AFRICOM forces to invade Mali after U.N. approved France’s proposal

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 21, 2012

The Security Council of the U.N. unanimously approved Thursday a resolution authorizing the deployment of an international military force (USAFRICOM) to rebuild the Mali Army, which the U.N. says, was weakened after the coup of March 2011. The U.N. approved a military intervention in the northern region of Mali to “fight a terrorist groups linked to Al Qaeda”. Meanwhile, in Libya and Syria, the United States and European nations have helped strengthen al-Qaeda’s and used them as allies to bring down the governments in those countries.

The proposal, drafted by France, proposes a military deployment for at least one year. This military force will consist of soldiers from neighboring African countries. The role of European and other countries will provide external support and assist in the reconstruction of Mali. This is the typical writing anyone can find in all documents drafted by United Nations members which are usually approved to intervene anywhere in the planet. Humanitarian aid, external support, special training, and so on, are some of the many excuses given by the U.N. to facilitate the entrance of foreign armies into poor or war ravaged countries.

As we know, they U.N. has never successfully brought peace to any population since it was created in the mid 20th century. Military intervention or assistance has never work and will never work, because none of the African nations that suffer from civil war or attacks from supposed terrorist groups can be reconstructed by using military power.

The role of the military sent to Mali will rebuild and train the country’s army, so as to be able to deal with the groups operating in the north. As it happens most of the time, only the United Nations Security Council has the power to decide when the training is sufficient to initiate military operations in the area. Note that the U.N. isn’t attempting to use the international military force to deliver clean water or food to the region through a real humanitarian aid program, but trying to boost the military conflict by training an army and giving them the weapons to conduct more military operations.

The text approved by the U.N. also has a political dimension in which it requests the country’s leader Bamako to launch a “political dialogue to restore constitutional order” and to organize presidential elections scheduled for April 2013. In Mali there is a power vacuum since an attempted coup of the Army last March. By no means did the United Nations called for intervention last March. Instead, it let the coup happen so that western military forces now have an excuse to invade yet another African country, so that the military industrial complex has yet another market for its weapons, so that the conquering forces of the West have an excuse to ransack and extinguish lives in Mali.

The state has been unable to fight terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda, which as everyone knows was created by the United States in the 1970s. Al-Qaeda has grown in strength all over Africa absorbing terrorist groups which act as the rulers over vast territories in the north of the African continent. The European Union has shown its concern about the existence of a country located at the gates of the old continent  which in practice means a potential Afghanistan under Taliban rule, that could be a breeding ground for terrorist groups.

French President François Hollande, made this issue a priority at the last UN General Assembly. Recently, it has been the U.S. military leadership which has pushed to use force in the area, but now the Europeans have also sounded the bell and the decision was made to invade. Resolution 2085 does not set a timetable for a possible offensive against Islamist groups, which means that any option is on the table and that this conflict could become and open-ended front for another military conflict in the region.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Even Climate Alarmists Reject Planetary Geo-engineering

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 4, 2012

As The Real Agenda reported recently, Geo-engineering is far ahead of being a mere project or vision of the kinds of ways that mad scientists intend to affect global climate. As exposed on our November article Climate Change spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering, the use of chemicals to change weather patterns, cause floods, droughts and other natural phenomena has been going on since the 1950s. Despite the vast documentation that proves that Geo-engineering is very real, the main stream media continues to present it as something that may be attempted to save us all from global warming. Heck, bets are now being placed on weather events and how disastrous they may be.

The latest example of media disinformation on Geo-engineering, comes from Alister Doyle, an environmental writer from Reuters, whose article was re-published by Scientific American Magazine. In it, Doyle puts out a list of examples of supposed Geo-engineering techniques which are meant to distract readers about the significance of artificially affecting climate through man-made techniques. Doyle presents Geo-engineering as a possible, future tool to stave off the effects of global warming.

She cites CO2 sequestration, putting gigantic mirrors up on the sky to reflect sunlight and the well-known spraying of chemicals as ways to reduce the effects of anthropogenic warming. But the real news in the article comes from statements from some of the most popular climate alarmists who not only do not support Geo-engineering, but also say its effects on the planet are at the very least questionable.

First in the list is current United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, Cristiana Figueres, the sister of former Costa Rican president Jose Maria Figueres Olsen. According to her, “there are so many proven technologies we know exist that are tried and true that have not been used to their maximum potential.” Figueres is talking about energy efficiency, which has many positive and negative aspects. For example, no one can argue with the benefits of using energy efficiently, but that is far from what the UN and other globalist organizations and NGOs, for example, want to introduce as forms of efficient use of energy. (compact fluorescent ligh bulbs, smart meters, appliances that are remotely controlled by energy companies or government agencies, etc.)

Another climate alarmist who opposes Geo-engineering as a way to “save us” from climate doom is Ragendra Pachauri, the same guy who is the chairman of the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists. He told Reuters that “geo-engineering has a lot of unknowns.”  He then questioned the science of climate modification: “How can you go into an area where you don’t know anything?” In this case, may be it is Pachauri the person who needs to do some reading, because the dire consequences of artificially manipulating the weather have been known for a while now. Pachauri and his team are now looking into Geo-engineering as a tool to carry out weather modification. The group is scheduled to issue a report about Geo-engineering in 2013.

But we need not to wait for their assessment. Uncountable articles and documents have already documented the negative effects that Geo-engineering has on the planet and everything that lives in it. See a short list of articles below:

Climate Change spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering

Government Study: Geo-engineering Too Dangerous

Geo-engineering Could Backfire, Make Climate Change Worse

Why Geo-engineering Doesn’t Make Economic Sense

Geo-engineering To Mitigate Global Warming May Cause Other Environmental Harm

The only positive feedback regarding Geo-engineering comes from the mad, power thirsty scientists who seek to advance their careers by imposing a systematic program of global weather modification, even though they claim to ignore the full-scale of the negative consequences that such program will have on all of us. Most pro Geo-engineering articles and alleged studies generally focus on the money aspect of the matter — it is the cheapest way to stave off global warming — although its effects on the planet, advocates say, are unknown.

Unfortunately, on the main stream cloud of ideas, the other solution to “save us” from global warming is reducing emissions, which intrinsically means taking us all back to the stone age, as United Nations globalists have proposed: To de-industrialize the developed world while keeping the poor nations poor (@ 7 min 40 sec). In fact, the current emissions reduction scheme is just a way to fund the United Nations’ global climate executive branch while helping front-men like Al Gore get richer. It is also about allowing big polluter nations such as China, India and large corporations a license to pollute at will through the payment of carbon offset credits while ignoring what seems to be the real cause of global warming: Geo-engineering itself.

As Joe Romn said, “Geo-engineering is a dangerous course just as chemotherapy and radiation are when treating a condition curable through diet and exercise.”

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Israel Withholds Palestinian Money and will build more settlements in retaliation for UN vote

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 3, 2012

The Israeli government wants to make clear that the overwhelming recognition of the international community to the Palestinians at the UN is not going to be free. The government led by Arab hater Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the construction of some 3,000 homes in Palestinian occupied territory immediately after the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of Palestine being an Observer member. Netanyahu said that the vote meant nothing and that the insistence by the Palestinian Authority to be recognized as a State by the U.N. would not favor a peace process. However, Israel was fast to react taking retaliation against Palestinians. In addition to the construction of the new settlements, Israel has now withheld millions in Palestinian funds which are used to run the economy in Gaza.

Israel decided to confiscate about 92 million euros, corresponding to the monthly fee transferred to the Palestinians in taxes collected and that the Ramallah government uses to pay salaries to civil servants. This amount is crucial for the functioning of the weak Palestinian economy.

The government of Benjamin Netanyahu announced that it will use the money to pay a debt that the Palestinian Authority has with an Israeli power company. The monthly transfer of taxes is part of the so-called Paris Agreements, which govern economic relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Last year, while  marking the entry of the Palestinians into UNESCO, the Organization for Education and Culture of the United Nations, Israel cut these transfers, only to resume their payments days later. Now, however, it seems the money will not make its way into Palestine, as Israel decided to keep it all.

The new punishment has not yet exalted provoked reactions from Palestinians, who said they knew there would be retaliation, mainly because they walk drunk after the latest diplomatic triumph. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas arrived Sunday in Ramallah, where the crowd welcomed him with honors only given to national heroes.

“Now we are a state,” Abbas told thousands of Palestinians who came to meet him at the presidential palace, as recorded by the Palestinian news agency Maan. “The world is with us and history is with us. God is with us and the future is ours, “Abbas continued.

The Palestinian president has not yet announced what the next steps will be after obtaining the implicit recognition and binding status of the Palestinian state at the UN. The leaders of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine have explained in recent days that depending on the political climate they will decide when and which UN organizations they will seek membership. The most important step, which is the one Israel fears most, is that the Palestinians become part of the International Criminal Court, a body which they say, Palestine could denounce alleged Israeli war crimes.

Meanwhile, across the Green Line in Israel, as ministers gathered every Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed them with a defiant tone, with which he announced that Israel intends to ignore the warnings that come from outside, including from Washington. “The response to the attack on Zionism and the State of Israel must strengthen and emphasize the implementation of the settlement plan in all areas where the government decides,” he said, paraphrasing the former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

As if Netanyahu had left any doubt, he added: “Today we are building and will continue to build in Jerusalem and in all areas on the map that are strategic to the interests of the State of Israel”. On Friday, after meeting Israeli plans to accelerate the expansion of settlements, the White House issued a statement calling the  decision counterproductive. Besides increasing the number of homes by 3,000, the Israelis announced they would begin mapping E-1, an area on the outskirts of Jerusalem, where if built, new settlements would split the territorial continuity between the northern and southern of the West Bank.

That is a decision that would absolutely kill the two-state solution, which includes the creation of a Palestinian State. Washington is resolutely opposed to any Israeli urban development in this area. The challenge takes place seven weeks before the general election and in a moment of total rearrangement of the Israeli political map. The main formations have held primaries. In the Likud, Netanyahu’s party has won by a landslide.

Meanwhile, Ehud Barak, the current defense minister and close ally of Netanyahu announced that he is leaving politics. The big news however came from the hand of Tzipi Livni, former foreign minister, who has decided to form a new party, which has dragged some leaders of the centrist Kadima.

He has also convinced the charismatic Labour leader Amram Mitzna, whose political priority is to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. The hangover from the adoption of the UN resolution that elevated the status of Palestinian non-member observer state has not only demonstrated the increasing isolation of the current Israeli government, but also that Netanyahu will do whatever it takes to stay in power. That includes initiating flash wars, murdering Palestinian leaders and strangling the Arab population on the Gaza Strip in order to have his way.

Unfortunately for Netanyahu, opposition to his actions are not only coming from the US and the Arab world. The Governments of the United Kingdom, France and Sweden also showed their disappointment with the latest round of retaliation and have publicly protested the Israeli government’s decision to initiate the first steps to build the so-called E-1 area. Now even Germany has expressed its preoccupation for Netanyahu’s attempt to prolong the conflict between the governments of Israel and Palestine. Israeli ambassadors in France, Berlin and the UK have officially been called by the governments of those nations to explain what exactly is Netanyahu after with his latest actions.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

A new World: United States and Israel irrelevant at the UN

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 30, 2012

We are entering into a new world order and amazingly the US and Israel are becoming more irrelevant. The latest example is the voting that took place yesterday at the United Nations where the General Assembly approved the inclusion of Palestine as an observer member. Despite the strong opposition from the United States and Israel, a large majority of member nations supported the Palestinian Authority’s request to be accepted as an Observer State member.

The Palestinian president said at the UN that the recent vote is a “birth certificate to the reality of the state of Palestine ” Now, Palestine enjoys the same status of the Vatican.

The vote showed that the world is in favor of the recognition of Palestine as an independent state. A total of 138 countries, including Spain, voted in favor, for only 9 against, with the U.S. and Israel at the head of the opposition. Meanwhile 41 other member states abstained.

Hours earlier, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke out against the vote. He described the initiative as an error from Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority. “Nothing can replace direct negotiations between Israel and Palestine.” Obama forgot to say that direct talks were already held and Israel rejected every single option on the table that would allow the existence of two sovereign states that could live side by side in peace.

Obama and his team have worked hard diplomatically during these last days to try to convince the Palestinians to back off. Obama himself, shortly after his re-election on November 6, called on Abbas to reconsider the situation. He asked for a margin of time to promote a new round of negotiations, since the previous one has been frozen for two years.

Abbas rejected the proposal and went ahead with his project. “We are here because we believe in peace,” he said from the podium of the General Assembly. “In the last days (referring to the conflict in Gaza last week) we’ve seen the desperate need for peace. We did not come to add more complications, but we seek to bring this new life into the negotiations,” he said.

But the Israeli ambassador, Ron Prosor, said that it is the Palestinians that interfere with conversations. “They prefer to come to New York than to travel to Jerusalem,” he said. “There is no UN resolution that can break the bonds of the Israeli people to the land of Israel.”

At the conclusion of the vote, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, described the resolution as unfortunate and counterproductive, “that is why we voted against.” And she insisted on Obama’s call to direct negotiation. “Do not fall into further provocations,” she said. Despite Rice’s  descriptions, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said that the resolution of the Assembly was very useful. “This is a call for negotiations,” he said. “I think the Palestinians have the right to live in their independent state. I think the Israelis have the right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. ”

For its part, the Spanish delegation said that “if there had been progress in the negotiations, the outcome of this vote would have been different.”

“Palestine comes today to the General Assembly because it believes in peace for its people, which as proven in recent days, it is desperately needed,” Abbas said in his speech before the voting in favor of the proposed resolution was carried out.

“Your support for our efforts today will give you a reason to hope for a nation besieged by a racist and colonialist occupation,” he added. The president said that the Palestinian people will not accept anything less than “an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, on the territory occupied in 1967 to live in peace and security with Israel.”

In the meantime, the Israeli ambassador to the UN said that the vote “will not advance peace and will not change the situation on the ground because the Palestinian Authority does not control Gaza, 40 percent of the territory you want to control, and which is now in the hands of Hamas, a group listed in terrorist organizations,” the ambassador added. He forgot to mention, however, that it was Israel itself the one that strongly contributed to the creation of Hamas, just as the United States did with al-Qaeda in the 1970’s.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

U.N. will vote for Palestinian, Israeli States based on 1967 Borders

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 29, 2012

The resolution that, in all likelihood, will be approved Thursday by the United Nations General Assembly, includes a recognition of the right of Palestinians to a state on the 1967 borders. According to the draft that was circulated in the hours before the vote, it would be the same territory that was suggested in previous peace negotiations with Israel that found no support from the Jewish representatives. This time however, the nation led by Benjamin Netanyahu may not have many options to pick from. Despite the fact the country is in a delicate diplomatic situation while its people await the next election, its government seems less receptive than ever to talk.

The UN vote will certainly be a moral victory for the Palestinian Authority. His representative in this international organization, Riyad Mansour, has predicted that the resolution to be introduced Thursday and that is sponsored by about 60 countries, will get overwhelming support. “I think most of the nations vote with us because there is an international consensus on the two-state solution,” said.

The Palestinians believe that they have at least 150 votes of the 193 member countries of the General Assembly, which would raise immediately the level of its representation of observant entity to “non-member State observer”, the same status awarded to the Vatican. “Without prejudice”, as stated in the draft resolution, “acquired rights, privileges and role of the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine and the representative of the Palestinian people.”

Unlike the Security Council no one has the right to veto in the General Assembly, so that whatever is decided, will be adopted immediately. The resolution also “reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” and expressed “the urgent need to revive and accelerate the peace process in the Middle East” in order to “reach a lasting peace agreement, fair and balanced between Palestinians and Israelis to resolve major issues such as Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water.”

In addition, a strengthening of the Palestinian position should also serve to foster the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, weakened in recent months by the resurgence of radical competitor, Hamas. The problem is to know how far this success, with all the resonance that will have today, can make a difference starting tomorrow. The United States, the indispensable partner of any negotiation process, has shown its opposition to the recognition of Palestine as an Observer State.

Obama will certainly not remain quiet as Israeli – Palestinian relations deteriorate after the resolution is approved — if it’s approved — The same situation will take place within the U.S., where Congress seems to be ready to freeze financial aid to the Palestinians.

From the perspective of the U.S. administration, this vote is an exercise in exhibitionism where Palestinians indulge to demonstrate the wide international support available to them, whilst the Europeans are satisfied with their open support for Palestine. Last week, the European Parliament publicly expressed its support for a State of Palestine, with Spain and France being the most outspoken nations in favor of a two-state solution. Only Germany has shown its opposition to the negotiation that includes the conditions as they were in 1967.

The absolute best thing that can come out of this day is a new sense of urgency to help expedite Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the only way in which the Palestinians may have a state. Nothing indicates, for now, that such negotiation will happen, but today’s vote, if it favors the Palestinian cause, will be the starting point to draw the conditions for a territorial framework during future negotiations. In a sense, the vote will help clarify the most difficult points that previous meetings haven’t been able to clear up. For the first time since its creation, the U.N. may actually do something that favors, at least at first, the peace process in the Middle East, after pretty much originating and promoting the conflict that has existed in modern times. A good question to ask, though is, Chi Bono? Who benefits?

It is likely that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will use the vote for a Palestinian State based on the conditions of 1967 as a tool to cheat his people. Most likely he will use it as an example of Arab radicalism and will try to turn it into a threat for the Israeli people. The fact that there is a vacuum in world leadership at this moment, could cause two different outcomes. First, the vote in the U.N. could become more relevant than expected, and for the first time a significant group of nations may exercise their will to end a conflict that is thousands of years old. The Israeli leadership may decide to isolate itself from any negotiations despite the growing support for a two-state solution. Second, there may be hope to resolve the conflict if Israel is shaken up by the upcoming elections, if the people of Israel send a clear message to Benjamin Netanyahu, if they make it clear that everyone is sick and tired of having to run underground whenever terrorist leaders on both the Palestinian and Israeli sides decide to bomb each other just to show their muscle.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.