By George Friedman
From: stratfor.com

The weeklong extravaganza of G-20, NATO, EU, U.S. and Turkey meetings has ended. The spin emerging from the meetings, echoed in most of the media, sought to portray the meetings as a success and as reflecting a re-emergence of trans-Atlantic unity.

The reality, however, is that the meetings ended in apparent unity because the United States accepted European unwillingness to compromise on key issues. U.S. President Barack Obama wanted the week to appear successful, and therefore backed off on key issues; the Europeans did the same. Moreover, Obama appears to have set a process in motion that bypasses Europe to focus on his last stop: Turkey.

Berlin, Washington and the G-20

Let’s begin with the G-20 meeting, which focused on the global financial crisis. As we said last year, there were many European positions, but the United States was reacting to Germany’s. Not only is Germany the largest economy in Europe, it is the largest exporter in the world. Any agreement that did not include Germany would be useless, whereas an agreement excluding the rest of Europe but including Germany would still be useful.

Two fundamental issues divided the United States and Germany. The first was whether Germany would match or come close to the U.S. stimulus package. The United States wanted Germany to stimulate its own domestic demand. Obama feared that if the United States put a stimulus plan into place, Germany would use increased demand in the U.S. market to expand its exports. The United States would wind up with massive deficits while the Germans took advantage of U.S. spending, thus letting Berlin enjoy the best of both worlds. Washington felt it had to stimulate its economy, and that this would inevitably benefit the rest of the world. But Washington wanted burden sharing. Berlin, quite rationally, did not. Even before the meetings, the United States dropped the demand — Germany was not going to cooperate.

The second issue was the financing of the bailout of the Central European banking system, heavily controlled by eurozone banks and part of the EU financial system. The Germans did not want an EU effort to bail out the banks. They wanted the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail out a substantial part of the EU financial system instead. The reason was simple: The IMF receives loans from the United States, as well as China and Japan, meaning the Europeans would be joined by others in underwriting the bailout. The United States has signaled it would be willing to contribute $100 billion to the IMF, of which a substantial portion would go to Central Europe. (Of the current loans given by the IMF, roughly 80 percent have gone to the struggling economies in Central Europe.) The United States therefore essentially has agreed to the German position.

Later at the NATO meeting, the Europeans — including Germany — declined to send substantial forces to Afghanistan. Instead, they designated a token force of 5,000, most of whom are scheduled to be in Afghanistan only until the August elections there, and few of whom actually would be engaged in combat operations. This is far below what Obama had been hoping for when he began his presidency.

Agreement was reached on collaboration in detecting international tax fraud and on further collaboration in managing the international crisis, however. But what that means remains extremely vague — as it was meant to be, since there was no consensus on what was to be done. In fact, the actual guidelines will still have to be hashed out at the G-20 finance ministers’ meeting in Scotland in November. Intriguingly, after insisting on the creation of a global regulatory regime — and with the vague U.S. assent — the European Union failed to agree on European regulations. In a meeting in Prague on April 4, the United Kingdom rejected the regulatory regime being proposed by Germany and France, saying it would leave the British banking system at a disadvantage.

Overall, the G-20 and the NATO meetings did not produce significant breakthroughs. Rather than pushing hard on issues or trading concessions — such as accepting Germany’s unwillingness to increase its stimulus package in return for more troops in Afghanistan — the United States failed to press or bargain. It preferred to appear as part of a consensus rather than appear isolated. The United States systematically avoided any appearance of disagreement.

The reason there was no bargaining was fairly simple: The Germans were not prepared to bargain. They came to the meetings with prepared positions, and the United States had no levers with which to move them. The only option was to withhold funding for the IMF, and that would have been a political disaster (not to mention economically rather unwise). The United States would have been seen as unwilling to participate in multilateral solutions rather than Germany being seen as trying to foist its economic problems on others. Obama has positioned himself as a multilateralist and can’t afford the political consequences of deviating from this perception. Contributing to the IMF, in these days of trillion-dollar bailouts, was the lower-cost alternative. Thus, the Germans have the U.S. boxed in.

The political aspect of this should not be underestimated. George W. Bush had extremely bad relations with the Europeans (in large part because he was prepared to confront them). This was Obama’s first major international foray, and he could not let it end in acrimony or wind up being seen as unable to move the Europeans after running a campaign based on his ability to manage the Western coalition. It was important that he come home having reached consensus with the Europeans. Backing off on key economic and military demands gave him that “consensus.”

Turkey and Obama’s Deeper Game

But it was not simply a matter of domestic politics. It is becoming clear that Obama is playing a deeper game. A couple of weeks before the meetings, when it had become obvious that the Europeans were not going to bend on the issues that concerned the United States,Obama scheduled a trip to Turkey. During the EU meetings in Prague, Obama vigorously supported the Turkish application for EU membership, which several members are blocking on grounds of concerns over human rights and the role of the military in Turkey. But the real reason is that full membership would open European borders to Turkish migration, and the Europeans do not want free Turkish migration. The United States directly confronted the Europeans on this matter.

During the NATO meeting, a key item on the agenda was the selection of a new alliance secretary-general. The favorite was former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Turkey opposed his candidacy because of his defense on grounds of free speech of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish magazine. NATO operates on consensus, so any one member can block just about anything. The Turks backed off the veto, but won two key positions in NATO, including that of deputy secretary-general.

So while the Germans won their way at the meetings, it was the Turks who came back with the most. Not only did they boost their standing in NATO, they got Obama to come to a vigorous defense of the Turkish application for membership in the European Union, which of course the United States does not belong to. Obama then flew to Turkey for meetings and to attend a key international meeting that will allow him to further position the United States in relation to Islam.

The Russian Dimension

Let’s diverge to another dimension of these talks, which still concerns Turkey, but also concerns the Russians. While atmospherics after the last week’s meetings might have improved, there was certainly no fundamental shift in U.S.-Russian relations. The Russians have rejected the idea of pressuring Iran over its nuclear program in return for the United States abandoning its planned ballistic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States simultaneously downplayed the importance of a Russian route to Afghanistan. Washington said there were sufficient supplies in Afghanistan and enough security on the Pakistani route such that the Russians weren’t essential for supplying Western operations in Afghanistan. At the same time, the United States reached an agreement with Ukraine for the transshipment of supplies — a mostly symbolic gesture, but one guaranteed to infuriate the Russians at both the United States and Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO communique did not abandon the idea of Ukraine and Georgia being admitted to NATO, although the German position on unspecified delays to such membership was there as well. When Obama looks at the chessboard, the key emerging challenge remains Russia.

The Germans are not going to be joining the United States in blocking Russia. Between dependence on Russia for energy supplies and little appetite for confronting a Russia that Berlin sees as no real immediate threat to Germany, the Germans are not going to address the Russian question. At the same time, the United States does not want to push the Germans toward Russia, particularly in confrontations ultimately of secondary importance and on which Germany has no give anyway. Obama is aware that the German left is viscerally anti-American, while Merkel is only pragmatically anti-American — a small distinction, but significant enough for Washington not to press Berlin.

At the same time, an extremely important event between Turkey and Armenia looks to be on the horizon. Armenians had long held Turkey responsible for the mass murder of Armenians during and after World War I, a charge the Turks have denied. The U.S. Congress for several years has threatened to pass a resolution condemning Turkish genocide against Armenians. The Turks are extraordinarily sensitive to this charge, and passage would have meant a break with the United States. Last week, they publicly began to discuss an agreement with the Armenians, including diplomatic recognition, which essentially disarms the danger from any U.S. resolution on genocide. Although an actual agreement hasn’t been signed just yet, anticipation is building on all sides.

The Turkish opening to Armenia has potentially significant implications for the balance of power in the Caucasus. The August 2008 Russo-Georgian war created an unstable situation in an area of vital importance to Russia. Russian troops remain deployed, and NATO has called for their withdrawal from the breakaway Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There are Russian troops in Armenia, meaning Russia has Georgia surrounded. In addition, there is talk of an alternative natural gas pipeline network from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Turkey is the key to all of this. If Ankara collaborates with Russia, Georgia’s position is precarious and Azerbaijan’s route to Europe is blocked. If it cooperates with the United States and also manages to reach a stable treaty with Armenia under U.S. auspices, the Russian position in the Caucasus is weakened and an alternative route for natural gas to Europe opens up, decreasing Russian leverage against Europe.

From the American point of view, Europe is a lost cause since internally it cannot find a common position and its heavyweights are bound by their relationship with Russia. It cannot agree on economic policy, nor do its economic interests coincide with those of the United States, at least insofar as Germany is concerned. As far as Russia is concerned, Germany and Europe are locked in by their dependence on Russian natural gas. The U.S.-European relationship thus is torn apart not by personalities, but by fundamental economic and military realities. No amount of talking will solve that problem.

The key to sustaining the U.S.-German alliance is reducing Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas and putting Russia on the defensive rather than the offensive. The key to that now is Turkey, since it is one of the only routes energy from new sources can cross to get to Europe from the Middle East, Central Asia or the Caucasus. If Turkey — which has deep influence in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, the Middle East and the Balkans — is prepared to ally with the United States, Russia is on the defensive and a long-term solution to Germany’s energy problem can be found. On the other hand, if Turkey decides to take a defensive position and moves to cooperate with Russia instead, Russia retains the initiative and Germany is locked into Russian-controlled energy for a generation.

Therefore, having sat through fruitless meetings with the Europeans, Obama chose not to cause a pointless confrontation with a Europe that is out of options. Instead, Obama completed his trip by going to Turkey to discuss what the treaty with Armenia means and to try to convince the Turks to play for high stakes by challenging Russia in the Caucasus, rather than playing Russia’s junior partner.

This is why Obama’s most important speech in Europe was his last one, following Turkey’s emergence as a major player in NATO’s political structure. In that speech, he sided with the Turks against Europe, and extracted some minor concessions from the Europeans on the process for considering Turkey’s accession to the European Union. Why Turkey wants to be an EU member is not always obvious to us, but they do want membership. Obama is trying to show the Turks that he can deliver for them. He reiterated — if not laid it on even more heavily — all of this in his speech in Ankara. Obama laid out the U.S. position as one that recognized the tough geopolitical position Turkey is in and the leader that Turkey is becoming, and also recognized the commonalities between Washington and Ankara. This was exactly what Turkey wanted to hear.

The Caucasus is far from the only area to discuss. Talks will be held about blocking Iran in Iraq, U.S. relations with Syria and Syrian talks with Israel, and Central Asia, where both countries have interests. But the most important message to the Europeans will be that Europe is where you go for photo opportunities, but Turkey is where you go to do the business of geopolitics. It is unlikely that the Germans and French will get it. Their sense of what is happening in the world is utterly Eurocentric. But the Central Europeans, on the frontier with Russia and feeling quite put out by the German position on their banks, certainly do get it.

Obama gave the Europeans a pass for political reasons, and because arguing with the Europeans simply won’t yield benefits. But the key to the trip is what he gets out of Turkey — and whether in his speech to the civilizations, he can draw some of the venom out of the Islamic world by showing alignment with the largest economy among Muslim states, Turkey.

By — Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad Shamsaddin

Several recent developments in the Iraqi Turkmenia seem unrelated to one another, but they definitely constitute parts of an overall deterioration plan that is expected to be unfolded over the next 2 — 3 years.

In this article, I included reports about three seemingly unrelated to one another developments — which are very must interconnected on some hidden agendas.

1. The severe degradation of the Human Rights conditions in the cruel KRG area in Northern Iraq (see below: The Kurdish Terror Showed Their Ugly Face Once Again, By Raiding of A Turkmen House)

A report composed by Mofak Salman makes state of a joint operation carried out by a group of U.S. force and the Kurdish security forces that are known as Asayish who have raided the home of a Turkmen citizen Nazim Suleiman Begoglu in the Turkmen city of Kerkuk.

This group is totally uncontrolled by either the Talabani militias or the Barzani death squads; it cooperates in close coordination with the Halabja based criminals who intend to impose Al Qaeda terror regime throughout territories taken from Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey that they will call ‘Islamic Caliphate‘ in commemoration of Saladin’s legacy.

2. The aggravation of the Ankara — Baghdad relationship over Kerkuk’s identity (see below: Turkey Feels Uneasy on Talabani’s Kirkuk Visit Statement)

The clash of interests between Turkey and the pseudo-president of Iraq, local agent of the Freemasonic interests of England, France, and the pro-European part of the US establishment, is truly grave; it is impossible to alleviate the existing nervousness between Ankara and Baghdad that Western institutions like the ICG try to assuage in order to avoid a dynamic Turkish reaction that would destroy their evil plans.

The fact that Ankara did not welcome the statement of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that he and Turkish President Abdullah Gul would travel to Kerkuk shows that Turkey will never accept any role for any ‘Kurd‘ in Oil-rich Kerkuk, capital of Turkmenia.

In fact, if visiting Kerkuk, Talabani risks leaving the place dead — and not due to Turkmen reaction but because of the plans of his uncontrolled subordinates.

3. The chaotic situation among the so-called ‘Kurdish‘ groups, militias, paramilitary and extremists (see below: Scores die in Iraq suicide blast)

The terrible events of last Thursday, when the target was a ‘Kurdish‘ restaurant on the way between Kerkuk and ca. 60 people died in a suicide attack, reveal that there is a silent opposition among the so-called ‘Kurds‘ and that their plans are to first support the creation of an independent ‘Kurdistan‘ (in order to obtain there full control of the situation) and then use the under machinated preparation ‘country’ for their benefit — which obviously means Al Qaeda’s benefit.

The perpetrators of the terrible Kerkuk events are members of the Ashayish militias who are tele-guided from places outside Iraq’s territory — in Talabani’s and Barzanis’ unbeknownst.

Uncontrolled Asayish: the Al Qaeda Cell

The longer Talabani and Barzani are allowed to fallaciously represent a territory that is not theirs and a population that in its outright majority rejects them with the utmost resignation, the better for the Asayish it is. American military and Secretary Gates seem to are deeply involved into this game, openly collaborating with the Asayish and thus offering them significant credibility among the imbecile and gullible thugs of both, Talabani and Barzani.

In an earlier article entitled ‘US-Ally “Al Qaeda”, White and Gray ‘Kurdistan’, Turkey, Iran, and the ICG Report‘ , I stated the following:

‘According to this plan, the remnants of the Ilkhanid Mongols, after having lived for centuries among the various local peoples of the Zagros mountains and amalgamated among them, will be used (portrayed as ‘Kurds’) to form an Islamist regime that will simply make the (currently visible but gullible and idiotic) Talabani and Barzani puppets vanish. The otherwise odd pattern of an Islamist leadership allied with the Frankish West and the West’s allies in the East, notably Armenia, has been attested already before 700 years — the times of the evil and barbaric Ilkhanid dynasty’.

In another article entitled ‘ICG Report, Turkey, Iraq, ‘Kurdistan’, and the Nefarious, Age-Old Franco-Mongol Alliance‘, I specified the following:

‘It will be comical to imagine that in case this state is formed, it will be ruled by Talabani and Barzani; these idiotic and pathetic pseudo-leaders are expendable trash that will be soon forgotten. Neither the Iranian nor the Turkish parts of the (truly speaking inexistent) Kurdistan will be allowed to provide the leadership of the evil state under formation.

The forthcoming iniquitous leader of Kurdistan will emanate from the restricted realm of Al Qaeda in the Iraqi Kurdistan, Halabja, which is so scrupulously protected by the imbecile Talabani puppet, and so mysteriously forgotten by the (otherwise feverishly ‘reporting‘ about anything) Freemasonic Western mass media. Those who are today uncontrolled in the Shinirwe mountain will spread apocalyptic terror in the Middle East when they will rule in a black colour flagged Kurdistan.

Ankara should monitor very carefully the developments in Shinirwe because Turkey is the primary target. Behind all the trash about a ‘Kurdistan‘, which is another French Anti-Turkish conspiracy, is hidden an ages old but momentarily forgotten, Franco-Mongol alliance. And the real force within a ‘Kurdistan‘ will be as Anti-Turkish as only an Ilkhanid can be’.

In the light of the aforementioned, I called for immediate delineation of borderlines separating Turkmen, Aramaeans, Yazidis and others in Central and Northern Iraq, characterizing this as the only solution for ultimate peace and multi-lateral development in tyrannized Mesopotamia (‘Save the Tyrannized Yazidis of Iraq from Al Qaeda and Gangsters Talabani — Barzani!‘). More particularly, I stressed the following:

‘The animosity against the Yazidis, who live in Iraq in their outright majority, is therefore double, ethnic and religious. It is absolutely sure that the formation of an Iraqi authority, called Kurdish Regional Government, directly threatens the very existence of the Yazidi Nation’.

(More on the Yazidis could be found here: ‘What the Ominous ICG Report Did Not Say about the Fabrication of the so-called Nation of Kurds‘).

All this gets better illuminated in the light of the tragic events of Kerkuk. These events are not isolated; they will be continued; they will be pursued with greater frequency and this has to be anticipated. The uncontrolled Asayish will eliminate the corrupt and coward pseudo-leaders Talabani and Barzani, as soon as they will have played their ‘historical’ role: to help establish a ‘Kurdish’ state which will the superior level of Freemasonry-inspired Islamism. Then, it will truly be too late to react.

Operate as if America does not exist…

The only power that can react now against these evil plans is the Turkish army; the local groups are too weak and too divided in order to attempt a major project. And the current Turkish political leadership is too ignorant or too corrupt to conceptualize the apparently fragmentary events that are majestically interconnected indeed.

The moment for the Turkish military to eliminate the unrepresentative Islamists is approaching; it will be a brief moment that has to be duly seized. If not, everything will collapse, Turkey will face a serious existential threat, and any late reaction, despite the eventually good intentions, will be detrimental of consequences.

There is one golden rule for the Turkish military to act either in Turkey or in Northern Iraq: to operate in concordance with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and to proceed as if America does not exist. The correct timing for action will be precisely when America will be impotent to react; that moment is very nigh, and when it happens, it will be obvious to all.

Scores die in Iraq suicide blast

A suicide bomber has killed at least 55 people in a Kurdish restaurant, about 5km north of the city of Kirkuk (a Turkmen city) in northern Iraq.

More than 100 people were also wounded in the explosion on Thursday, police said.

A suicide bomber has killed at least 55 people in a Kurdish restaurant, about 5km north of the city of Kirkuk (a Turkmen city) in northern Iraq.

More than 100 people were also wounded in the explosion on Thursday, police said.

Iraqi and US security forces have sealed off the area.

The bombing near the ethnically mixed city came during the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.

The restaurant was full of people eating lunch, with more people present than usual due to the four-day holiday, Jamal Tahir, police chief of Kirkuk, said.

‘Among the dead are women and children as the bomber blew himself up inside the family section,’ Ahmad Saleh, an Iraqi journalist who was near the scene of the blast, told Al Jazeera.

‘The restaurant is a very popular one and has many foreign workers. Government officials also go there frequently,’ he said.

Ethnic tensions

Kurdish official said Arab tribal leaders were in the restaurant at the time of the attack, having lunch with members of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the party of Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president.

They were due to attend a meeting with Talabani after the lunch to discuss ways to defuse tensions among Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen in the Kirkuk area.

One official from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan was killed, a spokesman said.

The reason behind Thursday’s bombing was not immediately clear.

Kirkuk, the centre of Iraq’s northern oil fields, has seen fewer attacks than other regions in Iraq but remains the focus of years of competition and political wrangling among ethnic groups, including Arabs and Kurds, with rival claims to the city.

Both groups want control Kirkuk, the Kurds as part of a breakaway territory with the surrounding Tamim province and their own self-ruled region in northern Iraq.

The Abdullah restaurant where the attack occurred is on the main road from Irbil to Kirkuk and is popular with Kurdish officials moving to and from the nearby Kurdish region.

It is affiliated with another Kurdish restaurant of the same name which was attacked by a car bomb in 2007. Six people died due to that blast. (Aljazeera)

Turkey Feels Uneasy on Talabani’s Kirkuk Visit Statement

Ankara did not welcome the statement of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that he and Turkish President Abdullah Gul would travel to Kirkuk, Milliyet daily reported citing presidential office sources.

Talabani’s declaration was interpreted as efforts by the Iraqi party to include Kirkuk in Gul’s planned Baghdad visit, the report said.

According to reports on Friday, Talabani was reported as saying he and Gul were planning to visit Kirkuk together on Dec.20.

Turkish Presidential sources had earlier confirmed that a visit to Iraq was on the agenda, adding there was no clear date. However sources did not mention a possible visit to Kirkuk during Gul’s planned trip.

The announced visit may be postponed if Turkish President Abdullah Gul, who currently has an ear infection, is not cleared by doctors to fly, the newspaper also said.

The proposed visit is seen as the part of recent efforts to boost bilateral ties between Turkey and Iraq. Turkey has intensified direct contacts with both the Iraqi central government and the regional Kurdish administration in northern Iraq to discuss possible measures that can be taken in the fight against the terror organization PKK. (Hurriyet)

The Kurdish Terror Showed Their Ugly Face Once Again, By Raiding of A Turkmen House — By Mofak Salman, Turkmeneli Party Representative for Both Ireland and United Kingdom

On the 5th of November 2008 a group of U.S. force accompanied by Kurdish security forces that are known as Asayish have raided the home of a Turkmen citizen Nazim Suleiman Begoglu in the Turkmen city of Kirkuk, district of Althbat ‘.

According to the member of the family who was present in the house during the raid, the U.S. force, accompanied by a group of Kurdish security forces ‘Asayish’ broke doors in the house at around half an hour after mid-night.

They entered the house after smashing the main gates and doors then they arrested two of their sons Nabil Nazim Suleiman, aged thirty years and his brother Zakaria Nazim Suleiman of twenty-eight years respectively and who worked in a shop selling electrical appliances in downtown Kirkuk.

During the raid on the Turkmen home by the US occupied forces that accompanied by the Asayish. The Asayish were wearing Balla Clava, with a Kurdish flag on the arm of their uniform and they spoke with a different Kurdish accent.

The Asayish and American forces destroyed their furniture, contents of the house, smashed doors and windows and randomly fired bullets using automatic machine guns inside the house in order to terrify the innocent unarmed Turkmen family.

They moved all the members of the family into a single room and they tied their hands behind their backs and faced to the wall. The children and the females were body searched and this is utterly unacceptable in the culture and the tradition of the Islam and the in the Turkmen culture especially. This criminal act was implemented on the hand the Asayish and US forces despite the assurances that were given from the central government and officials not to raids the homes of the citizens without having warrant issue.

According to the information that has been released, the raided forces have requested from the frightened Turkmen family to show them their savings and jewelry, the family did so under the force of a gun. As the result of this US forces and Asayish stole their savings and jewelry during the raid and this matter should be urgently investigated by the US occupied forces in Kirkuk who are mainly responsible for the safety, security and the stability.

After the incident the Turkmen family have approached the police in Kirkuk, political organizations and the Kirkuk governor Mustafa Abdullrahman who is a Kurd and being appointed by the USA forces for help and assistance. A promises and assurance were given to the Turkmen family by the Kirkuk governor to investigate the incident and to secure their release but unfortunately no proper action has been taken to secure their release.

The arbitrary arrests of the two brothers, Zakaria and Nabil Nazim Suleiman Begoglu by the Asayish and US occupied forces are a clear violation of human rights. They are still detained and being imprisoned by the occupied forces and no one knows where they are imprisoned. The most striking thing is that, the family of the detainees have not been given any reason for their arrest and have not been given access for a lawyer.

Turkmen of Iraq call upon the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri AlMaliki, Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Journalists Union, all Iraqi and international organizations defending the human rights and freedom to move immediately to the authorities of the Iraqi government at the highest levels for the protection of the Turkmen, Arabs and Assyrian from the Kurdish oppression that are carried by Kurdish terror forces that is known as Asayish in North of Iraq and also calls for the removal of the Asayish from Turkmen city of Kirkuk and to be replaced with forces from the central government and consisting of Arabs, Turkmen, Assyrians and Kurds.

Notes

[1] Turkmen: The Iraqi Turkmen live in an area that they call ‘Turkmenia‘ in Latin or “Turkmeneli‘ which means, ‘Land of the Turkmen.” It was referred to as ‘Turcomania‘ by the British geographer William Guthrie in 1785. The Turkmen are a Turkic group that has a unique heritage and culture as well as linguistic, historical and cultural links with the surrounding Turkic groups such as those in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Their spoken language is closer to Azeri but their official written language is like the Turkish spoken in present-day Turkey. Their real population has always being suppressed by the authorities in Iraq for political reasons and estimated at 2%, whereas in reality their numbers are more realistically between 2.5 to 3 million, i .e. 12% of the Iraqi population.

[2] Turkmeneli is a diagonal strip of land stretching from the Syrian and Turkish border areas from around Telafer in the north of Iraq, reaching down to the town of Mendeli on the Iranian border in Central Iraq. The Turkmen of Iraq settled in Turkmeneli in three successive and constant migrations from Central Asia, this increased their numbers and enabled them to establish six states in Iraq.

[3] Asayish is an unrecognized and illegitimate force that is utilized by both Kurdish parties to terrorize innocent civilian people. They are used to kidnap and kill people who defy the Kurdish aspiration for establishing a Kurdish state.

Mofak Salman can be contacted here: msal...@eircom.net

——————————————————–

By — Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad Shamsaddin

In five previous articles, entitled ‘Terrorist State ‘Ethiopia’ to Be Punished for Evil Role in Somalia — HRW Report Summary‘, ‘So Much to Fear – War Crimes and the Devastation of Somalia, HRW Report Recommendations‘, ‘Amhara and Tigray ‘Ethiopianist’ Regime: Osama Bin Laden’s Foremost Ally‘, ‘Incommensurable Monstrosity of Amhara — Tigray Death Squads at Mogadishu, Revealed by HRW Report‘, and ‘The Destruction of Mogadishu: Genocidal Plans and Practices of the Evil Amhara – Tigray Regime‘, I re-published the chapters ‘Summary’, ‘Recommendations’, ‘Methodology’, ‘Background’, ‘International Humanitarian Law and the Conflict in Somalia’, ‘Civilian Deaths and the Destruction of Mogadishu’, and ‘Human Rights Abuses by Transitional Federal Government Forces’ from the HRW Report on Somalia.

In the present article, I republish the Report’s most critical chapter, namely ‘Laws of War and Human Rights Violations by Ethiopian Military Forces’.

Before that, I will republish excerpts from the daily press briefing offered to media representatives by the Spokesman of the State Department Sean McCormack – just three days ago.

Asked about the HRW Report, the indescribable spokesman McCormack failed to admit the reality, namely that his government’s unconditional support of the TFG and ‘Ethiopia’ helped only exacerbate the Somalia crisis.

And to add comical reference to his lack of proper response, he suggested the journalists to refer to â?¦.. ‘the transcripts from Jendayi’, the inhuman and racist accomplice of the monstrous Abyssinian gangster Zenawi.

McCormack’s sentences about Somalia are a must read; they bear witness to the utmost inhumanity that characterizes the criminal American interlocutors of the barbaric and racist Abyssinian regime.

Somali, Ogadeni, Oromo, Afar, and Sidama blood is fresh in the hands of McCormack, Jendayi Frazer, Condoleezza Rice and President Bush.

As long as they don’t dissociate themselves from Africa’s most rancorous and hateful hyenas, the Amhara and Tigray Monophysitic Abyssinians who rule the fake state ‘Ethiopia’, they are and they are viewed as their allies.

As long as they don’t impose an international embargo against ‘Ethiopia’ on the basis of so many extremely analytical and scrupulously descriptive reports, they bear full responsibility as criminal partners in the world’s most odious crime which has been committed for more than 17 years against Somalia.

As long as they pursue the shameful tactics of silence and complicity, they bring on their heads the dramatic consequences that they deserve — and which they will not escape. It is sheer delusion for anyone to assume that a stance like this will have no consequences.

It is a real shame for any country to be represented by a pathetic accomplice able to merely utter that he is not sure ‘what Human Rights Watch is trying to do with this report’.

What spokesman McCormack must be able at least to answer is ‘what the US is trying to do with the criminal policy of support to Abyssinia’.

What this felon must definitely understand is that America will pay a heavy price for its alliance with Hitler’s Children in Africa, and that whatever America has done or may do in the future will not prevent the final dissolution and destruction of ‘Ethiopia’ and the bleak but perfectly deserved days for the criminal and unrepentant perpetrators of serial genocides, the Amhara and Tigray Monophysitic (Tewahedo) tribes of Abyssinia.

In forthcoming articles, I will complete the re-publication of the enlightening Report that should become the basic set of guidelines of a total reconsideration of the American policy for East Africa.

Daily Press Briefing by Sean McCormack, Spokesman

Washington, DC
December 8, 2008

QUESTION: There’s a new Human Rights Watch report on Somalia that’s very critical of the U.S. Government’s support, or what they call unconditional support, of the government, which they say is exasperating the political situation and aiding human rights abuses.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, where to start with such an assertion? Look, I think you can go back and look at my transcripts, look at the transcripts from Jendayi, where I say we’re interested in working with all parties and have an interest in working with all parties who want to have a — work towards a better future in Somalia. That has been the case. It just so happens that the Transitional Federal Government is such an institution. It’s not exclusive. Those who want to make a constructive contribution to Somalia’s future, we’re willing to take a look at how we might work together.

The people with whom we won’t work are terrorists. So I’m not sure what the suggestion of Human Rights Watch is in that regard. The United States as well as other countries have also made extensive efforts to ensure the continuing flow of humanitarian goods into Somalia. So not only have we contributed to humanitarian relief, but we have also helped ensure that those humanitarian goods get into Somalia.

So, yeah, I’m not sure, you know, what Human Rights Watch is trying to do with this report, what points they’re trying to score. But Somalia is a deeply tragic place and has been for some time. We have been working with others to try to make it a less tragic place and a place that has a better future.

I want to start –

QUESTION: What do you mean by scoring points?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don’t know. I mean, I — you give me these sort of quotes talking about the United States and criticizing the United States — I’m not sure — for its efforts in Somalia. I’m not sure really even the basis for making those kinds of statements, those kinds of assertions. It’s just ridiculous on its face.

QUESTION: Same topic, Somalia?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the United — is the State Department assisting the FBI in searching for these Somali Americans who apparently have gone back to Somalia and are at risk of participating in terrorism?

MR. MCCORMACK: Not sure. I’ll –

QUESTION: Can you take it?

MR. MCCORMACK: I’ll have to take the question, yeah.

QUESTION: Same subject?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Dave.

QUESTION: The Ethiopians have announced that they’re going to leave the country within weeks. They’re certainly reporting that if that happens, Somalia will have, you know, an all-out, ungoverned, failed state. What sort of diplomacy are you involved in, I mean, to try to — are you trying to talk the Ethiopians out of leaving or trying to increase other foreign forces there?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we’re taking a look at and we’re trying to work through the international system, that is, trying to find a way that you can have a responsible international force in Somalia to help provide some security and therefore some stability, and allow some of these weaker institutions to start to take hold in a positive way. So we’re looking at a variety of different ways of doing that, working with the AU, working through the UN.

Thus far, I don’t have the answer for you, but I — this is something that Secretary Rice, just on her last trip in the UK, she spoke with Foreign Secretary Miliband about. And so we’re continuing to look for a solution. There clearly needs to be an answer to this question. We just haven’t found the right one yet.

Yeah.

QUESTION: A transition question. When do you expect the first meeting between Secretary Rice and Senator Clinton? Or has it happened already and we don’t –

MR. MCCORMACK: No, it hasn’t happened. We’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Will that be here?

MR. MCCORMACK: We’ll let you know. We’ll let you know the details, as many details as we can provide.

QUESTION: Yeah, after the fact.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

Laws of War and Human Rights Violations by Ethiopian Military Forces

As of early 2007, ENDF troops had a reputation among many Somalis interviewed by Human Rights Watch for being admirably disciplined in their day-to-day interactions with Somali civilians, even if most Somalis resented their presence in the country.[143] That discipline has been allowed to erode severely. Ethiopian forces have been implicated in numerous violations of the laws of war, including acts by individuals that amount to war crimes. They have indiscriminately bombarded populated areas with mortar shells, artillery, and rockets. They have increasingly responded to insurgent ambushes and other attacks by firing indiscriminately at anyone and everyone in the general vicinity. And incidents of killing, rape, and looting involving ENDF personnel have greatly increased.

Indiscriminate Attacks

Rockets, Mortars, and Artillery

ENDF forces in Mogadishu have routinely and indiscriminately bombarded populated residential areas of Mogadishu since March 2007. They have made regular use of “Katyusha” rockets in Mogadishu, often fired from BM-21 “Grad” multiple-rocket-launchers.[144] Their use in populated urban environments is inherently indiscriminate, in violation of international humanitarian law.

The crushing impact of these bombardments on Mogadishu residents has been well-documented.[145] Nonetheless, there is no evidence that Ethiopian forces have in any way curtailed them.

Ethiopian forces carried out similar indiscriminate bombardments in fighting in the strategically important town of Beletweyne. In July 2008 Al-Shabaab fighters launched mortar shells against ENDF troops stationed at a base just outside Beletweyne unlawfully using the town’s civilian population as cover.[146] ENDF forces responded by indiscriminately bombarding large swathes of the western districts of the town for three days beginning on July 24.[147] Humanitarian organizations estimated that at the end of July, 74,000 people-more than 75 percent of the town’s population-had been displaced as a direct result of the bombardment and related fighting.[148]

Indiscriminate Gunfire

There have been increased reports in 2008 of Ethiopian forces responding to insurgent ambushes and other attacks by firing indiscriminately into populated areas. Incidents of indiscriminate ENDF fire that claimed civilian lives appear to have occurred with increasing frequency, particularly in Mogadishu, Baidoa, and along the Mogadishu-Afgooye road.

One of the most notorious incidents of 2008 occurred on August 15 when an ENDF convoy was struck by a roadside bomb along the Mogadishu-Afgooye road, home to hundreds of thousands of displaced persons from Mogadishu and a frequent site of armed clashes. Ethiopian soldiers in the convoy responded by firing wildly in all directions, and when the shooting stopped at least 40 Somali civilians were dead, including the passengers of two public minibuses.[149] Human Rights Watch put these allegations to the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington, DC, which responded that a thorough investigation had demonstrated the civilian casualties were the result of a roadside bomb planted by insurgents. As of the time of writing, no evidence to support this version of events, which is contrary to all other credible eyewitness accounts, has been made public by the Ethiopian government.[150]

Many similar incidents have been reported, often in the immediate aftermath of insurgent attacks on ENDF personnel. In late March or early April, another incident near Afgooye saw an ENDF convoy hit by a roadside bomb. A witness to the incident told Human Rights Watch that ENDF soldiers responded by “spraying bullets” in all directions. Most people in the area escaped but several were cut down by ENDF gunfire that continued for about 10 minutes. “When we came back, we came face to face with dead and injured people,” the witness recalled. “One of the bodies had one of the hands shot off.”[151] On April 30 ENDF troops in Baidoa reportedly opened fire wildly after their convoy was struck by a roadside bomb, killing several civilians.[152]

The descriptions that emerge from interviews with witnesses to these incidents indicate that the indiscriminate shooting by Ethiopian soldiers in response to insurgent attacks reflects poor discipline rather than criminal intent. ENDF troops rotated into Somalia from the end of 2007 were reportedly less experienced and well-trained than the soldiers they replaced. This, combined with the escalating daily violence, may have contributed to an overall breakdown in discipline and misuses of force causing civilian casualties.[153] At the same time, there have been no reported instances where ENDF soldiers have been investigated or held accountable for possible war crimes. This absence of accountability of Ethiopian soldiers has doubtlessly contributed to violations of international humanitarian law by Ethiopian forces.

Assault, Rape, Killings, and Looting

ENDF soldiers have been implicated in serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law against Somali civilians with increasing frequency since the end of 2007.[154] In Mogadishu, many of these abuses are not committed by Ethiopian soldiers acting alone but during joint operations with TFG security forces. Somalis interviewed by Human Rights Watch recounted horrifying accounts of ENDF abuses in 2008, including assaults, rape, killings, and looting.

Following a clash between EDNF troops and insurgent fighters in northern Mogadishu in April 2008, TFG and ENDF forces cordoned off an area around the site and began conducting house-to-house searches. A 22-year-old man from Mogadishu told Human Rights Watch:

Some Ethiopian and government soldiers came to our house and said, “Where are you hiding them [the insurgents]?” We said we were not hiding anyone, and that’s when they shot my father. He was just explaining to them that we did not see the people they are looking for and that we had been in the house all day, and they shot him, telling him he was lying. They shot him in the chest. My sister and mother were screaming at me to leave the place. But I wanted to resist, and I said, “Why are you doing this?” but they started beating me with the back of their guns.

The young man and his family were members of a minority clan that traces its ancestry partly back to immigrants from Portugal and so were unusually light skinned. The Ethiopian soldiers began joking that the young man’s two sisters and mother looked more like Eritreans than Somalis. With the family’s father lying dead on the floor in front of them, several Ethiopian soldiers took turns raping the three women. “And I was sitting there helpless,” the young man said. “They started raping my sisters and they were screaming. They were there for almost three hours. I saw them raping my mother in front of meâ?¦I could not help my mother or help my sisters.” At his mother’s insistence, he left Mogadishu the next day.[155]
Human Rights Watch interviewed a farmer who had fled his home in the outskirts of Beletweyne when fighting between Al-Shabaab and ENDF forces erupted there in July. He boarded a truck with others heading towards Somaliland along a back road[156] but they were soon stopped by a group of ENDF soldiers:

They stopped our car and said we are hiding some of the people they are looking for. We came out of the truck and they started searching. When they saw that there were two pretty girls with us they just took them. There was nothing we could do to resist. They did not even ask anything, they just grabbed them and started going with them. The girls were crying but the soldiers were slapping them and dragging them across the ground.

We waited for them. I was hearing their screams and cries, they were just near to us. They shot one girl because she was screaming a lot. We took the dead body and buried her. They shot her in the chestâ?¦The other girl did not want to talk about it but she said three of them were raping her at the same time.[157]

The truck and its passengers were then allowed to continue on their way.

In April 2008 one of the year’s most widely publicized atrocities occurred during an ENDF raid on a mosque in northern Mogadishu. ENDF soldiers, operating jointly with TFG forces, reportedly killed 21 people during that raid, seven of whom were found with their throats cut. Amnesty International reported that the dead included Islamic scholars who were inside the mosque at the time of the raid. The soldiers also detained several dozen children who were present at the mosque at the time of the raid.[158] The Ethiopian government denied that these or any other serious abuses involving ENDF soldiers took place.[159] Following the April 2008 mosque killings the only Ethiopian government response was to issue a statement denying the allegations and declaring that their operation in the area had been “successful beyond expectation.”[160]

ENDF forces have also been implicated in acts of looting in Mogadishu, though these incidents do not appear to be nearly as common as those involving TFG forces. One former shopkeeper from Hodan in Mogadishu said that his shop was looted twice by joint ENDF and TFG patrols in late 2007.[161] A former merchant whose shop was in the Bakara market area said that another joint patrol looted his store in April 2008. And a prominent Hawiye political figure from Mogadishu told Human Rights Watch that some groups of ENDF soldiers went on looting sprees during search and seizure operations in 2008 prior to being rotated out of the country.[162]

Notes

[143] See Human Rights Watch, Shell Shocked, p. 73. This reputation has eroded due to the events of the past year but many Somalis still see a difference in the discipline of ENDF and TFG forces. For example one refugee who fled Mogadishu in May 2008 told Human Rights Watch that, “The Ethiopians will attack you if they are attacked and use heavy weapons but they will not come into your homes and attack you like the Somali government forces.” Human Rights Watch interview, Dagahaley refugee camp, Kenya, June 30, 2008.

[144] Residents of Mogadishu refer to these as “BM,” because the rockets are often fired from BM-21 multiple rocket launchers or as “whistling” because of the whistling sound “Katyusha” rockets make while in the air. See Human Rights Watch, Shell Shocked, pp. 56-60.

[145] Human Rights Watch, Shell Shocked; also see above, Civilian Deaths and the Destruction of Mogadishu.

[146] Beletweyne sits a few kilometers off of the main road leading north from Mogadishu towards the Ethiopian border, a key link in the supply lines of ENDF forces in Somalia. It is the largest town in Hiran region and a large ENDF base sits along the highway just outside the town.

[147] Documents on file with Human Rights Watch; Human Rights Watch interviews with journalists and Somali civil society activists, Nairobi and Djibouti, September 2008. The eastern half of Beletweyne (which is divided by a river) is largely populated by Somalis of the Xawadale clan, who are seen as sympathetic to the TFG. The western half of the town is seen as a hotbed of Al-Shabaab and ICU activity.

[148] Human Rights Watch interviews with UN officials, Nairobi, September 2008; “Monthly Cluster Report: Humanitarian Response in Somalia,” UN OCHA, September 2008, p. 2.

[149] Human Rights Watch interviews with Somali civil society activist, Nairobi, September 20, 2008. See also “About 50 people killed in separate Somalia attacks,” Reuters, August 15, 2008.

[150] Letter on file with Human Rights Watch.

[151] Human Rights Watch interview with J.I., Ifo refugee camp, Kenya, June 28, 2008.

[152] See “Ethiopian soldiers kill 12 Somali civilians after roadside bomb attack,” Garowe Online, April 30, 2008, (accessed October 15, 2008).

[153] Human Rights Watch interviews, Nairobi and Hargeisa, July 2008. See also Amnesty International, Routinely Targeted: Attacks on Civilians in Somalia, p.11.

[154] For more accounts of such abuses see Amnesty International, Routinely Targeted, pp. 10-13.

[155] Human Rights Watch interview with D.M., Hargeisa, July 11, 2008.

[156] The interviewee told Human Rights Watch that ENDF forces had forbade the use of back roads as a security measure but that they took such a route anyway because they were afraid of suffering violence at ENDF checkpoints along the main tarmac road. Human Rights Watch interview, Hargeisa, July 11, 2008.

[157] Human Rights Watch interview with S.E., Hargeisa, July 11, 2008.

[158] See Amnesty International, “Ethiopia Must Release Mosque Attack Children,” April 24, 2008, (accessed October 27, 2008).

[159] See “Ethiopia Denies Mosque Killings,” BBC News Online, April 24, 2008, (accessed October 27, 2008). See also Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “No massacre at the mosque but a successful operation against Al-Shabaab,” Week in the Horn, April 24, 2008, (accessed October 27, 2008).

[160] See Agence France-Presse, “Amnesty Urges Ethiopia to Probe Mogadishu Mosque Executions,” April 25, 2008, (accessed November 10, 2008).

[161] Human Rights Watch interview, Ifo refugee camp, Kenya, June 28, 2008.

[162] Human Rights Watch interview, Nairobi, June 25, 2008.

—————————————————————————

   The arrival of the Abyssinian forces in Mogadishu in the last days of December 2006

The destruction of Somalia will soon pale when compared to the forthcoming destruction of the criminal, evil state of ‘Ethiopia‘ and the chaos that will prevail in the fake pseudo-Amhara capital ‘Addis Ababa‘ that will be evacuated by all Amhara and Tigray settlers. The calamities that will soon hit Gondar and Mekele will have no parallel in the Aafrican History.

—————————————————————————

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.

   Prof. Ali Mazrui
Last week in this space I posed a challenge to the United States of America: Will it realise its potential of becoming humankind’s post-racial garden of Eden, completing the odyssey from Africa as the first Garden of Eden? Or will the country waste that opportunity through bigotry, prejudice, and conflict?

This week we raise the question: What are the migrations that initiated the linkage between the first Garden of Eden and the second Garden of Eden? The garden of birth was Africa; the garden of potential post-raciality is the United States. Will the human race need the Edenisation of America towards the post-racial age?

The story of Adam and Eve occurs in three of the great world religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Only two of the three Abrahamic religions have featured prominently in the belief systems of the African peoples — Christianity and Islam. Christianity and Islam have cast a shadow on the migrations of African peoples from the continent of the First Eden to the shores of the Second.

Central to the transfer of the African peoples from Africa to America was of course the role of Europe. If Africa invented the human race, Europe perfected racism. Europeans then inaugurated the most extensive trade in slaves ever attempted in human history. Both European racism and European slave trade helped to set the stage for creating a multi-racial ‘New World.’ The final Eden was slowly in the making.

It is common knowledge that one of the ways by which Europeans legitimised the slave trade was by portraying Africans as heathens and cannibals. What is not often realised is that African resistance to European enslavement was in turn partly inspired by African fears that those white-skinned people were the ones who were cannibals.

As a Dutch contemporary Willem Bosman summed it up, “Sometimes we deal with slaves from deep in the interior, who convince each other that the reason why we buy and transport them is to fatten them and sell them again for an appetising meal.”

What was happening was the forceful transfer of citizens of the world’s first Garden of Eden (Africa) to the shores of what may well turn out to be the world’s final Garden of Eden- the USA. That part of the population of the United States that was of African descent was historically destined to play decisive roles in the evolution of the second Eden towards its historic destiny.

The anti-slavery spirit of resistance among Africans was inspired by many factors, including love for freedom and a determination to remain on the soil of their ancestors. But a perception of the white man as a cannibal, as the ultimate serpent who might eat up the African, aggravated African anxieties.

In 1752 one European captain in the harbour of Paramaribo, Suriname, was worried about whether his enslaved Africans on his ship Prins Willem V would jump overboard because “they feared they would be eaten” on arrival at their destination.

And an 18th century European handbook for slave traders urged the slavers to “assure the slaves, after they have been purchased, that they should not be afraid- that white people were not cannibals…” In our terms, the serpent was historically deadly, but was not a man-eater in the literal sense.

Back in Africa, indigenous rulers differed in their attitude to the slave trade. John Thornton reminds us that Queen Nzinga Nbande of Matamba in Angola tried to mobilise and coordinate opposition to the Portuguese slave traders in the 1630s and 1640s. But the Portuguese fought back and unfortunately got African allies in opposition to Queen Nzinga.

In the 18th century, Tomba, the leader of the Baga on the Guinean Coast, also tried to stop the slave trade but was opposed by resident Europeans, Mulattoes and African collaborators.

Agaji Trudo was one of the greatest kings of Dahomey. He was hostile to the slave trade, and invaded coastal Aja kingdoms partly in a bid to stop the trade. His successes were short lived. Racist Europe persevered.

Our essay here poses the issue of whether there is a secular historical and collective version of the biblical story of Genesis. Should we look at Africa as the first Garden of Eden — the original habitat of the human species, fallible, mortal and therefore profoundly human? Should we look at the United States as potentially the second Eden, the future vanguard of a post-racial world?

In 1978 William Julius Wilson alerted us about The Declining Relevance of Race. Prof Wilson might have been prophetic rather than descriptive.

America as the second Garden of Eden must first get its racial house in order. Between now and the end of the 21st century, America has to learn how to cope with race and ethnicity, with an increasingly aging population, and with the gender gaps of privilege in its population.

America must learn how to accommodate its impatient youth, how to re-define its moral values, and how to become the final burying ground of sectarian hatreds and racial strife on the world scene.

Here is the Tale of Two Edens — Africa where the human species began, and America where the human species stands a chance of attaining its optimum post-racial fulfillment, guided by African Americans as sons and daughters of the first Eden.

That Africa was the first Garden of Eden is a fact of history and paleontology. There was light in the Dark Continent before there was light anywhere else. That America is the second Garden of Eden is still a matter of hope and aspiration. Let there be divine light on America too.

Thus is it written: There was made the first man, the African living soul.

Then, the last ideal, the American life-giving post-racial spirit.

Millennia after Adam there arose an Obama. It is now conceivable, nay credible, that our great grandchildren, of all ethnicities and all faiths, of all colours and all national origins, may witness such a miracle of a post-racial dawn before the end of this century.