On December 5th, yet another war led by foreign powers broke out in Africa, and like the one in Mali, it was led at the helm by the French. The UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution which authorized the deployment of French and African troops in the Central African Republic. At the same time, Chad, Cameroon, South Africa, Angola, Morocco, Burundi, Rwanda, the Republic of Congo, and other African countries, sent troops. Other countries like the UK, Germany, Spain, Denmark and Poland provided logistical support, while Belgium and the US provided air support by transporting the peacekeeping troops.
France’s intervention in the West African nation of Mali under Operation Serval drove Islamic groups associated with Al-Qaeda out of Northern Mali in February 2013. When the Tuareg rebellion occurred in early 2012, it was against the Malian government led by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) for the independence of Northern Mali also known as Azawad.
On December 16 a section of the South Sudanese army backed by politicians angry with the policies of President Silva Kiir, attempted to seize power from the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) government in Juba. The Republic of South Sudan is the newest nation recognized by the United Nations and the African Union (AU) which gained its independence after three decades of civil war between the south and north of the central African state in July 2011.
What has been happening in Syria for the past three years? According to NATO and GCC media reports, the “regime” has shed blood to suppress a democratic revolution. However this version is contradicted by the current support for the government estimated at, according to sources, between 60 and 90 % of the population. The truth is quite different: NATO and the GCC have successively lost a war of succession and a fourth generation Nicaraguan-type war. It is they, and they alone, who organized and financed the death of 120,000 Syrians. Continue reading this...
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed a crucial detail Thursday about last week’s nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva that explains much more clearly than previous reports why the meeting broke up without agreement.
His own explanation was that he wants to avoid or minimise the prospects for an “unnecessary confrontation” with the international community, for which read President Obama and the European leaders who would follow his lead (with the arguable exception of the French whore).
Vietnamese Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, who helped defeat Japan, then France, then the United States in a 35-year war for national independence, died in Hanoi on October 4 at the age of 102. He had been ailing and living in a military hospital for the last four years.
Front de Gauche leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon addressed the fete of left newspaper L´Humanité in Paris on September 15, 2013. In this six-part video Mélenchon discusses French foreign policy in relation to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the colossal failures of “Chicago School” [neoliberal] economics, the attacks of the European Union, the Front de Gauche’s program when elected, religion and politics, and the front’s opposition to militarism. Continue reading this...
In the first part of this essay series on ‘Empire Under Obama,’ I will aim to establish some fundamental premises of modern imperialism, or what is often referred to as ‘international relations,’ ‘geopolitics’, or ‘foreign policy.’ Specifically, I will refer to George Orwell’s writing on ‘political language’ in order to provide a context in which the discourse of imperialism may take place out in the open with very little comprehension on the part of the public which consumes the information; and further, to draw upon Noam Chomsky’s suggestion of understanding international relations as the application of ‘Mafia Principles’ to foreign policy. This part provides some background on these issues, and future parts to this essay series will be examining the manifestation of empire in recent years.
With almost pathological haste, Western governments have moved to undermine Russia’s sensible proposal for Syria to hand over its chemical stores, thus avoiding the needless carnage being proposed by the United States. In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley not hours after the proposal gained the tentative acceptance of the Syrians, Obama grudgingly conceded it was a positive development, but quickly added that it would never have been possible without “a credible military threat,” and sounded all the appropriate reservations. Hillary Clinton also warned that the initiative, however hypothetically, cannot be, “another excuse for delay or obstruction.”
Any student of history knows that many of the problems the Middle East and Africa are now experiencing stem from the Great Powers having parceled up the land, drawn borders where none had existed and put into power various friendly leaders in the aftermath of World War I. That includes the failures of Western actions in Iraq and Libya, and the ongoing failure of Syria, the West’s refusal to accept a popular President in Bashar al Assad and its efforts to undermine him, resulting in a horrific humanitarian mess.
Both the United States and France are busy with preparations for the bombing of Syria, although such action corresponds to no strategic objective for either state. Russia and the Axis of Resistance are therefore preparing their riposte. The major difficulty consists in transforming this agression into a regional war while avoiding the Third, (and final?) World War. Whatever happens, if they engage in war, the Western world will have to deal with a long and wide-ranging conflict like nothing they’ve experienced since Vietnam.
France’s intelligence services released a perfunctory, eight-page brief for war with Syria yesterday, as Socialist Party (PS) Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault met with leaders of France’s right-wing opposition parties to press them to support President François Hollande’s war drive.
The simple question with a lot of answers is why did France boycott the 2003 Iraq war of the US and Britain, but remained heavily committed to a “punitive attack” with the US on Syria, following the shock of Cameron’s defeat for his war plan in the British parliament?