Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya and Julian Teil
AMERICA’S CONQUEST OF AFRICA AND THE ROLE OF FRANCE AND ISRAEL
Order from Chaos?
A repeat of the disorder and pandemonium generated inside Afghanistan is in the works for the continent of Africa.
The United States, with the help of Britain, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, created the brutal Taliban and then eventually waged war on its Taliban allies. Similarly, across Africa, the United States and its allies are creating a new series of future enemies to fight, but after initially working with them or using them to sow the seeds of chaos in Africa.
Washington has literally been helping fund insurgencies and regime change projects in Africa. “Human rights” and “democratization” are also being used as a smokescreen for colonialism and war.
So-called human rights and humanitarian organizations are now partners in this imperialist project directed against Africa.
France and Israel: Is Washington Outsourcing its Dirty Work in Africa?
Africa is just one international front for an expanding system of empire. The mechanisms of a real global system of empire are at work in this regard. Washington is acting through NATO and its allies in Africa. Each one of Washington’s allies and satellites has a specific role to play in this global system of empire.
Tel Aviv has played a very active role on the African continent. Israel was a major supporter of South Africa under the apartheid regime.
Tel Aviv also helped smuggle arms into Sudan and East Africa to balkanize that sizeable African nation while contributing to the destabilization of East Africa.
The Israelis have been very active in Kenya and Uganda. Israel has been present wherever there were conflicts, including those pertaining to blood diamonds.
Israel is now working with Washington to establish total hegemony over the African continent. Tel Aviv is actively involved — through its business ties and intelligence operations — in securing the contacts and agreements required by Washington for the extension of its interests in Africa. One of Washington’s major objectives is to disrupt the development of Chinese influence in Africa. Israel and Israeli think-tanks have also played a major role in shaping the U.S. geo-stratagem in Africa.
France, as a former colonial master and a declining power, on the other hand, has traditionally been a rival and competitor of Washington on the African continent.
With the rise of the influence of non-traditional powers in Africa, such as the People’s Republic of China, both Washington and Paris envisaged ways of cooperating. On the broader global stage this is also evident. Both the U.S. and several of the major powers in the European Union consider China and other emerging global powers as a threat. They have decided to end their rivalries and work together. Thus, a consensus between Washington and the E.U. unfolded, leading to some forms of political integration.
This consensus may have also been manufactured by growing U.S. influence in E.U. capitals. Whatever the case, it has been boosted since the beginning of Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency in 2007.
President Sarkozy also wasted no time in pushing for the reintegration of the French military command structure within NATO. The consequence of this action has led to the surbodination of the French military to the Pentagon.
In 1966, President Charles de Gaulle pulled French forces out of NATO and removed France from the military command structures of NATO as a means of maintaining French independence. Nicolas Sarkozy has reversed all of this. In 2009, Sarkozy ordered that France rejoin the integrated military command structure of NATO. In 2010, he also signed an accord to start amalgamating the British and French militaries.
On the African continent, Paris has a special place or niche in the U.S. system of global empire. This role is that of a regional gendarme in North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, and all the countries that were former French colonies. France’s special role, in other words, is due to its history and the existing, albeit declining, position of France in Africa, specifically through the “Françafrique.” The Union of the Mediterranean, which Sarkozy officially launched, is one example of these French interests in North
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has also been working through France’s International Federation of Human Rights (Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l’Homme, FIDH). The FIDH is well established in Africa. The NED has essentially outsourced its work to manipulate and control African governments, movements, societies, and states to the FIDH. It was the FIDH and the affiliated Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) that helped orchestrate the various pretexts for the NATO war against Libya, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through unsubstantiated and false claims.
The National Endowment for Democracy and its Partnersip with the International Federation of Human Rights in Africa
Following the 2007 election of Nicolas Sarkozy as the leader of the French Republic, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) started to develop a real partnership with the National Endowment for Democracy. Both organizations are also partners within the World Movement for Democracy. Carl Gershman, the president of the NED, even went to France in December 2009 to meet with the FIDH to deepen collaboration between the two organizations and to discuss Africa.  He also met individuals who are are considered as pro-Israeli lobbyists in France.
The partnerships between the FIDH and the NED are mostly based in Africa and the intersecting Arab World. These partnerships operate in a zone that covers countries like Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Niger, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
North Africa, which includes Libya and Algeria, has been a specific area of focus for the FIDH, where Washington, Paris, and NATO clearly have major ambitions.
The FIDH, which is directly implicated in launching the war on Libya, has also received direct funding, in the form of grants, from the National Endowment for Democracy for its programs in Africa. In 2010, a NED grant of $140,186 (U.S.) was one of the latest amounts given to the FIDH for its work in Africa.  The NED was also one of the first signatories, along with the Libyan League for Human Rights (LLHR) and U.N. Watch, demanding international intervention against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. 
AFRICOM and the Post-9/11 Road Towards Conquering Africa
In 2002, the Pentagon started major operations aimed at controlling Africa militarily. This was in the form of the Pan-Sahel Initiative, which was launched by the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). Under the banner of this project, the U.S. military would train troops from Mali, Chad, Mauritania, and Niger. The plans to establish the Pan-Sahel Initiative, however, date back to 2001, when the initiative for Africa was actually launched after the tragic events of September 11, 2001 (9/11).
Washington was clearly planning military action in Africa, which already included at least three countries (Libya, Somalia, and Sudan) identified as enemy targets to be attacked by the Pentagon and the White House according to General Wesley Clark.
Jacques Chirac, the President of France at the time, tried to offer resistance to the U.S. push into Africa by reinvigorating Germany’s role in Africa as a means of supporting France. In 2007, the Franco-African summit even opened its doors to German participation for the first time.  Yet, Angela Merkel had different ideas about the direction and position that the Franco-German partnership should take in regards to Washington.
Since 2001, the momentum towards creating U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) had started. AFRICOM, however, was officially authorized in December 2006 and the decision to create it was announced several short months later in February 2007. It was in 2007 that AFRICOM was established.
It is important to note that this momentum also received Israeli encouragement, because of Israeli interests in Africa. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), for example, was one of the Israeli organizations supporting the creation of AFRICOM.
On the basis of the Pan-Sahel Initiative, the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCTI) was launched by the Pentagon in 2005 under the command of CENTCOM. Mali, Chad, Mauritania, and Niger were now joined by Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Nigeria, and Tunisia in the ring of African military cooperation with the Pentagon. Later, the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative would be transferred to the command of AFRICOM on October 1, 2008, which is when AFRICOM would be activated.
The Sahel and Sahara: The U.S. Clearly Adopts France’s Old Colonial Projects in Africa
“Fighting terrorism” and executing “humanitarian missions” are just façades or smokescreens for Washington and its allies.
While the stated goals of the Pentagon are to fight terrorism in Africa, the real aims of Washington are to restructure Africa and to establish a neo-colonial order. In this regard, Washington has actually adopted the old colonial projects of France in Africa. This also includes the U.S., British, Italian, and French initiative to divide Libya after 1943 as well as the unilateral French initiative to redraw North Africa. In this scheme, the U.S. and its cohorts plan on creating ethnic wars and sectarian hatred between the Berbers, the Arabs, and others in North Africa.
The map used by Washington for combating terrorism under the Pan-Sahel Initiative says a lot. The range or area of activity for the terrorists, within the borders of Algeria, Libya, Niger, Chad, Mali, and Mauritania according to Washington’s designation, is very similar to the boundaries or borders of the colonial territorial entity which France attempted to sustain in Africa in 1957. Paris had planned to prop up this African entity in the western central Sahara as a French department (province) directly tied to France, along with coastal Algeria.
This French colonial entity in the Sahara was named the Common Organization of the Saharan Regions (Organisation commune des regions sahariennes, OCRS). It comprised the inner boundaries of the Sahel and Saharan countries of Mali, Niger, Chad, and Algeria. The French goal was to collect and bind all the resource-rich territories of these countries into this one central entity, the OCR, for French control and extraction. The resources in this area include oil, gas, and uranium. Yet, the resistance movements in Africa, and specifically the Algerian struggle for independence, dealt Paris a hard blow. France had to give up its quest and finally dissolve the OCRS in 1962, because of Algerian independence and the anti-colonial stance in Africa. Because of the push towards independence in Africa, France was finally cut off from the inland area in the Sahara that it wished to control.
Washington clearly had this energy-rich and resource-rich area in mind when it drew the areas of Africa that need to be cleansed of alleged terrorist cells and gangs. The French Institute of Foreign Relations (Institut français des relations internationals, IFRI) has even openly discussed this tie between the terrorists and energy-rich areas in a March 2011 report.  It is also in this context that the amalgamation of Franco-German and Anglo-American interests and companies has allowed France to become an integrated part of the U.S. system of global empire with common interests.
Regime Change in Libya and the National Endowment for Democracy: A Nexus of Terrorism and Human Rights
Since 2001, the U.S. has falsely presented itself as a champion against terrorism. The Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative (TSCTI), which opened the doors for AFRICOM in Africa, was justified as necessary by Washington to fight organizations like the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Algeria and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Libya. Yet, Washington is cooperating and using these very same groups in Libya, along with the National Front for the Salvation of Libya and the Muslim Brotherhood, as foot soldiers and proxies. Moreover, many of the key Libyan individuals that are members of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) are members of these groups and have also been part of conferences and longstanding plans pushing for regime change in Libya.
One of the key meetings for establishing what would become the current Transitional Council in Libya took place in 1994 when the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) organized a conference with Ashur Shamis and Aly (Ali) Abuzakuuk. The 1994 conference’s title was “Post-Qaddafi Libya: The Prospect and the Promise.” In 2005 another conference with Shamis Ashur would be held in the British capital of London that would build on the idea of regime change in Libya. 
So who are these Libyan opposition figures? A series of questions must be asked. Are their tie to Washington new or old? Who do the associate with? Also, have they had longstanding support or not?
Ashur Shamis is one of the founding members of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which in 1981 was founded in Sudan. He has been wanted by Interpol and the Libyan police for years.  Ahsur
is also listed as someone who has been a director in the National Endowment for Democracy in the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum. He is also the editor of the Akhbar webpage, which was registered under Akhbar Cultural Limited and tied to the NED. He has also participated in recent key conferences for regime change in Tripoli. This includes the conference in London held by Chatham House in 2011, which discussed NATO plans for the invasion of Tripoli.
Like Ashur, Aly Abuzaakouk is also a member of the National Front for the Salvation of Libya and tied to the National Endowment for Democracy. He was one of the key participants and attendees at the roundtable held for the 2011 Democracy Awards by the NED.  Like Ashur, he is also wanted by Interpol and serves as a director at the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum.
There is also Noman Benotman, a former leader and founder of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and a wanted terrorist. He is presented as a former terrorist. Benotman conveniently left the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001. Benotman is not only a National Endowment for Democracy (NED) director in the Libyan Human and Political Development Forum, he is also tied to the news network Al Jazeera.
Not only have these three men lived in Britain without any problems while they were wanted by Interpol and sought because of their ties to terrorism or, in the case of Abuzaakouk, drug-related crimes and forgery, but they also received grants from the United States. They received U.S. grants which formalized their affiliation to various NED sponsored organizations, which have supported the regime change agenda in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. This regime change agenda has also been supported by MI6 and the CIA.
Moreover, the legal documents that have been filed by the NED regarding these individuals have been deliberately and illegally tampered with. One key individual’s identity has been hidden in the list of NED directors. Thus, legal documents have been fraudulently filled out to hide an individual’s identity under the alias of “Beata Wozniak.” Even Wozniak’s birthday is invalid, appearing as January 1, 1 (01/01/0001). She is an person who has been on the board of all these NED organizations. She is listed as a director and secretary of Akbar, Transparency Libya Limited, and several British companies.
The “Long War” Enters Africa: The Gate into Africa has been Opened
The fanning of terrorism in Africa is part of a deliberate strategy used by the U.S. and its allies, including NATO. The strategy consists in “opening the door to the African continent” by expanding the so-called “Global War on Terror.” The latter provides a justification to the U.S. objective of expanding its military presence in the African continent. It was also used as a pretext to create the Pentagon’s AFRICOM.
US Africa Command (AFRICOM) is meant to “manage Africa” on Washington’s behalf. It consists in creating an African version of NATO with a view to carrying out the occupation of Africa. In this regard, the U.S. and its allies have already established a budget to fight the very terrorist organizations which they have created and supported (including with military aid and weapons) across the map of Africa from Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Mali to Mauritania, Niger, Algeria, and Nigeria.
The terrorists not only fight for America on the ground, they also liase with Washington and act as frontmen through so-called human rights organizations which have a mandate to “promote democracy”.
On the ground these same individuals and organizations are used to destabilize their respective countries. They are also supported internationally by Washington to actively work towards for regime change and military intervention in the name of human rights and democracy. Libya is a clear case in point.
 National Endowment for Democracy, “NED Strengths Democracy Ties with France,” March 16, 2010:
 National Endowment for Democracy, “Africa Regional,” August 2011:
 United Nations Watch et al., “Urgent Appeal to Stop Atrocities in Libya: Sent by 70 NGOs to the US, EU, and UN,” February 21, 2011:
 Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs (France), “XXIVème sommet Afrique-France,” February 2007:
 Etienne de Durand, “Francs-tireurs et Centurions. Les ambiguïtés de l’héritage contre-insurrectionnel français,” Institut français des relations internationals, March 2011:
 The National Conference of the Libyan Opposition, “The National Accord: The National Conference of the Libyan Opposition, London, 26th June 2005,” 2005.
 Interpol Wanted Notice for Ashour Al-Shamis :
 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (U.K.), “Chatam House event: the future of Libya,” June 2011:
 National Democracy for Democracy, “2011 Democracy Award Biographies,” June 2011:
 Interpol Wanted Notice for Ali Ramadan Abu Za Kouk:
LIBYA AND THE BIG LIE
Under the Obama Administration the United States has expanded the “long war” into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called “Son of Africa” has actually become one of Africa’s worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized, Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.
The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.
As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.
Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of “divide and conquer” being used to bring nations to their knees.
The Upheavals of Central-Eastern Europe and the Project for a “New Middle East”
The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up to the First World War. In the wake of the First World War, the borders of the multi-ethnic states in the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn and reconfigured by external powers, in alliance with local opposition forces. Since the First World War until the post-Cold War period the
Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe have continued to experience a period of upheaval, violence and conflict that has continously divided the region.
For years, there have been advocates calling for a “New Middle East” with redrawn boundaries in this region of the world where Europe, Southwest Asia, and North Africa meet. These advocates mostly sit in the capitals of Washington, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. They envisage a region shaped around homogenous ethno-religious states. The formation of these states would signify the destruction of the larger existing countries of the region. The transition would be towards the formation of smaller Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like states, which could easily be managed and manipulated by the U.S., Britain, France, Israel, and their allies.
The Manipulation of the First “Arab Spring” during World War I
The plans for reconfiguring the Middle East started several years before the First World War. It was during the First World War, however, that the manifestation of these colonial designs could visibly be seen with the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire. Despite the fact that the British, French, and Italians were colonial powers which had prevented the Arabs from enjoying any freedom in countries like Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Sudan, these colonial powers managed to portray themselves as the friends and allies of Arab liberation.
During the “Great Arab Revolt” the British and the French actually used the Arabs as foot soldiers against the Ottomans to further their own geo-political schemes. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement between London and Paris is a case in point. France and Britain merely managed to use and manipulate the Arabs by selling them the idea of Arab liberation from the so-called “repression” of the Ottomans. In reality, the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic empire. It gave local and cultural autonomy to all its peoples, but was manipulated into the direction of becoming a Turkish entity. Even the Armenian Genocide that would ensue in Ottoman Anatolia has to be analyzed in the same context as the contemporary targeting of Christians in Iraq as part of a sectarian scheme unleashed by external actors to divide the Ottoman Empire, Anatolia, and the citizens of the Ottoman Empire.
After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it was London and Paris which denied freedom to the Arabs, while sowing the seeds of discord amongst the Arab peoples. Local corrupt Arab leaders were also partners in the project and many of them were all too happy to become clients of Britain and France. In the same sense, the “Arab Spring” is being manipulated today. The U.S., Britain, France, and others are now working with the help of corrupt Arab leaders and figures to restructure the Arab World and Africa.
The Yinon Plan
The Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem in the Middle East, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.
The Atlantic, in 2008, and the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal, in 2006, both published widely circulated maps that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan. Aside from a divided Iraq, which the Biden Plan also calls for, the Yinon Plan calls for a divided Lebanon, Egypt, and Syria. The partitioning of Iran, Turkey, Somalia, and Pakistan also all fall into line with these views. The Yinon Plan also calls for dissolution in North Africa and forecasts it as starting from Egypt and then spilling over into Sudan, Libya, and the rest of the region.
The following map was drawn by Holly Lindem for an article by Jeffery Goldberg. It was published in The Atlantic in January/February 2008. Map Copyright: The Atlantic, 2008.
The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006.
The Eradication of the Christian Communities of the Middle East
It is no coincidence that Egyptian Christians were attacked at the same time as the South Sudan Referendum and before the crisis in Libya. Nor is it a coincidence that Iraqi Christians, one of the world’s oldest Christian communities, have been forced into exile, leaving their ancestral homelands in Iraq. Coinciding with the exodus of Iraqi Christians, which occurred under the watchful eyes of U.S. and British military forces, the neighbourhoods in Baghdad became sectarian as Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims were forced by violence and death squads to form sectarian enclaves. This is all tied to the Yinon Plan and the reconfiguration of the region as part of a broader objective.
In Iran, the Israelis have been trying in vain to get the Iranian Jewish community to leave. Iran’s Jewish population is actually the second largest in the Middle East and arguably the oldest undisturbed Jewish community in the world. Iranian Jews view themselves as Iranians who are tied to Iran as their homeland, just like Muslim and Christian Iranians, and for them the concept that they need to relocate to Israel because they are Jewish is ridiculous.
In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exacerbate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. Lebanon is a springboard into Syria and the division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means to balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan are to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze. There could also be objectives for a Christian exodus in Syria too.
The new head of the Maronite Catholic Syriac Church of Antioch, the largest of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches, has expressed his fears about a purging of Arab Christians in the Levant and Middle East. Patriarch Mar Beshara Boutros Al-Rahi and many other Christian leaders in Lebanon and Syria are afraid of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Syria. Like Iraq, mysterious groups are now attacking the Christian communities in Syria. The leaders of the Christian Eastern Orthodox Church, including the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, have also all publicly expressed their grave concerns. Aside from the Christian Arabs, these fears are also shared by the Assyrian and Armenian communities, which are mostly Christian.
Sheikh Al-Rahi was recently in Paris where he met President Nicolas Sarkozy. It is reported that the Maronite Patriarch and Sarkozy had disagreements about Syria, which prompted Sarkozy to say that the Syrian regime will collapse. Patriarch Al-Rahi’s position was that Syria should be left alone and allowed to reform. The Maronite Patriarch also told Sarkozy that Israel needed to be dealt with as a threat if France legitimately wanted Hezbollah to disarm.
Because of his position in France, Al-Rahi was instantly thanked by the Christian and Muslim religious leaders of the Syrian Arab Republic who visited him in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its political allies in Lebanon, which includes most the Christian parliamentarians in the Lebanese Parliament, also lauded the Maronite Patriarch who later went on a tour to South Lebanon.
Sheikh Al-Rahi is now being politically attacked by the Hariri-led March 14 Alliance, because of his stance on Hezbollah and his refusal to support the toppling of the Syrian regime. A conference of Christian figures is actually being planned by Hariri to oppose Patriarch Al-Rahi and the stance of the Maronite Church. Since Al-Rahi announced his position, the Tahrir Party, which is active in both Lebanon and Syria, has also started targeting him with criticism. It has also been reported that high-ranking U.S. officials have also cancelled their meetings with the Maronite Patriarch as a sign of their displeasure about his positions on Hezbollah and Syria.
The Hariri-led March 14 Alliance in Lebanon, which has always been a popular minority (even when it was a parliamentary majority), has been working hand-in-hand with the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the groups using violence and terrorism in Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood and other so-called Salafist groups from Syria have been coordinating and holding secret talks with Hariri and the Christian political parties in the March 14 Alliance. This is why Hariri and his allies have turned on Cardinal Al-Rahi. It was also Hariri and the March 14 Alliance that brought Fatah Al-Islam into Lebanon and have now helped some of its members escape to go and fight in Syria.
A Christian exodus is being planned for the Middle East by Washington, Tel Aviv, and Brussels. It is now being reported that Sheikh Al-Rahi was told in Paris by President Nicolas Sarkozy that the Christian communities of the Levant and Middle East can resettle in the European Union. This is no gracious offer. It is a slap in the face by the same powers that have deliberately created the conditions to eradicate the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East. The aim appears to be the resettling of the Christian communities outside of the region so as to delineate the Arab nations along the lines of being exclusively Muslim nations. This falls into accordance with the Yinon Plan.
Re-Dividing Africa: The Yinon Plan is very Much Alive and at Work…
In the same context as the sectarian divisions in the Middle East, the Israelis have outlined plans to reconfigure Africa. The Yinon Plan seeks to delineate Africa on the basis of three facets:
It seeks to draw dividing lines in Africa between a so-called “Black Africa” and a supposedly “non-Black” North Africa. This is part of a scheme to create a schism in Africa between what are assumed to be “Arabs” and so-called “Blacks.”
An attempt to separate the merging point of an Arab and African identity is underway.
This objective is why the ridiculous identity of an “African South Sudan” and an “Arab North Sudan” have been nurtured and promoted. This is also why black-skinned Libyans have been targeted in a campaign to “colour cleanse” Libya. The Arab identity in North Africa is being de-linked from its African identity. Simultaneously there is an attempt to eradicate the large populations of “black-skinned Arabs” so that there is a clear delineation between “Black Africa” and a new “non-Black” North Africa, which will be turned into a fighting ground between the remaining “non-Black” Berbers and Arabs.
In the same context, tensions are being fomented between Muslims and Christians in Africa, in such places as Sudan and Nigeria, to further create lines and fracture points. The fuelling of these divisions on the basis of skin-colour, religion, ethnicity, and language is intended to fuel disassociation and disunity in Africa. This is all part of a broader African strategy of cutting North Africa off from the rest of the African continent.
Israel and the African Continent
The Israelis have been quietly involved on the African continent for years. In Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, the Israelis helped build a separation security wall like the one in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. In Sudan, Tel Aviv has armed separatist movements and insurgents. In South Africa, the Israelis supported the Apartheid regime and its occupation of Namibia. In 2009, the Israeli Foreign Ministry outlined that Africa would be the renewed focus of Tel Aviv.
Israel’s two main objectives in Africa are to impose the Yinon Plan, in league with its own interests, and to assist Washington in becoming the hegemon of Africa. In this regard, the Israelis also pushed for the creation of AFRICOM. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), an Israeli think-tank, is one example. Washington has outsourced intelligence work in Africa to Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv is effectively involved as one of the parties in a broader war not just “inside” Africa, but “over” Africa. In this war, Tel Aviv is working alongside Washington and the E.U. against China and its allies, which includes Iran.
Tehran is working alongside Beijing in a similar manner as Tel Aviv is with Washington. Iran is helping the Chinese in Africa through Iranian connections and ties. These ties also include Tehran’s ties to private Lebanese and Syrian business interests in Africa. Thus, within the broader rivalry between Washington and Beijing, an Israeli-Iranian rivalry has also unfolded within Africa.  Sudan is Africa’s third largest weapons producer, as a result of Iranian support in weapons manufacturing. Meanwhile, while Iran provides military assistance to Khartoum, which includes several military cooperation agreements, Israel is involved in various actions directed against the Sudanese. 
Israel and Libya
Libya had been considered as “a spoiler” which undermined the interests of the former colonial powers in Africa. In this regard, Libya had taken on some hefty pan-African development plans intended to industrialize Africa and transform Africa into an integrated and assertive political entity. These initiatives conflicted with the interests of the external powers competing with one another in Africa, but it was especially unacceptable to Washington and the major E.U. countries. In this regard, Libya had to be crippled and neutralized as an entity supportive of African progress and pan-African unity.
The role of Israel and the Israeli lobby was fundamental in opening the door to NATO’s military intervention in Libya. According to Israeli sources, it was U.N. Watch that actually orchestrated the events in Geneva to remove Libya from the U.N. Human Rights Council and to ask the U.N. Security Council to intervene.  U.N. Watch is formally affiliated with the American Jewish Committee (AJC), which has influence in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and is part of the Israeli lobby in the United States. The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which helped launch the unverified claims about 6,000 people being slaughtered by Qaddafi, is also tied to the Israeli lobby in France.
Tel Aviv had been in contact simultaneously with both the Transitional Council and the Libyan government in Tripoli. Mossad agents were also in Tripoli, one of which was a former station manager. At about the same time, French members of the Israeli lobby were visiting Benghazi. In a case of irony, the Transitional Council would claim that Colonel Qaddafi was working with Israel, while it made pledges to recognize Israel to president Sarkozy’s special envoy Bernard-Henri Lévy who would then convey the message to Israeli leaders . A similar pattern (to that of Israel’s links to the Transitional Council) had also developed at an earlier stage in South Sudan, which was armed by Israel.
Despite the Transitional Council’s position on Israel, its followers still tried to demonize Qaddafi by claiming he was secretly Jewish. Not only was this untrue, but it was also bigoted. These accusations were intended to be a form of character assassination that equated being a Jew as something negative.
In reality, Israel and NATO are in the same camp. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Had Qaddafi been conniving with Israel while the Transitional Council was working with NATO, this would mean that both sides were actually being played as fools against one another.
Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”
It is at this point that all the pieces have to be put together and the dots have to be connected. The chessboard is being staged for a “Clash of Civilizations” and all the chess pieces are being put into place.
The Arab World is in the process of being cordoned off and sharp delineation lines are being created. These lines of delineation are replacing the seamless lines of transition between different ethno-linguistic, skin-colour, and religious groups.
Under this scheme, there can no longer be a melding transition between societies and countries. This is why the Christians in the Middle East and North Africa, such as the Copts, are being targeted. This also why black-skinned Arabs and black-skinned Berbers, as well as other North African population groups which are black-skinned, are facing genocide in North Africa.
What is being staged is the creation of an exclusively “Muslim Middle East” area (excluding Israel) that will be in turmoil over Shiite-Sunni fighting. A similar scenario is being staged for a “non-Black North Africa” area which will be characterized by a confrontation between Arabs and Berber. At the same time, under the “Clash of Civilizations” model, the Middle East and North Africa are slated to simultaneously be in conflict with the so-called “West” and “Black Africa”.
This is why both Nicolas Sarzoky, in France, and David Cameron, in Britain, made back-to-back declarations during the start of the conflict in Libya that multiculturalism is dead in their respective Western European societies.
Real multiculturalism threatens the legitimacy of the NATO war agenda. It also constitutes an obstacle to the implementation of the “Clash of Civilizations” which constitutes the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor, explains why multi-culturalism is a threat to Washington and its allies: “[A]s America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [e.g., war with the Arab World, China, Iran, or Russia and the former Soviet Union], except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. Such a consensus generally existed throughout World War II and even during the Cold War [and exists now because of the ‘Global War on Terror’].” 
Brzezinski’s next sentence is the qualifier of why populations would oppose or support wars: “[The consensus] was rooted, however, not only in deeply shared democratic values, which the public sensed were being threatened, but also in a cultural and ethnic affinity for the predominantly European victims of hostile totalitarianisms.” 
Risking being redundant, it has to be mentioned again that it is precisely with the intention of breaking these cultural affinities between the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region and the so-called “Western World” and sub-Saharan Africa that Christians and black-skinned peoples are being targeted.
Ethnocentrism and Ideology: Justifying Today’s “Just Wars”
In the past, the colonial powers of Western Europe would indoctrinate their people. Their objective was to acquire popular support for colonial conquest. This took the form of spreading Christianity and promoting Christian values with the support of armed merchants and colonial armies. At the same time, racist ideologies were put forth. The people whose lands were colonized were portrayed as “sub-human,” inferior, or soulless. Finally, the “White Man’s burden” of taking on a mission of civilizing the so-called “uncivilized peoples of the world” was used. This cohesive ideological framework was used to portray colonialism as a “just cause.” The latter in turn was used to provide legitimacy to the waging of “just wars” as a means to conquering and “civilizing” foreign lands.
Today, the imperialist design of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have not changed. What has changed is the pretext and justification for waging their neo-colonial wars of conquest. During the colonial period, the narratives and justifications for waging war were accepted by public opinion in the colonizing countries, such as Britain and France. Today’s “just wars” and “just causes” are now being conducted under the banners of women’s rights, human rights, humanitarianism, and democracy.
 The Economist,”Israel and Iran in Africa: A search for allies in a hostile world,” February 4, 2011.
 Tova Lazaroff, “70 rights groups call on UN to condemn Tripoli,” Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2011.
 Radio France Internationale, “Libyan rebels will recognise Israel, Bernard-Henri Lévy tells Netanyahu,” June 2, 2011.
 Robert Marquand,”Why Europe is turning away from multiculturalism,” Christian Science Monitor, March 4, 2011.
 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (New York: Basic Books October 1997), p.211
ANNEX I: MAP OF WORLD CIVILIZATIONS
ANNEX II: MODEL OF SAMUEL HUNTINGTON’S “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS”
MAHMOUD JABRIL AND QADDAFI’S WEALTH DISTRIBUTION PROJECT
“Qaddafi’s crowning achievement would have been the creation of the United States of Africa.”
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi symbolizes many things to many different people around the world. Love or hate the Libyan leader, under his rule Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries on the face of the planet into the country with the highest living standards in Africa. In the words of Professor Henri Habibi:
“When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence.” 
Qaddafi had many grand plans. Many of them were of a pan-African nature. This included the formation of a United States of Africa.
Qaddafi’s Pan-African Projects
Colonel Qaddafi started the Great Man-Made River. The Great Man-Made River is a massive project to transform the Sahara Desert and reverse the desertification of Africa. The Great Man-Made River with its irrigation plans was also intended to help the agricultural sector in other parts of Africa. This project was one of the victims of NATO’s attacks on Libya.
Qaddafi also envisioned independent pan-African financial institutions. The Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Foreign Bank were important players in setting up these institutions. Qaddafi, through the Libyan Foreign Bank and the Libyan Investment Authority, was instrumental in setting up Africa’s first satellite network, the Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM), to reduce African dependence on external powers. 
It is believed that his crowning achievement would have been the creation of the United States of Africa. The supranational entity would have been created through the African Investment Bank, the African Monetary Fund, and finally the African Central Bank. These institutions were all viewed with animosity by the European Union, United States, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project
Qaddafi had a wealth redistribution project inside Libya. U.S. Congressional sources in a report to the U.S. Congress even acknowledge this. On February 18, 2011 the report stated:
In March 2008, [Colonel Qaddafi] announced his intention to dissolve most government administrative bodies and institute a Wealth Distribution Program whereby state oil revenues would be distributed to citizens on a monthly basis for them to administer personally, in cooperation, and via local committees. Citing popular criticism of government performance in a long, wide ranging speech, [he] repeatedly stated that the traditional state would soon be “dead” in Libya and that direct rule by citizens would be accomplished through the distribution of oil revenues. [The military], foreign affairs, security, and oil production arrangements reportedly would remain national government responsibilities, while other bodies would be phased out. In early 2009, Libya’s Basic People’s Congresses considered variations of the proposals, and the General People’s Congress voted to delay implementation. 
The Wealth Redistribution Project, along with the establishment of an anarchist political system, was viewed as a very serious threat by the U.S., the E.U., and a group of corrupt Libyan officials. If successful it could have created political unrest amongst many domestic populations around the world. Internally, many Libyan officials were working to delay the project.
Why Mahmoud Jibril Joined the Transitional Council
Amongst the Libyan officials who were opposed to this project and viewed it with horror was Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril was put into place by Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi. Because of strong influence and advice from the U.S. and the E.U., Saif Al-Islam selected Jibril to transform the Libyan economy and impose neo-liberal economic reforms.
Jibril would become the head of two bodies in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the National Planning Council of Libya and National Economic Development Board of Libya. While the National Economic Development Board was a regular ministry, the National Planning Council would actually put Jibril in a government position above that of the equivalent of the prime minister–the Office of the General-Secretary of the People’s Committee of Libya. Jibril actually was one of the forces that opened the doors for privatization and poverty in Libya.
About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibiril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing Qaddafi.  He described Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project as “crazy” in minutes and documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.  Jibril believed that the masses were not fit to govern themselves and that an elite should control the fate and wealth of any nation. What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the government and layoff a large segment of the public sector, but in exchange increase government regulations in Libya. He would also always cite Singapore as the perfect example of a neo-liberal state. While in Singapore, which he regularly visited, it is likely that he meet with Bernard-Henri Lévy.
“What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the government and layoff a large segment of the public sector.”
When the problems erupted in Benghazi, Mahmoud Jibril immediately went to Cairo, Egypt. He told his colleagues that he would be back in Tripoli soon, but he had no intention of returning. In reality, he went to Cairo to meet the leaders of the Syrian National Council and Lévy. They were all waiting for him to coordinate the events in Libya and Syria. This is one of the reasons that the Transitional Council has recognized the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria.
Mahmoud Jibril is now the prime minister of the Transitional Council of Libya. The opposition of Jibril to Qaddafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project and his elitist attitude are amongst the reasons he conspired against Qaddafi and helped form the Transitional Council. Is this ex-regime official, who has always been an open supporter of the Arab dictators in the Persian Gulf, really a representative of the people?
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints, which is a program based in Berkeley, California. Nazemroaya has been releasing these articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired on KPFK, Los Angeles, California, now stored in the archives at KPFK.org.
 Henri Pierre Habib, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montmagny, Québec: Le Cercle de Livre de France Ltée, 1975), p.1.
 Regional African Satellite Communication Organization, “Launch of the Pan African Satellite,” July 26, 2010:
 Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service, February 18, 2011,” Congressional Research Service, February 18, 2011, p.22.
 Private discussions with Mahmoud Jiribil’s co-workers inside and outside of Libya.
 Internal private documents from the National Economic Development Board
THE GREATER MIDDLE EAST PROJECT
PROJECT FOR A NEW MIDDLE EAST
LIBYA, SYRIA AND THE WESTERN AGENDA
TARGETING SYRIAN CHRISTIANS AND BLACK LIBYANS: THE “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” IS ON THE MARCH
LIBYA AND THE BIG LIE: USING HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS TO LAUNCH WARS
THE TRUTH ABOUT LIBYA: NATO’S HUMANITARIAN MILITARY ROADMAP
LIBYA: NATO’S MILITARY OUTPOST ON A THIRD CONTINENT
AN IMPERIALIST PROJECT TO CREATE THREE LIBYAS
THE OLD IMPERIALIST PROJECT TO DIVIDE LIBYA IN THREE HAS BEEN EXECUTED