"Central African Republic: Another Western Backed Coup d’Etat"

2013-04-04 by Alexander Mezyaev of "Strategic Culture Foundation" for "Global Research" [http://www.globalresearch.ca/central-african-intrigue-another-western-backed-coup-detat/5330013]:
On 24 March, a coup d’état took place in the Central African Republic (CAR). Seleka (1), a coalition of rebel groups, seized the country’s capital Bangui and President François Bozizé fled to neighbouring Cameroon. Seleka’s leader, Michel Djotodia, then declared himself the new head of state.
The history of the Central African Republic is rich with uprisings. From 1960 onwards, the country’s government has almost never been replaced peacefully: in 1965, the country’s first president, David Dacko, was overthrown by Colonel Jean-Bédel Bokassa (subsequently Emperor Bokassa I), in 1979 Bokassa was overthrown by Dacko (although with the help of the French) and in 1981, Dacko was overthrown again, but this time by General André Kolingba.
In 2003, a coup d’état was carried out by General François Bozizé. Just last year, two conspiracies to overthrow Bozizé were uncovered. (2) And lo and behold, in 2013 François Bozizé has been overthrown. Following the coup, the country’s army chiefs pledged allegiance to the new government. This will fundamentally destroy the entire structure. The Central African Republic contains troops from a whole number of countries (Chad, Cameroon, Congo, Gabon and the RSA) which should assist the authorities in restoring legitimate authority. However, since the army has switched over to side with the coupists, the situation has changed. A couple of other «helpers» in overthrowing the government should also be mentioned – France (who sent in nearly 600 servicemen) and the USA (who sent in more than one hundred military advisers).
The coup on 24 March was not unexpected. What was unexpected, however, was the reaction of the international community. The most hard-line response came from the African Union, who suspended the participation of the Central African Republic in all the organisation’s activities.
It has been known for a long time that the overthrow of François Bozizé was on its way. In actual fact, the coup d’état was announced beforehand. At the beginning of January 2013, the latest session of the UN Security Council took place, at which a dramatic statement were made by the head of the UN Mission in the Central African Republic (the Mission was promptly relocated from CAR to Gabon). The head of the UN Mission announced via videolink that Seleka troops had already seized virtually the whole of the country and were advancing on the capital. They were advancing for nearly two months, and nobody helped Bozizé…
On the day the capital was seized and Bozizé fled the country, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon issued a statement in which he condemned the coup, but he made no mention of restoring power to the legitimate president. (3) An urgent UN Security Council meeting was held on 26 March, but it failed to come to a decision. As a result of this meeting, Russian representative Vitaly Churkin, as Chairman of the Security Council, issued a statement condemning the attack and seizure of power in CAR and called for all parties to refrain from any acts of violence against civilians, including international personnel, as well as ensure safe humanitarian access to those needing help. Members of the Security Council called for all parties in the Central African Republic to restore the rule of law and constitutional order in the country. And once again, absolutely nothing was mentioned regarding the reinstatement of President Bozizé.
It is impossible not to notice that the joint declaration of the BRICS countries following the Durban summit on 27 March contained no condemnation of the coup. There was everything else: «concern that the situation will deteriorate», «absolute condemnation of the use of force against civilians» and «calls for negotiation». (4) But there was nothing condemning the coup! Nor was there anything demanding «the immediate restoration of legitimate authority», which is traditionally heard in these kinds of situations. What is more, this is despite the fact that during the seizure of Bangui, citizens from two BRICS countries were killed – RSA and India!
During Seleka’s attack on the country’s capital, the head of the UN Mission in CAR spoke of the errors made by the national security forces. (5) Following the army’s move over to the side of the coupists, one could ask whether these were errors or deliberate acts. At the very least, the reaction of the «international community» still gives grounds to conclude that, in reality, it does not want Bozizé to return to power and if it is demanding that order be restored in the country, then it is already without him. Especially since the rebels have managed to find a rather interesting formula for the transition period – Prime Minister Nicolas Tiangaye has remained in power.
The authority of overthrown President Bozizé did not extend to a substantial part of the country. All military operations against the rebels were carried out with the support of foreign troops, primarily from France and the Republic of Chad. In fact, even the president himself was being guarded by soldiers from Chad who had been in the country since 2003 (the year Bozizé came to power). It is interesting that the overthrow of President François Bozizé took place almost immediately after Chadian soldiers began returning home in January 2013.
The Central African Republic directly borders several «problem» regions in Africa. Firstly, the north of the country is under the control of Chadian rebel groups, secondly, the east borders the Sudan province of Darfur and, finally, to the south of the country is the Democratic Republic of Congo and its rebels. To the southeast of the Central African Republic, the notorious Ugandan «Lord’s Liberation Army» is in operation (whose leaders are being hunted by both the Ugandan government and the International Criminal Court). All of this compounds the situation considerably.
The Central African Republic is a real storehouse of natural resources. One of its main treasures is diamonds, deposits of which are present in 40 percent of the country. The country also has reserves of gold. France has been removing gold from the Central African Republic since 1930. However, while more than a tonne per year was being extracted in the 1960s, these days reserves have virtually been exhausted (2-10kg are extracted per year). There are also large deposits of copper and tin (6) but, most importantly, the resource that remains virtually untouched in the Central African Republic is uranium. Known reserves of uranium amount to nearly 15,000 tonnes of ore. France is planning to build a uranium plant with an output of 1,000 tonnes of uranium concentrate. (7) That is quite serious grounds for interfering in the restoration of constitutional order… The new head of state’s first step was to appeal to France, the USA and the EU for financial help and promise to revise the agreements that François Bozizé had entered into with China…
There is one more significant aspect of the situation in CAR. The fact is that since 2005, the situation in the Central African Republic is being investigated by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The person being tried is not involved in the current situation in CAR, however, but is the former vice-president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Jean-Pierre Bemba, who is being tried for providing military help to the former president of the Central African Republic, Félix Patassé (who was later overthrown by the very same Bozizé). So a precedent for the international prosecution of a country’s president who has provided military assistance to a neighbouring country has already been established. The plan of prosecution is as follows: to establish that the troops sent in committed crimes while they were in the country, and charge the commander-in-chief of the armed forces in accordance with command responsibility. (8) Therefore, the heads of countries that sent in troops to help Bozizé should have a serious think about how to avoid becoming part of the «situation in CAR» in the International Criminal Court.
The world’s media has already started a campaign against South African President Jacob Zuma, who sent troops into the Central African Republic at the request of Bozizé. Reports have emerged that South African soldiers in CAR killed several teenagers. (9) It seems that South African troops will soon be charged with committing war crimes. It is not impossible that the coup d’état in the Central African Republic will turn out to be a preparatory operation by special forces for quite a different coup d’état – in South Africa. It is possible that the plan is for South African President Jacob Zuma to be removed and for the International Criminal Court to issue an order for Zuma’s arrest. (10) You will recall that the coup d’état in CAR took place three days before the start of the BRICS Summit in South Africa. As is well-known, joining BRIC was the initiative of South Africa. Similar initiatives, from the point of view of the forces of the «new world order», cannot go unpunished.

Notes -
(1) In the Songo language – one of the main national languages spoken in the Central African Republic – «seleka» means «alliance». Seleka is made up of main groups including the Union of Democratic Forces for Unity (UFDR), the Convention of Patriots for Justice and Peace (CPJP) and the Wa Kodro Salute Patriotic Convention (CPSK).
(2) See the Report of the UN Secretary General on the Situation in the Central African Republic // UN Document S/2012/956 dated 21 December 2012, paragraph 5.
(3) See the UN Secretary General press release – Condemning seizure of power in Central African Republic, Secretary-General // UN Document: SG/SM/14905 AFR/2585.
(4) Paragraph 31 of the eThekwini Declaration, 27 March 2013.
(5) See the UN Security Council session report dated 11 January 2013 for the 6899th meeting of the Council // UN Document: S/PV.6899, Page 6.
(6) See: Entsiklopediya Afrika, Chief Editor A.M. Vasilyev, Institute of Africa of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Entsiklopediya, 2010, Vol.2, p894.
(7) [http://cent-afr-rep.ru/uran-zoloto-neft/]
(8) This is also the plan favoured by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Charges of command responsibility are being brought against virtually all of those accused in the tribunal, including Slobodan Milošević, General Mladić, Radovan Karadžić, Milan Martić and Goran Hadžić – all as the commander-in-chiefs of the armed forces of Serbia, the Republic of Srpska and the Republic of Serbian Krajina respectively.
(9) See, for example, the article in the British newspaper The Guardian, dated 1 April 2013, which allegedly quotes the South African soldiers themselves: «We killed little boys … teenagers who should have been in school.» // [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/01/central-african-republic-leader-government]
(10) A UN Security Council resolution is not even needed for this – South Africa is a member of the ICC Statute and a court prosecutor can, on his own initiative, begin an investigation and institute proceedings against the president of South Africa.

USA AFRICOM and CIA use aerial drones to assassinate and conduct war

"U.S. Drones Out of Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Everywhere!"
2013-03-28 call-to-action issued by "ANSWER" [http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/april-13-us-drones-out-of-africa.html]:
Over 5,000 people have been murdered by U.S. drone strikes in the last few years, including a large number of children among the many civilians who have been slaughtered by these robotic killing machines.
Sitting in offices thousands of miles away from their targets, U.S. operators routinely decide to “push the button” and kill their unsuspecting targets on the ground with hellfire missiles fired from unseen drone aircraft. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, villagers have staged mass protests against drone strikes after their kids were incinerated while they were collecting firewood or farming in nearby fields.
The U.S. functions as a death squad government, permitting the president and military leaders to create secret “kill lists” of people who have been selected for assassination. There is no due process, no trial, no evidence – the individuals are selected to be murdered and they are killed, and many civilians who are nearby also die. Drones are the weapon of choice.
In the 19th century, it was a common tactic of imperialists to use gunboats to move around the world and assert their will, answering challenges to their authority with bullets and cannon shot. The use, or threat of the use, of naval force was used by Britain, the United States and other imperialist nations to force exploitative terms of trade and political accommodations on various political entities around the world.
The United States government’s drone program serves the same general purpose as gunboat diplomacy. It enables the United States to extend its military power over any country that lacks the ability, or will, to shoot down the aircraft.

Republic of Mali

"Oppose French Invasion of Mali!"
2013-01-17 by Eugene Puryear [http://crimsonsatellite.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/oppose-french-invasion-of-mali/]:
“Without Africa, there will be no history of France in the 21st century.”—Former French President Francois Mitterand
Recent events in the African nation of Mali mark a turning point in a secessionist crisis in the North that threatens to destabilize the entire country. Most notable has been the intervention of the French armed forces, seeking to “stabilize” and re-assert control over this former colony of France.
On Jan. 10, anti-government Islamic rebels who had previously controlled northern Mali surged south in a renewed offensive. Rebel forces took control of the central Malian city of Konna, routing the Malian army and expanding the fighting to several other cities in the center of the country. This caused the “official” government based in the South to fear that they would soon be overrun, resulting in a call for support from the “international community.”
The government of France quickly responded, sending in several hundred troops to keep security in the capital, and sending warplanes to launch airstrikes in northern and central Mali in an attempt to weaken anti-government forces. Despite French intervention, rebel forces have continued to make inroads on the ground, as of Jan. 14.
France claims that it is loath to get involved in a ground war and has urged “Africanization” of the conflict. ECOWAS, the political organization of West African countries, has promised to send troops, although the timeline is unclear, meaning French troops very well could see action.

Conflict in Northern Mali—some context -
The current conflict in Mali goes back to late 2011 and requires some understanding of the country’s history. Mali is a multi-national country, and its northern regions are inhabited by several national groupings that have suffered oppression, most prominently the Tuareg people, nomads whose traditional homeland stretches across parts of several nations in the Sahel region of Africa.
Tuareg forces for many years had found refuge and support for their aspirations in Col. Qaddafi’s Libya, and many Tuareg fighters had been integrated into Libya’s military. With the fall of that government following heavy U.S.-NATO bombing and missile attacks on behalf of a rebellion with a strong racist component, the African Tuaregs lost a key ally. Those who had been part of the Libyan military and survived the fighting fled back to their homelands carrying their weapons with them.
The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, a secular organization, desires a Tuareg-based state in the northern part of Mali. Most likely using weapons acquired from Libya, the MNLA launched a struggle against the Malian army, taking control of the North. The Tuareg rebellion was deep-rooted with some of the national and ethnic conflicts going back to the colonial and in some cases pre-colonial eras. Tuareg revolts in 1963 and 1990 were put down by the Malian government, but the demand for Tuareg national liberation has been a recurring theme in Malian politics.
The MNLA was quickly sidelined, however, by a coalition of Islamic militant groups that seek to create an Islamic state over broad areas of Africa, including northern Mali. The Islamists are a mix of fighters from various Malian groups across West Africa and parts of the Muslim world. This coalition began to enforce their strict interpretation of Sharia law in areas under their control, and gained worldwide infamy by destroying priceless artifacts.
Northern Mali contains some of the most historic cities on the African continent, including famed academic center Timbuktu. So while the rebellion in the North began as a struggle for national liberation, it has transformed into one pushing a reactionary sectarian agenda.

Malian government not much better -
The Malian army, not surprisingly, was easily routed. Since the start of “multiparty” democracy in 1992, a clique of capitalists and military leaders have ruled primarily through a patronage network and a standing army kept weak to reduce the threat of a coup. In the northern parts of the country, the government often relied on militias based among the Songhai and Fulani peoples to fight Tuareg forces and other opponents.
In 2012, despite the weak army, elements of the military dissatisfied with the central government seized power just before an election that would mostly likely have been something short of “free and fair.” While it has never been clear where the coup leaders stood, some revolutionary groups in Mali supported the coup, claiming that it emerged from the “proletarian wing” of the army.
Under intense pressure from ECOWAS, a civilian government was formed, but it has not been able to truly take power. Many reports from Mali indicate that there are rival power centers, although both the civilian government and former coup leader Amadou Sanogo support French intervention.

Why France?
France has maintained close relations with a number of its former colonies, through a policy known as Franceafrique, for all the obvious reasons—most importantly, preferential access to vital mineral resources such as uranium. This has resulted in a string of French military bases across the continent and periodic interventions by French troops in African conflicts. Most recently, in 2011, French military might determined the outcome of the Ivorian election.
So it makes sense that France would act to prevent the entire country of Mali from falling to the Islamic rebels. France and the Western imperialists more broadly have a key interest in opposing Islamic militant groups that challenge their hegemony. On the other hand, as we have seen in both Syria and Libya, and previously in Afghanistan, imperialism has no problem in allying with such groups to overthrow regimes considered to be unreliable or that are attempting to follow an independent course.
The United States has also been training Malian troops to fight in the “war on terror” and has done the same in many West African nations. These nations, grouped in ECOWAS, also opposed the Islamic militants in Mali, fearing what destabilization in the region could mean for their own economic and political prospects.

Prospects -
The intervention by French troops and the bombing of Malian cities by French warplanes marks a major escalation in the conflict. The strength of the Islamic rebels, who have attracted some support from disaffected peoples in the North, means heavier fighting can be expected. France and the Western imperialists are obviously concerned that anti-Western, non-cooperative forces could seize Mali and use it as a base to extend their influence across the region. Thus their goal is to defeat the Islamic rebels using whatever forces necessary.
While France and the United States are urging ECOWAS to intervene militarily in Mali, France in deed and the U.S. in word have shown their willingness to act unilaterally. It has even been reported that France is trying to recruit the MNLA to act as an imperialist proxy, which could lead to more divide-and-conquer policies in the North, as opposed to genuine processes of liberation and reconciliation.
From the standpoint of progressives and revolutionaries in the United States, it is paramount that imperialist intervention be opposed resolutely. With regime change in Libya and the destabilization of Mali, the recent announcement of U.S. military missions in up to 35 African nations make it clear that imperialism is using the conflicts in Africa to deepen the bonds of neocolonialism on that continent. This promises not to resolve but simply to transform and exacerbate some of Africa’s thorniest issues, resulting in greater suffering for her people.

EU France invades the jurisdiction of Mali

"Oppose French Invasion of Mali!"2013-01-17 by Eugene Puryear [http://crimsonsatellite.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/oppose-french-invasion-of-mali/]: 

“Without Africa, there will be no history of France in the 21st century.”—Former French President Francois Mitterand.

Recent events in the African nation of Mali mark a turning point in a secessionist crisis in the North that threatens to destabilize the entire country. Most notable has been the intervention of the French armed forces, seeking to “stabilize” and re-assert control over this former colony of France.

On Jan. 10, anti-government Islamic rebels who had previously controlled northern Mali surged south in a renewed offensive. Rebel forces took control of the central Malian city of Konna, routing the Malian army and expanding the fighting to several other cities in the center of the country. This caused the “official” government based in the South to fear that they would soon be overrun, resulting in a call for support from the “international community.”

The government of France quickly responded, sending in several hundred troops to keep security in the capital, and sending warplanes to launch airstrikes in northern and central Mali in an attempt to weaken anti-government forces. Despite French intervention, rebel forces have continued to make inroads on the ground, as of Jan. 14.

France claims that it is loath to get involved in a ground war and has urged “Africanization” of the conflict. ECOWAS, the political organization of West African countries, has promised to send troops, although the timeline is unclear, meaning French troops very well could see action.

Conflict in Northern Mali—some context -

The current conflict in Mali goes back to late 2011 and requires some understanding of the country’s history. Mali is a multi-national country, and its northern regions are inhabited by several national groupings that have suffered oppression, most prominently the Tuareg people, nomads whose traditional homeland stretches across parts of several nations in the Sahel region of Africa.

Tuareg forces for many years had found refuge and support for their aspirations in Col. Qaddafi’s Libya, and many Tuareg fighters had been integrated into Libya’s military. With the fall of that government following heavy U.S.-NATO bombing and missile attacks on behalf of a rebellion with a strong racist component, the African Tuaregs lost a key ally. Those who had been part of the Libyan military and survived the fighting fled back to their homelands carrying their weapons with them.

The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, a secular organization, desires a Tuareg-based state in the northern part of Mali. Most likely using weapons acquired from Libya, the MNLA launched a struggle against the Malian army, taking control of the North. The Tuareg rebellion was deep-rooted with some of the national and ethnic conflicts going back to the colonial and in some cases pre-colonial eras. Tuareg revolts in 1963 and 1990 were put down by the Malian government, but the demand for Tuareg national liberation has been a recurring theme in Malian politics.

The MNLA was quickly sidelined, however, by a coalition of Islamic militant groups that seek to create an Islamic state over broad areas of Africa, including northern Mali. The Islamists are a mix of fighters from various Malian groups across West Africa and parts of the Muslim world. This coalition began to enforce their strict interpretation of Sharia law in areas under their control, and gained worldwide infamy by destroying priceless artifacts.

Northern Mali contains some of the most historic cities on the African continent, including famed academic center Timbuktu. So while the rebellion in the North began as a struggle for national liberation, it has transformed into one pushing a reactionary sectarian agenda.

Malian government not much better -

The Malian army, not surprisingly, was easily routed. Since the start of “multiparty” democracy in 1992, a clique of capitalists and military leaders have ruled primarily through a patronage network and a standing army kept weak to reduce the threat of a coup. In the northern parts of the country, the government often relied on militias based among the Songhai and Fulani peoples to fight Tuareg forces and other opponents.

In 2012, despite the weak army, elements of the military dissatisfied with the central government seized power just before an election that would mostly likely have been something short of “free and fair.” While it has never been clear where the coup leaders stood, some revolutionary groups in Mali supported the coup, claiming that it emerged from the “proletarian wing” of the army.

Under intense pressure from ECOWAS, a civilian government was formed, but it has not been able to truly take power. Many reports from Mali indicate that there are rival power centers, although both the civilian government and former coup leader Amadou Sanogo support French intervention.

Why France?

France has maintained close relations with a number of its former colonies, through a policy known as Franceafrique, for all the obvious reasons—most importantly, preferential access to vital mineral resources such as uranium. This has resulted in a string of French military bases across the continent and periodic interventions by French troops in African conflicts. Most recently, in 2011, French military might determined the outcome of the Ivorian election.

So it makes sense that France would act to prevent the entire country of Mali from falling to the Islamic rebels. France and the Western imperialists more broadly have a key interest in opposing Islamic militant groups that challenge their hegemony. On the other hand, as we have seen in both Syria and Libya, and previously in Afghanistan, imperialism has no problem in allying with such groups to overthrow regimes considered to be unreliable or that are attempting to follow an independent course.

The United States has also been training Malian troops to fight in the “war on terror” and has done the same in many West African nations. These nations, grouped in ECOWAS, also opposed the Islamic militants in Mali, fearing what destabilization in the region could mean for their own economic and political prospects.

Prospects -

The intervention by French troops and the bombing of Malian cities by French warplanes marks a major escalation in the conflict. The strength of the Islamic rebels, who have attracted some support from disaffected peoples in the North, means heavier fighting can be expected. France and the Western imperialists are obviously concerned that anti-Western, non-cooperative forces could seize Mali and use it as a base to extend their influence across the region. Thus their goal is to defeat the Islamic rebels using whatever forces necessary.

While France and the United States are urging ECOWAS to intervene militarily in Mali, France in deed and the U.S. in word have shown their willingness to act unilaterally. It has even been reported that France is trying to recruit the MNLA to act as an imperialist proxy, which could lead to more divide-and-conquer policies in the North, as opposed to genuine processes of liberation and reconciliation.

From the standpoint of progressives and revolutionaries in the United States, it is paramount that imperialist intervention be opposed resolutely. With regime change in Libya and the destabilization of Mali, the recent announcement of U.S. military missions in up to 35 African nations make it clear that imperialism is using the conflicts in Africa to deepen the bonds of neocolonialism on that continent. This promises not to resolve but simply to transform and exacerbate some of Africa’s thorniest issues, resulting in greater suffering for her people.

USA engaging in human trafficking across Eritrea and the Somali homeland within the Horn of Alkebulan (Africa)

"Eritrea: Obama Admits PIA’s Charge of CIA Human Trafficking"
2012-09-29 by Sam B. for "Natna" [https://web.archive.org/web/20130127091824/http://natna.wordpress.com/eritrea-obama-admits-pias-charge-of-cia-human-trafficking/]:

Reuters after interviewing President Isaias Afwerki in 2008 run its story with a headline reading, “Eritrean leader blames CIA plot for youth exodus”.
The Reuters report went on: “Eritrea accused the CIA and other Western agencies on Tuesday of luring young people away from the Red Sea state in a plot to weaken a nation seen as a threat to U.S. interests in the region.”
“It’s an orchestrated, organized operation financed by the CIA,” President Isaias Afwerki told Reuters. President Isaias added; “We have evidence. We know what’s going on in terms of….. tempting people, trying to facilitate them to cross the border.”
Moreover President Isaias clearly stated: “UNHCR is getting involved, CIA station officers in the region, some embassies are involved. They want young Eritreans to flee this country.”
The story Reuters run and subsequent stories run by others (including many US institutions and their partners) insinuated or outright claimed that President Isaias’ accusation was outlandish.
But thankfully, President Obama, no less than the President of United States himself, has corroborated President Isaias Afwerki’s allegation. Although Obama’s was attempting for a cheap shot, he nevertheless ended up doing a great service to President Isaias by giving his words the great reliability and weight they always deserved, that his detractors and CIA minions where trying to deny.
President Barack Obama in his speech to Clinton Global Initiative stated: “I recently renewed sanctions on some of the worst abusers, including North Korea and Eritrea.  We’re partnering with groups that help women and children escape from the grip of their abusers.  We’re helping other countries step up their own efforts.  And we’re seeing results.  More nations have passed and more are enforcing modern anti-trafficking laws.”
“We’re partnering with groups that help women and children escape” from these countries Obama said. Dress this however you like, but there is no escaping the fact, just as President Isaias Afwerki told it few years prior, that an operation “orchestrated, organized operation financed by the CIA,” is “tempting people, trying to facilitate them to cross the border.”
This is of course the exact act of human trafficking, that Obama was supposedly denouncing, but ended up admitting to. Although this illegal trafficking should be condemned and subject to international law, nevertheless no one will charge the head of the empire for it. Might, in the end, in this world, is indeed, Right.
Still, this is only part of the whole story.  On top of Obama admitting publicly that the US is involved in human trafficking in Eritrea, Wikileaks has also revealed the extent of US targeting of the Eritrean youth. It is a pity that supposedly such great nation, the US, is entangled in these petty endeavours, to destabilise a nation it considers small and poor. Perhaps this is what Suzan Rice has helped reduce this presidency and state to.

ICC petitioned to bring NATO to trial by Pan African Solidarity Hague Committee and the "December 12th Movement" (located in the USA)

"Pan African delegation petitions ICC to prosecute NATO war crimes"
2012-07-17 by Amadi Ajamu [http://sfbayview.com/2012/07/pan-african-delegation-petitions-icc-to-prosecute-nato-war-crimes/]:
The Pan African Solidarity Hague Committee, led by the December 12th Movement International Secretariat and the International Association Against Torture, delivered a petition to the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 18. The petition demands that the ICC prosecute the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Canada and NATO for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The PASHC legal team included Roger Wareham, Esq. (U.S.), David Commissiong, Esq. (Barbados), Troy Griffith, Esq. (U.S.), Alfred Toussaint, Esq. (Haiti), Sylvestre Kouadio, Esq. (Cote Ivoire), and Minister Akbar Muhammad (Nation of Islam, U.S.).
(Photo: Attorneys David Comissiong and Roger S. Wareham at International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands)

According to human rights attorney Roger Wareham, “The crimes we are charging them with were committed during the NATO invasion of Libya and the overthrow and assassination of Libya’s Col. Muammar Qaddafi; the U.S.-led overthrow of Haiti’s duly elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004; the French military intervention that resulted in the capture and arrest of President Laurent Gbagbo of the Ivory Coast; the institutional racism the U.S. inflicts upon its Black population, particularly reflected in racial profiling, stop and frisk, and incarceration rates; and the sanctions campaign designed to punish President Robert Mugabe for returning the land stolen by white settlers to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe.”
The ICC itself has come under scrutiny for prosecuting cases solely on Africans – 26 indictees total – and turning a blind eye to crimes perpetrated by Western nations. The committee maintains that the ICC acts as another weapon in the Western countries’ campaign to recolonize Africa and African people.
The PASHC delegation later held a forum on “The ICC and the Task of Ending NATO’s Immunity for War Crimes” at Erasmus University in the Hague. It looked at the institutional racist bias of the ICC – in its 10 years of existence the only cases being prosecuted are against Africans – and how participants can push forward the campaign to prosecute the NATO countries for their international crimes.
Attorney David Comissiong, president of the Clement Payne Movement, said: “During the course of last year, 2011, the people of the world watched in horror and disbelief as the political and military leaders of the major Western powers – USA, Britain, France, Italy and Canada – directed the might of their powerful military arsenals against the people and political leaders of two African countries, Libya and Cote d’Ivoire, and in particular against Brother Leader Muammar Qaddafi and President Laurent Gbagbo.”
The Pan African Solidarity Hague Committee made a report back to the community and discussed the work to be done on this campaign July 13 at the Harlem State Office Building.

An analysis of Sudan's warcrimes against the Nuba people, and who in NATO it benefits

"Human Rights and Foreign Intervention in The Sudan; Is the crime against the Nuba peoples, Sudan’s?"
2012-03-24 by J. B. Gerald for "GlobalResearch.ca" [http://www.globalresearch.ca/human-rights-and-foreign-intervention-in-the-sudan/29939]:
The New York Times, George Clooney, U.S. Baptist ministers, Martin Luther King III, Genocide Watch, Amnesty International, among others concerned with human rights are currently protesting the Government of Sudan’s military tactics on its new border with South Sudan, and particularly the bombing of Nuba civilians in the Nuba Mountains.1  Reports of  bombings which are often oil drums packed with explosives pushed out of planes, may seem unimpressive to a North American public which has accepted the NATO bombings of Kosovo, Yugoslavia and more recently Libya (Five Hiroshimas worth of bombs were expended on Iraqi civilians under “Operation Desert Storm”).  U.S. based Genocide Watch has placed an “Emergency Genocide Warning” for the Nuba, finding the people targets for execution and extinction, but places no warning for the people of Sudan as a national group.
The U.S. / NATO agenda to expand into Africa, possibly to re-colonize, continues with the Outtara takeover of Cote d’Ivoire, the replacement of Gaddafi in Libya, the independence of South Sudan, and there are others.  Its pattern is de-stabilization leading to civil war, then military support to one side and the establishment of a government reliant on NATO countries for military assistance and corporate contracts. The unacceptable cost in African lives has varied.
Within this pattern a genocide warning for a tribal grouping risks contributing to calls for foreign military intervention: signatories of the Convention on Genocide are required to intervene if genocide is in progress. Military interventions require the failure of peaceful alternatives. And the judgement of whether a program is genocide or not is consistently made by experts deeply entrenched in the service of neo-colonial policies.
My own understanding is that the Nuba peoples within Sudan, of many tribes and  languages, are under attack, and survival of this portion of the group is at risk. With humanitarian assistance barred from their region (the UN Security Council has recently requested that assistance be allowed entry), large numbers of refugees leaving, and a history of struggling for independence and reciprocal persecution, a genocide warning is appropriate, but as a warning against the abuse of any Sudanese victim group by Sudan’s government or due to the policies of foreign governments. The West’s human rights establishment has consistently vilified the Government of Sudan for mass deaths of its people. It is possible that the government is struggling for Sudan’s sovereignty, its protection of its people, against programs of mass death initiated by outside forces. A third alternative is that the government and non-Africans are colluding to de-populate regions for corporate resource exploitation.          
Recent history2, Sudan was targeted for destabilization in 1991 when it sided with Iraq as Iraq was “bombed into the stone age” by U.S. and Coalition forces. Long term rifts within Sudan were exploited by foreign powers. A civil war in the South led by U.S. trained John Garang extended its cadre up into Darfur to train rebel groups, which opened another front against the central Government. One result was the tragedies of Darfur with the inevitable war crimes on both sides. Legions of the “Save Darfur” campaigns helped debilitate the government, while South Sudan with U.S. backing, won its independence through a democratic referendum. On July 9, 2011 it became the Republic of South Sudan, lacking an African name before the world to reflect its neo-colonial inception. The campaign for its freedom was ‘successful’ except to the millions of other Sudanese who lost their lives to civil war and starvation. Despite official peace settlements civil wars in Darfur and Eastern Sudan continue.    
Siding with the rebels of South Sudan, the Nuba, remaining within Sudan proper, have maintained their own military forces, also favouring secession from Sudan, and the government is waging war against them with criminal damage to the Nuba civilians. The Nuba rebels are trained by generations of civil war. Many Nuba are now part of South Sudan’s armed forces. Dispersal of the Nuba has given the group some protection from genocide.            
At the independence of South Sudan the United Nations military Mission to Sudan (MINUS) ceased, and re-opened for a year to protect instead, South Sudan with its own tribal divisions. While little was reported of UN military assistance in Sudan its forces were sporadically accused of atrocities. The shift enforced a social re-engineering of Sudan which sacrificed the Nuba of the Blue Nile region and Nuba Mountains to the Government of Sudan. While the United Nations did not find Sudan’s attempts to overcome Western destabilization “genocide” in Dafur, President Omar al-Bashir remains under indictment by the International Criminal Court, for genocide and war crimes.            
What was accomplished by the bombing of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, was and is being accomplished in Sudan by disaster relief, media campaigns, and human rights organizations serving an aggressive political and military agenda. While NATO media carry news of African rebel movements, particularly when these serve a Western agenda, the media rarely reveal sources of weaponry and covert assistance. In 2012 Amnesty International has blamed China, former Soviet Union countries and Belarus for selling arms to the Government of Sudan, to cause “serious human rights violations.”3 In its report “Sudan: No end to Violence in Darfur,” Amnesty identifies the weaponry used by the Government of Sudan, while it basically draws a blank on who has supplied the rebels and anti-government forces. The arming of rebel groups by foreign countries could be considered an act of aggression by proxy.          
Compass Direct which focuses on persecution of Christians, reports the Government’s targeting of Christian families and Christian churches among the Nuba. Yet tribal groups in the North are predominantly Muslim and include animists. African sources have protested the government’s actions more broadly as “ethnic cleansing.” In an article for The Guardian4, Dr. Mukesh Kapila, whose human rights credentials are exceptional, warns of genocide against the Nuba as a people. His article witnesses the Government’s bombing of Nuba civilians but omits mention of more than ten thousand Nuba armed fighters.          
Dr. Kapila’s previous allegations of genocide in Darfur encouraged the ICC indictment for genocide of President al-Bashir. Before that, Dr. Kapila was part of the first British team to enter Rwanda at Paul Kagame’s victory by Tutsi forces over the Hutu and the displacement of Rwanda’s democratically elected government.  Currently, the BBC notes him as “special representative of the Aegis Foundation,” a U.K. organization devoted to preventing genocide whose areas of operation are listed as a Holocaust Memorial in Nottingham England, a genocide memorial in Kigali, Rwanda, and the Sudan. The Foundation’s web site lists a single “donor”, the Pears Group, a pro-Israel non-profit trust which also funds “Crisis Action,” an organization directly encouraging interventions. These organizations are within a politically aligned camp then, carrying web links to the who’s who of the genocide industry. Admirable in their refusal to accept the suffering of groups under their concern, by omission the crimes committed by their own groups are protected from prosecution. The mechanism allows an inevitable progression of injustice and mass death.          
The argument of whether specific instances of mass murders are “genocide” or not becomes secondary to the ongoing basic violation of all people’s humanity by any group that causes mass death.
The Nuba have for centuries provided refuge in the Nuba Mountains for others escaping slavery. They deserve honour and refuge. To save them and peoples across the world sacrificed by social engineers of a new world order, we might look deeper than the government of Omar al-Bashir who may be trying to spare his country renewed colonial controls.
A sincere effort to stop mass deaths in Africa which may in fact reveal a non-African program of genocide, would logically require an international guarantee of Sudan’s sovereignty, and a U.N. military mission responsible to the General Assembly, to protect the Nuba peoples, the peace of Darfur and peoples of Abyei. More deeply, all foreign corporation contracts within Sudan and South Sudan could be frozen until approved by the African Union, a mechanism that should be extended to contracts for resource rights in all African countries.    

Notes

1  “Is there enough political will to stop Sudan atrocities?” Amanda Grzyb and Gerald Caplan, Aug. 24, 2011,  Globe and Mail”; “A Dire Situation in Nuba,” El Fateh Osman (Oxfam), Feb. 29, 2012, The New York Times; “Genocide Emergency: Darfur, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile State,” Genocide Watch, March 8, 2012, <i>Genocide Watch</i>; “Lawmakers, film star Clooney arrested at anti-Sudan protest,” Kevin Fogarty, March 16, 2012, Thomson Reuters; “Clooney, ERLC’s Duke protest Sudan’s blockade of food, aid,” Tom Strode, March 19, 2012, Baptist Press; “In Sudan’s Nuba Mountains, Government Rocket Attacks Sow Fear, Witnesses Say,”  Jeffrey Getttleman, The New York Times. Partial sources.

2 Also:  ” Tactical Use of Genocide in Sudan and the Five Lakes Region,” J.B.Gerald, 2006, Global Research & nightslantern [access:<  http://www.nightslantern.ca/tacticalsudan.htm >]; “Notes on Sudan,” J.B.Gerald. 2004-2007, nightslantern.ca..

3  “Sudan” End bombing and allow humanitarian access into conflict regions,”  Feb. 16, 2012, Amnesty International.

4 “Is Sudan committing another genocide – against the Nuba people?” March 21, 2012, The Guardian.