Archives

Tagged ‘France‘

Démocratie, Insurrection et Gilets Jaunes

Le Partage

December 2018

By Nicolas Casaux

 

“Cars burn as protesters wearing yellow vests (gilets jaunes) clash with riot police near the Arc de Triomphe as part of a demonstration over high fuel prices on the Champs Elysee in Paris, France, 01 December 2018 (issued on 03 December 2018). The so-called ‘gilets jaunes’ (yellow vests) protest movement, which reportedly has no political affiliation, is protesting across the nation over high fuel prices. According to reports, the damage left after the riots in Paris are estimated to exceed three to four million euro. EPA/YOAN VALAT”

 

Nous ne vivons pas en démocratie. Cela doit apparaître de plus en plus clairement à de plus en plus de gens. Les manifestations actuelles des gilets jaunes semblent le suggérer. Le mot démocratie n’aurait jamais dû désigner autre chose que la démocratie directe. Le fameux pouvoir du peuple, par le peuple et pour le peuple. Le régime politique dans lequel nous vivons, le régime électoral républicain et libéral, que les institutions culturelles dominantes, les gouvernants et les médias qualifient de démocratie représentative (un oxymore), est « une aristocratie élective dans les faits », ainsi que l’écrit Francis Dupuis-Déri dans son livre La peur du peuple – Agoraphobie et agoraphilie politiques. Il ajoute d’ailleurs qu’il « est aussi possible d’y voir une monarchie, puisque l’aristocratie élue est dirigée par un monarque élu, le président — ou un premier ministre tout puissant face à une reine impuissante, comme au Canada ou en Grande-Bretagne. D’un point de vue étymologique, le mot monarchie désigne bien le pouvoir ou le commandement (arkhè) d’un seul individu (mono). Mais pourquoi donc faut-il qu’il y ait un chef dans un régime libéral ou républicain, en plus du corps de l’aristocratie élue?? Mystère. Avoir un chef d’État semble pourtant normal et naturel, et personne ne s’étonne que le roi ait simplement été remplacé par un président ou un premier ministre. »

Jean-Jacques Rousseau écrivait que le principe de la représentation « nous vient du gouvernement féodal, de cet inique et absurde gouvernement dans lequel l’espèce humaine est dégradée ». Lors de la Révolution française, l’Assemblée nationale soulignait que « la représentation du peuple était inconnue aux Anciens » et que c’est du « gouvernement féodal […] dont elle tire son origine. » Quelques années plus tard, aux États-Unis, l’historien Samuel Williams rappellera que « [l]a représentation […] a été graduellement introduite en Europe par les monarques?; non pas avec l’intention de favoriser les droits du peuple mais comme le meilleur moyen de lever des impôts. »

Le peuple qui s’était révolté en 1789 contre le pouvoir en place se méfiait — à juste titre — de ceux qui disaient les représenter. En 1793, l’article 33 de la déclaration des Droits de l’homme affirmait que la résistance à l’oppression était la conséquence des Droits de l’homme. L’article 35 donnait donc au peuple la possibilité de s’insurger contre ses dirigeants : « Quand le gouvernement viole les droits du peuple, l’insurrection est, pour le peuple et pour chaque portion du peuple, le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs. »

Seulement, et malheureusement (mais heureusement pour Macron), dès 1795, les gouvernants, soucieux de rétablir l’ordre et de conserver leur pouvoir, vont réécrire une nouvelle « constitution ». Les hommes n’y naissent plus « libres et égaux en droit » et le droit de renverser les dirigeants par l’insurrection est supprimé.

En 1810, le Code pénal napoléonien va préciser que toute attaque, toute résistance avec violences envers la force publique sera qualifiée de délit de rébellion. Les mots changent : l’insurrection devient rébellion. Si la rébellion a été commise par plus de vingt personnes, les coupables seront punis, même s’il n’y a pas eu port d’armes, de la réclusion criminelle pour cinq à dix ans[1]. Napoléon pourra enfermer tranquillement ceux qui menacent son autorité en créant un système policier à son service.

Depuis 1992 (article 412 du code pénal[2]) la loi française est plus répressive que le Code pénal napoléonien. Plus répressive que le Code pénal napoléonien. Tout un symbole. Républicain, cela va de soi. Napoléon, ce dictateur sanguinaire — son règne a coûté la vie à plusieurs millions d’individus?; les estimations varient d’un peu plus d’un million à cinq millions — auquel on doit l’Arc de Triomphe, érigé à la gloire de sa mégalomanie. Arc de Triomphe dont les élites (les gouvernants et leurs laquais des médias et des institutions culturelles) ont fait un « symbole de la République », et dont la dégradation a permis aux médias d’occulter les mutilations subies par nombre de Français lors des manifestations de ce samedi 1er décembre — des mains ont été arrachées, au moins un œil crevé, une femme de 80 ans est morte à Marseille, un Toulousain est toujours dans le coma après avoir été touché au visage par un tir de flashball, et beaucoup se sont fait tabasser. C’est-à-dire qu’en réalité, « la République » dont parlent les élites, c’est l’Empire, c’est un régime aristocratique, c’est l’État. D’ailleurs, un autre de ses principaux « symboles », le drapeau tricolore (bleu, blanc, rouge), nous vient directement de la royauté[3].

« Les armoiries du Royaume de France utilisées jusqu’à la Révolution. Le blason de Navarre y figure depuis qu’Henri, roi de Navarre, était devenu roi de France sous le nom d’Henri IV. »

Et contrairement à ce que suggèrent les médias, le programme d’histoire de l’éducation d’État, les institutions culturelles dominantes et les élites gouvernementales, il est absurde et indécent de révérer les vestiges des régimes autoritaires du passé. Les rois, les reines, les empereurs, les impératrices et leurs lèche-bottes actuels — comme Stéphane Bern — sont autant d’ennemis du peuple. Nous faire respecter, estimer voire admirer ceux qui ont été de terribles oppresseurs ainsi que les symboles de leur pouvoir est une des choses les plus perverses que les dominants — les héritiers de ces oppresseurs — ont réussi à accomplir. Il est très significatif et particulièrement abject que nous ayons aujourd’hui des rues qui portent les noms de tyrans et de dictateurs, des statues à leur effigie, des musées qui les honorent, que l’on visite leurs palais, et ainsi de suite. Leur « République » désigne et incarne tout sauf le principe démocratique. Lorsque, samedi 2 décembre, en sortant du G20 à Buenos Aires, Emmanuel Macron affirme que « le peuple, on doit l’informer au mieux, on doit constamment être dans un travail d’éducation », il énonce clairement la nature antidémocratique du régime qu’il dirige (et de toutes les soi-disant démocraties représentatives), dans lequel une élite, avec lui à sa tête, est en charge de l’éducation du peuple.

C’est pourquoi les gilets jaunes, s’ils tiennent à vivre libres, à mener des existences décentes, et pas simplement à légèrement alléger leur calvaire, ne devraient surtout pas se contenter des maigres — et parfois étranges — revendications qui circulent, et encore moins des quelques concessions ridicules que le gouvernement propose ces derniers jours (moratoire sur la hausse des taxes, etc.), et devraient exiger rien de moins que la dissolution des structures de pouvoir antidémocratiques actuelles, au profit de l’instauration d’une véritable démocratie directe. Ils sont plus qu’en droit d’exiger la destitution de toutes les formes d’autorité illégitimes, et la redistribution égalitaire du pouvoir et des richesses?; et d’ailleurs, à moins d’une refonte totale de la société industrielle telle qu’elle existe aujourd’hui, la destruction de la planète est garantie, et donc celle des sociétés humaines. Cela requerrait, bien évidemment, une période de transition, et toutes sortes de processus qui pourraient et devraient être débattus par les gens eux-mêmes, assemblés dans les places publiques.

Mais revenons-en à la loi française actuelle. Elle qualifie de mouvement insurrectionnel toute violence collective de nature à mettre en péril les institutions de la République. Lesdites institutions ne seront jamais listées et seront à l’appréciation du juge. Le fait de diriger ou d’organiser un mouvement insurrectionnel est puni de la détention criminelle à perpétuité et de 750 000 euros d’amende.

Est puni de quinze ans de détention criminelle et de 225 000 euros d’amende le fait de participer à un mouvement insurrectionnel :

  1. En édifiant des barricades, des retranchements ou en faisant tous travaux ayant pour objet d’empêcher ou d’entraver l’action de la force publique?;
  2. En occupant à force ouverte ou par ruse ou en détruisant tout édifice ou installation?;
  3. En assurant le transport, la subsistance ou les communications des insurgés?;
  4. En provoquant à des rassemblements d’insurgés, par quelque moyen que ce soit?;
  5. En étant, soi-même, porteur d’une arme?;
  6. En se substituant à une autorité légale.

Est puni de vingt ans de détention criminelle et de 300 000 euros d’amende le fait de participer à un mouvement insurrectionnel :

  1. En s’emparant d’armes, de munitions, de substances explosives ou dangereuses ou de matériels de toute espèce soit à l’aide de violences ou de menaces, soit par le pillage, soit en désarmant la force publique?;
  2. En procurant aux insurgés des armes, des munitions ou des substances explosives ou dangereuses.

***

À l’évidence, malheureusement, nous sommes aujourd’hui bien loin de la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1793, dont l’histoire de France est pourtant si fière, mais qui n’a plus aucune valeur juridique. C’est-à-dire que ce que nos ancêtres qui se sont battus pour plus de justice considéraient comme « le plus sacré des droits et le plus indispensable des devoirs » est aujourd’hui sévèrement puni par la loi.

C’est pourquoi, aujourd’hui, bien que l’immense majorité des Français déteste Macron, aspire à une véritable démocratie et soutienne les gilets jaunes, notre cher monarque est intouchable. La loi l’autorise à réprimer — et même, potentiellement, dans le sang — n’importe quelle insurrection.

***

Paradoxalement — peut-être — tout cela ne constitue pas une raison de ne pas participer à une insurrection. Au contraire.

 


  1. http://ledroitcriminel.fr/la_legislation_criminelle/anciens_textes/code_penal_1994/partie_legislative_2.htm?
  2. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006418367&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid?
  3. https://www.lepoint.fr/culture/le-drapeau-tricolore-est-il-de-droite-ou-de-gauche-27–11–2015–1985174_3.php ?

 

[Nicolas Casaux est membre de l’organisation internationale Deep Green Resistance.]

WATCH: Biomass – an Ecological Facade | A Massive Threat to the World’s Forests

WKOG disclaimer: Keep in mind while watching this film that while Dogwood Alliance may publicly denounce Enviva’s biomass (the burning of trees) practices, Dogwood Alliance has partnered with Coca-Cola along with other corporations and NGOs to create the Carbon Canopy Group – a coalition “that seeks to leverage markets for ecosystem services” [Source] and “offset” pollution via carbon credits. More false solutions. In fact, one could easily argue that biomass stands to cut into future profits to be made by the expanding commodification and privatization of trees/nature by Dogwood Alliance, Coca-Cola, Staples et al. (You can read more about this is the upcoming segment of the ongoing Divestment series.)

 

 

YEMEN: UN Whitewashing Saudi Coalition War Crimes and International Human Rights Violations

The Wall Will Fall

April 4, 2016

by Vanessa Beeley

 

“If those who support aggressive war had seen a fraction of what I’ve seen, if they’d watched children fry to death from Napalm and bleed to death from a cluster bomb, they might not utter the claptrap they do.” ~ John Pilger

Professor Francis Boyle, distinguished Professor of Law in Illinois and long-time thorn in the side of the Imperial Establishment has publicly expressed his disgust at the UN complicity with the sanctions that engendered starvation on a catastrophic scale in Iraq in the early 1990s.  Over 500,000 children died from malnutrition:

During the summer of 1991 I was contacted on behalf of several Mothers in Iraq whose children were dying at astounding rates because of the genocidal economic sanctions that had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August of 1990 at the behest of the Bush Senior administration.”

Boyle went on to present his complaint accusing President Bush of committing international genocide against the 4.5 million children in Iraq, “in violation of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and in violation of the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world

“My Complaint estimated that since sanctions were first imposed against Iraq in August of 1990, Iraqi children were dying as a direct result thereof at the rate of about 500 per day.”

Boyle expressed his frustration at the UNSC [Security Council] failure to suspend the crippling sanctions against Iraq.

“Despite my best professional efforts working on behalf of my Clients pro bono publico, the grossly hypocritical United Nations Organization adamantly refused to act to terminate these genocidal sanctions and thus to save the dying children of Iraq.”

Professor Boyle’s full speech: Legal Protection of Children in Armed Conflict: The Iraqi Children Genocide

Shortly after Professor Boyle’s attempt to derail the genocide being carried out against an entire generation of Iraqis, endorsed by the UNSC, then US secretary of State, Madeleine Albright made her horrifying statement on CBS TV network.

May 12th 1996 TV presenter, Leslie Stahl posed this question:

“We have heard that a half a million children have died [in Iraq]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And-and, you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright’s reply is still shocking, 20 years after the first US NATO campaign of extermination in Iraq.

“I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”

Is the UN Repeating History in Yemen?

Bani Quis 2
Mona Relief 1/4/2016: Bani Quis, Hajjah, Northern Yemen on border with Saudi Arabia.  

Since the start of the illegal Saudi-led coalition war of aggression against Yemen that began on the 26th March 2015, the UN has appeared to work in lock-step with the lawless aggressor, Saudi Arabia and its allies to exacerbate the widespread suffering of the Yemeni people.

UNSC Resolution 2216 was adopted on the 14th April 2015.  It called specifically for the arms embargo to be imposed against 5 named individuals.

Arms Embargo: All Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to, or for the benefit of Ali Abdullah Saleh, Abdullah Yahya al Hakim & Abd al-Khaliq al-Huthi.”

Two other names were included in the Annex to this list, Abdulmalik al-Houthi and Ali Ahmed Saleh.

Basis for Resolution 2216

This resolution was entirely based upon the premise of the legitimacy of the fugitive, former President of Yemen, Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

Reaffirming its support for the legitimacy of the President of Yemen, Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi, and reiterating its call to all parties and Member States to refrain from taking any actions that undermine the unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Yemen, and the legitimacy of the President of Yemen” ~ Resolution 2216

On the same day that the UNSC signed off on a resolution of staggering partiality and bias towards one party in the conflict, namely ex President Hadi and his Saudi backers, a letter had been addressed to the UN by Ali AlAhmed, Director of the Gulf Institute. In this letter, AlAhmed clearly states that, legally,  Hadi is NOT the legitimate President of Yemen.

“To reiterate, at present Mr. Hadi is a former president of Yemen. The UNSC has no legal authority to appoint him as president of Yemen, or treat him in such capacity. Although his term ended February 25, 2014, Hadi remained in office until February 2015; one year after his term has expired, in violation of the UNSC-endorsed GCC Initiative. He also failed to call for general presidential elections per the agreement he signed.

Because the Saudi-led war on Yemen was built on the false premise that Hadi is the current legitimate president of Yemen, it must be emphasized that he is, in fact, not a legitimate leader of that country. Legally, Mr. Hadi is the former transitional president of Yemen whose term expired February 24, 2014.”

AlAhmed reminds the UNSC that Hadi had been elected in a one-horse-race election in February 2012 under the terms of the GCC Initiative [Gulf Cooperation Council]. That term of presidency had been set to expire after two years, when new elections would be held in Yemen.

One month prior to the agreed election date, in January 2014 the NDC [National Dialogue Conference] took the decision, to extend Hadi’s term under the pretext that the transition period was incomplete and that a draft constitution would not be ready for referendum until March 2015.

According to Abdulazeez Al-Baghdadi, a former legal advisor for the Ministry of Interior, the extension of Hadi’s term in office and the justification for this action was:

“A fraud that has no legal basis in constitutional terms….the NDC has no legal authority to extend Hadi’s term because NDC members do not represent the Yemeni people,” he said. “Hadi’s term expired when his two-year term stipulated in the GCC Initiative ended in February 2014.”

During the UNHRC [Human Rights Council], 31st Session in Geneva March 2016, Mohammed al Wazir, Yemeni-American Lawyer and Director of Arabian Rights Watch Association testified that:

“UN Security Council Resolution 2216 is about an arms embargo on 5 people, yet its being used as a cover to justify a blockade on 27 million Yemenis. According to the 2016 Humanitarian Needs Overview released in November 2015, 21.2 million people making up 82% of the population are now in need of some form of Humanitarian assistance.  Nearly 2.1 million people are currently estimated to be malnourished, including more than 1. 3 million children suffering from severe acute malnutrition.”

Bani Quis HajjahMona Relief: Bani Quis April 2016

According to Al Wazir’s statement to the UNHRC, Hadi had in fact resigned on the 22nd January 2015 and despite calls from various political factions, he refused to withdraw his resignation prior to the expiry of his questionable extended term as President of Yemen.

In a bizarre turn of events, perhaps after his Saudi controllers had put pressure on their marionette, Hadi fled Sanaa [Yemen’s capital] for the port city of Aden. Once safely ensconced in Saudi loyalist territory, Hadi plucked up the courage to renew his claim to the Presidency.

Hadi even attempted to relocate the Government to Aden but once he realised this was not a popular decision and with the Yemeni army closing in, Hadi fled to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. From there he requested that the Saudi Arabian government launch a war against his own people to reinstate him as President, a post he had resigned from, weeks previously.

So are we seeing the UN endorse and sustain an illegal war without a UN mandate, being waged against the Yemeni people by a known human rights violating, totalitarian, absolute monarchy, Saudi Arabia? And if so, on what basis? To protect an illegitimate, fugitive President who has called for the destruction of his own people?

Is the UN Defending Yemen’s Sovereignty, Independence & Territorial Integrity?

Resolution 2216 states:

“Reaffirming its strong commitment to the unity, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Yemen, and its commitment to stand by the people of Yemen”

Why then did the UN ignore the statement of their own Special Envoy, Jammal Benomar, made on the 28th April 2015?

“When this campaign started, one thing that was significant but went unnoticed is that the Yemenis were close to a deal that would institute power sharing with all sides, including the Houthis”

Why then did the UN not strongly oppose the Saudi war of aggression that has decimated the Yemeni people or demand that humanitarian aid be allowed entry to alleviate the universal suffering of the already impoverished nation.

Instead the UN flung the door wide open to the Saudi-led war of aggression against Yemen. A war devoid of any legal, moral or ethical justification. A war that would punish the Yemeni people for striving to form their own government without foreign meddling or Saudi corruption and neo-colonialist intent.

Why is the UN not defending the determination of the Yemeni people to create a new government that would guarantee equal citizenship and governmental proportional representation for previously marginalised minorities?

Is the UN Preventing the Deteriorating Humanitarian Situation in Yemen?

Resolution 2216:

“Expressing grave alarm at the significant and rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Yemen, and emphasizing that the humanitarian situation will continue to deteriorate in the absence of a political solution.

Recalling that arbitrary denial of humanitarian access and depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supply and access, may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.”

Having allowed the Saudi-led coalition to bomb all hopes of a political solution into smithereens, why is the alarm not being sounded against this oppressive, despotic regime that has the worst human rights record in the region?

Mohammed Al Wazir at the UNHRC:

“So, in summary, the Saudi-led coalition of absolute monarchies and military dictatorships conducted daily airstrikes and imposed a comprehensive land, air and sea blockade for the past year on 27 million Yemenis in order to re-install Hadi, a person whose mandate had expired in Yemen.  Is this what we call defending legitimacy? Collective punishment and terror, inflicted on the entire population in order to deter a group called the Houthis who are less than 1% of the population.  I can say with utmost confidence, there is a major issue with proportionality and a reckless disregard for the principles of distinction and military necessity not to mention international law.”

Taiz bombing driver
Mona Relief: September 2015 KSA bombing of Humanitarian
convoy on the Hodeida to Taiz road. 

The UN is, in reality, actively allowing the denial of human rights to the Yemeni people by the predatory aggressor, Saudi Arabia.  The UN is sanctioning the “depriving of civilians of objects indispensable to their survival”.  When the Saudi Coalition bombs humanitarian supply convoys does the UN not consider this to be “wilfully impeding relief supply and access”? 

Is the UN wittingly allowing these grave violations of humanitarian law or is it an unwilling victim, prey to far more powerful geopolitical players in the region?

What is the UN’s Mandate in Yemen?

“The UN was established to maintain state sovereignty, and both national and international unity.  Instead we appear to be witnessing a process of fracturing society along false sectarian fault lines and the disruption of internal reconciliation and political peace processes within nation states.”

The UN is allegedly seeking a peaceful political transition in Yemen according to the terms laid out in the GCC initiative and its implementation mechanism.

This objective becomes untenable when we consider that effectively, the GCC initiative has expired.  So who precisely is obstructing the peaceful political transition?  The Yemenis or those who launched an illegal war against them and who are destroying their ability to survive let alone decide their political future?

“That is if we take the GCC initiative as a legal document with full force and effect, which is not conceded by any means….but even by its own terms, it has expired.” ~ Mohammed al Wazir

The illegitimate, fugitive President, Mansour Hadi fled Yemen and incited a war against his own people from Riyadh. A war that has massacred over 8000 people and injured tens of thousands more.  A war that has left Yemen without resources, infrastructure, electricity, communication, food and water.

In a logical, rational world all those who supported Hadi’s endeavour should be found by the UN “Sanctions Committee” and Panel of Experts to be “obstructing the peaceful political transition in Yemen” and be considered the main instigators of instability and insecurity in Yemen.

Conclusions

It is almost impossible not to conclude that multiple parties are colluding to starve Yemen into submission to Saudi objectives. Objectives that are aligned with those of the US, NATO and Israel.

“The UN embargo/blockade against Yemen and the Yemenis violates Genocide Convention article II (e):  Deliberately inflicting on the group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” ~ Prof. Francis A Boyle

The Arms Trade

The UK has sold over £ 2.8bn in arms to Saudi Arabia since this illegal war began.  The US, a staggering $33bn.  Lockheed Martin, a major player in the Military Industrial Complex announced in January 2016 that they would be opening an “expanded repair capability centre” in Saudi Arabia, the first support centre for their Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod technology outside the US.  To ensure “fleet readiness”.  France has just signed off on a mind-blowing $ 7.5 billion arms contract with Qatar [member of the Saudi coalition].

The Oil Trade

oil map

Saudi Arabia’s annual $10 trillion oil revenue is a major factor. Yemen is essential for the survival of the Gulf States in this market, and by default, pivotal to US and NATO resource needs. If Saudi Arabia lost control of Yemen, the effects would be catastrophic for the Gulf states.

Saudi Arabia is the only Gulf state with the geographic potential of an east-west pipeline which would give access to the west and the Red Sea, if ever a conflict should arise with their arch enemy Iran who controls the eastern Straits of Hormuz, the primary crude oil shipping channel. However that east-west pipeline was converted in 2001 to gas and it would take some time to restore it to suitability for oil. Saudi Arabia has recently replaced Iraq as India’s number one crude oil supplier.

It is no accident that Saudi proxy forces, AQAP [Al Qaeda Arab Peninsula] and ISIS have seized swathes of land in the southern province of Hadramaut and the port of Aden.  According to a 2008 Wikileaks cable, Saudi Arabia’s intent is to lay a pipeline from the oil and gas rich areas of Al Jawf and Marib in Yemen to the southern coastline, enabling them to avoid both the Straits of Hormuz and the Yemen controlled, Bab el Mandeb straits.

“A British diplomat based in Yemen told PolOff that Saudi Arabia had an interest to build a pipeline, wholly owned, operated and protected by Saudi Arabia, through Hadramawt to a port on the Gulf of Aden, thereby bypassing the Arabian Gulf/Persian Gulf and the straits of Hormuz.” ~ Wikileaks

This would liberate Saudi Arabia from the clutches of Iranian logistical control and challenge Iran’s regional hegemony head on. With Japan, India, China and S Korea representing the expanding crude oil markets, the geopolitical and economic significance of Yemen to the Gulf States becomes transparent.

The Human Trade

Finally and perhaps most disturbingly, lets review the actions of known US outreach agent and neo-colonialist battering ram, USAID. In July 2015, USAID announced that it would turn the aid tap off to Yemen.

“Given the current situation in Yemen, USAID is placing most development programs on a full suspension,” spokesman Sam Ostrander told Al-Monitor. “The suspension will allow us to keep programs in place so that we can restart development activities quickly when the situation becomes more permissive.”

Criticism abounded against this decision accusing the US of facilitating Saudi human rights violations in Yemen. However, nothing should surprise us when we learn that almost simultaneously Saudi Arabia established its first, official, international Human Rights NGO..there are so many oxymorons in that one sentence.

“A UN source said he expected it to operate as the Gulf State’s equivalent of USAID – the state aid agency of the United States”

With barely a fanfare, the King Salman Centre was launched to fill the crater left in Yemen,  by the departure of USAID and by the US UK and NATO supplied weapons of mass destruction. The chutzpah of this move is only challenged by the flattening of Gaza by Israel who is then tasked and paid to rebuild it.

During my recent visit to the UNHRC, to testify against the Saudi coalition’s illegal use of US supplied cluster munitions on civilian targets in Yemen, I had the misfortune to attend a Saudi presentation of their Humanitarian flagship. There were numerous UN organisations in attendance.  At the end of the Saudi unveiling, oozing with hypocrisy and inflated claims of universal humanitarianism, the representative of UNICEF raised their hand.  I paraphrase their comment.

We would like to thank Saudi Arabia for their continued efforts to provide humanitarian assistance on a global basis and look forward to many years of continued and increased collaboration” 

So, having appointed Saudi Arabia to chair of a key human rights panel inside the UNHRC, the UN is now fully endorsing an absolute monarchy’s attempt to further whitewash their crimes against Humanity.  One look at King Salman Centre’s partners, denies UN impartiality when dealing with Saudi atrocities against the Yemeni people. Does it implicate the UN in these crimes?  Combined with the unjustified and illegitimate bias of UN Resolution 2216,  it must certainly raise questions that need answering.  The Yemeni people deserve an answer.

partners

Has the UN been bought and paid for by a Monarch? Is this the ultimate spin cycle to rinse the blood of innocent Yemeni men, women and children from the hands of the Saudi monarchy and its allies, including the UN, US, NATO & Israel.

The UN is disproportionately influenced by the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, with particular reference to the helmsman, the US and it includes 3 permanent members who are backing the Saudi-led coalition.  France, the UK and the US.  Maintaining impartiality is virtually impossible under these circumstances and too much is geopolitically at stake if Saudi Arabia loses its grip on Yemen.

“Impartiality does not – and must not – mean neutrality in the face of evil. In the face of genocide, there can be no standing aside, no looking away, no neutrality – there are perpetrators and there are victims, there is evil and there is evil’s harvest.” ~ Kofi Annan,  Rwanda 1998 after UN peacekeeping forces deserted, handing 1 million civilians over to mass murderers. 

It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that Iraq does not happen again.  Yemen does not deserve this level of collective punishment from one of the world’s most oppressive, soulless and malevolent regimes and the UN must answer for its failure to protect Yemen against the Saudi coalition murderous ravages.

Bani Quis 7 Bani Quis 6 Bani Quis 3 Bani Quis 5

***

 

 

[Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and since 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog The Wall Will Fall.]

Blood Money

Fourth World Eye

January 15, 2016

by Jay Taber

president-Francois-Hollande-tours-africa-1140x641
2013: Francois Hollande with the Senegalese President Macky Sall

The French Treasury is receiving 500 billion dollars per year from African countries based on colonial debt they are forced to pay. Without this support extorted from Africa, France would be a Third World country. Watch The Utilization of Western NGOs for the Theft of Africa’s Vast Resources.

 

 

[Jay Taber is an associate scholar of the Center for World Indigenous Studies, a correspondent to Forum for Global Exchange, and a contributing editor of Fourth World Journal. Since 1994, he has served as communications director at Public Good Project, a volunteer network of researchers, analysts and activists engaged in defending democracy. As a consultant, he has assisted indigenous peoples in the European Court of Human Rights and at the United Nations. Email: tbarj [at] yahoo.com Website: www.jaytaber.com ]

 

Avaaz’s Hands of Darkness

The Wall Will Fall

November 15, 2015

 

RacistAvaazAd

Above: The Avaaz “Good Versus Evil” campaign for the 2012 Rio Summit. A downloadable poster as found on the Avaaz Press Centre published in the Financial Times. Vilification: Note the dark cast/ugly sky behind the leaders Avaaz would wish you to believe are “evil,” versus the light and sun shining through over the Imperialist, obstructionist “leaders” that Avaaz is attempting to convince you are “good.”

Comment on latest Avaaz petition from colleague David Macilwain in Australia:

“A note from avaaz – ‘let’s stand with victims of terrorism everywhere’… France and Lebanon being ‘everywhere’. And as they don’t specifically mention Syria, we can presume that it’s not at the top of the list of ‘victims of terrorism’ – or that if it was it would be to claim that the Syrian people are victims of ‘Assad’s terrorism’.

And of course they don’t mention Russia either, even though it was so recently a victim of terrorism of a similar sort, and in terms of numbers of dead, a greater victim. ( though I doubt that that is really the scale we should use to weigh up whether some atrocity is worse than another.)

1-Avaaz-Scam-Alert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s Avaaz suggestion for a response, of sorts, given that it is asking for a response of some sort, albeit a truly non-violent one and one we should all support:-

“There are too many of us who know what it means to have terrorism touch our lives, our loved ones, our sense of connection with the people around us. Today, France and Lebanon are in the midst of that fog of tragedy.

 

This was more than a monstrous act of hatred. These attacks were designed to shake the very foundations of all our societies. They are an assault on our shared humanity, and our tolerance, liberty and respect — the values that underpin the world our movement was built to create.

 

It is at this time of darkness that our community’s weave of love can be most powerful. Let’s join hands today to embrace our brothers and sisters in France, Lebanon and across the world that are mourning, and show that our movement stands tall against this hate and commits to continue raising our voice for everything we love.”

But we all know about Avaaz, and the role it has played in propaganda support for the Syrian opposition. And without such propaganda, from other prime sources also of course, the way the Syrian war has progressed would surely have been different. Without the early and persistent calls for ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the early days, which were in fact calls for military intervention in the form of arms shipments as well as ‘aid’, such a weight of global opinion on the side of the ‘moderate’ terrorists in Syria would not have developed, and to this point where rather than choose peace and reconciliation the French state is pushing even harder for military intervention.

obomberandtom

Above: U.S. President Barack Obama with Avaaz co-founder and former U.S. Representative Tom Perriello

As for the other language about ‘attacks designed to shake the very foundations of ALL our societies’ – how do they know these attacks were ‘designed’, and based on ‘hatred’ (for our freedoms?) We don’t even know who was responsible – notionally – as on previous occasions claims of responsibility from IS have been treated cautiously. The idea that IS did this as a response to French bombing in Syria is ridiculous because the French haven’t really been bombing IS, and given the French connections with the MB and the Opposition, and Turkey’s links with IS we wouldn’t really expect them to have been. At the same time France has actually been supporting the other terrorist groups with arms, and recently, so if the motive for the attacks was to push France to intervene to help them, that’s hardly plausible either.

It’s hard not to conclude that these attacks were ‘designed’ , only not in the way that Avaaz was meaning. But we also must accept that the overbearing reaction to this atrocity – by comparison to the last four years of similar atrocities in Syria – reflects a genuine sentiment in Western public opinion and will allow an equally disproportionate ‘response’. It will also be one which we can barely speak out against, along the lines of ‘je ne suis pas Charlie’, without universal condemnation.

more and darker days ahead.”

SYRIA: AVAAZ, PURPOSE & THE ART OF SELLING HATE FOR EMPIRE

 

Further reading:

The Behavioral Economics of Hatred: The Behavioral Economics of Hatred

The Grotesque and Disturbing Ideology at the Helm of Avaaz: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/03/07/the-grotesque-and-disturbing-ideology-at-the-helm-of-avaaz/

Rio Summit “Good Versus Evil” Advert Displays Blatant Racism and Imperialism at Core of Avaaz: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2012/06/22/rio-summit-good-versus-evil-advert-displays-blatant-racism-and-u-s-imperialism-at-core-of-avaaz/

 

FRANCE’S “LEFT” SILENCES ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST JEAN BRICMONT

The War on Freedom of Speech

by Alexandra Valiente

September 25, 2012

Libya 360


Belgian theoretical physicist Jean Bricmont

Gearóid Ó Colmáin

Every year the French communist Party ( PCF) organizes the Fête de l’Humanité in Paris, a left-wing festival where concerts are held and communist parties from all over the world erect stands to exchange books, pamphlets and ideas. Many authors, journalists and intellectuals are invited every year to participate in debates on philosophy, culture, politics and current affairs.

But this year will probably be remembered for the important debates the attendees of the festival were not allowed to have. Two authors, Belgian theoretical physicist Jean Bricmont and French author Caroline Fourest, were forced to cancel their talks due to intimidation and threats from organisations calling themselves “Antifa” and “Indigènes de la République,” respectively.

Caroline Fourest is a pro-Israeli reactionary who masquerades as a “left-wing” feminist. Her invitation to the festival to discuss the rise of Islamic extremism and the French far right upset many on the Left.

Reactionary and Islamophobic Fourest most certainly is, but preventing her from speaking not only gives credence to her erroneous theories but violates her constitutional right to freedom of speech.

When Fourest was about to speak the dangers of Islamic extremism and the rise of the Front National, France’s far Right party, a group calling themselves “les Indigènes de la République” entered the tent where Fourest was speaking and began to throw objects on the stage. Some protestors even attempted to assault her.

Soon the tent was occupied by the protestors who shouted slogans against racism and Islamophobia. The protestors proceeded to occupy the stage whereupon the audience shouted back “liberté d’expression!” (freedom of expression). The confrontation between the conference attendees and protestors continued for about 20 minutes with each side calling the other “fascist.”

The Indigènes de la République protestors won out, however, when the debate was canceled and Caroline Fourest was escorted by bodyguards to a nearby vehicle.

The following day Belgian physicist, author, and intellectual Jean Bricmont was due to give a far more important talk on the crisis in Syria and the specious discourse of “humanitarian intervention” propagated by the mainstream media to justify wars of aggression.

For many years, Bricmont has been a critic of the politics of military interventions undertaken under the pretext of protecting “human rights.” Bricmont’s heresy on this issue and his anti-Zionism has made him a pariah in the fashionable salons of France’s “respectable” intelligentsia.

The Belgian physicist’s unequivocal anti-imperialist stance has also made him the target of a vile defamation campaign on the internet and in the mainstream French media where he has been called a “rouge-brun,” a brown-shirt red, a “confusioniste” etc.

Furthermore, the more extremist fringes of the internet’s thought-police have singled out Bricmont for special attention. A few days prior to the fête de l’Humanité, an “anti-fascist” anarchist organization called Antifa launched a campaign on Indymedia against Bricmont’s attendance at the festival, where they threatened to assault him if he spoke about humanitarian intervention. In the insane world of Antifa activism, Bricmont’s opposition to NATO-fomented terrorism in Libya and Syria makes him a “fascist.”

Antifa is just one of the international anarchist groups currently being used by the intelligence agencies of imperialist states to sow confusion and chaos among the ranks of disaffected youth, inciting them to mindless, violent acts that serve the agenda of an ever-encroaching police state. This organization, in particular, targets intellectuals who denounce Zionism as well as alternative media outlets which expose the mechanisms and institutions that promote US imperialism throughout the world. It does all this under the guise of “anti-fascism”.

Due to the simple-mindedness of their beliefs and stupidity of their actions, Antifa tend to attract naïve and angry youths who turn up at demonstrations in black hoodies in order to provoke police crackdowns and sabotage any meaningful resistance to the current political order. In other words, Antifa are a group of useful idiots, whose real agenda is to promote fascism under the guise of “anti-fascism.”

Bricmont was informed of their campaign and asked the management of the festival to provide him with appropriate security. The festival managers assured the Belgian scientist that he would have protection. However, one hour before Bricmont was about to speak, he received notification that the talk was cancelled. The violent threats of the Antifa agents provocateurs provided Pierre Laurent, general secretary of the PCF with the perfect pretext to cancel Bricmont’s heretical lecture. Allowing Bricmont to speak would have shown up the PCF for the right-wing, imperialist sham that they are in the eyes of their ever dwindling supporters.

The festival management had decided they could not provide security for the Belgian physicist in the event of an attack by the “Antifa” protestors. However, the pro-war, pro-Israeli pundit Caroline Fourest was provided with full protection by the festival management, in spite of similar threats having been made against her.

This was hardly surprising, considering that the l’Humanité newspaper was the organizer of the festival. L’Humanité has given full support to NATO’s destabilization of Syria since violence broke out there last year, publishing the same war propaganda as its “right-wing” competitors.

According to the PCF’s international affairs spokesman Jacques Fath, the only solution for peace is Syria is the fall of Assad. Fath, of course, made no mention of NATO’s death squads, who have been killing both innocent civilians and security forces since March 2011, facts that have even been verified by many independent journalists and admitted by the Arab league’s observer mission.

Neither of Syria’s communist parties was invited to the festival. Both the Communist Party of Syria (Bakdash) and the Communist Party of Syria (Faisal Aka Unified) won 11 seats in the parliamentary elections that followed the implementation of Syria’s new democratic constitution in May this year.

Both parties have consistently denounced NATO and Gulf-state fomented terrorism against their country since the outbreak of violence in Daraa in 2011. Neither party was allowed to erect a stand at the French communist festival. Instead representatives of the pro-war Syrian opposition were represented.

Those who believe that Jean Luc Melanchon’s Front de Gauche (the French “far Left” party which won 11 percent of the vote in last year’s parliamentary elections) represents some form of alternative to the status quo, would do well to remember that Melanchon and the Front de Gauche SUPPORTED NATO’s intervention in Libya last year. This is an organization which claims to oppose NATO. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The supporters of Melanchon — a demagogue who likes to prop up his left-wing credentials by pretending to support president Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and other centre-left governments in Latin America- do not seem to realize that the ALBA countries all supported Libya’s colonel Gaddafi last year and now openly declare their support for President Bachar al-Assad in his struggle against NATO, and Gulf-state funded terrorism.

While President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela sought to mediate in the Libyan crisis in 2011 in order to prevent military aggression against the country, a mediation welcomed by the Libyan government — and which could have prevented war — they received absolutely no help from Jean Luc Melanchon, who now vaunts himself as an anti-imperialist. Melanchon is a dastardly liar and a political fraud of the highest order.

One would not have to be a physicist like Jean Bricmont to see and understand the horrible reality of NATO’s proxy war in Syria, but what an inconvenient interruption it would have been if the would-be communists of this year’s festival were to be confronted with the naked, mephitic truth about NATO’s humanitarian wars, and the left-wing dupes who support them. Bricmont had to be silenced.

France’s extrême gauche are nothing more than a contemptible, motley crew of cowards, liars, and fools, whose inflated egos and vacuous slogans adequately reflect the all-pervasive cynicism of the corrupted petty-bourgeois class they represent.

But there is another reason for Bricmont’s ostracism from respectable French society; he is a scientist who is capable of applying critical thought to everyday issues that affect the common citizen. In other words, unlike his elitist and conformist colleagues in academia, for whom, peer–reviewed papers, tenure, and social respectability count more than scientific truth; Bricmont represents the type of scientist capable of applying his microscope to the laws that govern civil society — laws whose flagrant violation by Western governments the neo-scholastic monks of postmodern academia conveniently ignore.

In the days following the festival Caroline Fourest’s expulsion was widely bruited in the French mainstream media, who vociferously denounced the violation of her “freedom of expression.”

Fourest is one of the most prominent propagandists for the New World Order, and such is her ubiquity across the French media complex, that she has become a household name. The war-mongering Fourest has been presented as a martyr of human rights, feminism and free speech, thanks to the useful idiots of Antifa. Needless to say, the war-mongering harpies of France’s mainstream media made no mention of the violation of Jean Bricmont’s freedom of speech.

If Fourest, Antifa, the PCF, Front de Gauche, and the entire pseudo-leftist French establishment had their way, Bricmont and his ilk would never again be allowed to speak in a public platform. For what he has to say would expose them for the fakers, imperialist collaborators, and the loud-mouthed nincompoops that they are.

Those activists who admire and those who detest Caroline Fourest can scream “fascist” to one another to their heart’s content in their zany, infantile theatre of the absurd. But it is they who are opening the path for a seizure of power by the extreme Right in this country, as the real fascists in Marine Le Pen’s Front National will easily capitalize on their buffoonery. For, who can blame a simple working class voter for being seduced by the mendacious arguments of Marine Le Pen when there are none but prattling fools to oppose her?

This is not the first time genuine anti-war activists were prevented from speaking in France. Michel Collon, a Belgian journalist, author and editor of a news and analysis website InvestigAction was prevented from speaking at the Bourse du Travail in Paris on November 9, 2011 by the Antifa agents provocateurs. These groups serve the imperialist state by preventing the public from engaging in serious debate about France’s foreign wars.

Other political organizations which have been attacked by the “Antifa” agents provocateurs are the URCF, l’Union de Révolutionaires -Communistes de France and the PRCF, Pôle de renaissance communiste en France.

These organizations have some former heroes of the French Resistance among their members, real fighters against fascism. The president of the PRCF is Léon Landini, a combatant in the French resistance during the Second World War, who was responsible for the killing of over 40 Nazi soldiers, the destruction of 300 Nazi vehicles and dozens of attacks against Nazi railway carriages. The URCF and PRCF are now the main political organizations in France militating for the construction of a real communist party.

Unlike the fakers in the Front de Gauche, PCF, NPA and other organizations, the URCF and PRCF have given their full support to the Syrian communist parties of Syria in their fight against fascist aggression by NATO and the Petro-monarchies of the Gulf states and have unequivocally denounced the lies and disinformation against Syria of the reactionary French press.

It is one of the most egregious propaganda achievements in recent history that those who expose the lies that trick the public into perceiving wars of aggression as humanitarian operations are denounced as “fascists”, while those who bang the drums of war are considered to be “left-wing” and “progressive”. This is the general pattern set by the French media complex and genuine anti-imperialist intellectuals have paid the price by being subjected to a veritable witch hunt for their theoretical heresies.

The censorship of Jean Bricmont by the left liberal establishment is deeply indicative of the perilous direction French society is currently taking. It is the road to a new form of totalitarianism, where critical thought is murdered by platitudes,empty, effete slogans, and the meaningless newspeak of the ruling group mind.

The unconscionable, dishonest and dastardly behavior of the petty bourgeois leftists, if unchecked, will inevitably lead to a grim dénouement in this tragic-comic farce that is contemporary France.