Pretoria High Court issued an arrest warrant on Sunday against the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, on behalf of the ICC kangaroo court. He is wanted for war crimes in Sudan by the ICC.He has been attending an AU Summit in South Africa.
Fortunately the Sudanese have announced their president has now left South Africa and is due to arrive in Khartoum later today.
The ICC are the creation of the same entity that has waged war on the Khartoum government for the past few decades which has resulted in the death of millions of Sudanese and the balkanization of Sudan.
The following article explains Empire`s role in Sudan
RE POSTED FROM LAROUCHEPUB.COM
Kick the British Out of Africa!
by Lawrence K. Freeman
Lawrence Freeman is the EIR Africa desk chief, and a regional coordinator
of the U.S. LaRouche movement. He gave this address to the Conference
of the General Union of Sudanese Students, which took place in Khartoum, April 5-7, 2009
It is good to be back in Sudan and to enjoy Sudanese hospitality. I want to thank the organizers of this conference for inviting my colleagues and me to this most important
conference regarding the unlawful actions by the International
Criminal Court. First of all, let me tell everyone here at this conference, that
Lyndon LaRouche has deployed our association to dissuade our newly
elected President, Barack Obama, from supporting the ICC indictment
against Sudan’s President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir.
The ICC is not a legitimate court, and has no standing in law to intervene against the sovereign nation of Sudan. If President Obama were to be manipulated into giving credence to the actions of the ICC, by listening to uninformed or deliberately misleading advisors, the United States would not only lose credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, but it could potentially set off a new round of warfare in Sudan and the Horn of Africa, which would result in a level of destruction beyond most people’s imagination. So far, President Obama has not allowed himself to be sucked into this British trap, but in the interests of Darfur, Sudan, the United States, and the rest of the
world, we must overturn this indictment, and dissolve the ICC.
The United States has no principled conflict with the people of Sudan or President Bashir. The British do. I am referring to the British Empire as it exists today as
the center of oligarchical financier interests, which controls the financial and commodity cartel conglomerates that dominate trade and finance around the globe. It is
absolutely no exaggeration to identify the ICC as a creation of the British Empire. The two individuals most responsible for bringing the ICC into existence are both servants of the British Empire: George Soros, a financial megaspeculator and the world’s biggest drug pusher who, in his youth, collaborated with the Nazi occupiers
Hungary; and Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, Minister of State in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office for Africa, Asia, and the UN.
This so-called “world court,” created by the British duo of Soros and Malloch-Brown, has no lawful jurisdiction to arrest a sovereign head of state: This action by the ICC is in violation of recognized natural law, which respects the inviolability of the modern sovereign nationstate.
The purpose of the ICC is to act as an imperial court, to crush any resistance by nations to the kinds of fascist economic policies that the British intend impose in response the present breakdown the financial system. We should rightly see the existence of the ICC as an abomination, opposed to the welfare of all nations, and it therefore should be dissolved immediately.
There Is a Solution to the Global Meltdown
The policy decisions that the United States will make regarding Sudan (and all other
countries), as well as those that the nation of Sudan will have to consider, are bounded by
the ferocious rate of economic collapse that is causing untold suffering in both developed
and underdeveloped countries. Ultimately, it will be nations—in opposition to the so-called markets—that will have to intervene to reverse this collapse, or the world will continue to devolve into a New Dark Age. Thus, it is in the interest of all nations on this planet not to allow this British-created ICC to have the power to ride roughshod over the sovereignty of nation-states.
Many people may honestly believe that they are accurately depicting the present financial- economic crisis, when they describe it as the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s. However, they are wrong. It much worse than that. What we are living through, is the breakdown of the financial system, which is the end-point of the last 40 years of wrongheaded policy following the burying of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods system by President Richard Nixon on Aug. 15, 1971. After two decades of hyperinflationary liquidity pumping, initiated by former Federal Reserve Board chairman Sir Alan Greenspan, our global financial system has turned into a gigantic bubble of fictitious monetary values with $1.4 quadrillion in unsecured, that is, worthless, derivatives.
Contrary to the vast number of articles and reports claiming that no one saw this crisis coming, Mr. La- Rouche forecast the precise nature of this economic breakdown on July 25, 2007, in an address to an audience in Washington, that was broadcast over the Internet.
He said the following:
There is no possibility of a non-collapse of the present financial system—none! It is finished, now! The present financial system can not continue to exist any longer under any circumstance, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations. . . . Only a fundamental and sudden change in the world monetary financial system will prevent a general, immediate chain-reaction collapse. At what speed we don’t know, but it will go on, and it will be unstoppable! And the longer it goes on before coming to an end, the worse things will get. Three days later, the financial system began its meltdown,
with the outbreak of the subprime mortgage crisis, which was merely the weakest point in the system. Here we are, 20 months later, and the world continues to slide—faster and faster—into economic hell! Now we must leave this dead system of fictitious
monetary values for a new, living system, based on physical-productive values, if the nations on the planet are to survive this decade.
Mr. LaRouche has proposed such a new system of economic relations—a New Bretton
Woods system—to replace the failed policies of free trade and globalization administered by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World
Trade Organization, and other kindred institutions. The measures that must be taken immediately by the Obama Administration, as prescribed by Mr. LaRouche,
are the following:
• Conduct an orderly bankruptcy reorganization of
the insolvent banking system, in accordance with U.S.
law, as President Franklin Roosevelt did in 1933. Instead
of issuing trillions of dollars to bail out worthless
derivatives and related debt, cancel these worthless obligations
from the books of the banks. At the same time,
provide government backing for those debts arising
from legitimate, productive activity that is in the economic
interests of the nation.
• Establish a National Bank, as prescribed by Alexander
Hamilton, to take responsibility for assuming the
legitimate bank debt of chartered banks.
• Re-regulate the banking system through the Federal
• Issue government-created credits for domestic
and global long-term infrastructure projects, which will
be the primary means for rebuilding national economies
throughout the world.
• Create a New Bretton Woods system, anchored by
an agreement among the four major powers of the world—
the United States, Russia, China, and India—to establish
new trade and credit arrangements for all participating nations,
with agreed upon, fixed rates of exchange.
These measures, put forth by Mr. LaRouche to deal with the financial crisis, have a precedent in U.S. history. They resemble the executive actions taken by President Roosevelt, in the immediate hours after he took the oath of office, on March 4, 1933. Those emergency measures were taken by Roosevelt because he was steeped in the unique tradition of the American System of political-economy, which became the foundation
of American economic policy, beginning with the inauguration of Gen. George Washington, guided by the genius of his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.
I have been asked to respond to the ICC from an American perspective. I will rather give a response that flows from the principles of the American System, as they relate to what our foreign and economic policy should be towards Sudan and the whole of Africa, which is diametrically opposed to that of the British System of empire.
Roosevelt’s Vision To End Colonialism
Since the victorious revolution of the United States over the British oligarchy in 1783, the United States has been viewed as the primary enemy of, and obstacle to, British geopolitical domination of the planet. Unfortunately, since the death President Roosevelt—the last U.S. President who knew the British were our enemy, and acted on that understanding—the United States has, for almost the entirety of the last 64 years, been
controlled by an Anglophile tendency, emanating from the financiers of Wall Street, who still take their marching orders from the City of London.
Roosevelt’s American System opposition to British “free trade” imperialist policies was a source of constant irritation to Prime Minister Winston Churchill during their wartime discussions, in which Roosevelt argued that, after Hitler’s Nazi army was defeated, the
world must be free of British, French, and Dutch colonialism.
In their meeting off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, in August 1941, Roosevelt forced
Churchill to accept the Atlantic Charter, which outlined
the principles of freedom and economic development for all nations and all peoples, in a world free of colonialism at the end of the war.
In these meetings, Roosevelt told Churchill:
“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a
stable peace it must involve the development of backward
countries. Backward people. How can this be
done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century
Churchill objected: “Who’s talking eighteenth-century
“Which ever of your ministers recommends a policy
which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial
country, but which returns nothing to the people of that
country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve
bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century
methods include increasing the wealth of a people
by increasing their standard of living, by educating them,
by bringing them sanitation—by making sure they get a
return for the raw wealth of their community.”
Discussing the conditions in Africa, Roosevelt pointed out that, by bringing water from the Mediterranean Sea to the desert, “The Sahara would bloom for hundreds of miles.” He continued: “Wealth. Imperialists don’t realize what they can do, what they can create! They’ve robbed this continent of billions, and all because they were too short sighted to understand that their billions were pennies, compared to the possibilities! Possibilities must include a better life for the people who inhabit this land.”
After visiting British Gambia, Roosevelt was outraged at the British for their slave-labor policy of paying Gambians 50 cents a day for their work. After the death of President Roosevelt, only President John Kennedy shared President Roosevelt’s concern for the development of Africa. However bad U.S. policy has been toward Africa since the election of President Nixon in 1968, America has never been an empire, nor ever had the proclivities to act like an empire. What did happen, was that after the assassination of President Kennedy, the Nixon regime adopted the centuries-long, British racist policy of genocide against Africa, with the completion of the infamous National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200), initiated and authored by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger’s study, “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” was completed at the end of 1974, but remained
classified until Dec. 31, 1980
The two primary tenets of the study are: 1) The West must have an uninterrupted supply of strategic minerals and vital natural resources which are deposited in large quantities in the countries in the “underdeveloped sector”; and 2) these countries must be forced to practice population reduction to ensure that these resources are not used up by the internal growth of their economies. Thus, as NSSM 200 demanded, the West intentionally
enforced underdevelopment and economic backwardness, and did so by banning any long-term investment in necessary categories of infrastructure. To eliminate resistance to the looting of these natural resources by the West, it was also necessary to keep the
governments of these countries weak, and the people divided by internal conflicts, to prevent the emergence of strong, true nation-states. One experienced former
American diplomat admitted that the United States had not invested in any infrastructure in Africa since the early 1970s, and, only recently, became concerned by
the large scale of infrastructure projects undertaken by China in Africa.
Consider the following two passages from NSSM 200:
“Rapid population growth is not in itself a major
factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels
and other minerals), since demand for them depends
more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of
people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent
on mineral supplies from developing countries,
and if rapid population growth frustrates their prospects
for economic development and social progress, the resulting
instability may undermine conditions for expanded
output and sustained flows of such resources.
“Wherever a lessening of population pressures
through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects
for such stability, population policy becomes relevant
to resources supplies and to the economic interest of the
United States [and the West].”
This is a policy of genocide and enforced economic prostration. Thirty years after the death of President Roosevelt, U.S. policy towards Africa and the “Third World” ceased to be American and became British, with adoption of Kissinger’s NSSM 200. It is therefore intelligible that Kissinger, speaking at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London in 1982, proclaimed his support for Churchill over Roosevelt, and announced that, as White House national security advisor, he kept the British Foreign Office better informed than the U.S. State Department.
The British ‘Game’ in Africa
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, is lying—and she knows it—when she says that the government of Sudan is responsible for “ongoing genocide” in Darfur. This falsehood is part of a “Big Lie” campaign to whip popular opinion into a mindless
frenzy in support of the ICC, and, potentially, a military assault on Sudan, in the form of an aerial attack on Sudan’s small air force. There is not a shred of evidence— none—for the claim that thousands of people are dying in Darfur today. And the claim that 300,000 to 400,000 have died in Darfur as a result of the conflict, since the insurgency erupted in February 2003, is a great exaggeration. Counting on the short attention span and complete ignorance of the population and of government officials, this “Big Lie” campaign has effectively covered up the real cause of genocide: the implementation of NSSM 200, through the deliberate withholding of investment in life-saving categories of infrastructure, most especially infrastructure for water. The people of Darfur, like those of the bordering areas of Libya, Chad, and the Central African Republic, living in this arid and inhospitable region, depend on marginal quantities of arable land and water for their
very survival. The overwhelming majority of deaths in this whole desolate region, which includes Darfur, are not caused by injuries from combat, but from disease, starvation, and illnesses like diarrhea, which are due to a lack of potable water. We face similarly threatening conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
but on an order of magnitude worse, with 6 million Congolese dying in the last decade. Roosevelt, in 1943, had the vision to see the future “blooming of the Sahara,”
but just the opposite has occurred. Who is responsible for the failure to bring one single
additional drop of water to Darfur, especially since the severe droughts of the early 1980s and the spreading desertification? Why don’t we name those individuals and institutions guilty of genocide of tens of millions of Africans? To seek to arrest President Bashir, when the real crimes against humanity have gone unpunished, is worse than hypocrisy; it is downright evil.
We must insist—over the objections of those shallow minded
empiricists who live only in the present—that one cannot understand what is
going on in Sudan and the rest of Africa today, unless one knows the history of British
imperial policy towards the continent. As in Sudan, the events taking place in Nigeria,
Somalia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa today have evolved from the successes and failures in the history of their struggles to free their nations from British colonial rule. British imperial control over Sudan was consolidated by two crucial events in September
1898, which have multiple effects on the Darfur crisis today. Sudan first became an independent state after defeating British mercenary Charles “Chinese” Gordon in 1885. The Mahdiya state existed for 13 years until Lord Herbert Kitchener on Sept. 1, 1898, with
25,000 troops, gunboats, cannon, and the Maxim machine gun, defeated the Mahdi, and returned Khartoum to Britain’s control. Winston Churchill, then a soldier and journalist, watched with excitement the slaughter of tens of thousands of followers of the Mahdi, as they were mowed down by the superior firepower of the British troops.
Kitchener then immediately raced up the Nile to Fashoda to confront a French force led by Maj. Jean- Baptiste Marchand. Marchand’s much smaller numbers had slogged eastward across Central Africa from Senegal in an attempt to limit Britain’s domination of East
Africa. The armies met in Fashoda on Sept. 19. The French were trying to connect their empire east to west, while the British sought to consolidate their empire under
imperialist Cecil Rhodes, from Cape Town to Cairo. The Nile River system was the “prize” that each empire sought, which would give the conqueror geopolitical control, from the Horn of Africa, south to Uganda. The French caved in to the British out of consideration
for future alliances in Europe that eventually led to World War I. In return, they were allowed all of that expanse of territory west of Darfur, and northward to the Mediterranean, that was not yet occupied by another European power.
As a result of Kitchener’s twin victories, the Anglo- Egyptian condominium was signed in 1899, placing Sudan under the suzerainty of Egypt, on behalf of the British Empire. Do the people who repeatedly babble about genocide in Darfur or chant “never again,” know
even this much? The people of the Chad/Darfur region are the same Africans on two different sides of an artificial border, manipulated to wage war against each other,
based on British imperialist machinations from more than a century ago.
To understand how conflicts like the one in the Darfur region are created and nurtured, one must know the history of the continent. After colonial troops were removed from Africa in the years following British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s 1960 “Winds of
Change” speech, the primary tools for maintaining control were two: the rigging of currency valuations and terms of trade for commodities; and, using profiled responses
by various ethnic, tribal, religious, and geographical groups to foment inter-tribal rage against each other, rather than allowing them to work together to create sovereign nations. Was not Nigeria, established under British Lord Frederick Lugard, created in such a way as to intensify divisions between the Hausa, Ibo, and Yoruba, which
still undermine that nation today? Look at how the British ripped apart Kenyan cultures with their Nazi-like persecution in the 1950s, which has generated homicidal rage between the Kikuyu, Luo, and Kalinjin ethnic groups over control of the land—rage that is still boiling over today. Was it not the British themselves who, in the 1920s, created the division between northern and southern Sudan?
These are but a few examples of how African nations
were intended to remain divided and weak after their formal independence from British rule. As a result of more than two centuries of imposed backwardness, Africans have been forced to live in almost subhuman conditions.
The greatest fear of the Britain-centered financial oligarchy is that African nations will fight back, and emerge as independent, economically viable sovereign nations. That potential—for Sudan to develop its economy, especially its capability to vastly increase its
export of agricultural products through increased use of
technology—has earned Sudan the hatred of the British, and has marked it for dismemberment.
A Real American Policy for the Future of Africa
What should be the principles of a real American
policy for Africa, once we thoroughly reject the hideous
Malthusian ideology of NSSM 200? First, we must
keep people alive by increasing the material standard of
living for all. The death of several million children
under five years old, each year in Africa, is a loss to
mankind. Every child is precious because he or she possesses
the intangible, but nevertheless ponderable
power of creativity, which is a universal quality shared
by all human beings. Democracy is sophistry if it does
not promote the general uplifting of the economic conditions
of life necessary for families to raise their children
free from poverty, disease, and famine.
The single most important contribution that can
be made, and should have been made decades ago, is
the investment in infrastructure for African economies,
which is precisely why Kitchener, Lugard, andRhodes, among others, consciously avoided building nationwide and regional infrastructure grids. Kwame
Nkrumah, the first President of Ghana, from his education
in the United States, was well aware of the importance
of infrastructure in uniting and developing Africa,
which is why he called for the “United States of Africa.”
Africa has an abundant quantity of fertile soil for farming.
The production, transportation, and preservation of
food products would be increased by a least one order
of magnitude, if the farmers, even on small, undercapitalized
farms, operated in an environment saturated
with roads, rail lines, electrical power, and irrigation. A
relatively modest investment in these categories of infrastructure
would yield an increase in agricultural productivity.
What would be the effects on Africa if we
applied the most scientifically advanced, capitalintense
technologies, such as nuclear power, water desalination,
and magnetic levitation rail lines?
To resolve the crisis in Darfur, step outside of Darfur
and Sudan. Let your eyes focus on the eastern end of the
Horn, where Djibouti, Somalia, and Eritrea meet at the
Gulf of Aden. Now move westward across Eritrea and
Ethiopia to Sudan through Khartoum, continuing west
through Northern Darfur into Chad. We have now traversed
some of the most uninhabitable, desolate territory
on the planet. We continue our journey into West
Africa, through Nigeria. Traveling toward the Atlantic
Ocean, we pass through several more countries until we
end at Senegal, the western tip of the African continentNow, imagine a high-speed train or, better yet, a magnetically
levitated train, traversing the entire width of
the continent, with an electrical power grid and gas pipe
lines running parallel. How much freight tonnage could
then be transported across the continent, creating new
levels of commerce, new manufacturing centers, and
brand new cities? The economies of western Sudan and
Chad would undergo a revolutionary transformation.
Let us think about using nuclear-powered desalination
plants along the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Gulf
of Aden to created billions more cubic feet of water,
equal to the volume of the Nile. With the installation of
South African-built, 200-megawatt pebble-bed modular
nuclear power plants, Africans could finally have sufficient
amounts of a continuous flow of electric power to
light their homes and streets, and power their industries.
Now let us think about constructing rail lines to connect
Southern, Central, and North Africa, which will
then cross into Europe through a new tunnel between
Morocco and Spain, and a tunnel from Tunisia to SicilyIf we have the vision and the will to implement these
quite feasible, but long-term projects, Africa will bloom
and develop as part of an expanding world economy.
We could end all of the manipulated conflicts in
Africa that are borne from shortages of the necessities
for human life. The conflicts arise because people are
not permitted to live with the full rights and dignity that
each human being is entitled to. Some may say that the
kind of generational long-term infrastructure projects
that I have just outlined are a dream, a mere nice idea,
but that it is impossible, that it will never happen. Others
may ask, what good does it do for us now? I maintain
that it is the only hope for Africa.
First of all, it is the only way to guarantee a future
for the children who will be born tomorrow, and a generation
from now. This approach to infrastructure as a
driver is necessary to stimulate our minds, to get us to
think big thoughts, to dare us to imagine a continent
where people’s daily existence is not dominated by
simple survival. Yes, we need to survive, and do what is
necessary to maintain our existence, but we must do it
with a vision of the future that provokes our imaginations,
and stimulates our minds.
It is this future for Africa, seen with clarity in our
mind’s eye, that must guide our actions in the present.
I would like to conclude on a personal note. For the
entirety of my adult life, I have never accepted that
human beings should perish needlessly when there are
no objective reasons for the premature loss of life. Forchildren to die in large numbers in Africa from malnutrition
and preventable diseases such as diarrhea, is the
most hideous example of the complete disregard for
human life by the Western governments and institutions.
All wealth flows from the unique human ability to
discover new scientific principles that create new technologies,
which transform our economic mode of activity
to constantly higher levels of productivity and physical
output. Any economic policy that does not promote
the development of human life is not only immoral and
economically insane, but is in violation of the laws of
the universe, and will fail.
This is the only way forward. We must choose this
path. Therefore, we cannot allow this fake “world
court,” created by drug-pusher George Soros, to foment
the break-up of Sudan in violation of the principle of
national sovereignty. If we were to permit this to happen
to Sudan, that would be a crime against humanity, because
then, no nation would be protected from such an
intervention by an outside supra-national institution.