Imperialism - search results
Many of us have a vision, an alternative vision to the tyranny of those who control the world. But we are ridiculed, dismissed, put on trial (Manning), confined to a small embassy in
“Some cockroaches have been known to live up to three months without food and a month without water. They are even resilient enough to survive occasional freezing temperatures. This makes them difficult to eradicate once they have infested an area.” – Wikipedia
tribunal) defines aggression as the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes, and it encompasses all of the evil that follows. The Nuremberg and British invasion of US was a textbook example of aggression, which means that we were responsible for all the evil that followed. Serious conflict arose. It spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That’s part of the evil that follows…Take a look at the International criminal court (ICC) – black Africans or other people the West doesn’t like. Bush and Blair ought to be up there. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq . Obama’s got to be there for the terror war... it’s just murder on executive whim” Noam Chomsky (1) Iraq
February 27, the German parliament voted by a large majority to support the French colonial war in Mali. In April, up to 330 German soldiers are to be stationed in that country.
The parliamentary motion includes two mandates. As part of the European Union (EU)-led training mission EUTM, 180 soldiers will be used to train the Malian army. The German army (Bundeswehr) will send 40 scouts and 40 medics and doctors to Koulikoro, 65 kilometres northeast of the capital city, Bamako. Another 100 soldiers are on standby to intervene “if necessary” to “protect the German soldiers.”
According to the commander of the EUTM mission, General François Lecointre, the military trainers from the EU will commence training more than 2,500 Malian soldiers beginning April 2.
The aim of the mission is to stabilise the ailing Malian army and enable it to support the combat mission conducted by French troops in the north of the country. About one year ago and before the French invasion, the Malian army had been driven out of the region by a coalition of Islamist rebels and Tuareg warriors.
The second mandate involves an additional 150 soldiers to logistically support the combat mission of the French Air Force. The plan is to use an Airbus to refuel French Rafale and Mirage fighter jets in the air. In addition, 63 soldiers and three Transall planes will continue to transport French combat troops and troops from the Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to Mali.
In January, shortly after the beginning of the war, the German army commenced logistical support of combat French and African troops, without a mandate from the German parliament. Since then, the Transall planes have transported some 570 soldiers and about 290 tons of material in 117 flights carried out in the area of operation.
According to official estimates, the German military operation will cost at least €55.5 million. In addition to the governing parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Christian Social Union and the Free Democratic Party (FDP), the opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens also voted in favour. From a total of 567 MPs, 496 voted in favour of the training mandate, and 492 for the deployment of “logistical support.”
The mandate initially runs for 12 months but is likely to be extended. Defence Minister Thomas de Maiziere (CDU) had already prepared parliamentarians in the first discussion in parliament for a prolonged military campaign, declaring, “No deployment is a walk in the park.”
The parliamentary vote is a further expansion of the dirty imperialist colonial war in Mali. The official website of the federal parliament states, “Germany [will] contribute, through its actions, to bring under state control those areas in northern Mali still under the influence of terrorist, extremist and armed groups.”
Officially, the Bundeswehr missions in both Mali and Afghanistan have been justified with the alleged “war against terrorism”.
In parliament, Rainer Stinner, foreign policy spokesman of the FDP parliamentary group, declared that the situation in Mali “has long-term influence on our German security interests” and that there was “a risk that terrorist forces or forces with evil intent would spread in another regions of the world.”
The reference to “terrorism” by imperialist powers to justify their colonial wars is hypocritical. The same Islamists active in northern Mali were in 2011 important allies of Western powers in their campaign against the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Now, these powers and their regional allies are backing similar reactionary forces in Syria to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and install a pro-Western puppet regime.
In reality, the wars in Mali and Afghanistan have nothing to do with a “struggle against terrorism,” but are rooted in definite geo-strategic and economic interests.
The latest military campaign in Mali is part of the imperialist campaign for a renewed colonial subjugation of Africa, which began with the NATO war against Libya two years ago. In common with the entire Sahel region, Mali is rich in natural resources. The major imperialist powers are seeking to secure these resources in an increasingly aggressive competitive race with China, which has close economic ties with Mali and other countries in the region.
After hesitating to participate in the Libya campaign, the German bourgeoisie is determined to gain a share of the spoils in Mali. German companies have made clear they intend to join the race for raw materials in Africa.
A long and detailed report last week in the German business newspaperHandelsblatt made clear that the German business and political elite are preparing to intensify their capacity to wage wars to secure the resources so necessary for the German export industry. The article lists China as one of Germany’s biggest competitors in this race, and explicitly identifies North Africa as one of the most strategically important regions in this respect.
The article relates that the German ambassador to NATO has been “given the job of reassessing north Africa and Middle East, along with its regional allies, to define which countries are of particular importance for Western and German security interests.”
German imperialism also regards the war against Mali as a prelude to further wars in the region. This was indicated in a comment by the foreign affairs spokesperson for the Greens, Kerstin Müller, who declared that the German operation amounted to “emergency surgery in order to prevent an even worse situation.” She then added: “If we want avoid intervention in the future in Niger or Burkina Faso, then we need a strategy for the entire Sahel.”
A particularly cynical role in the return of German imperialism is being played by the Left Party. Well aware that the motion would be passed overwhelmingly, the party voted against for tactical reasons.
In her speech before the vote, the “peace spokeswoman” of the Left Party, Christine Buchholz, gave the other parties a clear signal that the Left Party is quite willing to support future German military operations. She argued against a “general debate on the war policy of the federal government” and called instead for “a general discussion about how we can solve economic and social problems and the extreme problems that the arms trade causes in the world.”
The readiness of the Left Party to support military intervention in the interests of German imperialism was already clear from the position it took towards the Western aggression against Syria. In December of last year, leaders of the party backed an appeal for an intervention in Syria. The statement was also supported by the leaders of the CDU, the SPD and the Greens.
The broad principles underlying the United Nations (UN) are noble and peaceful. They have unfortunately been perverted from the UN’s inception.
The UN is currently being used as an instrument of domination by several permanent member States of the UN Security Council.
According to the Charter’s Preamble the UN was established:
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war [...] to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained [...]” (Charter of the United Nations)
The UN General Assembly (GA) is democratic. One country, one vote. Unfortunately, even if it represents all 193 member states and passes very important resolutions, its members often follow the diktats of the powerful nations on which they depend financially.
The GA has no power. The latter lies in the self-given authority of the five permanent members of the Security Council (U.S.,UK, France, Russia, China), the only ones in possession of the very arbitrary and very powerful veto.
The astonishing number of resolutions passed by the GA regarding Israel have had no effect whatsoever and have invariably been blocked by the US at the Security Council (SC).
In his historic speech at the UN in 2009, which the New York Times unfairly qualified as “rambling”, the late Muammar Gaddafi rightfully and virulently criticized the unjust and contradictory nature of the UN:
The Preamble is very appealing, and no one objects to it, but all the provisions that follow it completely contradict the Preamble. We reject such provisions, and we will never uphold them; they ended with the Second World War. The Preamble says that all nations, small or large, are equal. Are we equal when it comes to the permanent seats? No, we are not equal.
[…] Do we have the right of veto? Are we equal? The Preamble says that we have equal rights, whether we are large or small.
That is what is stated and what we agreed in the Preamble. So the veto contradicts the Charter. The permanent seats contradict the Charter. We neither accept nor recognize the veto.
The Preamble of the Charter states that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest. That is the Preamble that we agreed to and signed, and we joined the United Nations because we wanted the Charter to reflect that. It says that armed force shall only be used in the common interest of all nations, but what has happened since then? Sixty-five wars have broken out since the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council — 65 since their creation, with millions more victims than in the Second World War. Are those wars, and the aggression and force that were used in those 65 wars, in the common interest of us all? No, they were in the interest of one or three or four countries, but not of all nations. (Muammar Gaddafi cited in Who is Muammar Al-Qadhafi: Read his Speech to the UN General Assembly, Global Research, March 23, 2011)
It is worth noting that the Libyan leader was killed during the 2012 NATO military invasion, which had been been approved by the Security Council. Three of the SC”s permanent members namely the U.S., the UK and France, participated in this NATO led invasion.
According to Mahmoud Jibril, Libya’s interim Prime Minister during the Western-backed armed insurrection in 2011, Gaddafi was killed by a French intelligence operative “acting under direct instructions of the French government”.
French President “Sarkozy was eager to prevent the possibility of Gaddafi standing trial, particularly after the Libyan leader had threatened to expose his alleged financial dealings with the French President”. (Joseph Fitsanakis, Did French intelligence agent kill Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi?, intelNews.org, October 2, 2012.)
These allegations are not surprising since France played a leading role in the invasion of Libya.
Was the war on Libya, like the other wars Gaddafi mentioned, “in the common interest of us all” or “in the interest of one or three or four countries”?
Libya was invaded and its leader killed for many reasons, all of which were of financial and geostrategic nature. Mahdi Nazemroaya explains how only a few nations, most of all the U.S., control the UN:
The manipulation of the United Nations for imperialist interests, […] goes back a long way. From its inception, the United Nations was meant to facilitate the global influence of the US after the Second World War. [...]
The UN was used as a tool to control most these former Western European and American colonies of the Third World. At first the US and its post-war allies maintained their domination over the newly formed UN and the former colonies through their numbers and then through a Western Bloc monopoly over the structures of the United Nations. Hereto this monopoly includes control over the agencies and permanent veto-wielding chairs of the fifteen-member Security Council of the United Nations.
The Security Council above all has been used by the US as a means of protecting its interests. The purpose of the Security Council veto is to reject any international resolutions and consensuses against the national interests (or more precisely the interests of the ruling elites) of the US and the other major post-World War II powers [...]
As the Western Bloc began to lose its numerical advantage, control over the Secretariat would be maintained through the Security Council. The UN Security Council does this by filtering all the candidates for the top UN post in the Secretariat. Secretaries-general of the UN are appointed by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Thus, the US and other permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes that can eliminate any candidates that would be hostile to their interests. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, America’s Takeover of the United Nations, Press TV 3 September 2012.)
The selection process of the UN Secretary-General reveals why those in office espouse concepts such as the so-called “responsibility to protect” (R2P), which actually refers to “military invasion”, and why they fail to act as “spokesm[e]n for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them”, as their position requires. If R2P had been drafted with genuine intent, it would have been invoked to protect Palestinians against the permanent Israeli aggression. Under Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretariat has rather endorsed Israeli agressions and approved the illegal blockade of Gaza. Kofi Annan was “an enabler of ‘responsibility to protect’” and Ban Ki-moon its “executioner”, Nazemroaya argues.
In regards to both Libya and Syria, Ban Ki-moon has followed the US and NATO script for R2P and regime change. When a major propaganda effort was launched against Syria following the Houla Massacre, Ban Ki-moon and other UN officials quickly followed the US line and condemned Damascus at a special session of the UN General Assembly in New York City. (Ibid.)
Ronda Hauben details the “mysterious process” by which the Security Council was able to influence the way the UN investigation on the Houla massacre was conducted and how a one-sided version of the events supporting the Western propaganda prevailed:
By a rather mysterious process, the Security Council’s request that an investigation of the Houla massacre, which was to be carried out with the involvement of UNSMIS, was shifted to a significantly different process that was carried out by the Human Rights Council and the Commission of Inquiry it created, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (hereafter CoI). How this shift happened and the significance of this change, merit serious consideration by those who are concerned about the role the UN is playing in the conflict in Syria [...]
Major-General Robert Mood, head of UNSMIS, [...] said that UNSMIS had been to Houla with an investigating team [...] They interviewed locals who told one story. They interviewed locals who told another story. But the circumstances leading up to Houla, the detailed circumstances, the facts related to the incident still remained unclear to the UNSMIS investigators. This led General Mood to say that if there was a decision to support a more extensive on the ground investigation, UNSMIS could help to facilitate it.
In his June 15 press briefing, General Mood said the UNSMIS Report on Houla included statements and interviews with locals with one story and statements and interviews with locals with another story. The August Report of the CoI tells only one story and claims that they either do not have other information or that any other information they know of is inconsistent, so that they have accepted that there is only one story. The Reports that the CoI produced had no on-site interviews or statements, but only telephone or Skype interviews with insurgents or those supporting the account of Houla presented by the armed insurgents. (Ronda Hauben, US-NATO Sponsored Crimes against Humanity in Syria. Coverup by UN Human Rights Council, taz.de,November 28, 2012)
Of all 297 UNSMIS international unarmed military observers on the ground “to monitor a cessation of armed violence in all its forms by all parties“, none were from the US. The conditions of the UNSMIS mandate were set by the Security Council, which decided on July 20, 2012 it would allow the mission to be extended only if it confirmed “the cessation of the use of heavy weapons and a reduction in the level of violence sufficient by all sides”. The US must have known those conditions would be impossible to meet since it had itself been providing the rebels with heavy weaponry and contributing to the violence. Even The New York Times ran a story on the CIA arming Syrian rebels on June 21. The UNSMIS mandate was ended on August 19. If the US was not part of the UNSMIS, it was and still is, on the other hand, a member the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The US possibly used its influent position at the Security Council to request that the HRC takes over the Houla massacre investigation, where it could play a part in its findings and align them with its war agenda.
[T]he US was elected to a second three-year term on the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). President Bush boycotted the HRC for criticizing Israel too much, but Obama joined in 2010 to ‘improve’ it. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice welcomed Washington’s re-election this week, saying that the HRC “has delivered real results”, citing its criticism of Syria, though she criticized the rights council’s continued “excessive and unbalanced focus on Israel”. (Eric Walberg, Human Rights: the People vs the UN, November 18, 2012.)
While it should be the guardian and promoter of international law, the UN has shown several times it acts on behalf of the powerful against the powerless. NATO has been manipulating the UN to legitimize its brutal neo-colonial designs and international law is being used in a very selective manner by imperial powers. James Petras explains:
Imperial law supersedes international law simply because imperial law is backed by brute force; it possesses imperial/colonial air, ground and naval armed forces to ensure the supremacy of imperial law. In contrast, international law lacks an effective enforcement mechanism.
Moreover, international law, to the extent that it is effective, is applied only to the weaker powers and to regimes designated by the imperial powers as ‘violators’. [T]he application and jurisdiction of international law is selective and subject to constraints imposed by the configurations of imperial and national power [...]
To counter the claims and judgments pertaining to international law, especially in the area of theGenevaprotocols such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, imperial legal experts, scholars and judges have elaborated a legal framework to justify or exempt imperial-state activity [...]
This does not imply that imperial rulers totally discard international law: they just apply it selectively to their adversaries, especially against independent nations and rulers, in order to justify imperial intervention and aggression – Hence the ‘legal bases’ for dismantlingYugoslaviaor invadingIraqand assassinating its rulers [...]
Imperial legal doctrine has played a central role in justifying and providing a basis for the exercise of international terrorism. Executives, such as US Presidents Bush and Obama, have been provided with the legal power to undertake cross-national ‘targeted’ assassinations of opponents using predator drones and ordering military intervention, in clear violation of international law and national sovereignty. Imperial law, above all else, ‘legalizes’ aggression and economic pillage and undermines the laws of targeted countries, creating lawlessness and chaos among its victims. (James Petras“Legal Imperialism” and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection and Colonization,December 03, 2012)
On behalf of four men, Canadian and American lawyers recently filed a complaint against Canada with the United Nations Committee against Torture, because the Canadian authorities failed to prosecute George W. Bush during his visit to the country. Considering its strong economic, diplomatic and military ties to the U.S, such a move was not expected from Canada and its inaction demonstrates yet again how the U.S.’ imperial law overcomes international law.
As a signatory to the Convention against Torture, Canada has an obligation to investigate and prosecute a torture suspect on its soil. This is the first time a complaint concerning torture allegations against a high-level U.S. official has been filed with the U.N. Committee. The Canadian Centre for International Justice (CCIJ) and the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed the complaint on the men’s behalf.
“Canada has the jurisdiction and the obligation to prosecute a torture suspect present in Canada, including a former head of state, and even one from a powerful country,” said Matt Eisenbrandt, CCIJ’s Legal Director. “Canada’s failure to conduct a criminal investigation and prosecution against Mr. Bush when there was overwhelming evidence against him constitutes a clear violation of its international obligations and its own policy not to be a safe haven for torturers.” (Lawyers against the War, Survivors File U.N. Complaint Against Canada for Failing to Prosecute George W. Bush for Torture The Canadian Centre for International Justice, November 14, 2012.)
Global Research has been committed to peace and justice and over the years has provided its readers with insightful analyses pertaining to the UN, international law and illegal wars. We need your help to continue to fight the brutal domination of a ruling elite willing to send young men and women fight unjust wars of aggression to remain in power through destruction and exploitation. You find our articles useful? Make a donation or become a Global Research member!
America’s Takeover of the United Nations, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, September 3, 2012
US-NATO Sponsored Crimes against Humanity in Syria. Coverup by UN Human Rights Council, Ronda Hauben, November 28, 2012
Human Rights: the People vs the UN, Eric Walberg, November 18, 2012
“Legal Imperialism” and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection and Colonization, James Petras, December 03, 2012
Survivors File U.N. Complaint Against Canada for Failing to Prosecute George W. Bush for Torture, Lawyers against the War, November 14, 2012
Hamas Shouldn’t Fire Rockets … But Israel Has Violated HUNDREDS of UN Resolutions, Washington’s Blog, November 20, 2012
UN General Assembly Vote On Syria: World Gone Unipolar – And Mad, Rick Rozoff, August 06, 2012
Canada’s Vote Opposing UN Recognition of Palestine. Quebec’s Motion to Recognize Palestine Statehood, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, December 05, 2012
UN Vote on Palestine, Stephen Lendman, December 01, 2012
UNESCO Human Rights Conference Honoring Israel’s President Shimon Peres. Four of Five Speakers Pull Out, Ali Abunimah, October 24, 2012
Boycott and Chaos at the United Nations in Geneva: Who Committed War Crimes in Iraq? Dirk Adriaensens, October 03, 2012
The UN and General Mood’s “Missing Report” on Conflicting Accounts of Houla Massacre, Ronda Hauben, September 11, 2012
UN Envoy Brahimi bears Poison Chalice to Syria, Finian Cunningham, September 10, 2012
NAM Summit: Ban Ki-Moon in disgraceful show of US puppetry, Finian Cunningham, August 30, 2012
Can the US and its Allies arbitrarily Violate International Law?, Rick Rozoff and John Robles, August 17, 2012
Terrorism as an Instrument of US Foreign Policy: UN-Backed Rogue States Plan Syria’s Slaughter, Felicity Arbuthnot, August 11, 2012
From “The Battle of Algiers” to the Intervention in Mali: French Imperialism, Resistance Movements...
Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 movie ‘The Battle of Algiers’ was an award winning film based on the Algerian War (1954-1962) between the Algerian independence movement called the National Liberation Front (FLN) who launched a Guerilla War against French occupation. Algeria eventually won its independence on July 5th, 1962.
Algerian nationals were treated as second-class citizens who were discriminated and humiliated by French nationals in their own country. The film takes place during a rebellion against French colonial rule in Algeria between 1954 and 1957.
The opening scene of the film portrayed an Algerian national who was just tortured by the “Paras” or French paratroopers in order to obtain information on a suspected individual who was one of the leaders of the resistance named Ali la Pointe. The FLN targeted French nationals, Algerian nationals who collaborated with French authorities and the military and police with numerous assassinations and bombings. French troops used lynching, torture and murder to intimidate FLN insurgents and their supporters. The film shows how a resistance can take place from a population that can initiate an armed resurrection against colonial rule. In the movie, French police bombed a building in retaliation for the mass shootings of police and military personnel. The bombing took place by the home of an elderly Algerian Man (who was innocent and at the wrong place at the wrong time) accused of murdering a French policeman. The bomb killed scores of people including women and children. The FLN responded with similar bomb attacks in the French sector where the targets were bars, restaurants, race-tracks and an Air France office. Many French civilians were killed by the bombings. It allowed the French military to assume control over all areas of Algeria especially the Casbah, where attacks were taking place.
The Battle of Algiers Scene-French Military marches into Algiers
Whether terrorist attacks are used as a weapon for the purpose of resisting foreign occupation or carried out by the government such as the Reichstag Fire in 1933 committed by the Nazi regime to blame the Communists, Western governments can use military action to fight terrorism. The consequence of the military use of force against civilian populations results in retaliatory attacks against their occupiers. In a scene from ‘The Battle of Algiers’ one of the leaders of the FLN was asked questions on their Guerilla war tactics during a press conference after he was apprehended by French forces:
Journalist: “Mr. Ben M’Hidi … Don’t you think it is a bit cowardly to use your women’s baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?”
Ben M’Hidi: “And doesn’t it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on unarmed villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets”
A people’s rebellion against foreign occupation is always seen as terrorism or as a crime against humanity according to Western media. Armed resistance against foreign occupation was recognized by United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) on November 29th, 1974:
3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;
Ben M’Hidi’s statement was correct considering that France used Napalm bombs in Vietnam against an anti-French Resistance called the Viet Minh during the First Indochina War. It is known as the Anti-French Resistance War in Vietnam which took place between December 19, 1946 and August 1st, 1954. It resulted in the deaths of over 90,000 French and 200,000-500,000 Viet Minh and between 125,000-300,000 civilians. The FLN was the resistance against French colonial rule which has happened in many countries throughout the world including Vietnam who experienced foreign occupation by France for more than 60 years.
In March 1954 the National Liberation Front (Front de Libération Nationale, FLN) was created by Algerian exiles in Egypt to counter French occupational forces in Algeria. On November 1 the FLN launched coordinated attacks on public buildings, military installations, police stations and communications facilities.
By 1956, the FLN had an estimated 40,000 members who turned to guerrilla warfare against a superior military force that had more advanced weapons with hit-and-run tactics. FLN targeted Europeans, Muslims who were considered collaborators, military and police personnel with methods of terrorism that involved bombings, targeted assassinations and kidnapping. That same year, France committed more 400,000 troops to the Algerian crisis and responded with Counterterrorism measures such as torture, threatened FLN family members and used undercover agents to penetrate the FLN to spread false allegations and rumors to divide and conquer the organization. They also recruited and trained Muslim irregulars, known as the Harkis to use guerrilla tactics with shotguns to counter the FLN. France even used Napalm on both FLN members and civilians. It was similar to Israel’s use of White Phosphorus shells on the Palestinians during the 2008 Gaza War.
As the war continued false flag operations were conducted through the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) or the Directorate of Territorial Surveillance. They were part of the French National Police. False flag operations are when governments are involved in “covert operations” or carefully planned and executed operations that are secret and that is concealed from the public so that the operation would seem as if they were carried out by other groups or individuals rather than the government themselves who committed the act in the first place. Journalists Roger Faligot and Pascal Krop published DST: Police Secrete in 1999 and explained that DST was an intelligence agency that focused on counterespionage and counterterrorism tactics that was responsible for the creation of the Organization of the French Algerian Resistance (ORAF). ORAF was a group that was financed and trained by the DST to commit false flag terror attacks with the “aim of quashing any hopes of political compromise”. ORAF targeted members of the FLN and committed numerous terrorist attacks on civilians which blamed the FLN in many cases. France wanted to keep Algeria as a colony, but the majority of the population resisted foreign occupation. The war caused 1.5 million casualties according to the FLN and French officials declared more than 350,000 casualties of war. The Algerian War was complex. It claimed the lives of many French and Algerian civilians that included women and children, the police and military personnel. All parties were responsible for the atrocities including the French Paramilitary and the Police, Harki, the Organization of the French Algerian Resistance (ORAF) and the FLN.
However, regarding the situation of Mali and Algeria, terror attacks can spread to Europe. In a US News & World Report article titled “The French Intervention in Mali Is Necessary, But Risky” stated that “Military operations in northern Mali are likely to radicalize the population, spark a race war, and spread the conflict to neighboring countries. They also are unlikely to yield a long-term solution.” This is exactly what the French government wants, an excuse to re-occupy Mali and Algeria as colonial possessions. The Mali intervention is necessary for corporate interests, not for the interests of the Malian people. The radicalization of the Mali population is possible and can cause a blowback to France in the form of a terrorist attack. This would allow France to clamp down on its own citizens because more protests are expected in the coming months since the French economy is in decline due to the European debt crisis. When there is a terrorist problem, the French government would offer the solution to protect its citizenry. When Imperial powers unleash their militaries on the local population to combat terrorism, organizations such as the ‘Ansar Dine’ were most likely used to commit the terror attacks. They are linked to an Islamic organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda known as the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) created by the West during the Soviet-Afghan War when they were called the “Mujahideen”. Members of ‘Ansar Dine’ come from Mali, Algeria and Nigeria. When Western powers use military force to fight terrorist organizations, the population gets caught in the crossfire, many innocents are killed causing a radicalization of the population to retaliate. They create hatred among the people who would eventually become the resistance against the occupation. This becomes an opportunity for the west.
French Troops in Mali on January 16, 2013
But the situation in Mali and Algeria is created by the west to re-conquer territories that was once controlled by the same forces since the 17th Century that are intervening in the North-African region today. ‘The Battle of Algiers’ serves as a reminder that there are legitimate resistance fighters against foreign occupation as there are terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda created by the West to commit terrorist acts as a pretext for invasion to supposedly “protect” French and Malian civilians and it’s government, but that is far from the truth. Its about Mali’s resources.
‘The Battle of Algiers’ is a movie, but it should also serve as a history lesson on how governments use the excuse of terrorism to their advantage. The point is that France, who is backed by the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) would use any means necessary to re-occupy Mali and Algeria in order to exploit their resources for French, American and British corporations. France is under the Anglo-American establishment and it has been ordered to invade North-Africa regardless of the consequences. Terrorism whether used by legitimate resistance movements against foreign occupation or by the government to blame their enemies can justify their actions. They can use their military and police to occupy a country, exploit the resources and take away the people’s rights. France is allied with the United States and Great Britain in the War on Terror. Western powers want to re-take Africa, Latin America, the Middle-east and Asia so that they can dominate the world. It does not end with Mali and Algeria, so expect more wars in the coming years. Imperialism is a cancer on our planet that enforces colonialism and commits false flag terrorism to justify their military occupation. Either way, they both lead to war. France and its Western allies will find a way to occupy North-Africa and that is unfortunate.