Mit ‘Gaddafi’ getaggte Beiträge

I wrote about the possible new President of the United States, Hillary Clinton, several times ( If she succeeds she would be presented with great hype as the „First female President of the USA“. It seems that fortunately a lot of people have lost their illusions about that woman already, but most possibly they are not enough.

With the bad picture the mainstream media have drawn about Gaddafi, many might not really understand the cynism the woman, who was deeply involded into Libya´s destruction, displayed in her interview about his death. See her laughing: „We came, we saw, he died! Hahahah!“:

Still too many see her as a defender of women. Now there´s something new, though about an incident long ago, when she was a young attorney, that might really strike you. It´s a „must see“:

In an old interwiew she laughs about the fact that she was successfully defending a real rapist of a twelfe year old girl!

And maybe it helps to understand what she is not: a defender of women or of „Non-Whites“ (see her connection to rude Neocon think tanks, dealings with the global south). What she is and what she will be to the extreme as a President (and mind, a US President is not „in Power“ but „in Office“):

An attorney of the real US Power Elite, the Super Rich,

of the Military Industrial Complex!

Andreas Schlüter

Clinton, Neocons:

My articles on the USA:

Google manipulating in favour of Clinton:



Let´s be frank, what is on the agenda for Africa on the side of the Western Power Elites is clearly to be seen. After the official end of colonialism only French troops were to be seen in Africa. Today by and large Western colonial troops or international troops directly or indirectly under Western control are back on the continent in numbers!  Likewise African puppets and their armed gangs are used to plunder and destabilize great parts of Africa, as for example happens with Congo where Kagame and Museveni after the Rwanda tragedy (1) let their troops loot and rape (2). The riches of Congo are exploited through slave labor organized by warlords, almost like Congo was plundered during Leopold´s “private” colonialism (3). Since Leopold II the Western activities have cost Congo between 15 and 20 millions of dead. Ethnic groups are armed by the West and played against each other like in the 19th century.

Direct Western military interventions have struck Ivory Coast, Libya and Mali. The new military race through Africa was started with the US Somalia adventure covered by “humanitarian” aims after a lot was done to destabilize the Horn of Africa. The US have their military colonial institution of US AFRICOM (4) located in Stuttgart (shame on Germany)! The aims of the decolonization time manifested in the formation of OAU (5) are forgotten respectively turned into their opposite (6).

But the war on Africa isn´t only waged by openly military means. A systematic crippling of all efforts to develop the continent by means of industrialization is to be found in the installation of the “free trade religion”. Every country boasting today of a highly developed industry has achieved that by means of protective customs. Africa has been barred of such measures and even its agriculture is more and more crippled by the forced imports of highly state supported agricultural imports from industrialized countries. The fishing grounds of West Africa as well as East Africa are swept empty by fishing fleets from the Northern Hemisphere. Fishermen can only survive either by transporting people fleeing the continent to Europe or by becoming Pirates!

All this could only have been “achieved” by eliminating or “neutralizing” the progressive personalities and movements who had a sound vision for true African independence, like Patrice Lumumba (7), Kwame Nkrumah (8)  Eduardo Mondlane (9), Samora Machel (10), Thomas Sankara (11) and last not least Muammar Gaddafi (12) as well as others. Many times compradors stepped in and installed western controlled puppet regimes. With the downfall of the East block all chances to maneuver against the Western economic and political power broke away. WTO (13) and IMF (14) are means of imperialism to keep Africa down. They forced extended privatization even of the most basic economic activities like water supply on many African societies.

Western media are part of that war. They permanently present a picture of “African barbarism” to blame the African societies for their miserable conditions. “50 years you´re independent but you´re not capable of managing your own affairs” are by and large their open or hidden slogans. Many times the West is trying to pull Africans to the international court where you´ll never see people like Clinton and Albright, mostly responsible for Rwanda´s and Congo´s tragedies (15) or Bush and Cheney with their terrorist wars! And sad, even a whole number of Africans fall into the trap of psychological manipulation – blaming the African continent itself for its miserable condition.

And many people try to escape from the Western produced hell, taking any chance to board on a boat that hardly meets any safety standards for the voyage over the open sea. Thousands got drowned already either on their trip from Senegal´s coast to the Canary Islands or from Tunisia, Libya or else to Italy, especially the small Island Lampedusa. If they prefer to go by land, to cross Sinai, they get into another hell for them, Israel (16). But Europe respectively the West – benefiting materially from the plunder of Africa – only accepts Africans (or refugees from Near East, as for that matter) if they arrive dead – then they´ll get a state burial (17). If you get there alive, you´ll be charged! All following the principle: only a dead refugee is a good refugee!

One might be astonished to hear these accusations from a (66 years old) “Child” of Germany, of Europe, of the West, but as much as I have unwillingly “enjoyed” the fruits of Western Imperialism,  having lived in a country with so much historical guilt, I have to stand up and shout: NOT IN MY NAME!

And I have to say one thing to my African friends: I can never advise how to free Africa, but one thing I´m sure of, Africa will never develop WITH the West, but only AGAINST the West, keep that in mind!

Andreas Schlüter

  1. this links doesn´t work anymore, see text below links















  16. /


  18. Text:

    The Hidden Story Behind Rwanda’s Tragedy

    By Christopher Black
  1. Editor’s Note: The Op-Ed is written by a Canadian attorney who represents a defendant before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania, on war crimes charges. The attorney offers a counter-view to the one-sided representation of the Rwanda narrative. Readers are encouraged to submit their comments and reactions.
    Rwanda before 1990 was considered the Switzerland of Africa, a model of social development.
    The result of the 1959 social revolution that deposed the Tutsi monarchy and aristocracy and freed the majority Hutu population from serfdom and a lifetime of humiliation was the establishment of a collective society in which both Hutus, and Tutsis as well as Twas lived together in relative harmony.
    Tutsis were members of the government, its administration, present in large numbers in the education system, the judiciary and controlled most of the large private commercial companies in Rwanda.
    The Rwandan army was a multiethnic army composed of both Hutus and Tutsis and it stayed a multiethnic force even when the Rwandan Army was forced by the invaders from Uganda to retreat into the Congo forest in July 1994 because it ran out of ammunition due to the Western embargo on arms and supplies.
    Rwanda descended into chaos in 1990 when the self-described Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) forces launched a surprise attack on October 1, 1990 from Uganda. In fact, every one of the men and officers of that invasion force were members of the Ugandan national Army.
    It was an invasion by Uganda disguised as an independent force of “liberation”. Liberation from what, has never been stated.
    Initially the justification put out by the RPF was that of attaining the return of Tutsi “refugees” from Uganda to Rwanda. However, that problem had been resolved by an agreement between the RPF, Uganda, Rwanda, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the OAU a few weeks earlier. The Rwandan government had agreed to the return of all those Tutsis in Uganda who wanted to return to Rwanda.
    That accord required that Tutsi representatives of the refugees travel to Kigali for a meeting to determine the mechanics of that population movement, and how to accommodate all those people in a small country. They were expected at the end of September 1990. They never arrived.
    Instead of civilians returning in peace, Rwanda was viciously attacked on October 1, 1990 by a force that unleashed unbridled savagery. During that invasion the RPF forces of the Ugandan Army slaughtered everyone in their path, Hutu or Tutsi. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians, the majority Hutu, were butchered. These crimes have never been accounted for.
    The RPF’s favorite method was the bayonet or knife with which they disembowelled men and women or to tied their hands behind their backs and smashed their skulls with hoes, the farm tool iconic of the Hutu peasantry.
    After several weeks of intense fighting, the RPF forces were destroyed by the small Rwandan Army and the remnants fled, on US instructions, back into Uganda to regroup and reorganize.
    The RPF still never justified this aggression and the needless slaughter of civilians in a peaceful country. Individual Tutsis had always been allowed to return to Rwanda from the early 1960s and several times the Rwandan government invited them all to return. However the Tutsi aristocracy, jealous of its lost power and which viewed the Hutus as nothing but subhuman, refused to return unless their absolute power was restored. This the people of Rwanda, even the Tutsis who remained in the country, refused.
    In the 1960s and early 1970s various Tutsi groups in Uganda and elsewhere had organized terrorist raids into Rwanda in which they murdered without pity anyone they caught. These raids were repelled by Rwanda’s tiny armed forces. The years that followed were a period of development and peace for Rwandans. Even though one of the smallest and poorest countries in the world it had the best road system, healthcare, and education systems in Africa. Until the late 1980s it prospered and received help from both the socialist countries of the USSR, North Korea and China and West Germany, France and Israel and others.
    Some Tutsis in Uganda became involved in the civil wars there between the socialist Milton Obote and the US- and UK puppet Yoweri K. Museveni who was supported by the West to get rid of socialism in Uganda. By 1990 Tutsis composed a large section of the Ugandan Army and all the senior officers of the RPF were high officers in the Ugandan Army, the National Resistance Army. Paul Kagame himself was one of the highest-ranking officers in the intelligence services of the Ugandan army and was notorious for enjoying torturing prisoners.
    Rwanda until 1990 was a one party socialist state. The ruling party the National Movement For revolutionary Development (MRND) was not considered a party as such but rather a social movement in which everyone in society took part through local elections and the mechanism of consensus much like the system in Cuba.
    The fall of the Soviet Union led to pressure from the West, notably the United States and France to dismantle the one party state system and permit multiparty democracy.
    The President, Juvenal Habyarimana, instead of resisting, agreed to a change in the constitution and in 1991 Rwanda became a multiparty democracy. The fact the Rwandan government did this in the middle of a war is more than remarkable. It was also an offer of peace. The RPF, since its abject failure in 1990, had changed its strategy from a frontal assault to the tactics of terrorism.
    The RPF likes to refer to this phase as the guerrilla. However, it was not the guerrilla of a liberation struggle like the FLMN in Vietnam or the FARC in Colombia. It was instead a mirror image of the Contras campaign of terrorism conducted against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Its purpose was not to make revolution. Its purpose was to overthrow the 1959 revolution. And, like the contras, the RPF was supported by the United States.
    This was clear from the beginning of the war.
    When the RPF launched their attack, President Juvenal Habyarimana was in Washington, lured out of the way, by the State Department. The evidence that the US was aware of and supported the October surprise attack was the US Administration’s offer to Habyarimana of asylum in the United States if he surrendered power to the RPF.
    Habyarimana refused and immediately flew back home. There was no condemnation of the Ugandan-RPF aggression by the United States, a matter which France raised at the United Nations, or any of its allies despite the big noise they made at the same time about the advance of Iraqi forces into Kuwait. Further, the Rwanda ambassador to the UN, then on the Security Council, filed a protest in the Security Council but the US had it taken off the agenda.
    In fact the US and its allies supported the aggression against Rwanda from the beginning and US Special Forces operated with the RPF from the beginning. Recently, while former president Bill Clinton was in Toronto, he denied any involvement in Rwanda–this is one of the big lies of the century. Clinton and George W. Bush are up to their necks in the blood of the Rwandan and Congolese people.
    With the arrival of multiparty democracy in 1991, the RPF took full advantage and created several front parties to take away support from the popular MRND. These parties though claiming to represent different political views in fact were, in the main front parties for the RPF.
    The press was expanded and many of the new papers were financed by and acted as mouthpieces for the RPF. At the same time as these parties sprang up, criticizing the government, the RPF continued its terror campaign: planting mines on roads that killed Hutu and Tutsi alike; assassinating politicians and officials; and, blaming it, with the help of various NGOs funded by western intelligence agencies, on the government.
    In 1992 a coalition government was formed with the RPF or its front parties seizing control of key ministries and appointing the prime minister. Through these agents they also controlled the civilian intelligence services that they then began to dismantle. The RPF engaged in a “talk and fight” strategy. Always agreeing to a ceasefire, pressing for more power, then launching new attacks on civilians. The most egregious was their breaking of the ceasefire and their major offensive in February 1993 in which they seized the major town of Ruhengeri in the process murdering 40,000 civilians most of them Hutu.
    The Rwandan Army, even though hamstrung by the civilian ministries that were controlled by the RPF, managed to drive the RPF back. Finally in August 1993 the Arusha Accords were signed under pressure from the United States and its allies in which the RPF obtained major concessions in return to the formation of a broad-based transition government to be followed by general elections.
    However, they knew they could not win such elections as the RPF was not only unpopular with the majority Hutu population it did not even enjoy the support of many internal Tutsis whose lives and businesses had been destroyed by the war they did not see a need for.
    Instead of preparing for elections the RPF prepared for their final offensive. As far back as December 1993, UN reports document the massive build-up of men and weapons coming in from Uganda. The UN force that was deployed supposedly to ensure a peaceful transition; in fact, it was a cover for the US and its allies to assist in this build up.
    General Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of the UN force hid this build up from the Rwandan army and the President. The build-up was accompanied by death threats against the president.
    According to an account of Habyarimana’s last conversation with president Mobutu Sese Seko of what was then Zaire, just two days before he was murdered, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman Cohen had, in October 1993, told Habyarimana, that unless he ceded all power to the RPF they were going to kill him and drag his body through the streets.
    These threats were punctuated by the murder of the first Hutu president of neighboring Burundi, Melchior Ndadaye, by Tutsi officers in October 1993 in which Kagame and the RPF also had a hand; the officers who committed the murder, including Lieutenant Paul Kamana, later fled to Uganda. Ndadaye was in office a mere four months, having won the country’s first free elections. In the aftermath of that murder 250,000 Hutus were massacred by the Tutsi army of Burundi and hundreds of thousands of Hutus fled to Rwanda.
    The result of the 1993 offensive was that one million Hutus fled the terror of the RPF in northern Rwanda towards the capital, Kigali, so that by April 1994 over a million refugees were encamped close to the capital and hundreds thousands more in camps in the south all fleeing RPF terror.
    The RPF did all it could in 1994 to paralyse the functioning of the government, to exacerbate racial tensions, and prepare for war.
    Then on April 6, 1994 they launched their final surprise attack by shooting down the presidential plane returning from a meeting in Tanzania that Uganda’s Museveni had arranged. In fact it is known that Museveni’s half-brother general Salim Saleh was at the final meeting at which the date for the shoot down was agreed.
    The missile attack killed Habyarimana, as well as Burundi’s new Hutu president Cyprien Ntayamire, and Rwanda’s military chief of staff, and others on board. This was the first massacre of 1994 and it was a massacre of Hutus by the RPF.
    The RPF then immediately launched attacks across Kigali and the north of the country. In the sector of Kigali known as Remera they killed everyone on the night of the 6th and the 7th, wiped out the Gendarme camp there, wiped out the military police camp at Kami and launched a major attack against Camp Kanombe, Camp Kigali and the main gendarme camp at Kacyriu.
    The Rwandan government and army called for a ceasefire the same night and next day. The RPF rejected the call. The Rwandan government asked for more UN help to control the situation. Instead, the US arranged that the main UN force be pulled out while flying in men and supplies to the RPF using C130 Hercules aircraft.
    The Rwandan Army, short of ammunition and unable to contain the RPF advances even offered an unconditional surrender on April 12th. The RPF rejected even this offer and instead shelled the Nyacyonga refugee camp where the one million Hutu refugees were located provoking their flight into the capital.
    The effect of one million people flooding into a small city that itself was under bombardment cannot be described. The RPF used this flood of people to infiltrate its men behind army lines. This created panic among the Hutu population that began killing anyone they did not recognize. It was clear that the RPF was not interested in saving lives, even Tutsis, but in seizing total power and did not want to negotiate at all.
    The late Dr. Alison Des Forges, the American who was considered a noted scholar on Rwanda, in her testimony in the Military II trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 2006 testified that the RPF claim that they attacked to stop a “genocide” was a myth; just propaganda to justify their attempt to seize power by force of arms.
    She also testified that the Rwandan government did not plan and execute genocide. This accords with the testimony of General Dallaire who also confirmed an earlier statement that there was no planned genocide by the government as did the deputy head of Belgian Army intelligence, Col. Vincent, who also testified at the ICTR that the idea of a genocide was a fantasy.
    The fighting in Kigali was intense. UN officers –confirming what has been said by Rwandan and RPF officers who have testified— state that the RPF was launching hundreds of Katyusha rockets every hour round the clock while the Rwandan Army ran out of hand grenades in the first few days and was reduced to fighting the RPF with hand made explosives.
    The vaunted RPF could not take Kigali. The siege of Kigali lasted three months and only ended when the Rwandan Army literally ran out of ammunition and ordered a general retreat into the Congo forest.
    RPF officers have stated that the RPF killed up to two million Hutus in those 12 weeks in a deliberate campaign to eliminate the Hutu population. The Akagera River, the length of which was under RPF control throughout, ran red with the blood of the Hutus massacred on its banks.
    The RPF claimed these were Tutsis but there were no Tutsis in that area and only the RPF had access to that area. Robert Gersony, of USAID in a report to the UNHCR in October 1994, filed as an exhibit at the ICTR, stated that the RFP carried out a systematic and planned massacre of the Hutu population. Please see
    As the Rwandan Army, including Tutsi officers within that army and men retreated into the Congo forest, the Hutu population, in fear for their lives fled with them in their millions. In local villages, Hutu neighbours attacked Tutsis in revenge for the murder of Hutus or fearing death at their hands. Tutsis also attacked Hutus. It was total war just as the RPF wished. The RPF later pursued the Hutus through the Congo forest between 1996 to 1998 and killed hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. They were shelled, machine gunned, raped, cut to pieces with knives. Accounts of that trek are difficult to bear.
    The RPF was assisted in its offensive by the United States. The UN Rwanda Emergency office in Nairobi was in fact manned by US Army officers and acted as the operational headquarters of the RPF and gave them intelligence on Rwandan Army movements and actions and directions.
    Prudence Bushnell the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs telephoned the Rwandan Army chief of staff in May 1994 and told him that unless he surrendered he must know that he was fighting the United States of America and would be defeated. US Special Forces fought with the RPF. There is also evidence that Belgian forces of the UN were involved as an intercepted radio message from Kagame to his forces in the field refers to the help they had received from the Belgians.
    There is also evidence that Canadian forces were also involved and Atoine Nyetera a Tutsi prince, who was in Kigali in that period testified for the defense in the Military II trial and stated that not only were there no massacres committed against Tutsis by the Rwandan Army but that it was the RPF that began the massacres after they took Kigali and began killing Hutus.
    Nyetera testified that despite the claim by the RPF of being a Tutsi liberation group, when he saw their long columns enter the capital he saw that most of them were Sudanese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, Tanzanians and others speaking Swahili or Sudanese languages, in other words, mercenaries.
    Several RPF officers have testified at the ICTR and stated that they fled the Kagame regime as they had been promised that they fought for liberation of the Tutsis. However, when they wanted to take over the streets of Kigali to stop reprisals against Tutsis by Hutu civilians the junior officers were forbidden to do so, putting the lie to Kagame’s claim that he attacked to save Tutsis.
    These officers testified that Kagame wanted deaths to justify his war. The RPF could have controlled large parts of Kigali as they had at least 15,000 men in or near the capital opposed to 5,000 Rwandan Army forces. Instead Kagame used his men to ethnically cleanse the rest of the country of the Hutu population.
    The Rwanda War was a total war. All means were used to destroy that country and the Hutu people. The ultimate objective, the resources of the Congo. The US agreed to support the RPF in return for the RPF acting as a US proxy force to invade the Congo and seize its resources.
    The US now has several military bases in Rwanda and the country is nothing more than a US and UK colony run by thugs who keep control of the majority of the people by intimidation, murder and disinformation.
    None of this could have happened if those in the UN such as Kofi Anan, then in charge of the Department of peacekeeping operations, had done his job. None of this could have happened without the connivance of the NATO countries and Uganda, from where the invasion was launched.
    Ultimately, the prime responsibility rests with the United States of America and in particular the regimes of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then UN Secretary General, stated to Canadian historian Robin Philpot in 2004: “The United States is one hundred percent responsible for what happened in Rwanda.”
    Toronto-based Christopher Black is a Barrister and International Criminal Lawyer. He is Lead Counsel, General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwandan Gendarmerie. International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda (ICTR).


One of the most impressive attempts for true independence in Africa was undertaken by Thomas Sankara, the charismatic leader of Burkina Faso in West Africa, the former Republic of Upper Volta. Sankara came to power after a series of coups (first one in 1980) on the 4th August 1983. The colonial name of the country was changed into Burkina Faso meaning “Land of the Righteous”.

The aim of his revolutionary rule in his own words: “Our revolution will be of value only if, looking back… and ahead, we are able to say that the Burkinabe people are a little happier because of it. Because they have clean drinking water, because they have plenty to eat, because they are in good health, because they have access to education, because they have decent housing, because they have better clothing, because they have the right to leisure, because they have greater freedom, more democracy and greater dignity… Revolution means happiness. Without happiness we cannot speak of success.”

(From:, including a good account of his politics)

Aziz Fall: Revealing Sankara´s Legacy and the Circumstances of his Death


On the 3rd of November a workshop and lecture, organized by the German branch of Africavenir (, was held in Berlin by the Senegalese-Egyptian Professor Aziz Fall ( He is coordinator of the campaign “Justice for Thomas Sankara” (

Professor Fall gave an impressive account of Sankara´s achievements in one of the “poorest” countries of Africa, landlocked and partly in the drought stricken Sahel Zone. Sankara was able to raise a lot of enthusiasm on economic development and self-reliance especially in food and textiles. He guided an impressive effort to develop the infrastructure including a railway project. A very important effort was made to impose equal rights for women. He fought bribery and corruption. He stopped the wasting of recourses for luxury cars of functionaries. Also the ecological measures concerning reforesting cannot be overestimated. One of the most spectacular steps – and most disliked by the West – was his effort to unite African countries in the effort to do away with the imperialist system of depts. He was clear that going this step alone he´d hardly survive. His efforts were clapped at but finally left alone.

Professor Fall also made clear that certain measures were not welcomed by the “higher ranks” of society, especially the traditional “authorities”. In course of time the demanded discipline and sacrifices naturally raised also opposition which was not always met with the appropriate patience and sensibility.

What also clearly came out was the fact that Sankara was outstanding in the consequence for himself: no material privileges! At the end of his life he was as poor as at the beginning of his way, a simple house, an old car and a dusty bike! An enthusiastic witness of Sankara´s work is Jean Ziegler ( who states: “It is not important to give more to the people of the Third World but to steal less from them”!

A Danger to Imperialism and Comprador Bourgeoisie “must” die!

Imperialism (and their Third World henchmen) has killed even less radical and much less consequent politicians, and this even in the West. Especially US Imperialism has always followed the principle of “Killing Hope” (as is the title of a brilliant book by William Blum – and decided to do so in this case as well. Part of the machinations was the notorious Liberian Charles Taylor who “escaped” from a prison in the US. Well informed people have no doubt that Taylor was under CIA “guidance”. The greater “concept” aimed also at Samuel Doe, then the President of Liberia (and in whose government Taylor served as head of Civil Services), at the beginning very much disliked by the West but after some time incorporated into the Empire´s (US) frame before he was finally “to be dropped” by “Big Brother”. Incarcerated twice in Ghana but finally released by Jerry John Rawlings Taylor made his way astonishingly to Libya. Here the story becomes quite multi folded since it seems also Libya´s Gaddafi ( was “tricked” into the sketch obviously believing he could use Taylor (who on his side also had to spy Gaddafi´s activities with “troublemakers” in Africa).

The Treacherous “Friend”

Another important part of the plan (mainly by the US and France) to get rid of Sankara was his longtime associate in the revolution and old friend of his family, Blaise Compaoré. Compaoré became more and more hostile to Sankara´s policy and was in touch with the French supported regime in Ivory Coast and he probably introduced Taylor to Gaddafi ( In a “joint venture” with Taylor an armed gang dropped in a meeting Sankara was holding with twelve other officials and killed all of them. Information indicates that Compoaré was among the killers and possibly Taylor with them. Sankara´s body was dismembered and buried at night. Compaoré claimed a “natural death” of his former friend.

The exact circumstances of the assassination and the details of the preparations must be cleared! That is the essence of an initiative in the name of Sankara´s family driven ahead also by Professor Fall ( after all the efforts to hide the whole affair.

Some Remarks in Between by the Author on Gaddafi´s possible involvement

The details about a possible involvement of Gaddafi in the assassination of Sankara make some clarifications necessary. Surely Imperialism has waged another colonial war in Libya last year pushing Libya possibly into the fate of another Somalia and unleashing instability even in Mali, following the strategy of state destruction. This war was waged against Gaddafi´s efforts to maintain certain benefits for the Libyan people and to seriously contribute to Africa´s financial and economic independence. It cannot be totally ruled out that there´s a hidden game to smear Gaddafi with something into which he´d rather been tricked. On the other side Gaddafi´s relationship to Imperialism is multi folded. 1971 he was helping Nimeiri in Sudan to crush a communist upheaval and brought down a plane with one of the leaders (most probably helped with information from the British Secret Service) to be then executed in Sudan. Gaddafi has moved towards the West in the recent years and helped European “Frontex” organization in maltreating African refugees. He even supported former French President Sarkozy for his election campaign. His commitment to Africa was always connected to the determination to have the leading hand and he didn´t hesitate to occupy the Aouzou strip belonging to Chad for a long time. From a Marxist view his positions could be judged quite critical ( notwithstanding a fierce condemnation of NATO´s colonial war against Libya.

Aziz Fall, an Upright Anti-Imperialist

Professor Fall delivered a vivid picture of Thomas Sankara´s life and of the achievements the revolution lead by him was bringing for the people of Burkina Faso. He displayed an impressive ability to work out the various levels of socio-political developments. His commitment to liberation and justice is outstanding and not without danger as the threats against his person show ( It was a great pleasure – despite the sad topic – to hear his presentation and to discuss with him.

Andreas Schlüter

Professor Aziz Fall and the author


1)      A film showing the development in Bjurkina Faso under Sankara in a quite fair way, leaving important details of Sankara´s assassination out:



4)      Transcription of a strange Italian film interview on Sankara´s death

5)      On Charles Taylor (involved into Sankara´s assassination):

6)      To be read with caution, since the author´s motives are unclear, but giving some disturbing points:

7)      A vivid discussion on the implications of the points from the link in (3):

8)      A speech of Aziz Fall on Pan-Africanism:

Das Recht auf Empörung steht Jedem zu

Keine Frage, jeder Mensch, der unter der fraglos autoritären SED-Herrschaft gelitten hat, jeder Mensch, der durch die Mauer Angehörige verloren hat oder nach Fluchtversuchen im Gefängnis gesessen hat, hat das Recht, über die Mauer-Satire der Jungen Welt empört zu sein, wie jeder andere auch. So kann zum Glück überhaupt jeder Mensch sich in einer Demokratie empören, worüber ihr oder ihm Empörung angemessen zu sein scheint.

Auch in einer Partei wie der LINKEn besteht sicher das Recht, sich in seiner Empörung über unterschiedliche Dinge zu erregen. So waren nicht wenige empört, als der Berliner Landesvorsitzende der LINKEn, Klaus Lederer, seinen Auftritt auf einer „Solidaritätsveranstaltung“ für Israel hatte, während dessen Regierung die Bewohner Gazas mit dem grausamen „Sylvester-Scherz“ des „gegossenen Bleis“ traktierte und mit einer deutlich höheren Mauer den Landraub an Rest-Palästina vorantreibt. Dieser Empörung ist auch in offenem Brief Ausdruck verliehen worden. Allerdings kann ich mich nicht an eine Boykott-Aktion erinnern, die dazu aufgerufen hätte, ihn innerparteilich zu verfemen, nach Möglichkeit zu „vernichten“. Auch die sehr wenigen „Nostalgiker“ haben nicht zu seinem Sibirien-Aufenthalt aufgerufen.

Die Heuchler

Freudig hat die Kommerz-mediale Mainstream-Presse den satirischen Fehlgriff einer verdienten linken Zeitung aufgegriffen. Ich kann mich aber nicht erinnern, dass in diesen Zeitungen, wenn es um historische Figuren wie Friedrich den Großen, Karl den Großen oder sonstige bedeutsame Kaiser und Könige oder andere wichtige Figuren der deutschen Geschichte geht, zuerst einmal darauf hingewiesen würde, was für despotische und grausame „Säcke“ sie gewesen seien, denen nicht wenige Menschen zum Opfer gefallen seien. Ähnliches trifft auf historische Figuren des europäischen oder amerikanischen Auslands zu. Auch die Rückbenennung von Leningrad in St Petersburg, eine Referenz mehr an den Gründer Peter den Großen denn an den Heiligen, wurde als Zeichen der „Befreiung“ gedeutet. Dabei hat der gute Mann, fraglos ein „Erneuerer“, locker viele Tausende armer Russen beim Bau zugrunde gehen lassen. Lesart ist immer, dass man Ereignisse und Figuren „vor dem Hintergrund der Zeit und der Umstände“ (wozu fraglos auch der Ort gehört) bewerten müsse.

Allerdings hört „der Spaß“ bei solchen Leuten auf, die wie unvollkommen auch immer auf „linker“ Grundlage operiert haben. Erst recht dann, wenn sie in den antiimperialistischen Kampf verwickelt sind oder waren. So ist Napoleon akzeptabel, Gaddafi ein „irrer Despot“. Die europäischen Monarchen, die damals gegen die vordringenden Türken kämpfen ließen, sind „Retter Europas“, Fidel Castro ist auch ein zu verfemender Despot, obwohl, genauer, weil er der den „US-Puff Kuba“ geschlossen hat. Dass auch diese Leute gegen die Raubzüge, denen ihre Länder ausgesetzt waren oder sind, kämpfen oder gekämpft haben, ist eben ihr Verbrechen. Wie sagt Noam Chomsky, „Terror ist immer das, was die anderen tun“!


Nun gibt es in der LINKEn Leute, die bedauerlicherweise dieses ahistorische Spiel mitmachen. Es ist selbstverständlich, dass man als Mitglied dieser Partei den Maßstab der Menschlichkeit an Alles legen darf, ja sollte. Es ist auch selbstverständlich, dass man auf keinen Fall die Vorgehensweise gegen Andersdenkende in Kuba loben kann. Es ist selbstverständlich, dass man die LINKE nicht zum Klon der KP Kubas machen will. Da hat man nun Empörung über den Geburtstagsgruß an Fidel Castro durch die beiden Vorsitzenden der LINKEn zur Schau gestellt. Aber bedeuten Grußbotschaften und diplomatische Reden von Politikern der bürgerlichen Parteien an genehme orientalische Despoten oder sonstige autoritäre pro-westliche Machthaber, dass diese Parteien unser Land in ein Spiegelbild des diplomatisch Hofierten Machtbereiches verwandeln wollen? So etwas werden sie weit von sich weisen und auch linke Kritiker unterstellen das nicht. Es geht um Interessen. Als linke Partei sind wir auch dem Antiimperialismus und dem Internationalismus verpflichtet. Wir wollen Kapitalismus und Imperialismus nicht stärken wie das die „Bürgerlichen“ wollen, oder?

Wenn aber linke Politiker sich in die neoliberale Zwangsjacke der bürgerlichen Notenvergabe für Machthaber zwängen lassen, Castro, Gaddafi u. a. „böse“, die libyschen Rebellen „Revolutionäre“, Israels Regierung steht einem „Leuchtturm“ der Demokratie vor etc., dann wollen sie sich entweder den Medien und der manipulierten Öffentlichkeit als „normale“ Partei (selbstverständlich zur Erreichung des „höheren Zieles“) präsentieren, oder sie wollen gleichzeitig ihren GenossInnen vorspiegeln, doch in Wahrheit Linke zu sein, die nur an die Schalthebel wollen, um dann endlich linke Politik zu machen. In jedem Falle sind sie dies: Gaukler!

Hinter die Fichte

Eine unnachsichtige Moral in der Betrachtung von politischen und gesellschaftlichen Vorgängen ist etwas Löbliches. Tiefe Empörung zu grausamem und brutalem Geschehen ist auch etwas Angemessenes. Allerdings kann sie positiv wirken in den Bereichen, wo man direkt oder indirekt wirksam werden kann. Wenn es um komplexe Zusammenhänge geht, muss man sehr genau schauen, dass sie einem nicht von völlig Unmoralischen aus der Hand genommen wird. Und man darf sich nicht an einem blinden Fleck zu einem gegenteiligen Ziel führen lassen.

Ein ausgezeichnetes Beispiel bilden in diesem Zusammenhang immer wieder die „Opium-Kriege“, die insbesondere die Briten in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts führten. Kern des „Problems“ war das Vorgehen Chinas gegen den westlichen Opiumhandel und damit den „Freihandel“. Was würden wir von einem „Linken“ der damaligen Zeit halten, der sich mit der Tatsache, dass China ein Ort der massenweisen Herstellung von „Hofeunuchen“ und der noch zahlreicheren Verkrüppelung von Frauenfüßen war, zur Unterstützung des Krieges hätte verführen lassen, damit in „China endlich Humanität einzieht“? Wir würden zu Recht sagen: den hat man ganz schön „hinter die Fichte“ geführt!

Das wäre die frühe Erfindung des „Menschenrechts-Imperialismus“ gewesen, der natürlich nichts mit Menschenrechten zu tun gehabt hätte. Nun war der öffentliche Diskurs in Großbritannien damals noch nicht so weit, wie auch in anderen westlichen Ländern. Dieses Verfahren der imperialen Kräfte wurde erst später „nötig“. Aber hinter die Fichte führen lassen sich Menschen, deren Moral zwar hochentwickelt ist, deren Informationsstand aber damit nicht Schritt hält, leider allzu gern. Auch bei dem „Krieg gegen die Junge Welt“ geht es nicht um die geschmacklose Mauer-Satire, sondern eben darum, dass sie unter Anderem so ausgezeichnet über diesen „Menschenrechts-Imperialismus“ schreibt, und darüber, wie manche in der LINKEn sich am Nasenring zur Unterstützung führen lassen.

Andreas Schlüter

Das Imperium bringt eine weitere Inszenierung,

oder: Osama ist tot, es leben Gaddafi, Assad und Ahmadinedschad!

Rund ein Jahrzehnt lang war der Bärtige das Markenzeichen des „Kriegs gegen den Terror“, dieser sonderbaren Umschreibung für den asymmetrischen Weltkrieg der US Amerikaner. „Sein“ Netzwerk Al Kaida, das in erster Linie ein Produkt und Geschöpf des („geglückten“) Plans vom früheren US „Sicherheitsberater“ Zbigniew Brezinski war, der damaligen Sowjetunion „ihr Vietnam“ zu bereiten und auf dem „Grand Chessboard“ den Zentralplatz des Tri-Kontinents Asien-Europa-Afrika, nämlich Afghanistan, zu besetzten, diente als wohlfeile Rechtfertigung dafür, die Welt mit Krieg zu überziehen. Spektakulärer „Anlass“, Afghanistan zu besetzen und den längst bestehenden Plan zum Einfall im Irak durchzuführen sowie an diversen Schauplätzen mit seinen Vasallen zusammen martialisch aufzutrumpfen, war dann „Nine Eleven“, von dem nicht nur der Paranoia verdächtigte „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ sondern auch vorher im US Staatsdienst Stehende mit diversen Argumenten unterlegt immer wieder behaupten, „this was an inside job“.

Ob der Mann wirklich noch gelebt hat, ob er nun tatsächlich von US-Kräften getötet wurde, oder längst in einer Höhle des afghanisch-pakistanischen Grenzgebiets verblichen ist oder aber tatsächlich irgendwo als „US-Pensionär“ in Sicherheit sitzt (eine zugegebenermaßen kühne, aber nicht völlig absurde Option), wird schwer feststellbar sein. Stark entstellte Fotos eines Leichnams sind nicht unbedingt beweiskräftig und hin und her flitzende Meldungen, wie die von CNN, einer „Seebestattung nach islamischem Brauch“, machen die Sache nicht unbedingt glaubwürdiger.

Einsichtig ist, Osama hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, Osama kann gehen! Längst hat das Imperium gelernt, was nach dem Ende des langfristig so „stabilen“ Kalten Krieges nötig war, nämlich die Welt mit wechselnden Inszenierungen zu bedienen. Da im Westen nicht wie in diversen anderen Ländern die wirkliche Machtelite offiziell auf dem „Thron“ sitzt, sondern hinter dem Vorhang des demokratischen Scheins agiert, wechselt man wohlorganisiert nicht nur die angeblichen Gesichter der „Macht“ psychologisch gut untermauert aus, sondern auch die Paradigmen der offiziellen Handlungsmotive werden publikumswirksam ausgetauscht. Nach der wirkungsvollen, aber letztlich doch medial verbrauchten Klamotte des „Selbstschutzes“, „Krieg gegen den Terror“, ist jetzt eine „altruistischere“ Masche angesagt, man führt wieder Krieg für Demokratie und Menschenrechte! Osama war für das vorherige Motivationstheater der Richtige, aber jetzt hat man Gaddafi, Assad und Ahmadinedschad. Bei Saddam Hussein hatte man noch, wie unglaubwürdig auch immer, eine künstliche Verbindung zum Bärtigen hergestellt.

Wie gefährlich das Netzwerk wirklich ist, dafür legt nicht nur die eigentlich überflüssige und im Prinzip gefährlich an der pakistanischen Souveränität vorbeiagierende Operation Zeugnis ab, sondern auch die geförderten „Volksfeste“ in den USA, die ja eigentlich ein wirklich gefährliches Netzwerk noch gefährlicher machen würden, Weltpolitik als Fußballsiegesfeier! Dabei ist es natürlich klar, die arrogante Selbstinszenierung westlicher Omnipotenz könnte tatsächlich wirklich labile Islamisten zu Wahnsinnstaten verführen, aber a bisserl Terror kann ja selbst unter den geänderten Motivations-Paradigmen gar nicht schaden, denn da muss man eben noch strenger überwachen!

Andreas Schlüter