others is the mass media. But the mass media, as inanimate objects, cannot do anything. It is those who use and manipulate them that can make the difference.

Xenophobia is a global problem. Although the phenomenon is ubiquitous in contemporary societies, its targets vary across countries and nations. It is such that even those who have been a subject of hate also develop hatred for others. But how does this hatred come about? Anthropologists and other social scientists posit that a population composed mainly of foreigners is an environment in which xenophobia can easily thrive.

They distinguish three theoretical approaches to the rise and diffusion of hatred. The first relates to socio-economic status of individuals, the second pertains to their cultural identity and the third the general attributes of society.

Source of hatred

The first approach derives from the “power theory” — a paradigm that views the relationship between groups as a function of their competitive positions. This concept suggests that a threat of one particular group to another is a source of hatred. When people feel insecure in the face of threat, they portray resentment and hate. But here, the intensity of hate need not necessarily depend on real competition on the job market but on the perception of threat. This is sufficient ground to induce animosity. Much of this is absent in the South African situation.

The cultural symbolic approach holds that animosity towards the other is not a consequence of economic competition between rival groups. It is a product of early political and value socialisation. The main issue here is the fear of loss of social status and identity.

Thus, cultural differences among people could be responsible for conflicts and hatred. In this approach, it can be explained that people would prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than be exposed to “strangers”. Defining a group of people as “un-belonging” to the national “we” deprives them of the right to belong. Much of this is also absent in South Africa.

The third approach, termed phenomenology, attributes xenophobia not to economic strains or cultural divergence but to general attributes of society. When society experiences deep crises, which occur intermittently, anomic tensions encroach upon social postures.

This leads to a crisis of collective identity “so that the calm self-certainty which might enable unproblematic relations with the minorities gets lost”. Under this approach, xenophobia is interpreted as a way of reassuring the national self and its boundaries, as an attempt at making sense of the world in times of crisis. This could be happening to indigenous South Africans.

To start with, the impeding fallout between President Thabo Mbeki and Africa National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma could be disillusioning to many ordinary citizens of African descent.

Many of them subscribe to ANC with a passion yet they find themselves on the sidelines when major party decisions are being made. At the same time, they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of their country.

Many South Africans still live in squalid conditions and the dream of land reform has turned into a pipe dream. These issues run so deep in their collective psyche that they need reassurance of economic and social survival. But they are directing their anger at the wrong enemy.

Many of the low class Zimbabweans, Malawians, Zambians and nationals of other countries are escaping economic hardship and political violence which South Africa has refused to acknowledge as a problem, especially in Zimbabwe.

They should commit themselves to assisting them to the best of their capacity. And this applies to other countries with a chance to host other Africans in need of refuge and sanctuary.