Mahmoud Jibril and al-Qathafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/10/mahmoud-jibril-and-gaddafi%E2%80%99s-wealth-redistribution-project/
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya / 28 October 2011
Colonel Muammar al-Qathafi symbolizes many things to many different people around the world. Love or hate the Libyan leader, under his rule Libya transformed from one of the poorest countries on the face of the planet into the country with the highest living standards in Africa. In the words of Professor Henri Habibi:
When Libya was granted its independence by the United Nations on December 24, 1951, it was described as one of the poorest and most backward nations of the world. The population at the time was not more than 1.5 million, was over 90% illiterate, and had no political experience or knowhow. There were no universities, and only a limited number of high schools which had been established seven years before independence.1
al-Qathafi had many grand plans. Many of them were of a pan-African nature. This included the formation of a United States of Africa.
al-Qathafi’s Pan-African Projects
Colonel al-Qathafi started the Great Man-Made River. The Great Man-Made River is a massive project to transform the Sahara Desert and reverse the desertification of Africa. The Great Man-Made River with its irrigation plans was also intended to help the agricultural sector in other parts of Africa. This project was one of the victims of NATO’s attacks on Libya.
al-Qathafi also envisioned independent pan-African financial institutions. The Libyan Investment Authority and the Libyan Foreign Bank were important players in setting up these institutions. Gaddafi, through the Libyan Foreign Bank and the Libyan Investment Authority, was instrumental in setting up Africa’s first satellite network, the Regional African Satellite Communication Organization (RASCOM), to reduce African dependence on external powers.2
It is believed that his crowning achievement would have been the creation of the United States of Africa. The supranational entity would have been created through the African Investment Bank, the African Monetary Fund, and finally the African Central Bank. These institutions were all viewed with animosity by the European Union, United States, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank.
al-Qathafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project
al-Qathafi had a wealth redistribution project inside Libya. U.S. Congressional sources in a report to the U.S. Congress even acknowledge this. On February 18, 2011 the report stated:
In March 2008, [Colonel al-Qathafi] announced his intention to dissolve most government administrative bodies and institute a Wealth Distribution Program whereby state oil revenues would be distributed to citizens on a monthly basis for them to administer personally, in cooperation, and via local committees. Citing popular criticism of government performance in a long, wide ranging speech, [he] repeatedly stated that the traditional state would soon be “dead” in Libya and that direct rule by citizens would be accomplished through the distribution of oil revenues. [The military], foreign affairs, security, and oil production arrangements reportedly would remain national government responsibilities, while other bodies would be phased out. In early 2009, Libya’s Basic People’s Congresses considered variations of the proposals, and the General People’s Congress voted to delay implementation.3
The Wealth Redistribution Project, along with the establishment of an anarchist political system, was viewed as a very serious threat by the U.S., the E.U., and a group of corrupt Libyan officials. If successful it could have created political unrest amongst many domestic populations around the world. Internally, many Libyan officials were working to delay the project.
Why Mahmoud Jibril Joined the Transitional Council
Amongst the Libyan officials who was opposed to this project and viewed it with horror was Mahmoud Jibril. Jibril was put into place by Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. Because of strong influence and advice from the U.S. and the E.U., Saif Al-Islam selected Jibril to transform the Libyan economy and impose neo-liberal economic reforms.
Jibril would become the head of two bodies in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the National Planning Council of Libya and National Economic Development Board of Libya. While the National Economic Development Board was a regular ministry, the National Planning Council would actually put Jibril in a government position above that of the equivalent of the prime minister–the Office of the General-Secretary of the People’s Committee of Libya. Jibril actually was one of the forces that opened the doors for privatization and poverty in Libya.
About six months before the conflict erupted in Libya, Mahmoud Jibril actually met with Bernard-Henri Lévy in Australia to discuss forming the Transitional Council and deposing al-Qathafi.4 He described al-Qathafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project as “crazy” in minutes and documents from the National Economic Development Board of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.5 Jibril believed that the masses were not fit to govern themselves and that an elite should control the fate and wealth of any nation. What Jibril wanted to do is downsize the government and layoff a large segment of the public sector, but in exchange increase government regulations in Libya. He would also always cite Singapore as the perfect example of a neo-liberal state. While in Singapore, which he regularly visited, it is likely that he meet with Bernard-Henri Lévy.
When the problems erupted in Benghazi, Mahmoud Jibril immediately went to Cairo, Egypt. He told his colleagues that he would be back in Tripoli soon, but he had no intention of returning. In reality, he went to Cairo to meet the leaders of the Syrian National Council and Lévy. They were all waiting for him to coordinate the events in Libya and Syria. This is one of the reasons that the Transitional Council has recognized the Syrian National Council as the legitimate government of Syria.
Mahmoud Jibril is now the prime minister of the Transitional Council of Libya. The opposition of Jibril to al-Qathafi’s Wealth Redistribution Project and his elitist attitude are amongst the reasons he conspired against al-Qathafi and helped form the Transitional Council. Is this ex-regime official, who has always been an open supporter of the Arab dictators in the Persian Gulf, really a representative of the people?
Henri Pierre Habib, Politics and Government of Revolutionary Libya (Montmagny, Québec: Le Cercle de Livre de France Ltée, 1975), p.1. [↩]
Regional African Satellite Communication Organization, “Launch of the Pan African Satellite,” July 26, 2010. [↩]
Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, “Libya: Background and U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service, February 18, 2011,” Congressional Research Service, February 18, 2011, p.22. [↩]
Private discussions with Mahmoud Jiribil’s co-workers inside and outside of Libya. [↩]
Internal private documents from the National Economic Development Board [↩]
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montréal. He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He was on the ground in Libya for over two months and was also a Special Correspondent for Flashpoints. He has been releasing articles about Libya in conjunction with aired discussions with Cynthia McKinney on Freedom Now, a show aired 5:00 pm PST, Saturdays, on KPFK, Los Angeles, CA. Read other articles by Mahdi.
This article was posted on Friday, October 28th, 2011 at 8:00am
_______________________
FRANCE:
al-Qathafi and the African Moon
Some little-known Western reasons and not least (in addition to the other…) for having decided the total destruction of Muammar al-Qathafi‘s GREAT JAMAHIRIYA.
E.Le satellite panafricain de KADHAFI (Rascom) pour libérer l’Afrique.
le 14 févr. 2014
Quelques raisons occidentales peu connues et non pas des moindres (venant s’ajouter aux autres…)
pour avoir décidé la destruction totale de la Libye de Mouammar Kadhafi .
If you are among those who wondered why the French led this attack, look no further than money.
You can count be among those who have been puzzling as to why France led the charge against al-Qathafi. I can’t remember the last time, until now that the French led an international charge against anything so publicly.
According to this article, it is easy to understand the French wrath against al-Qathafi: ”…The 23.97€billion frozen by Mr Obama belongs to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Sirte, Libya; the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaoundé, Cameroon with a 33.56€ billion capital fund; and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria, which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last 50 years. “
The lies behind the West’s war on Libya
Posted on 17 April 2011 by Editorial Team
Appreciation lingers especially in South Africa for Muammar al-Qathdafi’s opposition to South Africa’s apartheid, explains David Smith in the Guardian. al-Qathafi also gained influence by investing in projects throughout Africa. Just yesterday we heard that South Africa refused to release 0.8€. 5 billion of al-Qathafi’s assets and recognize the rebel authority.
Today, The Southern Times (the newspaper for Southern Africa) has a lengthy article titled Why the West Wants al-Qathafi out. It is very interesting and plausible.
HERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT THE SOUTHERN TIMES ARTICLE REPORTS THAT Gal-QATHAFI HAS DONE FOR AFRICA:
“It was al-Qathafi’s Libya that offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas.
It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent.
This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual 399.55€ million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country. An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of 319.64€ million and the continent no longer had to pay a 399.55€million annual lease.
The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020.
This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere 239.73€ million changed the life of an entire continent.
al-Qathafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of 399.55€ million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain a system that plundered the continent. “
AND THERE ARE MANY MORE REASONS WHY AFRICANS LIKE al-QATHAFI
http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/article.php?title=Why_the_West_wants_Qathafi_out__&id=6159
FEATURE:
Jean-Paul Pougala, in an analysis that traces Libya’s role in shaping the African Union and the development of the continent, reasons that it was al-Qathafi who offered all of Africa its first revolution in modern times – connecting the entire continent by telephone, television, radio broadcasting and several other technological applications such as telemedicine and distance teaching. And thanks to the WMAX radio bridge, a low cost connection was made available across the continent, including in rural areas. This is the first of three articles that M Pougala will write for our readers this week. We hope you enjoy his analysis. Editor.
Former South Africa President Nelson Mandela broke an air embargo imposed on Libya in the late 1990s to travel to Tripoli to see Col al-Qathafi.
Africans should think about the real reasons why western countries are waging war on Libya. It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual 399.55€ million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.
An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of319.64€ million and the continent no longer had to pay a 399.55€ million annual lease. Which banker wouldn’t finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can slaves, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. al-Qathafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put 239.73€ million on the table; the African Development Bank added 39.96€ million more and the West African Development Bank a further 21.58€ million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.
China and Russia followed suit and shared their technology and helped launch satellites for South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Algeria and a second African satellite was launched in July 2010. The first totally indigenously built satellite and manufactured on African soil, in Algeria, is set for 2020. This satellite is aimed at competing with the best in the world, but at ten times less the cost, a real challenge.
This is how a symbolic gesture of a mere 239.73€ million changed the life of an entire continent. Qathafi’s Libya cost the West, not just depriving it of 399.55€ million per year but the billions of dollars in debt and interest that the initial loan would generate for years to come and in an exponential manner, thereby helping maintain an occult system in order to plunder the continent.
The 23.97€ billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a 33.56€ billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against al-Qathafi.
The African Monetary Fund is expected to totally supplant the African activities of the International Monetary Fund which, with only 19.98€ billion, was able to bring an entire continent to its knees and make it swallow questionable privatisation like forcing African countries to move from public to private monopolies. No surprise then that on 16-17December 2010, the Africans unanimously rejected attempts by Western countries to join the African Monetary Fund, saying it was open only to African nations.
It is increasingly obvious that after Libya, the western coalition will go after Algeria, because apart from its huge energy resources, the country has cash reserves of around €150 billion. This is what lures the countries that are bombing Libya and they all have one thing in common – they are practically bankrupt. The USA alone, has a staggering debt of $US14,000 billion, France, Great Britain and Italy each have a1,598.21€ billion public deficit compared to less than 319.64€ billion in public debt for 46 African countries combined.
Inciting spurious wars in Africa in the hope that this will revitalise their economies which are sinking ever more into the doldrums will ultimately hasten the western decline which actually began in 1884 during the notorious Berlin Conference. As the American economist Adam Smith predicted in 1865 when he publicly backed Abraham Lincoln for the abolition of slavery, ‘the economy of any country which relies on the slavery of blacks is destined to descend into hell the day those countries awaken’.
To destabilise and destroy the African union which was veering dangerously (for the West) towards a United States of Africa under the guiding hand of al-Qathafi, the European Union first tried, unsuccessfully, to create the Union for the Mediterranean (UPM). North Africa somehow had to be cut off from the rest of Africa, using the old tired racist clichés of the 18th and 19th centuries, which claimed that Africans of Arab origin were more evolved and civilised than the rest of the continent. This failed because al-Qathafi refused to buy into it. He soon understood what game was being played when only a handful of African countries were invited to join the Mediterranean grouping without informing the African Union but inviting all 27 members of the European Union.
Without the driving force behind the African Federation, the UPM failed even before it began, still-born with Sarkozy as president and Mubarak as vice president. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe is now attempting to re-launch the idea, banking no doubt on the fall of al-Qathafi. What African leaders fail to understand is that as long as the European Union continues to finance the African Union, the status quo will remain, because no real independence. This is why the European Union has encouraged and financed regional groupings in Africa.
It is obvious that the West African Economic Community (ECOWAS), which has an embassy in Brussels and depends for the bulk of its funding on the European Union, is a vociferous opponent to the African federation. That’s why Lincoln fought in the US war of secession because the moment a group of countries come together in a regional political organisation, it weakens the main group. That is what Europe wanted and the Africans have never understood the game plan, creating a plethora of regional groupings, COMESA, UDEAC, SADC, and the Great Maghreb which never saw the light of day thanks to al-Qathafi who understood what was happening.
In tomorrow’s issue, M Pougala looks at how Col al-Qathafi helped the freedom movements of Southern Africa and how he spent his country’s money to help African countries fight colonial rule to gain their own independence. Do not miss it. Only here at The London Evening Post.
How al-Qathafi helped bring an end to the humiliation of apartheid
Posted on 18 April 2011 by Editorial Team
While the world press continues to bring to our TV screens and in newspapers the atrocities being committed in the Libyan Arab Peoples Jamahiriya, writer Jean-Paul Pougala continues today with his second part of his analysis on Col Muammar Gal-Qathafi’s leadership. He expounds the qualities of the Libyan leader, especially the role he played in helping African liberation movements attain independence. We are publishing his opinions for our readers to make your own minds as to whether to believe him. Comments are most welcome. Read on.
For most Africans, al-Qathafi is a generous man, a humanist, known for his unselfish support for the struggle against the racist regime in South Africa. If he had been an egotist, he wouldn’t have risked the wrath of the West to help the ANC both militarily and financially in the fight against apartheid. This was why Mandela, soon after his release from 27 years in jail, decided to break the UN embargo and travel to Libya on 23 October 1997. For five long years, no plane could touch down in Libya because of the embargo. One needed to take a plane to the Tunisian city of Jerba and continue by road for five hours to reach Ben Gardane, cross the border and continue on a desert road for three hours before reaching Tripoli. The other solution was to go through Malta, and take a night ferry on ill-maintained boats to the Libyan coast. A hellish journey for a whole people, simply to punish one man.
Mandela didn’t mince his words when the former US president Bill Clinton said the visit was an ‘unwelcome’ one – ‘No country can claim to be the policeman of the world and no state can dictate to another what it should do’. He added – ‘Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother al-Qathafi, they are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friends of the past.’
Indeed, the West still considered the South African racists to be their brothers who needed to be protected. That’s why the members of the ANC, including Nelson Mandela, were considered to be dangerous terrorists. It was only on 2 July 2008, that the US Congress finally voted a law to remove the name of Nelson Mandela and his ANC comrades from their black list, not because they realised how stupid that list was but because they wanted to mark Mandela’s 90th birthday. If the West was truly sorry for its past support for Mandela’s enemies and really sincere when they name streets and places after him, how can they continue to wage war against someone who helped Mandela and his people to be victorious, al-Qathafi?
And what if al-Qathafi’s Libya were more democratic than the USA, France, Britain and other countries waging war to export democracy to Libya? On 19 March 2003, President George Bush began bombing Iraq under the pretext of bringing democracy. On 19 March 2011, exactly eight years later to the day, it was the French president’s turn to rain down bombs over Libya, once again claiming it was to bring democracy. Nobel peace prize-winner and US President Obama says unleashing cruise missiles from submarines is to oust the dictator and introduce democracy.
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Poland, who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self-proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If yes, are they more democratic than al-Qathafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract’ that ‘there never was a true democracy and there never will be.’
Rousseau sets out the following four conditions for a country to be labelled a democracy and according to these, al-Qathafi’s Libya is far more democratic than the USA, France and the others claiming to export democracy:
1. The State: The bigger a country, the less democratic it can be. According to Rousseau, the state has to be extremely small so that people can come together and know each other. Before asking people to vote, one must ensure that everybody knows everyone else, otherwise voting will be an act without any democratic basis, a simulacrum of democracy to elect a dictator.
The Libyan state is based on a system of tribal allegiances, which by definition group people together in small entities. The democratic spirit is much more present in a tribe, a village than in a big country, simply because people know each other, share a common life rhythm which involves a kind of self-regulation or even self-censorship in that the reactions and counter reactions of other members impacts on the group.
From this perspective, it would appear that Libya fits Rousseau’s conditions better than the USA, France and Great Britain, all highly urbanised societies where most neighbours don’t even say hello to each other and therefore don’t know each other even if they have lived side by side for twenty years. These countries leapfrogged leaped into the next stage – ‘the vote’ – which has been cleverly sanctified to obfuscate the fact that voting on the future of the country is useless if the voter doesn’t know the other citizens. This has been pushed to ridiculous limits with voting rights being given to people living abroad. Communicating with and amongst each other is a precondition for any democratic debate before an election.
2. Simplicity in customs and behavioural patterns are also essential if one is to avoid spending the bulk of the time debating legal and judicial procedures in order to deal with the multitude of conflicts of interest inevitable in a large and complex society. Western countries define themselves as civilised nations with a more complex social structure whereas Libya is described as a primitive country with a simple set of customs. This aspect too indicates that Libya responds better to Rousseau’s democratic criteria than all those trying to give lessons in democracy. Conflicts in complex societies are most often won by those with more power, which is why the rich manage to avoid prison because they can afford to hire top lawyers and instead arrange for state repression to be directed against someone one who stole a banana in a supermarket rather than a financial criminal who ruined a bank. In the city of New York for example where 75 per cent of the population is white, 80 per cent of management posts are occupied by whites who make up only 20 per cent of incarcerated people.
3. Equality in status and wealth: A look at the Forbes 2010 list shows who the richest people in each of the countries currently bombing Libya are and the difference between them and those who earn the lowest salaries in those nations; a similar exercise on Libya will reveal that in terms of wealth distribution, Libya has much more to teach than those fighting it now, and not the contrary. So here too, using Rousseau’s criteria, Libya is more democratic than the nations pompously pretending to bring democracy. In the USA, 5 per cent of the population owns 60 per cent of the national wealth, making it the most unequal and unbalanced society in the world.
4. No luxuries: According to Rousseau, there can’t be any luxury if there is to be democracy. Luxury, he says, makes wealth a necessity which then becomes a virtue in itself, it, and not the welfare of the people becomes the goal to be reached at all cost, ‘Luxury corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one through possession and the other through envy; it makes the nation soft and prey to vanity; it distances people from the State and enslaves them, making them a slave to opinion.’
Is there more luxury in France than in Libya? The reports on employees committing suicide because of stressful working conditions even in public or semi-public companies, all in the name of maximising profit for a minority and keeping them in luxury, happen in the West, not in Libya.
The American sociologist C. Wright Mills wrote in 1956 that American democracy was a ‘dictatorship of the elite’. According to Mills, the USA is not a democracy because it is money that talks during elections and not the people. The results of each election are the expression of the voice of money and not the voice of the people. After Bush senior and Bush junior, they are already talking about a younger Bush for the 2012 Republican primaries. Moreover, as Max Weber pointed out, since political power is dependent on the bureaucracy, the US has 43 million bureaucrats and military personnel who effectively rule the country but without being elected and are not accountable to the people for their actions. One person (a rich one) is elected, but the real power lies with the caste of the wealthy who then get nominated to be ambassadors, generals, etc.
How many people in these self-proclaimed democracies know that Peru’s constitution prohibits an outgoing president from seeking a second consecutive mandate? How many know that in Guatemala, not only can an outgoing president not seek re-election to the same post, no one from that person’s family can aspire to the top job either? Or that Rwanda is the only country in the world that has 56 per cent female parliamentarians? How many people know that in the 2007 CIA index, four of the world’s best-governed countries are African? That the top prize goes to Equatorial Guinea whose public debt represents only 1.14 per cent of GDP?
Rousseau maintains that civil wars, revolts and rebellions are the ingredients of the beginning of democracy. Because democracy is not an end, but a permanent process of the reaffirmation of the natural rights of human beings which in countries all over the world (without exception) are trampled upon by a handful of men and women who have hijacked the power of the people to perpetuate their supremacy. There are here and there groups of people who have usurped the term ‘democracy’ – instead of it being an ideal towards which one strives it has become a label to be appropriated or a slogan which is used by people who can shout louder than others. If a country is calm, like France or the USA, that is to say without any rebellions, it only means, from Rousseau’s perspective, that the dictatorial system is sufficiently repressive to pre-empt any revolt.
It wouldn’t be a bad thing if the Libyans revolted. What is bad is to affirm that people stoically accept a system that represses them all over the world without reacting. And Rousseau concludes: ‘Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium – translation – If gods were people, they would govern themselves democratically. Such a perfect government is not applicable to human beings.’ To claim that one is killing Libyans for their own good is a hoax.
Jean-Paul Pougala is a Cameroonian writer. Translated from the French by Sputnik Kilambi. Courtesy of Pambazuka News. Edited by Henry Gombya. Courtesy of Pambazuka News. Please do not miss the last part of M Pougala’s analysis here Wednesday.
_____________________
International Green Charter
~ Human Rights for the Third Millennium ~
1. DEMOCRACY 2. PRISONERS – 3. MOVEMENT – 4. CITIZENSHIP – 5. VIOLENCE – 6. UNIONS – 7. PRIVACY – 8. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT – 9. JUSTICE – 10. RELIGION – 11. PRODUCERS – 12. LAND – 13. HOUSE – 14. WELFARE – 15. EDUCATION – 16. NATION – 17. DISCRIMINATION – 18. STRUGGLE 19. CULTURE – 20. CHILDREN – 21.WOMAN – 22. SLAVERY – 23. PEACE – 24. DISARMAMENT – 25. DEFENCE – 26. REDRESS
Inspired by the Proclamation of the Great Green Charter for Human Rights on 12th June, 1988, the first Human Rights Charter to be issued by the people gathered in popular congresses, signalling the end of the era of the republics and the dawn of the era of the masses, as well as a new advancement in the definition of human rights;
Led by the Green Book , guide of humanity for the total deliverance from the power of individuals, classes, clans, tribes or parties, and the path towards the establishment of a society for all (the Jamahiriya) where all human beings are free and equal in the exercise of power and in the possession of wealth and arms;
Convinced that the rights of Man, vicegerent of God on earth, cannot be the gift of a person nor exist in societies where exploitation and tyranny are practised, and can only be achieved by the victory of the popular masses over their oppressors and the disappearance of regimes which annihilate freedom;
that the establishment of the power of the popular masses will consolidate their existence on earth, when the sovereignty of the people will be exercised directly through legislative popular congresses and executive people’s committees;
that human rights cannot be guaranteed in a world where there exist governors and governed, masters and slaves, rich and poor;
Aware that human misery cannot disappear, nor human rights be affirmed, except by building a world where the people hold the power, the wealth and the arms; a world where governments and armies will disappear, and where communities, peoples and nations will be rid of all danger of war, a world of peace, respect, agreement and co-operation;
On the basis of the above,
the Green Charter International was formed to link men and women around the world who wish to achieve, promote and defend the true Human Rights and freedoms of this new age, the era of the masses, which were proclaimed by the free people, gathered in popular congresses in the Great Green Charter of Human Rights as the following:1. Democracy is the power of the people, not only the expression of the people. We declare that power belongs to the people. It is exercised directly, without intermediary or representatives in the popular congresses and the people’s committees. TOP
2. We consider the life of the individual sacred and protect it. We forbid its alienation. Imprisonment can only be exercised against those for whom liberty constitutes a danger or a contamination of others. The aim of punishment is to renew society, to protect its human values and its interests. We proscribe punishments which attack the dignity and the integrity of the human being, such as forced labour or long-term imprisonment. We proscribe all attacks, physical or mental, on the person of the prisoner. We condemn all speculations and experiments of any kind upon prisoners. Punishment is personal and suffered by the individual following a criminal act on which it is necessarily contingent. The punishment and its consequences cannot extend to the family nor the persons close to the criminal. “One only commits evil to one’s own detriment and nobody will assume what he has not committed”. TOP
3. We are, in times of peace, free inall our movements and in the choice of our residence. TOP
4. Citizenship is a sacred right. Nobody can be deprived of it or have it removed. TOP
5. We forbid clandestine action and recourse to force in all its forms, violence, terrorism and sabotage. These acts constitute a betrayal of the values and principles of the Jamahiriya, which affirms the sovereignty of the individual in the popular congresses, guaranteeing the right to express opinions publicly. We reject and condemn violence as a means of imposing ideas and opinions. We adopt democratic dialogue as the only method of debate and consider any hostile relation towards the Jamahiriya linked to a foreign instance, whatever its form, as high treason against it. TOP
6. We are free to form unions, trade unions and leagues to defend our professional interests. TOP
7. We are free in our private acts and our personal relations. Nobody can involve themselves therein, except at a complaint from one of the partners concerned or if the act and the relation attack or are prejudicial to society, or if they are contrary to its values. TOP
8. We consider the life of the human being to be sacred and protect it. Our objective is to abolish capital punishment. To this end, the death penalty can only be exercised against an individual whose existence constitutes a danger or is deleterious to society. The person condemned to death may request that his sentence be lightened or, instead of his life, offer a personal tribute. The court may commute the penalty if this decision is not prejudicial to society or if it is not contrary to human values. We condemn the application of the execution of capital punishment by repugnant methods, such as the electric chair, the use of toxic gas or injections. TOP
9. The Jamahiriya guarantees the right to plead and the independence of the judicial system. Each of its members is entitled to a fair and complete trial. TOP
10. Our judgments are based on sacred law, religion or custom, the terms of which are stable, unchangeable and for which there can be no substitute. We declare that religion is an absolute belief in the divinity and a sacred spiritual value. It is personal to each person and common to everyone. It is a direct relationship with the Creator, without intermediary. We proscribe its monopoly and its exploitation for purposes of subversion, fanaticism, sectarianism, partisan spirit and fratricidal war. TOP
11. The Jamahiriya guarantees the right to work. It is a right and a duty for everyone, in the limits of one’s personal effort or in association with others. Everybody has the right to exercise the work of their choice. The Jamahiriya is one of partners and not one of paid employees. Ownership, the fruit of labour, is sacred and protected, it can only be attacked in the public interest and with fair compensation. The Jamahiriya is free from the slavery of salaries, stating the right of everybody over their labour and production. Only those who produce consume. TOP
12. We are liberated from any feudalism. The land is nobody’s property. Each person has the right to exploit it and to benefit from it by labour, agriculture or animal-keeping, throughout one’s life, that of one’s heirs, and within the limits of personal effort and the satisfaction of needs. TOP
13. We are free from any rent. A house belongs to the person who lives in it. It enjoys a sacred immunity in respect of rights of neighbourhood: “your close neighbours or distant neighbours”. The residence cannot be used to harm society. TOP
14. The Jamahiriya is united. It guarantees everyone a worthy and prosperous life and a developed state of health, so as to achieve a society of healthy people. It guarantees protection of childhood, motherhood, old age and of invalids. The Jamahiriya is the guardian of all those who do not have a guardian. TOP
15. Education and knowledge are natural rights for everyone. Any individual has the right to choose the education and the knowledge which suits them, without imposed constraint or orientation. TOP
16. The Jamahiriya is the society of goodness and of noble values. It considers ideals and human principles sacred. Its aim is a humanitarian society where aggression, war, exploitation and terrorism will be banished and where there will be no difference between great and small. All nations, all peoples, and all national communities have the right to live free, according to their options and the principles of self-determination. They have the right to establish their national entity. Minorities have the right to safeguard their entity and their heritage. The legitimate aspirations of the latter cannot be repressed. Neither can they be assimilated by force into one or several different nations or national communities. TOP
17. We affirm the right of each person to profit from the benefits, the advantages, the values and the principles which are obtained by the harmony, cohesion, union, affinity and the affection of the family, the tribe, the nation and humanity. To this end, we work to establish the natural national entity of our nation and support all those who fight to achieve this aim. We reject any segregation between men due to their colour, their race, their religion or their culture. TOP
18. We protect liberty. We defend it everywhere in the world. We support the oppressed, and encourage all peoples to confront injustice, oppression, exploitation and colonialism. We encourage them to combat imperialism, racism and fascism, in accordance with the principle of the collective struggle of peoples against the enemies of liberty. TOP
19. The Jamahiriya is a society of splendour and fulfilment. It guarantees each person the right of thought, creation and innovation. The Jamahiriya works for the development of the sciences, the arts and literature. It guarantees they will be disseminated among the popular masses so as to prohibit any monopoly on them. TOP
20. We affirm the sacred right to be born into a coherent family, where motherhood, fatherhood and brotherhood prevail. Fulfilment of the human being is only in compliance with his nature if it is assured by natural motherhood and feeding. The child must be brought up by its mother. TOP
21. We are, men or women, equal in everything which is human. The distinction of rights between men and women is a flagrant injustice which nothing justifies. We proclaim that marriage is a fair association between two equal partners. Nobody can conclude a marriage contract by constraint, nor divorce in any other way than by mutual consent or by a fair judgement. It is unfair to dispossess the children of their mother, and the mother of her home. TOP
22. We consider servants as the slaves of modern times, enslaved by their masters. No law governs their situation, and they have no guarantee nor protection. They live under the arbitrary nature of their masters, and are victims of tyranny. They are forced, by necessity and in order to survive, to carry out work which ridicules their dignity and human feelings. For this reason, we proscribe recourse to servants in the home. The house must be maintained by its owners. TOP
23. We are convinced that peace between nations can guarantee them prosperity, abundance and harmony. We call for an end to the trade of arms and their manufacture for purposes of exploitation. The arms industry constitutes a waste of wealth of societies, a burden on individual taxpayers, causing the spread of destruction and annihilation in the world. TOP
24. We call for the suppression of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical weapons and any other means of massive extermination and destruction. We call for elimination of all the existing stocks, for the preservation of humanity from the dangers represented by the waste from nuclear power stations. TOP
25. We undertake to protect our society and political system based on popular power. We also undertake to safeguard its values, principles and interests. We regard collective defence as the only means to preserve them. We think that the defence of the Jamahiriya is the responsibility of every citizen, man or woman. Nobody can have a substitute when confronted with death. TOP
26. We commit ourselves to the bases of this charter. We do not allow them to be infringed and forbid ourselves any act contrary to the principles and rights that it guarantees. Each person has the right to plead under the law for the purpose of reparation of any attacks on the rights and liberties that it announces. TOP
27. We offer the world The Green Book, the guide and path of emancipation for the acquisition of liberty. We announce to the popular masses the advent of a new age, when corrupt regimes will be abolished and from which any trace of tyranny and exploitation will be removed.
___________________________
A Truth Soldier:
Tag Archives: Muammar Al Qathafi
THE GREEN BOOK OF DEMOCRACY BY MUAMMAR al-QATHAFI
THE GREEN BOOK OF NATURAL LAW DEMOCRACY BY MU`AMMAR AL-QADHAFI
22 DECEMBER 2013
Libya War: What They Don’t Want You to Know
Published on 08 April 2014
http://LybianWarTheTruth.com
http;//BoilingFrogsPost.com
TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES:
http://www.corbettreport.com/libya-war-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/
We are taught all our lives that our modern political systems are “by and for the people.” In order to justify taking us to war, then, our misleaders have to convince us that war is not a racket, as General Smedley Butler revealed, and is not for the benefit of the industrialists who sell the munitions or the politicians in their back pocket or the financiers that own them both, but in the interest of the average man or woman. In other words, they lie through their teeth.
Find out more about the lies that led us to Libya in 2011, and the cover up of what is taking place there today in this week’s edition of The Eyeopener report.
Please see this related post.
http://atruthsoldier.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/libya-and-gaddafi-the-truth-you-are-not-supposed-to-know/
Below you will find the complete text of the three part Green book and links to download it for free.
You will also see a video about the real (former) Lybia and their real happy and prosperous free democracy that you were never told about. Lybia was the richest country in Africa with the second biggest gold reserves on earth..That gold has been stolen…
Now Lybia has been robbed, destroyed and a mass genocide of killings under taken covertly by the Zionist controlled USA..
Right click on this link to download the reformatted pdf. version.
The Green Book of Natural Law Democracy by Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi.pdf
Also available here.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/193178188/The-green-book-of-natural-law-democracy-by-mmu-ammar-al-qadhafi
The illuminati Exposed By Muammar al-Qathafi
Uploaded on Feb 13, 2012
http://greencharter.com/index.htm
This site presents the complete text of all three parts of
the GREEN BOOK by Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi.
Select the book you want to read by cl