By Killing Qaddafi, NATO Killed An African Dream

Under the fallacious pretext of “saving threatened civilians”, France, Great Britain and the United States unleashed on March 19 in Libya an international police operation which is a new war of aggression.

The text of the UN Security Council resolution imposing a “No-Fly Zone” has only served to provide a guarantee for another war against an independent and sovereign state. The inclusion in this resolution of the phrase “by all means” left the aggressors with a free hand. Held a few hours before the attack, the Parisian summit of mini Bush (Sarközy) brought together only figures from the Atlanticist West and delegates from the Arab petromonarchies. There was no participation of any representative of real Africa (with the exception of an envoy of the King of Morocco).

The operation had been planned for a long time. The military expedition of NATO countries was not a humanitarian intervention to save a population in danger, as it was falsely presented to us, but a premeditated crime. As in the Iraqi, Yugoslav and Afghan cases, the pretext had nothing to do with the real objective.

The real objective was and remained the overthrow of the Libyan state leadership because of its intention to establish an African central bank with its own gold-backed currency. This institution would have challenged the power of the dollar and finally allowed Africa to escape its colonial shackles.

It was through the 2016 publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails that the reason for NATO’s entry into Libya was revealed. It was to prevent the creation of an independent strong currency in Africa that would free the continent from its economic slavery under the dollar, the IMF and the French African franc. This strong currency would have allowed Africa to throw off the last heavy chains of colonial exploitation.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s brief visit to Libya in October 2011 was described by the media as a “victory lap.”

We came, we saw, he died!” she crowed in a CBS video interview upon learning of the capture and brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi.

But the victory lap, wrote Scott Shane and Jo Becker in the New York Times , was premature. Libya was relegated to the back burner by the State Department, “as the country melted into chaos, leading to a civil war that would destabilize the region, fuel the refugee crisis in Europe and allow the Islamic State to establish a Libyan safe haven that the U.S. States is now desperately trying to contain.”

The U.S. and NATO intervention was reportedly undertaken for humanitarian reasons, after reports of mass atrocities under Qaddafi; but human rights organizations questioned these claims after finding insufficient evidence . In the years since, however, verifiable atrocities have occurred.

As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as “thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review” and “kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant.”

Before 2011, Libya had achieved economic independence, with its own water, food, oil, money and public bank. It had risen under Qaddafi from one of the poorest to the richest countries in Africa.

Education and medical care were free; having a home was considered a human right; and Libyans participated in an original system of local democracy. The country had the world’s largest irrigation system, the Great Man-Made River project, which brought water from the desert to cities and coastal areas, and Gaddafi was embarking on a program to expand this model throughout Africa.

But that was before U.S. and NATO forces bombed the irrigation system and wreaked havoc in the country. During President Obama’s tenure, the situation on the ground in Libya was so bad that he asked his advisers to develop options that included a new military front in Libya. The Department of Defense was apparently standing by with “the full range of military operations required.”

The Secretary of State’s victory lap was indeed premature, if we consider the officially stated objective of the humanitarian intervention. But Clinton’s emails revealed another agenda behind the Libyan war; this one, it seems, was achieved.

Mission accomplished?

Of the 3,000 emails released from Hillary Clinton’s private email server in late December 2015, about a third came from her close confidant Sidney Blumenthal. One of those emails, dated April 2, 2011, said in part:

“Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver … This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan gold dinar. This plan was designed to offer French-speaking African countries an alternative to the French franc (CFA).”

In a “source comment,” the original declassified email added:

“According to knowledgeable individuals, this amount of gold and silver is valued at over $7 billion. According to these people, Sarkozy’s plans are motivated by the following issues:

1. A desire to gain a larger share of Libyan oil production,

2. Increasing French influence in North Africa,

3. To improve its domestic political situation in France,

4. To offer the French military the opportunity to reaffirm its position in the world,

5. Respond to the concern of his advisors about Qaddafi’s long-term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in French-speaking Africa.

Remarkably absent is any mention of humanitarian concerns. The goals are money, power and oil.

Other explosive confirmations were detailed by investigative journalist Robert Parry. They included admissions of rebel war crimes, special operations trainers inside Libya since almost the beginning of the protests and al-Qaeda embedded in the US-backed opposition.

Overthrowing the global financial system

Qaddafi’s attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the world’s financial security. How can this small country of six million people pose such a threat?

First, some background: banks, not governments, create most of the money in Western economies. This has been going on for centuries, through a process called “fractional reserve lending. Originally, the reserves were in gold. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt replaced gold at the national level with reserves created by the central bank, but gold remained the reserve currency at the international level.

In 1944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were established in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to unify this bank-created monetary system on a global scale. An IMF decision declared that no paper money could be backed by gold.

In effect, this meant that the money supply was now privately created as interest-bearing debt. This system required a continuous supply of debtors; and over the next half century, most developing countries found themselves indebted to the IMF. The loans came with conditions, including “structural adjustment” policies involving austerity measures and privatization of public assets.

After 1944, the U.S. dollar traded interchangeably with gold as the world’s reserve currency. When the U.S. was no longer able to support the dollar in gold in the 1970s, it made an agreement with OPEC to “back” the dollar with oil, creating the “petro-dollar. Oil would be sold only in U.S. dollars, which would be deposited on Wall Street and in other international banks.

In 2001, unhappy with the declining value of the dollars OPEC received for its oil, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein broke the pact and sold oil in euros. A regime change quickly followed, accompanied by widespread destruction of the country.

The violent intervention was not primarily about personal security. It was about money and oil and the security of the world’s banks.

In Libya, Qaddafi also broke the pact; but he did more than simply sell his oil in another currency. As these developments were detailed by Denise Rhyne:

“For decades, Libya and other African countries have been trying to create a pan-African gold standard…a pan-African “hard currency.”

“Libya’s Qaddafi conceived and funded a plan to unify the sovereign states of Africa with a single gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a Pan-African Parliament (53 nations) drew up plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023”.

What was possible for Africa

Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His largest infrastructure project, the Great Man-Made River, transformed arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was financed interest-free and without external debt, through Libya’s own state-owned bank.

This may explain why this critical infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline, but finished the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes needed to repair it.

Paralyzing a civilian irrigation system serving up to 70% of the population hardly looks like a humanitarian intervention. On the contrary, as Canadian professor Maximilian Forte said in his well-documented book Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa,

“The goal of the U.S. military intervention was to disrupt an emerging model of independence and a network of collaboration in Africa that would facilitate greater African autonomy. This is at odds with the geostrategic economic and political ambitions of the extra-continental European powers, namely the United States.”

Mystery solved

Hilary Clinton’s emails have brought to light another enigma pointed out by earlier commentators. Why, a few weeks after the fighting began, did the rebels create their own central bank? At the time, Robert Wenzel wrote in The Economic Policy Journal in 2011:

“This suggests that we have a little more than a motley crew of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. I’ve never heard of a central bank being created in just a few weeks as a result of a popular uprising.”

The case would have remained there – suspicious but unverified, like so many stories of fraud and corruption – but for the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails after an FBI investigation. They add substantial weight to Newman’s suspicions: a violent intervention was not primarily about the safety of the people.

It was about money and oil and the security of global banks.

Source


Muammar Gaddafi, the African Who Cleansed the Continent from the Humiliation of Apartheid

Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya Was Africa’s Most Prosperous Democracy