SOROS MANIPULATING WORLD WAR III START UP VIA GEORGIA

Erle Frayne Argonza

Just exactly what is the overall purpose of the recent Georgia-Russia conflict within the broad context of the agenda of the global oligarchy? Does it have to do with the broad war that was hatched that will begin in the Middle East, with the oligarchic proxy vassal-states taking sides in the conflict? Was the conflict a mere acid test case by the same elites to assess the offensive capabilities of Russia at this juncture?

Below is a report from the Executive Intelligence Review which lends credence to the thesis of NATO forces being honed for that larger forthcoming war. George Soros, the bagman for dozens of financier oligarchs of Europe, was identified as a key operator in fomenting the latest conflict in Central Asia that pitted the oligarchic vassal Georgia with Russia.

[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]

LaRouche Denounces `Obama’s Godfather’ George Soros Behind Attempt To Start World War III in the Caucasus

Aug. 10, 2008 (EIRNS)—This release was issued yesterday by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).

Lyndon LaRouche today denounced British agent George Soros, for his hand in the ongoing London-led efforts to trigger World War III in the Caucasus. Soros is the financial and political godfather of both Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and the purported Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). In the late hours of Aug. 7, as President Saakashvili completed a nationwide television address, claiming to seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis in the autonomous region of South Ossetia, he in fact ordered Georgian troops to fire on Russian peacekeepers, who were in South Ossetia as part of a United Nations mandated force, that has been there since 1994. President Saakashvili’s actions now threaten to trigger World War III—precisely what the British intend as their response to the collapse of their post-Bretton Woods international financial system.

“If you want a preview of what the United States would be like under a President Obama, just look at Georgia’s recent actions. Georgian President Saakashvili, like Barack Obama, is owned by the same British godfather—George Soros.” LaRouche asked: “Would Soros’ man Obama be another Dick Cheney if he got into office?”

Soros’ own Open Society Institute boasts that it was the backbone of the so-called “Rose Revolution” that swept Saakashvili into power in 2003-2004. As of January 2004, the Soros Open Society Institute, which first set up its office in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, in 1994, began directly bankrolling the Georgian government, as part of a joint program with the United Nations’ UNDP (United Nations Development Program), then headed by Mark Malloch Brown, who is now secretary general of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Malloch Brown was so close to Soros, during his tenure at the UN, that he lived in an apartment he rented from the hedge fund speculator.

Saakashvili’s reckless provocations, in firing on Russian troops and killing South Ossetian civilians, who are predominantly Russian citizens, drew a strong military response from Russia, which is bound, under its constitution, to defend Russian citizens under attack. The British have been behind the destabilization of the Caucasus region since the collapse of the Soviet Union, funding and arming Chechen rebels, allowing recruitment into the Chechen separatist movements, at mosques in England, and providing safe haven to Russian Mafiya figures, like Boris Berezovsky, who bankrolled anti-Russian separatist and terrorist operations in the Caucasus.

“Now, look at the vast Soros cash flow into Obama,” LaRouche concluded. “Soros is a British agent, under the control of British foreign intelligence and special operations services. He is used by them. His sources of funds, after his initial bankrolling by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild banking interests, are murky, at best. Soros is part of Britain’s new opium war apparatus—and he virtually owns Senator Obama. And now he is fomenting world war provocations against Moscow, at precisely the moment that I am calling on Russia, China, and India to join the United States in creating a new international financial system that would wipe out speculators like Soros altogether.”

 

EURO-OLIGARCHIC OPERATORS BEHIND GEORGIA CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA

Erle Frayne Argonza

Good morning!

 

Going back to the recent Georgia-Russia conflict, which is actually a mere dress rehearsal of NATO for its future big war upon the installation of a totalitarian North Atlantic Empire in the near future, the thesis was raised that Georgia had turned itself into a (b) vassal-state of the Anglo-European oligarchy (or ‘global oligarchy’) and (b) was the same elite’s surrogate it its conflict with Russia.

 

It would pay to know just exactly who are the people involved behind the scene as operators for the global oligarchy for its latest synarchy engagement in Central Asia. Analysts connected with the Executive Intelligence Review were able to identify one named Mark Brown, who works for the same elites through his sponsor George Soros.

 

Below is a news item from that details the information about the oligarchic operators involved in the aforesaid conflict.

 

[18 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to the Executive Intelligence Review database news.]

 

===================================================================================

Mark `Moloch’ Brown: The Empire’s Coup Man in Georgia

Aug. 12, 2008 (EIRNS)—There is good reason for the British Empire’s silence about the attack by Mikhail Saakashvili’s Georgia on South Ossetia on Aug. 7, an attack that brought the world to the brink of World War III. Saakashvili was put in power by the duo of British agents—billionaire speculator and Nazi collaborator, George Soros, and Lord Mark Malloch Brown, now the United Kingdom’s Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations for the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). And, by tracking the records of the UN Development Program (UNDP) which Malloch Brown administered, and Soros’s Open Society Institute and its offshoots, the proverbial check stubs will be found.

Lord Malloch Brown has been in the business of overthrowing governments since 1986, when he left the London Economist for the international section of an agressive political consulting firm in the U.S. called Sawyer Miller, and from there advised the Presidential campaign of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines. He stuck with Aquino through the overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, a role about which he boasts. In 1990, he represented the Presidential campaign of Peruvian fascist novelist Mario Varga Llosa, a drug legalization advocate, who lost the election after proposing a vicious austerity program to cut the living standards of Peru’s lower classes. Sawyer Miller also helped promote the Dalai Lama against China.

From Sawyer Miller, Malloch Brown spent the next 18 years at the World Bank and the United Nations, forming a deep, but secretive relationship with Soros.

He is also secretive about his finances—he lists only his government salary of about $160,000 on financial disclosure forms. Prior to taking the Ministry job, he served as the Vice Chairman of George Soros’s hedge fund, the Quantum Fund in 2007. For a bit of comparison, note that Soros earned billions of dollars heading the Quantum Fund in recent years!

Malloch Brown enhances his meager government salary, however, with a government-subsidized home in London called “The Admiralty House,” which is valued at about 7.76 million pounds sterling, according to the British government. Both the Spectator and the Times of London have written exposes of Malloch Brown for this sweetheart deal, where the rent is over $300,000 per year, and for which he “leapfrogged” over 20 higher-ranking cabinet members to get the perk. The price Malloch Brown demanded, to leave Soros’s Quantum Fund was a fat portfolio covering the entire world, a peerage (he is now a British Lord), the right to attend Cabinet meetings, and the luxurious home.

The subsidized home deal is identical to the arrangement which Malloch Brown had for about five years when he headed the UN Development Program, and then became Deputy Secretary General of the UN, and lived in New York. There he was a tenant at the five acre estate owned by George Soros in Katonah, New York, which the UN paid for, at $120,000 a year, to Soros. It was about 20% below the market price, but when asked about this house by a reporter, Malloch Brown stormed out of the interview, exclaiming, “I am doing God’s work!”

Malloch Brown and Soros have been co-conspirators in a global plot against the nation state since at least 1993, when Malloch Brown joined a group organized by Soros that travelled to Serbia and Bosnia, to advise him on how to best spend a $50 million grant to “rebuild” Bosnia, after the British orchestrated war had destroyed it. In the 1990s, Soros had also funded the street thug apparatus OTPOR, that boasts of toppling Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Soros’s network later used the experienced Serbian mob-controllers to create the “democracy shocktroops” for the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia that put Saakashvili into power.

Throughout his time at the UN, Malloch Brown and Soros were a duo. They held a joint press conference in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002, to announce plans on how use UN funds, integrated with private funding from Soros and his ilk, to control the economies and policies of Third World countries. Soros was not there as a philanthropist—he was there as President and Chairman of the Soros Management Fund, a notorious hedge fund.

The Rose Revolution

There would be no Saakashvili regime today without George Soros and Malloch Brown. Even in 2001, Saakashvili was a Soros-financed operative. In January, 2004, at the annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, Soros, Malloch Brown, and Mikhail Saakashvili gave a joint press conference where Saakashvili got $1.5 million—two-thirds from Soros’s Open Society Institute and one-third from the UN Development Program. The funds were to be for a “Governance Reform Program” for Georgia, of which the main project was payoffs—a “Salary Supplement Fund,” for which Malloch Brown arranged millions more.

Malloch Brown’s UNDP bluntly describe how he and Soros would, in effect, not only give money, but would stack the Georgia government with the “skilled professionals” they would pick. The UNDP report says that,

Georgia “lacked the skilled professionals needed to design and execute sweeping reforms…. The state lacked the resources to pay salaries” that might lure the kind of globalist operatives that Soros and Malloch Brown wanted there.

So, continues the UNDP Report, “Working in close partnership with billionaire philanthropist George Soros, UNDP moved swiftly…. Speed was recognized as crucial to success. Even before Mr. Saakashvili was sworn into office, UNDP and Mr. Soros’s Open Society Institute (OSI) had agreed upon the creation of a new initiative to help the new administration secure the staff and expertise it needed.” The initiative—to pay a supplemental salary to Saakashvili and top government officials—went on for three years, and Saakashvili himself admitted its importance at a Washington, D.C. press conference in early 2004, when asked about his financial dependence on Soros.

Saakashvili said: “Now regarding George Soros’s contribution, this is primarily UNDP Fund: United Nations Development Program Fund to fund capacity building for Georgian government, and George Soros will not be the only contributor. We said we expect, as we already have pledges from a number of other contributions. We only have at this moment, two million dollars contributed by UNDP and Soros, but we have some other pledges, we need at least eight million dollars already this year and we will need some more for the next year…. Soros played good role in bolstering democratic processes in Georgia. He was very instrumental for many NGOs in their development and I think there is nothing bad about that, wrong about that.”

Malloch Brown’s UNDP report even boasted that this funding had provoked “Russian President Vladimir Putin … to chide Mr. Saakashvili that he was on Mr. Soros’s payroll.” By 2006, the salary supplements were over $1 million per month, says the UNDP report.

These are the funds that go to a large contingent of Soros agents who are the government of Georgia: head of the National Security Council, Alexander Lomaia; Gigi Bokeria, Deputy Foreign Minister (who had been one of the early trainees of the Serbian Otpor for street demonstrations); Chairman of Georgia Parliament’s Committee for Eurointegration: David Darchiashvili, to name a few.

EU-BRITISH OLIGARCHS PRACTICE WAR VIA VASSAL GEORGIA

Erle Frayne Argonza

The ‘peace arena’ is getting to be fuzzier by the day as armed hostilities are escalating worldwide. The latest among these was that brief full-scale hostilities between Georgia and Russia, hostilities that were directly related to South Ossetia.

 

On the level of appearance, it was a conflict among neighbors Georgia and Russia. However, when one reflects on the added facet of Georgia’s application to the NATO as a member-state, the underpinning machinations of the Anglo-European oligarchs will be easily seen.

 

As already elucidated by this analyst, the global oligarchy had already formulated the blueprint for its wars of the future and the mutation of the EU and USA into totalitarian police states in the short run. Global ‘synergistic anarchy’ (synarchy), modeled after the ancient Empire of Rome, is a key strategy of the same oligarchic circles to foment conflicts across the globe, aimed as always to preposition the financier and industrial interests of their respective families and members.

 

It is very clear to this analyst that Georgia’s leaders have chosen to gravitate to the power orbit of the financier oligarchs, and desire to be counted among the NATO member-states. This same military umbrella will be the military arm of a forthcoming North Atlantic Empire comprising of the EU and USA, an empire that is now rapidly shaping before our own eyes.

 

The presence of NATO in Afghanistan and its proxy war versus Russia via the new vassal-state Georgia are among the exercises aimed at honing the military might of the alliance. The encirclement of Russia is being tested at this moment, as well as assessing the firepower capabilities of the revived Russian state whose very own leaders have turned hawkish during the last few years.

 

Below is an article by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, leader of the Shiller Institute, regarding the oligarchic machinations behind the Georgia-Russia conflict.

 

[15 August 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. Thanks to Executive Intelligence Review database news.]

 

IN THE FACE OF GLOBAL COLLAPSE

British, EU Target Russia With Shooting War in the Caucasus

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

With the underpinnings of the present world financial system growing shakier by the day, the outbreak of warfare in the Caucasus shows how quickly the current world situation can be thrown out of joint. It also gives us a foretaste of how quickly it could expand into a new general war. Even if no one can precisely predict how much time we have left to address the underlying cause of the growing threat of war—namely, the systemic crisis of the world financial system—the military operations in the Caucasus nevertheless make clear that our brief window of opportunity could close quite suddenly.

“Caucasus War Catches Europe Flat-Footed,” was Spiegel-Online’s headline to its article on Aug. 8 about the escalation of the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia—a conflict which has taken on the character of a typical proxy war between the United States and Russia. The article’s author, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp, reports from Brussels on the alleged “helplessness” of the European Commission and of the French government, which currently holds the EU Presidency, all of which can do nothing except express their “deep concern.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Back in February, when the European Union—Great Britain, France, and other nations, supported Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, it was already perfectly clear that this destabilization would not only affect the Balkan states, but was also giving the green light to every conceivable separatist movement and minority throughout the world. Just as in the Balkan wars leading up to World War I, and also in the 1991-95 Balkan War, this ethnically complicated region is serving as a chessboard for British geopolitical destabilizations, with the ultimate aim of drawing the great world powers into the conflict, and/or preventing any peaceful economic cooperation on the Eurasian continent. And it is certainly no accident that, since Dec. 12, 2007, the chief of the EU’s planning team for Kosovo has been none other than the British diplomat Roy Reeve, a Russia expert, whose previous postings took him to Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Armenia, and Georgia—i.e., precisely those countries which have problems with nationalities and ethnic minorities.

Already on July 15, Ronald D. Asmus of the German Marshall Fund (GMF) wrote that a war between Georgia and Russia was in the offing, and that this could easily ruin relations between Russia and the West. And that was obviously the intention all along. Asmus also chaired a meeting of the GMF earlier this year in Brussels, where five former military general staff members presented an outrageous report proposing that NATO be transformed into a globally operating intervention force which, under certain circumstances, would be permitted to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons.

With its so-called “Rose Revolution,” and its desire to join NATO, Georgia has turned out to be a willing instrument of the Anglo-American strategy for encirclement of Russia. But what induced Georgia to reoccupy South Ossetia at this particular moment, 16 years after the latter declared its independence? The war in the Caucasus is part of a global destabilization effort, coinciding with the arrest of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, as well as with the destabilizations of Turkey, Pakistan, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, by means of terrorist attacks or sanctions—and we are only mentioning the most prominent of many other similar crisis spots.

Financial Crisis Fuels War Threat

As I already pointed out above, the overall context of these events is the escalating collapse of the global financial system, which has been pulling ever larger chunks of the real economy down into the abyss with it. The Federal Reserve is now committed to using its rediscount facility for making practically unlimited liquidity available to the two de facto insolvent mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae—which together, guarantee $5.3 trillion in U.S. mortgages! Not only does this have enormous hyperinflationary ramifications, but it only plugs one solitary hole in the leaking boat. In the United States, speculators are debating whether it’s 3,000 or 5,000 banks which are bankrupt; eight banks have already officially shut their doors so far this year. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy—or what’s left of it, after years of “outsourcing”—is sinking ever more deeply into depression: the auto sector, the airline industry, the construction sector. More and more states and municipalities are being forced to make draconian cutbacks, such as in California, where 22,000 state employees have been laid off, and another 200,000 are threatened with having pay reduced to the minimum wage.

Meanwhile, some analysts have joined Lyndon LaRouche in the view that the rate of collapse in Europe is going to be even faster. Spain’s collapsing real estate sector is bringing a massive banking crisis in its wake, and similar scenarios are playing out in Great Britain, where the Royal Bank of Scotland has had to write off $12 billion in the aftermath of the government takeover of Northern Rock. The situation in Denmark is equally dismal. The official inflation rate in the EU is hovering above 4%, whereas the real rate of inflation for less well-off wage earners is far greater, because they have to spend the bulk of their income on food, energy, gasoline, housing, etc. And when none other than former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, “Mr. Bubble” himself, starts talking about the crisis of the century—a crisis for which he is personally responsible—then it’s clear that he wants to prepare the world for the great crash immediately ahead.

It wouldn’t be the first time in history that the international financial oligarchy has attempted to keep a worldwide financial and economic crisis under control by fanning the flames of war. And anyone who prepares for war, must first create an enemy image, so that the population can be brought into line.

Vile Attacks on China

That is precisely the intention behind the repulsive China-baiting being emitted by the media and by politicians on the occasion of the Olympic Games. Regardless of whether it’s coming from witting agents of the British Empire faction, or from mindless dumbos on the morning news shows: The irresponsible gossip that has been spread during the run-up to the Olympic Games, has been simply monstrous. Without any regard for the truth, and without a shred of knowledge of China’s history and culture, the wildest assertions have been floated—assertions which could well succeed in poisoning relations with China, and in helping prepare for coming conflicts with China (and with Russia).

Not only were the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing wonderfully beautiful and poetically conceived, but they were also a magnificently staged demonstration of the 5,000-year history of this great nation, one which, for a long time, was the world’s leader, and which is now preparing to resume that role sometime in the future. Even though China certainly has its fair share of problems—for example, the poverty of the great majority of its rural population, and also a certain degree of Western materialism which has infected part of its population—what counts is the vector of development, and in China that vector is going upwards—in contrast to what’s happening with the arrogant sophists of the West’s empire faction.

The Chinese government has blocked Internet access to anti-Chinese propaganda emanating from international and British organizations in connection with Tibet and the Uighurs—and it has every right to do so. After all, do the British and American governments allow the Taliban’s tracts or al-Qaeda’s instructions to be circulated around the country? What do destabilization efforts by an enemy power, have to do with democracy and human rights?

The fact that in Europe, a politician who voted for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, or a representative of the media which, even after the Irish “No” in their referendum, did not run a single pertinent article on an EU treaty which would abolish parliamentary democracy in Europe once and for all, and would establish an oligarchical dictatorship, would now dare to decry a lack of democracy and human rights in China—that is truly the height of Goebbels propaganda! It would have made Goebbels pale with envy. Europe is dominated by a truly terrifying democracy deficit, resulting in an increasingly deep-seated and extremely dangerous cultural pessimism, as expressed in the famous retort, “There’s nothing we can do about it, anyway.” And so, those politicians and journalists who raise a fuss about democracy in China, ought to go out and listen to what the population thinks about the political class and the media—in Germany, for example.

If we are to make use of the fast-closing window of opportunity, which will hopefully remain open long enough for us to prevent the great catastrophe, then we will have to embark on a radically different path. One very promising impulse in that direction, is an article that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wrote for the current issue of the journal Russia in Global Politics, under the title “Russia and the World in the 21st Century,” which directly reflects the positions of President Dmitri Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Lavrov affirms the obvious fact that the epoch of the past 400-500 years, during which European civilization has dominated the world, is now closing, and that a new vision is therefore required. He rejects not only the idea that the world will gradually adopt Western values, and the theory of “the end of history”—the idea of a global Anglo-American empire—but he also rejects the idea of a “post-American” world without the United States.

The Russian Foreign Minister emphasizes that he absolutely disagrees with the idea that current developments must end in chaos and anarchy. Rather, he believes that a new international political, financial, and economic architecture can be created, one in which Russia must play a major role as an equal partner.

The Anglo-Saxon (i.e., free-trade) model is tottering, Lavrov writes, just as it was in the 1920s, and therefore today, just as then, the model of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal is called for. China, India, Russia, and Brazil must be integrated into this new reform of our international institutions. On this basis, plans can be made for a common future for the entire Euro-Atlantic region and for the world as a whole, a future in which security and prosperity become truly inseparable, he states.

Two Options

The Western nations today have essentially two options: Either they follow the British line, treating Russia, China, and India as antagonists—which means, for example, using Georgia for anti-Russian operations, fostering separatist tendencies inside China, setting financial locusts against India, and other such things. In which case, the great catastrophe is sure to come.

Or, they can heed the proposal which LaRouche has been making for some time, that a new international financial and economic order, in the tradition of Roosevelt and his New Deal, and Bretton Woods, be put onto the agenda. In such an arrangement, the United States, Russia, China, and India must collaborate as a core grouping, around which other sovereign nations can congregate. And that is essentially what Foreign Minister Lavrov says in his article.

For Europe’s nations, this means that they must extricate themselves from the European Union straitjacket which, for Germany, since Maastricht at the latest, has become a new Versailles Treaty. Europe’s nations can, and certainly should cooperate as a Europe of sovereign republics—which will be vastly more in keeping with the spirit of humanist Europe, than is possible today with an EU bureaucracy which is farther away from Europe’s humanist tradition, than Earth is from a galaxy a couple million light-years distant.

Let us hope that the coincidence of what Greenspan himself has described as the financial system’s crisis of the century, with the realization of how quickly war can break out, will be sufficient to shock responsible people back to reason.

ICC: IMPERIAL CRIMINAL COURT?

Erle Frayne Argonza

Good morning!

The decision of the International Criminal Court, which now seems to be a thin disguise for the Imperial Criminal Court of the European oligarchy, still rings loudly across the globe today. The decision had unlocked grave repercussions on the African continent as a whole, as it further threatens sovereign nation-states and turn them into hovels of failed states, as exemplified by Sudan.

Below is a an article culled from the Executive Intelligence Review that perceives the ICC decision as a handiwork of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy.

Enjoy your read!

[26 July 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

`Imperial Criminal Court’
Opens Gates of Hell in Africa

by Lawrence K. Freeman

British imperialists escalated their ongoing destabilization of Africa on July 14, with the decision by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), to file charges of “genocide and crimes against humanity” against Sudanese President Gen. Omar al-Bashir. The British and their collaborators want to eliminate the sovereignty of African nations, so that Africa’s population can be greatly reduced, thus ensuring that Africa does not “use up” its vast resource wealth for its own development, and for trade with Asia, China in particular. There is no mistake of the timing, the intent, and the forces behind this unprecedented action, which is premised on completely false charges. It is intended to blow apart Sudan’s North-South peace settlement, plunging the country even deeper into civil war. The consequences of the ICC’s decision, if not reversed, not only would be devastating to Sudan, and the stability of the Horn of Africa, but because of Sudan’s strategic importance, the entire continent would bleed.

The hand of the British and the hypocrisy of the ICC’s claims are revealed by the fact that one of the major funders and creators of the ICC is British agent, billionaire speculator, and former Nazi collaborator George Soros. Upon hearing of Soros’s role in the formation of the ICC, through his Open Society Initiative and Justice Initiative networks, Lyndon LaRouche said: “If the International Criminal Court is to have any claim on credibility, let them take up the case of a real Nazi collaborator.” If anyone should be put on trial before the ICC, on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, it is George Soros (see Documentation, below).

The immediate danger to Sudan and Africa is that if the ICC is successful in de-legitimizing Bashir’s Presidency, then negotiations between the government and opposition groups become impossible. As one African from the Washington diplomatic corps told me following the release of the ICC charges: “We have two options for Sudan. One is to maintain a positive peace process. The other is for chaos and the collapse into a failed state.”

International opposition to the ICC move came swiftly. On July 14, in talks with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Paris, according to the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned that the ICC escalation threatens to foil negotiation efforts between the Sudan government and rebels in Darfur. Egypt has promised to do all it can to avert any measure against the Sudanese leader that could further destabilize the country.

The Africa Union (AU) also denounced the ICC move. “We would like ICC to suspend its decision to seek al-Bashir’s arrest for a moment until we sort out the primary problems in Darfur and southern Sudan,” Tanzanian Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Membe said, speaking on behalf of Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, who chairs the African Union. “If you arrest al-Bashir,” he continued, “you will create a leadership vacuum in Sudan. The outcome could be equal to that of Iraq. There would be an increase in anarchy, there would be an increase in civil war. Fighting between Chad and Sudan would increase.”

The 22-member Arab League called for a July 19 emergency meeting of its foreign ministers, at the request of the Sudan government, to discuss how to diplomatically foil the ICC provocation. Arab League chief Amr Moussa was to travel to Sudan July 20, to report to President al-Bashir.

According to the Middle East Times on July 15, China, which is one of Sudan’s major investors and buyers of its oil, expressed deep “concern and worry.” The ICC “should be conducive to maintaining the stability of the Sudanese situation, and to the proper resolution of the problems of Darfur, not the contrary,” a Chinese government statement said.

Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, called on the UN to “exercise restraint and find solutions that will help the people of Sudan and resolve the crisis in Darfur.”

The Times added that Sudan’s main opposition parties and critics of the Bashir regime have united with the government in rejecting the ICC decision, and vowed to prevent the President from being prosecuted in the international court, calling this a violation of the country’s sovereignty and independence.

Blowing Up the Peace Process

Andrew Natsios, former U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan (2005-07), responded immediately to the indictment by the ICC with a statement entitled “A Disaster in the Making.” After cautioning human rights groups focussed on Darfur against applauding the ICC’s decision, he warned them “to think again about their enthusiasm.” Natsios went on to say: “The question all of us must ask who care about what happens to the long-suffering Sudanese people is this: what are the peaceful options for a way out of the crisis facing the country and what measures are likely to move the country closer to that way out rather than further away? Without a political settlement Sudan may go the way of Somalia, pre-genocide Rwanda, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” He concludes: “This indictment may well shut off the last remaining hope for a political settlement for the country.”

Over recent months, saner forces in the Untied States, including Natsios, have been working with leaders in Sudan to prevent the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) from failing. The CPA ended 20 years of bloodshed between the North and the South, and led to the formation of a Unity Government composed of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement representing the South, and the National Congress Party for the North. Despite difficult moments, the CPA has prevented the country from returning to North-South war, and it is hoped that it will serve as a model to solve other conflicts in Sudan, including that in Darfur.

After fighting broke out between soldiers from both sides in Abyei (an oil-producing region whose boundaries are in dispute) earlier this year, concerned people recognized that if the CPA were allowed to go down, all of Sudan would go down with it. After the signing of the CPA in January 2005, international attention and money were diverted from the full implementation of the agreement, into the Darfur crisis, which has only become more intractable. Allegations of genocide against the Bashir government, promoted by the media, Hollywood celebrities, and former and current British, U.S., and European government officials, has been part of the dangerous and failed policy of “regime change.” The claim that the Bashir government is pursuing a so-called Arab cleansing of the so-called Africans in the Darfur region is simplistically untrue, meant for simpletons who are willing victims of “group think” propaganda. In Darfur, almost all the people doing the killing and being killed are Muslims, in a complex, multi-nation war that involves Chad, Libya, the Central African Republic, and other countries not in the immediate conflict zone.

Sudan’s Strategic Value

To understand the strategic importance of Sudan, start with the mighty Nile River, which flows north from Sudan through Egypt before emptying into the Mediterranean Sea. Think about what would happen to the 80 million Egyptians, 25% of whom inhabit Cairo, and who depend on the Nile for their very existence, if Sudan implodes through internecine warfare. Who will honor the 1959 water agreement between Egypt and Sudan? What will the Egyptian government do if the flow of water from the Nile is interrupted? Will they not be forced to act, militarily if necessary? Now, think about the countries that border Sudan, all of which are suffering from severe political and economic troubles: Chad, Kenya, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. Who benefits, and who will suffer from the decision made by Soros’s ICC, acting as a “world court” over and above the interest of the nation-state?

Now think about what Sudan could be for Africa. It is the largest nation on the continent, with the proven potential to feed all of Africa, if it were assisted in managing its water systems, mechanizing its agriculture, and providing irrigation. Instead of sliding into chaos, Sudan could become the “breadbasket” of Africa. The completion of the Merowe Dam, in collaboration with China, provides a glimpse of the potential for food production that is possible with basic infrastructure. (See “Defying Britain’s Genocide System: Sudan’s Great Project in Agriculture,” EIR, July 18, 2008). What is the true potential of Sudan and Africa, if credits for long-term investments in water systems, high-speed rail transportation, and nuclear power were extended by the West, instead of formenting wars and destabilizing poor nations? Sudan with its size, location, and agricultural potential can play a central role in the development of Africa, if we are wise enough to assist it for that purpose.

Why Africa Is Targeted

Look at a map of Africa. Start in Nigeria and let your eyes move east across Sudan to Ethiopia and Somalia. Then look south from Sudan through Kenya, to Tanzania, across Zambia, to Zimbabwe, and finally to South Africa, which represents a portion of Britain’s old colonial empire. Now look at the destabilization of these former colonies, including the recent elections: Nigeria’s flawed Presidential election in April 2007, the organized mayhem that followed Kenya’s December 2007 Presidential election, and the crisis organized from outside following Zimbabwe’s March 2008 Presidential election. And what do you think is being planned for South Africa’s Presidential election in 2009? Will there even be a Sudan in which to have national elections that are presently scheduled for the Spring of 2009?

The British imperialists have never given up their desire to eliminate even the semblance of an independent nation in Africa, that could offer resistance to their policy of controlling the abundant, rich land, and vast resource wealth. To this very day, British Labour Party leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, like his predecessor, Tony Blair, cannot accept the fact that Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe and millions of courageous Zimbabweans will not submit to British control of their nation, and will not return the land that rightfully belongs to them. The people of Zimbabwe have fought longer and harder than any other African nation against the heirs of Cecil Rhodes, the founder of British imperialism in Africa; and Zimbabwe still today represents a bulwark against British re-colonialization. Many otherwise thoughtful people refuse to understand that the British oligarchy still functions as an empire, but an empire whose power comes from an international financial syndicate, known as the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy.

This British policy of treating Africans as chattel, wiping out their people, and looting their resources became the official, although not public policy of the United States, under President Richard Nixon, with Henry Kissinger’s 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200). This report targeted the fastest-growing populations in the “Third World” for population reduction—i.e., genocide. It also sought to prevent those nations from expending their natural resources for their own benefit, when these resources were deemed vital to the Western financial cartels. NSSM 200 was a Malthusian tirade against population growth, especially that of non-Caucasian people, but also included the importance of the “advanced sector” having a continuous flow of “mineral supplies” from developing countries which had high rates of population growth.

In its Executive Summary, under the subhead, “Minerals and Fuels,” Kissinger’s report states: “Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure in 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” (emphasis added).

If one truly desires to understand why people are suffering in such horrible conditions today, and why countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are under attack, one need only refer to NSSM 200.