Dr. Wolassa Kumo
Introduction

For many African countries 2010 marked 50th year of independence from European colonialism. However, there is very little to celebrate as the continent remains the poorest in the world and the majority of its citizens continue to languish under poverty, hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, civil strife, and political suppression after half a century of freedom from colonial occupation.

Unlike some countries in Asia which overtook many advanced economies in a matter of thirty years, Africa failed to catch up in 50 years because it failed to industrialize. Emphasizing the importance of rapid industrialization for development and survival of a nation in no uncertain terms, Joseph Stalin, autocratic but visionary communist leader of USSR, in his speech to Industrial Managers in February 1931, reiterating previous warning by Vladimir Lenin, stated:

“… And those who fall behind get beaten. But we do not want to be beaten. No, we refuse to be beaten! One feature of the history of old Russia was the continual beatings she suffered because of her backwardness. She was beaten by the Mongol khans. She was beaten by the Turkish beys. She was beaten by the Swedish feudal lords. She was beaten by the Polish and Lithuanian gentry. She was beaten by the British and French capitalists. She was beaten by the Japanese barons. All beat her because of her backwardness, military backwardness, cultural backwardness, political backwardness, industrial backwardness, agricultural backwardness. They beat her because to do so was profitable and could be done with impunity?Such is the law of the exploiters-to beat the backward and the weak. It is the jungle law of capitalism. You are backward, you are weak-therefore you are wrong; hence, you can be beaten and enslaved. You are mighty-therefore you are right; hence, we must be wary of you. That is why we must no longer lag behind.”

In fact many attribute Stalin’s prophetic warnings of 1931 as an internal force that galvanized Russia’s nascent industrialization and ensured unequivocal victory against Hitler’s Nazi invaders who mistakenly believed that Russia could be beaten this time as well. Rapid industrialization within a decade ensured not only Russia’s survival as a nation but also changed the course of the world history for over half a century. What a visionary leadership!

Today, Africa’s survival is at stake. Countries at similar level of economic development with many African countries only thirty years ago are now providing aid to Africa-famine relief aid, development aid , and so on and so forth. Africa is still dependent on aid, dependent on technology and dependent on markets of former colonial masters. In fact, Africa is more dependent on global community today than it was during the pre-colonial and colonial times. Thus, 2010 is indeed the year of 50 years of dependence for most African countries and the so-called celebrations of independence are typical waste of resources.

This has happened because Africa missed two fundamental revolutions that fundamentally altered global economic landscape: the industrial revolution and the green revolution. Africa is struggling to embrace the latest information and communication revolution, but still there is no guarantee that it will not miss this one too, unless the continent’s leaders radically alter their policy choices, priorities and mind set.

No doubt that Africa made some progress since 2001. The African economy grew 6% for more than 7 years for the first time in history. However, this is not enough to lift the continent’s nearly 400 million people living below less than a dollar a day. Although there are more people living on less than a dollar a day in India than in Africa, due to rapid industrialization and economic growth India is likely to reduce the level of poverty faster than Africa. India’s economy has been growing nearly double digit for the past decade and the country is poised to overtake many advanced economies in the near future. On the other hand, only about one-fifth of African economies grew more than 7% on average for the past decade and the sustainability of this growth is at stake because of heavy reliance on exports of primary commodities and the danger of deindustrialization.

Unless Africa industrializes rapidly and urgently, sustained economic growth and development will continue to elude the continent once more. Successful industrialization depends on both global and local economics: comparative advantages, access to trade, the availability of infrastructure, conducive macroeconomic environment, ease of technology transfer and so on; but the core challenge is the development and adoption of appropriate industrialization policy and strategy in the continent.

African industrialization policy and strategy

It is widely accepted today than any time before that Africa will never achieve sustained economic progress without rapid industrialization. The recent financial and economic crises indicated that economic growth driven by commodity price boom is highly susceptible to external trade shocks. Industrialization is also essential for Africa’s full integration into the global economy. Africa’s current share of global output of less than 2% and trade of about 3% indicate that the continent has miserably failed to benefit from globalization. The main reason for this dismal performance is the failure of industrialization in the continent.

Schneider-Barthold (2002) argues that the main reason why industrialization of Africa failed is the marginalization of indigenous small businesses and focus on industrialization from outside. He argues: ” The strategies of the donors in the North and the African power elites were and still are more interested in setting up capital-intensive large concerns than promoting the growth of existing small-scale and micro-enterprises. But since modern big businesses fail to find the environment they need for their operations they are not capable of surviving and contribute hardly anything to the development of the African economy and society.”

After decolonization most African countries followed “catch-up industrialization” policy wrongly aimed at emulating the level of development of advanced economies instead of catching up on the industrialized nations’ route to development. The need to embark on long and arduous task of developing internally to catch ?up the advanced economies was fatally overlooked by many African economies. As a result of this most African countries not only failed to promote the indigenous small businesses as a starting point for industrialization but saw them as backward and subjected them to discrimination and marginalization through various inimical regulatory policies.

Industrialization from outside meant that African governments embarked on import of capital intensive state-of- the- art technology from the west which were often managed by foreigners , created few jobs for the local unskilled people and produced goods with limited local markets and markets in neighboring countries. This created islands of modernity amid overwhelming challenges of lack of power, communication and other infrastructure services and other supply constraints. At the same time, the African governments created rules and regulations which favoured and subsidized the import of everything new while discriminating , criminalizing, and persecuting the existing indigenous small establishments and pushing them into informality (Schneider-Barthold , 2002).

The use of modern technology was not wrong in itself. The modern technology should not have been used to displace indigenous technologies-local artisanship, craftsmanship and other small and micro businesses that were pillars of the local economies for centuries. Systematic policy instruments should have been developed to ensure that modern technologies complemented indigenous establishments rather than displace them.

The policy of industrialization from outside was pursued in African until the 1980s and cost the continent dearly in terms of (a) displacement of indigenous small businesses and obstruction of industrialization from below which could have created massive job opportunities and brought about balanced economic development, (b) job creation for skilled people from abroad where modern plants were manufactured instead of the local people, (c) fiscal loss in terms of massive subsidies and tax incentives, (d) massive corruption and rent seeking by political elites, and finally and consequently (e) massive poverty and underdevelopment.

Most African countries understand that the industrialization policies and strategies they pursued during the past 50 years were disastrous. But no country has provided consistent policy alternative to reverse the trends. Most countries have developed strategies to promote small and medium enterprises (SMMEs) in Africa , but the regulatory environment in many of these countries are still inimical to growth of such businesses. The World Bank 2010 Ease of Doing Business Report indicates that Africa is the worst place to do business by local limited liability companies operating in big cities. The climate for micro and smaller businesses operating in small cities are even worse.

Apart from these, the trade liberalization measures pursued by African countries continue to decimate small businesses in the continent. In particular, the recent EU Africa Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) that require reciprocal liberalization on the part of the continent over 10-12 years period and which are already signed by some African countries will wipe out the little industrial base left in the continent if implemented as planned.

Challenges and the way forward

Therefore, challenges for Africa’s industrialization include: inimical private business climate, limited industrial skills and technological capabilities, weak support from institutions, poor infrastructure, inadequate financing and underdeveloped internal and regional markets.

The current regional integration processes could assist Africa’s industrialization drive by increasing production competitiveness through economies of scale and scope, increased trade opportunities through larger markets, increased opportunities for larger investments, and increased bargaining power (UNIDO, 2009).

There is a general agreement now that Africa must not only focus on industrialization as a critical engine of economic growth and development, but the continent should develop more effective strategies and policies to speed up industrialization. Africa Industrialization Day was established in 1989 by United Nations General Assembly and is celebrated on November 20 every year; like the celebration of independence days, there is very little to celebrate on Africa Industrialization Day! The recent Action Plan for the Accelerated Industrial Development of Africa (AIDA) was a step in the right direction but again these are still beautiful words with no concrete actions.

While African countries need to address the challenges of poor infrastructure, limited industrial skills and technological capabilities, and financing of investments urgently, two fundamental challenges at the center of Africa’s industrialization drive need to be prioritized: the increased role of government in industrialization, and the private sector business climate. It is essential to balance the roles of the market and government. China, as a new and reliable development partner of Africa can provide useful guidance in this regard, as its own economic success was the result of government entrepreneurship. African countries need to adopt industrial policies and strategies that are suitable to their own situation and these policies must be generated, owned and managed by the Africans. African leaders should take leadership of African development as Asian leaders did.

Equally important is addressing the uncertainty in the investment climate for the private sector, both high-tech foreign and domestic investments as well as indigenous micro and small businesses. Africa must create conducive regulatory environment for private sector development as a matter of urgency. Currently, the continent is the most difficult place on earth to do business by the private sector due to inimical regulatory hurdles.

Finally, Africa will not be able to achieve accelerated industrialization without effective regional integration. About 15 African countries are mini-states with population of less than 5 million. Without larger regional markets, these countries find it difficult to make viable investments in industrial production. Further 15 countries in the continent are landlocked and hence need less costly access to the ports of the regional member countries to export and import goods. Apart from these, effective regional integration will provide African countries with one voice to negotiate trade deals with external partners to maximize trade benefits from such deals. The current EPAs with EU underscore the importance of such regional voices. Otherwise, smaller countries will be bullied by the economic giants such as the EU into signing trade deals that perpetuate economic dependence for the next 50 years.

References

Joseph V. Stalin, 1931. On Soviet Industrialization, Speech to Industrial Managers, February 1931, In J. V. Stalin, Problems of Leninism, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953.

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

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

   By: Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
   [ Enlarge ]
In three early articles, I examined issues pertaining to the historical rivalry and the real balance of power between Sudan (real, historical Ethiopia) and Abyssinia (falsely and criminally re-baptized as Ethiopia) in respect with Nile — related issues, and the Anglo-French colonial onslaught against Africa — for which Paris and London utilized the barbarous, pseudo-Christian kingdom of Abyssinia against all the indigenous African nations, be they Muslim or followers of traditional African religions.

Titles and links to these three articles are available here:

•   Can Sudan Survive and Remain Intact? Plead for Sudan’s De-Arabization, Pacification, and Expansion

•   Sudan. Survival Means De-Arabization, De-Colonization, Renewal of Mahdist Policy vs. Fake Ethiopia

•   Peace in Sudan Means Irrevocable Destruction of Abyssinia, a.k.a Fake Ethiopia

In the aforementioned articles, I emphasized that through colonial machinations, England and France attempted to engulf the Sudanese leadership to catastrophic ideologies that bring forth unsustainable positions taken by the Sudanese leadership and catastrophic results for all the indigenous Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan nations of Sudan and Eastern Africa. I then suggested solutions for the troubles generated and policies able to outmaneuver the EU — US colonially promoted machinations for which the leaderships of Abyssinia and Kenya have long been working.

I then contextualized the Nile waters issue within a wider setting. In two successive articles, I first demonstrated that the water resources-related national interests of Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda do not oppose in anything Egypt’s and Sudan’s Nile water-related interests, and that there is no division of the concerned countries into downstream (Sudan and Egypt) and upstream (all the rest).

I then stated that in reality all the other parts of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), signatory or not signatory (of the so-called Cooperative Framework Agreement), can have “more water” without taking it from the river Nile (Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Kenya) or can take it from the river Nile but without affecting the Nile water flow in any way (Uganda); in fact, only Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) can affect the Nile water flow, if the local administration decides to take “more water from the river Nile” (assuming that Sudan and Egypt would ever allow this to happen).

I therefore interpreted the paranoid, dangerous, and war-heralding agreement as an improper theatrical act whereby all parts except Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) appear as possibly concerned with the Nile waters that are however out of their possible impact – whatever effort or deed they may undertake, building a dam on their rivers or not! In fact, the so-called Cooperative Framework Agreement which was signed (by Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, Kenya and Abyssinia) on 14 May 2010, which has absolutely no validity on the basis of International Law, serves only one Nile Basin Initiative member, namely Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia), which merely orchestrated the rest in a diplomatic war against Sudan and Egypt.

I denounced the unlawful support, clarifying that among many NBI members there are several tyrannical administrations accused of genocides; to back one another, they use the term “basin” in order to manifestly trigger confusion between two different entities:

a.   the Nile Basin water resources, and

b.   the Nile river water resources.

I pointed out that there cannot be any substantial historical claim on the Nile because the historical Ethiopia is a political – geographical term conferred to Ancient Sudan (Kush), being thus totally unrelated to the colonial state of Abyssinia which has absolutely no right to use the name of Ethiopia. The modern state of pseudo-Ethiopia is a historical forgery — offspring of an incestuous plot.

I accepted that the modern state of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) may have an apparent geographical claim on the Nile and its waters, stating however that this eventual claim does not concern the entire Nile basin, the United Nile or the White Nile, but only part of the Blue Nile.

I then examined the possible political validity of the Abyssinian claim on the Blue Nile — a claim that generates a real divide on the Nile. As the Blue Nile’s trajectory inside Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) crosses occupied lands of subjugated nations who struggle to liberate themselves and secede from the colonial state of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia), the Blue Nile waters belong to these nations and not to the illegal, racist Abyssinian occupiers who shamelessly re-baptized their disreputable genocidal state “Ethiopia”, idiotically imagining that in this way they can raise claims on the Nile waters.

The Blue Nile waters belong to the Berta and the Gumuz of the Benishangul province, the Oromos of Oromia province, and the Agaw, who form the local majority of Gojjam, the region between Oromia’s borders and the Lake Tana, the source of the Blue Nile. The Agaw Land has recently been renamed Amhara province, which is for the said area a totally false name, tyrannically imposed — and therefore absolutely invalid.

Titles and links to these two articles are available here:

•   False Divide on the Nile: Downstream (Sudan, Egypt) vs. Upstream (Fake Ethiopia, Others) Countries

•   Real Divide on the Nile: Fake Ethiopia vs. Sudan and Egypt

In conclusion, I stated that not a single drop of the Blue Nile waters can possibly belong to the vicious pretenders and monstrous tyrants, the current Amhara — Tigray Tewahedo (Abyssinian) regime of fake Ethiopia, who stand accused for a globally unique number of genocides mercilessly, ceaselessly and unrepentantly perpetrated against more than 15 different East African nations over the span of two centuries.

I also suggested the following:

To close the fake divide on the Nile Waters, Egypt and Sudan must separate roles and focus on two different fronts; whereas neighboring Sudan must arm, train, sustain and guide the Berta, the Oromos and the Agaw rebels to blow up the criminal state of fake Ethiopia, Egypt must mobilize all the resources available to educate Africa, the Islamic World, and the Global Community about the incommensurably inhuman nature of, and the extreme falsehood diffused by, the racist, anti-African, anti-Islamic, and antihuman elites of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia).

In the new series of articles, I intend to reveal a vast effort undertaken by the illegal, tyrannical, and barbarous regime of the Amhara and Tigray Abyssinian tribes to diffuse confusing ideas, fallacious concepts, fake claims, unsubstantiated interpretations, mistaken analyses, and vicious approaches I the world mass media.

As a matter of fact, a great deal of falsehood has been diffused worldwide over the past month, mainly after the invalid signature of the pseudo-agreement (as per above), and it will take several articles to refute the most malicious samples of bribed journalistic writing.

Before starting with the rebuttal of a first report, I want to denounce the immoral deeds and the disreputable attitude of ignorant writers who get money from the criminal regime that plunged more than ten African nations into absolute destitution, abject poverty, utmost starvation, and monstrous oppression, total deprivation of Human and Civil Rights, and intentional genocide.

Taking money from today’s Abyssinian embassies, consulates, foundations, institutions, state organizations, ministries means stealing the tyrannized Oromos, Ogadenis, Sidamas, Afars, Kambaatas, Kaffas, Shekachos, Hadiyas, Gedeos, Wolayitas, Nuer, Agaw, Berta, and Gumuz.

Every act of bribery perpetrated by the racist, murderous authorities of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) constitutes a provocative robbery of the aforementioned subjugated nations’ natural resources.

Every writer, reporter, journalist, columnist and commentator who authors in favour of the criminal Abyssinian regime of fake Ethiopia participates in the ongoing genocide perpetrated by the Amhara and Tigray Tewahedo (Monophysitic) Abyssinian elites against all the aforementioned Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan nations.

The Terrible Lie: “Egypt’s Nile Monopoly is Starving Ethiopia”

The aforementioned lie became the title for a recent report that I will herewith republish integrally and then refute. I insert numbers in the brief text of the report; they refer to points of my commentary that I will add after the report’s text.

Egypt’s Nile Monopoly is Starving Ethiopia 1
By Nelson Marans

Egypt continues its egregiously selfish actions 2 as it refuses to allow the nations that are at the headwaters of the Nile to obtain their fair share of that river’s supply of precious water (“Cairo keeps water rights to Nile River,” Geopolitics, Thursday).

The result is particularly severe in Ethiopia, 3 where chronic lack of water for crops has placed nearly 60 percent 4 of the population at the starvation level. Despite this, and based on an outmoded 1929 treaty 5 between Egypt and England, Egypt has insisted on taking the majority of the Nile flow, satisfying 90 percent of its total water needs from this single source.

Ethiopia has little choice in the matter. 6 The armies of both Egypt and Sudan enforce this unjust distribution, which gives Ethiopia only 5 percent of the Nile River supply. 7

This has been the pattern of an autocratic Egyptian government, 8 which we subsidize 9 to the extent of over $2 billion per year with nothing in return 10 except votes against us in the United Nations 11 and other world bodies, as well as continuing persecution of the Coptic Christian population. 12

Commentary

1.   Egypt does not have a monopoly on the Nile; any statement referring to “Egypt’s Nile Monopoly” is false and malignant of purpose. All countries adjacent to the Nile benefit from the river in many ways. Sudan has recently built the Merowe Dam; if the ignorant and idiotic writer Nelson Marans inscribes inconsistent words one after the other, and shamelessly presents them as “text” and “content”, an editor-in chief can indicate to him that the following links are a sufficient proof that Egypt does not have a Nile monopoly:

•   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merowe_Dam

•   http://www.merowedam.gov.sd/en/index.php

Furthermore, Uganda can build a dam on one of White Nile’s tributaries that crosses its territory without affecting in anything the Nile river flow.

Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Congo and Kenya are out of the picture because only in terms of wider contextualization are related to the Nile river; whatever water policy these countries may introduce and implement, cannot affect the Nile waters. As they are free to use their water resources as they may choose, there is no Egyptian monopoly (not only on the Nile river but) on the Nile basin.

The confusion between the two terms ‘Nile basin waters’ and ‘Nile river waters’ is evident throughout the small report, but of course for the disreputable supporter of the genocidal regime of Abyssinia (fallaciously and criminally renamed ‘Ethiopia’) this is intentional; another proof for the mendacious character of the article.

The term is therefore employed only to support illegal demands of a genocidal regime based on two ethno-religious groups run by inhumane, bestial, racist elites who must all be executed to the last in order to liberate more than ten subjugated Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan nations.

2.   Egypt’ actions reflect only due and systematic implementation of the International Law. For the ungrammatical Nelson Marans, Egypt’ actions are “egregiously selfish”! In any web definition, one can verify that “egregious” means “conspicuously and outrageously bad or reprehensible“. All normal persons can understand that a country that follows ad applies the International Law cannot be possibly described as “reprehensible”. Only outlaws like the filthy Habesha (Abyssinian) gangsters around tyrant Zenawi can possibly be “reprehensible”.

The uneducated author wants an entire country to act according to his idiotic, unlawful and calamitous suggestions, violating the International Law, so that he does not deviate into his cheap name calling. This is a unique case of paranoid writing by an ignorant person who does not feel any moral compunction to support the world’s most appalling tyrants and genocide perpetrators.

“Egregiously selfish actions”! The pro-Zionist writer, who has been hired by the genocidal regime of Abyssinia, would probably be ready to denounce some of Tel Aviv’s “egregiously selfish actions” such as the murder of innocent and unarmed peace activists?.

All Muslims should take good note of the fact that the heinous, rancorous, Anti-Islamic regime of Abyssinia and Meles Zenawi’s genocide perpetrators hire common pro-Zionist writers to produce filthy anti-Egyptian, anti-Sudanese, anti-African and Anti-Islamic literature in order to diffuse falsehood and confusion about the illegal and evil purposes of the Zionist state’s best ally in Africa. This should refocus all Muslim countries’ targets and policies; it should also convince all the Muslim governments of the world about the urgent need to bring a dead end to Islam’s worst enemy, Abyssinia (the criminal realm of fake Ethiopia).

3.   Another lie is the idea that, if today’s Abyssinia (Meles Zenawi’s illegal state whereby the ethnic-based, tribal authorities terrorize more than ten different Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan groups) is allowed to build a dam on the Blue Nile, the socioeconomic situation of the world’s most wretched tyranny will possibly improve. The extraordinary falsehood contained within the few words makes of the statement an unforgettable aberration.

The colonial state of Abyssinia with an area totaling ca. 1100000 km2 is crossed by the rivers Blue Nile, several tributaries, Atbarah (known as Takeze among the Amhara and Tigray tribes), Sobat, Awash, its main affluent Germama, Shabelle, Jubba, Omo, and many other smaller rivers.

With all these rivers crossing the territory of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia), it is highly questionable whether a dam built on the Blue Nile would truly “save” the country from starvation!

If we add a certain number of extant lakes, notably Tana, Turkana, Hawassa, Zway, Kok’a, Abiyata, Shala, Abaya, Chamo, the so-called Chew Bahir lake, and several smaller lakes, we understand that the real, “chronic” failure of the monstrous colonial state to efficiently benefit from the immense water resources available will not turn to success after the erection of a dam on the Blue Nile, if Egypt and Sudan allow something like that to happen.

The chronic failure is of purely sociopolitical nature, and not a single Abyssinian state will ever mark any success, as long as the Abyssinian tribes rule tyrannically and inhumanely over so many different nations. Socioeconomic success will come to these nations after they secede from fake Ethiopia, an unsustainable fossil of state.

This is certainly known to the gangsters who impersonate the administrators, the ministers and the diplomats of the cursed, ill-fated and doomed state of Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia); if they create such noise about the Blue Nile waters, they act out of their sick, vicious and ulcerous hatred of Islam, and of their northern neighbours compared to whom they feel inferior, marginal, and miserable. This has been the typical Abyssinian mentality over the past centuries and it has been recorded in a great number of documents and testimonies written about them by their highly civilized neighbours.

Fake Ethiopia’s demand for “more Nile waters” is an expression of evil hypocrisy and unadulterated barbarism, because even if we assume that Egypt and Sudan allow something like that, the possible benefit will go to the hands of the leprous, racist, gangsters who rule the ill-fated country.

4.   Mentioning any percentage of population while talking about Abyssinia (bogus-Ethiopia), Nelson Marans commits a disastrous mistake. Who says that 60% starve in Abyssinia? This figure is first false, being contradicted by any data that humanitarian NGOs and international bodies may have published. Second, this figure is nonsensical. Those who starve in Abyssinia are all targeted with genocide and national extinction by the evil Amhara — Tigray regime; it’s Zenawi’s plan and job to exterminate them through starvation. If Abyssinia is placed under UN mandate and an international provisory administration runs the country, distributing the existing resources equitably, no one is going to starve. And there will be no need for a dam on the Blue Nile!

Worse for Nelson Marans, all those who are starving in Abyssinia today want to secede and form independent states.

Why is he not then calling for UN-monitored referenda, one per province, to offer the tyrannized nations of Abyssinia the chance to be free and to get rid of starvation at the same time?

Probably, Nelson Marans knows, as much as his financers do too, that ca. 83% of Abyssinia’s total population (representing the totality of the country’s subjugated nations and terrorized ethno-religious groups) reject the racist rule of the Amhara and Tigray Tewahedo Abyssinians, and they all want to secede.

Why caring about 60% hypothetically starving and not about 83% certainly terrorized and traumatically dehumanized people?

5.   If the 1929 Agreement between Egypt and England is outmoded according to the besotted writer, then certainly the Treaties of Versailles, Trianon and Sevres are more outmoded, and then Germany must occupy Poland, Austria-Hungary must detach Transylvania from Romania, and the Ottoman Empire must be re-established. This is what Nelson Marans suggests!

6.   The effort to make his readers feel pity for the world’s most excruciating and most bestial tyranny is absolutely ludicrous.

Nelson Marans must come to terms with the urgent need of more than ten subjugated Kushitic and Nilo-Saharan nations to tear down the Satanic Hell of fake Ethiopia. It’s not true that fake Ethiopia “has little choice”; what is true is that fake Ethiopia has no right to exist.

The man has not been born to save the fake Ethiopian from ultimate and irrevocable extermination — which will come at the correct moment, either Nelson Marans likes it or not.

7.   Another idiotic approach! Assuming the figure is correct, why then is Nelson Marans not demanding the efficient exploitation of all the other water resources of Abyssinia by the local administration — to thus save his “60%” of hypothetically starving people?

8.   How comical it is to call the Egyptian government “autocratic” when avoiding discussing about the worse-than-Nazi nature of the fake Ethiopian administration — the World History’s most execrable genocide perpetrators!

9.   America subsidized Egypt to keep a balance between Cairo and Tel Aviv, following Camp David agreement. And it is well known that Washington subsidized terrorist and dictatorial states with far worse Human Rights violations record than Egypt. Even now, despite the ongoing genocides, the US subsidizes Abyssinia (fake Ethiopia) too.

10.   ”Nothing in return”! This is pathetic and ludicrous. What America got in return is that Egypt did not offer naval bases to both Russia and China; to the former in the Delta coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and to the latter in the Red Sea coast opposite the demilitarized Sinai. It would be idiotic to imagine that Israel would have survived thus long without the balance between Egypt and Israel that the US correctly for their interests preserved.

11.   When an agreement is made on one subject, the agreement is kept by all signatory parts with respect to its own terms. The agreement in question did not involve any Egyptian vote support in the UN, and Washington knows this very well; unfortunately, the falsifying author plays with emotions to spread his unsubstantiated and failed defamation of Egypt. Cliché, pathetic, inane!

12.   There is no real, evidenced and substantiated persecution of the Coptic population in Egypt; but I am glad that Nelson Marans mentions the Copts. Why is he not traveling to Alexandria then to consult with the head of the Coptic Church about the rights of the Palestinians and the calamitous nature of the state of Tel Aviv?

Picture: The Nile basin
From: http://mapmaker.rutgers.edu/355/nile_basin_lrg.gif

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

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

   [ By: Fred Branfman ]
Clinton is to be praised for being the first U.S. president to take personal responsibility for impoverishing an entire nation rather than ignoring his misdeeds or falsely blaming local U.S.-imposed regimes. But his confession also means that his embrace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and NAFTA “neo-liberalization” destroyed the lives of many more millions well beyond Haiti, as U.S. support for heavily subsidized U.S. agribusiness damaged local agricultural economies throughout Latin America and beyond. This led to mass migration into urban slums and destitution, as well as increased emigration to the U.S.–which then led Clinton to militarize the border in 1994–and thus accelerated the “illegal immigration” issue that so poisons U.S. politics today.

The bodies of Indochinese and Iraqi civilians for which U.S. leaders bear responsibility would, if laid end to end, stretch from New York to California.

Noam Chomsky’s description of the dangers posed by U.S. elites’ “Imperial Mentality” was recently given a boost in credibility by a surprising source–Bill Clinton. As America’s economy, foreign policy and politics continue to unravel, it is clear that this mentality and the system it has created will produce an increasing number of victims in the years to come. Clinton startlingly testified to that effect on March 10 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Since 1981 the United States has followed a policy until the last year or so, when we started rethinking it, that we rich countries that produce a lot of food should sell it to poor countries and relieve them of the burden of producing their own food so thank goodness they can lead directly into the industrial era. It has not worked. It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake. It was a mistake that I was a party to. I am not pointing the finger at anybody. I did that. I have to live every day with the consequences of the lost capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people, because of what I did, nobody else.

Clinton is to be praised for being the first U.S. president to take personal responsibility for impoverishing an entire nation rather than ignoring his misdeeds or falsely blaming local U.S.-imposed regimes. But his confession also means that his embrace of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and NAFTA “neo-liberalization” destroyed the lives of many more millions well beyond Haiti, as U.S. support for heavily subsidized U.S. agribusiness damaged local agricultural economies throughout Latin America and beyond. This led to mass migration into urban slums and destitution, as well as increased emigration to the U.S.–which then led Clinton to militarize the border in 1994–and thus accelerated the “illegal immigration” issue that so poisons U.S. politics today.

Clinton might also have added that he and other U.S. leaders imposed such policies by force, installing military dictators and vicious police and paramilitary forces. Chomsky reports in “Hopes and Prospects” that in Haiti, semiofficial thugs empowered by a U.S.-supported coup murdered 8,000 people and raped 35,000 women in 2004 and 2005 alone, while a tiny local elite reaps most of the benefits from U.S. policies.

Clinton’s testimony reminded me of one of my visits with Chomsky, back in 1988, when, after talking for an hour or so, he smiled and said he had to stop to get back to writing about the children of Haiti.

I was struck both by his concern for forgotten Haitians and because his comment so recalled my experience with him in 1970 as he spent a week researching U.S. war-making in Laos. I had taken dozens of journalists, peace activists, diplomats, experts and others out to camps of refugees who had fled U.S. saturation bombing. Chomsky was one of only two who wept openly upon learning how these innocent villagers had seen their beloved grandmothers burned alive, their children slowly suffocated, their spouses cut to ribbons, during five years of merciless, pitiless and illegal U.S. bombing for which U.S. leaders would have been executed had international law protecting civilians in wartime been applied to their actions. It was obvious that he was above all driven by a deep feeling for the world’s victims, those he calls the “unpeople” in his new book. No U.S. policymakers I knew in Laos, nor the many I have met since, have shared such concerns.

Bill Clinton’s testimony also reminded me of the accuracy of Chomsky writings on Haiti–before, during and after Clinton’s reign–as summed up in “Hopes and Prospects”:

The Clinton doctrine, presented to Congress, was that the US is entitled to resort to “unilateral use of military power” to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.” In Haiti, Clinton [imposed] harsh neoliberal rules that were guaranteed to crush what remained of the economy, as they did.

Clinton would have a cleaner conscience today had he listened to Chomsky then. Many more Americans may also benefit by heeding Chomsky today, as U.S. elites’ callousness toward unpeople abroad is now affecting increasing numbers of their fellow citizens back home. Nothing symbolizes this more than investment bankers tricking countless Americans out of their life savings by luring them into buying homes they could not afford that were then foreclosed on.

In doing so, Wall Streeters exhibited what Chomsky describes as a Western elite imperial mentality, dating back to 1491 (his first chapter is entitled “Year 514: Globalization for Whom?”). Only this time instead of impoverishing Haitians or Chileans, it was Americans who were afflicted by a “system” of “fuck the poor” (in the words of successful Wall Street trader Steve Eisman). [See Branfman's review of "The Big Short" in Truthdig.]

The many Americans whose lives have been damaged by financiers’ single-minded focus on short-term profits at the expense of everyone else are only a harbinger of what is to come. Financial elites remain in charge, as evidenced by recent “financial reform” legislation that does not even reinstate the Glass-Steagall law separating investment and commercial banking. New York magazine has described how Obama officials blocked even inadequate reforms, let alone the stronger proposals from Nouriel Roubini, one of the few major economists to foresee the economic crash. Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson tells us “our banking structure remains–and the incentive and belief system that lies behind reckless risk-taking has only become more dangerous,” thus setting the stage for an even worse crash than that of 2008. And, as U.S. competitiveness continues to decline and it cannot afford its endless wars without drastically cutting social spending, countless more Americans will find themselves paying the price for U.S. elites’ imperial mentality.

This mentality described by Chomsky includes the following elements: (1) a single-minded focus on maximizing short-term elite economic and military interests; (2) a refusal to let other societies follow their own paths if perceived to conflict with these interests; (3) continual and massive violations of international law; (4) indifference to human life, particularly in the Third World; (5) massive violation of the U.S. Constitution, especially through the executive branch’s seizure of the power to wage unilateral and unaccountable war in every corner of the globe; (6) indifference to U.S. and international public opinion, which is often more progressive and humane than that of the elites; (7) a remarkable ability to “manufacture consent,” aided by the mass media and intellectuals, that has blinded most Americans to the truth of what their leaders actually do in their names.

To pick but one example of the dozens Chomsky provides: U.S. elite opinion unanimously celebrated the 1990 Nicaraguan election defeating the Sandinistas as a “victory for fair play,” to quote a March 10 New York Times Op-Ed article. But Chomsky reminds us of Time Magazine’s March 12 report on just what this “fair play” meant:

In Nicaragua, Washington stumbled on an arm’s-length policy: wreck the economy and prosecute a long and deadly proxy war until the exhausted natives overthrow the unwanted government themselves. The past ten years have savaged the country’s civilians, not its comandantes. The impoverishment of the people of Nicaragua was a harrowing way to give the National Opposition Union (U.N.O.) a winning issue.

Wrecking a Third World country’s economy and savaging its civilians are such standard U.S. elite behavior that it is barely noticed, let alone criticized in the mass media or halls of Congress. Perhaps the most dramatic example of America’s imperial mentality, however, is the answer to the following question: Which nation’s leaders since 1945 have murdered, maimed, made homeless, tortured, assassinated and impoverished the largest number of civilians who were not its own citizens?

I have asked this question of Americans in every walk of life since I discovered the bombing of Laos in 1969. It’s a simple matter of fact, not involving judgments of right and wrong, and I remain astonished at how most answer “the Russians,” “the Chinese,” or just have no idea that their leaders have killed more noncitizen civilians than the rest of the world’s leaders combined since 1945.

The bodies of Indochinese and Iraqi civilians for which U.S. leaders bear responsibility would, if laid end to end, stretch from New York to California. These would include the huge proportion of civilians among the 3.4 million Vietnamese that Robert McNamara estimated were killed in Vietnam (over 90 percent by U.S. firepower), Laotian and Cambodian civilians felled by the largest per capita and most indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in history, the 1 million to 1.5 million Iraqis estimated by the U.N.’s Denis Halliday to have died from Clinton’s sanctions “designed,” in Halliday’s words, “to kill civilians, particularly children,” and the hundreds of thousands killed as a result of the Bush invasion. The total number of civilians killed, wounded, made homeless and impoverished by U.S. leaders or local regimes owing their power to U.S. guns and aid–in not only Indochina and Iraq but Mexico, El Salvador, Israel/Palestine, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Egypt, Iran, South Africa, Chile, East Timor, Haiti, Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Jamaica, the Philippines and Indonesia–is in the tens of millions.

One can debate whether U.S. military action against Vietnamese communists, Nicaraguan Sandinistas, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban were or are warranted. But there can be no possible justification for waging war that winds up killing and impoverishing much of the civilian population, on whose behalf U.S. leaders claim to fight, in violation of the laws of war and elemental human decency. Nor can anyone who truly believes in democracy support allowing a handful of U.S. leaders to savage civilians abroad without even informing, let alone seeking permission of, Congress and the American people.

The incredible fact that U.S. leaders could inflict such carnage without their citizenry knowing is the single most dramatic example of another of Chomsky’s major themes: “manufactured consent,” produced by (1) constant iterations of U.S leaders’ idealism and desire to promote freedom, supported by the mass media (e.g. when Washington Post columnist David Ignatius called Paul Wolfowitz Bush’s “idealist-in-chief,” even as their invasion was laying waste to Iraq), (2) massive media coverage of the misdeeds of the latest U.S. opponents, and (3) ignoring our own, often far greater, crimes.

Most Americans were fully and appropriately made aware of Taliban assassinations of their opponents, for example. But there was no public discussion of guilt, let alone punishment for those responsible, when Gen. Stanley McChrystal implicitly admitted in the summer of 2009 that the U.S. military had been killing countless Afghan civilians for the previous eight years as a result of air and artillery fire aimed at population centers. Nor are most Americans aware that McChrystal was rewarded with his present post, being in charge of the Afghanistan war, for conducting five years of assassination and torture as head of the top-secret Joint Special Operations Command in Iraq.

Chomsky is especially concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, and U.S.-Israel treatment of the people of Gaza in particular. He notes that Hamas is regularly attacked in the U.S. press, but there has not been comparable attention given to the U.S./Israeli decision to inflict daily collective punishment on the people of Gaza since they democratically elected Hamas in January 2006. He quotes Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1950, which states that “no protected person may be punished for an offence he or she had not personally committed” and reports how Israel, fully supported by U.S. leaders, continues to inflict precisely such punishment on the people of Gaza by destroying their economy, limiting their access to food and water, denying them health care, restricting their movement, and engaging in kidnapping, assassination and bombing–a program he calls “imposing massive suffering on the animals in the Gaza prison.”

Perhaps the most basic reason Americans should read Chomsky’s work today, therefore, is simply to understand the real world in which they live, that which is obscured by their leaders and the U.S. mass media. The purpose of “Newspeak” in the novel “1984″ was to eliminate whole categories of thought. In our time, one such category is the fact that “U.S. leaders regularly and illegally kill enormous numbers of foreign innocent civilians.” The elimination of this thought-category in our cognitive framework understandably led President George W. Bush to explain 9/11 by saying “they hate our freedom”–a logical conclusion to someone ignorant of the trail of blood left by his predecessors. As Chomsky notes, however, “historical amnesia is a dangerous phenomenon … because it lays the groundwork for crimes ahead” and, it should be noted, increased dangers of terrorism against Americans.

This increased threat of terrorism, which, Chomsky reports, citing the New American Foundation, has increased sevenfold because of the invasion of Iraq, is a second area in which Americans are today increasingly threatened by their leaders’ imperial mentality. As many experts noted in the wake of the Times Square bombing attempt, Barack Obama’s vast increase in drone strikes in Pakistan–and relaxing targeting rules to include “low-level fighters whose identities may not be known”–has further increased the danger of terrorist attacks in the U.S.

As the elites’ imperial mentality comes home, Americans are also increasingly threatened by climate change–produced by a system that statutorily requires elites to pursue short-term profit for their firms, even at the cost of destroying the biosphere their own children and grandchildren will depend on for life itself.

In today’s system, Chomsky explains, to “stay in the game,” CEOs must maximize their own short-term profits while treating the costs of doing so as “externalities” to be paid by the taxpayer. In the case of climate change, however, “externalities happen to be the fate of the species.” An imperial mentality which has primarily threatened the Third World in the past, in other words, has now become a threat to the survival of not only America but all civilization as we know it.

Chomsky thus argues that human survival requires changing the system, not merely periodically replacing those running it. His “Hopes and Prospects” covers President Obama’s first year in office and the many “hopes” that he has so profoundly disappointed because of a system that virtually requires “doublethink” of its leaders. Obama was undoubtedly as sincere when he spoke of “our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution” at West Point on May 22 as he was six months earlier when he secretly approved Gen. David Petraeus’ proposal for a “broad expansion of clandestine military activity” worldwide that “does not require the president’s approval or regular reports to Congress.”

Obama also presumably holds two contradictory opinions when, as Chomsky reports, he continues Bush policies he so recently criticized and promised to change: extending executive power to indefinitely imprison people without trial, torture (though by allied rather than U.S. torturers), indiscriminate killing (particularly by escalating in northern Pakistan, as described in Truthdig, “Unintended Consequences in Nuclear Pakistan“), and supporting Israeli policies precluding a two-state solution. Chomsky also observes that Obama could not have been elected in the first place, given his greater need for campaign funds from above than fidelity to his voters below, had he not been prepared to continue these imperial policies.

Chomsky’s explanation of the American system’s imperial mentality also illuminates a seeming mystery: How could decent people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama commit so much evil? Our concept of evil is shaped by such paranoid psychotics as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who all hated their victims and openly lusted for power. We do not yet understand that in today’s American system the problem we face is not so much inhumanity from the mad and evil as “ahumanity” from the sane and decent.

U.S. leaders have nothing against those they regularly kill and impoverish. On the contrary, they often exhibit compassion for them, as when Jimmy Carter supported human rights. But they are products of a system that is indifferent to the fate of the unpeople, whether in the shah’s Iran, Somoza’s Nicaragua, Suharto’s Indonesia or the many other dictatorial regimes that enjoyed President Carter’s support.

Chomsky denies the oft-heard charge that he is “anti-American,” noting his criticism of the crimes of many other nations’ leaders, and saying he focuses on U.S. leaders because, as a U.S. citizen, it is the government he can most affect; because it is the government that has done more harm than any other since 1945; and because the United States’ behavior today poses so much danger to human survival. He might also add that there are so many others eager to catalog the crimes of America’s enemies, yet relatively few Americans willing to document their own leaders’ misdeeds.

At the moment, Chomsky’s proposed solutions are politically unthinkable. As the American economy and polity continues to unravel and suffering mounts at home and abroad, however, a mass movement may arise that is capable of saving America and the world. If so, such a movement is likely to attempt solutions of the sort Chomsky proposes. Here are two out of a far larger number:

State capitalism for the many: The American Enterprise Institute’s chief declared in a May 23 Washington Post Op-Ed that “America faces a new culture war,” between “free enterprise” offering “rewards determined by market forces” and “European-style statism.” “Hopes and Prospects” explains at some length, however, why this formulation is absurd. America’s “free enterprise” system has always been based on massive government aid, from the Army building 19th century railroads, to the Pentagon’s post-World War II role in building the Internet and Silicon Valley, to today’s “rewards” to Wall Street and oil companies determined not by market forces, but those companies’ political clout. America has been practicing “state capitalism” since the founding of the Republic, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future no matter which party is in office.

The real choice, Chomsky makes clear, is not free enterprise versus statism, but state capitalism for (A) the few or (B) the many. The latter would include breaking up the banks, a focus on job creation and safety net expansion where needed, single-payer health insurance, higher taxes on the wealthy, far lower military spending, public members on corporate boards, greater employee workplace control and, above all, a new public-private partnership to see America become a leader in a clean energy economic revolution.

A Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone and Two-State Solution in the Middle East: Chomsky proposes that rather than continuing to engage in senseless fighting and confronting Iran over nuclear weapons, U.S., Israeli, Arab and Iranian interests would be far better served by the U.S. using its enormous military and economic clout to create a Mideast nuclear weapons-free zone that Iran says it is willing to accept, and a comprehensive and fair Israeli-Palestinian settlement including Hamas’ promised recognition of Israel and cessation of rocket attacks. A major benefit to the U.S. would be to reduce the threat of domestic terrorism. For only a comprehensive new policy that addresses the source of anti-U.S. hatred–U.S. war-making on civilians and support of corrupt and vicious local regimes–can reduce it.

Fifty years ago, Americans were told that the North Vietnamese communists were so evil that 55,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese had to die, and much of Vietnam had to be destroyed, in order to keep it “free.” But for 20 years now, despite the triumph of the communists, Vietnam has been a normal trading partner of the United States and poses no threat to its neighbors. Could the Middle East also be normalized were U.S. leaders to use their enormous power to promote peace rather than war? Maybe, maybe not. But it is obvious that the risks of trying to do so are far less than the present dangers of nuclear proliferation, chaos in nuclear-armed Pakistan, Israel-Iran military confrontation and increasing support for anti-American terrorism within the 1.2 billion-strong Muslim world.

That Chomsky’s sensible proposals are not seriously discussed is a measure of the ubiquity of U.S. elites’ imperial mentality in mid-2010. Chomsky suggests that John Quincy Adams’ fear of divine retribution to America for its cruelty to Native Americans is unfounded, and that “earthly judgment is nowhere in sight.” Much of his work, however, suggests otherwise. A U.S. elite imperial mentality that once threatened mainly unpeople is today threatening America itself.

The fundamental tension throughout Chomsky’s work is between his belief that organizing and popular movements offer hope of change and the overwhelming evidence he presents of elite power precluding such change. On the one hand, he writes that “Latin America, today, is the scene of some of the most exciting developments in the endless struggle for freedom and justice” as its nations improve their citizens’ lives by extricating themselves from the neoliberal regime and elect leaders responsible to mass movements from below rather than financing from wealthy minorities above.

But on the other hand, his description of the stranglehold elites hold over both domestic and foreign policy offers little near-term hope for the kind of systemic changes he believes are needed to save the species. It is true that postwar America has not before faced the kind of economic and imperial decline that now awaits it, and this may produce possibilities for systemic change. But they are nowhere yet in sight.

I recently sat with Chomsky, an intellectually uncompromising but personally kind, gentle and mild-mannered man, in his kitchen discussing such new U.S. elite horrors as the trend toward “1984″-like automated warfare, when it suddenly hit me.

What is it like, I found myself thinking, to know more than any other human being on Earth about the state-sponsored lies to which Americans are so constantly subjected? What is it like to so feel in your bones, hour after hour, day after day, the pain of millions of “unpeople” suffering hunger, poverty and death caused by U.S. elites who today also threaten both their own nation and all humanity? And what is it like, even though your writings are published, to have their lessons ignored by society at large, as the killing continues and U.S. war-making “on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at” has now become permanent?

“Noam,” I said, “I’ve just realized who you really represent to me. Do you remember how Winston Smith [the "1984" character] realized that his highest obligation to humanity and himself was just to try and remain sane, to somehow commit the truth to paper, and to hope against rational hope that somewhere, some time, future humans might come to understand and act on it? To me, at this point in time, you’re Winston Smith.”

I will never forget his reaction.

He just looked back at me.

And smiled sadly.

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

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

The proposed new Kenya constitution is drawing a lot of heat. Pundits everywhere; and I am talking worldwide, have drawn swords either to oppose it, or support it. Christian groups are opposed to it on moral grounds, and American conservative groups have exported their moral high ground to Africa, in the name of abortion.

Politicians are broadening their reach to vote no or yes. The autonomy of Kadhi courts and a host of other issues, which were all guaranteed under the previous constitution and being hotly debated.

Now, there is talk that the National Intelligence Security Service, an arm of the Office of the President, has sneaked in its own changes. That interestingly defeats the very purpose of the new constitution itself — that of a democratic society that cherishes equality, freedom and basic human rights.

Which prompts the question: Have those crying the loudest from the roof tops figured out a way to sabotage it? Who is behind the inclusion of previously unknown clauses? Do we have time to correct these anomalies in time for a national referendum?

In spite of all these unanswered questions, Kenya does need a constitution and I whole heartedly support it. The draft is a beautiful prop as it is now, and it’s about time we gave Kenya a chance.

I would have preferred stronger language on corruption, equal opportunity and marginalization of minorities — i.e smaller tribes, discrimination based on tribal affiliation, race, creed or national identity, the unbiased distribution of national wealth and eradication of poverty.

It will legitimize us as a great nation which has overcome colonialism, dictatorships, political and economic oblivion — to rise again and set an example for the rest of Africa.

In my opinion the proposed draft fits all despite its relative weaknesses; it allows for future amendments.

To the NO camp: Do you have a better proposal? I bet you don’t! I do hope Kenyans will vote a Resounding YES

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

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

   By: Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
   [ Enlarge ]
May 2, 2010 proved to be another spectacular landmark for the anti-African policy-making of the European Union. The unfortunate event highly illustrates the colonial and racist nature of the 27-nation club. However, one must admit that most of the European countries are devoid of Anti-African prejudices and policies, except for their misperception of the World and African History, which again should not be attributed to them, because most of them followed the track of Anglo-French Orientalist and Africanologist pioneers in falsification.

As it comes, all the Africans, ethnic — religious groups, peoples, administrations and intellectuals, activists and thinkers must realize that a critical dimension of today’s troubles of Africa is due to the extension of the pernicious colonial policy of England and France throughout Europe.

Certainly this problem hinges on most of the world affairs, creating problems to diverse nations and administrations, notably the Islamic World, China, India, Russia, Turkey, and the indigenous American nations.

Anglo-French Bias Against Africa — within EU

In fact, by participating in the European Union since the moment of its inception, France viewed the Union-under-preparation as a larger body that should be hijacked in terms of foreign policy; instead of shaping a composite foreign policy (out of compromises made among its members and their foreign policies), the EU-under formation should form its own foreign policy on the basis of the French foreign policy, thus reflecting only (and being useful to) French national interests. Thus, the French Anti-African policy would become European, gathering greater support for France’s racist bias.

Almost all the other members of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) had a certain colonial past, notably Italy, Holland, Germany and Belgium. However, the Italian colonialism (in striking contrast with the French colonialism) was not an evil, racist project; the German colonialism was a very brief phenomenon (still not properly assessed and understood), and the Belgian colonialism was limited in Congo. Only the Dutch performed in Indonesia a cruel colonial policy similar to that of the French and the English.

In brief, the majority of the population of the ECSC member states opposed the inhumanity of the French colonialism. However, unfortunately, their politicians, statesmen, and diplomats failed to both, dissociate the European foreign policy from the evil colonial policy of France and avert the French hijacking of the European institutions and bodies that so much tarnishes the image of today’s average European.

England’s adhesion to the European Community (1973) strengthened the colonial character of the body, and facilitated the French hijacking, and the imposition of colonial norms and standards on the foreign policy decision-making of the European institutions.

The later adhesion of other European countries (representing the South, the North and the East of Europe) should have minimized (if not eliminated) the colonial character of the European foreign policy decision-making processes and targets. Unfortunately, this did not happen because the majority of the 27-member states’ administrations failed to discern the apt and discreet Anglo-French policy of projecting their own colonial needs, interests, viewpoints, concepts and approaches onto the rest.

Today, EU African policy is in striking contrast with the humane approach to Africa, which is shared among Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others; EU African policy is a mere extension of the ominous Anti-African machinations of the Foreign Office and the Quai d’ Orsay.

This tragic development should become the central target of the European policy of all the African countries and nations who have to fight and strike back in order to outfox the villainous Anglo-French usage of the outright majority of the EU member states, and of the European institutions for the sake of their own Africa-unfriendly projects.

EU policy toward Africa must be formed in Rome, Berlin, Warsaw, Stockholm, Budapest, Copenhagen, Bucharest, Helsinki, Prague, etc. — not in Paris and London. African diplomats should make a priority for them to turn Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others overtly against the Anglo-French diplomats, administrators and deputies at Brussels and Strasbourg, and impose another African policy for the EU.

The Euro-African relationship is certainly complex and its aspects are unbalanced and even disruptive. European colonialism, intolerance, and racism are omnipresent at all levels of the said relationship, educational, academic, cultural, socio-behavioural, political and economic.

Whereas historical falsification is denounced and refuted, and great efforts have been deployed in this regard, prejudice and bias are difficult to measure. Sometimes, economic comparisons help reveal the extent of the bias involved.

The European economic aid to Africa is not offered without conditions that the African dictators do their ingenious best to observe; these conditions help only the colonial powers materialize their nefarious target, e.g. socioeconomic development in Africa under terms of continued dependence, and with no disruption of the earlier implemented colonial infrastructure.

If we still put this critical dimension aside, and we limit our approach to mere figures, we will be confronted with an incredible situation. According to EU Business, in 2009, “the EU aid level has slightly decreased and amounted €49bn”. The report, published on April 21, 2010, makes state of an action plan adopted by the European Commission with respect to speeding up “progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)”. It is true that the EU has expressed willingness for more generous aid to Africa. The said amount “corresponds to 0.42% of EU GNI, making the EU still far from meeting the intermediate collective target of 0,56% GNI by 2010, before reaching 0.7% EU GNI by 2015″.

As a matter of fact, if we take into consideration the entire population of Africa (slightly above 1,000,000,000 people), we realize that, in 2009, the EU aid to Africa represented a meager Euro 49 per person. Some may still call it “aid”, others would describe it as “excuse“, whereas many would consider it as “almsgiving for the slaves of the hypocritical and the perfidious”.

What is the value of an African and a European for the evil EU authorities?

A few days ago, on May 2, EU finance ministers approved a useless and otherwise unprecedented bailout of Greece that will be co-financed with the IMF. The measure was mainly justified as an effort to prevent contagion. What had happened?

Following a catastrophic mismanagement of the country by almost all the governments since 1974, and the impact that the deterioration of the global economic situation had on Greece, the budget deficit stood at 12.7 of the GDP (and even worse in April 2010, at 13.6%); as a result, the rising debt levels (113% of GDP in 2009) led to increased borrowing costs, which in turn could end in default”.

The giant bailout of Greece endorsed by the European governments amounts to Euro 110 bn (US $ 146); this colossal amount of money for a small country (11 million people) is not expected to definitely solve the grave situation, and many analysts believe that it will be impossible for the Greek government to effectively implement the measures (remarkable budget cuts, raise of the retirement age, raise of the sates tax) announced. But this is not the subject of the present article.

The aforementioned bailout total amount means that EU lends every Greek citizen ca. Euro 11000, charging ca. 4 — 5% (below market rate). Of course, the amount covers three years, period for which the rescue funds will replace commercial borrowing – which became impossible due to Greece’s zero credibility in the world markets. On annual basis, every Greek will be bailed out with ca. Euro 3670.

If we now compare the two figures, EU aid to Africa (Euro 49 per person) and EU aid to Greece (Euro 3670 per person), we safely conclude that a European citizen’s value — for the discriminatory and insensitive European statesmen, administrators and diplomats — equals that of 75 Africans!

The incredible differentiation, never explicitly admitted by the hypocritical European elite of partiality, corruption and immorality, but majestically revealed through the only reality — that of the figures –, illuminates perfectly well every European anti-African bias and fallacy, injustice, indifference, and mercilessness.

The inexcusable tolerance toward African tyrants, like the inhuman gangster Al Bashir of Khartoum, the Freemasonic butcher Kibaki of Nairobi, and the cannibal Zenawi of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia), the paranoid demonization of the Hamitic — Kushitic nations, the use of disreputable Biblical passages to defame all the Africans (descendants of Ham, son of Noah), the falsification of the African History, the criminal negation of the cataclysmic impact of Africa on the barbaric European aboriginals, the so-called Ancient Greeks and Romans, the apathy of the pseudo-Christian priests of France in front of the Rwandan genocide, the generalized disinformation of the European populations as regards the genocides perpetrated by the English and the French in Africa, the appalling exploitation of Africa’s natural resources, and the overall attitude of the Anglo-French toward the Black Continent, all find their explanation in the killing figures:

Euro 3670 for the corrupt consumerist of the South Balkans, i.e. the Greek servant of the Anglo-French Freemasonic lodges

vs.

Euro 49 for the starving African child whose death is simultaneously and avidly expected by nearby vultures and greedy European Freemasons

So, for the EU, every African costs just 1/75 of a European.

This incredible shame will remain permanently stuck on the forefront of all representatives of today’s dying European Freemasonic system.

It’s time for Africans residing in Europe to let Europeans understand that such a disgrace is always met with an inevitable punishment. In a rising alliance, African immigrants in Europe, European Muslims, pious Catholic and Orthodox Europeans who still stick to Jesus’ preaching, and every destitute and marginalized European can truly demonstrate to Europeans that their elites’ life value is just Euro 0.

The idiotic act of sovereign bailout will not save Greece; it can however convince all Africans that today’s unfair World Order should not be saved either.

Selected readings:

•   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aidjix_TLtHE&pos=2

•   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZgzeA63AeKI&pos=4

•   http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/05/eu_rescue_greece?source=features_box1

Note
Picture: Africa (right) and Europe (left) as best symbolized ever.
From: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/silent_heroes_of_africa/

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

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