History can be at times repeated – as farce; but the farcical has always been an inseparable element of the human condition.

A retrospective view over the Kennedy years and the Cuban Missile Crisis management helps us understand the real challenge the assassinated Democrat President had been for part of the American establishment.

Contrarily to the nightmare of the Johnson and Nixon years, with Vietnam, Angola, Abyssinia, South Yemen, Mozambique turning to communist or pro-communist regimes, the brief period of JFK’s tenure demonstrated the limits of a well propagated myth, the bi-polar world politics and the so-called Cold War.

The Vilification of the ‘Other’

The bipolar world never truly existed; it was a media fabrication based on the traditional political game, the vilification of the ‘other’. This game serves political elites and establishment mainly in inner politics, in shaping popular imagination and the so-called public opinion in a very lucrative way; the vilification of the ‘other’ pays also dividends at the level of foreign policy and exports’ increase.

When a political establishment needs to impose mind and thought control and divert the average people from vital issues, all they need is to portray another state as enemy and to instigate into the public imagination dire images and horrible descriptions. With the outright majority being thus entrapped in an unreal situation, the most vital issues for the establishment can be tackled without criticism, interference or opposition as they go easily unnoticed.

The vilification of the ‘other’ helps pressurizing countries in the periphery about inexistent dangers that are depicted as real and possible to face only by following allied directives, purchasing arms, and re-aligning their foreign policy accordingly.

The true reality of the post-WW II world is that in 1945 there was only one true world power left, namely the United States, and that viewed comparatively with the rest, it could and should definitely be called ’superpower’.

With Japan, Italy and Germany destroyed, with France liberated from the Nazi occupation, with Britain economically exhausted and drained, and with the USSR’s most important territory totally destroyed during WW II, it is difficult to find out a real counterbalance to the only – omnipotent in 1945 – superpower US.

The Creators of the Myth of the Bipolar World

What could have been the real objectives of those who diffused through the world media the myth of the bipolar world, and how can we identify them? What world developments did the creators of the myth of the bipolar world try to keep secret and unnoticed by the average Americans?

Average people usually forget; new unreal images and fresh imaginative narratives, diffused through the media, contribute greatly to this situation. Before WW II, there was not any alliance between the United States and the European capitalist countries; there was simply a common rejection of the Soviet regime, but this was a secondary element. Even the Western European opposition to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was not widely shared in 1930s’ America.

If we go back to the end of WW I, we realize that President Wilson’s idealism consisted in a true impediment for the Anglo-French tandem of the Entente Cordiale, Clemenceau and Lloyd George. Scrutinizing the American foreign policy of the late 19th and early 20th century, we can certainly identify it as anti-colonial, humanist, and idealist. The American anti-colonial policy was particularly highlighted in the wars against the Spanish colonial empire; but America was not in bad terms with Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. We can however attest an animosity between the United States and the Austrian – Hungarian monarchy, viewed as the representative of a Medieval Order of things and situations to which the rise of America had to put a dead end.

It is undisputedly confirmed that America was largely manipulated in order to enter WW I against Imperial Germany.

What did America get instead?

Nothing!

Not even Iraq!

The dismembered territories of the demised Ottoman Empire were divided to English and French zones of ‘mandate’. The developments that led to America’s entrance into war with Imperial Germany and the final outcome, after the post-WW I treaties had been signed, demonstrate that America had been simply used by the colonial empires of France and England for their exclusive benefit.

Not a real achievement for Washington D.C.!

The same concerns America’s entrance into WW II. Thinking that the United States had any sort of obligation toward England and France in 1940 consists in mere projection of today’s viewpoints into another era. A sizeable part of the American establishment, particularly former President Herbert Hoover, argued that it would be a folly for America to rush to save England. The same person had however not hesitated to send humanitarian help to Central Europe and Communist Russia in 1921! It all relates to a completely different approach than that of conventional Americans presidents of the last 45 years.

How can one summarize the various aforementioned points? In fact, for the entire first half of the 20th century, the colonial powers (England and France) managed to inflect the anti-colonial ideology and policy of America, and use the vast resources of the fast expanding country to their benefit. This enterprise has been carried out by the pro-British part of the American establishment; the best representatives of this circle of power are the Federal Reserve, large part of the Banking sector, the Oil sector and more particularly Standard Oil and the derivative companies. They all viewed America as a mere instrument for their global objectives.

Behind them were hidden the Anti-Christian circles of the Freemasonic European establishment well known at those days for promoting outrageous Anti-Italianism, Anti-Germanism, Anti-Ottomanism, Anti-Russianism, atheism, Anti-Catholicism, demolition of the historical European Code of Ethics, evolutionism, materialism, relativism, and all sorts of corrupt practices. They have however pursued the same policies ever since, and down to our times.

The next step was the invention of the Myth of the Bipolar World whereby the US would be portrayed as the leader of the Free World, the Champion of the Free Market, the Paragon of the Democratic Parliamentary System, and the Beacon of Human Rights, whereas the USSR would be depicted as the focus of evil.

What was the functionality of the Myth of the Bipolar World?

At a moment colonial England and France were totally exhausted and their resources drained, in the aftermath of WW II, the concept of the frontal opposition between the communist and the capitalist worlds would help

1. England and France transform their colonies to independent states and their colonial domination to postcolonial rule (without America or the USSR being involved in the process),

2. the colonial structure of vast part of the world be left intact,

3. the dependence of the former colonies on the respective metropolises be effectuated as part of the entire plan, and

4. America and the USSR pursue an arms race that would be an incredible burden for both economies

5. other countries rise (or rise again) to power status (entirely or partly). China, Japan, Germany, Italy, Brazil and Mexico are some of the examples in this case.

6. perpetuate the world order set up earlier by the colonial powers whereby any other power, namely America, the USSR, China, interfering in a former colony, would not be able to destabilize and/or overthrow the prevailing colonial structure

7. England and France finally recover and, through a criminal plan, impose throughout Western Europe a complex totalitarian system which would enable them to come back as a global superpower (Europe) through the immoral practice of conditioning financial help to smaller countries on deliberately demanded social and foreign policy compromises.

In fact, America has already paid dearly for the takeover of its political life by an illegitimate and unrepresentative gang which disregarded the real national interests of America that are in full accordance with the Declaration of Independence and the Principles of the Founding Fathers.

America had indeed a different socio-economic system than that of the USSR. But this did not necessarily imply geo-strategic differences of primary order. Since the mid-20s, Stalin’s rise to power heralded the consolidation of the ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ in one country (USSR), and the abandonment of the dream of the international revolution.

If we take into consideration Lenin’s position on the various peoples and nations in the USSR, America was certainly closer to the USSR than to the Western European colonial powers. Tyrannical practices carried out in France against the various oppressed ethnic groups would be considered as absolutely inhuman and appalling in America. Minority languages were prohibited in France and the terrorist practice was imposed in a brutish way reminiscent of African tyrannies.

The maltreatment of the Breton minority in France was characteristically illuminated in the sentence “In the streets, it is prohibited to spit and to speak Breton” (http://ouiaubreton.com/spip.php?article4311). America was criminally kept unaware of similar practices carried out in France (against the Bretons, the Alsatians, the Basks, the Occitans, the Catalans and the Corsicans), in England (against the Welch, the Irish and the Scots) and in Spain (against the Catalans, the Basks and the Galicians).

NATO – A Trap for the US

In fact, by engulfing the US politics into the swamp of the myth of the bipolar world, the pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment prevented the planning and the deployment of a genuinely American – and therefore anti-colonial – foreign policy emanating from the Declaration of Independence and the chief principles of the Founding Fathers.

The implementation of such a foreign policy would cost much less to the US, and as it would be in direct opposition to the Anglo-French colonial policy, it would eliminate any eventual Soviet policy of infiltration.

By genuinely siding with the oppressed and tyrannized, destitute and needy nations of Africa, Asia, Oceania, Europe and America, the US would become the principal Advocate of the Global Liberation, adroitly shaping a comprehensive political project of anti-colonial education, cultural authenticity, liberal (anti-dirigisme) economics, democratic political structure, and genuine nation building.

An American Anti-Colonial Alliance would contain the USSR more efficiently and would result in complete and comprehensive decolonization, national emancipation for dozens of states, and irreversible decadence for the colonial states England, France, Spain and Portugal.

In the 50s, the rise of a US-led Alliance encompassing Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Kabylia (liberated from the French colony ‘Algeria’), Italy, Denmark (including Greenland), Sweden, Turkey, Iran, India, Thailand, Australia (forcefully proclaimed as Republic), Japan, the Philippines, and Polynesia (liberated from the French tyranny), and the decolonized Congo, Somalia, Angola, Madagascar and Mozambique would serve America’s interests far better than NATO.

In fact, one of the major misconceptions of the American foreign and defense policies was the establishment of NATO. The USSR would not expand beyond the border lines of 1945 – 8, and with America forging an anti-colonial alliance, European unification would prove to be impossible.

Not only Anti-Americanism would never go beyond the limits of England and France (two nations that have spent billions of dollars in anti-American activities and propaganda) but America would not embark on a ruinous arms race that spoiled the country’s chances of sustainable economy without deficits. It was already clear that the Soviet system would fail, due to inner contradictions and inconsistencies, and collapse sooner or later.

The American – Western European alliance triggered Anti-Americanism among Third World countries and many Western Europeans who envisioned a possible political space for themselves between the USA and the USSR. This mistake was detrimental for the US global interests.

Contrarily, an American – Third World alliance would leave no political space for the Europeans to cover, would ostracize the Soviets from the Third World, and would help America materialize the objective of being the world’s champion of Democracy, Equity, Justice, and Human Rights.

However, this would be detrimental for the pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment, and for their plans that were geared to target the destruction of the uni-polar political system in which the world entered practically at the end of WW II, with the demise of Nazi Germany.

Long Term Objectives of the Pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment

For a myriad of American statesmen, consultations with Europe are essential. Thus, you can automatically understand that they don’t truly care for America’s integrity and prevalence – let alone the long term imposition of a Pax Americana.

For them, Western Europe, evolving around the Anglo-French pseudo-democratic establishment, is the center of the world. It sounds odd how people like Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, Ford, Clinton, and Cheney, who have admittedly been so eloquent about the America’s destiny to lead the world, may have had this sort of back thoughts.

They may actually have not; not all of them truly ruled the country. But their mentors, the Rockefeller family and their likes, certainly viewed America’s role as a mere instrument of the Old European Freemasonic guard.

With the rise of 27-member Europe, 63 years after the end of WW II, the time has come for some dramatic changes that will affect the entire world.

Their long term objectives encompass the following:

1 - the termination of the American supremacy (this will be completed with a nuclear attack against Iran, and the dire consequences that it will entail),

2 - the return of the US to a sort of reassessed isolationism in the New World,

3 - the rise of Europe as the main power in the West,

4 - the creation of a sizeable periphery of Europe in Africa and the Middle East (the project has just started, Mediterranean Union),

5 - the recognition of Europe’s role to be involved in Jerusalem and to protect Israel,

6 - the provocation of a terrible war in the Middle East,

7 - the subsequent turmoil in Europe with clashes between indigenous nationalists and Muslim immigrants,

8 - the White Terror (following the imposition of indigenous nationalists) and the rise of a totalitarian European Empire that will cancel Christianity, introduce another religion, and typically annex the Middle East (involving new mass transportations to a new – different – “Israel”),

9 - the departure of few selected top elite people (along with their clones and relevant technological infrastructure) to the space, and

10 - the ensuing clash of the European Empire with Russia and China and a nuclear hecatomb.

Nothing of all this can be materialized as long as the United States remains the world’s only superpower. American supremacy started indeed being shaken with the demise of the Soviet Block and the USSR (1989 – 1991).

The narratives of tele-guided media forgery have it that America was catapulted to supremacy as the world’s only superpower only in 1991. This is a preposterous interpretation. There is nothing falser than this.

In fact, the Soviet Union was never a counterweight, except in myth, in mythical and forged narratives of masterminded media, in the shameful lies in which the entire world had been plunged for four (4) entire decades (1950 – 1990).

Soviet Union was financially insignificant, and without its fixed currency (which demonstrated nothing more than the economic policy of a tyranny), the country could have been bought up many times by a few leading US corporations. In the early 70s, Japan and Germany were economically and financially far more significant than the Soviet Union with its anachronistic system of production and distribution.

JFK and the Revelation of the Uni-polar World

Militarily, the USSR certainly expanded and at a certain moment possessed higher number of otherwise useless conventional weapons that were not employed – except in Iraq, Syria, Abyssinia, Afghanistan and some other peripheral and insignificant territories. But does it truly matter for a supposedly influential country to produce loads of anachronistic weapons that can ensure only a spectacular defeat (like the notorious Soviet tanks of Saddam Hussein)?

Beyond the conventional weapons, the Soviet Union reached up to the point of possessing more nuclear heads than the US. But the Soviet regime – contrarily to today’s rulers of Kremlin – was irremovable from its policy of nuclear balance. This system of international politics was then much safer than ours, because it entailed the guarantee of non use of the nuclear weapons that simply drained the resources of the two countries. With the now rising nationalistic and imperialistic policies, this guarantee does not exist anymore.

In fact, with the implementation of one interpretation of the Marxism - Leninism in Soviet Union, the country ceased to exist at the political level; it became a non – topos, a Utopia self-condemned in barter trade, unrepresentative currency exchange rates, and utter isolation. The Soviet Union and its East European satellites were in fact a neutral territory, a no-man’s-land impossible to be integrated into the world political system.

This became very clear at the times of the Cuban Missile Crisis; despite the apparent interaction and the political game (mostly played by Tovarich Andrei Gromyko theatrically saying ‘Net’ in every session of the UN Security Council), the Soviet Union would never risk to be turned from political no-man’s-land to physically annihilated territory.

President J. F. Kennedy’s public denunciation of secret societies and commitment to making visible the hidden reality of the uni-polar system were the real reason of his assassination. If he had been ‘allowed’ to pursue his policy further, the world would have soon been very different, and the Soviet Union would have collapsed much earlier. Following these developments, the then 6-member European Community would have never been able to form a large Union of states.

It was a mere customary act for JFK’s opponents to carry out the assassination, but there was a critical corroboration of the need for such an assassination; there was Lyndon Johnson available to replace an assassinated President Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson was a person controlled – only too well – by the Pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment, and beforehand placed in the correct position: that of the Vice President.

At this point, it would be necessary to quote the following insightful details: “Lyndon B. Johnson was initiated on October 30, 1937 in Johnson City Lodge No. 561, at Johnson City, Texas, but completed only the Entered Apprentice, or first, of the three Masonic degrees. For this reason, he is not included in the gallery”.
(http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/index.html)

The Democratic Nomination – Denver 25 - 28 / 8/ 08

There are policies that can consolidate the already shaken American supremacy; and there are policies that can trigger the final demise of the American supremacy and our entrance into a multi-polar world.

The few words of criticism uttered by Barack Obama with respect to the Oil cartel suggest that he belongs to the world of JFK. This means that he can have the same destiny as the 35th President of the United States, if he intends to pursue a policy that would guarantee American supremacy and world peace. The Pro-British Freemasonic part of the American establishment, and behind them the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, and above all the Apostate Freemasonic Lodge would do all that it takes to prevent a development that would avert the aforementioned, well planned world clash.

If Barack Obama has a chance to save America and let the world survive, he should avoid the lethal mistake of entrusting the position of the Vice President to either Al Gore (with slim chances) or Hillary Clinton (with stronger chances).

With any of these two persons nominated in Denver as Vice President, Barack Obama, even if he manages to win the November 2008 presidential elections, prevailing over the Republican nominee, the notorious Free Mason John McCain (http://www.radaronline.com/features/2008/05/secret_societies_bohemian_grove_masons_trilateral_commission-print.php), will have to either obey rules that are given by invisible masters in striking contrast with the American national interests or wait the moment of his premature and undeserved death.

Note: Hillary Clinton with the face turned to the right side, and with the right hand elbow based on something (in this case the chair’s arm) and the right hand palm covering the left hand palm; the right hand index and little fingers are slightly extended to help shape the symbol the two horns. These are typical freemasonic posture and gestures showing details about Hillary Clinton’s grade.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama earlier today launched his fact-finding tour with a brief stop in Kuwait and then off to Afghanistan. Next, he will visit Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England, not necessarily in that order.

Mr. Obama hopes thatb the tour of the Middle East and Europe will enhance his foreign policy credentials, confront questions at home about his readiness to be commander in chief, and signal the possibility of a new era in U.S. relations with the rest of the world.

   Obama at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait earlier today

   Obama meets a soldier during a breakfast visit to Camp Eggers in Kabul

More pictures from The Huffington Post | Washington Post

Popularity: 9% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

 Columnist - John Sammon
“That isn’t the Scott McClellan I knew. Is that the Scott McClellan you knew?”

“No! The Scott McClellan I knew could tell a lie we told him and then keep a lie a lie.”

“What are we gonna do?”

George Bush is holding a meeting with his inner circle, Vice President Dick Cheney, right wing philosopher-idealog Karl Rove, Rove’s buddy Scooter, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a few sycophants, and former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is there because he hopes to get his old job back.

“Is there any way we can….you know…..screw him (McClellan)?” Bush asks.

“Didn’t Nixon ask the same things about Dick Cavett (talk show host)?” Scooter asks.

“I don’t know. Ask Dick (Cheney). You were there weren’t you? Watergate?”

“I don’t remember,” Cheney says.

“Can we screw him (McClellan)?”

“We’re trying. It’s not easy,” Rove says.

“Maybe we can get him to go hunting with Dick (Cheney),” Scooter teases.

“Fu.’k you,” Cheney says. “I kept you out of jail. You just remember that.”

“But if we can make it implausible, then it’s implacably deniable, isn’t it?” Bush asks.

Rice interjects. “It has to be taken in the context of……”

“Shut up Farina!” Bush tells Rice (Farina, the black kid in the 1930s Little Rascals comedies, is Bush’s pet name for Rice). “When I want your opinion I’ll give it to ya.’ Go get me some coffee.”

Rice hurries off.

“Hey, remember when you slapped that German president (Chancellor Angela Merkel) on the back and told her, ‘yo, hey babe?’”

“Don’t change the subject,” Bush tells Scooter. “Remember, we got you out of jail.”

“Maybe we could try the (Rudolph) Hess thing,” Cheney says.

“What’s that?”

“Remember when Hess flew to England and embarrassed Hitler? Hitler said Hess was crazy.”

“No, it’s been done. We need something new.”

“But McClellan flipped out. Why?”

“Maybe I didn’t give him enough vacation time on my ranch,” Bush says. “It doesn’t matter. I’m gonna fu.’k him. We can control the truth here. We did it in Iraq.”

“He (McClellan) said the war was unnecessary,” Cheney adds.

“I know he did,” Bush snorts. “It became necessary when I said it was necessary.”

“But what about deniability?” Rove asks.

“You can’t deny that,” Bush says.

“Oh yes you can,” Rumsfeld interrupts.

“Who asked you?” Bush snarls. “You’re out of work. If you hadn’t fu’ked everything up, we wouldn’t be in this mess. I want the ability to plausibly deny the undeniable.”

“He’s (McClellan’s) become a left wing blogger,” Rove says.

“That’s it!” Bush says.

“Yeah!” Rove agrees. “We paint him as a traitor, as disloyal, as a bad American.”

“Yeah! Anybody who’s not with us is against us,” Bush chortles. “We did it to Kerry (former presidential candidate), the no-good sonofabitch!”

“A left wing blogger.”

“Just keep using that title over and over, like when we said weapons of mass destruction over and over in Iraq,” Bush instructs. “The public will eventually buy into it. But don’t call (Ted) Kennedy left wing. He’s sick and some of the bastards like him. If you do, I’ll just deny it.”

“It’s plausible.”

“Yeah.”

Popularity: 25% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

  By: Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad
Shamsaddin (Pictured Below)
A great number of readers throughout Africa would like to know more about the reasons for the injustices done to so many nations and the disasters caused to so many peoples in the Black Continent. Whereas it would take a monumental encyclopedia to enumerate the unfair deeds and the mischievous plans carried out by the colonial European powers in Africa, it takes only a brief reading of few thousands of words to get a summarized view of the misperceptions shared by the US Africa policy decision makers.

Many Africans still wonder how America, a country formed in the anti-colonial struggle against England, turned out to be a sort of neo-colonial power that, violating its own ideals and breaching its own principles, has pursued a policy that rather reflects the Anti-American interests of the world’s most vicious and most criminal colonial powers, namely England and France.

The answer to this reveals the political reality as regards the American establishment; during the 19th century part of the European Capital moved from Europe to America, and the trend continued through the 20th century. This caused a tremendous change within the American establishment as one influential faction has consciously acted to subordinate America to interests promoted by the colonial powers – interests that are all detrimental for Africa’s well being and for Africans’ survival.

This faction of the American establishment did not control America continuously but it certainly exercised the strongest impact; assassinations, economic disasters, and all sorts of misdeeds have been employed for this purpose, as these people act as the worst sort of Mafia. Hoover was discredited with a Crash, Kennedy was assassinated, and Nixon was removed from power, whereas numerous scandals have been out of focus for other presidents who happened to be members of the criminal secretive organization that contaminates the essence of Democracy and threatens the quintessence of Freedom. Their paranoid and absolutely racist plans herald nothing positive for various nations allover the world.

One could even ask the theoretical question ‘why America pursues in Africa a self-destructive policy that helps only leave the British and French colonial interests intact in the Black Continent‘? The answer to this question would be very simple:

• - Almost all the people who rule America, by being appointed in the specific decision making posts and by implementing parts of a general scheme, are mostly controlled by a global group of power that does not care about America’s or Africa’s well being or about the promotion of the US interests in parts of the Black Continent but has instead been engaged in the colonial patchwork of conquest and robbery.

This is the reason their positions as regards various issues look so different, self-contradictory, and inconsequential. They do not in consist in a methodic implementation of principles but in a systematic execution of a plan that necessitates specific results here and there. These results cannot be obtained through the same method and policy in every place; the difference can be at times spectacular.

We can get a taste of this biased policy and approach to African issues in the recent Briefing on Africa offered to mass media accredited at the State Department by Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Clint Williamson, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, only two days ago.

I will cite here the discussion as published in the State Department website and then I will add a brief Commentary to highlight contradictions and biases. I did not edit the text, simply to make it more easily comprehensible, I broke it to several units. Numbers encrusted in text refer to my Commentary at the end.

Africa: On-The-Record Briefing

http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/2008/104667.htm
Briefing on Rewards for Justice Search for Rwandan War Criminals
Tue, 13 May 2008 14:20:03 -0500

Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Clint Williamson, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Washington, DC - May 12, 2008

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to be here today with Ambassador Williamson to reaffirm our commitment to bring to justice all remaining fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the ICTR.

1994 Genocide in Rwanda [1]

The Rewards for Justice War Crimes program is a valuable tool that has complemented our efforts to end war in the Great Lakes region and to implement the Lusaka, Sun City and Pretoria peace processes. Through it, we received valuable information that led to the arrest of three dangerous fugitives.

These include former government and militia leaders accused of genocide, complicity in genocide, and in crimes against humanity: Tharcisse Renzaho, Jean-Baptiste Gatete, and Yusuf John Munyakazi. These three are now in trial proceeding and waiting — these three are now in trial proceedings and awaiting trial.

In addition to facilitating the apprehension of fugitives wanted for their involvement in the Rwandan genocide, this program showcased our commitment to justice and peace in the Great Lakes region. Since 2004, we have demonstrated U.S. commitment to prevent further conflict and support conflict resolution through the facilitation of the Tripartite Plus process, culminating with Secretary Rice’s chairmanship of the Tripartite Plus Heads of State Summit in December. That would include the presidents of Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and the foreign and defense ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The United States remains very engaged in bringing peace to the Great Lakes region today.

The disarmament processes enshrined in the Nairobi Communiqué and Goma Agreement provide a process to disarm the foreign and domestic armed groups in eastern Congo and represent the next step to continue the work that began at Lusaka, Sun City, and Pretoria.

As part of our strategy to achieve lasting peace in the Great Lakes, we are renewing our efforts to bring to justice those who look to undermine regional peace.

During his recent visit to the region Ambassador Williamson assessed the benefits of re-launching the Rewards for Justice War Crimes program to reward those who will help us bring to justice the fugitives who are still at large and a mark of our determination to lasting peace.

As President Kabila has said, the time is now for the former Rwandan Armed Forces and Interahamwe in eastern Congo who have caused so much insecurity, suffering and devastation to lay down their arms peacefully and return to Rwanda as outlined in the Nairobi Communiqué.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Ambassador Williamson, to go into greater detail about the Rewards for Justice Program.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: As Assistant Secretary Frazer indicated, the State Department is renewing its efforts to bring to justice those most responsible for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. I’m pleased to announce that the Office of War Crimes Issues will be working closely with the Bureau of African Affairs and the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa to launch a new Rewards for Justice campaign. This campaign aims to secure the arrest of the 13 men indicted by the ICTR for genocide and crimes against humanity who remain at large.

As you know, ethnic violence of the scale and horror that we witnessed in 1994 does not happen spontaneously; it requires extensive preparation and planning. Many of the architects behind the Rwandan genocide have been arrested, thanks to political and material support from a wide range of nations including the United States. These arrests and the trials and convictions that have followed challenge the notion that those who direct crimes such as these can go unpunished.

But years later, thirteen of those indicted remain at large. These men include Augustin Bizimana, Idelphonse Nizeyimana, Protais Mpiranya, Gregoire Ndahimana, Ladislas Ntaganzwa and Félicien Kabuga. All of these individuals exercised positions of power and influence in the lead-up to and during the genocide itself. The impunity of these men, fourteen years after these crimes were committed, and their continuing presence in the region represents a threat to stability and reconciliation.

The State Department is cooperating with other governments, with the UN, and with the ICTR to make it harder for these fugitives to remain at large. The Rewards for Justice initiative that we’re announcing today is one element of an international effort to tighten the net around them.

Because many of the fugitives are believed to be living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, this Rewards for Justice campaign will be focused there. In the next weeks, our Embassy in Kinshasa will work with the UN mission and other partners in the Congo to distribute posters, matchbooks, and other articles indicating that these men are wanted for genocide – and advertising a financial reward of up to $5 million for information that leads to their arrest.

Information generated by the Rewards for Justice campaign will support the efforts of the ICTR, whose team of investigators continue to pursue fugitives. Callixte Nzabonimana, an indicted government minister, was arrested in March thanks to cooperation between the ICTR’s tracking team and the Government of Tanzania. He now awaits trial at the ICTR.

As this shows, some of the most critical steps to ending the impunity of these fugitives must be taken by national governments in the region. Just last week, the Government of Kenya persuaded a Kenyan court to freeze real estate property from which Félicien Kabuga, the ICTR’s most wanted indictee, is believed to have drawn funds to support his life at large. This is a welcome development, but it’s our strong hope that this represents only a single step toward still more aggressive action from all governments in the region to capture these men. We look forward to seeing the results from this campaign. We believe it will accelerate the process of bringing to justice those most responsible for these horrible crimes.

And we would be happy now to take any questions you have.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: In terms of the figure, you’re saying up to 5 million — 5 million?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes, 5 million.

QUESTION: Yes, 5 million reward. Is that per person?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It is. The — a decision on the exact amount that is paid is taken based on the quality of the information, the individual that it leads to, a whole variety of circumstances. And it’s taken by a whole group of actors here in Washington.

QUESTION: So has this been increased from previous rewards that you’ve offered?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: The reward has been up to 5 million in the past as well.

QUESTION: So there’s no difference in –

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: There is no difference, no.

QUESTION: When were those rewards first offered?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: They go back to the late 1990s. The program had continued in full force until 2006. At that point, there was very little information coming in, so we had discontinued it. We have felt like now is the right time to re-initiate it.

QUESTION: Yeah, I seem to remember one of your — or maybe even two of your predecessors had done the same thing –

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes.

QUESTION: — in going to Kinshasa with the matchbooks and the posters.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can — where — you think that Kabuga is in Congo now?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Most of the information has indicated that he’s in Kenya.

QUESTION: That’s what I would –

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, and we have certainly pressed the Kenyan Government to move against him, to help locate him. So that’s why we were encouraged by these recent steps that the government has taken to go after his assets.

The program at this point is focused primarily on the Congo, where most of these individuals are believed to be. Certainly, Kabuga has links to people in the Congo. It’s the same group that he was associated with earlier. So we’re open to expanding this program again in Kenya if we think that it’s useful to do so.

QUESTION: And one more thing. It would seem to me that while these guys were certainly responsible for great evil and atrocities back during the genocide, that currently, in Congo at least, there are people who are more — you know, who are responsible for current — the current state of horrendousness in the east.
Why — you know, when this was announced, my presumption was that you were going to start offering rewards for this guy who is a top aide to Nkunda whose arrest — ICC arrest warrant was just unveiled last week, or perhaps even Nkunda himself. Why not go after some of these dissident elements who are causing, you know, problems right now? Because this program already exists.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Well, it’s — this program has existed, but it has not been operable for the last year and a half, so we are restarting it. But there are statutory constraints on who we can target in this. Right now, the statute provides for people who have been indicted by the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals to be the focus for Rewards for Justice.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It has not been expanded beyond that yet. So that’s going to take action by Congress.

QUESTION: So your alleged new love of the ICC has not gone — it hasn’t gone as far as to allow for rewards to be offered for their indictees?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It hasn’t been yet. So it’s going to be up to Congress if they want to expand it. But as of yet, it hasn’t been.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Just two things. One, just to clarify, so you were eligible for a $5 million reward up to 18 months ago, and then you weren’t and now you are again?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Well –

QUESTION: For these particular 13 individuals?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: People have been eligible for rewards throughout this period. We had discontinued, sort of, the operations for this program. In other words, to run this program in a full force, you need a 24-hour telephone line, you need websites that are monitored, you need ICTR investigators who are going to be available to follow up on information. These things had dropped off, and so this is what we are trying to do right now, is just reinvigorate those efforts.

QUESTION: And I have another question on this, and then if I could ask Secretary Frazer something. The — you said that this – that these people were going to create, I think you said, potentially instability in the region?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that right?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you be more specific?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Well, these individuals that are in the Congo that were affiliated with Interahamwe, they’re still operating, they still have the same affiliations that they’ve had all of these years. They continue to be a source of instability there. It’s of concern to the government in Kinshasa, it’s of concern to the government in Kigali and Bujambura. It’s something that needs to be addressed. So again, we have some statutory constraints on who can be targeted through the Rewards for Justice Program. And although we are going after individuals that have been indicted by the ICTR, they certainly are part of a bigger problem. None of these things exist in isolation.

QUESTION: And can I ask Secretary Frazer a question on another topic?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Maybe we should finish with this and then come back to a different topic.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Can you — over the past number of years that this program has been in effect, how much has been paid out in Rewards for Justice, for how many people?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: I can’t tell you the exact amount that has been paid out. There are programs for information on terrorists as well as war criminals, so I just don’t know how it breaks down.

QUESTION: Come up with this (inaudible) Rwanda?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Maybe I can — because I was here when –

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Rwanda –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: I was here when this was launched the first time. And frankly, most of the information that we got that led to the arrest of at least three of the individuals that were on this list, came from governments themselves. And we didn’t pay out any reward to the governments. I’m not aware that any individuals during that time had given us information that led to the arrest of any other ones that we’ve gotten.

QUESTION: Can we get a full list of the names of the 13, Gonzo, of the –

QUESTION: I just – I’m not quite clear why now you’re reinvigorating it. You said very little info was coming in as of 2006. What has changed since then?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: A couple of things that — maybe Jendayi as well. The – right now we’re reaching a critical stage in the life of the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunal. They have certain deadlines that had been imposed by the Security Council to complete their work. So there is some urgency in trying to resolve the issue of all the fugitives that are out there. There has also, I think, been renewed interest on the part of the ICTR to operationalize the hunt for these people. They have enhanced the capabilities of their tracking unit. We’ve had new indications of the willingness of governments to take this on. The UN Mission in the DRC has also been very interested in doing this. So I think it’s just all of these factors coming together that we felt like this was the right time to restart it.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: And to add to that on a diplomatic front, we have the Goma Agreement and the Nairobi agreements, which lead to a renewed effort to try to address the FDLR Interahamwe continuing instability in eastern Congo. And part of President Bush’s conversations with President Kagame in February was to go after the leadership of these groups, which often act as hostage — they keep the normal rank-and-file hostage. And so we really do need to, in many ways, cut off the head and these guys are that leadership. And the Secretary had the same conversations when she met in December in Addis Ababa with President Kagame and Museveni and the defense and foreign ministers of the Congo, saying that we would renew our efforts to try to get some type of – not some type of, but to implement the Goma and Nairobi agreement as part of a comprehensive approach to finally resolving the crisis in eastern Congo.

QUESTION: Well, when was the last information about Kabuga being in Kenya? When is the last time that there was a sighting of him or any kind of information about him being there?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: I don’t want to get into too specific a detail, but there has been information over – certainly over the last year indicating that he’s there. Now, whether that can be verified or not, it’s hard to say. But there has been a pretty steady flow of information.

QUESTION: Since then? Because I remember about a year and half ago, there was a big swell in the ICTR people coming to Nairobi and saying “do something” to the Kenyan Government and, you know, we think he’s here.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: I mean, there have continued to be reports over the last year. If that’s it on this issue, I’ll –

QUESTION: Just a point of clarification. So it’s 5 million for each of these people or is it five million total?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: The reward goes up to 5 million as to any individual.

QUESTION: Okay. So it potentially could be ten for two or something like that.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes.

QUESTION: Potentially, okay (inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: If you got really lucky, yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Fifteen for three, in fact.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: If you told us which house he was in, and what hour he was going to be there.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) but that – but that’s just for these five. It’s up to 5 million?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: For the eight.

QUESTION: For the – for the other eight are also five million?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It’s anyone in a Rewards for Justice program. But as I say, it depends on who the fugitive is. It depends on the type and quality of information that comes in. So all of these factor into the final decision on how much money would be allocated.

Sudan [2]

QUESTION: Secretary Frazer, on another topic, do you have any comment on the JEM-led coup attempt last week and Chad and Sudan breaking off ties? Are you worried that that could fuel further hostilities?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: We are – we certainly are concerned and we’ve condemned the attack of the Justice Equality Movement on Khartoum. [3] And we’ve called for the Government of Sudan to not carry out reprisals, especially against Zaghawa or Darfurians. We are looking at action in the – at the UN, again, to express our concern that this not become a regional conflict and a greater increase in the tension between Chad and Sudan.

QUESTION: What do you make of the latest – I mean, the latest arrest of – Hassan Turabi seems to be in some kind of a revolving door in Khartoum where he’s in and out, in and out, in and out. Is there anything – do you see anything coming from this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, of course, Khalil Ibrahim, the head of the Justice Equality Movement, is known to have been very close to Turabi. [4] And so there’s a concern that, in fact, the Government of Sudan will overreact and arrest a large number of people because of the political relationships and because of the ethnic association of JEM being in Darfur and their connections with Turabi. So we are trying to encourage the government to be – to not do, you know, blanket arrests, but rather to – you know, try to, of course, (inaudible) their relationship with Chad. But also, we would join with them in denouncing the Justice Equality Movement. It’s unacceptable.

QUESTION: But you don’t see the hand of Turabi in this –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, it’s kind of early to know, but not necessarily. I think that they’re – it’s a bit over-determined who Justice Equality Movement is getting their assistance from. There are many different sources, possible sources of assistance.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What does – just to follow up, what does this mean for the peace process there?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Which one?

QUESTION: Sudanese reconciliation, you know –

QUESTION: North-South?

QUESTION: No, not North-South. Darfur, Khartoum.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, we’ve always known, which is why we have sanctions on Khalil Ibrahim, that his commitment to peace was tenuous and that his goal was a political agenda to take over. I mean, he’s been very open that his desire is to take over the Government of Sudan. And so, you know, even as far back as the Abuja Peace Accord, there was little expectation that JEM would actually sign on to a peace agreement.

Eritrea – Djibouti

QUESTION: Can I ask about another country? Your old friends, the Eritreans, seem to be stirring the pot again, [5] this time with Djibouti, complaining about them. And I’m just wondering, one, what you make of that, if you think that there’s any – any threat there, particularly given the situation with UNMEE and its withdrawal from Eritrea completely. And also, a while back, you had said that there was some thought being given to putting Eritrea on the state sponsors list. Has that gone anywhere?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: On the first question about their incursion into Djiboutian territory, we are continuing to investigate and study it. There could be any number of reasons for that, including that many of their military are deserting, may be deserting in that direction, and so they’re trying to put a block up. Another explanation is that they may be concerned about peace talks between the Somali opposition that sits in Eritrea and the Transitional Federal Government talks which were supposed to happen in Djibouti. And they’re trying to send a message to the Djiboutian Government. So there are many hypotheses about why. We don’t have firm evidence from the Eritrean Government about why in fact, they’ve, you know, invaded, essentially, or occupied territory in Djibouti. [6]

Somalia

On the second question, we continue to look at this question about state sponsor of terror. We continue to monitor the activity of the Eritrean Government. Our intelligence community is looking very closely at support for opposition versus support for Al Shabab. I think you know that there’s been a split [7[ between the Shabab which is – which has al-Qaida – which has members who have affiliations with al-Qaida, and the – what do they call themselves, [8] the ARS – the Reliberation of Somalia, the Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia, there’s been a split between those two groups. We clearly see that Eritrea continues to have Aweys who is designated under Security Council resolution and the United States as a terrorist being hosted in Eritrea. So clearly, we have to keep watching it. [9]

We’ve sent messages in to the Government of Eritrea that they need to stop harboring terrorists and not support any terrorists in Somalia and the region as a whole, but no final determination has been made.

Zimbabwe [10]

QUESTION: On another area, do you have any comment on what’s happening in Zimbabwe and the runoff and whether there will be enough monitors? Do you think it could be a fair poll if it does indeed, you know, go ahead?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, right now, the conditions aren’t there for a free and fair runoff, but certainly, we hope that the conditions can be put in place. And those conditions would have to include an end to the violence, which is essentially state-sponsored violence against the opposition. It would have to include a massive number of monitors that can go out into the rural area. We would hope that there would be greater transparency so that there could be international press that would be allowed in. So those are all conditions that we would expect to be put in place prior to the runoff taking place, including conditions so that the leader of the opposition and the person who got the most votes in the first round is not threatened if he returns home to Zimbabwe. So some type of security and guarantees for Morgan Tsvangirai’s safety certainly should be a necessary condition for holding a runoff.

The United States is prepared to assist and support the creation of those conditions by supporting SADC, by supporting the African Union, by working with the United Nations and other institutions and organizations that will be necessary to put in place those — the necessary conditions for a runoff.

QUESTION: Do you think that the SADC countries are doing enough? The Secretary called some of Zimbabwe’s neighbors on Friday to try and get them to do more. Do you think that they are doing enough —

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, I think they’re going to have to keep – it’s not — they’re going to have to keep doing more. It’s sort of a continuous process. And we know that President Mbeki was in Harare. We haven’t yet had a chance to learn more about what was communicated during this trip, but we certainly do hope that he made it very clear to President Mugabe that the violence has to end, that the human rights violations have to come to an end. And we hope that he pushed for allowing international monitors in a runoff. But we yet — we haven’t yet gotten a readout of that meeting from his visit.

QUESTION: Are you dealing directly with Mugabe yourself or are you just channeling everything through SADC?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: We, as the United States, we certainly deal with the Government of Zimbabwe, primarily through our Ambassador James McGee, who is in Harare. We haven’t had a conversation with President Mugabe. He hasn’t — he’s been selective about who he will talk to in terms of answering his phone.

QUESTION: So he hasn’t — have you tried to get hold of him and not been able to?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Early on, very early on after March 29th, we made an effort to speak to him and haven’t been able to — weren’t able to reach him. But not since then.

QUESTION: Back to the conditions that you would like to see for the runoff, how many of those realistically do you expect to see, if any?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, we certainly don’t yet know when the runoff will occur. According to the electoral law, it should be 21 days after the announcement of — the ZEC announcement of the outcome. So we are running down that time very quickly. It took them five weeks to make the announcement, but they haven’t yet said when the runoff date would be.

Certainly, if they pull a surprise and they say that the runoff is in a week, it’s very unlikely that you’re going to have the number of monitors there necessary for a free and fair runoff. But we won’t know until we know what the date is. But I think that there’s a clear will on the part of SADC, on the part of the AU and on the part of the international community to try to create the conditions. I’m not so sure that there’s a clear will on the part of the Government of Zimbabwe.

QUESTION: Thank you
.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Thank you.
2008/385

Commentary

[1] - One wonders what makes the Rwandan Genocide ‘real’ for the US State Department, and what makes ‘unreal’, ‘unimportant’ and ‘barely credible’ the ongoing Ogaden Genocide, the deliberate Somali Genocide, the 2003 Anuak Genocide, and the enduring Oromo and Somali Genocides that have been lasting over more than a century with extremely severe phases, involving massive extermination, millions of brutally assassinated, and millions of sold as slaves.

[2] - The American policy in Sudan has been decided in Riyadh by Dick Cheney’s terrorist friend, the pseudo-king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who cares much about the preservation of a murderous Pan-Arabist regime at Khartoum, and tries hard to avert the much needed dissolution of the tyrannical, colonial creature ‘Sudan’ where a great number of nations from the Nuer and the Dinka to the Anyuak, the Beja, the Nubians, the Hausa and the Furis of Darfur have been exposed to an incredible tyranny and systematic arabization. America’s reluctance to send soldiers in Darfur and opposition to Darfur’s secession and independence contradicts the US policy in Kosova. America’s shameful demonization of the slaughtered people of Darfur - and of their movement of National Independence - consists in a 2nd Darfur genocide, as it helps only perpetuate the killings and the persecution of the Nation of Fur (Darfur) at the hands of the criminal, barbaric Janjaweed of tyrant Al Bashir.

[3] - Any act carried out by the Justice Equality Movement, like the recent attack in Omdurman, western part of Khartoum, is justified in the light of the criminal, pro-Islamist, pro-Arabist, and pro-terrorist stance of the US. If America wants to avert similar acts in the future, there is only one measure to take: Formal Independence for Darfur.

[4] - If Hassan al Turabi is considered close to a movement of national liberation and independence (like JEM), then automatically all claims about his contacts his Osama bin Laden (as proof of Turabi’s extremism) are ridiculous. These claims are as ludicrous as an eventual accusation of Former President Jimmy Carter as Communist, asserted on the occasion of Carter’s contacts with Brezhnev and Mao.

[5] - This journalist is a provocateur; the anti-Eritrean bias of the sort ’seem to be stirring the pot again’ is most probably the result of the shameful acts perpetrated by the bogus-diplomats of the ‘Ethiopian’ embassies. These unrepresentative houses of Neo-Nazi propaganda are manned by Monophysitic Amhara and Tigray racist gangsters who represent only 18% of the country’s total population and are ceaselessly active through their position to further implement, consolidate and perpetuate their ethno-religious group’s tyranny over all the rest, namely the outright majority (82%) of the country. These are the ‘Ethiopian’ scientists of the most atrocious genocide of all times.

[6] - That’s it; there is no evidence (”We don’t have firm evidence”), but there is already an anti-Eritrean predisposition. This is simply called bias.

[7] - What accuracy, and what update! This occurred last September, but Jendayi Frazer presents the fact as having taken place just yesterday!

[8] - This shows Jendayi Frazer’s extremely low credentials and total lack of diplomatic experience and phlegm; to minimize yourself (portraying yourself as uncertain or unaware of some data) in order to diminish your rival or opponent (depict ARS as barely known) is the diplomacy of self-disaster.

[9] - This is an oxymoron; if Aweys is considered as a ‘terrorist’, then certainly Melese Zenawi must be designated as such, and be taken to the International Court of Justice. If we attempt to compare the number of criminal acts perpetrated by both, and the number of innocent people killed by both, I am sure the world community will consider the leader of the Somali Islamic Courts of Justice Aweys as an angel compared to the most abhorrent evil.

And why does Jendayi Frazer care so much about Eritrea hosting Aweys, while at the same she forgets that America hosted Zenawi himself?

10. Similar oxymoron is the UK – US position against Mugabe; it consists actually in an incredible bias. All the anti-Mugabe propaganda is due to the loss of property of some UK origin landowners of Zimbabwe. The shameful colonial criminals were never known for principles other than inhuman materialism and criminally acquired profit. When others practice the same method against them, this is the end of the world, and Mugabe is promoted to an ‘embodiment of the Antichrist’! What a shame for America to have fallen from the hands of the Founding Fathers to the mud of Jendayi Frazer’s diplomacy…..

REFERENCE:

Noam Chomsky is considered the father of modern linguistics. In this richly detailed criticism of American foreign policy, he seeks to redefine many of the terms commonly used in the ongoing American war on terrorism. Surveying U.S. actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Far East and elsewhere over the past half a century along with the modern American war in Iraq, Chomsky indicates that America is just as much a terrorist state as any other government or rogue organization.

George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq drew worldwide criticism, in part because it seemed to present a new philosophy of pre-emptive war and an appearance of global empire building. But according to Chomsky, such has been the operating philosophy of American foreign policy for decades.

Opponents of the Bush administration’s tactics consistently point out how the American government supported Saddam Hussein for many years prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand are easy to come by) as a means of pointing out how the United States is happy to fund despots when it’s in American interests.

But Chomsky, armed with extensive historical notation, takes this notion further, arguing how the repression of other nations’ citizenry is, in fact, the very reason Americans support certain foreign leaders. The charges made throughout the book are severe, as are the dire consequences he posits if current trends are not reversed, and Chomsky is no more likely to make friends or gain supporters from the mainstream now than he’s ever been. But Hegemony or Survival is relatively dispassionate.

Instead of relying on camp or shock value or personal attacks as some of his contemporaries have done, Chomsky drives his well-supported points steadily forward in an earnest and highly readable style.

….More Reviews

Popularity: 40% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

 By: Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad
Shamsaddin (Pictured Below)
Going through the vast literature that is being daily produced with focus on the ongoing Democratic campaign, one gets the idea that rich conceptual thinking, innovative approaches, and nuance are all there.

Yet, the field where nuance seems to be permanently absent in America is the US foreign policy. This does not concern the present campaign only, but the situation has certainly been exacerbated over the past weeks. From the comical comments of Senator McCain about the US staying in Iraq another 100 years () to the hysterical reaction of Senator Clinton as regards to US ‘policy toward Iran‘ Ayatollahs, one gets the impression that the US foreign policy risks being entrusted in irrelevant hands precisely at a moment when the unipolar world of one and sole superpower seems about to end.

With the American economy in the middle of a serious crisis that can be tremendously deteriorated, with a great number of social issues unresolved, with a wide range of very preoccupying global problems (energy, food crisis, bio-fuel, environment), America’s foreign policy needs reconsideration, reassessment and re-evaluation from scratch.

The need for an immediate shift in the US foreign policy consists in the most urgent demand for America as it hinges on all other issues, energy, environment, commodities prices, economy, to name but a few.

In a rising multi-polar world where China, India, Russia, the Islamic World, Africa, Brazil, Mexico and Japan vindicate their position next to the US and the EU, America needs to think out-of-the-box, and devise a global strategy that will promote the US interests genuinely conceived.

To briefly comment on the aforementioned oversights, we would focus on US-Iraq issues, and ask the following:

• - What is the benefit of the US staying 100 years in Iraq, if the Christian Aramaeans who are the ethnic majority of Mesopotamia (Iraq is a false term that severely damages the US interests) are thus eradicated from their fatherland?


• - To whose profit is this sort of extended American presence in Iraq going to be?


• - Are Americans able to understand that the US-led invasion of Iraq turned to the unique advantage of the Islamic terrorists?


• - Is Senator Mac Cain mentally capable of envisioning an 100-year long American presence in Iraq that would not be to the profit of the terrorists? If yes, why doesn’t he publish an overview of this policy so that people be able to appreciate the pillars on which it may be based and be convinced about it? If not, for whom is he working in order to practically extend US damage (present policy has been clearly assessed as such thus far) due to the invasion of Iraq for another 100 years?

One can therefore understand that what matters in Iraq is not whether the US military stay there 3 months, 3 years or 3 centuries but whether US presence in Iraq can let Justice prevail, help repair damages caused to several ethno-religious groups over the years of colonialism and post-colonialism, and promote a culturally – educationally genuine, democratic nation building that has long been deliberately averted.

As we have entered, since 2001, in the period of the so-called War against the Islamic Terrorism (irrespective of the veracity or not of the events of September 11), America should consider whether the infantile US foreign policy has so far committed, in this new era, precisely the same errors that have been perpetrated in the period of the foremost waste of US national resources, namely the Cold War.

Absence of Nuance

To be more precise, we will circumspectly present two models of consideration. Evaluating America’s performance during, and contribution to, the Cold War (1950 – 1990), one could conclude that the US, by forging an alliance with Western European democracies, managed to contain and in time to cause the downfall of the Soviet regime.

This is the conventional thinking that does not take into consideration the resources and the time wasted, the loss in other fronts (Europe, Africa, China, Latin America), as well as the impact on the image and the perspectives of America. Even worse, this conventional way of thinking does not take into account the fact that the so-called collapse of the Soviet Union consists in an absolutely false myth; in real terms, it was a 10-year moratorium that ended up with the replacement of the former Soviet Union by Russia.

As conventional thinking is based on a quantitative approach, defenders of this interpretation would say that Russia is now much weaker (comparatively speaking) than Soviet Union in the mid-70s. This is absolutely wrong because America is similarly weaker now, as Europe, China, and to lesser extent India and Brazil have risen to significance.

This ominous way of conventional thinking is what publicly unseen but real and omnipotent centers of power promote in order to besot the vast masses of the Americans, divert them from global issues, and then effectively run them without them even understanding it.

According to an unconventional approach and interpretation, after WW II, all the administrations failed to understand that ’superpower’ (anytime anywhere) means above all ability to deal with nuance.

Of course, the Russians are quite the same. And perhaps, this is the reason for which the Cold War lasted that long. If France or England had been in the position of (as powerful as) America in 1945, the Soviet Empire would have collapsed in the early 60s.

America cannot be an ally for Colonial England and France

As a matter of fact, the lack of nuance made America (under either Democrats or Republicans) perceive itself as an ally of colonial empires that following their collapse managed to turn the colonial rule to postcolonial rule (which is just another form of colonial rule) under America’s nose - and the US started understanding this reality only in the 90s.

For Eisenhower or Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, Carter or Reagan, the Search for Freedom could not have a positive exit if undertaken in alliance with the most vicious enemies of Freedom, France and England. The two colonial countries are not only guilty for Serial Crimes against the Mankind because of their deeds in Africa, Oceania, and Asia but also responsible for terrorism, oppression and cultural genocide practiced in Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Occitania, Corsica, Bask Land, Catalonia and French Polynesia.

The oppression in Corsica was not different from the oppression in Estonia. If Ukraine is now an independent country, so Scotland and Catalonia must. Today, in 2008, France cannot possibly dare demand of China to respect the rights of the Tibetans because France has long implemented far crueler practices of oppression in Brittany under the infamous emblem “In the streets it is prohibited to spit and to speak Breton.”

It would be a terrible political mistake to identify ‘anti-colonial’ with “Democrat”, ‘left’ or even ‘leftist’. Anti-colonialism is Americanism, the essence of the Declaration of Independence. It has to be undertaken / promoted / implemented by either Democrats or Republicans.

Lessons to take from the Cold War

Conventional thinking and traditional approach to foreign policy are responsible for the following oxymoron - all due to the lack of nuance:

Anti-colonial (by nature) America was the ally of the colonial powers England and France (1950 - 1990), while they promoted postcolonial structures in Africa and Asia, involving state run economies, totalitarian regimes, and at the same time a great dose of Anti-Americanism.

Was it not a form of American suicide?

In fact, the Cold War was in itself a terrible anti-American trickery of England and France. It helped the colonial powers ensure the implementation of the following projects for some decades:

1. America would waste an incredible amount of resources in the Cold War.

2. England and France would recover financially.

3. They would maintain the colonial control in most of their former colonies.

4. Soviet Union would also waste an incredible amount of resources.

5. Every liberation movement would be triggered by the Soviet Union, thus
contributing to a good public image of that monstrous realm for decades. It would however be without real effect as the Soviet system was never viable.

6. Americans would try to prevent ‘Soviet expansion,’ thus triggering anti- Americanism, and identifying themselves as the ‘bad’ guys!

It is all being currently reproduced in the equally fake War against Islamic Terrorism. By this I don’t imply that there are no Islamic extremists! On the contrary! Simply, the setup is fake. All the US has done against Islamic extremism thus far is just a mere unilateral damage of the US image, influence and potential allover the world. America rather contributed to severe worsening of the case.

It is high time for Obama to envision an American policy able to redress the current ordeal. The only way would be rethinking from scratch without endorsing anything in the world that contradicts America’s basic principles and values as defended by the Founding Fathers. Political realism is a monodrama for which the US has an expiry date.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Sphere: Related Content