Brief History - Illegal Iraq War 2003

ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR 2003 Jean B Lynch Book:  "France in Focus:  Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations" Summary [all info contained is from above book online preview] Jean B Lynch Book:  France in Focus:  Immigration Policies, Foreign Policy & US Relations Info is from above source, but some of my own words in here (rather than direct extracts).   Lynch informs us that in the 1990s French govt began distancing from US policy in Iraq, when US & British capitalist serving governments began using military force on Iraq state (Saddam Hussein govt) to force compliance with 1991 Gulf War settlement. France and other governments sought to lift international sanctions on Iraq, due to the 'deterioration of living conditions' imposed on the Iraqi inhabitants.   Comment:  judging from the above interview of Madeleine Albright in 60 Minutes (an insert / not from book), the US-led economic sanctions were more than a 'deterioration' in conditions:  the sanctions were lethal. Jean B Lynch reports that the Clinton administration and the Bush administration were strongly opposed to lifting of international sanctions. 2002 France eventual backed US goal to reinstate UN weapons inspections and UN Resolution 1441 mandated Iraqi compliance with weapons inspections. By early 2003, the Bush administration was making allegations of Iraq concealing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, Lynch reports, giving the US (and their British capitalist allies) the 'justification' to use military force. Meanwhile, the French government and the Germans argued that Iraq was not in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441. French preferred an inspections regime, which they saw as sufficient to 'constrain' the Saddam Hussein government.  But, privately, some French officials were backing the US-Anglo capitalist pretext that Iraq was concealing WMD, Lynch indicates (minus the bit about US-Anglo capitalists). US-French discord re Iraq early 2003.  US admin called for regime change in Iraq, going beyond the UN Resolution 1441. Judging by the Lynch reference to democracy etc:  the US administration used the 'spreading democracy' pretext, which the Americans used in a series of hostile attacks on Middle Eastern states. France and other governments, Lynch indicates, objected to these added regime change objectives, on the basis that 'sustainable reforms' could not be imposed by the west on Iraq and in other states. US admin then had NATO provide Turkey with what it referred to as 'defensive systems' (but, I'm guessing these are really offensive equipment of war) and pulled US Balkan forces, replacing them with NATO member forces, freeing the US forces for conflict with Iraq. The following objected in NAC (North Atlantic Council), which is described by Lynch as NATO's supreme political body: France Germany Belgium on the basis that granting the request (to militarise Turkey?) would: de facto acknowledge Iraq had impeded UN weapons inspections (which was not proven) AND THAT IT WOULD BE PRETEXT FOR WAR according to Lynch. Outcome:  German and Belgian governments relent; France defers the aid to Turkey decision to another NATO body in which France is not a member, which results (late Feb 2003) in a decision to provide 'defensive assistance' (comment:  ie military capabilities) to Turkey, according to Lynch. The consequence was US criticism of France (and several other allies), who deemed (comment:  what is ostensibly) the anti-war France and Germany as the 'old Europe' and the pro-war Europe as 'new' Europe (Sec. of Defence Donald Rumsfeld), according to Lynch. Germany & France refuse to back US admin draft UN resolution authorising military force against Iraq.  France and Russia each hold a veto and threaten to use same if draft resolution submitted, Lynch reports. March 2003, Bush admin (comment:  backed by its British capitalist illegal Iraq war co-conspirators, under Labour PM Tony Blair), decide to go to war in Iraq without passing of the proposed UN resolution.  Opposed to this were:  France, Germany, Turkey (indirectly). The war hawks were:  Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain. April 2003 Iraq was [comment:  illegally] invaded by US and British forces. US, who illegally invaded and pillaged Iraq, sought almost complete forgiveness of Iraq foreign debt.  Two principal governments to whom Iraq was indebted to were:  France and Germany. Germany wrote off 80% of Iraq foreign debt, in excess of the 50% write-off that France had backed, due to Iraq's enormous potential for wealth from petroleum resources (and that other, poorer, nations would have benefited more from debt reduction), Lynch reports. As at the publication of the John B. Lynch book, the following was owed to capitalist Western states by Iraq: - USA, $2 billion - Germany, $2.4 billion - France, $3 billion French refused to take part in the US-led multinational occupation forces in Iraq as France did not approve of the basis on which the US launched war on Iraq from and did not wish to be associated with the occupation of Iraq; however, it France offered to train Iraqi police in France, according to Jean B. Lynch. http://www.abebooks.fr/France-Focus-Immigration-Policies-Foreign-Policy/1345667841/bd COMMENT Anyone who believes that the capitalists of (occupied) Germany and of France were seriously opposed to illegal invasion and war on Iraq is a moron. The bet is that this was just for show, so as not to alienate their large Muslim populations and their various Arab trading partners and weapons customers or their strong unions and leftist 'peacenik' voters (but the Gulf Arab Wahhabi pals would have been good for an Iraqi invasion, so it certainly wouldn't have upset them). French, German and US capitalists were owed billions by Iraq (in that order).  So French and German capitalists would have more interest in Iraq and more reason to want control of Iraq, or at the very least, interests in common with the US. Turkey would have also been protesting for show. Turkey is going fundamentalist/Wahhabi and it would have been opposed to the secular socialist Iraq government, is my guess. Plus, it's in the Gulf Oil Wahhabi camp that wants to bring down Syria and would be therefore opposed to Iran (and associated), so an attack on Iraq would have probably been fine with Turkey (must do some more reading ... I'm really slack). " ... Iraq was a resource grab targeting Iraq’s oil, as well as a money making exercise for mercenary companies, arms manufacturers, mega-corporations like Halliburton and its subsidiaries, and the banking cartels, Syria is different. Syria produces oil, yes, but nowhere near the scale that Iraq does. Syria’s closeness with Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah will obviously stand out as a reason why the US, Israel, the EU, and the GCC want Assad’s government gone. But factoring in the Ba’ath Party’s three objectives of secularism, socialism, and pan-Arab unification, we see more ideological reasons, as well as the motivation for the militias operating under the Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood umbrellas." Jason Langley The forgiveness of national debt is something I don't fully understand, but I expect it is for an interest in the resources in the country, which they will exploit in future. Why were the Italy, Spain and Poland capitalist representing governments so keen on an Iraq invasion?  The Italian and Spanish capitalist are imperialists from way back, but how does cucked Poland fit into this, I wonder?  Poland's been a poodle from way back in history, so maybe it's just more of the same poodling for capitalism? Why are the Belgians backing the US?  Whatever happened to 'neutral' little Belgium?   Belgium needs some street rioting ... LOL "Belgian Congo is often cited as one of the most brutal and exploitative colonial regimes in modern history" (Study.com).  Belgum maintained x3 colonies:  Belgian Congo (DR Congo), Ruanda-Urundi & some portion of China.  Of the Belgian empire, about 98% was just one colony:  the Congo.  Considered as personal property of King Leopold II.  Belgian colonisation supported by Western countries as Belgium was seen as a 'useful buffer' between colonial powers in Africa [wikipedia].  Congo yielded:  ivory, rubber.  Belgium appears to have had extensive attempts to colonise (or uninitiated plans to colonise) various locations across Africa, South America, Central America, Caribbbean, North America, Asia, Oceania and even in Europe. All this colonialism and capitalism primarily benefits the capitalist elites, while the European masses get ripped off ... and flooded with invaders from capitalist colonial outposts.  Not much of a deal for the European working class.

West Bank - IDF Beating & Torturing Detainees

ꕤ West Bank SOURCE   |  here SOURCE   |  here If this hasn't properly loaded, click on the source link to view video clip at source. [It's driving me bananas not knowing if it's loaded or not.  I've done a conversion, but I still can't see clip on this blog without a plug-in.] The clip caught my attention because it looked brutal. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Meanwhile, Israel cabinet approves law against anti-government non-government organisations (NGOs) [27.12.2015 - spiegel.de] Brief video clip of the preceding NGO debate on Israeli TV below: [It sounds like 'sheshen' is 'six' in Hebrew] Israel Hayom http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=30405 27.12.2015 Newsletter Monday December 14, 2015 Likud MK seeks to label foreign-funded NGOs as 'plants' MK Yoav Kisch introduces a bill that aims to curtail nongovernmental organizations funded mostly by foreign governments, as they "represent foreign political interests," use funds to promote anti-Israel propaganda • "We have to put a stop to it," he says. Gideon Allon and Israel Hayom Staff Likud MK Yoav Kisch on Sunday introduced a legislation proposal seeking to label nongovernmental organizations operating in Israel while receiving the majority of their funding from foreign governments as "plants" or "agents" of the governments funding them. The bill seeks to impose stricter record keeping and reporting guideline on such NGOs, and bar them from fostering collaborations with government ministries and the military, unless specifically authorized by the Justice Ministry. The bill's abstract further says the legislation seeks to allow both the "proper authorities and the public with tools to counter the erosion of democracy and the promotion of and internal delegitimization of the State of Israel, funded by foreign political entities." The proposal suggests any infringement by NGOs on the new guidelines will incur a 100,000 shekel ($26,000) fine, and that should any group be linked "to hostile activities, the Registrar of Associations will be able to petition the court for its dissolution." Kisch's legislation proposal states, "There are various associations operating in the State of Israel that receive support and funding from foreign political entities, making them 'plants' in the midst of Israeli society. These groupers effectively represent foreign political interests, as he who has the money has the final say. "There is a clear phenomenon in Israel by which these foreign interests undermine Israel's ability to defend itself and/or jeopardizes its Jewish and democratic character. While these associations promote foreign interests they still qualify for various exemptions, despite the fact the Israeli public is harmed, directly, by their actions," the bill said. "A democracy has to be able to defend itself," Kisch explained. "It's inconceivable that foreign-funded NGOs use those funds to spread lies and anti-Israel propaganda worldwide. "We will not allow foreign funding of this nature to attack Israeli soldiers, urge boycotts against Israel, and supporting terrorism or enemy states under the guise of a legitimate Israeli association. We have to put a stop to it," he said. http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=30405 Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694082?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter NGO Bill: Assault on Democracy or Legitimate Effort to Guard Against Foreign Intervention? The controversial non-profit bill that got the backing of a ministerial panel on Sunday will remain a subject of heated debate but is expected to pass in some form. Haaretz Dec 27, 2015 4:33 PM A bill that would require non-profit organizations that get more than half their funding from foreign governments to disclose that in various contexts passed a major legislative hurdle on Sunday. It received the backing of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. Approval by the committee means that it now has the backing of the governing coalition, making it likely that it will pass in some form, although it could be subject to changes before final passage. Sponsored by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of the Habayit Hayehudi party, the bill is widely seen as an effort to draw attention to left-wing organizations that get funding from foreign governments. The activities of left-wing organizations have been in the headlines recently in part over funding some of them receive from foreign governments, notably European ones, a situation that critics call an improper effort by the governments to influence the Israeli public agenda. Opponents of the legislation call it an anti-democratic attempt to stigmatize left-wing groups and point out that right-wing Israeli non-profit organizations also get substantial funding from abroad, although that money is not from foreign governments, coming instead from individual donors abroad, notably from Diaspora Jewish donors. As currently drafted, the bill proposed by Shaked would require representatives of organizations receiving over half their support from foreign governments to wear tags with the name and the group they represent when they attend Knesset sessions, as is currently required of Knesset lobbyists. Violations of the law would be punished by barring the representatives' access to the Knesset. The bill would also require the groups to disclose in their official publicity that they get more than half their funds from foreign governments, along with disclosing the donor governments by name. Violations of this provision would be subject to a 29,000 shekel ($7,450) fine. "Any country wishing to protect its sovereignty must put limits on intervention by foreign entities," Shaked said, adding that false information spread by non-profit groups "pretending to represent Israel's interests but which actually are financed by foreign countries that exploit these groups to suit their agenda" constitute a weapon directed against Israel. But for his part, Zionist Union party leader Isaac Herzog called the bill "a serious stain on democracy," while his party colleague Nachman Shai warned that it would provide "ammunition to those calling for Israel's isolation." At the beginning of the month, four senior lawmakers from Germany warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that advancement of the legislation would make it harder for Israel's allies in Germany to aid it in the face of boycotts or attempts to delegitimize it. Tzipi Livni, who is co-leader of the Zionist Union along with Herzog, has submitted her own bill that would require disclosure by non-profits that get sizeable foreign government support but also require groups that depend upon individual donors from abroad to disclose it, in practice also imposing legislative regulation on right-wing groups. Justice Minister Shaked's office said including recipients of contributions from individual donors from abroad was considered but was not pursued because of legal hurdles that it presented. Im Tirtzu vs. Breaking the Silence The right-wing political group Im Tirtzu recently made headlines for a video it released stigmatizing leaders of left-wing organizations that it said received substantial foreign government funding as foreign "moles." Breaking the Silence, a group founded by Israel Defense Force veterans to expose misconduct by the Israeli army in the territories, has been a particular focus of public criticism. Representatives of the group have been barred by Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon from sending representatives onto army bases and by Education Minister Naftali Bennett from appearing in the country's public schools. The Breaking the Silence website states that among the financial support that it receives are funds from the governments of Norway, Spain and Switzerland as well as a number of foreign private foundations. Prior to the vote in the ministerial committee, Michael Oren, who is a former Israeli ambassador to the United States and is now member of the Knesset from the Kulanu party, which is a part of the governing coalition, said he could not vote in favor of the bill as currently drafted. "As someone who has worked his entire life to advance the State of Israel's foreign affairs, my conscience does not allow me to vote for the non-profits bill as it is drafted today."  Oren said.  "The non-profits bill that is reaching a vote at the Ministerial Committee for Legislation today is a bill that could harm Israel's foreign relations and image," he added. "I have no doubt that left-wing non-profits such as Breaking the Silence are working to undermine the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and it is our duty as lawmakers to reveal their funding sources to the public. But such one-sided exposure, which ignores the funding sources of extreme-right non-profits, might play exactly into the hands of those elements that are trying to boycott us," Oren said. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.694082?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter SUMMARY - Haaretz info Summary (Parliament) Knesset lobbyists to wear name tags with name of group they represent NGOS receiving over half their support from foreign govts to wear name tags with name of govt they receive funding from violations result in barred access to parliament (Knesset) & in monetary fines right-wing groups receving money from individual donors abroad are exempt from same standard Breaking the Silence group founded by IDF veterans (donors include Norway, Spain & Switzerland govts) expose misconduct of IDF *barred from sending representatives to army bases *barred from appearing at Israel's public schools legislation will be targeted by BDS campaigners German law-makers already notified Israel difficult to defend COMMENT The above video clip of Palestinians being beaten by Israeli soldiers is pretty sickening to watch.  After the initial viewing, I couldn't view again. I've seen other things (eg. IDF soldiers beating up an old Palestinian man about to have his house demolished, and an IDF soldier striking an old woman), so it's not like this is an aberration.  And the bet is that what I've seen is just a fraction of the brutality. Also, I tend to avoid looking at what is happening in territories occupied by Israel, because I can't handle the dissonance.  The image I have of Israel is of its ancient history, its Temple, its songs and things that are pleasant ... seeing old people getting beaten ruins that. It's very unpleasant to see this kind of brutality, and it's impossible not to be appalled and sorry for the Palestinians that are being mistreated. Norway, Spain or Switzerland government funding of Israeli NGOs is far less of a potential 'de-legitimiser' of Israel than what the IDF have been caught doing to civilians in Palestine. For a country that has so many pro-Israel interest groups abroad lobbying other governments on its behalf, and for a country whose organisations are involved in, basically, a program of indoctrinating Western journalists and politicians by hosting 'educational' visits to Israel (including an Israeli hospital where Israel's been patching up Syrian 'rebels' - ie anti-Syrian government Islamists), it's somewhat hypocritical of Israel to put up barriers to NGOs that receive funding from other government organisations (while shielding Israel's right-wing NGOs from being subject to the similar measures). But Israel can always be counted on to do the rational thing:  ie. to act in its own interests and in pursuit of its own aims. In an ideal world, this is how one handles foreign interests potentially asserting influence on internal affairs, and this is how one handles fifth column elements within one's state. But, as mentioned in the article, this will be something the BDS campaigners might wish to exploit, especially considering Israel's strong reliance on representing itself as a democracy. I highly doubt that the governments of Norway, Spain and Switzerland are actually seeking to undermine or de-legitimise Israel in any way, but the intention isn't relevant if the result is seen as the undermining of Israel's interests and aims. This is a brilliant move on Israel's part to de-legitimise, diminish and silence leftist internal critics -- particularly critics of Israel's military (and occupation territory settlements, I'm guessing). But will it backfire?  Spiegel Google Translation German to English https://archive.is/I2UoD ꕤ

Watch Europe Implode

ꕤ Article SOURCE various, as marked TRANSLATION violence Two fights in an hour, shock at Porta Venezia. The anger of residents di Gianni Santucci 8 ottobre 2015 | 08:56 Before midnight groups of foreigners have dealt with blows of bottles and throwing ashtrays. Immediately after the beating of a young man In front of ''Asmara cafe" remain bottles, glasses, an ashtray overturned with its support steel, the cross-section of a car headlight. The fight lasted a couple of minutes: about twenty people (the Horn of Africa, apparently) divided into two groups, some men have turned to run from the corner of Via Tadino and attacked those standing outside the bar; beer bottles hurled like stones splintered on the wall, the shards challenged to hold off the attackers; kicking, punching, men chasing each other, girls screaming loudly, the owner of the kebab has pulled down the shutters. The police arrive immediately (the Flying run continuously in that area), but at that point, at the approach of the sirens, are nearly all disappeared. It remains only an Eritrean girl, 25, who took a shot to the head and was taken to hospital. I'm a little after 23 on Tuesday night. "And today we have given," he smiles a waiter who works here in the heart of Porta Venezia, in over a year landing of refugees from the Horn of Africa, the epicenter of the town anger and protests by "conditions become unbearable." But the evening stupid Via Lazzaro Palazzi is not over yet. Customers of the restaurants back to sit, waiters reopen the doors that had blocked the boy kebab runs behind the counter. You have to spend an evening in this quadrangle of streets, Lecco-Tadino-Casati-Palaces, the old Lazzaretto, to understand what is happening between the buildings that once absorbed large numbers of immigrants from the South, while the first African communities in a balance that until a few years ago for better or worse has held, while for months now exploding evenings like Tuesday. An hour has passed from the first fight, and no one has swept the broken glass from the sidewalk, when a boy from Senegal through to two or three times, up and down, the same cross between road and palaces via Tadino. Tall, wearing a pair of brown polyester slacks, shirtless, long dreadlocks. They call Jimmy and know him in many, they say that day gains something by selling bracelets, while tonight waves his arms under the streetlights and the rain and shouting against someone who allegedly stole a cell phone. It is unclear who is trying. For a while 'disappears. Soon after, twenty minutes after midnight, a man runs at breakneck speed on the sidewalk of Via Palazzi: Jimmy chases him, is a fury, the land at the corner of Via Lecco, against cesate the yard behind the church; crushes him with a knee; man (Guinea, former restaurant owner) screaming "help" for a couple of times; someone across the street, says "let Jimmy", while a citizen is in line with the 112 and says: "I'll still be away Palaces." The man on the ground sinks his teeth into the hand of his attacker, who now dripping blood, Jimmy gets up and launches two kicks with all his might against the head; More blood on the asphalt. Pass pass less than a minute and come two policemen, who jump on the boy from Senegal and handcuff him. Customers of the restaurants have witnessed a fight and aggression. Within an hour. In a space of 50 meters. Wednesday morning the inhabitants of the "Committee of Liberation" (of which includes a representative of the Ethiopian community) have reported the facts of the evening at a meeting in the prefecture, where they asked a fixed garrison of law enforcement to "return to conditions minimum livability in a historic neighborhood of African integration in Milan. " Yesterday afternoon was organized a new operation control by the police, the eleventh since July 18 last year, the fourth in just the first days of October. "Every Thursday we analyze the situation of Porta Venezia - concluded the commissioner for Security, Marco Granelli - during the committees in the prefecture. For some locals we encountered repeatedly violations involving issues of public policy, from the late closing the outdoor music. We are considering urgent orders for the closure of these places. " http://milano.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/15_ottobre_08/due-risse-un-ora-choc-porta-venezia-rabbia-residenti-bb79c3ca-6d88-11e5-8aec-36d78f2dc604.shtml Porta Venezia, Milan, Italy (formerly known as Porta Orientale, Porta Renza & other) one of the historical gates of the city of Milan, Italy. refers to both to the gate proper and to the surrounding district ("quartiere"), in Milan. area surrounding Porta Venezia has been recognized as a distinct "rione" (the medieval equivalent of the modern "quartiere", i.e., a district) since the 12th century. long history of foreign immigration and has developed over the last decades as one of the multi-ethnic areas of Milan, to the point that it is sometimes referred to as Milan's "African district" or Milan's casbah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porta_Venezia Italy’s Immigration Crisis Reaches Boiling Point A volunteer talks to a group of migrants as police officers stand in front of the door of a train bound for Munich at the Bolzano railway station REUTERS/Stefano Rellandini by Sarkis Zeronian  13 Jun 2015 The immigration crisis affecting Italy reached boiling-point yesterday. A build-up of asylum-seekers at major train stations in both Rome and Milan led to clashes with police and calls from angry politicians demanding EU assistance. AFP reports that over the course of the week hundreds of migrants attempting to reach northern Europe gathered in Milan Central and Rome’s Tiburtina train stations. The Schengen Agreement normally means migrants landing in Italy freely travel through neighbouring southern and central European countries as they attempt to reach Britain, Germany and Scandinavia. However, migrants’ progress is currently blocked because of the temporary suspension of Schengen and reintroduction of border controls brought about by Monday’s G7 summit in Germany. This, allied with increased public transportation spot checks, means the migrants remained in the train stations which were “left looking like refugee camps.” Police forcibly cleared a makeshift camp in Rome on Thursday after local businesses complained that security and sanitation issues mean the surrounding district was becoming a no-go area. By Friday, however, large numbers of the mainly African migrants were already attempting to reassemble nearby. Elsewhere, more than 100 migrants, mostly women and children, were removed from Milan Central station overnight and housed in reception centres. Concerned by the prevalence of scabies, local authorities offered migrants health checks. Giorgio Ciconali, a doctor working at the station, told AFP: “There is a lot of scabies and it is being spread by them sleeping rough together, but there is nothing to worry about for people passing through the station.” Million is a 28 year old Eritrean migrant stranded in Milan, part of a group sleeping rough in the Porta Venezia district. He arrived in the country by boat and initially reached Switzerland where he was detained and flown back to Italy.  Reluctant to return to Eritrea for fear of being jailed, he told AFP: “I can’t totally criticise the Italians because they have saved most of our lives [at sea]. But now we are here, they do nothing for us. We are reduced to sleeping under bushes, eating biscuits and water and living like tramps. It’s no kind of life, but if you have been fingerprinted you can’t go anywhere.” Northern League leader Matteo Salvini blames the situation on Prime Minister Matteo Renzi‘s failure to persuade other EU member states to take a share of the incoming migrants.  He said: “If the government had any balls they would go to Brussels and tell the EU they are not getting another cent from Italy until they recognise we are part of Europe.” http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/13/italys-immigration-crisis-reaches-boiling-point/ The European border where some die while others play golf November 14, 2014 Michael Bonvalot Photo courtesy of José Palazón Melilla is a city on the east coast of Morocco belong to Spain since the fifteenth century. Morocco does not recognize Spanish sovereignty over the city and, as expected, this has resulted in a confusing situation that also involves the issue of immigration. The city of Melilla is surrounded by three fences; one belongs to Morocco, the other two to Spain. If a migrant can not step over all three is still within the 'scope of the Schengen treaty, but at least it is within Europe. For this, every day, many try to climb over these fences, often with surrealistic - as in the photo you see above, taken last month by activist José Palazón on a golf course located between the Schengen area and Africa. The Viennese artist Tanja Boukal has just returned from Melilla, where she went to do research and gather information on refugee camps. I called her and asked her to explain what's going on in that picture, and more generally in Melilla. VICE: What exactly happened on October 15, the day it was taken that famous photo? Tanja Boukal: At 7:50 am a group of migrants tried to climb over the fences on the border. They chose that hour because they knew that the changing of the guard would take place between 7.45 and 8.00. The place where they decided to climb is near the refugee camp of Melilla. And between the refugee camp and the fence is, in fact, a golf course. The craziest thing is that the golf course was built with funds from the European community. It was built to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of Melilla, while beyond the fence, people die. Just the day before there had been an escape attempt was successful, then the Spanish frontier police were on alert. About 200 refugees tried to climb over the fence: the majority of them were rejected by the Moroccan border guards, but 15 managed to get to the other part, on Spanish soil. Although not visible in the picture, between the fence and the golf course there is a road that day was manned by Spanish police officers with batons, pepper spray and dogs. On the other hand, however, there were border police Moroccans with the bars in hand. The migrants were trapped: they could go neither forward nor back. Spanish police have just waited to come down. They had no food or water. At about 10 am, people began to arrive at the golf course. The scene was surreal. This situation continued throughout the day, until the evening, the refugees have decided to surrender and fell from the fence. Although it took the Spanish side were still reported in Morocco and from there they were immediately returned to Algeria. http://www.vice.com/it/read/intervista-tanja-boukal-confine-spagna-marocco-melilla-immigrazione-830 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Yes, they're people hanging off that fence, surrounding the tranquil golf course. Clearly, I'm not a humanitarian.  Scenes like this don't stir anything remotely resembling selflessness in me.  Quite the opposite.  The entry points to Europe are Italy and a Spanish territory in Morocco.   Whose dumb idea was it to include this African territory as part of the Schengen no-borders really crap idea agreement? Those that managed to get to the Spanish side were reported as being in Morocco and immediately returned to Algeria.   Well, that makes perfect sense.  It's what anyone rational would do. Italy's Matteo Salvin, politician/journalist who's lobbying against illegal immigration, wishing that the rest of Europe would somehow be convinced to become a new home to Africa isn't facing reality or addressing the Italian end of the problem:  ie Italy allowing their borders to be violated, when they're not doing at-sea collections of illegal immigrants. The EU needs to be dissolved, the Schengen Agreement should be cancelled pronto, border checks need to be instituted, the refugee convention should be nullified at once, martial law needs to be declared in Europe, and anything that illegally enters European waters or steps illegally onto European soil should become an immediate military target.  Take a look at the sobering statistics now and never mind the astronomical projections.  Anyone that cannot see the need for firm action is soft in the head.  Anarchists, lefties, Christians, and humanitarians are all completely insane. Of course, nothing will be addressed rationally by the softc*ck European puppet states.  So sit back and watch Europe implode -- until maybe the next world war or something, which can't be too far off now.  Either that, or we're watching the apocalyptic end of Western civilisation. ꕤ

Sweden vs Morocco -- Another Swedish Diplomatic Blunder?

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) partially recognized state controls thin strip of Western Sahara region claims sovereignty over entire territory of Western Sahara Western Sahara -- a former Spanish colony SADR proclaimed by the Polisario Front - 1976, in Bir Lehlou, Western Sahara SADR government controls about 20–25% of the territory it claims territories under SADR control referred to as "the Liberated Territories" or "the Free Zone". Morocco controls and administers the rest of the disputed territory and calls these lands its Southern Provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic Polisario Front aka , Frente Polisario, FRELISARIO or POLISARIO "Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro" Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement working to end Moroccan presence in Western Sahara militating for independence of Western Sahara since 1973 originally against Spanish rule but after 1975: against Mauritania & Morocco 1979 onwards:  against Morocco only Polisario Front is based in Algeria, Algeria Polisario Front is responsible for the Tindouf refugee camps Polisario Front maintains a cease-fire with Morocco since 1991 (see Settlement Plan) Polisario Front is outlawed in parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control Sahrawi Sahrawis are Sunni Muslims of the Maliki rite or school As with most Saharan peoples living in the Sahara, the Sahrawi culture is mixed. Shows mainly Berber-Tuareg characteristics eg privileged position of women identical to the neighbouring Berber-speaking Tuaregs plus:  some additional Bedouin Arab and black African characteristics strong tribal & cultural links between the Sahrawis and Mauritanian populations, incl. historical allegiance to some Moorish emirates 1975 - Internatinal court ruling recommended the UN to continue to pursue self-determination for the Sahrawis, enabling them to choose for themselves whether they wanted Spanish Sahara to turn into an independent state, or to be annexed to Morocco or Mauritania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_people Morocco 99% Muslim Sunni majority at:  67% Official languages:  Arabic & Berber  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco Algeria 99% Muslim Majority Sunni - Maliki tradition EXTRACTS Morocco has blocked the opening of Ikea’s first store in the kingdom In Retaliation Of Sweden’s Plans to:  recognise a republic sought by the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara. SADR is recognized by a number of states and is a member of the African Union, no Western country has formally recognized it, and activists have accused a number of states – including France and Spain – of backing Morocco in the dispute. United Nations recently renewed a peacekeeping force that’s been there since 1991. Morocco claims Western Sahara, which is rich in offshore fishing, phosphates and potentially large reserves of crude oil, as its territory and has controlled most the sparsely populated stretch of desert since 1975. By Jack Phillips on Oct 03, 2015 http://www.jewocity.com/blog/morocco-blocks-ikea-store-opening-in-retaliation-of-sweden-s-plans-to/88017 Western Sahara: The Historical Commitment Sweden Should Remember Friday 2 October 2015 - 18:51 EXTRACT Sweden among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras Yet there exists a solid historical and legal argument that has to be brandished in the face of the Swedish government to show them that by siding with the Polisario, they fail to respect the commitment they made over a century ago with regards to Moroccan territorial integrity. This argument will demonstrate to Swedish politicians and its public opinion that their position on the conflict over the years is based on a false historical assumption. Not only did the SADR not exist before 1976, but Sweden signed an international treaty with respect to Morocco in which it committed along with all Western powers to preserve Moroccan territorial integrity. By virtue of the Treaty of Algeciras of April 7, 1906, all Western powers, including Sweden, committed to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Was the so-called Western Sahara part of Moroccan sovereignty at the time? The answers is yes. The spirit of the Treaty of Algeciras was based on the international agreements signed between Morocco and some Western powers, mainly the United Kingdom, which recognized that this territory was an integral part of Morocco. According to Frank E. Trout, author of the book Moroccan Saharan Frontier, in accordance with the agreement signed between Morocco and the UK in March 1895, the British government recognized that the territory between Cap Juby (the area near Tarfaya) and Cap Bojador (present day so-called Western Sahara), belonged to Morocco. Since then until 1904, when the UK signed an agreement with France, the British, as well as the French and Spanish recognized that this territory was under Moroccan sovereignty. The premise on which the Swedish government bases its position is that the so-called Western Sahara never belonged to Morocco before 1975, and as such Morocco can lay no claim of sovereignty over this territory. However, this premise itself is false. Contrary to common belief in the West, Spanish occupation of the territory was in total violation of international law at the time. When the British government accepted the principle of a French and Spanish protectorate over Morocco, it clearly insisted in article 3 of the secret accord signed between Paris and London in April 1904 that Spain could not undertake any action that would alienate the sovereignty of territory of its sphere of influence. This British position was based on the understanding that the so-called Western Sahara belonged to Morocco and was not to be alienated by any Western power. However, in accordance with the French-Spanish accord of October 1904, Spain was given possession, but not sphere of influence, of the disputed territory, without informing Morocco or seeking the approval of the British, who had signed an agreement recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory. The arrangements made between Western powers were carried out without consulting with Morocco, which was the main party in interest in the agreements signed between France and Spain on the one hand and the France and the UK on the other hand. Without a renunciation of the agreement signed between the UK and Morocco in 1895, the agreement signed between Western powers in 1904 by virtue of which they defined their spheres of influence in Morocco contravened international law. According to Frank E. Trout, even in the event London gave its formal approval and recognition that Seguia El Hamra (present-day so-called Western Sahara) was to become Spanish territory outside of the limits of Spanish sphere of influence in Southern Morocco, ”it would have meant a unilateral — and presumably secret — renunciation of the agreement signed with Morocco in 1859, [which would have been meaningless since Morocco was not informed of the renunciation.” Additionally, Spain was given possession of the Sahara based on a secret accord of which neither Morocco nor the other Western powers were informed. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the Swedish government is taking a stance against Morocco, without taking cognizance of the historical fact that it was among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras, which committed those signatory countries to preserving Morocco’s territorial integrity. Instead, as a signatory of the treaty, the Swedish government should seek to help Morocco secure its historical and legal rights over the territory. That the predominant narrative on the conflict omits mention of this fact gives no license to the Swedish to dismiss the fact that they have failed to fulfill their commitment to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Morocco was the victim of Western colonialism and Moroccans have paid a costly price to regain the independence of their country and restore its territorial integrity. By going down this path, Sweden deepens the wound and turns its back on the commitment it made to the Moroccan people over a century ago. On the other hand, the Swedish government should not disregard the growing consensus among both diplomats and scholars in recent years that the concept of self-determination as it was perceived in the 1960’s is not a one-size fit-it all approach that can be applied to every territorial conflict, and that the UN settlement plan of 1991 has proved to be unworkable. Sweden’s Erik Jensen, who served as Head of MINURSO between 1994-1998 said in his book that the 1991 settlement plan has showed its limits, and there is a need to find an alternative likely to help the parties to reach a settlement. According to Jensen, Javier Pérez de Cuellar and Boutros Ghali, the two former UN Secretary Generals, were intimately convinced that the settlement plan was unworkable, and called on the Security Council to explore other ways. “Perez De Cuellar’s memoirs show that he had doubts about certain aspects of the settlement plan, and Boutros Ghali repeatedly hinted to the Security Council that it might consider an alternative way forward,” said Jensen. Therefore, rather than taking sides with one of the parties, it would be wiser for Sweden to help the parties explore the possibility of working out a middle ground solution where none of the parties would come out as loser. Samir Bennis     Samir Bennis is a political analyst. He received a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of Provence in France. He also holds a Master’s degree in political science from the University of Toulouse I, a Master’s degree in Iberian studies  EXTRACT source http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/10/169343/western-sahara-the-historical-commitment-sweden-should-remember/ Morocco weighs boycott of Swedish firms REUTERS RABAT Morocco said it was considering a boycott of Swedish companies operating in the North African kingdom because of Sweden's position on the conflict over Western Sahara. The territory has been disputed since a war two decades ago. The government said Sweden has been campaigning to boycott products from Western Sahara and international companies with a presence there. Morocco has controlled most of Western Sahara since 1975 and claims the sparsely populated stretch of desert, which has offshore fishing, phosphate reserves and oilfield potential, as its own. However, the Algeria-backed Polisario Front seeks independence, and a United Nations mission was formed more than 20 years ago anticipating a referendum, which has never taken place, on Western Sahara's political future. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have backed Western Saharan self-determination, while France and Spain have been accused by activists and human rights organisations of supporting the Moroccan line. Moroccan authorities have already blocked the opening of IKEA's first store this week, citing a lack of permits. source http://www.dailysabah.com/money/2015/10/03/morocco-weighs-boycott-of-swedish-firms United Nations Current strength (30 June 2015) 210 total uniformed personnel: 26 troops 6 police officers 178  military observers 84 international civilian personnel* 162 local civilian staff* 12 United Nations Volunteers Fatalities 5 troops 1 police 1 military observer 3 international civilian personnel 5 local civilian personnel _____ 15 total  Approved budget (07/2014– 12/2014): $55,990,080 source http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/facts.shtml ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT A United Nations 'mission' was formed over 20 years ago, on the basis that a referendum would take place ... but it hasn't. Why not? It looks like there's been a UN 20-year military presence and, apparently, the parties are no closer to resolving this dispute. Check out what is spent on interfering in the Western Sahara region.  Nearly $56-million in a mere 6-months was approved. If that's chewed up in 6-months, imagine how much money's gone down the tubes since 1991. Taxpayer funds of these countries are being spent on this: Image Source  |  Wikipedia ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Twenty-four years of taxpayer funds being blown on this, why? So it's austerity for European taxpayers, while taxpayer funds are funnelled to futile UN projects. Article Detailing The Involvement Of The Un In Western Sahara And Morocco. EXTRACT (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) The UN operation in Western Sahara between 1991 and 1997 was so ineffectual that it became one of the main symbols of UN waste and inefficiency for a hostile US Congress. It cost more than five million dollars a month yet did little useful work. UN staff were paid inflated salaries due to the 'hardship' conditions. It is claimed that some UN staff would overstay their tour of duty by a day so as to qualify for a second tranche of 'hardship' money. source http://newint.org/features/1997/12/05/un/ Clinton Foundation is reportedly getting cash from 'one of the world's most controversial mining companies' Colin Campbell May 8, 2015, 1:19 AM Another one of the Clinton Foundation’s major donors is drawing new scrutiny amid former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. A joint investigation by ABC News and Yahoo published Wednesday accuses the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative of “being hosted this week at a five-star luxury hotel in Morocco by one of the world’s most controversial mining companies.” According to the report, the Moroccan government-owned mining company Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP) has been criticised for “serious human rights violations” by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice. The company reportedly operates in Western Sahara, disputed territory the Moroccan government seized after Spain withdrew in 1975. The Washington Post reported that both human rights activists and US lawmakers have slammed OCP’s mining operation because it “does not have the consent of the indigenous population there.” ABC reported that OCP is “criticised for removing the resources without adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.” David McKean, a Kennedy Center official, said the inhabitants of Western Sahara are being “systematically suppressed.” “OCP’s operations in Western Sahara are only appropriate under international law if they are acting in the best interests of the people of Western Sahara, and right now they are not,” McKeon told The Post. “The fact that OCP carries out its operations in Western Sahara so publicly seems intended to send the message that they feel they can do so with impunity.” Accordingly, OCP’s financial support for the Clinton Foundation raises questions about whether it is trying to curry favour with the US government. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) called the arrangement a “blatant conflict of interest.” “Morocco would like nothing more than having a possible future First Family condone its illegal exploitation of natural resources,” Pitt told The Post. Indeed, according to ABC, OCP has has “sharply accelerated its lobbying of US government officials in recent years — more than quadrupling its spending — as the Moroccan government was pressing its case for sovereignty over Western Sahara.” For its part, OCP defended both its operations in West Africa and its support for the Clinton Foundation. The firm told ABC that, despite its critics’ claims, it actually reinvests money into Western Sahara. OCP executives also reportedly said “their involvement in the Clinton Foundation was intended to help make phosphate-based fertiliser available to needy farmers in Africa — work the foundation has helped make possible.” “We have good spots and bad spots, and when we have a bad spot we try and improve it as much as we can,” said the company’s spokesman. “That’s all I can say, I guess.” The foundation also defended its connections to OCP by touting the nonprofit’s projects around the world. “Our sponsors made it possible for hundreds of CGI members to come together in Morocco to launch new programs designed to help hundreds of thousands of people,” a foundation spokesman told ABC. OCP is just the latest in a series of controversies related to the Clinton Foundation, some of which were spurred by a new book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, “Clinton Cash.” Schweizer accuses Hillary Clinton of trading State Department favours for money to her family foundation. Her campaign has aggressively dismissed Schweizer’s work as a unsubstantiated partisan smear. However, as Schweizer himself likes to point out, a number of mainstream news organisations have investigated the foundation based on information in his book. Notably, The New York Times published an in-depth story linking undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation to the sale of US uranium production to a Russian government agency. source http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clinton-foundation-funded-by-controversial-mining-company-2015-5 ꕤ