NATO's Attack On Libya Is an Attack On Africa

African leaders including South African President Jacob Zuma and Congo-Brazzaville leader Denis Sassou Nguesso, meets with Libyan revolutionary leader Muammar Gaddafi. Libya has agreed to an AU peace plan., a photo by Pan-African News Wire File Photos on Flickr.

http://blackstarnews.com/

NATO's Attack On Libya Is an Attack On Africa

South African President Zuma--while he was visiting Libya weeks ago to promote peace, NATO dropped bombs even while he was there...

There are two choices: The end of Africa, by capitulating to the U.S./NATO aggression, or; the beginning of the new African century, by repudiating the NATO aggression and closing the chapter on neo-colonial relations once and for all.

African leaders don't know a potential history changing moment even when it's dangling in front of their eyes---Libya.

If African leaders were able to rally and repudiate NATO's merciless and destructive bombardment of Libya and forcing it to halt, so that the African Union (AU) peace plan can be implimented it would represent the greatest victory in the history of the entire continent against Western military incursion.

First let's quickly dismiss all the nonsensical falsehoods used to legitimize the Western aggression.

NATO and the United States are not bombarding Libya mercilessly every day because the goal is to "save civilians." That bogus storyline has long been abandoned. Civilians can't be saved by 24 x 7 bombardment, destruction, and death.

If NATO and the United States cared about civilians in that part of the world, some of the NATO planes and U.S. drones surely would be diverted to Syria, where dictator Bashar al-Assad is using tanks and machine guns against unarmed civilians engaged in an authentic uprising that does not include CIA agents or British and French military officers or Qatar funding.

Some of the NATO planes, CIA agents and French and British military "advisors" would also be sent to Yemen, where Ali Abdullah Saleh, the U.S.-financed and previously backed dictator has also turned the U.S.-equipped army against the populace.

NATO, the United States and the United Nations have openly intervened to take sides --rather than mediate-- in the Libyan civil war, permanently and embarrasingly destroying any credibility the United Nations had.

Muammar al-Quathafi's government has already agreed to a ceasefire and negotiations for a constitution and elections, as presented in the African Union (AU) peace plan, promoted by African leaders, including South African President Jacob Zuma. NATO and the U.S. insist on humiliating the entire African continent by acting as if Africa does not exist.

The African Union is less compromised and corrupted than NATO and the United Nations, both of which are simply instruments of U.S., British and French foreign policy --as Russia and China now know after the abusive use of Resolution 1973 by the Western countries-- and are financed primarily by these three countries.

Russia's prime minister and president-in-waiting Vladimir Putin has dismissed the U.S. and NATO bombardment intervention as a "call to medieval crusade"

Mustafa Mohamed Abdel-Jalil, the rebel leader has promised Western countries, in a March 14 front page article in The Financial Times, that Libya's oil concessions would be doled out in proportion to the level of support each country gives Benghazi in ousting al-Quathafi.

The U.S. and NATO's military intervention through massive bombardment and infrastructure destruction has created a stalemate while not promoting peace and reconciliation. The true motives were revealed when President Barack Obama, President Nicolas Sarkozy, and Prime Minister David Cameron jointly penned an Op-Ed article calling for al-Quathafi to "go for good;" after which NATO started bombing al-Quathafi's residence and killing his family members, including a son and grand children.

The U.S. role in the Libya war is illegal and unconstitutional and in defiance of the U.S. War Powers Act.

The rebels in Benghazi oversold their Libya-wide "popularity" to the West, resulting in the stalemate. Rather than conceding that the French initiated military intervention was a mistake --Sarkozy desperately wanted to shore his popularity in France-- and allowing the African Union to take the lead in the peace process, the Western countries, by virtue of their military might, want to demonstrate to the world that: an African country can't defy NATO and; certainly an African government can't withstand months of bombardment by NATO and survive as an example to others.

So clearly, the motives are: to regime change; to instal a pliant pro-Western government and; to punish a leader who has defied demands by the leaders of the U.S., France and Britain that he "go for good."

Long ago African countries were not in a position to withstand European slave traders and marauders. African governments were not in a position to withstand colonial incursions and conquest--although there were exceptions such as in Ethiopia, where, under Menelik II, the Italians were dealt a spectacular and thorough defeat at the great Battle of Adowa.

Today, Libya presents the entire African continent with a great opportunity to stand up and demand that the continent be heard.

If the Libyan government alone has withstood for three months now, a U.K., French and Qatar-financed rebellion and massive bombardments by the U.S. and NATO, what if the entire continent could marshal its resources, diplomatic and otherwise, against this Western incursion?

The African Union held a special meeting Wednesday and Thursday to discuss the Libyan civil war. The meeting, which included several African presidents, was barely even mentioned in any major Western media outlet. While the AU was meeting in Ethiopia, Western leaders --President Obama, Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron-- were calling for escalating attacks on Libya, meaning more destruction and deaths; their meeting dominated global front pages.

African leaders are not taken seriously because they make meaningless speeches. If African leaders can't rise to the occasion, what's the use of being a president?

There are two choices: The end of Africa, by capitulating to the U.S./NATO aggression, or; the beginning of the new African century, by repudiating the NATO aggression and closing the chapter on neo-colonial relations once and for all.