Qaddafi’s state visit to France
I am a few days late with this news (due to final exams and such). The only media covering the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s official visit to France (which if you look at the above image, shows the success of the visit) was Le Monde (for obvious reasons…but one would think that British or American papers would at least mention it). Anyways, here is my take.
In an article titled “Mouammar Kadhafi contredit le president français sur la question des droits de l’homme,” Le Monde quoted the Libyan dictator as expressing concern over racism against North African immigrants in France: “Nous sommes dans le pays qui parle des droits de l’homme. Y a-t-il certains de vos droits qui ne sont pas appliqués ?” A very diplomatic way to start off an official visit – of course, Qaddafi has not been known for his diplomacy, or sanity, in the past. He commented to the National Assembly “Avant de parler des droits de l’homme, il faut vérifier que les immigrés bénéficient chez vous de ces droits.”
Check out this slideshow of photos from around the world on December 11. The 2nd image is of Parisians protesting against Qaddafi’s visit – it is interesting to see that some French would take such a position. Maybe they do not want Sarkozy to be tempted by Qaddafi’s schemes of uniting with other countries.
Here’s an article quoting some of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s remarks to the media on Qaddafi’s visit. Sarkozy seemed quick to defend himself from any unsaid allegations, asking reporters to recall his previous involvements with human rights and in dealing with the 2005 riots, in case they had forgotten.
Qaddafi the next day went on to criticize international involvement in the Darfur crisis, claiming that if the world were to leave Darfurians alone, to cope with their own problems, then the crisis would end itself. What a dumb idea. I really hope that international leaders speak out against him on that count; it is one of the most inhumane solutions to any kind of crisis that one can come up with. It is obvious that Qaddafi does not himself want to be involved in Darfur, but that certainly does not mean that others should feel the same way.
You can see in the above image the Libyan dictator’s green pin of the continent of Africa. Remember back a few months ago, when he visited West Africa, he called for a ” United States of Africa?” He has apparently still been going on with that idea. Although every time he has tried to create a United Arab state with another country, it has ended in either a border war, or absolutely terrible diplomatic relations with that country. He also praised the Euro for ending the “hegemony of the dollar,” and talked about the “collapse of the United States’ empire.”
He did say one intelligent thing, however, when he talked about the rights of nations to develop and possess nuclear weapons. He said (here, in Le Monde) “Pourquoi certains pays auraient-ils le droit de posséder des armes de destruction massive ? Il faut qu’elles soient interdites à tous ou permises à tous.” I am sure that other leaders have made this point before, as well. It is something that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad would agree with. And why should Iran (and other nations – Pakistan, Libya, Mexico…) not be able to have nuclear power, at the very least?
darfur crisis left unresolved as helicopters are too expensive
Here is a link to a photo slideshow in Le Monde of photos taken during the riots in Villiers-le-Bel in the previous weeks. Notice the police in, like, armor and holding some massive guns. Consider what the title of the article comments: “Un habitant de Villiers-le-Bel : ‘Les policiers, ils font du cinéma’” Is that true, to an extent? Certainly it seems as if certain members of the French government acted in a perhaps cinematic way. And sure, violence on that scale must be handled with appropriate measures. But if you notice, last week coverage of the riots almost dropped completely out of several French newspapers (not to even mention British papers).
On to the EU-Africa meeting in Lisbon. Many humanitarian groups have protested that there is no time allotted on the meeting’s agenda to discuss the Darfur crisis. What, the UN and USA have declared it a “crisis,” is that not enough? That means the problem will be solved, right? In the same way that declaring the Armenian Genocide to be a genocide fixed all problems associated with it, right?
Gordon Brown officially boycotted the summit because of Zimbabwean Prime Minister Robert Mugabe’s presence (that same one who took power from Ian Smith). What an immature thing, as the leader of a country, to do. As José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, said (in the Guardian):
“If you are an international leader then you are going to have to be prepared to meet some people your mother would not like you to meet. That is what we have to do from time to time.”
Well said, but that comment applies more to George Bush, he who still has yet to visit the Middle East (wherever that is), than to anyone else.
According to the same article, however, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to Darfur “has been held up by Khartoum’s objection to the inclusion of non-African units, and also by a lack of helicopters. The new plan would involve raising finance for helicopters. ” What?! Helicopters have nothing to do with governments from all over the world being unwilling to become involved in a “crisis.” Since declaring it a ‘crisis’ is enough, any reason will be found to avoid getting involved. And the blame also lies with the Sudanese government, to an extent. Not only that, but who does not have enough money for helicopters? Certainly not any of the members of the UN Security Council.
some explosive evidence about Iran
The above image is of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad sitting in his office, (calmly) contemplating nuclear strike on America, commencing the third world war that Bush spoke of not so long ago (check out this article in the Guardian):
Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney have been claiming without equivocation that Tehran is bent on achieving a nuclear weapon, with the president warning in October of the risk of a third world war.
But wait! A newly declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided information that Iran has not been pursuing development of nuclear weapons since 2003. Typical of the administration, we see that they have no clue what they are doing (same source as above):
In a startling admission from an administration that regularly portrays Iran as the biggest threat to the Middle East and the world, the NIE said: “We do not know whether [Iran] currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” That contradicts the assessment two years ago that baldly stated that Tehran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons”.
“Stunning evidence”, says this writer in the Times. Well, maybe Bush will not be able to pressure China, Russia, France, and England into jointly declaring war on Iran this time around. We better not take this one on alone, either…too much on our hands with that Turkish encroachment over in Iraq. According to this article, Bush will not be updating US-Iran foreign policy to reflect the new information: “Iran was dangerous. Iran is dangerous. And Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” exclaimed Bush during a press conference. What about the United States, Mr. Bush? We have the knowledge necessary to make many nuclear weapons…are we not more dangerous?
french and algerians suffered from colonialism
Nicolas Sarkozy apologized and did not apologize to Algeria for French colonialism in the first half of the nineteenth-century. According to Le Monde, Sarkozy “a qualifié le système colonial français dans ce pays de ‘profondément injuste [et] contraire aux trois mots fondateurs de notre République : liberté, égalité, fraternité’” Good for him…right?
Well, he was not as sincere as we had hoped. Sarkozy went on to describe the crimes committed by the French in Algeria as “des crimes terribles ont été commis tout au long d’une guerre d’indépendance qui a fait d’innombrables victimes des deux côtés”. Innumerable victims on both sides? Since when did it matter if the colonizer suffered at the hands of the colonized? The Bush administration would like this rhetoric, it jives nicely with the US as ‘liberator’ of Iraq and the Iraqis as ‘insurgents’.
As a note, the above article notes that Sarkozy recognized those crimes, “sans les qualifier de “crimes de guerre” ou de “crimes contre l’humanité.” That was quite magnanimous of him, and observant of the writer. Also see this piece from Reuters in Alger for a nice commentary. And then watch “La Bataille d’Alger.”
US colony of Iraq is attacked by Turkey
The Turkish military recently resumed operations against the “Kurdish Workers Party,” attacking bases in Northern Iraq. They have also massed several hundred thousand troops, according to this article in Le Monde, near the northern Iraqi border. We in the United States will not stand for this threat to our territory. Kurdistan is definitely in Iraq, and we do not appreciate this Turkish encroachment. Turkey can handle Kurdish “insurgents” (I think that is the new appropriate term for militant groups) in their own country, we (the United States) will deal with insurgents in our colonies, thank you.
Unfortunately, that leaves a lot to deal with on the US’s hands…according to a piece in the Guardian, there is a new cholera crisis in Baghdad. The bacteria may be spread by contaminated water systems:
As Iraq’s rainy season nears, its ageing water pipes and sewerage systems, many damaged or destroyed by more than four years of war, pose a new threat to a population weary of crisis.
Who is reponsible for the four years of war? Which crisis is the population weary of?
Companies responsible for collecting waste and sewage have been reluctant to enter Baghdad’s most violent areas.
Why are those areas the most violent? Why are they violent at all? What is more important, the threat of violence, or humans dying of a disease not seen on a major scale in the United States since 1911? Clearly we have a lot of upkeep to do if we want Iraq to be a productive colony for us. But with Turkey trying to take of some our territory, we better get on the ball.
How many sources talk about the Kurds being persecuted by the Turks instead of the Turks putting down a Kurdish rebellion. It is only seven years until it will be the one hundredth anniversary of the Great Calamity, if anyone knows what I mean. The world should not let the Turkish government celebrate by commencing Great Calamity version two.
