There's no place like CounterPunch, it's just that simple. And as the radical space within the "alternative media"(whatever that means) landscape continues to shrink, sanctuaries such as CounterPunch become all the more crucial for our political, intellectual, and moral survival. Add to that the fact that CounterPunch won't inundate you with ads and corporate propaganda. So it should be clear why CounterPunch needs your support: so it can keep doing what it's been doing for nearly 25 years. As CP Editor, Jeffrey St. Clair, succinctly explained, "We lure you in, and then punch you in the kidneys." Pleasant and true though that may be, the hard-working CP staff is more than just a few grunts greasing the gears of the status quo.
So come on, be a pal, make a tax deductible donation to CounterPunch today to support our annual fund drive, if you have already donated we thank you! If you haven't, do it because you want to. Do it because you know what CounterPunch is worth. Do it because CounterPunch needs you. Every dollar is tax-deductible. (PayPal accepted)
On February 23rd, under the title of “The Cynical Danse Macabre”, I set out:
“The policy of plundering imposed by the United States and their NATO allies in the Middle East has gone into a crisis. ”
“Thanks to the treason committed by Sadat at Camp David, the Palestinian State has not been able to exist, despite the UN treaties of November 1947, and Israel became a strong nuclear power, an ally of the United States and NATO.
The US Military Industrial Complex supplied Israel with tens of billions of dollars every year as well as to the very Arab States that were submitted and being humiliated by Israel.
The genie has escaped from the bottle and NATO doesn’t know how to control it.
They are going to attempt to wrest the most benefits from the regrettable events in Libya. Nobody can know at this moment what is happening over there. All the figures and versions, even the most implausible ones, have been spread by the empire via the mass media, sowing chaos and disinformation.
It is obvious that inside Libya a civil war is brewing. Why and how did this happen? Who will pay the consequences? Reuters Agency, echoing the opinion of the well-known Nomura Bank of Japan, stated that oil prices could go beyond any limits:”
“…What would be the consequences in the midst of the food crisis?
“The main NATO leaders are all worked up. British Prime Minister David Cameron, ANSA informed, ‘…admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the western nations made a mistake in backing non-democratic governments in the Arab world.’.”
“His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy stated: ‘The extended brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is disgusting.”
“Italian Chancellor Franco Frattini stated as ‘believable’ the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli […] ‘the tragic numbers shall be a bloodbath’.”
Hillary Clinton stated: “…the ‘bloodbath’ is ‘completely unacceptable’ and ‘it has to stop’…”
“Ban Ki-moon spoke: “‘The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable’.”
“…‘the Security Council will act according to whatever the international community decides’.”
“‘We are considering a series of options’.”
What Ban Ki-moon is really hoping is that Obama pronounces the last word.
The president of the United States spoke this Wednesday afternoon and stated that the Secretary of State would be leaving for Europe in order to agree with their NATO allies on the measures to be taken. On his face once could note the opportunity to spar with John McCain, the far-right-wing Republican senator, pro-Israel Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut and the leaders of the Tea Party, in order to ensure the Democratic Party demands.
The empire’s mass media has prepared the terrain for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya; besides, with that, Europe would be guaranteed almost two million barrels of light oil per day, unless before that events would put an end to the leadership or the life of Gaddafi.
“Anyway, Obama’s role is rather complicated. What will the reaction of the Arab and Muslim world be if blood should flow in abundance in that country as a result of that exploit? Would NATO intervention in Libya stem the revolutionary tidal wave surging in Egypt?
In Iraq, the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was spilt when the country was invaded under false pretexts.
“Nobody in the world would ever agree with the deaths of defenceless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. And I wonder: will the US and NATO apply that principle on the defenceless civilians that the unmanned Yankee planes and the soldiers of that organization kill every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
It is a cynical danse macabre.”
While I was meditating upon these events, the debate scheduled for yesterday, Tuesday, October 25th, began at the United Nations, on the “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”, something that has been addressed by the immense majority of the member countries of that institution over the course of 20 years.
This time, the numerous basic and just reasons – that for US administrations were nothing more than rhetorical exercises – made clear as never before the political and moral weakness of the most powerful empire that has existed, to whose oligarchic interests and insatiable lust for power and wealth all the inhabitants of the planet have been submitted, including the people of that very country.
The United States tyrannizes and pillages the globalized world with its political, economic, technological and military might.
That truth becomes ever more obvious after the honest and valiant debates that have been taking place in the last 20 years at the UN, with the support of the states that one presumes express the will of the immense majority of the planet’s inhabitants.
Before Bruno’s address, many countries’ organizations expressed their points of view via one of their members. The first of these was Argentina on behalf of the Group of 77 and China; Egypt followed on behalf of the Non-Aligned Nations; Kenya on behalf of the African Union; Belize on behalf of CARICOM; Kazakhstan on behalf of the Islamic Cooperation Organization; and Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR.
Besides these group-based expressions, China, a country with growing political and economic clout in the world, India and Indonesia firmly supported the Resolution through their ambassadors; among the three of them they represent 2.700 million inhabitants. The ambassadors of the Russian Federation, Belorussia, South Africa, Algeria, Venezuela and Mexico also spoke. Among the poorest countries of the Caribbean and Latin America, there were vibrating words of solidarity, such as the ones by the ambassador of Belize, who spoke on behalf of the Caribbean community, also the ambassador of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, who spoke on behalf of his country and the one from Bolivia, whose arguments related to solidarity with our people, despite a blockade that is now lasting 50 years, will be an undying stimulus for our physicians, educators and scientists.
Nicaragua spoke prior to the vote, to courageously explain why it would be voting against that treacherous measure.
Also speaking earlier was the United States representative, to explain the unexplainable. I was sorry for him. It was the role they had given him.
When the time for the vote arrived, two countries were absent: Libya and Sweden; three abstained: the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau; two voted nay: the US and Israel. Adding up those who voted nay, abstained or were absent: the United States with 313 million inhabitants; Israel with 7.4 million; Sweden with 9.5 million; Libya with 6.5 million; Marshall Islands with 67.100; Micronesia, 106.800; Palau with 20.900, the total comes to 336 million 948 thousand, equivalent to 4.8% of the world’s population which this month is at 7 billion.
Following voting, to explain their vote, Poland spoke on behalf of the European Union which, in spite of its close alliance with the United States and its forced participation in the blockade, is against that criminal measure.
Afterwards, 17 countries spoke, to resolutely and decisively explain why they voted for the Resolution against the embargo.