By Thierry Meyssan October 16, 2012 “Information Clearing House” - On October 8, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CTSO) began maneuvers dubbed “Inviolable Fraternity” (“НЕРУШИМОЕ БРАТСТВО”). The scenario focuses on the deployment of a peace force in an imaginary country where international jihadists and terrorist organizations operate against a backdrop of ethnic and confessional divisions. The […]
Category Archives: Nato
France Displays Unhinged Hypocrisy as Bombs Fall on Mali
By Tony Cartalucci
January 13, 2013 “Information Clearing House” - A deluge of articles have been quickly put into circulation defending France’s military intervention in the African nation of Mali. TIME’s article, “The Crisis in Mali: Will French Intervention Stop the Islamist Advance?” decides that old tricks are the best tricks, and elects the tiresome “War on Terror” narrative.
TIME claims the intervention seeks to stop “Islamist” terrorists from overrunning both Africa and all of Europe. Specifically, the article states:
“…there is a (probably well-founded) fear in France that a radical Islamist Mali threatens France most of all, since most of the Islamists are French speakers and many have relatives in France. (Intelligence sources in Paris have told TIME that they’ve identified aspiring jihadis leaving France for northern Mali to train and fight.) Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), one of the three groups that make up the Malian Islamist alliance and which provides much of the leadership, has also designated France — the representative of Western power in the region — as a prime target for attack.”
Algeria has expressed particular concern that the unrest in Libya could lead to the development of a major safe haven and sanctuary for al-Qaeda and other extremist jihadis.
Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar noted a more direct connection between LIFG and AQIM in an Asia Times piece titled, “How al-Qaeda got to rule in Tripoli:”
“Crucially, still in 2007, then al-Qaeda’s number two, Zawahiri, officially announced the merger between the LIFG and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). So, for all practical purposes, since then, LIFG/AQIM have been one and the same – and Belhaj was/is its emir. “
“Belhaj,” referring to Hakim Abdul Belhaj, leader of LIFG in Libya, led with NATO support, arms, funding, and diplomatic recognition, the overthrowing of Muammar Qaddafi and has now plunged the nation into unending racist and tribal, genocidal infighting. This intervention has also seen the rebellion’s epicenter of Benghazi peeling off from Tripoli as a semi-autonomous “Terror-Emirate.” Belhaj’s latest campaign has shifted to Syria where he was admittedly on the Turkish-Syrian border pledging weapons, money, and fighters to the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” again, under the auspices of NATO support.
Image: NATO’s intervention in Libya has resurrected listed-terrorist organization and Al Qaeda affiliate, LIFG. It had previously fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now has fighters, cash and weapons, all courtesy of NATO, spreading as far west as Mali, and as far east as Syria. The feared “global Caliphate” Neo-Cons have been scaring Western children with for a decade is now taking shape via US-Saudi, Israeli, and Qatari machinations, not “Islam.” In fact, real Muslims have paid the highest price in fighting this real “war against Western-funded terrorism.”
A leading member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group indicated the organization may have acquired some of the thousands of powerful weapons that went missing in the chaos of the Libyan uprising, stoking long-held fears of Western officials.
“We have been one of the main beneficiaries of the revolutions in the Arab world,” Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a leader of the north Africa-based al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb [AQIM], told the Mauritanian news agency ANI Wednesday. “As for our benefiting from the [Libyan] weapons, this is a natural thing in these kinds of circumstances.”
Land Destroyer is an alternative news blog based in Bangkok, Thailand covering geopolitics. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/
As the mayhem in Syria shows, NATO does little but destabilise the countries that it threatens to intervene in. By Luke Gittos October 10, 2012 “Information Clearing House” - Can anyone still make a good argument in favour of NATO? Even ardent interventionists, chomping at the bit to assert Western military dominance over the globe, must […]
by Thierry Meyssan
Despite applying until now the humanitarian military intervention model already tested in Yugoslavia and more recently in Libya, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is having to rewrite its script for Syria. It will now adopt the same strategy that was used in Iraq: To besiege the country, in defiance of the population, to weaken it sufficiently for the next assault.
- US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Saban Forum in Washington, 3 December 2011.
NATO is currently reviewing its strategy for Syria. After eight months of low intensity war and despite the infiltration of many Arab and Pashtun fighters, Syrian society has not fractured. To be sure, some religious clashes took place in Deraa, Homs and Banias, but they were not widespread and were short lived. For the Alliance, it is no longer realistic to think that it can rapidly foment a civil war to justify an “international humanitarian operation.”
This realization comes at a time when the ad hoc military coalition is in the throes of a crisis. During the war against Libya, the initiative had been spearheaded by France and the UK. However, the two European heavyweights proved they were incapable of mobilizing the necessary resources. In fact, three quarters of the war effort was provided or funded by the Pentagon. Above all, the deployment of inadequate devices could have wrought disaster had Libya decided to attack NATO’s ships and helicopters . The problem is much worse in the case of Syria, which boasts a population four times larger than that of Libya, and an army seasoned by previous regional conflicts.
It was therefore decided to strengthen the Franco-British duo by bringing in Germany. A tripartite agreement was to be negotiated on December 2 to mark, albeit belatedly, the anniversary of the Lancaster House Treaty  which laid down the organizational framework for the joint British and French expeditionary forces and sealed the fate of Libya . However, the event was canceled. In the middle of the Western economic crisis, Berlin is loath to underwrite war expenses without a guaranteed return on its investment.
Germany’s budgetary rationality has shattered the epic dreams of the US-Israeli military-industrial complex. The departure of Robert Gates and the rise of Hillary Clinton have signaled the revival of the project for the “remodeling of the Greater Middle East” and its extension to North Africa. However, this doctrine – which stems from the imperial ideology of Leo Strauss – reeks of a perpetual headlong rush, the war having no other aim than itself. It may ideal for the war economy of the United States, but it hardly suits Germany’s peace-based economy.
The plan of a conventional war against Syria raises many economic issues. No European nation would have anything to gain either in the short or medium term, while many are likely to lose a few feathers. In the case of Libya, whereas British and French businessmen were swift to cash in on their dividends by renegotiating the oil concessions to their advantage, the Turks and the Italians were left holding the bag, losing nearly all their markets in the former colony.
Pending the creation of an ad hoc military coalition, NATO has temporarily turned to the economic war scenario. It intends to besiege Syria by cutting it off from all import-export trade, and sabotaging its means of production. Behind the moralistic label of “sanctions,” the Alliance member states and their Arab League vassals have already imposed a bank freeze that prohibits commodity trading. They are currently concentrating on shutting down lines of communication, including airlines, and the pull out of multinational companies, mainly oil companies. Thus, following in the footsteps of Shell and Total, Petro-Canada is on its way out, closing behind it the plant that supplies electricity to the city of Homs.
In particular, the first major act of sabotage was perpetrated against the pipeline supplying the same power plant, to make sure it could not operate once the Canadian engineers had gone. This terrorist act was claimed by the Syrian Free Army, although it is not possible to verify who was really behind it: military felons, Al Qaeda mercenaries or NATO commandos.
With the exception of fuel and electricity, no shortage has so far been reported in Syria. To mitigate the impact of the siege, Damascus is busy establishing new exchanges with Beijing. Because of the bank embargo, they have to be conducted on a barter basis, as China is already doing with Iran. This system should allow Syria to save its economy, apart from the tourist industry which has already been severely affected over the long term.
At any rate, the siege of Syria has already claimed many economic victims in Turkey, whose cancellation of the free trade agreement with Syria and the introduction of prohibitive tariffs have devastated the border regions. And although the Syrians are prepared to endure deprivations to save their country, the Turks are not willing to suffer the same fate on behalf of NATO’s ambitions.
In addition, this strategic reorientation has placed the Syrian National Council in an awkward position. Those political figures who endorsed a form of nonviolent action inspired by Gene Sharp’s orange revolutions  are now forced to subscribe to acts which have been claimed by members of the Syrian Free Army. The conflict is all the more acute considering that both groups are based in Istanbul and expected to work side by side.
The suspension of the international military intervention plan was confirmed by the return to Damascus of the US, French and German Ambassadors. It imposes a change in the media campaign. Already, the Anglo-American media have dropped references to the most outrageous and less credible accusations leveled against Bashar al-Assad, such as the allegation concerning the torture of children. The State Department itself no longer describes the Syrian President as a monster, but as a man “out of touch with reality” (sic) “ . His case, therefore, no longer requires an urgent treatment. Moreover, the revelations made by several journalists about the situation in Syrian, belying the image conveyed by Western propaganda for the past eight months , calls for an indispensable lull.
 “Accidental Heroes. Britain, France and the Libya Operation,” by Michael Clarke, Malcolm Chalmers, Jonathan Eyal, Shashank Joshi, Mark Phillips, Elizabeth Quintana and Lee Willett, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), Octtobeer 2011, 13 p, 1,4 Mo.
 “Déclaration franco-britannique sur la coopération de défense et de sécurité », Réseau Voltaire, 2 November 2010.
 “’Operation Odyssey Dawn’ breaking for Washington”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 20 March 2011.
 “The Albert Einstein Institution: non-violence according to the CIA”, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 4 January 2005.
 “Запад и ближневосточные монархии жаждут сожрать Сирию,” by Thierry Meyssan, Komsomolskaia Pravda, 29 November 2011.
The possible deployment of Russian missiles near Alliance nations, in response to the missile defense system created by Washington in Europe, is “very disappointing”, bemoaned NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Wednesday.
Rasmussen, however, welcomed “President Medvedev’s willingness not to close the door on continued dialogue with NATO and the U.S. on missile defence,” reads a statement released by the Alliance.
This statement came on the heels of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s threat to deploy in western and southern Russia modern offensive systems which would ensure the destruction of European missile defense facilities should the U.S. continue its deployment.
Source: Ria Novosti, 24 November 2011.
A fight over a tiny rock Rockall is unfolding In the North Atlantic. It is claimed by the United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark. It is unlikely that a piece of land with the area of 570 square meters would have caused such an interest if it had not been for the oil found under it. Now the UN will decide who will be the proud owner of the “Golden Rock”.
Rockall is the above-water area of the once-extinct volcano. There had never been fresh water there, hence, it was not livable. The only inhabitants of the island are guillemots, northern cormorants and other birds that stop at Rockall during their long flights. Some birds even build their nests on the cliff. At the same time there is plenty of fish and shellfish in the surrounding waters. The possession of seafood is another reason to fight for this area.
Rockall is referenced in Irish medieval folklore. There, it presents a mythical stone “Rocabarra” which should appear before the doomsday. As for the scientific description of the rock, it was fist mentioned in 1703 by a Scot Martin Martin. He also pointed to the existence of the Irish legend of the “Rocabarra.”
Centuries went by, and Rockall acquired a reputation of a deadly place. For example, in 1686 a fishing boat was stranded in its vicinity. In 1812 a research ship “Leonidas” sank near it, and 12 years later – brigantine “Helen of Dundee.” In 1904, near Rockall “Norway” ship crashed on its way to New York. Then 635 people were killed and 150 managed to escape.
Since then, however, the lighthouses broke down, but no one dared to take the flag off. The British did not take particular care of the rock and even choose not to register their rights to Rockall through the UN. They reinforced the sovereignty in strange ways. In 1975 two Marines came here for a photo shoot for a couple of hours. 10 years later, a retired British soldier lived on Rockall in a wooden box screwed to the rock for six weeks.
The first people to encroach British sovereignty over the islands were the activists of “Greenpeace”. Three environmentalists settled on the island for 42 days to protest the British oil exploration ongoing in this area. Representatives of the “Greenpeace” declared the island “a new global state of “Waveland”. Anyone could become its national. The political circus, however, did not last long.
Rockall would have remained either formally British, or nobody’s if the scientists had not begun to study the shelf around the rock to see if there was oil there. The oil was found, and, according to British experts, it may replenish the treasury of the United Kingdom by 100 billion pounds. It seems that there are also gas fields. Then other countries began to fuss.
Ireland, Iceland and Denmark have decided to challenge the British right to explore the mineral resources and marine fishery near Rockall. Icelanders and the Irish made a corresponding claim in the relevant commission of the UN. The United Kingdom followed the suit. Denmark joined the claim as well. It is expected to formalize all the documents by 2014.
Each side has their own arguments. Britain claims that the nearest territory to Rockall area is the island of Hirt located at the north-west coast of Scotland. It is 300 kilometers away from Rockall, while Ireland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands that belong to Denmark lie a little further. The English believe the rock to be an island; hence all the waters around it are to become the exclusive economic zone of the UK.
In contrast to the neighbors, Ireland is trying to prove that the Rockall is not an island but a rock. Under the international law, there can be no territorial waters around the rock. This means that the shelf shall be shared based on the distance from the shores of a country. The Irish claim that Rockall is the closest to their country. The coast of the UK is further, and the island of Hirt formally related to Scotland should not be taken into account.
Denmark has the weakest position in this dispute. The main part of the country is far away, and it can “cling” to Rockall only through the possession of the Faroe Islands located to the north of the rock. The Danes claim that there is an underwater micro-continent “Faroe Islands – Rockall Plateau.” If so, then Denmark can claim not only the shelf near the Faroe Islands, but also near Rockall.
In turn, Iceland has little interest in the ownership of the rock. The northerners are fighting only for the delineation of an underwater shelf near it so that they can claim a piece. Icelanders began working on the preparation of their application to the UN back in 2001, and were the first ones to file. In addition, it was Island that initiated negotiations on the controversial issue, and therefore, perhaps, the UN will appreciate its amicability.
The negotiations have been ongoing for five years now, but a compromise has not been reached. Denmark, Iceland and Ireland periodically discuss this issue without the participation of the UK, but there is no united front against the British. The situation would hardly escalate to a war. However, no one wants to share the oil and seafood. Rockall has the potential to become a new arena of international dispute that would unlikely be resolved without the participation of the UN.
In a 31 October 2011 interview on Radio Canada, Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, who led Operation Unified Protector in Libya, revealed that an analysis unit was set up at NATO headquarters in Naples. It’s mission was to study and decipher what was happening on the ground, that is to say both the movements of the Libyan Army and those of the “rebels.”
To fortify the unit, several information networks were created. “The intelligence came from many sources, including the media who were on the ground and provided us with a lot of information regarding the intentions and the location of the ground forces.”
This is the first time a NATO official admits that foreign journalists in Libya were assets of the Atlantic Alliance. Shortly before the fall of Tripoli, Thierry Meyssan caused a stir by affirming that most Western journalists staying at the Hotel Rixos were NATO agents. In particular, he pointed the finger at the teams working for AP, BBC, CNN and Fox News.
NATO is a threat not only to international security but also poses a direct risk to the internal security of its member states, for in carrying out its policy, it breaks international law, commits war crimes and panders to the whims of the corporate lobbies who benefit from its operations, leaving in its wake feelings of hatred and revenge.
Mankind has taken thousands of years of wars, fights, squabbles, settlements, resolutions and treaties, agreements and disagreements, flare-ups and flashpoints, peace talks and ceasefires to try to arrive at a point whereby the international community exists de facto, whereby something called international law reigns supreme and is implemented, whereby there is one set of weights and measures for crisis management and the implementation of policy.
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) could and should have been a starting point towards the precept that frontiers were inviolable, a process which was reiterated time and time again, and broken time and time again, until the Helsinki Final Act in 1975 which was a public reiteration of the principles underlying the UN Charter, signed in 1945 heralding the end of the most horrific war humankind had suffered, involving the most horrific practices of barbarity ranging from racism and genocide to horrific human rights abuses and culminating in a double act of nuclear terrorism.
As a counter-measure, Westphalia was the beginning, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act (notice the word “Final”) committed the international community to the basic principles underpinning guidelines for a community of brothers and sisters to cohabit the same planet, share the same seas, seasoned by the salt of sailors’ tears from the four corners of the Earth. These principles were, namely:
Active support for the UNO and its principles and purposes; enhancement of the role and effectiveness of the UNO as a forum for international law formulation and implementation; respect for the principle of international peace, debate and dialogue before military action; the promotion of a peaceful solution for crisis management; respect for the sovereignty of nations and inviolability of frontiers; non-interference in internal affairs; the condemnation of aggression, of aggressive separatism and violence in general.
Taken one stage further, and based upon these precepts, the cherry on this cake of diplomatic correctness was the development fund created by less than one per cent of the GDP of developed countries – the message being development, before deployment.
And the question is, did we grasp the chance? No, we did not. And why not? NATO. As it has become patently obvious, taking as a starting point the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the support for the KLA terrorist organization, the abuses committed in Afghanistan, the illegal invasion of Iraq and the horrific human rights abuses committed there, culminating now in the five-month bombing campaign against Libya, NATO is not a peaceful defensive organization.
Indeed, it is a belligerent offensive military organism which goes looking for wars if none exist, against targets that do not affect the security of its member states. It is an organization which violates human rights, violates the UN Charter, violates international law and violates the Geneva Conventions with countless acts of despicable cowardice, for example deploying Depleted Uranium in Kosovo, in Iraq and now in Libya (pending investigation), strafing civilian structures with military hardware, and now, just weeks ago, the destruction of the Libyan water pipeline to “break the backs” of the civilians. Now it does not get much more evil than that, does it?
In which international lawbook is any of this sanctioned? It is not, and therefore these are war crimes. Why are the leaders of NATO not sitting in the dock at The Hague? Because international law does not exist.
And if international law does not exist, NATO is sowing dangerous precedents and is constituting not only its own obvious threat to international security, but also poses a direct risk to the internal security of its member states, for it creates the notion that if NATO can murder children in Libya (such as the precision-bombing of Colonel Gaddafi’s son’s home, occasioning the murder of Saif-al-Arab al-Qathafi and three babies, Muammar al-Qathafi’s grandchildren), then a strike can be carried out in the capital city or elsewhere in the countries perpetrating this outrage. If one is called an air strike, why should the other not be called a land strike? And if NATO can only mumble the word “regret” when it slaughters kids and bombs schools and hospitals, then why should everyone get so hysterical when the same thing happens on home soil? Just say the word: “Regret”.
The calls for revenge are ringing out in the international community and curiously, it is not from the Libyans themselves who are only asking for peace and to get on with their lives solving their own problems in their unique system of government, the Jamahiriya, which they were doing before a clique of crusading intruders came along, this time led by France and of course the UK and USA with a 100% presence in all conflicts. Why, the last five Prime Ministers of the UK have been involved in six wars!
The injustice of this attack on Libya, where the Libyan Armed Forces were simply responding to the threat posed by thousands of opportunists and terrorists armed by NATO and supported by Al-Qaeda has created a tsunami of outrage which has reached far and wide and is more likely to cause a breach to security than Libya ever was, for Tripoli’s threat outside its frontiers was zero.
The crescendo, for those of us with our ears to the ground, is deafening. While it would not be surprising that the cloistered NATO figures perpetrating their daily acts of terrorism with nonchalance are oblivious to all around them, there are currents under way for a renegotiation of contracts, locking companies from NATO countries out of the developing world.
The solution is as simple or as complicated as anyone wants to make it. If NATO is too proud to admit that its bombing campaign is getting nowhere in military terms, that it supported the wrong side and is defending Al-Qaeda elements among the TNC and that it is evident that the population of Libya by and large is very much with Colonel Gaddafy and against the “rebels” (after all, only NATO supports terrorists), then on the other hand legal steps are being taken to ensure that those responsible for the acts of murder, attempted murder and wanton criminal damage will be arrested and will stand trial.
There will be financial compensation to pay in damages, of course, there will be legal compensation to pay the owners of properties and the victims of human casualties, because you cannot just breeze into a sovereign state and bomb its facilities with impunity. This time, NATO’s taxpayers will decide who is to pay for its crimes and those responsible for them (NATO commanders and those politicians responsible for policy) will stand trial as the criminals and murderers they are. Perhaps they will be allowed to reside in their countries of birth after having served a suitable prison sentence – such a decision is up to their people.
Maybe after justice is done, we can go back to our discussion about Westphalia and Helsinki and the UN Charter. If not, there is a second option: Scrap the UN as a legal body, using it merely as a humanitarian organization to distribute food, channel aid, ensure human rights, gender equality, combat homophobia and name world heritage sites, which in itself is already a lot.
Fundamentally, form a new world order based upon a universal Declaration of Principles which are upheld in the same court of law for all members, where the same set of weights and measures apply to all equally, where there is accountability for crimes, and where real crisis management instruments are applied, without resorting to violence.
If the USA, UK, France and that clique of sycophantic vultures called NATO are unable to abide by these principles, then they should be locked out of this new world order and forced to stew in the squalor of their own making, while the new international community gets on together as an international society of brothers and sisters living happily along the shores of our common lake, the seas, under the international motto “tears taste of salt, whoever sheds them” and singing an international anthem whose refrain is “The smile inside the eyes of a child lights a fire in my heart”.
For NATO, the same mottoes would be “today a child, tomorrow a terrorist so blast the bastard’s face off him”; “the darker the skin, the worse the person” and “We are oblivious to your tears and screams, burn you mother f…..er, burn!” Does anyone want NATO in the international community? No, I thought not.