President Zuma Condemns NATO's Libya War of Aggression
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have dragged the United States into a European war of folly in Africa, which has been correctly denounced by Russia's prime minister Vladimir Putin as a call to a "medieval crusade."
[Black Star News Editorial]
South Africa's President Jacob Zuma, has finally spoken--launching a scathing attack of the Western and NATO war of aggression against Libya.
Zuma spoke the words he should have said long ago. He's denounced the U.S., France and Britain for the aerial invasion of Libya. He says United Nations Resolution 1973, which was only meant to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians in the civil war, is being abused for "regime change, political assassinations and foreign military occupation."
President Zuma is correct. NATO has become the airforce of Benghazi. France and Britain have based military personnel in Libya.
The South African has a right to be angry. His country was duped into voting for Resolution 1973. Since then, Zuma has worked hard through the African Union (AU) for a peaceful end to the war.
The African Union has come up with a viable peace proposal that includes a comprehensive ceasefire to be monitored by the international community, reconciliation and negotiations for a constitution, and democratic elections. President Zuma delivered the plan to Libya where the embattled government of Muammar al-Quathafi accepted the proposal. The rebels, encouraged by Washington, Paris and London, have rejected the plan.
In otherwords, the U.S., France and the U.K. prefer the continuation of war and destruction in Libya, through the massive and merciless NATO bombardments, rather than to endorse and support President Zuma and the AU peace plan. This is a remarkable display of arrogance, and even racism in the 21st century. The Western countries act as if Africa does not exist; or certainly, as if Africa does not matter.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have dragged the United States into a European war of folly in Africa, which has been correctly denounced by Russia's prime minister Vladimir Putin as a call to a "medieval crusade." When France and the U.K., together with Israel tried to pull the U.S. into similar folly in Africa, when the target was then Egypt in 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower flatly refused and the invasion fizzled. President Obama should correct his mistake with respect to Libya. He should give peace a chance through the AU plan.
After President Obama used intemperate language in an Op-Ed article, calling on al-Quthafi to "go for good" NATO started targeting the Libyan for assassination. A son, Saif al-Arab Quathafi and three grandchildren were killed. NATO continues to try and assassinate al-Quathafi himself.
France and Britain also have ulterior financial motives. Civilians are not saved by massive daily bombardments.
France and Britain, faded colonial powers, want to reassert their global presence and position themselves for the contest for Africa's resources --as China continues to expand it's influence-- by resorting to the dictate of might is right.
There is much bounty at the end of the rainbow. Libya holds 44 billion barrels of known oil reserves. Mustafa Abdel Jalil, al-Quathafi's former justice minister and now the rebels' political leader told The Financial Times on March 14 that oil concessions would be awarded depending on the level of support each Western country provide the rebels in ousting al-Quathafi. Meanwhile, the rebels have also sold oil through Qatar and to a U.S. company, in contravention of the existing U.N. sanctions.
Just because these illegal acts are backed by the U.S., France and Britain, it doesn't mean they are not gangsterism. The rebels don't have the discipline or command the moral highground to deliver a new dawn in Libya. All of Libya's citizens must have a say; the AU plan offers that opportunity.
The resurgant imperialism, or medieval crusade as Putin says, is backed by major global media outlets such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times who are all in lockstep. The latter, which alleges to be a "liberal" newspaper, has published several editorials calling for more NATO aggression on Libya and even chiding the alliance's members for not doing enough.
While the media have reported on abuses by the Libyan military all the major outlets have ignored human rights abuses by the rebels because it would ruin the disneyland script that Benghazi offers the solution to Libya's woes.
The New York Times has not seen it fit to interview President Zuma to allow him to explain the details of the African Union proposal. President Zuma should bypass the global corporate media censorship. He should write an open letter to President Obama and urge him to pull the U.S. out of the misadventure in the Sahara.
Zuma will find much support as the U.S. Congress is now shifting its support away from the senseless war as the U.S. economy has slowed down and unemployment increased. On Monday night, the Republican-dominated House voted 248-163 to deny funding for further involvement in Libya.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Ann GarrisonNovember 30,2013 @ 12:14 PM
It was sexy to be against the war back then. He was probably in it to get laid.
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 09:29 PM
carpinteyrobwmJuly 14,2013 @ 08:34 PM
penskripplJuly 14,2013 @ 07:16 PM
Pay Day Loans Uk don't require novels of paperwork. uk pay day loans are the problem? To avail...
penskripplJuly 14,2013 @ 07:16 PM
Our next question is when you are satisfied to see some modest improvements in their review of...
No Record Exist!!