Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

Mass Psychosis and The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism

January 03, 2019

by David Penner for The Saker Blog

Ask any American liberal aged sixty-five and older what they think about Franco, Mussolini, or Hitler and they will vehemently denounce these men as tyrants, murderers, and despots. Ask them what they think about the Vietnam War and they will say it was a tragedy, not only for the Vietnamese, but for the poor American soldiers who were drafted and used as cannon fodder. Liberals also once defended the civil rights movement and the New Deal while vigorously opposing McCarthyism. That these same people would go on to support deunionization, resegregation, and Russophobia while enthusiastically backing barbarous wars and interventions in Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine constitutes not only a betrayal of leftist principles, but is indicative of a rejection of reason and the reality-based world.

Like the proverbial general always fighting the last war, liberals remain trapped in the past, unable to adapt to rapidly unfolding kinetic developments. The problem is that not only is this general fighting the last war, this is a general that can no longer distinguish between right and left and has lost any semblance of a moral compass.

There’s a Hitler on The Danube

One could argue that the new Cold War began with Bill Clinton bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO. For Russians that were not yet alarmed by this perfidy, their red lines were irrefutably crossed with the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia and the bombing of Serbia, regarded by Russians as a brotherly nation. This constituted an illegal war of aggression, and was carried out without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Indeed, the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia initiated an unraveling of international law and marked an erosion in the equilibrium between the great powers.

As Noam Chomsky has noted, Yugoslavia was marked for destruction, because unlike the other formerly communist European countries they did not embrace privatization. The destruction of Yugoslavia was not only a violation of the UN Charter, but was also the first “humanitarian intervention” following the collapse of the USSR that liberals were duped into embracing. In an article on the RT website titled “15 years on: Looking back at NATO’s ‘humanitarian’ bombing of Yugoslavia,” the author writes, “NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘war on terror,’ or ‘preventive war’ – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.”

While Milošević and the Serbs were marked for demonization due to their lack of enthusiasm for neoliberal “reforms,” Croatian secessionists (many of whom subscribed to a neo-Nazi and neo-Ustasha ideology), Muslim fundamentalists in Bosnia, and the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) were supported by the West. Brigadier-General Pierre Marie Gallois of the French Army has condemned the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia, and has gone on record stating that the endless stories of Serb atrocities, such as mass rapes and the siege of Sarajevo were fabricated. Gallois also argues that the German elite sought revenge for the fierce Serb resistance during the two world wars, especially with regard to the Serb partisans that held up German divisions that were headed towards Leningrad and Moscow during Operation Barbarossa. While relentlessly demonized, the Serbs were in many ways the greatest victims of the NATO-orchestrated Balkan wars, as hundreds of thousands of Serbs were forcibly expelled from both Croatia and Kosovo while Serbia was turned into a free-fire zone by NATO for over seventy days. Washington took advantage of the conflict to solidify control over its European vassals.

During the aerial campaign, between ten and fifteen tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Serbia resulting in extremely high rates of cancer. The Independent coyly informed its readers that the forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia, which they refer to as an “exodus” – is a great mystery – a “riddle.” The only “riddle” is how liberals can denounce genocide and speak ad nauseam about human rights while supporting neo-Nazi regimes, such as the Poroshenko government in Kiev and the Tudjman government in Croatia, which have perpetrated genocidal war crimes in broad daylight. The forced expulsion of Serbs from Croatia was eventually reported by The New York Times, but four years too late. Liberal-backed jihadists in Libya and Syria have likewise carried out one ethnic cleansing after another.

Endless calls by the mainstream press to stop the evil Serbs from establishing a “greater Serbia” were blatant propaganda, as there was no way that the hundreds of thousands of Serbs in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo could have “invaded” these territories, as they had already been living there for centuries. Indeed, this very scenario holds true for the ethnic Russians in the Donbass. Moreover, as the mass media was busy vilifying the Serbs, behind the scenes American diplomats had no illusions about who they were dealing with, referring to the Croatian nationalists as “our junkyard dogs.”

In an article titled “The Rational Destruction of Yugoslavia,” Michael Parenti writes:

Tudjman presided over the forced evacuation of over half a million Serbs from Croatia between 1991 and 1995, replete with rapes and summary executions. This included the 200,000 from Krajina in 1995, whose expulsion was facilitated by attacks from NATO war planes and missiles. Needless to say, U.S. leaders did nothing to stop and much to assist these atrocities, while the U.S. media looked the other way.

Kosovo was also prized by the Western elites because of its rich deposits of coal, lead, zinc, cadmium, gold and silver valued in the billions of dollars. The tragic balkanization of Yugoslavia, where brother was pitted against brother, brought about the destruction of a non-aligned country with a nationalized economy thereby bolstering the power of Western finance capital.  Of the NATO bombings, Parenti posits that, “To destroy publicly-run Yugoslav factories that produced auto parts, appliances, or fertilizer…is to enhance the investment value of western producers. And every television or radio station closed down by NATO troops or blown up by NATO bombs extends the monopolizing dominance of the western media cartels. The aerial destruction of Yugoslavia’s social capital served that purpose.”

Lamentably, all of this was drowned out by the mass media’s vilification of the Serbs. An article in The Guardian titled “Serbs enslaved Muslim women at rape camps” encapsulates perfectly how Western liberals were duped into embracing a war which was waged for no other reason than to fortify the power of US and NATO hegemony. This propaganda is particularly galling in light of the fact that women’s rights have been thrown back into the Stone Age precisely in the very countries which have come under attack by Washington and her proxies, such as Libya, jihadist-occupied Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.

“Save Benghazi” and More Humanitarian Psychosis

Repeated calls by the presstitutes to “save Benghazi” sufficed to obtain liberal support for a war of aggression that has left Libya in such a state of anarchy and chaos, that Libyans who have been unable to flee the country are now trapped in a failed state where warring militias vie for power. In an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Obama’s Libya Debacle,” Alan J. Kuperman writes, “With Moscow’s acquiescence, the United Nations Security Council had approved the establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya and other measures to protect civilians. But NATO exceeded that mandate to pursue regime change.”

Under Gaddafi Libyans enjoyed a high standard of living, and health care and education were free. Gaddafi’s desire to set up a gold-backed dinar put him in the crosshairs of the Western elites, as this would have liberated Africans from domination by the World Bank and the IMF through establishing a common gold-backed currency. Alas, this was lost on the human rights crusaders of the holier-than-thou faux left.

Libya, which formerly had the highest standard of living in Africa, has been annihilated as a nation state. Slave markets are a legacy of this great “humanitarian intervention,” as are pogroms carried out against black Africans, formerly given refuge by the Gaddafi regime. An article in The Telegraph, which appeared in March of 2011, titled “Libya crisis: Benghazi fights for its life as Gaddafi attacks,” was one of countless articles in the mainstream press that incited messianic liberals into supporting a war of aggression against a people that had become too independent.

Once a country is marked for destruction by the Western elites no story is too outrageous, as evidenced by Susan Rice’s claim that Gaddafi supplied his troops with Viagra so that they could more effectively carry out mass rapes. This barbaric destruction of a sovereign state was summed up by liberal icon Hillary Clinton, who when asked about the brutal murder of Gaddafi, happily blurted out “We came! We saw! He died!

In what constituted the most genocidal invasion of a country following the end of the Vietnam War, Iraq was marked for annihilation after Saddam Hussein made the decision to sell oil in euros. In a rare moment of candor from a high priest of liberalism, Madeleine Albright, when asked about the half a million children that died due to the Clinton-backed sanctions, replied “We think the price is worth it.” This chilling remark underscores the fact that, contrary to liberal theology, the destruction of Iraq was perpetrated with equal fervor by both parties. Incredibly, even after spending trillions of dollars systematically destroying Iraqi social and political institutions, Washington failed to install a puppet government in Baghdad which has forged alliances with Tehran, Damascus, and Moscow.

Liberal saint Obama, in comparing the reunification of Crimea and Russia with the Iraq War, informs us that the “annexation of Crimea” – which was enthusiastically backed by the overwhelming majority of Crimeans – was worse than the invasion of Iraq, which resulted in a million deaths, destroyed a civilization and fueled the rise of ISIS.

As if her abysmal record makes her a Marxist scholar, Albright now warns Americans of the dangers of fascism, her implication of course being that the rise of Trump represents a threat to our democracy. Perhaps the Donald’s desire to pursue detente with Russia, and the fact that he has yet to start any new wars are what liberals are really upset about.

The Obama administration’s support for the Saudi war on Yemen is yet another impressive achievement for the liberal class, and has yielded such an earthly paradise that Yemenis have resorted to eating leaves to survive. For this extravaganza of mass murder the presstitutes didn’t even bother coming up with a fictitious narrative, allowing the salt of the earth to set aside their pom-poms for a while and take a nap.

Syria: Mass Murder in Paradise

Unsurprisingly, the mass media had no trouble duping imaginary leftists into believing that Syrians were being indiscriminately slaughtered by the Syrian Arab Army and the evil Russians. Unbeknownst to The Guardian and The New York Times, the US military presence in Syria is illegal, while Russian and Iranian military personnel are there at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration and its vassals are clearly responsible for the carnage in Syria, as they poured billions of dollars into backing the many jihadist groups. The mass media also hoodwinked liberals into thinking that the US military has been fighting ISIS, when they have used ISIS along with Al-Nusra Front and other illegal armed formations, as proxies with which to wage war on Syrian society. If Washington were battling the jihadists in Syria, why would they simultaneously be antagonists with the Syrian government and the Russians, who together saved Syria from being overrun by these very barbarians? Indeed, such questions have become a form of unmitigated heresy.

Articles such as “The Effects of Suspending American Aid to Moderate Syrian Opposition Groups,” by Hosam al-Jablawi, which appeared on The Atlantic Council’s website, seek to further the fallacy that the militants have been mostly democratic and secular. Washington and her vassals have poured enormous amounts of weaponry into the conflict zone, and Israeli weapons have been discovered in Syrian territories liberated from Daesh. That German machine guns from the Second World War have been discovered in some of these hideouts is symbolic of the true intentions of these murderous and sociopathic gangs.

The New York Post has referred to the jihadists in Syria as “freedom fighters.” While this may not be regarded as a “liberal” publication, an even more inane sentiment was expressed on Democracy Now, where Amy Goodman discussed the fighting in Eastern Ghouta with Rawya Rageh, Alia Malek, and Wendy Pearlman. Throughout the entire discussion of what can only be called an imaginary war, the fact that a large swath of Syria was taken over by jihadists, many of whom were not even Syrians but foreigners, is not even mentioned. In this cloud-cuckoo-land that passes for journalism the militants do not even exist. Assad and Putin are simply killing as many Syrians as possible, and doing so in an orgy of gratuitous savagery.

An article in The Guardian titled “You’re on your own, US tells Syrian rebels, as Assad goes on offensive” is deliberately written with the intention of stirring up liberal outrage over “indifference in the face of genocide,” and seeks to evoke memories of the Holocaust, the appeasement of Hitler, and the defeat of the Republicans by the forces of Franco. Meanwhile, independent media is shunned by liberals, who dismiss efforts at real journalism and political analysis as “conspiracy theory.” Thankfully for the insane, there is no shortage of good reading material.

Moscow has repeatedly maintained that the Syrian Arab Army is no longer in possession of chemical weapons, and there is ample evidence that the chemical attacks in Syria are false flag operations carried out by the jihadists to justify NATO aerial attacks on the Syrian Arab Army and Syrian infrastructure. Clearly, these incidents make for great Hollywood and have been extremely effective in stirring up gullible liberals who proceed to bray, as if on cue, for another regime change.

Tied to the mass media’s obsession with accusing Assad of “gassing his own people” are the White Helmets, who have been funded by the West, and who are clearly allied with the jihadists. The White Helmets played a critical role in duping liberal fundamentalists into thinking that there was a democratic uprising in Syria, and that the West must intervene “to put an end to the suffering.” Time will tell if Washington truly ceases all military operations in this war-ravaged country.

Forgotten Killing Fields: Afghanistan and Ukraine

The invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan was sold as a war to free oppressed women. An article in The Independent by Jane Dalton titled “Afghanistan’s first female military pilot granted asylum in US after fleeing Taliban death threats,” is crude propaganda, yet very effective nevertheless. This is a great way to distract insouciant liberals from what Americans are more likely to do in their dealings with Afghans, which is to murder them, and then urinate over their dead bodies. What the mass media doesn’t like to talk about is how the rise of the Taliban is a direct result of Washington’s support for the mujahideen in their insurgency against the secular Afghan communist government in the 1980s. Washington is furious with the International Criminal Court over considering prosecution of American officials for war crimes in Afghanistan, and has even threatened to arrest ICC judges in retaliation. Unbeknownst to these judges, Americans are God’s chosen people. Consequently, they are incapable of war crimes.

Samantha Power is a particularly pious priest in the Church of Humanitarian Interventionism. Power was a staunch advocate of military intervention in Libya, and used her influence to cover up the crimes of the US-Saudi genocidal assault on Yemen. She defended Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and yet was extremely critical of the “annexation of Crimea.” That the reunification of Crimea and Russia was in fact a legitimate humanitarian intervention is an irony that was undoubtedly lost on her. In a 2016 showdown with Vitaly Churkin at the UN Power accused Russia, Syria, and Iran of slaughtering civilians in Aleppo, when they were liberating the city from jihadists backed by Washington and her vassals. Power also spoke of the liberation of Aleppo as if the jihadists were Jews bravely defending themselves in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Syrian and Russian troops were fascists perpetrating brutal acts of collective punishment. Following this deranged rant, Churkin said, “The speech by the US representative is particularly strange to me; she gave her speech as if she was Mother Teresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country.”

The NATO-backed putsch in Kiev, supported wholeheartedly by the Obama administration, resulted in an unconstitutional seizure of power by the heirs of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, as well as a genocidal war waged against the ethnic Russians of the Donbass who have steadfastly refused to recognize the Banderite regime. In pitting neo-Nazis against neo-partisans, the restoration of Ukrainian nationalism has resurrected the demons of the past, as the bodies of slain Novorossiyan fighters are mingled with the bones of their heroic grandfathers.

Despite blathering on about the Nazis for decades, liberals were fully complicit in bringing this odious regime to power, as they were easily hoodwinked into thinking that the coup was a grassroots democratic uprising, and that the armed formations battling the Ukrainian military in the Donbass were divisions from the Russian Armed Forces, when they are overwhelmingly comprised of locals from Donetsk and Lugansk.

Moreover, as the Western elites impose multiculturalism and identity politics at home, they are simultaneously fomenting the rise of neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe. This underscores the moral bankruptcy, duplicity, and schizophrenia of the liberal class and has trapped Europeans in an intellectual paralysis where they are being offered a choice between neo-Nazism or multiculturalism, both of which benefit the oligarchy. The Maidan coup, executed by pogromists, neo-Nazis, and Banderites has legitimized unconstitutional seizures of power and inspired those who would like to carry out a putsch of their own in Germany.

A Hitler on The Moskva River?

As Putin has noted, following the collapse of the USSR Washington and NATO have pursued a policy of unilateralism. These wars have not only been carried out in flagrant violation of the UN Charter that condemns wars of aggression, but have also contributed to the degradation of the rule of law within the West itself. Western stenographers like to complain about terrorism, but terrorists filled the vacuum following the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and a large swath of jihadist-occupied Syria – “humanitarian interventions” – where liberal complicity is undeniable and irrefutable.

The Church of Humanitarian Interventionism is rooted in the myth that the invasion of Normandy brought about the defeat of fascism. While this is not to denigrate the contributions made by resistance groups in Western Europe or those who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy, the fact is that the defeat of fascism was achieved by the Red Army and allied partisans who bore the brunt of the best German troops, together with the courage of the Russian people who suffered the loss of twenty-seven million of their countrymen. This much vaunted invasion was launched on June 6, 1944, and only after it was clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war.

The descent of liberals into a morass of madness and bestiality is intertwined with a gross naivete regarding the true intentions of publications such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Guardian which are leading their readers around like so many poodles. Sadly, most of these creatures will go to their graves never understanding the treachery of these periodicals that they have given their very souls to. Liberals have also decided that it is better to spend trillions of dollars on illegal wars of aggression while their sons and daughters have inadequate health insurance and wallow in dead-end jobs working for the minimum wage.

In a spectacular display of Russophobia and Apocalypticism, Nikki Haley, who could easily work for either party and not know the difference, recently wrote on her Twitter page that “Lying, cheating, and rogue behavior have become the new norm of the Russian culture.” Washington’s decision to make Putin their favorite new bogeyman undoubtedly helps justify the obscene budget of the military industrial complex. Let’s pray that the bells of humanitarian intervention don’t ring out in strident cacophony over the Kremlin, which would assuredly take us to a place from which there is no dawning, and the evanescing of the sun of mankind forever.
——-
David Penner’s articles on politics and health care have appeared in Dissident Voice, CounterPunch, Russia Insider and KevinMD. Also a photographer and native New Yorker, he is the author of three books: Faces of The New Economy, Faces of Manhattan Island, and Manhattan Pairs. He can be reached at 321davidadam@gmail.com.

Advertisements

A Message From the Libyan People’s Resistance

ScreenHunter-1485-768x548

Since 2011, NATO and the entire United Nations have failed all of the citizens of Libya. Libyans have lived in fear and were terrorized constantly by the various rebel militias.

The militias were armed up by foreign interests. Now, it appears that a swell of enthusiasm and pride has developed and is spreading throughout Libya. Yesterday, many of the tribes in Libya gathered in Tarhouna and final plans have been made to unify and retake Tripoli to free the country once and for all.

Today, many demonstrators have taken to the streets in Green Square, and by tomorrow many thousands will assemble there too in support of this growing movement of freedom-thirsty Libyans. By all accounts, Libya was doing well prior to the War of 2011, no debt and ambitious projects abound in that country. No homeless people existed and there were no poor people.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton failed at foreign policy development, so their solution was to arm up people alleged to be demonstrators in Benghazi that we now know to be untrue. The arming of extreme militants and Islamists has virtually destroyed an entire country and provided armed resources to the likes of Al Qaeda that has spread in the region and caused growing security issues.

There was no real Arab Spring, it was all a unilateral justification for illegally funneling weapons to terrorists that most nations were fighting against, yet Obama and Clinton have misled the United States and the Congress. Imagine all of the missing emails and the proof of all of their complicity in violating both U.S. laws and United Nations rules. The truth will come out soon and history will correct itself regardless of the concealment of evidence by Clinton and her pundits.

Citizens of Libya should rise up today and go to Green Square and demonstrate to the world that you are tired of living in hell because NATO and its allies made huge errors and then walked away, doing nothing to feed anyone or to get rid of the armed militias.

Tomorrow, thousands of Libyans should arrive into Green Square and show the militias that you are not afraid to stand up into the face of tyranny and terrorists, Libyans will fight!

On Tuesday, the tribes of Tarhouna will arrive and so will many thousands of Libyans seeking to free their country once and for all. Libyans should rise up and fight to get rid of these armed terrorists who have pillaged and raped Libya for the last time.

By VT Senior Editors
Source

Libya goes from the most prosperous country in Africa to a haven for terrorists in just 7 years, thanks to the USA’s NATO

RT

Libya in chaos seven years after NATO’s ‘liberation’, but who cares?

Libya in chaos seven years after NATO's 'liberation', but who cares?

Are the US and israel (apartheid state) Behind the Fresh Chaos in Libya’s Capital?

Source

Trump claimed last year that he would seek to establish a permanent military presence in Libya aimed at “uniting” the country under a single government, a government that would most likely have rival leader Khalifa Haftar at the helm, given his control over most of Libya’s oil fields.

TRIPOLI, LIBYA – As the week began, Tripoli reverted to a state of chaos as armed cadres representing rival factions vie for control of the Libyan capital. Since Monday, local media has reported that five have been killed and 27 wounded in the city, prompting the country’s health ministry to declare a state of emergency.While in-fighting between rival militias has been common outside of the capital since the 2011 NATO intervention deposed the country’s former leader Muammar Gaddafi, these recent clashes are notable as the warring sides both technically operate under Libya’s UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA). Local reports have stated that in-fighting GNA groups have used heavy weapons, including artillery, and that residential areas have been targeted.

The fighting has been condemned by the GNA’s Presidential Council (PC), which issued a statement on Monday warning “these gangs and outlawed groups that have terrorized civilians and residents; there is no space for such lawlessness and chaos.”

Despite the PC’s statement, chaos and lawlessness have been the daily reality in Libya since Gaddafi’s 2011 overthrow. This, in part, is due to the fact that the GNA has long struggled to consolidate control over the country, largely due in turn to its inability to dislodge the rival government in Eastern Libya led by Khalifa Haftar. Haftar is a Libyan military defector with deep ties to the U.S. CIA and currently backed by the UAE and Egypt. Armed groups, including Daesh (ISIS), also control portions of Libyan territory not claimed by the GNA or Haftar governments.

 

A power vacuum inviting outside exploitation

As a result, Libya continues to lack a strong central government over seven years after Gaddafi was removed from power and brutally murdered by NATO-funded “rebels.” This vacuum has allowed for the proliferation, not only of terrorist groups throughout the country, but also an illegal arms and slave trade in what was once Africa’s wealthiest nation with the continent’s highest standard of living.

While the reason for GNA in-fighting is unknown, such chaos is likely to greatly benefit the Haftar-led government, which has long called for the GNA’s overthrow and has recently received help from some unlikely allies. Since last year, Haftar’s administration has been receiving considerable military aid from Israel and meeting with Israeli intelligence, along with continued backing from the UAE and Egypt, all of which are influential U.S. allies in the region.

The Trump administration also claimed last year that it would seek to establish a permanent military presence in Libya aimed at “uniting” the country under a single government, a government that would most likely have Haftar at the helm, given the GNA’s loss of control and Haftar’s control over most of Libya’s oil fields. It remains to be determined whether “foreign meddling” from any of these countries bears any responsibility for the recent chaos on the streets of Tripoli.

Top Photo | The aftermath of recent clashes which took place in Tripoli, Libya. Twitter | Nadia Ramadan

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Revealed Britain’s link to terrorist groups in Libya

What will be the blowback for UK government after Libya revelations?

What will be the blowback for UK government after Libya revelations?

By Mark Curtis: The revelation that the British government likely had contacts with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and the 17 February Martyrs Brigade during the 2011 war in Libya – groups for which the 2017 Manchester bomber and his father reportedly fought at that time – raises fundamental questions about the UK’s links to terrorism.

 

Indeed, a strong case can be made for a devastating conclusion: that the UK is itself a de facto part of the terrorist infrastructure that poses a threat to the British public.

Foreign minister Alistair Burt told Parliament on 3 April that: “During the Libyan conflict in 2011 the British government was in communication with a wide range of Libyans involved in the conflict against the Gaddafi regime forces. It is likely that this included former members of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and 17 February Martyrs Brigade, as part of our broad engagement during this time.” This is the first time the government has admitted to having contacts with these groups at that time.

Covert boots on the ground

The admission is highly significant. In 2011, Britain played a leading role, along with the US, France and some Arab states, in conducting bombing and a covert operation to remove Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. But the UN resolution they obtained did not allow them to put troops on the ground – although Britain did so covertly, it was admitted later.

Instead, militant fighters, such as those from the LIFG, were seen as Islamist boots on the ground to promote Britain’s war. After the Manchester bombing in May last year, which killed 22 people, it was widely reported that the terrorist, Salman Abedi, and his father, Ramadan, had both fought with the LIFG in 2011.

As Middle East Eye revealed last year, the British government operated an “open door” policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens living in the UK to join the 2011 war, even though some had been subject to counter-terrorism control orders.

 

These dissidents were members of the LIFG, and most were from Manchester, like the Abedis. Renowned journalist Peter Oborne subsequently revealed that they were “undoubtedly encouraged” by MI6 to travel to Libya to oust Gaddafi. Indeed, after the Libyan leader was overthrown, these fighters were allowed back into Britain “without hesitation”.

 

The connection to the British secret state goes back even further. Ramadan Abedi is believed to have been a prominent member of the LIFG, which he joined in 1994. This was two years before MI6 covertly supported the LIFG in an attempt to assassinate Gaddafi, an operation initially revealed by former MI5 officer, David Shayler. At the time MI6 handed over money for the coup attempt, the LIFG was an affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, and LIFG leaders had various connections to his terror network.

 

Millions in Qatari funding

Reports also suggest that Ramadan Abedi fought with the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, an offshoot of the LIFG, in the 2011 Libyan war – the other militant group mentioned by the government in its parliamentary response. Many of Gaddafi’s opponents living in the UK and connected to the LIFG joined this brigade, which was one of the key units seeking to topple Gaddafi.

The brigade was armed by Qatar, which provided $400m worth of support to Libyan rebel groups and was their major arms supplier. Britain is reported to have approved of Qatar’s arms supplies to these militant groups and worked closely alongside it as its principal partner in the war. The Times reported in June 2011 that “Britain and France are using Qatar to bankroll the Libyan rebels”.

 

But here the story also relates to another terrorist – Rachid Redouane, part of a group who killed eight people in the London Bridge/Borough market attack last year. Redouane also fought in the Libya war of 2011, reportedly for the Liwa al-Ummah unit, another offshoot of the LIFG. Some of Liwa’s members were trained by Qatari special forces in Libya’s western mountains – training that involved covert UK and US “liaison” officers.

 

This raises the possibility that Redouane might even have received combat training in a UK-approved operation. It is also possible that Salman and Ramadan Abedi benefited from such military training or from the arms supplies that were flooding into Libya at the time. No evidence has, however, so far emerged.

 

How much did officials know?

The government is refusing to say which groups Salman and Ramadan Abedi fought for in Libya. In response to a question on this subject from Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, security minister Ben Wallace replied on 3 April: “The Home Office does not comment on intelligence matters nor on matters which form part of ongoing investigations.” It is interesting that Wallace described this as an “intelligence” matter. Is this a tacit official admission of links between the Abedis and the security services?

There are numerous other key questions that demand answers. When Theresa May was home secretary in 2011, did she know about or authorise the despatch of Libyans living in the UK to Libya, and were Salman or Ramadan Abedi specifically part of this process? If she did not, what were security services, who reported to her and then foreign secretary William Hague, therefore up to? Did either the LIFG or the 17 February Martyrs Brigade receive either direct or indirect UK assistance to fight in Libya at this time? Why were the Abedis allowed to return back to the UK after fighting in Libya with no questions asked?

There is an equally fundamental question: will British journalists seek to uncover more of this story? After all, it is possible it could lead to revelations about the secret state’s links to terrorism that could cause the downfall of ministers.

 

Mark Curtis is an author and consultant. He is a former Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and has been an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde and Visiting Research Fellow at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, Paris and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Auswartige Politik, Bonn. 

Amnesty International: Trumpeting for War… Again

الخداع الأميركي

مارس 24, 2018

زياد حافظ

نحيي هذه الأيام ذكرى أولى جرائم القرن الحادي والعشرين، أيّ احتلال العراق وتدميره على يد قوى تحالف الأطلسي وعدد من الدول خارج إطار مجلس الأمن والقانون الدولي والمواثيق الدولية. فالولايات المتحدة التي قادت ذلك التحالف لم تعتبر نفسها معنية بالقانون الدولي أو مجلس الأمن. أما الجرائم الأخرى فهي العدوان الكوني على سورية، وتبنّي جماعات الغلو والتعصّب والتوحّش في كل من العراق وسورية، والعدوان على سورية وليبيا واليمن. فمن يقرأ تاريخ الولايات المتحدة القريب أو البعيد يصل إلى نتيجة قاطعة أنه لا يمكن الوثوق بالولايات المتحدة بشكل عام في اتفاقاتها الشفهية أو حتّى المبرمة بشكل خاص. فثقافة الولايات المتحدة في التعاقد بين الأطراف، سواء كانوا في القطاع الخاص أو في القطاع العام، أو مع الدول الصديقة أو غير الصديقة، تفضي أن الولايات المتحدة ستتخلّى عن أي أتفاق أو أي تعاقد أو أي التزام مكتوب، فما بالك في ما يخصّ الاتفاقات الشفوية، عند أول فرصة تسمح بذلك وإن كانت على حساب مصالحها الاستراتيجية أو سمعتها.

فهذه الثقافة مبنية على قناعة وواقع أن التعاقد بين أطراف هو نتيجة لموازين قوّة سائد عند توقيع الاتفاق أو الالتزام بتفاهمات شفوية أو خطّية. وبما أن سنّة الحياة هي السعي إلى تحسين الوضع لكل طرف، فيصبح الاتفاق إن كان مبرماً أو شفوياً عبئاً على الطرف الذي استطاع تحسين وضعه. وبالتالي فإن الواجب الأخلاقي من وجهة نظر الثقافة الأميركية! هو نقض الاتفاق الذي يحدّ من الإمكانيات المتزايدة خارجه أو الخروج عنه لعقد اتّفاق آخر يعكس بشكل أفضل التغيير في موازين القوّة بين الأطراف المتعاقدة. لذلك أصبح قطاع المحاماة في الولايات المتحدة من أهم القطاعات الاقتصادية والمالية لانشغال الأميركيين أفراداً ومؤسسات بالدعاوى!

تاريخ الولايات المتحدة حافل بنقضها لاتفاقات مبرمة سنذكر منها اتفاقين مبرمين لما لهما من أهمية على العلاقات الدولية والاستراتيجية، كما سنشير إلى اتفاقات أخرى اقتصادية وسياسية وثقافية تمّ ضربها عُرض الحائط. الحالة الأولى هي الخروج عن الاتفّاق لتحديد الصواريخ البالستية المعروف باتّفاق «أ بي أم» الذي أقدمت على إشعاره إدارة جورج بوش في أواخر عام 2001 ثم تنفيذه عام 2002. كان ذلك الخروج أحادياً، لأن الولايات المتحدة اعتبرت أن لا مصلحة لها بالتقيّد بذلك الاتفاق خاصة أنها كانت تنوي بناء منظومة صاروخية مضادة للصواريخ البالستية والتي تحظرها اتفاقية أ بي أم. وقيمة هذا الاتفاق الذي أبرم عام 1972 بين الاتحاد السوفياتي والولايات المتحدة أنه كان نتيجة المحادثات لتخفيض الاسلحة الاستراتيجية التي رافقتها والمعروفة باتفاقيات «سالط» أي محادثات تخفيض السلاح الاستراتيجي بالأحرف الأولى في اللغة الانكليزية. فهذا الاتفاق كان نتيجة محادثات سالط 1 عام 1972، بينما تعثّرت المحادثات بعد 7 سنوات محادثات سالط 2، بسبب عدم التوازن في التسليح الاستراتيجي والتكنولوجي بين الاتحاد السوفياتي والولايات المتحدة. لكن المهم أن اتفاق أ بي أم صمد 30 سنة حتى إدارة بوش. فسباق التسليح بين الاتحاد الروسي والولايات المتحدة بدأ منذ تلك الفترة بعد سنتين من وصول فلاديمير بوتين إلى الرئاسة عام 2000. فقرار إدارة بوش بالانسحاب واجهه الرئيس الروسي بقرار تطوير القدرات العسكرية الروسية نوعاً قبل أن تكون كمّاً كما كشف عنه في خطابه الأخير في مطلع شهر آذار/مارس 2018. وقد أكّد على مسؤولية الولايات المتحدة في التسبب في سباق التسلّح في مقابلة على الشبكة الأميركية أن بي سي بعد بضعة أيام من خطابه الشهير. والجدير بالذكر أن معظم القادة العسكريين الأميركيين ومنهم فوتل قائد المنطقة المركزية الوسطى ومسؤولون آخرون في البتناغون أخذوا على محمل الجدّ خطاب الرئيس الروسي وإقرارهم أن منظومتهم الدفاعية غير مؤهّلة لمواجهة المنظومة الروسية الحديثة، كما أشرنا في مقال سابق.

واليوم يكثر الحديث في أروقة الإدارة الأميركية عن انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من الاتفاق النووي مع الجمهورية الإسلامية في إيران، رغم اعتراض العديد في الولايات المتحدة، ورغم اعتراض الدول الأوروبية الحليفة للولايات المتحدة وخاصة المملكة المتحدة وفرنسا وألمانيا. هذا يدلّ على عدم اكتراث الولايات المتحدة بالاتفاقات التي تعقدها ولا تهتم بمصالح غير مصالحها وكأن تغيير الإدارات لا يعني استمرارية في الالتزامات. وهذا مخالف للقانون الدولي والأعراف الدبلوماسية والدولية.

وهناك اتفاقيات غير مبرمة مع الاتحاد السوفياتي في أواخر الثمانينيات وقبل سقوطه، والتي أفضت إلى قبول الاتحاد السوفياتي بتوحيد ألمانيا على أساس أن الحلف الاطلسي لن يتوسع شرقاً في أوروبا ليتاخم الاتحاد السوفياتي ويهدّد أمنه مباشرة. كما تمّ الاتفاق على أن تصبح أوكرانيا دولة حاجز بين منظومة الاتحاد الأوروبي والأطلسي والاتحاد الروسي. كان ذلك الاتفاق مع إدارة بوش الأب غير أن إدارة كلنتون نقضته مستفيدة من تفكّك الاتحاد السوفياتي ومجيء رئيس روسي ضعيف بوريس يلتسن. وكانت حجّة إدارة كلنتون أن ليس هناك من أي نصّ مكتوب يلزمها بذلك، رغم وجود أدلّة قاطعة على التفاهم الشفهي الذي حصل بين غورباشيف وبوش الأب والمستشار الألماني هلموت كول وقيادة الحلف الأطلسي. فكانت حروب البلقان في التسعينيات التي أدّت إلى تفكيك يوغسلافيا ومآسي البوصنة والهرزاق توّجها الهجوم الأميركي على صربيا وقصفها من الجوّ لمدة طويلة أدّت إلى إخضاعها وبالتالي إذلال حليفتها روسيا.

الحالة الثانية هي قرار إدارة ترامب بالانسحاب من اتفاقية المناخ التي وُقّعت في باريس عام 2015 والتي كانت تهدف إلى احتواء الاحتباس الحراري، وذلك عبر فرض قيود على الإنتاج الصناعي وضرورة إيجاد تكنولوجيات ملائمة للحفاظ على البيئة. قرار الانسحاب من ذلك الاتفاق كان من أول القرارات التي اتخذها ترامب، حيث اعتبر أن الاحتباس الحراري خرافة ويفرض قيوداً وكلفة إضافية غير مقبولة على الانتاج الصناعي الأميركي. والمأساة هنا هي اعتماد الرئيس الأميركي سردية الانجيليين المتشدّدين الذين لا يعترفون بالقاعدة العلمية لظاهرة الاحتباس الحراري وأن الأخير هو مجرّد وجهة نظر غير مدعومة بالوقائع، حتى وإن كان هناك شبه إجماع عند العلماء على ذلك بما يدحض تلك السردية. فقرار الرئيس الأميركي بالانسحاب من تلك الاتفاقية، والتي كانت تعتبر من إنجازات الرئيس السابق باراك اوباما، لم يخل من الكيدية بحق سلفه، وإن كان على حساب المصلحة الأميركية المتوسطة والبعيدة. أما تداعيات الانسحاب من الاتفاقية فهي ستكون وخيمة على الولايات المتحدة والعالم من الناحية البيئية ولن تعود بالضرورة إلى منافع للصناعات الأميركية كما تعتقد الإدارة الحالية.

أما على الصعيد الاقتصادي، فكافة الاتفاقات التي قد وقّعتها الولايات المتحدة عند إنجاز منظمّة التجارة العالمية بتخفيض أو إلغاء التعرفات الجمركية أصبحت بمهبّ الريح مع الإدارة الحالية. أقدم الرئيس الأميركي على فرض تعرفات جمركية على استيراد الصلب والألومنيوم كما فرض تعرفات على المتنوجات الصينية بقيمة 60 مليار دولار بحجة عدم التكافؤ في الميزان التجاري مع الصين. طبعاً، هذا القرار أثار حفيظة الحلفاء والخصوم على حد سواء وقد يؤدّي إلى نتائج وخيمة من حروب تجارية وحروب في صرف العملات مزعزعة أكثر مكانة الدولار المهتزّ أصلاً. وهذا القرار اتخذ ضد رأي المستشارين الاقتصاديين في البيت الأبيض ما أدّى إلى استقالتهم.

أما على صعيد السياسة الخارجية فنجد الولايات المتحدة لا تكترث للقانون الدولي وقرارات مجلس الأمن. فهي تقدم على خطوات خارج مجلس الأمن كاحتلال أجزاء من سورية وقبل ذلك العراق وقصف مواقع للدولة والجيش السوري وذلك من دون أي تكليف دولي بل ضاربة عرض الحائط كل ذلك. أضف إلى ذلك الاتهامات التي تلصقها مندوبة الولايات المتحدة نيكي هايلي بحق روسيا أو إيران دون أي دليل والتهديد المباشر لسورية ولجميع الدول التي لا تلتزم بالموقف الأميركي. فالبلطجة هي أساس السلوك الدبلوماسي في الولايات المتحدة. وإذا أضفنا تصريحات وزير الخارجية الجديد مايك بومبيو بأن لا جدوى للدبلوماسية فهي مضيعة للوقت على عكس ممارسة القوّة العارية التي هي أفعل نرى مدى الانحدار والاستهتار بالقوانين فما بالك بالأعراف الدولية!

قرار نقل السفارة الأميركية من تل أبيب إلى القدس هو أيضاً مخالف للقوانين والمواثيق الدولية، كما أن تمويل الكيان الصهيوني للاستمرار في بناء المستعمرات في الأراضي المحتلّة هو أيضاً مخالفة للقانون الدولي. فالولايات المتحدة لا تعتبر أنها مقيّدة بذلك والوعود التي قطعتها على القيادات الفلسطينية بالتوسّط مع حكومة الكيان تبيّن أنها خدعة. نشير هنا إلى كتاب الدكتورة بثينة شعبان مستشارة الرئيس السوري الراحل حافظ الأسد والرئيس الحالي بشّار الأسد حول المحادثات بين سورية والولايات المتحدة والنفاق الذي أظهرته القيادات الأميركية المفاوضة خلال التفاوض. فما كانوا يقولونه في الغرف المغلقة كانوا ينقضونه في العلن! كذلك الأمر بالنسبة لمهام الموفد الأميركي إلى لبنان دافيد ساترفيلد الذي ادّعى التوسّط بين حكومة لبنان وحكومة الكيان في قضية بلوك رقم 9 لحقول الغاز مقابل شاطئ لبنان الجنوبي تبيّن أنه ينقل وجهة نظر الكيان الصهيوني ضارباً عرض الحائط القانون الدولي بالنسبة لتحديد الحدود البحرية الاقتصادية للبنان.

هناك حادثة يجب ذكرها أيضاً لأنها تشكّل مفصلاً أساسياً في العلاقات بين روسيا والولايات المتحدة. فروسيا تتّهم الولايات المتحدة ودول الغرب بالخداع في ما يتعلّق بقرار مجلس الأمن 1973 عام 2011 المتعلّق بحظر التحليق في أجواء ليبيا وضرورة حماية المدنيين. تعتبر روسيا أن الولايات المتحدة وفرنسا والمملكة المتحدة استغلّوا القرار لشنّ هجوم الحلف الأطلسي على ليبيا وتدميرها وقتل رئيسها. فالتفسير الذي تبنّاه الحلف الأطلسي لقرار مجلس الأمن يناقض نصّاً وروحاً القرار الأممي ما أثار حفيظة روسيا فأدّى إلى انتهاجها دبلوماسية متشدّدة وهجومية تجلّت في التحالف مع الدولة السورية في مواجهة الحرب الكونية على سورية في مجلس الأمن وفي الميدان.

نذكر هنا محاولات وزير الخارجية الأميركية السابق جون كيري في الولاية الثانية للرئيس أوباما لعقد تفاهمات مع نظيره الروسي سيرغي لافروف حول تخفيض التوتّر في سورية تمّ إفشالها من قبل أطراف داخل الإدارة الأميركية. فحادثة الهجوم الأميركي على مواقع الجيش العربي السوري في دير الزور عام 2016 أدّى إلى سقوط شهداء واحتلال فصائل داعش لمواقع الجيش العربي السوري، وذلك رغم الاتفاق بين كيري ولافروف الذي سبق الهجوم بأيام عدّة. ومؤخّراً الهجوم في مطلع هذا العام على وحدات روسية في منطقة دير الزور أيضاً أدّى إلى سقوط أكثر من مئة قتيل بين القوّات الروسية وإن كانت تابعة لشركات أمنية روسية خاصة، وذلك رغم «التفاهم» المتبادل بين الأميركيين والروس لعدم التصادم المباشر. فكان لا بد من إنذار روسي مباشر وواضح تجلّى لاحقاً في خطاب الرئيس الروسي محذّراً من أن أي اعتداء على أي حليف لروسيا بمثابة اعتداء عليها يستدعي الردّ المناسب. فمرّة أخرى تخرق الولايات المتحدة كلماتها لأغراض ظرفية وإن كانت على حساب المصالح الطويلة المدى وكأنها لا تكترث لها.

أما على صعيد منطقة الشرق الأوسط فالسلوك الأميركي مع بعض حلفائها يثير ريبتهم. فالتعاطي مع قيادة إقليم كردستان أدّى إلى سقوط الرهان عليه كورقة ضاغطة على حكومات بغداد وطهران ودمشق. والشعور عند القيادات الكردية هو أن الولايات المتحدّة تخلّت عنها. لكن على ما يبدو فإن القيادات الكردية في سورية تُعيد كرّة التحالف مع الولايات المتحدة وإذ تجد نفسها تواجه بمفردها الجيش التركي في عفرين، وربما في منطقة منبج وعين العرب والقامشلي. من جهة أخرى نشهد تعاظم الحذر التركي بل الريبة من الموقف الأميركي. فالثقة أصبحت شبه معدومة بين الطرفين. ونشير هنا إلى بعض الأوساط الأميركية كرئيس مجلس العلاقات الخارجية ريشارد هاس أنها تعتبر التحالف مع تركيا غير ضروري، بل التحالف مع الأكراد هو الأهم. هذا وكانت أصوات عديدة في الولايات المتحدة اعتبرت تركيا غير صديقة لها، وإن كانت في معسكر حلفائها.

ونقض الاتفاقات ليس محصوراً بالقطاع السياسي والعسكري والاقتصادي بل يشمل أيضاً القطاع الثقافي والرياضي. فلا ننسى مقاطعة الولايات المتحدة للألعاب الأولمبية في موسكو عام 1980 ولا ننسى انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من منظمة الأونيسكو التي ساهمت في إنشائها ودعمها طالما المصالح الصهيونية لم تكن مهدّدة. والآن تقطع الولايات المتحدة مساهمتها في منظمة الأنروا بعد أن خفّضت تمويلها للأمم المتحدة عقب التصويت في الجمعية العامة ضد قرار نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى القدس. فالكيد أصبح عاملاً أساسياً في اتخاذ القرارات وإن أضرّت بسمعة ومصالح الولايات المتحدة. فتعتبر نفسها فوق كل الاعتبارات!

أما الوعود فلن ندخل في مناقشتها، لأنها عديدة خاصة أن الولايات الأميركية لا تحترم حتى حلفائها الأوروبيين. وبالتالي يصبح التساؤل حول مصداقية الولايات المتحدة أكثر جدّية، وإن كانت موازين القوّة بين الولايات المتحدة وأوروبا ما زالت لصالح أميركا. لكن هل تستطيع الولايات المتحدة وبعض الدول الأوروبية ومع الكيان الصهيوني وبعض دول الجزيرة العربية خوض معارك استراتيجية في المشرق العربي وتواجه كلاً من محور المقاومة وروسيا ومن ورائهما الصين، خاصة أن الثقة بين أعضاء ذلك التحالف الغربي مهتزة؟ سؤال محفوف بالمخاطر التي لا تستطيع الولايات المتحدة ولا بعض الحكومات الأوروبية الإجابة عليه. فهي ما زالت تعتقد أن بإمكانها ضرب تحالف محور المقاومة وروسيا من دون أي ردّ فعل مكلف لها ومن دون تصدّع التحالف الغربي.

هذه بعض الملاحظات التي تجعل الدول الصاعدة كروسيا والصين تشكّك في مصداقية أي كلام يصدر عن الولايات المتحدة. فالمواقف العدوانية الأميركية ضد كل من روسيا والصين رغم الاتفاقات المبرمة معهما تؤكّد أن العقوبات المفروضة عليهما عقوبات فاقدة أي قاعدة شرعية دولية سواء الرغبة الأميركية التي تعتبر أن ما تقوله في لحظة ما هو القانون وليس أيّ شيء آخر. فهل يمكن الوثوق بالولايات المتحدة بعد كلّ ذلك وما هي قوّة القانون الدولي الذي لا تحترمه الولايات المتحدة؟ فشريعة الغاب هي التي تتحكّم بسلوكها. ذلك يذكّرنا بمقولة الشاعر البيروتي الراحل المرحوم عمر الزعنّي الذي كان يردّد بالعامية:

بلا عصبة يقصد آنذاك عصبة الأمم قبل إنشاء الأمم المتحدة ، بلا مجمع

كلّ دولة إلها مطمع

الحق بيد القوّة

والقوّة ببوز المدفع!

أمين عام المؤتمر القومي العربي

مقالات مشابهة

%d bloggers like this: