Former Brazilian leader wishes emerging economies were closer, recalls Obama ‘crashing’ Copenhagen climate meet
Former Brazilian leader Lula holds hands with Chinese President Hu Jintao, left, at the BRICS summit in Brasilia on April 15, 2010. Lula wishes his country had a strategic partnership with Beijing. Photo: Dida Sampaio /Agencia Estado
In a wide-ranging, two-hour-plus, exclusive interview from a prison room in Curitiba in southern Brazil, former Brazilian president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva re-emerged for the first time, after more than 500 days in jail, and sent a clear message to the world.
Amid the 24/7 media frenzy of scripted sound bites and “fake news”, it’s virtually impossible to find a present or former head of state anywhere, in a conversation with journalists, willing to speak deep from his soul, to comment on all current political developments and relish telling stories about the corridors of power. And all that while still in prison.
The first part of this mini-series focused on the Amazon. Here, we will focus on Brazil’s relationship with BRICS and Beijing. BRICS is the grouping of major emerging economies – Brazil, Russia, India and China – that formed in 2006 and then included South Africa in their annual meetings from 2010.
My first question to Lula was about BRICS and the current geopolitical chessboard, with the US facing a Russia-China strategic partnership. As president, from 2003 to 2010, Lula was instrumental in formatting and expanding the influence of BRICS – in sharp contrast with Brazil’s current President, Jair Bolsonaro, who appears to be convinced that China is a threat.
Lula stressed that Brazil should have been getting closer to China in a mirror process of what occurred between Russia and China: “When there was a BRICS summit here in Ceará state in Brazil, I told comrade Dilma [Rousseff, the former president] that we should organize a pact like the Russia-China pact. A huge pact giving the Chinese part of what they wanted, which was Brazil’s capacity to produce food and energy and also the capacity to have access to technological knowledge. Brazil needed a lot of infrastructure. We needed high-speed rail, many things. But in the end that did not happen.”
Lula defined his top priorities as he supported the creation of BRICS: economic autonomy, and uniting a group of nations capable of helping what the Washington consensus describes as LDCs – least developed countries.
He emphasized: “BRICS was not created to be an instrument of defense, but to be an instrument of attack. So we could create our own currency to become independent from the US dollar in our trade relations; to create a development bank, which we did – but it is still too timid – to create something strong capable of helping the development of the poorest parts of the world.”
Former Brazilian leader Lula speaks from a room in a prison in southern Brazil. Photo: Editora Brasil 247
Lula made an explicit reference to the United States’ fears about a new currency:
“This was the logic behind BRICS, to do something different and not copy anybody. The US was very much afraid when I discussed a new currency and Obama called me, telling me, ‘Are you trying to create a new currency, a new euro?’ I said, ‘No, I’m just trying to get rid of the US dollar. I’m just trying not to be dependent.’”
One can imagine how this went down in Washington.
Obama may have been trying to warn Lula that the US ‘Deep State’ would never allow BRICS to invest in a currency or basket of currencies to bypass the US dollar. Later on, Vladimir Putin and Erdogan would warn President Dilma – before she was impeached – that Brazil would be mercilessly targeted. In the end, the leadership of the Workers’ Party was caught totally unprepared by a conjunction of sophisticated hybrid-war techniques.
One of the largest economies in the world was taken over by hardcore neoliberals, practically without any struggle. Lula confirmed it in the interview, saying: “We should look at where we got it wrong.”
Lula also hit a note of personal disappointment. He expected much more from BRICS.
“I imagined a more aggressive BRICS, more proactive and more creative. ‘The Soviet empire has already fallen; let’s create a democratic empire.’ I think we made some advances, but we advanced slowly. BRICS should be much stronger by now.”
Lula, Obama and China
It’s easy to imagine how what has followed went down in Beijing. That explains to a great extent the immense respect Lula enjoys among the Chinese leadership. And it’s also relevant to the current global debate about what’s happening in the Amazon. Let just Lula tell the story in his own, inimitable, Garcia Marquez-tinged way.
“One thing that the Chinese must remember, a lot of people were angry in Brazil when I recognized China as a market economy. Many of my friends were against it. But I said, ‘No, I want the Chinese at the negotiating table, not outside. Is there any discord? Put them inside the WTO, let’s legalize everything.’ I know that [Chinese President] Hu Jintao was much pleased.
“Another thing we did with China was at the COP-15 [Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] in Copenhagen in 2009. Let me tell you something: I arrived at COP-15 and there was a list of people requesting audiences with me – Angela Markel, Sarkozy, Gordon Brown; Obama had already called twice – and I didn’t know why I was important. What did they all want? They all wanted us to agree, at COP-15, that China was the prime polluting evil on earth. Sarkozy came to talk to me with a cinematographic assembly line, there were 30 cameras, a real show: Lula accusing China. Then I had a series of meetings and I told them all, ‘Look, I know China is polluting. But who is going to pay for the historical pollution you perpetrated before China polluted? Where is the history commission to analyze English industrialization?’’
“Then something fantastic happened. An agreement was not in sight, I wanted Sarkozy to talk to Ahmadinejad – later I’ll tell you this thing about Iran [he did, later in the interview]. Ahmadinejad did not go to our dinner, so there was no meeting. But then, we were discussing, discussing, and I told Celso [Amorim, Brazil’s Foreign Minister], ‘Look, Celso, there’s a problem, this meeting will end without an agreement, and they are going to blame Brazil, China, India, Russia. We need to find a solution.’ Then I proposed that Celso call the Chinese and set up a parallel meeting. That was between Brazil, China, India and perhaps South Africa. Russia, I think, was not there. And in this meeting, imagine our surprise when Hillary Clinton finds out about it and tries to get inside the meeting. The Chinese didn’t let her. All these Chinese, so nervous behind the door, and then comes Obama. Obama wanted to get in and the Chinese didn’t let him. China was being represented by Jiabao [Wen Jiabao, the prime minister].
Lula and US President Barack Obama, on left, attend a meeting with Chinese and other leaders in Copenhagen in December 2009 at the COP15 UN Climate Change Conference. AFP / Jewel Samad
“Then we let Obama in, Obama said, ‘I’m gonna sit down beside my friend Lula so I won’t be attacked here.’ So he sat by my side and started to talk about the agreement, and we said there is no agreement. And then there was this Chinese, a negotiator, he was so angry at Obama, he was standing up, speaking in Mandarin, nobody understood anything, we asked for a translation, Jiabao did not allow it, but the impression, by his gesticulation, was that the Chinese was hurling all sorts of names at Obama, he talked aggressively, pointing his finger, and Obama said, ‘He is angry.’ The Brazilian ambassador, who said she understood a little bit of Mandarin – she said he used some pretty heavy words.
“The concrete fact is that in this meeting we amassed a great deal of credibility, because we refused to blame the Chinese. I remember a plenary session where Sarkozy, Obama and myself were scheduled to speak. I was the last speaker. When I arrived at the plenary there was nothing, not a thing written on a piece of paper. I told one of my aides, please go out, prepare a few talking points for me, and when he left the room they called me to speak; they had inverted the schedule. I was very nervous. But that day I made a good speech. It got a standing ovation. I don’t know what kind of nonsense I said [laughs]. Then Obama started speaking. He didn’t have anything to say. So there was this mounting rumor in the plenary: He ended up making a speech that no one noticed. And then with Sarkozy, the same thing.
“What I had spoken about was the role of Brazil in the environmental question. I’ll get someone from the Workers’ Party to find this speech for you. The new trend in Brazil is to try to compare policies between myself and Bolsonaro. You cannot accept his line that NGOs are setting fire to the Amazon. Those burning the Amazon are his voters, businessmen, people with very bad blood, people who want to kill indigenous tribes, people who want to kill the poor.”
Trump lied to say that Obama had a fake birth certificate, but Trump never attacked Obama for what were Obama’s real crimes. America’s press let him get away with it (of course, they pointed out Trump’s lie, but they protected Obama, just as Trump did, against exposure on that President’s real crimes); so, here are some of the facts that the U.S. press (and Trump) still hide about Obama (because hiding them is essential to the U.S. aristocracy’s agenda — shared by both its Republicans and its Democrats):
On March 23rd, Gallup headlined «South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering», and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see it here), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a ‘democratic revolution’, but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.
America’s criminal ‘news’ media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine, and that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there, and that they hired members of Ukraine’s two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or «Svoboda» instead), and that in February 2014 they did it (and here’s the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. ‘news’ media misrepresented as ‘democracy demonstrations,’ though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today’s U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine’s corruption — which instead actually soared after his coup there). The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor said it was «the most blatant coup in history» but he couldn’t say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush’s equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq — for which America’s ‘news’ media suffered likewise no penalties). When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was «I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history,» but he was lying to say this, because, as I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view «the most blatant coup in history,» no conditionals on that.
Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton, and Sarkozy, did to Libya — in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation’s leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) — but the ‘news’ media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America’s European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America’s apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.
And now read this. Here we have the journal The National Interest, which was founded by Irving Kristol, the founder of neoconservatism and therefore the intellectual source for Victoria Nuland and the others whom Obama appointed to run the coup in Ukraine, and even that journal now is publishing the fact that the result of that coup is bad. But, of course, no one, including that publication, is damning, nor even blaming, Obama for destroying Ukraine — which he did.
With a big heave-ho and a blowing of a big Bronx cheer, Dr. Bashar Al-Assad, gave the boot to the noisome and leprotic former president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama.
He was the U.S. leader who always confidently stated that “Assad has no place in Syria’s future”. Well, nimrod, where is your future? Other than scamming institutions for speeches filled with empty platitudes, where is your place in Chicago’s sewers? Obama has just joined the list of war criminals, imbeciles, genocidal freaks of nature – and with his entourage of inept spokesmen, “advisors”, secretaries and sycophants – in the twilight world of the accursed naysaying nihilists who populate that dimension of perjury somewhere in a sphincter that opens only for them.
Au revoir Sarkozy. Arrivederci, Berlusconi. Ta-ta, Cameron and Blair. Auf Wiedersehen, Westervelle. Ma’ Al-Salaama ‘Abdullah, Hamad and Madame Banana.
And a good, rousing Bye to Rasmussen, George Sabra, Ghassan Hitto, Burhan Ghalyoon, Khaled Khoja, the ‘Alloosh Brothers, Zahraan and Muhammad, Ban Ki-Myun. Hasta la vista, Zapatero.
And let’s not forget Mark Toner, Kirby, John Kerry and that nincompoop par excellence, Josh Earnest.
Fare thee well, Morsi, enjoy oblivion in an Egyptian prison. Sayonara, Davutoghlu. And, not to forget, Khalomoot Paaz, Simon Perske (Peres).
And now, A BIG MIDDLE FINGER UP FOR THAT PSYCHOPATH WHO INFESTED THE WHITE HOUSE FOR 8 YEARS: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. Good riddance to bad rubbish, we always say. Burn in Hell! Grrrrrrrrr. You swine.
___________________________________________
NEWS AND COMMENT:
Curious article by MIri Wood from Waf Halabi describing the odd coverage of Trump’s presidency in the Zionist Apartheid State and an historical list of Zionist misdeeds for those of you who are archivists:
Long, but excellent analysis of the brain-freeze in the MSM, the opponents of Syria and the established imperialist network. Sent by Alexander Ajay, it Is a compelling and articulate analysis by Louis Allday:
President Assad’s Swiss SRF 1 TV Interview, October 19, 2016
H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad stressed that protecting civilians in Aleppo necessitates getting rid of the terrorists.
Speaking in an interview with the Swiss SRF 1 TV channel, President Assad said “Of course, it’s our mission according to the constitution and the law. We have to protect the people, and we have to get rid of those terrorists in Aleppo. That’s how we can protect civilians.”
He added that it goes without saying that the way to protect the civilians in Aleppo is to attack the terrorists who hold the civilians under their control and are killing them.
Following is the full text of the interview, as published by SANA:
Journalist: Mr. President, thank you very much for having welcomed Swiss Television and our program Rundschau here in Damascus.
Question 1: First, please, allow me to clarify one thing: may I ask you every question?
President Assad: Every question, without exception.
Question 2: I’m asking because one of your conditions is that interview is being broadcast in its full version. Are you afraid that we might manipulate your statements?
President Assad: You should answer that question, but I think we should build this relation upon the trust, and I think you are worried about the trust of your audience, so I don’t think so. I think you have good reputation in conveying the truth in every subject you try to cover.
Question 3: Do you see it as a lie, that the world considers you as to be a war criminal?
President Assad: That depends on what the reference in defining that word. Is it the international law, or is it the Western agenda or the Western political mood, let’s say, that’s being defined by vested-interests politicians in the West? According to the international law, as a President and as government and as Syrian Army, we are defending our country against the terrorists that have been invading Syria as proxies to other countries. So, if you want to go back to that word, the “war criminal,” I think the first one who should be tried under that title are the Western officials; starting with George Bush who invaded Iraq without any mandate from the Security Council. Second, Cameron and Sarkozy who invaded and destroyed Libya without mandate from the Security Council. Third, the Western officials who are supporting the terrorists during the last five years in Syria, either by providing them with political umbrella, or supporting them directly with armaments, or implementing embargo on the Syrian people that has led to the killing of thousands of Syrian civilians.
Question 4: But we are here to talk about your role in this war, and the US
Secretary of State John Kerry called you “Adolf Hitler” and “Saddam Hussein” in the same breath. Does it bother you?
President Assad: No, because they don’t have credibility. This is first of all. Second, for me as President, what I care about first and foremost is how the Syrian people look at me; second, my friends around the world – not my personal friends as President, I mean our friends as Syrians, like Russia, like Iran, like China, like the rest of the world – not the West, the West always tried to personalize things, just to cover the real goals which is about deposing government and getting rid of a certain president just to bring puppets to suit their agenda. So, going back to the beginning, no I don’t care about what Kerry said, at all. It has no influence on me.
Question 5: You’re the President of a country whose citizens are fleeing, half of your fellow citizens. The people are not only fleeing because of the terrorists, of ISIS, or the rebels, but also because of you.
President Assad: What do you mean by me? I’m not asking people to leave Syria, I’m not attacking people; I’m defending the people. Actually, the people are leaving Syria for two reasons: first reason is the action of the terrorists, direct action in killing the people. The second one is the action of the terrorists in order to paralyze the life in Syria; attacking schools, destroying infrastructure in every sector. Third, the embargo of the West that pressed many Syrians to find their livelihood outside Syria. These are the main reasons. If you can see that the second factor and the third factor are related, I mean the role of the terrorists and the West in undermining and hurting the livelihoods of the Syrians, is one and, let’s say, is commonality between the terrorists and Europe.
Question 6: When you speak of terrorists, who do you mean by that? Surely ISIS, but also the “Free Syrian Army” or the Kurds?
President Assad: What I mean is like what you mean as a Swiss citizen, if you have anyone who carries machineguns or armaments and killing people under any titles, and committed vandalism, destroying public or private properties; this is a terrorist. Anyone who adopts a political way in order to make any change he wants, this is not a terrorist. You can call him opposition. But you cannot call somebody who is killing people or holding armaments, you cannot call him opposition, in your country, in my country as well.
Question 7: Well, you don’t have any free opposition in your country.
President Assad: Of course we have, of course we have. We have real opposition, we have people who live in Syria, whom their grassroots are the Syrian people, they’re not opposition who were forged in other countries like France or UK or Saudi Arabia or Turkey. We have them, and you can go and meet them and deal with them with your camera. You can do that yourself.
Question 8: How do you explain to your three children what is happening in
Aleppo? I’m sure that you are discussing about it at the family table.
President Assad: Yeah, of course if I’m going to explain to them, I’m going to explain about what is happening in Syria, not only in Aleppo, taking into consideration that my children are full-grown now, they understand what is going on Syria. But if you want to explain to them or to any other child what is happening, I’m going to explain about the role of the terrorists, about the role of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia in supporting those terrorists with money, with logistic support, and the role of the West in supporting those terrorists either through armament or through helping them with the propaganda and the publicity. I’m going to explain to them in full what’s going on.
Question 9: Do you, as a father, also say that you have nothing to do with the bombardments of the hospitals in Aleppo?
President Assad: Look, when they say that we are bombarding the hospitals, it means that we are killing civilians. That is the meaning of the word. The question is why would the government kill civilians, whether in hospitals or in streets or schools or anywhere? You are talking about killing Syrians. When we kill Syrians, as a government, or as army, the biggest part of the Syrian society will be against us. You cannot succeed in your war if you are killing civilians. So, this story, and this narrative, is a mendacious narrative, to be frank with you. Of course, unfortunately, every war is a bad war, in every war you have innocent victims, whether children, women, elderly, any other civilian, any other innocent who is not part of this war, he could pay the price, this is unfortunately. That’s why we have to fight terrorism. When we don’t say that, it’s like saying – according to that question or that narrative, that you may reflect in your question – that the terrorists, Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, are protecting the civilians, and we as government are killing the civilians. Who can believe that story? No one.
Question 10: But who else got airplanes or bunker-busting bombs besides your army?
President Assad: It’s like you’re saying that everyone who is killed in Syria was killed by the airplanes or aircrafts, military aircrafts! The majority of the people were killed by mortars shelled by the terrorists on them while they’re at schools, in their hospitals, in the streets, anywhere. It’s not related to the aerial bombardment. Sometimes you have aerial bombardment against the terrorists, but that doesn’t mean that every bomb that fell somewhere was by airplane or by the Syrian Army. If you are talking about a specific incident, let’s say, we have to verify that specific incident, but I’m answering you in general now.
Question 11: But you have the power to change the situation also for the children in Aleppo.
President Assad: Exactly, that’s our mission, according to the constitution, according to the law; that we have to protect the people, that we have to get rid of those terrorists from Aleppo. This is where we can protect the civilians. How can you protect them while they are under the control of the terrorists? They’ve been killed by them, and they’ve been controlled fully by the terrorists. Is it our role to sit aside and watch? Is that how we can protect the Syrian people? We need to attack the terrorists, that’s self-evident.
Journalist: Covered with blood, scared, traumatized. Is there anything you would like to say to Omran and his family?
President Assad: There’s something I would like to say to you first of all, because I want you to go back after my interview, and go to the internet to see the same picture of the same child, with his sister, both were rescued by what they call them in the West “White Helmets” which is a facelift of al-Nusra in Aleppo. They were rescued twice, each one in a different incident, and just as part of the publicity of those White Helmets. None of these incidents were true. You can have it manipulated, and it is manipulated. I’m going to send you those two pictures, and they are on the internet, just to see that this is a forged picture, not a real one. We have real pictures of children being harmed, but this one in specific is a forged one.
Question 13: But it’s true that innocent civilians are dying, in Aleppo.
President Assad: Of course, not only in Aleppo; in Syria. But now you are talking about Aleppo, because the whole hysteria in the West about Aleppo, for one reason; not because Aleppo is under siege, because Aleppo has been under siege for the last four years by the terrorists, and we haven’t heard a question by Western journalists about what’s happening in Aleppo that time, and we haven’t heard a single statement by Western officials regarding the children of Aleppo. Now, they are talking about Aleppo recently just because the terrorists are in a bad shape. This is the only reason, because the Syrian Army are making advancement, and the Western countries – mainly the United States and its allies like UK and France – feeling that they are losing the last cards of terrorism in Syria, and the main bastion of that terrorism today is Aleppo.
Question 14: Everything is allowed in this war for you.
President Assad: No, of course, you have the international law, you have the human rights charter, you have to obey. But in every war, every war in the world during the history, you cannot make sure a hundred percent that you can control everything in that direction. You always have flaws, that’s why I said every war is a bad war. But there’s difference between individual mistakes and the policy of the government. The policy of the government, to say that we are attacking civilians, we are attacking hospitals, we are attacking schools, we are doing all these atrocities, that’s not possible, because you cannot work or go against your interests. You cannot go against your duty toward the people, otherwise you are going to lose the war as a government. You cannot withstand such a ferocious war for five years and a half while you are killing your own people. That’s impossible. But you always have mistakes, whether it’s about crossfire, it’s about individual mistakes… bring me a war, a single war in the recent history, that it was a clean war. You don’t have.
Question 15: Do you have made any mistakes too in this war?
President Assad: As President I define the policy of the country, according to our policy, the main pillars of this policy during the crisis is to fight terrorism, which I think is correct and we will not going to change it, of course, to make dialogue between the Syrians, and I think which is correct, the third one which is proven to be effective during the last two years is the reconciliations; local reconciliations with the militants who have been holding machineguns against the people and against the government and against the army, and this one has, again, proven that it’s a good step. So, these are the pillars of this policy. You cannot talk about mistakes in this policy. You can talk about mistakes in the implementation of the policy, that could be related to the individuals.
Question 16: You still believe in a diplomatic solution?
President Assad: Definitely, but you don’t have something called diplomatic solution or military solution; you have solution, but every conflict has many aspects, one of them is the security, like our situation, and the other one is in the political aspect of this solution. For example, if you ask me about how can you deal with Al Qaeda, with al-Nusra, with ISIS? Is it possible to make negotiations with them? They won’t make, they’re not ready to, they wouldn’t. They have their own ideology, repugnant ideology, so you cannot make political solution with this party; you have to fight them, you have to get rid of them. While if you talk about dialogue, you can make dialogue with two entities; the first one, political entities, any political entities, whether with or against or in the middle, and with every militant who is ready to give in his armament for the sake of the security or stability in Syria. Of course we believe in it.
Question 17: There are news from Russia about a short humanitarian pause in Aleppo on Thursday, what does it mean this humanitarian pause, can you explain?
President Assad: It’s a short halting of operations in order to allow the humanitarian supply to get into different areas in Aleppo, and at the same time to allow the civilians who wanted to leave the terrorist-held areas to move to the government-controlled area.
Question 18: This is really a step, an important step?
President Assad: Of course, it is an important step as a beginning, but it’s not enough. It’s about the continuation; how can you allow those civilians to leave. The majority of them wanted to leave the area held by the terrorists, but they won’t allow them. They either shoot them or they kill their families if they leave that area.
Question 19: Russia is on your side, what does it mean for you?
President Assad: No, it’s not on my side. It’s on the international law’s side. It’s on the other side which is opposite to the terrorists’ side. This is the position of Russia, because they wanted to make sure that the international law prevails, not the Western agenda in toppling every government that doesn’t fit with their agendas. They wanted to make sure that the terrorism doesn’t prevail in that area, that would affect negatively the Russians themselves, Russia itself as a country, and Europe and the rest of the world. That’s what it means for Russia to stand beside the legitimate Syrian government and the Syrian people.
Question 20: Mr. President, you use chemical weapons and barrel bombs in Syria against your own population, these are UN reports, you can’t ignore it.
President Assad: You are talking about two different issues. The chemical issue, it was proven to be false, and they haven’t a shred of evidence about the Syrian Army using chemical weapons, particularly before we give up our arsenal in 2013, now we don’t have it anyway. Before that, it was fiction because if you want to use such mass destruction armaments, you’re going to kill thousands of people in one incident, and we didn’t have such incidents. Beside that, we wouldn’t use it because you’re going to kill your own people, and that’s against your interest. So, this is a false allegation. We don’t have to waste our time with it. You live in Syria, there is a traditional war, but there is nothing related to mass destruction armaments.
Journalist: But the UN report is not a fiction.
President Assad: The UN report never has been credible, never, and because they put reports based on allegations, based on other reports, on forged reports, and they say this is a report. Did they send a delegation to make investigation? They sent one in 2013, and it couldn’t prove at all that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. This is first. The second, which is more important, the first incident happened at the beginning of 2013 in Aleppo, when we said that the terrorists used chemical weapons against our army, and we invited the United Nations to send a delegation. We, we did, and at that time, the United States opposed that delegation because they already knew that this investigation – of course if it’s impartial – is going to prove that those terrorists, their proxies, used chemical armaments against the Syrian Army. Regarding the barrel bombs, I want to ask you: what is the definition of barrel bomb? If you go to our army, you don’t have in our records something called “barrel bomb,” so how do you understand – just to know how I can answer you – what a barrel bomb is? We have bombs.
Journalist: The destruction… it’s the destruction, and it is against humanitarian law.
President Assad: Every bomb can make destruction, every bomb, so you don’t have bomb to make nothing. So, this is a word that has been used in West as part of the Western narrative in order to show that there is an indiscriminate bomb that has been killing civilians indiscriminately and that opposes the Western narrative, I’ll show you the contradiction: in other areas they say that we are bombarding intentionally the hospitals, and you mentioned that, and they are targeting intentionally the schools, and we targeted intentionally the convoys to Aleppo last month, those targets need high-precision missiles. So, they have to choose which part of the narrative; we either have indiscriminate bombs or we have high-precision bombs. They keep contradicting in the same narrative, this is the Western reality now. So, which one to choose? I can answer you, but again, we don’t have any indiscriminate bombs. If we kill people indiscriminately, it means we are losing the war because people will be against us; I cannot kill the Syrian people, either morally or for my interest, because in that case I’m going to push the Syrian community and society towards the terrorists, not vice versa.
Question 21: I would like to mention the subject of torture prisons, Mr. President. Amnesty speaks of seventeen thousands dead. Regarding the prison of Saidnaya, there are still horrible reports. When will you allow an independent observer into that prison?
President Assad: Independent, and Amnesty International is not independent and it is not impartial.
Journalist: ICRC?
President Assad: We didn’t discuss it with the Red Cross, we didn’t discuss it. It should be discussed in our institutions, if you want to allow… if there is allegation, it could be discussed. We don’t say yes or no, but the report you have mentioned, it was a report made by Qatar, and financed by Qatar. You don’t know the source, you don’t know the names of those victims, nothing verified about that report. It was paid by Qatar directly in order to vilify and smear the Syrian government and the Syrian Army.
Journalist: But there are a lot of eyewitnesses.
President Assad: No one knows who are they. You don’t have anything clear about that. It’s not verified. So, no.
Journalist: Then open the door for organizations like Red Cross.
President Assad: It’s not my decision to tell you yes or no. We have institutions, if we need to discuss this part, we need to go back to the institutions before saying yes or no.
Question 22: Why are you sure that you are going to win this war?
President Assad: Because you have to defend your country, and you have to believe that you can win the war to defend your country. If you don’t have that belief, you will lose. You know, part of the war is what you believe in, so, it’s self-evident and very intuitive that you have to have that belief.
Question 23: If you walk through Damascus, your picture is everywhere, in every shop, in every restaurant, in every car, a symbol for a dictator, is this your way to fix your power?
President Assad: There is a difference between dictator and dictatorship. Dictator is about the person. I didn’t ask anyone to put my picture in Syria, I never did it. This is first. Second, to describe someone as a dictator, you should ask his people, I mean only his people can say that he is a dictator or he is a good guy.
Journalist: Thank you Mr. President for having answered our questions for Swiss Television and the Rundschau.
The Independent reported today that French ultra Zionist, pseudo philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy “was banned from joining the former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to Libya this week because he is Jewish.”
Mr Lévy was the leading voice behind the French and British-led military intervention led to the collapse Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in 2011. “He is credited with helping to persuade Mr Sarkozy to send French warplanes to protect rebels from Gaddafi’s forces.” However, the Libyans seem to be slightly suspicious of their ‘liberator.’
According to the French news website Rue89, Mr Lévy was banned from Mr Sarkozy’s visit to Libya earlier this week because the municipal authorities in Tripoli feared his Jewish background would make him a target for attacks by Islamist militia. I guess that Lévy interventionist ‘philosophy’ should be realised as an exemplary case of the of Zionists’ shift from promised Land to promised-planet.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
What comes to pass along Libya’s vast southern border can impact not just North Africa, but countries around the world. World powers suffer battle fatigue quite easily, principally because of the unpopularity among the electorate of drawn-out wars.
When such fatigue set in five months after France launched its first air raid on Gaddafi forces, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy sent Gaddafi an offer of safe passage to the Fezzan with 200 of his supporters, in return for leaving Tripoli. Gaddafi countered by demanding that he instead be joined by 2,000. Surprisingly, Sarkozy – after consultation with NATO allies – agreed.
The agreement was drafted and everyone – including Gaddafi’s closest confidants – began working out the logistics. Gaddafi soon surprised everyone by tearing up the agreement and travelling to the coastal city of Sirte to make his last stand. However, his convoy was captured en route heading south towards the desert. Was this because the French led Gaddafi to believe that the offer for a safe southwards passage might still be available? That is something we will never know from Gaddafi himself.
Leaked documents suggest that it was the Algerians who provided NATO with Gaddafi’s coordinates by monitoring his calls to his daughter Aisha. Privy to the sarkozy offer, the Algerians were probably alarmed at the prospect of Gaddafi’s presence near their south eastern borders given his alliance with the Touareg separatist movement, otherwise known as the “lords of the desert.”
The situation in the Sahel region would have been far more complex and the threat to Libya and its neighbors would have been far more perilous had Gaddafi accepted the Sarkozy offer and lodged himself in northern Niger, where he has always enjoyed sympathy and support. This could not have escaped the attention of France’s policy makers. Perhaps Gaddafi’s calculation that the Sarkozy offer was in effect a trap might not have been far off the mark.
Even without a Gaddafi-run enclave, Libya’s south – bordering Sudan, Chad, Niger, Egypt, and Algeria – remains the country’s soft underbelly. The strip of land from northern Chad all the way to Mauritania and the Atlantic Ocean is known as the Sahel region, one of the world’s poorest areas and a site of vast socio-economic deprivation.
In the Sahel, central government control is at its weakest, hence the heightened potential for non-state actors like al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to recruit, arm, and train. Recent events in Mali and Algeria illustrate this threat. The Algerian extremists who seized Westerners at a natural gas plant in the desert reportedly got their arms from Libya, as did the insurgents in Mali who France is now trying to crush.
The insurgents’ activities are not confined to the Sahel or to south Libya. The danger emanating from the south poses a real threat to the whole of Libya, as well as its neighbors to the east, west, and south.
Over the past two years, from the uprising to the overthrow of Gaddafi, Libya has been one of the main recruiting centers for Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda fighters. Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton spoke to the US Congress about the events in Benghazi, warning that jihadist groups have formed a complex network of alliances in North Africa, using south Libya and Mali as their main bases.
Members of the group who recently seized the Tigantourine gas field in southeastern Algeria, leaving 38 hostages and 29 extremists dead, included several Egyptian jihadists active in Libya. Sources in Algiers reported that Mohamed-Lamine Bouchneb, the militant leading the attack, had purchased arms for the assault in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Before their attack, the kidnappers gathered – undisturbed – in the southern Libyan town of Ghat, just across the border from Algeria.
A senior Algerian officer also claimed to have definite evidence that the organizers of the Tigantourine attack are the same group who carried out the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. This correlates with statements from US State Department officials that some members of Ansar al-Shariah, the local group that the US believes carried out the attack in Benghazi, had connections to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, one of the militant groups now entrenched in the Sahel region.
It’s still unclear how far the French will take their present pursuit of this network of extremists operating all along the Sahel region. Will France extend its operation to Libay to target the source of arms directly?
France will calculate any action in Libya with extreme caution. Old rivalries for influence in the Sahel die hard, particularly those between “old Europe” and the US. The latter will look askance at any attempt by France to seek to gain long-term military dominance in southern Libya. No doubt France knows where this line is drawn and will probably not seek to cross it.
Europe is extremely concerned for its interests in Libya. Most recently, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia have urged their citizens to leave the Libyan city of Benghazi due to a “specific, imminent threat to Westerners” linked to French actions in Mali and the danger of new kidnappings by extremists.
As if there is not enough intrigue in the Sahel, a recent report issued by the French Directorate of Military Intelligence (DRM) stated that Qatar is helping to fund armed groups. In particular, the Qatari special forces are supporting certain rebel factions in northern Mali, including Ansar Ed-Dine.
The report is more speculative than factual and begs the question of Qatari interests in the Sahel and its ability to operate independently of the US and Europe and against the interests of Algeria. If Qatar’s financial and military involvement in the Sahel is confirmed, it has the potential to inflame an already combustible region.
This brings us full circle to Libya, where a combination of a rise in militant extremism, a weak central authority, an abundance of heavy arms, and growing regional secessionist sentiments is pushing the country towards the “failed state” precipice.
While the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Libya is of concern to neighboring countries and beyond, only Libya can solve the problem of factionalism, arms trafficking, and al-Qaeda’s increasing influence in the region. This catastrophic blind march towards the edge of disaster has to be halted by any means.
Nor can Libya’s neighbors afford to be complacent about the repercussions of such a scenario. If Libya does not enforce government control throughout the country, the country will most certainly join the ranks of “failed states.” In the gathering storms of turmoil and instability of the region, the Mediterranean will have to pay an exorbitant price. This is justifiably so because the fate of the Sahel is intertwined inexorably with that of Libya.
Abdullah Elmaazi is founder and CEO of Trakon Consulting & Training. He is a regular contributor to The Tripoli Post.
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect Al-Akhbar’s editorial policy.
Want to publish a (thoughtful) response to one of our opinion pieces? Send your contribution to our Submissions editor.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
On the eve of the Holocaust Memorial Day, the British weekly, The Sunday Times, irked the Jewish groups for posting a cartoon depicting large-nozed Benjamin Netanyahu hunched over a wall building with blood and limbs of writhing Palestinians in pain (See the cartoon on top left).
The caption beneath the cartoon said: “Israeli election: will cementing peace continue?” In my earlier post, I predicted that Netanyahu would bring a worse four-year of horor for the US and the Middle East. Read the post here.
The Jewish lobby groups immediately snapped “antisemite” title on the cartoonist, Gerald Scarfe and the weekly newspaper. The paper’s management, however, defended cartoonist’s rights under ‘freedom of press’ by saying: “This is a typical robust cartoon by Gerald Scarfe. The Sunday Times firmly believes that it’s not antisemitic. It’s aimed squarely at Netanyahu and his policies, not at Israel, let alone at Jewish people“. You can visit Gerald’s website here.
Michael Salberg, director of Israel lobby group ADL slammed the Sunday Times, by stating: “There is nothing subtle about the caricatured image of prime minister Netanyahu using Palestinians and their blood to build a wall to protect Israelis“.
Some Israel Hasbara outlets like,’HonestReporting‘, have called the revival of Europe’s old fashioned Blood Libel against some Jewish cults who kidnapped and killed Christian children for Jewish rituals. Italian Jewish historian, professor Ariel Toaff (University of Bar IIan, Tel Aviv) in his book, ‘The Bloody Passovers‘ has supported the allegations against the Jews.
Gerald Scarfe is the latest victim of Zionist propagandists who don’t see such true depictions of Israel’s Zionazi policies as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist – but as hatred toward the Jewish people. Last month, the Wiesenthal Center had put Brazilian cartoonist Carlos Latuff at third place in its annual list of top ten antisemitic slurs. The other famous victim of Zionists’ slander was Australian-born prize-winning cartoonist Pat Oliphant for depicting a Nazi-like soldier going after innocent civilian in Gaza in 2009 – published by the Jewish-owned Washington Post.
Incidently, on Friday, former French president, Crypto-Jewish Nicolas Sarkozy, during his speech at United Israel Appeal fundraising dinner in Davos – also urged the international community to apply pressure on the Zionist regime in order to establish an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state. “Israel has surrounded herself with walls of Jericho. It will be necessary to bring down the walls in order to save her,” reported Israeli daily Maariv.
The Sunday Times (founded in 1821) is Britain’s largest-selling national weekly paper. It’s owned by Israel-Firster billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s News International since 1981
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
زعيم … زعيم.. لقد وفيت بوعدي وها قد أتيت. يجب أن تشتري طائراتي الميراج، وأنا سوف أشتري منك مخزونك من اليورانيوم الذي لا تحتاجه…خاطب الرئيس الفرنسي نيكولاي ساركوزي العقيد معمر القذافي الذي أجاب ضيفه قائلاً: لقد كانت سفرة متعبة، ألا تريد أن تنام، ونبحث الموضوع غداً،
فأجاب ساركوزي: أنا بأحسن حال، ولست متعباً، ويجب أن ننهي الأمر حالاً من دون تأخير.[1]
حصل هذا الاجتماع السري ذات يوم من أيام تموز عام 2007 في خيمة العقيد معمر القذافي في باب العزيزية في طرابلس الغرب؛ لم تتم الصفقة ولم يشترِ القذافي طائرات الميراج الفرنسية، وهذا ما سبب غضب نيكولاي ساركوزي عليه، هذا الغضب الذي ازداد بعدها بأيام قليلة حين استضافت باريس مؤتمر الاتحاد من أجل المتوسط، وكان من بين الضيوف العقيد معمر القذافي الذي أثار حفيظة الفرنسيين، وخلق لدى ساركوزي شعوراً بالإهانة الشخصية كونه نصب خيمته في وسط ساحة الكونكورد على مقربة من قصر الإليزيه والسفارة الأميركية.
شكلت زيارة القذافي هذه واستفزازاته نقطة البداية في تراجع شعبية ساركوزي بحسب استطلاعات الرأي العام، والتي لم تعد إلى الارتفاع قطّ.
بعدها بخمس سنوات كانت طائرة (رافال) فرنسية تقصف موكب القذافي أثناء فراره من مدينة سرت، قبل أن يقتل الرجل على يد الثوار الذين تلقوا أمراً بتصفيته بناء على قرار أميركي فرنسي.
برنارد هنري ليفي: الرئيس يريد ضربات جوية نهار الجمعة 4 آذار عام 2011 بدأ (برنار هنري ليفي) رحلة حوّلته من منظِّر يدّعي الفلسفة (كما يقول باسكال بونيفاس في كتابه: المزيفون) إلى فاعل مقرر في الدبلوماسية العالمية. فبعد أن أمضى وقتاً طويلاً أمام مبنى المجلس الوطني الانتقالي في بنغازييبحث عن الناطق الرسمي باسم المجلس (مصطفى عبد الجليل) تمكن من الوصولإلى فيلا هذا الأخير الذي كان وزيراً للعدل في نظام القذافي، وأصبح الزعيم السياسي للثوار الليبيين، فخلع ليفي سترة الصحافي، وانتقل مباشرة إلى العمل الدبلوماسي الموازي والسري، عندما استقبله عبد الجليل محاطاً بأعضاء حكومته[2].
وبعد مدحه الثورة الليبية، قدم ليفي دعوة إلى المجلس لزيارة فرنسا واعداً إياهم بإيصالهم إلى قصر الإليزيه. وقد تمكّن، مساء ذلك اليوم، عبر جهاز هاتفه الموصول بالأقمار الصناعية من التواصل مع الرئيس الفرنسي نيكولاي ساركوزي وسأله: هل يمكنك استقبال (مسعوديي) ليبيا في إشارة إلى أحمد شاه مسعود، فوافق هذا الأخير فوراً. وفي السابع من آذار استقبل ساركوزي في قصر الإليزيه برنار هنري ليفي العائد تواً من بنغازي، واتفق الرجلان على القيام بحملة قصف مركزة على المطارات الليبية ترافقها عملية تشويش على الاتصالات التابعة لنظام القذافي[3].
وبعد ثلاثة أيام، أي في العاشر من آذار عند الساعة العاشرة والنصف صباحاً استقبل الرئيس الفرنسي، برنار ليفي يرافقه ثلاثة من أعضاء المجلس الوطني الانتقالي في بنغازي، وإلى جانبه، مستشاره جان دافيد ليفيت (عراب القرار 1559)، فأخبرهم أنَّ فرنسا تعترف بالمجلس كممثل شرعي لليبيا. ليفي الذي حضر الاجتماع غادر القصر من باب خلفي، وبعد عشر دقائق تلقى اتصالاً من ساركوزي قوّما خلاله الاجتماع، ومن ثم طلب إليه الكلام عن كل ما سمع وشاهد، ولم يتأخر ليفي في المهمة، فتحدث عند الساعة السابعة من اليوم ذاته على إذاعة أوروبا 1 معلناً أن الرئيس ساركوزي يريد ضربات جوية استباقية ضد قوات القذافي[4].
أما قصة ذهاب برنارد هنري ليفي إلى بنغازي، فترويها مصادر ليبية معارضة في باريس إضافة إلى مصادر موثوق بها من جمعيات عربية وفرنسية تابعت الحرب في ليبيا. وقد أخبرتنا هذه المصادر تفاصيل لم تقم الصحافة الفرنسية بنشرها عن كيفية وصول ليفي إلى ليبيا، لكن المعلومات تفيد أنَّ محمود جبريل هو الذي اصطحب ليفي إلى بنغازي، وجمعه مع (مصطفى عبد الجليل). وجبريل هذا هو مسؤول سابق في جهاز الأمن الليبي أوكله العقيد معمر القذافي مهمة الاتصال بإسرائيل، وقد قام بالمهمة لسنوات طويلة لمصلحة القذافي قبل أن ينضم إلى صفوف الثوار، ويقدم خدماته لهم في المجال ذاته. فالمصادر تصف محمود جبريل بأنه رجل من الصف الأول، يتمتع بعلاقات واسعة مع جهات قوية في إسرائيل سخرها في التواصل بين القذافي والصهاينة، وها هو يوظفها من أجل بناء تواصل مريب وغير مفهوم بين المجلس الانتقالي في بنغازي والصهاينة، وقد أصبح جبريل فيما بعد نائب رئيس المجلس الانتقالي في بنغازي. بعض المصادر الفرنسية المقربة من اللوبي الكاثوليكي قالت لنا أيضاً إنَّ لإسرائيل رجالاً يطلق عليهم (الإلكترونات الحرة)، وبرنارد ليفي أحد هذه الإلكترونات التي تحركها إسرائيل في أوقات الأزمات التي لا تريد أن تظهر فيها بشكل مباشر. من جهته علّق موقع (الدفاع ـ اورغ)العسكري، والقريب من اليمين المسيحي على زيارة برنارد ليفي إلى بنغازي بالقول: لقد نسي برنارد هنري ليفي رقم هاتف السفارة الإسرائيلية موقتاً، وانخرط في ليبيا على أن يعود لتذكر هذا الرقم في وقت لاحق[5].
إنها إحدى مفارقات التحالف الفرنسي القطري (برنارد هنري ليفي) في فرنسا و(عزمي بشارة) في قطر؛ واجهتان تجمعهما قضية الانتساب إلى اليسار، وإطلاق صفة المفكر على كليهما إضافة إلى علاقتهما بإمارة قطر، التي قدّمت لهما عشرات الملايين من الدولارات، أما الوظيفة فهي سمسار دولي لتشريع استخدام الأطلسي قوته العسكرية، والتدخل في العالم العربي بحجة الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان وربيع العرب.
طائراتنا في الجو…
يوم الحادي عشر من آذار، وأثناء اجتماع الدول الأوروبية الـ27 في بروكسيل لبحث الموضوع الليبي ظهر خلاف كبير بين فرنسا وألمانيا[6]، وقد أشار وزير الخارجية الألماني في مداخلته إلى إشكالية الاعتراف بالمجلس الوطني الليبي (إنَّ أعضاء المجلس هم من أتباع القذافي السابقين ولا أنصح بهم) قال الوزير الألماني، غير أن ما ساعد ساركوزي صدور بيان قاس عن جامعة الدول العربية في ذلك اليوم بالتحديد يدين بشدة نظام القذافي. وقد تزامن بيان الجامعة العربية في ظل رئاسة قطر[7] مع اجتماع المجموعة الأوروبية نتيجة تنسيق مسبق بين ساركوزي وحمد بن جاسم آل ثاني وزير الخارجية، لمساعدة الرئيس الفرنسي في إقناع الدول الأوروبية المعترضة على التدخل في ليبيا. وهذا ما حصل بالفعل، إذ اتفق المجتمعون في بروكسيل أن المجلس الانتقالي في بنغازي جهة محاورة سياسية شرعية مثل الآخرين، ولكن دون تحديد هوية هؤلاء الآخرين. كانت فرنسا تسعى للاعتراف به (كلما أسرعنا بالاعتراف به أصبحت تصريحاته تؤخذ على محمل الجد) يقول كلود بيسون مستشار ساركوزي. لم تكن ألمانيا متحمسة للتدخل العسكري في ليبيا كما أنَّ الولايات المتحدة لم تكن أيضاً في هذا الوارد؛ والواقع أن العلاقة بين ساركوزي وأوباما لم تكن جيدة طوال سنوات حكم الرجلين[8] بينما لا تستيغ المانيا عودة فرنسا للعب دور عسكري في العالم خصوصاً في بلد غني بالنفط مثل ليبيا حيث للشركات الألمانية استثمارات كبيرة[9]. وكان موقف إيطاليا أيضاً ضد القصف الجوي، وذلك يعود إلى أنَّ روما المستعمر القديم لطرابلس خشيت خسارتها السوق الليبية، وهي أكبر مستثمر فيها وهذا ما حصل بالفعل.
قمة باريس الطارئة حول الوضع في ليبيا
في الاجتماع، طرح وزير الخارجية الألماني إمكانية فشل الضربات الجوية متسائلاً: هل سوف نرسل قوات برية؟ غير أن الوضع تغير في الأيام اللاحقة بعد تلقي فرنسا الدعم من منظمة المؤتمر الإسلامي، ومن مجلس التعاون الخليجي والجامعة العربية، فتقدمت في 17 آذار بمشروع قرار إلى مجلس الأمن الدولي، وتم التصديق عليه تحت رقم 1973، قضى بإقامة حظر جوي في السماء الليبية، وسمح باستعمال كل الوسائل المتاحة لحماية المدنيين في إشارة غير مباشرة إلى العمل العسكري[10].
وقد صوّتت على القرار عشر دول وامتنعت خمس دول عن التصويت من بينها روسيا والصين وألمانيا. وقد تمكن الفرنسيون من إقناع روسيا والصين أنَّ الهدف هو حماية المدنيين، ولن يكون هناك تدخل عسكري ولا إسقاط للنظام، غير أنَّ ساركوزي لم يفِ بوعده وهذا ما أغضب الروس والصينيين الذين لا يتوقفون عن تذكير الغرب بالخديعة الليبية التي أوقعهم فيها كلما حاولت الدول الغربية تقديم مشروع قرار ضد سوريا. وقد صارح نائب وزير الخارجية الصيني وفداً من المعارضة السورية أثناء اجتماعه بهم في بكين بهذا الموضوع قائلاً: لن نسمح لهم بالعمل في سوريا كما فعلوا في ليبيا، لقد كذبوا علينا وتعاملوا معنا بطريقة غير محترمة وصبيانية؛ في كل الاجتماعات التي عقدها الفرنسيون معنا ومع الروس قطع لنا (جوبيه) كل الوعود والالتزامات بعدم السعي لإسقاط النظام الليبي لكنهم غدروا بنا، ونحن لم نعد تصدقهم ولن نسمح لهم باستغفالنا مرة أخرى[11].
كان نيكولاي ساركوزي قد اتخذ قرار الحرب لإسقاط القذافي، ولم يكن ينقصه سوى موافقة شكلية من مجموعة أصدقاء ليبيا التي دعاها إلى اجتماع بتاريخ 19 آذار، أي بعد يومين من القرار 1973. وبين 17 و 19 من الشهر ذاته[12]، كان الرئيس الفرنسي يعد العدة للحرب بعد أن حصل على موافقة رئيس وزراء بريطانيا (دافيد كاميرون)، أما قطر والسعودية فقد كانتا تنسقان معه منذ البداية.
في 18 آذار جمع الرئيس الفرنسي في قصر الإليزيه القيادة العسكرية الفرنسية طالباً إبداء الرأي بإمكانية توجيه ضربات عسكرية في ليبيا، وكان رأي العسكر بعد إجراء مراجعة للإمكانيات الليبية التي تقتصر على صواريخ سام 6، أن هذا الأمر قابل للتنفيذ بنجاح مع احتمال خسارة طائرة أو طائرتين[13].
صبيحة يوم 19 آذار، وقبل الاجتماع الموسع لمؤتمر أصدقاء ليبيا، كان نيكولاي ساركوزي محاطاً بوزير خارجيته آلان جوبيه وبمستشاره السياسي جان دافيد ليفيت عراب القرار 1559، وبقائد أركان الجيش الفرنسي الأميرال(ايدوارد غيو)، ورئيس الأركان الخاص بالقصر الجمهوري الجنرال (بنوا بوغا)، وقد حضر الاجتماع رئيس الوزراء البريطاني دافيد كاميرون ومستشاره العسكري، فضلاً عن وزيرة الخارجية الأميركية هيلاري كلينتون يرافقها ضابط كبير من قيادة الأركان الأميركية.
تحدث الرئيس الفرنسي عن الوضع الخطير في بنغازي، وعن الحاجة الطارئة للتدخل شارحاً أنَّ رتلاً كبيراً من الدبابات يقترب من بنغازي مع لواء بكامل عتاده، وأنه يجب ألاّ نخضع لتحديات القذافي. غير أنَّ الضابط الأميركي كان له رأي مغاير: طالما بطاريات الصورايخ المضادة للطائرات التابعة للقذافي لم تدمر، أرفض التدخل، نحن معرضون لخسارة طائرات، وهذا سوف يكون هزيمة رمزية كبيرة للتحالف، وأيده بذلك العسكري البريطاني.
أنا مستعد أن آخذ هذا الخطر على عاتقي قال نيكولاي ساركوزي، أنا لن أفعل شيئاً دون موافقتكم، وكشف بوضوح عن نيّاته بالقول: طائراتنا أقلعت في الجو، ونحن لن نفعل شيئاً دون رضاكم، الأوامر أعطيت، وعند الساعة التاسعة والنصف يمكن للطائرات أن تعود أدراجها إذا لم أحصل على الموافقة الجماعية.
كان اجتماع أصدقاء ليبيا غريباً بشكل لافت؛ زعماء أنظمة عربية قمعية وملكية يريدون إسقاط نظام عربي قمعي مثل أنظمتهم بحجة الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان، إلى جانب زعماء الدول الغربية التي كانت حتى الأمس القريب تستقبل القذافي، وعلى رأس هؤلاء الرئيس الفرنسي نيكولاي ساركوزي[14].
أعاد الرئيس الفرنسي كلامه عن المذبحة القريبة التي سوف تقع في بنغازي مستشهداً بكلام القذافي وابنه سيف الإسلام؛ وللحقيقة فإن القذافي بغبائه السياسي ومزاجه وجنونه قدم للغرب ولساركوزي الفرصة تلو الفرصة، فيما كانت روسيا والصين عاجزتين عن التدخل الفعلي لإنقاذه لأن جوبيه حمل معه إلى مجلس الأمن تعابير القذافي (زنقة زنقة ودار دار أو الجرذان والذبح في كل منزل)[15].
الجميع دون استثناء رددوا رغبتهم بإيقاف القذافي، وهنا تدخل الرئيس الفرنسي ليقول: طائراتنا حالياً في الجو باتجاه ليبيا، ولكنها لن تدخل المجال الجوي الليبي إلا بتوافر شرط واحد هو موافقتكم على إعطائي الضوء الأخضر… أعطى كل من على الطاولة موافقته، وبعد ظهر يوم 19 كانت الطائرات الفرنسية تدمر دبابات تابعة للقذافي على مداخل مدينة بنغازي[16].
في بعض التفاصيل بحسب جهات فرنسية مطلعة ارتكب القذافي خطأ استراتيجياً كبيراً يومها، حيث أوقف تقدم دباباته عند الساعة الثانية عشرة ظهراً بعد تعرضها لإطلاق نار، وأعاد تجميع رتل الدبابات في جامعة ذي قار، وبعد ساعات أتت الطائرات الفرنسية لتدمر الرتل بكامله داخل حرم الجامعة[17].
في تلك الفترة كانت النقاشات على أشدها بين الأمريكيين والفرنسيين الذين أرادوا التدخل العسكري من البداية وفي اجتماع مع هيلاري كلينتون بتاريخ 14 آذار لم تعطي الوزيرة الأمريكية أي جواب شافي حول نية الولايات المتحدة مساء ذلك اليوم في واشنطن جمع الرئيس الأمريكي باراك اوباما مستشاريه لمناقشة الوضع وحضر الاجتماع سفيرة الولايات المتحدة في الأمم المتحدة وكان وزير الدفاع روبيرت غيتس يقول انه ليس للولايات المتحدة أي مصالح حيوية في ليبيا لذلك لا داعي للحرب وتدخلت سفيرة الولايات المتحدة في مجلس الأمن (سوزان رايس) قائلة أن هناك مذبحة سوف تحصل في بنغازي ويجب أن لا نكون في عكس التاريخ والقوة العسكرية للولايات المتحدة سوف تصنع الفارق في ألمعركة في نهاية الاجتماع قال الرئيس أوباما سوف نتدخل ولكن لأيام وليس لأسابيع.
بعد عشرة أيام من بدء الهجوم العسكري عقد اجتماع عبر الفيديو ضم ساركوزي ، أوباما، كاميرون، ميركيل بدا الرئيس الأمريكي كلامه بالقول نحن لن نستمر في التورط بالحرب سوف نتوقف عن القصف، كان رد الرئيس الفرنسي عنيفا وعصبيا وقال( إذا كنا سوف نترك القطار عند أول محطة فلم يكن من الداعي أن نركبه أصلا، نحن الآن في حرب ولا يمكن لك ان تتركنا لوحدنا) رد اوباما (ولكن منذ البداية قلت نحن سوف نشارك لأيام وليس لأسابيع ع ولا لشهور) رد ساركوزي بنفس الوتيرة العصبية ( إذا كان الأوروبيون سوف يحاربون لوحدهم لا أدري لماذا إذن نلجأ لحلف شمال الأطلسي ) انتهى هذا الإجتماع استمرت الولايات المتحدة بتزويد التحالف ضد القذافي بالمعلومات الاستخبارية وتوقفت عن شن الهجمات بصواريخ كروز غير انها عادت في أواخر أيام القذافي وساهمت ببعض الغارات الجوية.
هذا التردد كان سمة سياسة أوباما في مصر أيضا حيث انتظر الرئيس الأمريكي طويلا حتى قبل فكرة تنحي مبارك وذلك على الرغم من الضغوط الفرنسية والقطرية التي كانت تقول له أن مبارك انتهى ويجب البحث عن بديل.
على عادته جمع أوباما مستشاريه لمناقشة وضع الرئيس المصري حسني مبارك كان هناك انقسام بين المستشارين ، كانت وزيرة الخارجية (هيلاري كلينتون) و (جو بايدن) ضد تنحي مبارك بينما كان الجناح اليساري المؤلف من (سامنداباور) و (بن رودز) و دونيس ماكدونالد) يدعو الى البحث عن بديل لمبارك وعدم الوقف في مواجهة التغيرات والتاريخ وبعد نقاش طويل وفي نهاية الاجتماع قال أوباما لمستشاريه هل لديكم استراتيجيا للوضع في مصر في حال سقوط مبارك صاد الصمت ولم يعط أي من مستشاري الرئيس استراتيجيا واضحة
كان ثقل السعودية يرخي بظلاله على الرئيس الأمريكي فالعائلة السعودية الحاكمة تريد من الرئيس الأمريكي الدفاع عن حسني مبارك وعدم التفريط به مهما كلف الأمر وقبل ذلك كانت السعودية هددت بوقف التحالف الاستراتيجي مع الولايات المتحدة في حال سمحت الأخيرة بسقوط النظام البحريني ويعرف أوباما ان توتر العلاقة مع السعودية يعني ارتفاع غير مسبوق في أسعار النفط .
في 23 شباط على الساعة 4 بعد الظهر بتوقيت واشنطن 11 ليلا بتوقيت القاهرة اتصل أوباما بمبارك وحثه على القيام بإصلاحات ترضي الشارع عبر الإعلان عن حكومة انتقالية ولكن دون ان يطلب منه التنحي بشكل مباشر، كان هذا الاتصال الأكثر سوءا الذي يجريه أوباما منذ توليه الحكم، انفجر مبارك غاضبا ورفض أن يتنحى وقال لوباما بصوت عال (أنت لا تعرف ماذا يجري، إنها إيران التي تقف وراء كل هؤلاء المتظاهرين، إذا تنحيت سوف يستلم الإخوان المسلمون الحكم في مصر)[18].
أوباما: كلما طالت مدة المرحلة الانتقالية كلما ازدادت حدة التظاهرات.
مبارك: مصر ليست تونس سوف تتوقف المظاهرات خلال أيام هذا شعبي وانا أعرفه، أحترم رأيك ولكني الأكثر الماما بالموضوع.
اوباما: أعتقد أنها الفرصة التي يجب اغتنامهان المظاهرات لا تتوقف عن التعاظم أعتقد انه خلال ال48 ساعة القادمة عليكم التفكير بوسيلة لإخراج عملية الانتقال بأفضل طريقة وأسرع وقت.
مبارك: سوف اتصل بك خلال عطلة الأسبوع القادم [19]
اوباما: سيدي الرئيس احتفظ لنفسي بحق الاتصال بك قبل ذلك إذا لم تتطور الأوضاع نحو الأحسن
هنا بدأ اوباما بالضغط المباشر على مبارك بالقول:
سيدي الرئيس انا دائما أحترم الأكبر مني سننا أنتم تعملون بالسياسة منذ وقت طويل جدا ولكن هناك اوقات في التاريخ ليس لأن المور سارت بطريقة ما في السابق سوف تسير بنفس المسار في المستقبل لقد خدمتم بلادكم 30 عاما وانا اريد ان تغتنموا هذه الفرصة التاريخية[20]. كان هذا الاتصال بمثابة التحول الكبير في موقف أوباما الذي جمع مستشاريه على الفور وأبلغهم ضرورة العمل بسرعة على إجبار مبارك على التنحي وطلب من كل واحد منهم الاتصال بمعارفه في مصر والعالم العربي وتشغيل اللوبي التابع له في سبيل تحقيق هذا الهدف اتصل (روبيرت غيتس ) بطنطاوي وأقنعه بالتخلي عن مبارك فيما كانت جو بايدن وهيلاري كلينتون يمارسون الضغط على (عمر سليمان) الذي بدأ يلين من موقفه وقبل بتنحي مبارك.
في نفس الوقت بدا ضباط الجيش المصري يتلقون رسائل عبر البريد الإلكتروني من ضباط امريكيين تدربوا معهم واجروا معهم دورات في الولايات المتحدة وكانت الرسائل تحذرهم من غطلاق النار على المتظاهرين وعدم الدفاع عن رئيس مريض سوف يكون إبنه خليفة له مع ان هذا الإبن لا يحظى بثقة الجيش. لا تكسوا علاقتكم مع شعبكم في هذا الوقت العصيب كانت رسالة واحدة ارسلها ضباط الجيش الأمريكي لمعارفهم من ضباط الجيش المصري.
اخذ الجيش المصري بتحذيرات الجيش الأمريكي واثمرت الضغوط عن وعد من طنطاوي وعمر سليمان باستقالة الرئيس، صبيحة اليوم التالي للإتصال بين اوباما ومبارك جرت معركة الجمال في ساحة التحرير التزم الجيش المصري جانب المتظاهرين ولم يطلق النار عليهم .
استكمل اوباما عملية الضغط على مبارك وأرسل أسطورة الدبلوماسية الأمريكية (فرانك ولستر) الى القاهرة حاولا رسالة واضحة لحسني مبارك بضرورة التخلي عن السلطة حمل (ولستر) الرسالة وفور وصوله الى القاهرة تم نقله الى القصر الرئاسي أبلغ الرسالة لحسني مبارك مدعوما بموقف الجيش المصري..
بالنسبة لأمريكا سقط مبارك وبقي النظام..
هي الحرب السهلة التي عرف ساركوزي خوضها في ليبيا ، فليس للعقيد جيش قوي ولا حتى بنية جيش، فالزعيم كما ناداه ساركوزي في أحد أيام تموز عام 2007 حطم الجيش الليبي لمصلحة ميليشيات أنشأها لأبنائه كان يطلق عليها كتائب القذافي..
يقول كريستيان شينو الصحافي في إذاعة فرنسا الدولية إنَّ أحد أسباب التسرع الفرنسي في التدخل العسكري ضد ليبيا إثبات قدرة طائرة (الرافال) الكبيرة، ويضيف إنَّ سقوط طائرة واحدة من هذا الطراز في ليبيا يعني الكارثة لصناعة الطائرات الفرنسية ولساركوزي شخصياً لأنَّ عروض بيع هذه الطائرة العسكرية الفرنسية كانت السمة المشتركة لكل زياراته الخارجية[21].
هذا الحسم والتسرع في قرار الحرب على ليبيا لم يتوافرا في سوريا، ما اقتضى طريقة أخرى في التعاطي مع الأحداث هناك تعتمد على تشجيع الحراك المسلح حتى تصل الأمور إلى العفن المحلي والانهيار من الداخل، كما تحدث السفير الفرنسي في دمشق في إحدى جلساته الباريسية[22].
لكل رئيس فرنسي حربه..
نيكولاي ساركوزي صاحب شخصية تميل إلى العنف يقول (روبير غودريه) في كتابه (وسقطت الأقنعة)[23]et les masques sont tombés؛ إنه عاشق لجورج بوش، وأحيط بمجموعة من المحافظين الجدد على الطريقة الفرنسية مثل (بريس أورتوفو) وزير الداخلية الذي يتخذ من سيلفيو برسلكوني مثالاً له أو مثل جان دافيتليفيت. إنه شخصية تتخذ القرارات بسرعة، عصبي المزاج عنيف كما يقول الصحافي جان بول كروز[24].. وزير دفاعه السابق (هيرفيهموران) يقول في كتابه توقفوا عن احتقار الفرنسيين: ساركوزي يريد السلطة في فرنسا على شاكلته، وحشية، شنيعة، وأحياناً غير لائقة. لقد كنا نشعر بالإحراج عندما يربت على كتف أوباما ليظهر أنهما صديقان، إنها تصرفات صبيانية لصبي متقلب[25].
ويصف موران فهم ساركوزي السياسي بالقول: هو يتبع إستراتيجية الدراويش الدائمة، رجل يفقد النظرة البعيدة ويفعل الشيء ونقيضه… رئيس يخلط بين العمل التطوعي والإعلان الدائم واضعاً دوامة يمنع من خلالها الفعاليات الاجتماعية والرأي العام من تحديد أمرهم، والتحرك ضد أي قرار.
واتهم الوزير السابق ساركوزي بالداعية الانتخابية معتبراً فرنسا في نظره سوقاً مجزأة، لذلك بالنسبة إليه فإنه يتعاطى مع شرائح أو مع زبائن من دون الاهتمام بالتوافق العام، ما يعطي انطباعاً أنَّ الدوامة ما هي إلاّ عملية فوضى كبيرة..
في ليبيا أعلن نيكولاي ساركوزي عن حربه الخاصة بعد الحرب التي شنها في ساحل العاج؛ فلكل رئيس فرنسي حربه التي خاضها أثناء ولايته؛ فالحرب إثبات لجدارة الرئيس وأهليته لقيادة دولة بحجم فرنسا. هذا ما فعله فرانسوا ميتران، واليوم نيكولاي ساركوزي الذي يمثل المحافظين الجدد في فرنسا. إنه لم يخرج عن هذه القاعدة وهو الذي يحمل أفكار جورج بوش وسياسته، فقد خاض في ليبيا حربه العقائدية قبل أي شيء. لقد أنذره بارك أوباما قائلاً: أنا سوف استمر معك عشرة أيام فقط ليس أكثر[26]، لا أريد أن تحسب هزيمة عليّ في حال أخطأت أنت، غير أن ساركوزي كان مصمماً على الحرب. (إنَّ القذافي لن يبقى، سوف يرحل بعد ستة أشهر)[27] قال لأوباما. لذلك، نرى أنَّ هذه الحرب قد استحوذت على اهتمام خاص من الرئيس الفرنسي الذي كان يتابع يومياً مع قياداته العسكرية على الخريطة تقدم الثوار الليبيين على الأرض[28]..
لم يكن لهذه الحملة العسكرية أن تنجح لولا المساعدة الاستخبارية التي قدمتها الولايات المتحدة للفرنسيين والإنكليز والقطريّين[29]، على الرغم من سعي واشنطن البقاء خارج الصورة في الحملة العسكرية. وتكمن أهمية الدعم المعلوماتي والاستخباراتي الأميركي في حجم المعلومات التي يمتلكونها عن النظام الليبي نظراً للتعاون الاستخباري الواسع النطاق الذي كان قائماً بين الولايات المتحدة ونظام معمر القذافي منذ أحداث 11 أيلول، خصوصاً في مكافحة الإرهاب ومراقبة الإسلاميين الليبيين الذين كان الكثير منهم من القيادات العسكرية البارزة في تنظيم القاعدة[30].
هذه بضاعتكم ردت إليكم..
برزت عقيدة فرنسية جديدة في التعاطي مع العالم العربي ، هي عقيدة رونالد ريغان والمحافظين الجدد في التحالف مع السلفية الجهادية، خصوصاً وأنَّ هناك بعضاً من هؤلاء المحافظين الجدد الذين أتوا مع وصول ساركوزي إلى سدّة الحكم عام 2007. وتتلخص هذه العقيدة بالقبول بوصول السلفيين من الإسلاميين إلى الحكم في العالم العربي، ومساعدتهم على تحقيق هذا الهدف بكل الوسائل بما فيها العسكرية كما حصل في ليبيا، أو كما تحاول السياسة الفرنسية أن يحصل في سوريا. وقد كشف وزير الخارجية الفرنسي (آلان جوبيه) عن الخطوط العريضة لهذه العقيدة السياسية في خطابه الذي ألقاه في معهد العالم العربي في 16 نيسان 2011، الذي يمكن اعتباره بمثابة وثيقة ضمان فرنسية للإسلاميين الجهاديين باعتراف فرنسا بوجودهم وحكمهم طالما التزموا الخطوط الحمر،وأولها إسرائيل ويليها النفط والغاز؛ لقد أعلن جوبيه في هذا الخطاب جهل فرنسا بالعالم العربي عندما قال: أما التحدي الثالث فيتجلى في تغيير نظرتنا إلى العالم العربي. فقد كنا، نحن الفرنسيين، نعتقد أننا على إلمام جيد بهذه المجتمعات، التي تربطنا بها علاقات عريقة ووثيقة. لكن الربيع العربي فاجأنا وأظهر جهلنا لجوانب كاملة من هذا العالم.
لقد حدّد جوبيه النظرة الجديدة بالتعاون مع الإسلاميين وقبولهم في الحكم، مؤكداً على ضرورة التواصل مع المقاولين في البداية، ومن ثم مع بقية شرائح المجتمعات في العالم العربي اليوم، نحتاج إلى رؤية المقاولين والقائمين على الجمعيات. نحتاج إلى رؤية الفنانين والطلبة. نحتاج إلى رؤية المدونين وأولئك الذين يقولون لا والجهات الفاعلة الناشئة.
ذلك هو مغزى هذه الندوة التي وددت أن أعقدها لتشكل مناسبة لنا لتبادل آرائنا وتحاليلنا وأفكارنا.
وآمل أن يقام هذا الحوار من دون عقد مع التيارات الإسلامية ما دام الجميع يحترم المبادئ التي ذكرتها، أي قواعد اللعبة الديمقراطية ورفض جميع أشكال العنف.
وأطلق جوبيه مفاجأته عندما قال: السيد بن سالم قال لنا، منذ قليل، إنَّ الإسلاميين سيفاجئوننا. فاجئونا، إذاً! أنا لا أطلب أفضل من ذلك. وسنفاجئكم بدورنا، فنحن ليست لنا إطلاقا عقلية تسعى إلى وصم العالم الإسلامي أو الدين الإسلامي، بل على العكس من ذلك، نحن نسعى إلى الحوار معه، أما الخلاصة من المفاجأة فهي تغير جذري في السياسة الفرنسية في العالم العربي ينبغي لنا اليوم أن نعيد النظر في سياستنا برمتها تجاه العالم العربي…
وخلص جوبيه إلى تحديد ثلاث نقاط هي محور السياسة الجديدة في العالم العربي أولها أمن إسرائيل وثانيها لبنان الذي تحلم فرنسا بالعودة إليه، والملف النووي الإيراني قائلاً: ختاماً، التحدي الأخير: بذل قصارى جهدنا لإيجاد حل لأبرز الصراعات المستمرة في المنطقة.
أقصد بطبيعة الحال، أولاً وقبل كل شيء، الصراع الإسرائيلي-الفلسطيني. لا تقل تطلعات الشعب الفلسطيني مشروعية عن تطلعات الشعوب الأخرى للضفة الجنوبية. أما إسرائيل، فلها الحق في العيش في أمن وسلام. لذلك، يجب، خلال الأشهر المقبلة، أن تخرج فكرة دولة فلسطينية ديمقراطية مستدامة ومتصلة تعيش في أمن وسلام بجانب دولة إسرائيل، من مجال الأحلام لتتحول إلى واقع. نحن ندرك جميعاً المعالم الكبرى للحل: يجب الآن تنفيذها. ولن تدّخر فرنسا جهداً في سبيل تحقيق ذلك.
أقصد أيضاً الوضعية في لبنان. نحن في حاجة للبنان ذي سيادة يتحكم في مصيره ويصير، في المنطقة، قدوة يحتذى بها بفضل فعالية مؤسساته الديمقراطية والتعايش السلمي بين الطوائف.
أقصد ختاماً المسألة الإيرانية. موقفنا في هذا السياق واضح: يجب على السلطات الإيرانية أن تضمن لشعبها احترام حقوق الإنسان، وتسوية المسألة النووية، طبقاً لطلب المجتمع الدولي، والعمل على تطوير تأثير إيجابي في المنطقة برمتها.
هذه هي الخلاصات الثلاث، ولا يخفى على المتابع أن فرنسا وعدت الثورات العربية في أيار 2011 بالاعتراف بدولة فلسطينية بحلول أيلول من العام ذاته، لكنها تراجعت عن وعدها[31]. أما العودة إلى لبنان فيلزمها سوريا ضعيفة ومرتهنة، والنووي الإيراني هو الجائزة الكبرى التي يريدها الغرب، في حين أنَّ الشيء الوحيد الثابت والمحقق فهو أمن إسرائيل المقدس لدى الغرب.. قبل هذا الخطاب بيومين دعا جوبيه عشرة من الباحثين في شؤون العالم العربي من ضمنهم أشخاص من أصول عربية، وقد قال أحدهم له: سيدي وزير الخارجية، المشكلة الكبرى تبقى أنَّ أي نظام سوف يأتي بعد القذافي سيكون فاقداً للشرعية لأنه أتى بفعل التدخل العسكري للحلف الأطلسي[32].
بعض الصحفيين شبه وزير الخارجية الفرنسي (آلان جوبيه) بوكالة أنباء حصرية لأخبار الثورات العربية خصوصاً في سوريا على الفيسبوك والانترنت، كونه يعتمد على ما تصدره صفحات الفيسبوكوالتويتر في دعم موقفه مع وزراء خارجية الدول التي يتصل بها لإقناعها بتأييد مشروع القرار المعد فرنسياً وأوروبياً.
لنا النفط ولكم الشريعة..
مثال مختصر حصل أثناء زيارة وفد من المعارضة السورية إلى بكين بناء على دعوة خاصة؛ ففي لقائه مع نائب وزير الخارجية الصيني (تشايجيون) بدأ الوفد السوري اللقاء الحديث عن الأوضاع في سوريا وأعداد القتلى، وكان المسؤول الصيني يستمع إلى المترجم الذي ينقل ما يقوله الوفد، وكان هناك من يدوّن محضر الجلسة. وبعدما استفاض الوفد بالحديث الذي أنهاه بالطلب من الصين مراجعة موقفها في مجلس الأمن، حتى ولو من باب الضغط على النظام[33] في سوريا، بدأ المسوؤل الصيني الحديث مرحباً بالوفد الضيف، وشرح سياسة بلاده في سوريا والعالم العربي والعالم بالقول: إن الصين لم تكن لها مطامع استعمارية في السابق، وليس لها حالياً ولن يكون لها مستقبلاً، ونحن في الصين لدينا مشكلة كبيرة كل يوم؛ وهي كيفية إطعام ما يقارب مليار ونصف مليار صيني، وقد أصبح لدينا اليقين بعد الخديعة الليبية وكذب الغرب علينا وعلى الروس أنَّ الولايات المتحدة عبر سعيها لتغيير الحكم في سوريا تريد السيطرة على منابع النفط العالمية التي لا تزال خارج سيطرتها، وهذا يشكل تهديداً للقمة عيش الصينيين..[34].
لنا النفط ولكم الشريعة، هذه هي الاستراتيجية الغربية الجديدة في العالم العربي والتي نظّر لها الفيلسوف الصهيوني (برنارد هنري ليفي) وطبّقها الرئيس الفرنسي نيكولاي ساركوزي ووزير خارجيته آلان جوبيه. لكم الشريعة طبّقوها كيفما شئتم، ولنا النفط وأمن إسرائيل. أما عملية امتلاك النفط فهي عن طريق الإمساك بقراره، وتحديد دوره السياسي في الصراع على النفوذ في العالم، ولا بأس أن تحكموا بما تعتقدون طالما أنَّ سياستكم وتطلعاتكم تتلاءم مع مصالحنا.
أما معالم السياسة الجديدة فتتمثّل بسعي الغرب للسيطرة على ما تبقّى من منابع نفط خارج قرار الولايات المتحدة. إذن القضية استثمار، أما السمسار لهذا الاستثمار فليس سوى الحركات السلفية المقاتلة، وفي طليعتهم مقاتلو تنظيم القاعدة الذين قدّم سلاح الجو الفرنسي وطائرات حلف الناتو كلّ الدعم الجوي لهم في حربهم لإسقاط القذافي، وهؤلاء هم الشريك الجديد في سوريا وفقاً لعقيدة (آلان جوبيه) السياسية التي اختصرها إبان الحرب على ليبيا بالقول: حربنا في ليبيا هي بمثابة استثمار للأجيال الفرنسية القادمة.
من مفارقات هذا الربيع العربي أن وزير خارجية فرنسا جعل من مجلس الأمن الدولي أرشيفاً لعشرات مشاريع القرارات التي تصبّ جميعها في خدمة حرب تنظيم القاعدة للسيطرة على الحكم في زوايا العالم الإسلامي الأربع[35]، وتبقى الجماعات السلفية المقاتلة خير حليف للغرب تاريخياً، فهي التي أسقطت الاتحاد السوفياتي مقدِّمة خدمة إستراتيجية هائلة للولايات المتحدة والحلف الأطلسي، وكل ما فعله أركان المحافظين الجدد في فرنسا نيكولاي ساركوزي، والفريق السياسي العامل معه، هو إعادة التحالف القديم إلى الحياة..
وعليك أيها القارئ الكريم أن تعرف أن تاريخ العلاقة بين فرنسا وجماعات جهاديي تنظيم القاعدة تعود إلى أكثر من ثلاثة عقود خلت، هي تاريخ بدء الصحوة الإسلامية في العالم الإسلامي التي تزامنت مع الغزو السوفياتي لأفغانستان في سبعينيات القرن الماضي حيث قام تحالف بين الولايات المتحدة الأميركية والغرب من جهة وباكستان والسعودية من جهة ثانية، استخدم السلفيين وجماعة الإخوان المسلمين في العالمين العربي والإسلامي ضد الجيش السوفياتي، وكانت مساجد العاصمة الفرنسية باريس وكبرى المدن الفرنسية طوال أيام الأسبوع، وخصوصاً يوم الجمعة أثناء الصلاة، تعجّ بالزوار الدعاة من السعودية وباكستان الذين يأتون بحماية الشرطة الفرنسية ورعايتها لتجنيد المقاتلين المتطوعين للذهاب لقتال الروس الكفار في بلاد الأفغان، بلاد الرباط والإسلام. وكنت شخصياً في تلك الفترة أتردد على مساجد في الدائرة الحادية عشرة من باريس، وفي دوائر أخرى في العاصمة الفرنسية فضلاً عن مساجد كبيرة في الضواحي الباريسية وباقي مناطق ومدن فرنسا، حيث كنت تجد دعاة سلفيين من باكستان والسعودية وبلدان أخرى يأتون إلى فرنسا لحث مسلميها على المشاركة في الجهاد ضد الروس في أفغانستان.
الأربعاء القادم: الملف القطري
موقع المنار غير مسؤول عن النص ومضمونه، وهو لا يعبّر إلا عن وجهة نظر كاتبه
[1]كتاب (ميتامورفوز ساركوزي) [2]كتاب (ميتامورفوز)، ساركوزي، ص 171. [3]المصدر السابق. [4]برنارد هنري ليفي على امواج اذاعة أوروبا 1 [5]موقع الدفاع الفرنسي، أيار 2011. [6]صحيفة لوفيغارو الفرنسية، وصحيفة لوموند، 12 آذار 2011. [7]المصدر السابق. [8] موقع الانتقاد، تشرين ثاني 2011، موقع المنار 13 نيسان 2012 ، مجلة نوفيلأوبسرفاتور 3 تشرين ثاني 2011. [9] الكاتب في حديث مع شخصية أوروبية. [10] صحف فرنسية وعالمية . [11] الكاتب في حوار خاص. [12] المتهور، كاترين ناي، ص 558. [13]المصدر السابق. [14]حوار خاص. [15]حوار خاص مع شخصية فرنسية. [16] المتهور، كاترين ناي، مصدر سابق. [17] حوار خاص مع دبلوماسي فرنسي سابق في ليبيا. [18]كتاب أيام اوباما [19]في محاولة من حسني مبارك لكسب الوقت وهذا ما فهمه اوباما [20]أوباما حروب واسرار (دافيد سنجر) ص 338 [21]حوار مع الكاتب. [22]أنظر في الوثائق نص كلام السفير الفرنسي السابق في دمشق [23] روبير غودريه [24]حوار مع الكاتب. [25]توقفوا عن احتقار الفرنسيين، هيرفيهموران. [26]كتاب سنوات اوباما ص 250 [27]أسبوعية (le canard enchainé) أيلول 2011 [28]أسبوعيةle canard enchainé أيلول 2011 [29]العقيد السابق في الجيش الفرنسي آلانكورفيس في ندوة حول الربيع العربي حزيران 2012. [30]تلفزيون فرنسا 24، 3 أيلول 2011. [31]موقع المنار، أيلول 2011. موقع الانتقاد، أيار 2011 . صحيفة لوموند، 6 تشرين أول 2011. صحيفة لوفيغارو. [32] الكاتب في حوار خاص. [33]الكاتب في حوار خاص. [34]المصدر نفسه. [35]الكاتب.
River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Oppression will resume, the land-grab will continue, more rewards for Israel will flow…
And it will be business as usual for Western leaders and their Zionist friends
Gaza 2012
In 2009 when Israel’s 22-day blitzkrieg was over, nearly 1,400 Palestinians had been wiped off the planet of whom four-fifths were civilians and 350 children, and over 5,000 wounded.
Israel had destroyed or damaged 58,000 homes, 280 schools, 1,500 factories, water and sewage installations and 80 percent of agricultural crops. The cost to Gaza’s civilian infrastructure was estimated at $660 to 900 million while the total economic cost was put at $3 to 3.5 billion.
It was really a non-war, said Norman Finkelstein in his book This Time We Went Too Far, and testimonies of Israeli soldiers included remarks like: “There was nothing there… nothing moved”; “No real resistance”; “Everyone was disappointed about not engaging anyone”.
Towards the end of the invasion Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said: “Hamas now understands that when you fire on Israel’s citizens it responds by going wild – and this is a very good thing.” She later waxed proud of how Israel had “demonstrated real hooliganism” and said she would happily repeat her decisions because they were meant to restore Israel’s deterrence and had done so.
And after that slaughter binge in which Gaza has been reduced to rubble and its civilian population devastated, what did the European Union’s 27 foreign ministers do?
They sat down to dinner in Brussels with Livni.
This must have come as a slap in the face for the millions of justice-loving EU citizens who were expecting to see Ms Livni arrested for crimes against humanity the minute she set foot outside Israel.
But no. All was forgiven. Normal poodle service was resumed. Israel’s admirers in Europe queued up to pay with our tax money for the humanitarian mess and the economic wreckage, and to offer Israel the services of EU member states in helping to turn the screw yet again on the people Israel had terrorized, abused and dispossessed for 60 years.
Never mind that the EU had spent billions over the years on infrastructure projects in Gaza, only to see them wantonly smashed by Israel’s military. The EU was especially eager to help with stopping the ‘smuggling’ of arms to the Palestinians, who by then were crushed and stripped of everything amid the ruins of their homes, their wrecked utilities, their shattered hospitals and schools, and faced with a public health disaster. That’s what happens when people have only AK47s, RPGs and ineffective rockets to fend off a ruthless occupying force bristling with all the armour and high-tech weaponry of modern warfare.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that a people under illegal occupation and siege are entitled in international law to take up arms against their oppressor. Israel’s relentless assaults to annihilate Gaza’s civil society was unlawful and a war crime then, and is today. Who are we to interfere and deny their right of self-defence?
Nevertheless six European leaders – including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and our very own British Prime Minister Gordon Brown – pledged ships, troops and technology for anti-smuggling operations. “We will do everything that we can to prevent the arms trafficking that is at the root of some of the problems that have caused the conflict,” Mr Brown said, offering the services of the Royal Navy.
But he couldn’t possibly send navy ships to protect British flag vessels carrying medics and humanitarian supplies from lethal acts of piracy by Israeli gunboats.
He wouldn’t send ships to ensure the freedom of the seas, or even the freedom of their own territorial waters for Gaza’s fishermen.
He wouldn’t send ships to shoo away Israeli gunboats shelling Gaza’s beaches.
But he’d happily send ships to make sure Palestinians have no weapons with which to exercise their right of self-defence.
But I was forgetting… our political élite know which side their bread is buttered.
Meanwhile, in the British Parliament Sir Gerald Kaufman was congratulating foreign secretary David Miliband on steering Resolution 1860 through the Security Council of the United Nations. Its aim, apart from a durable ceasefire, was to ensure the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access. The US abstained.
“May I ask him what the international reaction would be if Hamas had slaughtered nearly 900 Israelis [the blitz was only 13 days old at that point] and subjected nearly 1.5 million Israelis to degradation and deprivation?” enquired the feisty Jewish MP. “Is it not an incontrovertible fact that Olmert, Livni and Barak are mass-murderers and war criminals? — Yes. And they bring shame on the Jewish people whose star of David they use as a flag in Gaza, but whose ethos and morals go completely against what this Israeli Government are doing.”
I’m itching to hear what Kaufman says about Netanyahu and Liberman in regard to this repetition of the Cast Lead murder spree.
Miliband, apparently in all seriousness, said: “It is important to point out that people talk about Hamas being the representatives of Palestinians, without recognising that there is an elected leader of all the Palestinians — a President of the Palestinian Authority, elected in 2004 by all Palestinians to represent them. A further President will be elected this year or next year. That is a vital part of the issue, and we should not fall into the trap of allowing Hamas’s leadership in Gaza to claim that it represents all the Palestinians.”
But the 2006 general election established precisely that! What Miliband omitted to say was that Abbas ‘won’ the presidency in January 2005 in a dodgy and lopsided contest – let’s not dignify it with the word ‘election’ – in which Israel seriously interfered to obstruct other candidates. Abbass’s term ran out in 2009 but he’s still there. He is now regarded as having no legitimacy and no popular mandate. However, he continues to be propped up by those mighty champions of democracy the US, Israel and Britain.
And what help has this loser been in the crisis? He clearly feels he doesn’t represent the Palestinians of Gaza or he’d be fighting tooth and nail for them instead of skulking in the shadows.
I close in despair. This message has just arrived from MAP (Medical Aid for Palestine): “Israel’s Interior Minister Eli Yishai has said openly that ‘the goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages’. Palestinians in Gaza have been living under blockade for over five years and have still not recovered from the last war. Health facilities were severely overstretched before the current bombardment and hospitals are facing critical shortages, with 40 percent of essential medicines and 65 percent of medical disposables at zero stock.”
What despicable world leaders we are cursed with. River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
THE REASON why despots are able to rule for decades is not only because their regimes have perfected the tactics of repression. The covert from the outside world, including Western democratic countries, also makes them sustain their hold on power. And one such despot-democrat connection has been the subject of great scrutiny and criticism is the relationship between deceased Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy.
Nobody will ever quite forget how Sarkozy warmly welcomed Gaddafi on a state visit to France and, in fact, also referred to him as a “brother leader” on that occasion. And reportedly the French leader received millions from the Libyan tyrant to fund his election campaign in 2007— an allegation that Sarkozy has repeatedly denied.
But now there’s a new startling twist that has cast more doubts on Sarkozy’s vehement denials. According to British paper Daily Mail, it wasn’t a lynch mob that killed Gaddafi last year, but rather a French secret serviceman acting on Sarkozy’s orders. Based on diplomatic sources in Tripoli, the news report alleges that the French secret serviceman had mixed with the revolutionaries and shot Gaddafi. Apparently, Sarkozy was afraid that the dictator would divulge details of his connection with him if he was captured alive and put through trial.
This reasoning has some credibility because as soon as Nato attacks on the Libyan regime started, Gaddafi threatened to disclose specifics of his connection with Sarkozy, including those about the millions of dollars he allegedly pumped into his re-election campaign.
This startling report comes less than a week after the death of Omran bin Shabaan— the 22-year-old Libyan rebel who captured Gaddafi and can be seen brandishing the gun responsible for killing Gaddafi in the infamous video showing the dictator’s corpse. Shabaan apparently was beaten up by Gaddafi loyalists in July and shot twice. He was subsequently taken to France for treatment, where he eventually died.
Shabaan received a hero’s funeral in Libya, but these new revelations have now cast serious doubts on the veracity of the mainstream account of Gaddafi’s death. While some might dismiss Daily Mail’s report as a rip off of some 007 thriller, one thing is for sure: A great deal of behind-the-scenes deals, arm-pulling and machinations characterise international relations. And the public is rarely privy to these confidential matters.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
The defeated Crypto-Jewish French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, will be out of the Élysée palace on Tuesday after he handed over the Presidency to the newly elected Socialist Jewish president François Hollande. Sarkozy is looking forward to manage the music empire of his millionaire model-turn-pop star wife Carla Bruni while Hollande is expected to wed his long-time girlfriend to make a kosher First Lady out of her.
However, what worries Sarkozy is that after Sarkozy’s presidential judicial immunity officially ends on 16 June – he could be chased by the Justice Department for his several past crimes.
French media has claimed that Sarkozy received nearly 50 million Euros from former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi during his election campaign in 2007. Being a morally corrupt Zionist, Sarkozy betrayed Qaddafi, who funded him to win Presidential campaign but Sarkozy at the last months of his power stabbed Qaddafi and Libyan people from behind.
Last year, Sarkozy with the help of CIA-Mossad brought the downfall of his Socialist Jewish opponent Dominique Strauss-Kahnin a sex scandal.
Israeli daily Ha’aretz reporting Sarkozy’s defeat, said that he will be missed in Israel as he was always considered a trusted friend of Israel. According to Israeli media – 93% of Franco-Israelis voted for Sarkozy.
A March 2012 study by the Simon Wiesenthal Institute reported that half of European believe Israel to be the greatest threat to world peace and over one third are known to be anti-Semitics.
“In France, Nicolas Sarkozy who has been the warmest French president ever to the State of Israel is up for re-electionagainst Socialist François Hollande. Sarkozy has stated ”We will never compromise on Israeli security”, said the establishment of the Jewish state was “the most important event of the 20th century” – his opponent is closely linked to Anti-Israel political leaders. “France would be more politically aligned with the Arab countries, and this could have an effect on its relations with Israel,” said Ivan Rioufol, columnist in the French daily Le Figaro. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has said it would be a “big blow to Israel” if Sarkozy lost,” said the study.
French author Hubert Couduier in his 2008 book ‘Love, Rupture and Betrayal‘ claims that Sarkozy has had “brutal” exchanges with his wives and past lovers – in fact, one row with the then his second wife Cecilia in the run-up to the presidential polls in 2007 even led to a police complaint.
On March 11, 2010 – the Times of India reported that both Sarkozy and his wife Carla were both committing adultery.
Last year, Sarkozy’s best man at Carla Bruni in 2008, Nicolas Baziere was arrested and another of Sarkozy’s close friend, Thierry Gaubert, was placed under investigation for their involvement along with Nicolas Sarkozy in the ‘Karachi Affair’ – a murderous saga of alleged illegal party funding, suitcases stuffed with banknotes, rightwing political rivalry and, ultimately, the deaths of 15 people in a bomb attack in Pakistan.
During Sarkozy’s 20 years in French politics – 8 million-strong French Muslim community has been his main target.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
On March 3, 2012, Iranian-born Israeli opposition leader in Knesset, Gen. Shaul Mofaz, wrote on his Facebook page:
“Listen closely, I will not enter Bibi government. Not today. Not Tomorrow. Not after I take the leadership of Kadima on March 28. This is a bad, failing and deaf government, and the Kadima that I will lead will replace it in the next election. Clear enough?“.
However, on Tuesday, Mofaz and Netanyahu cut a secret deal to form a Kadima-Likud government – and cancel new elections. Today, Mofaz is being sworn-in as vice prime minister and incharge of homefront defence. The merger will give Netanyahu’s government 94 votes in 120-seat Knesset.
The Zionist apologists are giving laughable spin to this surprise move. They’re trying to prove that a unity government will provide a united front against any possible American or EU move to accomodate Iran’s nuclear program and lift sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, there are Jewish voices inside and outside Israel which believe otherwise. For example, Israeli Ami Kaufman posted on his website ‘+972′.
“The big picture is the disgusting politics, reaching a new low. A political sphere that has lost any credibility whatsoever. The damage these two have done is irreparable. How can anyone take any politician seriously now?“
American Jewish professor Juan Cole posted on ‘Informed Comment’ that “new Israeli government likely won’t launch Iran attack“. He argues that though Mofaz is in agreement with Netanyahu in attacking Iran, he doesn’t believe Jewish army can defeat Iranian force without the active participation of US Armed Forces.
“Mofaz has been sharply critical of reported plans by Netanyahu and his defense minister Ehud Barak, to launch a go-it-alone military attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Mofaz is not opposed to military action against Iran in and of itself, but wants it coordinated with the United States,” wrote Cole.
Some Israeli pundits believe that the merger could be Netanyahu’s way of neutralizing Kadima’s chance to win more seats in the next election. Netanyahu pulled a similary stunt earlier with Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s Haatzmaut.
The truth behind this merger is that Netanyahu and other Zionist Jewish radicals have come to the conclusion that with the defeat of Nicolas Sarkozyin recent French election, Israel is further isolated within normally pro-Israel European community. They feel that it will be very difficult to twist re-elected Obama’s arm to attack Iran on Israel’s behalf under changing politics and economic conditions in the West.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Socialist Francois Hollande swept to victory in France’s presidential election on Sunday in a swing to the left at the heart of Europe that could start a pushback against German-led austerity.
Hollande beat conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy by a decisive 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent, based on partial results, bringing the centre-left back to government after a decade in opposition. The outgoing president conceded defeat within 20 minutes of the last polls closing at 8 pm, telling supporters he had telephoned Hollande to wish him good luck.
“I bear the full responsibility for this defeat,” Sarkozy said, indicating he would withdraw from frontline politics.
“My place can no longer be the same. My involvement in the life of my country will be different from now on.”
Punished for his failure to rein in 10 percent unemployment and for his brash personal style, Sarkozy was the 11th euro zone leader in succession to be swept from power since the currency bloc’s debt crisis began in 2009.
Jubilant supporters celebrated outside Socialist Party headquarters and thronged Paris’s Bastille square, where revellers danced the night away in 1981 when Francois Mitterrand became France’s only previous directly elected Socialist president.
But the celebrations may be overshadowed by a political bombshell in Greece, where mainstream parties were hammered in a parliamentary election that exit polls suggested may leave supporters of Athens’ IMF/EU bailout without a majority, raising doubts about its future in the euro zone. Hollande’s clear win should give the self-styled “Mr Normal” the momentum to press German Chancellor Angela Merkel to accept a policy shift towards fostering growth in Europe to balance the austerity that has fuelled anger across southern Europe.
His solid margin also positions the Socialists strongly to win a left-wing majority in parliamentary elections next month, especially since the anti-immigration National Front is set to split the right-wing vote and hurt Sarkozy’s UMP party. (Reuters)
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
France held its breath Saturday on the eve of a presidential election that Socialist Francois Hollande was predicted to win despite incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy closing the gap after wooing the far-right.
Political speeches and new opinion polls have been banned since a particularly ferocious campaign ended on Friday night, but the last poll published ahead of the deadline forecast a 52-48 percent win for Hollande.
The Ifop-Fiducial poll said Sarkozy has clawed back six percentage points of voter intentions since the end of last week as he went all-out to enchant those who voted for far-right candidate Marine Le Pen in the first round.
With the Socialist’s lead the narrowest since campaigning began, Sarkozy has vowed a surprise, while Hollande has stressed that nothing can be assumed about a first Socialist presidential victory in over a quarter century.
“Everything is possible on Sunday,” admitted the left-leaning Liberation’s headline, while the pro-Sarkozy Le Figaro’s front page stressed that French citizens had a “historic choice”.
“Electing a president is not a beauty contest,” warned a Le Figaro editorial, apparently targeting Hollande’s image as a soft and convivial consensus builder without ministerial experience.
Liberation skewered Sarkozy for dragging his UMP party ever further to the right as he courted National Front voters, vowing to defend French values, limit immigration and strengthen France’s borders.
“Whatever the outcome, the political landscape will remain profoundly, durably and dangerously transformed,” it said.
French overseas territories were voting on Saturday, before the mass of some 46 million voters goes to the polls on Sunday.
Hollande won the April 22 first round with 28.63 percent of the votes to Sarkozy’s 27.18 percent, and both candidates have been fighting for the votes of those whose candidates failed to make the run-off.
Le Pen, who won almost 18 percent in the first round, has said she will cast a blank ballot, and observers expect many of her supporters to do the same.
Ifop has forecast however that 55 percent of her voters would back Sarkozy and 19 percent Hollande.
Meanwhile, 84 percent of those who voted for the Communist-backed Left Front candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon in the first round — 11 percent of votes — said they would vote for Hollande.
Sarkozy insisted in his final election rally on Friday that the race was too close to call.
“I want to convince you of one thing: every vote will count,” Sarkozy told supporters. “You cannot imagine at what point things will play on a razor’s edge on Sunday.”
For his part, Hollande urged voters to hand him a clear win so he would have a strong mandate to implement his left-wing program and fight EU-driven austerity.
“I want an ample victory,” Hollande told RTL radio. “If the French people must make a choice, they should do so clearly, overwhelmingly, so the winner has the capacity and means to act.”
However, many voters also disapprove of Sarkozy’s flashy style during his five-year term, welcoming Hollande’s vows to be a “normal president.”
Source: AFP 05-05-2012 – 14:37 Last updated 05-05-2012 – 14:37
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Richard Prasquier, the leader of the French-Jewish umbrella group CRIF has endorsed France’s incumbent president Niclas Sarkozy. In an Op-ed in Israeli daily Ha’aretz (April 25, 2012), Prasquier, claims that Sarkozy is better ally of Israel than his main opponent, François Hollande. The reason Prasquier prefer Crypto-Jew Sarkozy (born to a Jewish mother and Catholic father) over Jewish Hollande is – though both of them are friendly toward the Zionist entity – Hollande doesn’t share Israeli hatred towad Iran as Sarkozy does.
“Sarkozy has a deep knowledge of Israel and a deep sympathy for this country. France has become the major supporter of Israel in advocating a firm stance against Iran. The feelings of François Hollande towards Israel have always been clearly friendly. However, his stance towards the Iranian threat remains to be tested. The two candidates share similar views regarding the major issues related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict,” wrote Prasquier.
Interestingly, while all the three presidential candidates are bending backwards for Jewish groups’ blessings and running on anti-Muslim anti-immigration platform – none of them is interested in addressing France’s high unemployment (10%) and trade losses. Last year France had a record trade deficit of 70 billion euros (US$93 billion). According to several French sources, the news of mass layoffs by French companies – are being kept on hold until the May 6 second round of the presidential election.
When it comes to 6-8 million French Muslims – Sarkozy, Hollande and Marine Le Pen are all united on demonizing them to please French far-right White extremists and Zionist Jews. Several journalists have condemned Richard Prasquier, saying, that CRIF is no longer against the far right extremists so long as they don’t openly criticize Israel or Jews.
“When Le Pen’s National Front aggresses immigrants and Muslims, the man who represents French Jews (Richard Prasquier) doesn’t see anything deeply wrong and writes this to the people of Israel,” Claude Askolovitch, senior French political journalist wrote in the weekly Marianne.
Claude Askolovitch is no anti-Semite’. Le Pen in her campaign video said that ritually slaughtered (Halal) meat products were for killing babies. In response Claude said that Le Pen’s allegation was old-fashioned Christian accusation of ‘Blood Libel’ against Jews – and that Jews poisoned wells to kill Christians.
After narrowly losing the first election round – Many French political pundits believe that CIA-Mossad favorite Sarkozy is sure to lose the election. He is running scared and needs – a new anti-Muslim Toulouse false flag operation.
Paranoid Zionist, Jonathan S. Tobin wrote in Commentary that Sarkozy’s defeat might be a victory for Iran – as under Francois Hollande, it will be very difficult for the ZOGs to put a united front against Iran.
“Sarkozy has been a stalwart opponent of Iran and its nuclear ambitions, often getting far ahead of the United States on the issue and helping to buttress the shaky determination of the European Union to take a firm stand,” wrote Tobin.
CRIF leaders have no shame. Last November, they blasted Sarkozy for sharing a joke with Barack Obama about Benji Netanyahu.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
“… When asked about Seif’s comments during a March 12 interview on France’s TF1 television, Sarkozy replied: “I am sorry to see you in the role of a spokeswoman for Kadhafi’s son, frankly I’ve known you in better roles…. It’s grotesque and I am sorry that I am being interrogated about declarations of Kadhafi or his son on an important channel like TF1,” Sarkozy said. “When one quotes Mr. Kadhafi, who is dead, his son, who has blood on his hands, that is a regime of dictators, assassins, whose credibility is zero (How convenient!) … frankly, I think we have sunk low enough in the political debate.” Takieddine is already under investigation for his alleged role in the funding of Edouard Balladur’s failed 1995 presidential campaign for which Sarkozy was spokesman….”
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
“…Sarkozy, waging an uphill battle for re-election in a vote that opens on April 22, said he discussed Syria with U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday, including a U.N.-backed plan to send observers to ensure it was being implemented….
Under the French plan to bring in aid, humanitarian corridors would link the frontiers of Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan, to the Mediterranean coast or to an airport.
Foreign Minister Alain Juppe has said the zone could be protected by armed “observers”,…”
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
“Expect NATO intervention. Turkey’s the likely vanguard. Washington pulls the strings. Its dirty hands itch for more slaughter and destruction.” Stephen Lendman
I disagree with Mr. Stephen Lendman. Annan, is negociating an exit from Syria, to save the Face of Nato, and save the asses of Erdugan and Arab puppets. Negociation shall continue under the fire.
It was too good to last. On day one, insurgents violated ceasefire calm. Blame Washington’s dirty hands. It manipulates everything going on.
It won’t tolerate peace and stability. Regime change plans need violence blamed on Assad. That’s imperialism’s ugly face. Behind it lurks a menace too threatening to ignore.
International, constitutional, and US statute laws are spurned. Independent regimes are toppled. War is policy. Throughout its history, America waged them at home and abroad. Countless millions died. Daily their numbers mount.
America’s no democracy. It’s a killing machine, a police state, a rogue hegemon, ravaging one country after another for unchallenged dominance.
It’s boss, a street thug writ large. What it says goes. Violators are punished. Humanity’s threatened.
Syria and Iran now face its wrath. Expect the worst. It’s coming. Catastrophe may follow. NATO powers ignore the threat. On April 12, Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy discussed Iran and Syria.
Both accused Assad of violating ceasefire terms. Sarkozy and UK Prime Minster David Cameron called for “transition at the top” change. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said if violence erupts, “we want to return to the Security Council in a new attempt to obtain a resolution on Syria. We will intensify our support for the opposition.”
Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel urge “more resolute” action. These and similar comments spell trouble.
On April 13, The New York Times headlined, “Cease-Fire Tested by Reports of Syria Clashes,” saying:
“….some deadly clashes were reported.” Pro-Western “activists” claim violence wracked areas are “under virtual martial law, with tank deployments, armed checkpoints and rooftop snipers.”
Times writers never spare hyperbole. On issues mattering most, managed news substitutes for truth and full disclosure. Protection Syrians need is denounced. Imagine how out-of-control things would be without it. Current and former UN Secretaries-General replicate Timespeak.
Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon point fingers the wrong way. Assad’s blamed for insurgent violence. From Geneva, Ban said “The onus is on the government of Syria to prove that their words will be matched by their deeds at this time.”
Their forces and armor “must return to their barracks immediately,” he added. In other words, leave civilians unprotected. Like Annan, Ban makes no pretense which side he’s on. Both men have impeccable imperial credentials. That’s how they got their job.
“Syrian troops fought with rebels near the border with Turkey on Friday, but opposition activists said the brief clash appeared to be an isolated violation as a fragile U.N.-brokered truce entered a second day.”
In fact, Washington plans more violence. Eruptions will follow imperial plans. Reality will replace optimism. Assad, of course, will be blamed.
Opposition forces call for mass anti-government marches. Peaceful demonstrations are permitted. Violent ones will be confronted responsibly. No country tolerates them.
Imperial powers plan their next move. Concluding their two-day summit, G8 leaders called ceasefire a first step. Hillary Clinton assaults Assad mercilessly. She accused him of violating peace plan terms, saying:
“The Annan plan is not a menu of options, it is a set of obligations. The burden of fully and visibly meeting all of these obligations continues to rest with the regime. They cannot pick and choose.”
“For it to be meaningful, this apparent halt in violence must lead to a credible political process and a peaceful, inclusive democratic transition.”
“We remain firmly resolved that the regime’s war against its own people must end for good and political transition must begin. Assad will have to go and the Syrian people must be given the chance to chart their own future.”
In other words, Washington accepts one option only – regime change. All means are employed to achieve it, including war. It’s coming if current plans fail. Six G 8 nations support it. Russia and China oppose intervention, insurgent violence, and war. So far, they prevented it. At issue is for how long?
Ahead, things get tougher. Imperial Washington won’t quit. Events on the ground are manipulated. Orchestrated incidents began. Expect greater eruptions ahead. Direct NATO intervention will follow. Turkey may initiate it.
Prime Minister Erdegon’s hawkishness suggests it. He openly called for intervention. Citing Article 5 of NATO’s Charter, he said the alliance “has the responsibility to protect Turkish borders.”
On April 12, Today’s Zaman headlined, “Turkey says Annan plan not implemented,” saying:
Erdogan said Assad hasn’t met ceasefire terms.
“There is a six-point plan in the open presented by Annan. I do not think this six-point plan has been implemented. There is nothing like this out there.”
A same day Today’s Zaman article headlined, “Turkish opposition slams government over Syria ‘warmongering,’ ” saying:
Opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, said “The Turkish Republic has never done as much warmongering as it has today.” He rejects Syrian intervention. He’s against interfering in the internal affairs of other nations.
He accused Erdogan of “beating the war drum.” He added that regional meddling worsened relations with Iraq, Iran and Syria. He wants Turkey supporting peaceful conflict resolution.
Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) parliamentary group Deputy Chairman, Hasip Kaplan, explained dangers of Turkey being pro-war. It’s support makes it more likely.
On April 12, Press TV cited Syrian state television, saying “armed men assassinated an al-Mazareeb town official.” Witnesses said insurgents shot Naser Bhkeit Naser from a passing car without license plates.
Other insurgents “killed an army officer and injured 24 others after they targeted a military bus with an explosive device in Syria’s second largest city of Aleppo.”
In addition, “terrorists targeted a law-enforcement vehicle with an explosive device at Wadi Haj Khaled region in Idleb on Thursday, injuring a number of officers.”
Brigadier General Walid Jouni was killed in Jaramana near Damascus. Syria’s Interior Ministry said terrorists attacked him at home.
Syrian television said armed groups “intensif(ied) criminal operations in an attempt to destabilize Syria and torpedo” peace. Expect larger-scale eruptions ahead. Assad, of course, will be blamed. Calls for intervention will increase.
Syria’s UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari said his government is testing the credibility of nations supporting ceasefire terms.
“Because they are disappointed, they are still betting on every possibility to sabotage the plan.”
“I would like to refer to some Arab and regional countries and some international powers, because the Syrian crisis has local, Arab and regional dimensions, and an international one.”
“Consequently, it is not enough that the Syrian government shows full commitment to Annan’s plan, but all sides have to stand by us clearly and unequivocally.”
He also said nations skeptical about Syria’s resolve want conflict, not peace. They’re responsible for violent incidents. He accused so-called Friends of Syria of plotting “to overthrow” the government.
Arming and funding insurgents reveals their real agenda. Syria’s “a victim of diplomatic, political, media,” and terrorist aggression. “(W)e have a lot of evidence and proofs that will embarrass the countries which sponsored terror in Syria, but we will uncover this at a suitable time.”
A Final Comment
Washington’s Syria regime change plans remain on track. They’re longstanding. Other nations are also targeted. Independent governments aren’t tolerated.
Replacing them with client states is prioritized. All strategies are employed including war. Syria is target one, then Iran. Annan’s sham peace plan provides cover.
Peace and stability defeat America’s agenda. Relative calm will end in short order. Eruptions promise greater ones.
Expect NATO intervention. Turkey’s the likely vanguard. Washington pulls the strings. Its dirty hands itch for more slaughter and destruction.
Bullying is a US specialty. So isn’t unchallenged dominance. The worst is yet to come. Bet on it.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
River toSea Uprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Nobody in France doubts that the next French President will not be (Nicolas Sarkozy)… he lost the battle and is no longer able to regain the initiative…
According to the electoral polls and Data nothing may alter the outcome in this crucial phase of voter options, the polls history of French presidential election doesn’t show a candidate a second term Presidency say losing with this big difference, six months before the date of the ballot.
There is no doubt that Sarkozy will leave the Elysee Palace, that his exit will have significant impacts on external files where Sarkozy (Security Council, military intervention and political pressure). The Syrian file constitute the most important file in French foreign policy since years ago, the French stand will change… especially with the USA entering (coma) until November next election…..
The effects of the fall of Sarkozy to Syria …
Nicolas Sarkozy and his Foreign Minister Alain Juppe adopted an irrevocable clash policy with the regime in Syria.
Both, since the beginning of the crisis, never stopped calling Assad to step down, France has turned the UN Security Council into a huge archive of failed draft resolution against Syria, and Paris has turned into a shelter for all types of the Syrian opposition, participated in the creation of the Syrian National Council which enjoys recognition and stewardship, even after moving from politics to military action financing, arming and defending the armed groups in Syria, calling them sometimes of civilian demonstrators and freedom fighters other times, as by Juppe himself described them on one occasion.
These high ceiling positions made it difficult for Sarkosy and Juppe to undo or redo any type of relations with Damascus, the situation will be different entirely with the Socialist candidate socialist candidate François HOLLANDE for the following reasons:
1.François HOLLANDEretained a wider margin of greater by avoiding high ceiling remarks and uncompromising positions, and confining d his remarks to denounce “oppression” without any political positions. He never asked Assad to step down and this will give him a great margin in the event he won the Presidency,
2.François HOLLANDEhave to address the economic problems of the country and prevent, via European action, the catastrophe in Spain and Italy to extend to France, therefore he would avoid getting involved in Syria and concentrate on his accumulated internal problems
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Previously unpublished documents show that French secret agents regularly spied on dissidents, and passed on information which led to them being captured and killed.
This all took place while the French President was still calling Gaddafi the “Brother Leader” and treating him as an honoured guest in Paris.
The damning revelations are contained in 5,600 pages of notes uncovered in archives in Sabah, in the south of Libya.
Jomode Elie Getty, a Libyan living in France, said he found a report dated 13 June 2007 that proved a surveillance operation had been organised against him and other dissidents by France’s secret service.
Another intelligence report, filed just before Gaddafi arrived on a state visit to France a few months later, read that it was necessary to “listen to contacts, to identify them and track them down” and to “prevent anti-Libyan acts”. The operation was co-ordinated by loyal Gaddafi lieutenant Bashir Saleh who, intriguingly, was “rescued” by the French during the rebellion and is now under 24-hour protection in Paris.
Mr Getty’s claims appear to be supported by documents from Libya published by the French investigative website Mediapart. He said numerous anti-Gaddafi protesters were arrested and killed following the 2007 surveillance, which was, “like something carried out by the Stasi”, the notorious Communist security organisation in the old East Germany. He said he now intended to take Sarkozy to court, along with his Interior Minister Claude Guéant, accusing them of illegal surveillance…”
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!