Almost all the articles this writer submitted to this publication, Mayihlome News, have also been…
In the very recent past, the western imperialists got hold of Sudan by dismembering it (taking away the oil deposits from the major part of the country), captured the Nigerian oilfields in accordance with the International Court of Justice rulings, annexed Libya through a direct military intervention, conquered Cote D’Ivoire… thanks to a small-scale military action conducted under the aegis of the United Nations. They go about recolonizing Africa through different modus operandi but the desired end is the same. Developments in the past 3 to 5 years indicate that the Agenda of recolonizing Africa is gaining momentum.
William Mpofu’s misleading article which appeared in the Sowetan newspaper of 22 September titled “the scourge of African tyrants” should not and must not be allowed to go unchallenged because it is a compendium of misinformation and factual errors. It is also misleading and contains historical inaccuracies. Mpofu wrote that, “From Kwame Nkrumah to Robert Mugabe, African dictators have invoked the spirit of African unity and black solidarity against the vampiric Western imperialism with the right hand while with the left subjecting their people to cruel bondage and violence”.
Those who have read Walter Rodney’s “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa” will understand that cruel bondage and violence in West Africa were introduced by leaders of Western countries during the Atlantic slave trade. At the time Mpofu’s article was published, the US and some Western countries under the auspices of NATO were on their sixth month of bombing Libya for the sake of accessing that country’s resources so that China should be dependent on the US for oil. Mpofu continued, “another truism of the underdevelopment and impoverishment of Africa is that African despots have looted natural resources, plundered economies for personal enrichment and deployed violence of the worst magnitude to crush opponents”.
From its inception on 06th April 1959, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) in South Africa, whose first President was Mangaliso Robert Sobukwe, agreed with Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah that “The longer we wait the stronger will be the hold on Africa by neo-colonialism and imperialism.” That “If Africa was united, no major bloc would attempt to subdue her by limited war because, from the very nature of limited war, what can be achieved by it, is itself limited. It is only where small states exist that it is possible, by landing a few thousand marines or by financing a mercenary force that they can secure a decisive result.”
Nkrumah emphasised this important point for Africans when addressing the African Heads of State and Government on 24th May 1963. He declared, “No sporadic act nor pious resolutions, can resolve our present problems…As a continent we have emerged into independence in a difficult age, with imperialism grown stronger, more ruthless and experienced, and more dangerous in its international associations. Our economic advancement demands the end of colonialist and neo-colonialist domination of Africa.”
Muammar Gaddafi was buried at a secret location because Libyan interim rulers say they are preventing people from going to pray at his grave. This sounds bizarre. How can people go and pray at the grave of an unpopular person? We were informed by the western media that he was unpopular.
Gaddafi was buried following an autopsy (post mortem) confirmed that he was killed by a bullet to the temple (Patrice Lumumba was shot the same way in January 1961 by Frank Carlucci). Libya’s chief pathologist, Dr Othman al-Zintani made the autopsy confirmation, but refused to elaborate on Gaddafi’s final moments, saying he would first deliver a full report to the attorney general.
Libyan rebels posted a YouTube video of a young fighter claiming that he had shot Gaddafi in the head and chest. That young fighter is Sanad al-Sadek al-Urebi. Libyan authorities have said that they would not prosecute him if evidence emerged that he was the killer. Instead he would be treated as a national hero. International law must apply equally without duplicity, selective morality and double standards. NATO and NTC rebels have committed war crimes in Libya.
The Washington-led decision by NATO to bomb Gaddafi’s Libya into submission over recent months, at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of at least $1 billion, has little if anything to do with what the Obama Administration claims was a mission to “protect innocent civilians.” In reality it is part of a larger strategic assault by NATO and by the Pentagon in particular to entirely control China’s economic Achilles heel, namely China’s strategic dependence on large volumes of imported crude oil and gas. Today China is the world’s second largest imported of oil after the United States and the gap is rapidly closing.
If we take a careful look at a map of Africa and also look at the African organization of the new Pentagon Africa Command—AFRICOM—the pattern that emerges is a careful strategy of controlling one of China’s most strategically important oil and raw materials sources.
NATO’s Libya campaign was and is all about oil. But not about simply controlling Libyan high-grade crude because the USA is nervous about reliable foreign supplies. It rather is about controlling China’s free access to long-term oil imports from Africa and from the Middle East. In other words, it is about controlling China itself.
On the same day, September 30, that two U.S. Muslim citizens were assassinated in Yemen by the Pentagon-Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) drones, it was announced that 21 Somalians were also killed in similar military actions that resulted in one of these unmanned weapons being downed over Kismayo in this Horn of Africa nation. The drone attacks in southern Somalia resulted in many people being forced to flee the Qooqani and Taabto districts.
Somalia is among at least six countries where the U.S. has carried out drone attacks that have resulted in the deaths of many civilians. These aerial strikes also take place on a regular basis in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen (Press TV, September 30).
Although the White House and the Pentagon claims that the strikes target those individuals and organizations labeled as “terrorists” by the State Department, in most instances the people most adversely affected by the attacks are people who are not armed and constitute no direct threat to the U.S. government and its allies.
On October 4, the Al-Shabaab Islamic resistance movement in Somalia claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Ministry of Education that resulted in the deaths of over 50 people. The U.S. has targeted Al-Shabaab as a threat to Washington’s interests in Somalia and throughout the region.
The USA Africa Command which they call “Africom” is a military structure of the Defence Department of America. It is the American political deception for establishing military bases on the African Continent. It conceals its real intentions in Africa. It was formed in February 2OO7 during George Bush’s term of office. This was two months after America had bombed a small African country, Somalia, destabilizing it to the ashes it is today.
At that time the American President said Africom “will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth of Africa.” Where in Africa has the USA done this? With the same breath Bush revealed, “Africom will co-ordinate all U.S. security interests throughout Africa.”
NATO forces attacked Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s compound and killed his youngest son and three…
Hilary Clinton told USA Senators that American State Department needs more money to fight information war. She conceded that America was losing on this front. Unfortunately, African broadcasters do not seem to understand that they are weapons of US’s national interest warfare. There is no visible national interest in Africa political commentary on geo-political matters.
Libyan armed rebellion commonly presented as peaceful protest on mainstream media is a classic case of interest based political analysis among various national broadcasters. Aljazeera show Qatar’s perspective informed by the fact that Gaddafi denied them investment opportunities in Libya. BBC supports a British angle anchored by grudges of Lockerbie bombing. France24 put across a French point of view based on Libya’s support of revolutionaries in French speaking Africa whereas the CNN articulates American viewpoint which stems from Libya’s refusal to handover control to American oil corporations.