This brutal military alliance has become the most perfidious tool of repression known in the history of humanity.
NATO assumed this global repressive role as soon as the USSR, which had served as the U.S. pretext for its creation, disappeared. Its criminal purpose became obvious in Serbia, a country of Slavic origin, whose people heroically struggled against the Nazis during World War II.
In March of 1999, when the countries of this nefarious organization, in its efforts to break up Yugoslavia after the death of Josip Broz Tito, sent in troops to support the Kosovar secessionists, they met with strong resistance on the part of the country´s experienced forces which remained intact.
The yankee administration, advised by the right-wing Spanish government of José María Aznar, attacked Serbian television stations, bridges over the Danube River and Belgrade, the capital of the country. The embassy of the People’s Republic of China was destroyed by yankee bombs and several functionaries died. This could not have been any mistake, as those responsible alleged. A great number of Serbian patriots lost their lives.
President Slobodan Miloševic, overwhelmed by the power of the aggressors and the disappearance of the USSR, submitted to NATO demands and allowed the presence of troops from this alliance within Kosovo, under United Nations command, which finally led to his political defeat and subsequent prosecution by the less than impartial court of The Hague. He died under mysterious circumstances in prison.
Had the Serbian leader resisted a few more days, NATO would have faced a serious crisis which was about to erupt. The empire thus had more time at its disposal to impose its hegemony among the increasing number of subordinate members within the organization.
Between February 21 and April 27 of this year, I published, on the CubaDebate website, nine Reflections about the issues, in which I amply addressed the role of NATO in Libya and what, in my opinion, was going to happen.
I therefore find myself obliged to offer a summary of the essential ideas I presented and of the events which have occurred just as they were foreseen, given that a central figure in the story, Muammar Al-Gaddafi, was mortally wounded by NATO’s most modern fighter planes which intercepted and immobilized his vehicle, was captured alive and then assassinated by men armed by this organization.
His body was seized and exhibited as a war trophy, conduct which violates the most fundamental principles of Islamic norms and other religious beliefs around the world. It was announced that shortly Libya will be declared “a democratic state which defends human rights.”
I find myself obliged to devote several Reflections to these important and significant events.
A little more than eight months ago, on February 21 of this year, I affirmed with full conviction, “NATO’s plan is to occupy Libya.” Under this title I addressed the issue for the first time in a Reflection the content of which appeared to be pure fantasy.
I include in these lines the facts which led me to that conclusion.
“Oil became the principal wealth in the hands of the large yankee transnationals; with that source of energy, they had at their disposal an instrument that considerably increased their political power in the world.”
“Current civilization was developed on the basis of this source of energy. Of the nations in this hemisphere it was Venezuela which paid the highest price. The United States made itself the owner of the vast oilfields which nature endowed upon that sister nation.
“At the end of the last World War it began to extract large volumes from oilfields in Iran, as well as those of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Arab countries located around them. These came to be the principal suppliers. World consumption rose progressively to the fabulous figure of approximately 80 million barrels per day, including those pumped in U.S. territory, to which gas, hydro-electric and nuclear energy were subsequently added.”
“The squandering of oil and gas is associated with one of the greatest tragedies, totally unresolved, being endured by humanity: climate change.”
“In December of 1951, Libya became the first African country to attain its independence after World War II, during which its territory was the scene of significant battles between German and British troops…”
“Total desert covers 95% of its territory. Technology made it possible to find significant fields of excellent quality light oil, currently providing 800 billion barrels per day, and abundant natural gas deposits. [… ] Its harsh desert is located above an enormous lake of fossil water, equivalent to more than three times the land surface of Cuba, which has made it possible to construct a broad network of fresh water pipes which extends throughout the country.”
“The Libyan Revolution took place in September 1969. Its principal leader was Muammar al-Gaddafi, a soldier of Bedouin origin who was inspired in his early youth by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Without any doubt, many of his decisions are associated with the changes that came about when, as in Egypt, a weak and corrupt monarchy was overthrown in Libya.”
“One can be in agreement with Gaddafi or not. The world has been invaded with all kind of news, especially through the mass media. We shall have to wait the time needed to discover precisely how much is truth or lies, or a mix of the events, of all kinds, which, in the midst of chaos, have been taking place in Libya. What is absolutely evident to me is that the government of the United States is totally unconcerned about peace in Libya and will not hesitate to give NATO the order to invade that rich country, possibly in a matter of hours or a few days.
“Those who, with perfidious intentions, invented the lie that Gaddafi was headed for Venezuela, as they did yesterday afternoon Sunday, February 20, today received a worthy response from Nicolás Maduro…”
“For my part, I cannot imagine the Libyan leader abandoning the country, eluding the responsibilities attributed to him, whether or not this news is partly or totally false.”
“An honest person will always be against any injustice committed against any nation of the world, and the worst injustice, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is preparing to commit against the Libyan people.
“The chief of that military organization is being urged to do so. This must be condemned!”
At that early date I had taken note of what was absolutely obvious.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 25, our Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez will be speaking in the United Nations headquarters denouncing the criminal United States blockade of Cuba. We shall be closely following this battle which will once again demonstrate the need to bring to an end, not only the blockade, but the system which engenders injustice on our planet, squanders its natural resources and is placing humanity’s survival at risk. We will pay special attention to Cuba’s arguments.
On February 23, under the title “Cynicism’s danse macabre,” I stated:
“The politics of plunder imposed by the United States and its NATO allies in the Middle East is in crisis.”
“Thanks to Sadat’s betrayal at Camp David, the Palestinian Arab State has not come into existence, despite the United Nations agreements of November 1947, and Israel has become a powerful nuclear force allied with the United States and NATO.
“The U.S. military-industrial complex supplies tens of billions of dollars every year to Israel and to the very Arab states that it subjugates and humiliates.
“The genie is out of the bottle and NATO doesn’t know how to control it.
“They are going to try and take maximum advantage of the lamentable events in Libya. No one is capable of knowing at this time what is happening there. All of the figures and versions, even the most improbable, have been disseminated by the empire through the mass media, sowing chaos and misinformation.
“It is evident that a civil war is developing in Libya. Why and how was this unleashed? Who will suffer the consequences? The Reuters news agency, repeating the opinion of the well-known Nomura Japanese bank, said that the price of oil could surpass all limits.”
“…What will be the consequences for the food crisis?
“The principal NATO leaders are exalted. British Prime Minister
David Cameron, informed ANSA, ‘…admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the Western countries made a mistake in supporting non-democratic governments in the Arab world.’”
“His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy declared, ‘The prolonged brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is repugnant.’”
“Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini declared ‘believable’ the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli […] ‘the tragic figure will be a bloodbath.’”
“Hillary Clinton declared, ‘…the bloodbath is completely unacceptable and has to stop…’”
“Ban Ki-moon added, ‘The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable.’”
“…’the Security Council will act in accordance with what the international community decides.’”
“’We are considering a number of options.’”
“What Ban Ki-moon is really waiting for is that Obama give the final word.
“The President of the United States spoke Wednesday afternoon and stated that the Secretary of State would leave for Europe in order to reach an agreement with the NATO European allies as to what measures to take. Noticeable on his face was his readiness to take on the right-wing Republican John McCain; Joseph Lieberman, the pro-Israel Senator from Connecticut; and Tea Party leaders, in order to guarantee his nomination by the Democratic Party.
“The empire’s mass media have prepared the ground for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya, which would, additionally, guarantee Europe almost two million barrels of light oil a day, if events do not occur beforehand to put an end to the presidency or life of Gaddafi.
“In any event, Obama’s role is complicated enough. What would the Arab and Islamic world’s reaction be if much blood is spilt in this country in such an adventure? Would the revolutionary wave unleashed in Egypt stop a NATO intervention?
“In Iraq the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was shed when this country was invaded on false pretenses. Mission accomplished, George W. Bush proclaimed.
“No one in the world will ever be in favor of the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. I ask myself, would the United States and NATO apply that principle to the defenseless civilians killed every day by yankee drones and this organization’s soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
“It is a danse macabre of cynicism.”
While I was meditating on these events, the United Nations debate scheduled for yesterday, Tuesday, October 25 on the “Necessity of ending the commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States on Cuba began. This is something which has been demanded by the vast majority of this institution’s member countries for 20 years.
This time the numerous elemental and just arguments – which for United States governments were no more than rhetorical exercises – revealed, like never before, the political and moral weakness of the most powerful empire ever to have existed, and to whose oligarchical interests and insatiable thirst for power and riches all the planet’s inhabitants have been subjected, including the very people of that country.
The United States is tyrannizing and plundering the globalized world with its political, economic, technological and military might.
That truth is becoming more and more obvious in the wake of the honest and courageous debates which have taken place in the United Nations during the last 20 years, with the support of states which one would imagine are expressing the will of the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants.
Before [Cuban Foreign Minister] Bruno’s speech, many country organizations expressed their points of view through one of their members. The first was Argentina, in the name of the Group of 77 plus China; followed by Egypt, in the name of the Non-Aligned Movement; Kenya, in the name of the African Union; Belize, in the name of CARICOM; Kazakhstan, in the name of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; and Uruguay, in the name of MERCOSUR.
Independently of these expressions of a collective nature, China, a country of growing political and economic weight in the world, India and Indonesia strongly supported the resolution via their ambassadors; between the three of them they represent 2.7 billion inhabitants. The ambassadors of the Russian Federation, Belarus, South Africa, Algeria, Venezuela and Mexico did likewise. The impassioned words of solidarity expressed by the ambassador of Belize, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean community, and those of St. Vincent & the Grenadines and Bolivia, resonated among the poorest countries of the Caribbean and Latin America. Their arguments in the context of the solidarity of our people – despite a blockade which has already lasted 50 years – will be a constant stimulus for our doctors, educators and scientists.
Nicaragua spoke before the vote, to bravely explain why it would vote against this perfidious measure.
The United States representative also spoke before the vote, in order to explain the inexplicable. I felt sorry for him. It is the role that they assigned to him.
At the hour of voting, two countries were absent: Libya and Sweden; three abstained: Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau; two voted against: the United States and Israel. Adding together those who voted against, abstained or were absent: the United States, with 313 million inhabitants; Israel, with 7.4 million; Sweden, with 9.1 million; Libya, with 6.5 million; Marshall Islands, with 67,100; Micronesia, 106,800; Palau, with 20,900, the total amounts to 336.948 million, equivalent to 4.8% of the world population, which has already risen to seven billion this month.
After the vote, speaking in the name of the European Union, Poland explained the votes of members of this bloc which, in spite of its close alliance with the United States and its obligatory participation in the blockade, is against this criminal measure.
Subsequently, 17 countries addressed the Assembly to explain, resolutely and decisively, why they voted for the resolution against the blockade.
On March 2, under the title “NATO’s inevitable War,” I wrote:
“As opposed to the situation in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya occupies first place in the Human Development Index within Africa and has the highest life expectancy rate on the continent. Education and health receive special state attention. The cultural level of the population is without a doubt higher. […] The country requires many foreign workers to implement its ambitious production and social development plans.”
“It had an enormous income and hard currency reserves deposited in the banks of rich countries, with which it acquired consumer goods and even sophisticated weapons, supplied by the very countries which now want to invade in the name of human rights.
“The colossal campaign of lies unleashed by the mass media has created much confusion in world public opinion. Some time will pass before what really has happened in Libya is reconstructed, and real events are separated from the falsified ones which have been disseminated.”
“The empire and its principal allies employed the most sophisticated media to disseminate falsified information about the events, requiring one to infer traces of the truth.
“Imperialism and NATO – seriously concerned about the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world, which produces a large portion of the oil sustaining the consumer economies of the rich, developed countries – could not miss the opportunity to take advantage of Libya’s internal conflict to promote a military intervention.”
“Despite the torrent of lies and the confusion created, the United States was unable to drag China or the Russian Federation into the UN Security Council’s approval of military intervention in Libya, although it did achieve its current objectives within the Human Rights Council.”
“The fact is that Libya is involved in a civil war, as we had foreseen, and there is nothing the United Nations could have done to prevent it, except that its own Secretary General sprinkled a hefty dose of fuel on the fire.
“The problem which these actors perhaps never imagined is that the very leaders of the rebellion have burst upon the complicated scene, declaring that they reject any foreign military intervention.”
One of the ringleaders of the rebellion, Abdelhafiz Ghoga, stated February 28 during a meeting with journalists, “What we want is intelligence information, but in no case that our air, land or sea sovereignty is affected.”
“The intransigence of opposition leaders over national sovereignty reflected opinions spontaneously expressed by many Libyan citizens to the international press in Benghazi,” according to an AFP cable this past Monday.
“That same day, Abeir Imneina, a professor of political sciences at the University of Benghazi – an opponent of Gaddafi – stated, ‘There is a very strong feeling of nationalism in Libya. Moreover, the Iraqi example scares everyone in the Arab world,’ she stressed, in reference to the 2003 U.S. invasion which was to have brought democracy to that country and then, by contagion, to the region as a whole, a hypothesis totally refuted by the facts. ‘We know very well what happened in Iraq, which is in the throes of instability. Following in those footsteps is not appealing at all. We don’t want the Americans to come and then to have to regret (the end of the rule of) Gaddafi,’ the expert continued.”
“Just a few hours after this cable was published, two of the major U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, hastened to provide new versions on the subject, as reported by the DPA news agency the following day, March 1, “The Libyan opposition could ask the West to undertake air strikes on the strategic positions of forces loyal to Muammar al Gaddafi, the U.S. press states today.”
“The issue is being discussed within the Libyan National Council, according to online editions of The New York Times and The Washington Post.”
“In the case of air strikes being executed within the framework of the United Nations, they would not imply international intervention,” explained the Council spokesperson, quoted by The New York Times.
“The Washington Post quoted rebels who recognize that, without Western support, battles with forces loyal to Gaddafi could last a long time and cost a large number of human lives.”
I immediately asked myself in this Reflection:
“Why the effort to present the rebels as prominent members of society demanding U.S. and NATO air strikes to kill Libyans?”
“Some day the truth will be known, through people like the professor of political sciences at the University of Benghazi, who narrated with such eloquence the terrible experience which killed, destroyed homes and left millions of people in Iraq jobless or forced to emigrate.
“Today, Wednesday, March 2, the EFE news agency presents the known rebel spokesperson making statements that, in my view, simultaneously affirm and contradict those of Monday: ‘Benghazi (Libya) March 2. The Libyan rebel leadership today asked the UN Security Council to launch an air strike ‘on mercenaries’ from the Muammar al-Gaddafi regime.’”
“Which of the many imperialist wars would this one resemble?
“That of Spain in 1936, that of Mussolini against Ethiopia in 1935, that of George W. Bush against Iraq in 2003 or any one of the dozens of wars promoted by the United States against the peoples of the Americas, from the invasion of Mexico in 1846 to that of the Malvinas in 1982?
“Without excluding, of course, the mercenary invasion of Girón, the dirty war and the blockade of our homeland during 50 years, the anniversary of which is next April 16.
“In all of those wars, such as that of Vietnam, which cost millions of lives, justifications and the most cynical measures reigned supreme.
“For those harboring any doubt as to the inevitable military intervention which is to take place in Libya, the AP news agency, which I consider well informed, led with a cable published today affirming, ‘Some NATO countries are drawing up contingency plans modeled on the no-fly zones over the Balkans in the 1990s in case the international community decides to impose an air embargo over Libya, diplomats said.’”
Any honest person capable of objectively observing events can appreciate the danger of the series of cynical and brutal acts which characterize United States policy and explain the shameless isolation of this country in the United Nations debate on the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba.”
In spite of my work, I am closely following the Guadalajara 2011 Pan American Games.
Our country is proud of these young people who are examples to the world given their selflessness and spirit of solidarity. I warmly congratulate them; no one can ever deny them the place of honor which they have won.
On March 9 this year, under the title, “NATO, war, lies and business,” I published a new Reflection on the role of this military organization.
I have selected the fundamental paragraphs of that Reflection:
“As some people know, in September of 1969, Muammar al-Gaddafi, a Bedouin Arab soldier of unusual character and inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, promoted within the heart of the Armed Forces a movement which overthrew King Idris I of Libya, almost a desert country in its totality, with a sparse population, located to the north of Africa between Tunisia and Egypt.”
“Born into the heart of a Bedouin community, nomadic desert shepherds in the region of Tripoli, Gaddafi was profoundly anti-colonialist.”
“…Gaddafi’s adversaries confirm that he stood out for his intelligence as a student; he was expelled from high school for his anti-monarchical activities. He managed to enroll in another school and later to graduate in law at the University of Benghazi, aged 21. He then entered the Benghazi Military College, where he created the Union of Free Officers Movement, subsequently completing his studies in a British military academy.”
“He initiated his political life with unquestionably revolutionary acts.”
“In March 1970, in the wake of mass nationalist protests, he achieved the evacuation of British soldiers from the country and, in June, the United States vacated the large airbase close to Tripoli, which was handed over to military instructors from Egypt, a country allied with Libya.
“In 1970, a number of Western oil companies and banking societies with the participation of foreign capital were affected by the Revolution. At the end of 1971, the same fate befell the famous British Petroleum. In the agricultural sector all Italian assets were confiscated, and the colonialists and their descendants were expelled from Libya.”
“The Libyan leader became immersed in extremist theories as much opposed to communism as to capitalism. It was a stage in which Gaddafi devoted himself to theorizing, which would be meaningless to include in this analysis, except to note that the first article of the Constitutional Proclamation of 1969, established the “Socialist” nature of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
“What I wish to emphasize is that the United States and its NATO allies were never interested in human rights.
“The pandemonium that occurred in the Security Council, in the meeting of the Human Rights Council based in Geneva, and in the UN General Assembly in New York, was pure theater.”
“The empire is now attempting [… ] to militarily intervene in Libya and deliver a blow to the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world.”
“Whether a latent Libyan rebellion was promoted by yankee intelligence agencies or by the errors of Gaddafi himself, it is important that the peoples do not let themselves be deceived, given that, very soon, world opinion will have enough elements to know what to believe.”
“Libya, like many Third World countries, is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and other international organizations, via which relations are established independently of the economic and social system of each state.
“Briefly: the Revolution in Cuba, inspired by Marxist-Leninist and Martí principles, had triumphed in 1959 at 90 miles from the United States, which imposed the Platt Amendment on us and was the proprietor of our country’s economy.
“Almost immediately, the empire promoted against our people dirty warfare, counterrevolutionary gangs, the criminal economic blockade and the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs, guarded by an aircraft carrier and its marines ready to disembark if the mercenary force secured certain objectives.”
“All the Latin American countries, with the exception of Mexico, took part in the criminal blockade which is still in place, without our country ever surrendering.”
“In January 1986, putting forward the idea that Libya was behind so-called revolutionary terrorism, Reagan ordered the severing of economic and commercial relations with that country.”
“In March of that year, an aircraft carrier force in the Gulf of Sirte, within what Libya considered its national waters, unleashed attacks which destroyed a number of naval units equipped with rocket launchers and coastal radar systems which that country had acquired in the USSR.
“On April 5, a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by U.S. soldiers was the target of a plastic explosives attack, in which three people died, two of them U.S. soldiers, and many people were injured.
“Reagan accused Gaddafi and ordered the Air Force to respond. Three squadrons took off from 6th Fleet aircraft carriers and bases in the United Kingdom, and attacked with missiles and bombs seven military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Some 40 people died, 15 of them civilians [… ] when a missile directly hit the residence (of the Libyan leader), his daughter Hanna died and another two of his children were wounded. That act was widely rejected; the UN General Assembly passed a resolution of condemnation given what was a violation of the UN Charter and international law. The Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab League and the OAU did likewise in energetic terms.
“On December 21, 1988, a Pan Am Boeing 747 flying from London to New York disintegrated in full flight when a bomb exploded…”
“According to the yankees, investigations implicated two Libyan intelligence agents.”
“A sinister legend was fabricated against him, with the participation of Reagan and Bush Senior.”
“The Security Council had imposed sanctions on Libya which began to be overcome when Gaddafi agreed to the trial, under specific conditions, of the two men accused of the plane sabotage over Scotland.
“Libyan delegations began to be invited to inter-European meetings. In July 1999 London initiated the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with Libya after some additional concessions.”
“On December 2, Massimo D’Alema, the Italian prime minister, made the first visit to Libya by a European head of government.
“With the disappearance of the USSR and the European socialist bloc, Gaddafi decided to accept the demands of the United States and NATO.”
“In early 2002, the State Department announced that diplomatic talks between the United States and Libya were underway.”
“At the beginning of 2003, in accordance with the economic agreement on compensation reached between Libya and the plaintiffs, the United Kingdom and France, the UN Security Council lifted its 1992 sanctions against Libya.
“Before the end of 2003, Bush and Tony Blair reported an agreement with Libya, which had submitted documentation to British and U.S. intelligence experts about conventional weapons programs and ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometers. [… ] It was the result of many months of talks between Tripoli and Washington, as Bush himself revealed.
“Gaddafi kept his disarmament promises. Within five months Libya handed over the five units of Scud-C missiles with a range of 800 km and hundreds of Scud-B which have a range exceeding the 300 kilometers of defensive short-range. missiles.
“As of October, 2002, a marathon of visits to Tripoli began: Berlusconi, in October 2002; José María Aznar, in September 2003; Berlusconi again in February, August and October of 2004; Blair, in March of 2004; the German Schröeder, in October of that year; Jacques Chirac, November 2004.”
“Gaddafi toured Europe triumphantly. He was received in Brussels in April of 2004 by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission; in August of that year the Libyan leader invited Bush to visit his country; Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and Conoco Philips established renewed oil extraction operations through joint ventures.
“In May of 2006, the United States announced the removal of Libya from its list of nations harboring terrorists and established full diplomatic relations.
“In 2006 and 2007, France and the U.S. signed accords for cooperation in nuclear development for peaceful ends; in May, 2007, Blair returned to visit Gaddafi in Sirte. British Petroleum signed a contract it described as “enormously important,” for the exploration of gas fields.
“In December of 2007, Gaddafi made two trips to France to sign military and civilian equipment contracts for 10 billion euros, and to Spain where he met with President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Contracts worth millions were signed with important NATO countries.
“What has now brought on the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. and other NATO members’ embassies?
“It all seems extremely strange.
“George W. Bush, father of the stupid anti-terrorist war, said on September 20, 2011 to west Point cadets, “Our security will require … the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. … to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty…’”
“’We must root out terrorist cells in 60 countries or more [… ] Together with our friends and allies, we have to stop their proliferation and confront regimes which harbor or support terrorism, as is required in each case.’”
I add today that Afghanistan, a traditionally rebel country, was invaded; nationalist tribes formerly allied with the United States in their struggle against the USSR, were bombarded and massacred. Dirty war extended to other parts of the world. Iraq was invaded under what turned out to be false pretenses, its abundant oil resources passed into the hands of yankee corporations, millions of people lost their jobs and were obliged to move elsewhere, either within or outside of the country, its museums were looted and countless citizens lost their lives or were massacred by the invaders.
Returning to the Reflection, I noted:
“An AFP dispatch from Kabul, dated today, March 9, reveals, ‘Last year was the most lethal for civilians in the nine-year war between the Taliban and international forces in Afghanistan, with almost 2,800 deaths, 15% more than in 2009, a United Nations report indicated on Wednesday, underlining the human cost of the conflict for the population.’”
“’At exactly 2,777, the number of civilian deaths in 2010 increased by 15% as compared to 2009,’ according to the joint annual report of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan…”
“On March 3, President Barack Obama expressed his ‘profound condolences’ to the Afghan people for the nine children killed, as did U.S. General David Petraeus, commander in chief of the ISAF and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.”
“… the UNAMA report emphasizes that the number of civilian deaths is four times greater than the number of international forces soldiers killed in combat during the same year.”
In relation to Libya, I noted:
“Over the course of 10 days, in Geneva and in the United Nations, more than 150 speeches were delivered about violations of human rights, which were repeated million of times on television, radio, Internet and in the written press.
“Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, in his remarks March 1, 2011 before Foreign Relations ministers in Geneva, said:
“’Humanity’s conscience is repulsed by the deaths of innocent people under any circumstances, anyplace. Cuba fully shares the worldwide concern for the loss of civilian lives in Libya and hopes that its people are able to reach a peaceful and sovereign solution to the civil war occurring there, with no foreign interference, and guarantee the integrity of that nation.”
“’If the essential human right is the right to life, will the Council be ready to suspend the membership of states that unleash war?
“’Will it suspend states which finance and supply military aid utilized by recipient states for mass, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights and attacks on the civilian population, like those taking place in Palestine?
“’Will it apply measures to powerful countries which are perpetuating extra-judicial executions in the territory of other states with the use of high technology, such as smart bombs and drone aircraft?
“’What will happen with states which accept secret illegal prisons in their territories, facilitate the transit of secret flights with kidnapped persons aboard, or participate in acts of torture?’”
“’We are against the internal war in Libya, in favor of immediate peace and respect for the lives and rights of all citizens, without foreign intervention, which would only serve to prolong the conflict and NATO interests.’”
Yesterday, October 31, an event took place which, like so many others, testifies to the total lack of ethics in yankee politics.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was simply adopting a courageous decision: to grant the heroic people of Palestine the right to participate as an active member of UNESCO; 107 states voted in favor, 14 against, 52 abstained from voting. All of us know perfectly well why.
The United States representative to this institution, following instructions from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, immediately announced that from that moment his country would suspend all economic aid to the organization, directed by the UN to education, science and culture.
The dramatic tone in which the lady announced the decision was totally unnecessary. Nobody was surprised by the anticipated and cynical decision.
But, as if that were not enough, an AFP cable dated, Washington, 16:05pm today caps it:
“’After the G20 summit (…) President (Obama) and President Sarkozy will participate in a ceremony in Cannes to celebrate the alliance between the U.S. and France,’ said the U.S. presidency, adding that the leaders will also meet with ‘American and French soldiers who have participated together in the operation’ in Libya.”
Fidel Castro Ruz