By Honourable Dr Saka
In recent times, the West has made so much
noise about their so-called democracy and human right credentials and
the need for others to emulate. They have on many
occasions criticized Iran, Syria, Libya, Zimbabwe, North Korea, even
Russia, China and Venezuela of ‘human right violations’ and their lack
At the same time, the West find themselves
in bed with many brutal dictatorial regimes like Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Bahrain, Uganda, and many others whose human right records are highly
questionable. This is hypocrisy and double standards.
The Fraud of Constitutional Rule
In the 21st century, the principles of constitutional rule
and democracy, however nice they appear on paper; is nothing but a
sham; far from reality. You want answers? Look no further. Under a
democratic/constitutional rule, which law is supposed to be the supreme
law of the land? The constitution. We're told that the constitution is
the "supreme law" of the land and that ''any other law'' found to be
"inconsistent with this constitution" shall to the extent of its
inconsistency be "null and void".
These are clear and explicit terms with specific emphasis on 'any
law' that contradicts the constitution. Of course the constitution
recognizes other laws passed by parliament/congress. But the key issue
is 'inconsistency'- laws that clearly violate ANY provision in the
In the US, the constitution recognizes the powers of the judiciary,
guarantees fundamental human right, the right to fair trial, the right
to a lawyer/attorney, etc. Suddenly, NDAA has been passed, and this law
subsequently nullifies constitutional provisions; a direct violation of
Article II of the Constitution. In effect, a provision in the NDAA, has
trashed the constitutional provisions mentioned (above). Is the NDAA
subservient to the constitution or vice versa? Which of these two
provisions; those in the constitution or the NDAA are valid? Yet the
NDAA is shamelessly been enforced by the US government!
Therefore this principle of "constitutional rule/democracy"; isn't it
a sham? Where is the respect for the constitution which the president
and the congress swore to uphold and defend? Should there be the need
for such provisions in the NDAA, then why wasn't the constitution first
amended to accommodate it? Yet, Washington has been lecturing every
country, especially Africa and the Middle East on human right and
Despite promising otherwise, Barack Obama committed U.S. military
resources to overthrow Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi without any kind of
congressional authorization whatsoever and without citing any evidence
that Libya under Gaddafi was a threat to the security of the United
States. Furthermore, Obama shamelessly undermined the power of Congress
by insisting his authority came from the UN Security Council and that
Congressional approval was not necessary. “I don’t even have to get to
the Constitutional question,” Obama churlishly remarked writes Paul Joseph Watson.
The Selective Justice System
As of today, the brutal murder of "Muammar Gaddafi" by NATO (NATO warplanes attacked the convoy at 8:30 a.m before the alleged Gaddafi was captured by the rebels), some of his children, the plot to murder Assad and his family by
the rebels and many human right atrocities against the Palestinians
have not even received the attention of Washington’s numerous human
right NGOs, the so-called international community and the “International
Court of Criminals”.
How about the massacre of the Iraqis and the Afghanis, the bombing of civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan on August 20, 1998 by the Clinton’s administration, the women and the children of Pakistan, and Somalia, brutally murdered by drone attacks?
These and many horrific crimes are being carried out on a mass scale,
yet the sufferings of these victims and their demand for justice have
always escaped the headlines of the corporate media. Because of these,
the corporate media and the so-called human right institutions have
become nothing but exist merely as imperialists’ tools to serve the
selfish and barbaric agenda of the New World Order.
Since its inception, the ICC has targeted many African Leaders who
firmly stood against the dictates of the West, and a few African
warlords as its main victims while deliberately paying a blind eye to
crimes committed by other leader in America, Europe and some dictators
in the Middle East.
According to the ICC, Saif Gaddafi is wanted for "Crimes Against
Humanity". But, what is a crime against humanity? The recent "war crime
exhibition" held in Malaysia revealed very horrible and graphic images
of serious war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan which led over 1.2million
innocent people dead in Afghanistan and over 800,000 people slaughtered
in Iraq by NATO. Yet, ten years on, the ICC has not found anybody in
NATO to be guilty of "crimes against humanity" in Iraq nor Afghanistan.
In the Libyan war, the Gaddafis are already accused by the ICC. What
about the massacre by the rebels and their NTC leaders? How about the ethnic cleansing of black people in Libya by the NTC? How about Hilary Clinton who openly called on the rebels to assassinate Gaddafi? As if that was not shocking enough, Hilary Clinton rejoiced live on TV (CBS)
with “we came, we saw, he died hahaha”. So tell me, what do you think
would have happened if it was an African diplomat, or a diplomat from
the third world that exhibited the exact attitude as Hillary Clinton
Of course, one would expect to hear a series of press conferences
followed by sanctions from those who have declared themselves the world
leaders, as they would lambaste and condemn such actions, if it had been
exhibited from elsewhere. The ICC and those human right institutions
should spare us these double standards on what they often refer to as
human right violations and crimes against humanity.
Today, any leader who stands up to the west is demonized and tagged a
terrorist. Take a look at Nelson Mandela, the man most Africans look up
to as the hero of our time. Did you know that for many years, the US considered Mandela as a terrorist and banned him from travelling there even when he became the president of South Africa? Did you know that it was until 2008, that Mandela's name was finally removed from the US terrorist watch list?
But of course, when Michele Obama visited South Africa in 2011, she
called Mandela "a man of inspiration for many" in Africa and across the
world. Mind you, she spoke in her capacity as the first lady of the
United States and of course she was on official government trip. So what
changed all of a sudden about Mandela's personality within these 3
years that Obama came to power? Was she implying that Mandela became a
"symbol of inspiration and a hero" within the last two years?
The man who was for many years considered a terrorist is now a hero
and an inspiration all of a sudden? With all these contradictions, one
sometimes wonders what exactly the West often refers to as "terrorist".
Indeed for a man like Mandela to be declared a terrorist by the West,
when the same leaders were seen cheering on the rebels in Libya and
those terrorist groups in Syria is quite hypocritical.
Today, even Wikileaks is seen to be "a terrorist organisation" by the
very people that hold the freedom of the press in high esteem. So
again, what exactly is the true definition of a terrorist?
Responsibility To Protect and the Al-Qaeda Fraud
With the United States and its allies in the police world, the right
of interference obviously always belong to the strong against the weak,
and never the reverse. Does Iran have the right to intervene to save the
Palestinians? Does Venezuela have the right to intervene to end the
bloody coup in Honduras? Russia has the right to intervene to protect
Yesterday they killed thousands of Libyan civilians “to protect
them,” and tomorrow they will kill civilians in Syrian or Iran or
Venezuelan or Eritrea “to protect them” while the Palestinians and all
other victims of ‘Strong’ continue to suffer dictatorship and massacre -
(michelcollon.info). Today, the rebels in Syria can defend themselves
but the Palestinians cannot.
In Libya there were 26,000 NATO air strikes yet “no civilian
casualties”! Yet even though Gaddafi never dropped a single bomb on the
rebels, the human right groups were able to count thousands of
casualties to which the UN blamed on Gaddafi. So what exactly do we
often mean by "humanity"? It tells you that some people mean nothing,
especially those of us from the third world.
This is why l feel very ashamed of the African leaders who sold out
Gaddafi in their individual closets. Anytime an African country had been
colonized, it was always done with the collaboration of some black men
(African stooges), who call themselves African leaders. As for the UN
itself, I need not remind anybody of how corrupted it has become. An
institution which was founded with the sole responsibility to promote
global peace and security has now turned out to be a war-making
To quote Charles Abugre, (via allafrica.com) "My greatest disappointment
and shame, was to see the United Nations Secretariat always beating the
war drums and cheering on the battle rather than sing the songs of
The fact is whenever the West bombs a defenceless country, they call
it intervention. When they arm terrorists groups to topple ‘dictators’
they call these rebel groups “revolutionaries”. Meanwhile when peaceful
protestors (the Occupy Movement) take to the street to make some
demands, they’re domestic terrorists and radicals. I am yet to imagine
anywhere in Europe where a government will stand aside and watch some
armed groups take to the streets and terrorize civilians as they’re
currently doing in Syria and see if the corporate mainstream media would
call them “revolutionaries” as they call those in Libya and Syria.
Let us just imagine some rebel fighters operating near the US-Mexican
border, calling on the UN to establish a “buffer zone” for them to take
refuge as they’re doing in Syria. Since September 2001, the whole world
has been made to believe that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. In
fact, the US and NATO invaded Iraq to get rid of Al-Qaeda. But today,
even though Bin Laden “is dead” Al-Qaeda is still hanging around in the
Middle East and now North-Africa toppling dictators with NATO's support.
Perhaps the shocking part is that Al-Qaeda now appears to be a NATO
ally. For the first time in history, we have seen the West fighting on
the same side as Al-Qaeda in Libya and in Syria. But isn’t Al-Qaeda
supposed to be a terrorist organisation that poses a threat to global
peace and security?
The War on Terror and The Case of Syria
Over the past one year, terrorists groups have been destabilizing the peace and stability in Syria, killing both civilians and security forces, and dumping their bodies in the gutters. It is sad that these terrorists have been recognized by the West as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.
But isn’t this strange? The world was told that the rebel fighters which include Al-Qaeda elements
and other terrorists groups who are responsible for terrorists’
activities in Syria have a right to “defend themselves”. In this regard,
we saw a few NATO states, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US and France
calling for arms to be delivered to the rebels for them to defend
themselves when in fact the rebels are the very terrorist groups that
are killing many NATO soldiers in the Middle East and now turning Syria
Even Britain pledged to give the Syrian rebels more funds for training. Meanwhile when these Al-Qaeda terrorists
strike in any of the NATO countries, a war on terror is declared. So on
what basis will one justify that terrorists groups, which include
Al-Qaeda rebels, which have killed thousands, blown up gas pipelines and
continue to do so on a daily basis, have a right to defend themselves
against a government?
To the extent that under the watch of the UNSC and the international
community, many NATO member states have held summits, calling on one
another to contribute weapons to help Al-Qaeda fighters to defend
themselves against a regime. As a result, many sophisticated weapons;
including anti-aircraft missiles have been delivered to Al-Qaeda rebels to defend themselves in Syria.
Al-Qaeda which is supposed to be a threat to the world, now has a
right to defend itself against a regime? Is it because the regime in
question is not an ‘ally’? So if tomorrow, Al-Qaeda were to declare a
war on any of the NATO member states like Turkey, Israel, Britain, etc
just as we saw the recent shooting incidence in France; would the UN
allow those terrorists access to such weapons in order for them to “defend themselves” against the French government? This is hypocrisy! But some of us are not surprised.
Because Hilary Clinton recently admitted that it was the US that created the Taliban. Besides, according to Mathaba analyst Stephen Lendman,
"Al-Qaeda itself was a CIA creation and America uses Al-CIAda
strategically as both enemy and ally as and when necessary". And there
is no better example as Libya and now Syria.
It is a positive sign that gradually, the people are realizing the
truth. Also thanks to NATO especially France and Qatar for their kind
gesture. Today all those sophisticated weapons they poured on Libya have
finally arrived in Nigeria for the next Al-Qaeda operation in the West African sub-region, which will as usual be blamed on Boko Haram.
Democracy, Is It Discriminatory?
Today, democracy is good for Syria and Libya, but it is not good for
Saudi Arabia, Qatar nor Bahrain. The Western press and their democratic
NGOs have repeatedly advocated for democratic reforms in Syria but
completely remain silent on Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They show
us dictators in Zimbabwe but they have been blind on Uganda.
The rebels in Syria who claim to be fighting for democracy have a
right to “defend themselves” but those in Uganda who are equally
fighting for democracy do not have any right to self-defense. It is
always one set of rules for “our allies”, another set of rules for the
others. Just take a look at the one-horse race (elections) that was
recently held in Yemen- an election which was not even contested. The
whole thing made a complete mockery of democracy. Yet the West hailed
this ‘elections’ as acceptable and applauded the country for their new
But can anybody imagine what the West and the mainstream press would
have said, if such an election were to be held in Syria by Assad? Just
imagine Assad or his chosen candidate holding elections in a one-man
contest. The whole elections would have been declared illegitimate. The
sanctions that would have followed such elections would have been
enormous. But because Yemen was a case of one of “our allies”,
everything is okay.
But that shouldn't be a problem, for as long as international law and
sovereignty is respected. Therefore for those in the international
community who accept that international laws are made to be broken and
accept that the law of the jungle should be applied, where the strongest
bullies the rest by force, there is one thing you need to understand:
your days are numbered because NO empire will survive for eternity.
It happened to the Romans, the Germans, the Japanese and others.
Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator) has assured humanity that: so long
as men die, liberty will never perish. In the near future, the people
will be free. And all these double standards will end. “The near future
will also show that with courage and determination, wrongs can be
righted and the criminal elements in the international justice system,
whoever they are, will be brought to justice.” (Mathaba author Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey).
-- Honourable Dr Saka
is a contributor to the Mathaba News Network via the Mathaba Publication Bridge