It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rebel_Lion
The US government along with others even go abroad and kill people who talk too much. I could go through a list of people who've said/done too much and ended up dead at the hands of the state for it.
Its said that,
''In America they shoot you, in England they assasinate your character''
I'm not sure which is worse.
Tabs are even kept on libary take outs so people don't get too deep. Either that or you get dubbed anti America for not allowing them to commit crimes in your name... i won't go into the arms industry and distubing their sales in the Carribean like Garnett Silk or Bob Marley did... Could post a list... they even killed that scientist over here in the UK, forget his character! The man even left a note saying he'd be found dead in the woods and voila! He was found dead in the woods at the back of his house... Princess Diana?
This is an example of you people feeling threatened and standing up for something ie; a system, you don't understand.
I'm Jamaican... if my people heard me talking about how, ''we're all African'' they'd jump me. Those Af' Ricans sold us out and got played by the Europeans afterward. Most of us still don't like them for it. I know what Af' Rica has given to the world and its a whole heap belive me but I'm not on here saying its all good, I just don't stand for it when I see an injustice being commited and look around to notice how I'm surrounded by people who'd rather deny that injustice and play ignorant to it... watching ''my'' people (I haven't traced my heritage yet) starve rather than give them a fair chance.. Ie; Fair Trade. Amongst other things.
Yes I know that, The Olmecs were there before that and shared knowledge with the Incas and Amer-indians. A people we consider to be our brothers. Back then it was about Knowledge, they shared, it wasn't about money and materialism. The Pagans are another bunch who would agree. Which is why theres so many theories as to what changed in the world. David icke and what not... not that I belive in his stuff.
Again, you're talking to a Jamaican here.
You feel threatened and with my readings into psycology i can tell its you thats getting hairy. I have a reason to. I only took your quote as my sig to piss you off, its all part of the debate man. You're on here talking abut a topic you dont know about... about people that are starving, people that are dying for no damn reason except peoples ignorance be it that of a fustrated Af'Rican dictator or the governments of the major nations who'd rather those people die than let go of their hold on their economy.
Its the government policies that I don't stand for... its the fact that I am treated as though I am poor or as a criminal when if Af'rica was given back its status, if the media would stop portaying it as some crappy continent that hasn't contributed to society everything would be fine. I think you're kinda messing with Karma when you just bounce things off in the way you do man, i'd like to bring you to a meeting so you can see some of the people there and let you have the floor for a minute. You'd have a rethink belive me.
I'm part of a group, a freedom group that does its part for those people, you're on here trying to tell me whats going on when I've sat with those people, my friends wont even talk about half the stuff on here
they break down and cry when they try and talk about it its that bad. lol. This is no free world if you're one of us my friend trust me, we're persecuted something you can't understand. Police stopping me with my old man outside my house... being jumped in the street by drunk English people with nothing else to do... Drug dealers (turkish and others) that think cause my family isn't poor we must deal drugs and feel to shoot me because they don't like Af'Ricans and think bad of us.
Its no blame game when you know whats going on and its not your fault, back to my talk about guilt, YOU haven't gone to Af'Rica/the 3rd world and signed contracts with terrible people to export diamonds for weapons have you? Its the GOVERNMENTS of the major nations playing power ball with peoples lives and holding down YOU with the rubbish they put up in the media/schools.
Canada is a liberal country I've been there, I've got family there, even you guys don't like it when you're dragged into war with the US. It does you no good, eh? (sorry) I was out in CA when 9/11 happened. I was talking to my US cousin abuot what we are now and she hit me back with a whole heap about the Civil war and how England this and England that... woha man... I wouldn't even call myself English but it was the same thing,
''we do this'' and ''we do that! why should america police the world?!''
As though I was commenting on HER. Those people at the top are a seperate class. At least here in the UK, their feet aren't on the ground man. Its their actions, ones that the pubilc don't vote for, that myself and other are against. Not ''whitey''.
Originally posted by Souljah
1) US do not DO Bodycounts, Remember?
2) What about Rwanda?
3) But genocide anywhere implicates everyone.
4) So - YES, Ace, I think United States is Responsible form Rwanda Genocide, which caused the Deaths of around a Million People.
[edit on 13/2/06 by Souljah]
Bob marley died of cancer
You, however, claim extremely tenuous links to the Olmecs. Most people with a little anthropology behind them can dissectit with ease.
Fair trade won't do anything put funnel more money into the pockets of folks like Mugabe.
The Olmecs were natives, not Westerners. They weren't from Africa. So, how can you consider these people your 'brothers'? Is it based on the tenuous works of an africa-centrist?
Yep, you're right. You pissed me off. But then again, I tried to stay above namecalling and juvenile tactics.
Well you haven't, you've fallen off Deus. Again I curse you and and anyone that thinks and acts in anyway like you. I was being apologetic. I could have gone into your post and taken the parts about being born into some Cosmic balance of chance and torn you part but I didn't.
It's almost like you care about us.
zed my family had never owned slaves. I haven't commited genocide, I haven't stolen from Africa
Something I've being saying through out this thread. You ****. I wonder why you'd assume that I care about ''you''? Read my posts and realize that I know many white people in the same situation as my people. South Americans. The Irish. Some English, mainly northners. I don't see racial lines as it seems you are stuck doing.
I won a roll of the cosmic dice, and ended up being a have instead of a have not.
Heaven is Hell and Hell is Heaven. You haven't won a thing belive me. Those poor people have Gods spirit with them, they laugh in the face of adversity and strife and are so much more human, so much stronger than people like you will ever be.
And, guess what, the media portrayals are light on Africa.
They show nothing of that continent. Not the cities. Not the Ancient relics that predate the Pyramids nothing.
Police stopping you? Did they beat you? Did they arrest you for being black?
.... No comment. You've hit an all new low.
You and Souljah have consistently made no distinctions between 'the west' and 'westerners'. Even in this post, you painted the english as the bad guys.
Are you illiterate? What school did you go to? Thats EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! Painting the English as the bad guys?!
I was talking to my US cousin abuot what we are now and she hit me back with a whole heap about the Civil war and how England this and England that... woha man... I wouldn't even call myself English but it was the same thing,
''we do this'' and ''we do that! why should america police the world?!''
As though I was commenting on HER.
Now apply that part of my post to yourself because you really are missing some brain cells.
Again I curse you and your ignorant low life disregard and disrespect. Don't you ever talk about the people I know with such a lack of respect. You're not worth a thing compared to those people and never will be.
When its time for God to judge you he won't miss a thing.
I'm printing out this thread and using it as a talking point in the next few PAC and other humanitarian meetings I'll be attending. It shows the attitude toward those in suffering and toward a few faulsities I've posted. It also has a few good statistics in it.
I intended to do this from the beginning and did mention it so consent has been given.
Thank you.
And after this thread, I'm starting to think that it should be cut off.
Originally posted by DeusEx
So let me get this straight- Africans are buying arms, and commiting atrocities.
But it's the west's fault that these people choose to buy arms, and then choose to massacre each other. The West gives Africa fistfuls of money every year (400 billion USD since 1970 in government foreign relief alone), and what do they do with it? Buy guns.
Yes, clearly, the west MAKES them buy guns. MAKES them slaughter one another. You don't seem to get that whether or not the west sells them guns, they will buy guns. They will buy guns from China, from freelancers, from anyone who has guns. Nothing can stop this. Hell, there is about one gun in africa for about every five people, why do they need more?
Before they used guns, they used machetes. Before they used machetes, they used rocks. Nothing but africans themselves will stop africans from killing one another. The issue isn't in what they do with anything the west gives them, that's a given- they'll misuse or embellezle it. The issue is that Africans still want other Africans dead, and will do just about anything to make sure that happens.
DE
Originally posted by DeusEx
Before they used guns, they used machetes. Before they used machetes, they used rocks. Nothing but africans themselves will stop africans from killing one another. The issue isn't in what they do with anything the west gives them, that's a given- they'll misuse or embellezle it. The issue is that Africans still want other Africans dead, and will do just about anything to make sure that happens.
The South African arms deal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Crawford-Browne
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The South African "arms deal" has been described as "the betrayal of the struggle against apartheid" and as "the litmus test of South Africa's commitment to democracy and good governance". The scandal has become the millstone around President Thabo Mbeki's presidency.
An opinion survey conducted last yearby South Africa's leading pollster found that 62% of ANC voters want the armsdeal cancelled, 19% want it cut and only 12% support it. On no other issue, includ-ing Aids, was the government found to be so out of touch with the electorate.
The arms deals were government-togovernment arrangements made withoutregard either for the people of South Africa or the country's security needs. They weredriven by the European armaments industries and governments. Germany wouldwin the warship contracts. Britain and Sweden would win the warplane contracts.Italy is to supply 30 helicopters.
The Navy has been committed to ves-sels it can't use, and the Air Force to aircraft its chiefs didn't want. The latterwere overruled by the former Minister of Defence, the late Joe Modise, whorequired a "visionary approach" to favour BAe Systems and the South African state-owned armaments company, Denel.
Even before the contracts were signed,there were allegations of corruption around Modise and his political cronies,and of kick-backs to ANC campaign funds. Whistleblowers amongst ANCintelligence operatives insisted that the arms deal was merely one aspect ofModise's efforts to transform the ANC's military wing, Umkhonto-we-Sizwe, intoa new financial elite. Inter-related transactions were said to include:
oil deals
tollroads
the Cell C cellphone contract
the Coega deep water harbour project near Port Elizabeth
smartcard technology
drug and weapons trafficking, and
diamond and money laundering
The whistleblowers were referred to theHeath Special Investigation Unit, which found their evidence corroborated otherinquires. Judge Heath was later dismissed by President Mbeki and, similarly, a par-liamentary investigation was gutted by political interference by the executive.Another investigation headed by the Auditor General exonerated the govern-ment of "improper or unlawful conduct", yet also found that every aspect of thearms deal was riddled with tendering irregularities.
The ANC's chief whip in parliament has been sentenced to four years' impris-onment for fraud relating to a massive discount on a Mercedes Benz 4x4. AndDeputy President Jacob Zuma is at present under suspicion that he solicited aR500,000 (#45,000) per annum bribe to quash an investigation into activities ofThomson CSF/Thales, the French armaments company.
Normal commercial practice holds thatcontracts tainted by corruption are null and void. Organisations such as Trans-parency International find that armaments are the most corruption-prone industry.
Given the crisis of poverty facing South Africa, the arms deal cannot be reconciledwith the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports whose criteria include considera-tion of socio-economic conditions in recipient countries.
Who is responsible?
Under no circumstances can European governments plead ignorance about thepoverty so prevalent in South Africa. They hide behind a rationale that since SouthAfrica is now a democracy, it would be arrogant to refuse requests for the arms exports they so aggressively promote.
Saddam Hussein can be regarded as having been the creation of the internationalarmaments industry. President Jacques Chirac was so closely involved with Frenchweapons sales during the 1980s that he was nicknamed "Monsieur Irak". The royalyacht Britannia was reported to have doubled as a floating British armaments exhi-bition when Queen Elizabeth visited Cape Town in March 1995.
When allegations arose that BAe Systems had paid #1 million to variousSouth African politicians as a "first success fee", they were referred for investiga-tion to the British Secretary for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers. Byers delegatedthe task to the London Metropolitan Police who, with desultory indifference,reported back that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter.
It was, however, learned that the British government was at that timeunder heavy pressure from BAe Systems to stall on ratification of the OECD Con-ventions Against Bribery of Foreign Officials. It was apparently then not illegal inBritain to bribe officials of foreign countries and, accordingly, there was no crimeto investigate!
When Prime Minister Tony Blair visit-ed South Africa in January 1999, he was informed that church leaders were res-olutely opposed to the arms deal. The response on his behalf declared, "SouthAfrica has the right to take its own decisions on its defence requirements andsecure maximum job creation through industrial participation programmes."
A legal challenge
It is, however, one thing to smell corruption - another to prove it. With supportof church leaders, trade unionists, NGOs and other representatives of civil society,Economists Allied for Arms Reduction-- South Africa (ECAAR-SA) has takenanother approach in its litigation to cancel the arms deal.
ECAAR is an international NGO established in 1988, and now has affili-ates in twelve countries including Britain and South Africa. Of the very distinguished economists on its board oftrustees, nine are Nobel laureates. Its purpose is to promote objective economicanalysis and appropriate action on global issues relating to peace, security and theworld economy. The Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town, Njongonkulu Ndun-gane, is a patron of ECAAR-SA.
Almost two years ago--more than fiveyears after the arms deal saga began--and having exhausted all other remedies,ECAAR-SA filed a court application for nullification of the loan agreements thatgive effect to the transactions. It has done so as a class action suit on behalf of poorpeople in South Africa in terms of section 38 of the Constitution.
Unbelievably, there is no parliamentary or executive authority for the armsdeal which, presumably, makes it illegal. Our litigation however, focuses upon con-stitutional arguments that public power vested in the executive and other func-tionaries must be exercised in an objectively rational manner. Action that failsthe minimum threshold of rationality is inconsistent with the requirements of theConstitution, and is therefore unlawful even if well intentioned.
The South African constitution adopted in 1996 is regarded as being perhapsthe world's most progressive constitution for it goes beyond classical notions ofdemocratic rights. It applies to all law, and binds the executive, the legislature,the judiciary and all organs of state to include commitment to socio-economicrights. The Constitutional Court is tasked as the final arbitrator to ensure thathuman rights are upheld as the culture that holds the country together.
Strategically irrational
Firstly, the arms deal is strategically irrational: A glance at any world map con-firms that South Africa's geographic isolation makes it perhaps the country leastthreatened by foreign military invasion. Only the United States has the capacityto undertake a naval attack. The very real threat to South Africa's security is inter-nal, and relates to the crisis of poverty inherited from the apartheid era.
Here the Constitution is instructive. It declares:
National security must reflect the resolve of South Africans, as individuals and as anation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and want and toseek a better life.
It is a commitment to human securityrelating to people--in contrast to traditional notions of military protection ofthe sovereign. Jobs, housing, education, health services, crime prevention and theenvironment are of far greater relevance to South Africans than the need to pre-vent attacks by neighbouring states.
Nonetheless, the Minister of Healthabsurdly declares that there is no money for AIDS because South Africa must buysubmarines to deter a prospective attack by the United States. The xenophobia ofapartheid-era South Africa has, sadly, increased in the democratic era.
Military leaders, from an unexpected perspective, recently informed parliamen-tary committees that the costs of the arms deal are financially paralysing the SANational Defence Force. There is no funding, they claim, to maintain existingequipment, let alone to undertake peacekeeping operations elsewhere in Africa. Frigates, submarines and high-tech fight-er aircraft would be quite useless for peacekeeping operations.
Economically irrational
Secondly, the arms deal is economically irrational: It is premised upon thoroughlydiscredited ideas that expenditure of R30 billion on armaments would translateinto offsets worth R110 billion to create 64,165 jobs. The arms deal was loudlytouted by government spin-doctors as a unique opportunity to fast-track industrialdevelopment and job creation.
Offsets are prohibited in civil tradearrangements under World Trade Organisation rules because they distort marketforces. They are notoriously impossible to monitor and, accordingly, are an invita-tion to corruption. The armaments industry however, has negotiated exemptionsfrom such prohibitions by citing national security considerations.
The Constitution, again, sets out the parameters for government procurements.They are required to be conducted "in accordance with a system which is fair,equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective." The arms deal dismally failsthese tests. It was as transparent as mud, wildly uncompetitive and certainly notcost-effective.
Illustrating the irrationality of linkingeconomic development to offsets has been the bizarre saga of buying three Germansubmarines against the promise of a billion-dollar stainless steel plant. Govern-ment announcements boasted that against expenditure of R5.2 billion on three sub-marines, the offset benefits would amount to R30.3 billion to create 16,251 jobs.
Even the most illiterate peasant knowsbetter than to fall for the arms industry patter of spend "R1 and get R6" back.Sadly, South Africa's politicians were gullible, and fell for it. The stainless steelplant failed to materialise. It morphed briefly into a condom factory to create 520jobs but this, too, has subsequently been cancelled.What is evident is that the arms deal was driven not by the needs of SouthAfricans, but by the European armaments industry. In Germany the political influ-ence of the steel industry, with former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, was para-mount, whilst in Britain the manipulative roles of BAe Systems were supreme.Even government spokesmen now concede that the job target of 64,165 jobs wasgrossly overstated. At best, perhaps 2,500 jobs might result from the arms deal, butattempts to monitor the offsets are blocked by bureaucratic insistence that the con-tracts are "commercially confidential".
Financially irrational
Thirdly, the arms deal is financially irrational: Whilst offsets drove the arms dealand induced our politicians to believe that it was "affordable", warnings about itsfinancial implications were ignored and brushed aside. An affordability study pre-sented to cabinet ministers in August 1999 in considerable detail drew their attentionto the financial risks. The study declares:
It should be stressed that, given the uniquesize of the packages and the tenor of the associated financial agreements, the impact of thepackage expenditures will extend far beyond the procurements themselves. Any decision onthese procurements and the magnitude of their claim on the budget will inevitably also consti-tute a decision about the future level of defence spending in South Africa, hence about how thispriority weighs against government's other spending priorities.
The ministers were warned that spending on the arms deal could crowd outsocio-economic priorities such as education, health and welfare. They were alsowarned about the foreign exchange risks.
South Africa's currency, the rand, has ahistory of depreciation over more than 40 years. The arms deal contracts are notdenominated in rands, but in euros, sterling, Swedish krona and dollars. The armsdeal was costed at R6.25 per US$, and was publicly announced as costing R30billion. Within two years the cost escalated to R53 billion.
Even these figures exclude finance costs, escalation costs, management feesand export credit agency premiums, all of which were withheld from public scruti-ny. No one knows what the costs will be by 2019 when the final payments are due.
The government's financial consultants projected rand/dollar exchange rates ofR13.96 by 2010, and of R26.25 by 2019. Even on these unduly conservative projec-tions, South African taxpayers will face a foreign currency liability of about R158billion by 2010. And when the final payments are due in 2019, the costs of thearms deal are likely to have escalated to about R370 billion.
In such a scenario, South Africa will face financial and social chaos likeArgentina or Zimbabwe. There will be no funding available for education, healthservices, housing or the socio-economic commitments contained in the Bill ofRights. South Africa's experiment with democracy will collapse.
"National security" (again)
Literally over the internet, ECAAR-SA obtained copies of the BAe Systems-Bar-clays Bank-British government-South African government loan agreements thatgives effect to the warplane contracts. These were signed by the Minister ofFinance, Trevor Manuel, on 25 January, 2000. The government's counsel conced-ed in court in March 2003 that these documents are authentic.
The government's initial response to ECAAR-SA's application in November2001 for cancellation of the arms deal was to argue that the loan agreements standindependently of the arms deal. This illogical argument is tantamount to say-ing that the purchase of a house has nothing to do with its mortgage.
The government's next argument was that the affordability study (of whichECAAR-SA has the executive study but not the full report) was irrelevant to theissue. Then the study itself became so highly confidential and privileged to theCabinet that its disclosure would jeopardise national security.
In conceding in March this year that the British loan agreements are authentic,the government's counsel also drew the Court's attention to their default andpenalty clauses. The covenants and encumbrances are disastrous, and are like-ly to cripple South Africa and its people. Indeed, the loan agreements can be com-pared to the ensnarement of third world debt obligations that have brought the rest of Africa to collapse.
The terms are such that the Minister of Finance has ceded control over SouthAfrica's economic and financial policies to European banks and governments, and tothe International Monetary Fund. Such reckless behaviour, ECAAR-SA believes,is surely unconstitutional.
The litmus test
Judgment that the agreements signed by the Minister are unconstitutional would,we assume, collapse the arms deals--it being unlikely they would continue with-out payment.
In terms both of South African andinternational law, the Constitution takes precedence over any international agree-ments. Accordingly, judgment that the arms deal is unconstitutional will meanthat European rather than South African taxpayers will have to bear the costs ofcancellation. Hopefully, Europeans will then question why their governments areso heavily complicit in the arms trade.
The Cape High Court in March 2003ordered the President, the Minister of Finance and the Government of theRepublic of South Africa within ten court dates to make discovery of "the documentscontaining the advice of the International Offers Negotiating Team and the Finan-cial Working Group, referred to in paragraph 36 of the answering affidavit in themain application" (ie the full affordability study that went to Cabinet in August 1999).
Five months later ECAAR-SA has still not received those documents. We arenow preparing papers against the Minister for contempt-of-court. Regrettably,disregard of court orders has become a habit with the ANC government.
The arms deal has truly become "the litmus test of South Africa's commitmentto democracy and good governance". The question ahead is whether the judiciarywill have courage to apply the checks-andbalances required by the Constitution.
Failure to do so, ECAAR-SA believes, will signal to the international communi-ty that South Africa will follow countries such as Zimbabwe into chaos. It would bean appalling betrayal of people around the world who believed that commitmentto human rights would be the priority of post-apartheid South Africa.
Success will mark a new paradigm of civil society holding governments toaccount.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Crawford-Browne was an international banker who, during 1985-1990, was involved in the banking sanctions campaign against apartheid. He is now chair of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction - South Africa (ECAAR-SA) which has led civil society opposition to the arms deal.
ECAAR - South Africa 3B Alpine Mews, Box 60542, High Cape, Cape Town 8001, South Africa (+27 21 465 7423; email [email protected]; ecaar.org... ).
Exporters
A total of 22 countries, including 18 European states, reported 5,622 exports, the lowest export total during the register's seven years of operation. The lack of Russian and Chinese data and the completion of most of the arms deliveries for agreements signed during the post-Gulf War weapons-buying boom account for much of the reduced export total from past registers, which generally totaled more than 7,500 weapons.
The United States ranked first with 2,713 exports, equaling the combined export totals for the next 10 highest weapon suppliers. (The United States revised its data upward from the original submission of 2,700 exports made in May.) Poland moved into second place with a total of 1,018 exports, which was a shipment—initially imported from Bulgaria—comprising 18 120mm mortars and 1,000 mortar rounds to the Congo. The United Kingdom held the third spot with 594 exports, 416 of which were cruise missiles to the United Arab Emirates.
Exporter data revealed Europe as the top destination of arms shipments with a total of 1,625, while the Middle East, including Egypt, received a total of 1,423 weapons. Five exporters—the United States, Britain, France, the Netherlands and Canada—accounted for all the reported exports to the Middle East. Iran claimed 11 weapon imports from Russia.
Missiles and missile launchers (2,465) accounted for 43 percent of the reported weapons exports. In the Middle East, missile deliveries to eight countries accounted for two-thirds of reported arms shipments. Missile systems, according to exporter data, also constituted approximately 55 percent of all Asian and European imports
Thatchers Little Boy Involved In Coup.
Fri, 19 Nov 2004 04:26:05 -0800truthcansuck
R03164
OK, it’s petty, but forgive me a small chuckle when i read that Margeret Thatchers son has been charged by an Equatorial Guinea court for financing a coup plot in the oil-rich west African nation.
First, in case you aren’t familiar with Mr Thatcher, a brief history:
Sir Mark (inherited his late father’s hereditary baronetcy in 2003,) has not had the most successful of business ventures throughout his career and his dealings have led to questions in the Commons.
He went through a series of jobs which each lasted about a year, dabbled in the Hong Kong business world and built up a network of business associates from the motor racing world plus the Middle and Far East. His estimated worth is saifd to be in the ballpark of more than £360-million, although he has dismissed the figure as “widely” off the mark.
In the early 1980s, when his mother was prime minister, he also set up Monteagle Marketing, an international consultancy firm.
Embarrassing Commons questions were asked about his role in helping the Cementation company win a multi-million pound contract to build a university in Oman.
In a 1986 deal in which the then British Aerospace sold jets to the Saudi government, it was alleged he had negotiated a commission of several million pounds.
In the mid nineties his name was mentioned in connection with the Pergau dam affair in which British aid to Malaysia was allegedly linked to a £31.3-billion contract placed by Malaysia in Britain. But no wrongdoing has ever been proved.
Now, onto the coup!!!
Equatorial Guinea intends to seek Thatcher’s extradition, a legal official close to the government’s case told The Associated Press earlier this week.
Equatorial Guinea alleges Thatcher and other, mainly British financiers, worked with Equatorial Guinea opposition figures, scores of South African mercenaries, and six Armenian pilots in a takeover plot there.
The coup plotters intended to force out the 25-year regime of President Teodoro Obiang, installing an exiled opposition figure in his stead as a figurehead leader for Africa’s No. 3 oil producer, Equatorial Guinea claims.
The alleged plot was exposed in March by South African intelligence services, and scores of accused mercenaries arrested in Equatorial Guinea and in Zimbabwe.
Thatcher was arrested in August at his home in South Africa.
Of course, it’s never simple… in an interesting twist, the prosecutions lead witness is now formally facing the death penalty after repudiating his alleged confessions in the case in court on Tuesday.
South African arms dealer Nick du Toit testified Wednesday that he attended a July 2003 South Africa meeting with Thatcher and Simon Mann, a Briton on trial in Zimbabwe as the alleged head of the plan, quashed in March.
Du Toit told the court Tuesday that his alleged confession was coerced.
“It was Zimbabwean police who interrogated me, and who threatened to kill me if I did not maintain the account of attempted coup d’etat,” said du Toit, who has worn leg shackles, chains and handcuffs throughout the trial.
“If anyone has evidence of a coup attempt, they should show the evidence,” du Toit said.
The 19 defendants here include South Africans and others of African nationalities, and six Armenian pilots. Some showed the court what they said were scars from torture when the trial first opened.
Equatorial Guinea is routinely accused by the U.S. State Department and international organizations of torture and other human rights abuses.
What is Fair Trade?
Most people in the Third World could earn a living for themselves and their families if they were given a fair chance. Too often they are denied that opportunity by unjust trading systems that benefit us and not them. Trade barriers, Third World debt and exploitative middlemen keep the poorest workers trapped in their poverty. Today, over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day, and half the world's population are living on less than two dollars a day.
Many consumers realise that wealth is unequally distributed and that goods from developing countries are often sold at prices that do not afford their producers a decent standard of living. Fair Trade is one way of fighting poverty. Fair Trade makes it possible to shop with a difference and make a direct impact on the lives and well being of Third World producers.
Nestlé reported to UK Advertising Standards Authority over dishonest Fairtrade product advertisement
Press release 7 December 2005
Baby Milk Action, which coordinates the international boycott of Nestlé over its aggressive marketing of baby foods, has reported the company to the UK Advertising Standards Authority today for a misleading and dishonest advertisement about its Fairtrade Partners' Blend coffee and wider involvement in the coffee industry appearing in the Radio Times (3 – 9 December edition), which has a circulation of over 1 million copies. The Fairtrade product, launched in October, is already being used in attempts to counter the boycott and improve Nestlé's image.
Mike Brady, Campaigns and Networking Coordinator at Baby Milk Action, said:
“The dishonesty of Nestle's approach is all too familiar. Nestlé's advertisement and website for its Fairtrade product imply it will have a significant impact on farmers in El Salvador and that the company's activities in the coffee industry are ethical. The truth is only about 200 farmers in El Salvador supply coffee for Partners' Blend and over 3 million farmers globally who are dependent on Nestlé remain outside the Fairtrade system. Nestlé is held partly responsible for forcing down prices paid to suppliers, driving many into poverty, while its own profits have soared. Recently I interviewed a researcher from Colombia who told me 150,000 coffee farming families have lost their livelihoods due to Nestlé policies.”
What Price Virtue? At Some Retailers, 'Fair Trade' Carries A Very High Cost
Stores Charge Big Markups On Goods Intended to Help Farmers in Poor Countries
The Wall Street Journal
June 08, 2004
By Steve Stecklow and Erin White
At a Whole Foods Market in suburban Boston, the coffee aisle recently was lined with leaflets promising to donate 5% of sales to growers. Labels proclaimed that beans were "purchased in accordance with international fair trade standards." Pamphlets asked: "Is your coffee fair to farmers?"
The materials reflect a growing international campaign to pay struggling farmers in poor countries more than market rate for commodities like coffee, bananas and chocolate. The extra cash has helped thousands of farmers fund education, health-care and training projects, among other things.
But as "fair trade" catches on in the U.S., Europe's experience shows that the biggest winners aren't always the farmers -- but can be retailers that sometimes charge huge markups on fair-trade goods while promoting themselves as good corporate citizens. They can get away with it because consumers usually are given little or no information about how much of a product's price goes to farmers. In the case of Whole Foods, the 5% promise doesn't refer to the retail price, as shoppers might assume, but a different amount the company pays its coffee unit.
The West should take responsibility for supplying weapons, but not for the wars themselves. The ones responsible for that are the ones pulling the triggers, setting off bombs, leading ethnic cleansings and the such.
Rebel_Lion:
Israel - Palestine.
The Palestinians can't keep blaming the west?...
Who carved up the middle east and put israel on land owned by the Palestinians? Holy land at that...
Isn't it obvious that it would create disruption and war between nations?
Pakistan - India.
India was a peaceful nation with all diffrent religions within it, Islam, Hindu, Christian.
Who brokered the deal to divide Pakistan from India after they were ''freed'' from colonial rule?
Internal African conflict.
Who enslaved and slaughtered MILLIONS of the people driving the population into a downward spiral?
Who carved up and created the states in Africa?
Who still holds down rulership over the continent be it private or government?
Who wiped out so many tribes and settled on their land?
Who is STILL on that land?
Who created an aparthied and still involves themselves within the politics of the region?
www.pakistantimes.net...
Allama Iqbal was the first leader of South Asia who presented a comprehensive partition scheme of India at the 21st session of the All India Muslim League held at Allahabad on 29th December 1930. This scheme made him very popular at that time. He expressed his point of view that a Muslim State be formed in those areas where the Muslims were in majority, so that they could live therein according to the tenets of Islam.
Originally posted by AceOfBase
Internal African conflict.
The enslavement and slaughter was done by Africans, muslims and Europeans.
The borders were modified by Europeans but already existed in some sense before them. Sudan was already an Eyptian colony until the British defeated Egypt and then went to war to control Sudan. There were already changing borders before the Europeans got involved so you cant put all of the blame on them.
The Arabs are still on a lot of the land in Africa thay they colonized and they still weild their influence in that region.