Connect with us

Analysis

Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria

Published

on

Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry.

The Strategic Situation, leading up to the Use of Chemical Substances in the Eastern Ghouta Suburb of Damascus on 21 August 2013.

On 21 August 2013, the Syrian Arab Army launched a major military campaign in Damascus. The campaign, called “Operation Shield of the Capital”, was the largest military operation of the Syrian Arab Army in the Damascus region since the beginning of the war in 2011.

Although U.S. Intelligence reports repeatedly stressed that the opposition was incapable of launching a major, well coordinated attack, the Syrian Army in Damascus was confronted with an organized fighting force of 25.000 men under arms.

The Saudi Arabia backed Jihadist front had amassed 25.000 fighters, organized in 13 battalions or kitab, to to launch a major assault against the capital Damascus. Most of the battalions belonged to Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam. The other battalions that took part in the campaign, were the Abou Zhar al-Ghaffari, al-Ansar, al-Mohajereen, Daraa al-Sham, Harun al-Rashid, Issa bin Mariam, Sultan Mohammad al-Fatih, Syouf al-Haqq, the Glory of the Caliphate, the Jobar Martyrs.

During the night of 20 to 21 August and during the early morning hours of 21 August, the Syrian Arab Army broke through the insurgent lines in the area near the Jobar entrance. The breakthrough resulted in a collapse of the jihadists defensive positions and to a crushing and decisive strategic defeat of the Jabhat al-Nusrah led brigades.

The Strategic Significance of the Jobar Entrance and the Defeat. Cutting off the Insurgents’ Logistical Life-Line to Al-Mafraq and U.S. – Saudi Supplies.

The significance of the Jobar Entrance was that it both enabled the insurgents to launch attacks against the center of Damascus and that it was the sole remaining logistical supply route.

From Jobar, the insurgents could launch attacks. From Jobar they could infiltrate operatives, bombs and car bombs into the heart of Damascus. Loosing the Jobar Entrance also meant that the insurgents lost their last remaining route through which they could receive reinforcements and U.S. and Saudi supplies from Jordan.

Loosing Jobar effectively cut off the insurgents connection to the Jordanian border town of Al-Mafraq, the most important logistical base for the insurgents as well as for Saudi Arabia and the United States in Jordan.

Al-Mafraq was already used as a major staging ground for the two failed attempts to conquer the city of Homs in June and July 2012. In 2012 al-Mafraq became the staging ground for some 40.000 fighters; more than 20.000 of them fought under the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was under the command of Abdelhakim Belhadj and his second in command, Mahdi al-Harati.

The CIA maintains a station, US Special Forces (JSOC) train insurgents, and several other US institutions are present in al-Mafraq. The point is of particular importance with regards to the visit of the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Jordan, which will be detailed below. Al-Mafraq has been the major transit point for Saudi and U.S. arms shipments since 2012, and the delivery of advanced Saudi and U.S. weapons to the insurgents since early August 2013.

The foreign-backed mercenaries’ defeat during the night from 20 to 21 August and the early morning hours of 21 August frustrated any hope for a successful, large-scale, CIA-U.S. Special Forces-led military campaign against Damascus.

The insurgents also suffered a decisive, strategic defeat on 17 – 18 August, when a brigade was encircled and fought down near the Syrian Israeli border in the Golan, while they were en route from the Ramtha Airbase in Jordan to Damascus.

It is very likely that much of the newly-delivered advanced weaponry from Saudi Arabia and the USA was destroyed there. That includes, among others, advanced Konkurs anti-tank missiles.

The road is also used for weapons and troop transports from the Israeli occupied Syrian Golan, where Israeli Intelligence and the insurgents, according to an Austrian UNDOF officer, maintain a joint operations room.

Liwa-al-Islam and Jabhat al-Nusrah’s Elite Troops to Hold Jobar At Any Cost.

The collapse of the insurgent front prompted the front commanders, most of which work in liaison to U.S. Special Forces, to deploy an elite force that should prevent the Syrian Army, at all costs, from gaining access to the Jobar Entrance, and from gaining control over the Jobar area. The majority of the insurgent crack forces came from Liwa-al-Islam with some additional troops from Jabhat al-Nusrah.

The commanding officer of the elite forces was a Saudi national who is known by the name Abu Ayesha, whom eyewitnesses from Ghouta later identified as Abu Abdul-Moneim. Abdul-Moneim had established a cache of weapons, some of which had a tube-like structure, and others which looked like big gas bottles. The cache was located in a tunnel in the Eastern Ghouta district of Damascus.

Reports about this tunnel and the weapons cache emerged in international media, after the son of Abdul-Moneim and 12 other fighters lost their lives there, because they mishandled improvised chemical weapons and caused a leak in one of them.

Besides Abu Abdul-Moneim, the supreme leader of the Liwa-al-Islam and commander of their chemical weapons specialists, Zahran Alloush took personal charge of the elite troops and chemical weapons specialists who were operating under his direct command.

Liwa-al-Islam has, along with other al-Qaeda brigades, the capability to manufacture and launch primitive, but none the less very deadly chemical weapons. The chemical weapons which Zahran Alloush had delivered to Damascus were most likely from al-Qaeda’s (ISIL) chemical weapons stockpiles in Iraq.

In early September 2013, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif stated, that Iran had sent a memo to the White House via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. Tehran had reportedly informed the USA that handmade articles for chemical weapons, including Sarin gas, were being transferred to Syria. The White House failed to respond.

Having to hold the Jobar Entrance and the Jobar district of Damascus “at any cost to maintain any hopes of launching a successful, major military assault on Damascus”, the insurgent commanders decided to launch a chemical weapons attack to halt the advance of the Syrian Arab Army.

The political and military opposition and core members of the international alliance behind them had already decided that chemical weapons should be used in August – September. The large scale use of chemical weapons should justify renewed calls for a military intervention. Intelligence about this decision transpired in June. nsnbc international issued several reports in late June and early July, warning that the insurgents would use large scale chemical weapons attacks in August or September.

The decision to launch the chemical weapon on 21 August was most likely based on two considerations. That the use of chemical weapons was already planned. That the Jobar Entrance should be defended at all costs. The final decision, made by Zahran Alloush may in fact have been predetermined together with his U.S. – Saudi liaison officers.

Launching a chemical weapons attack would allow the USA, UK and France, to call for military strikes against Syria and to turn the tide.

Also, Russian and Syrian intelligence sources described the weapons which were used in the attack as rockets which were altered so as to carry chemicals, launched by Liwa-al-Islam. The projectiles were most likely fired from a flatbed.

Saudi and U.S. Involvement. Political and Military Responsibility.

There is a growing and substantial amount of evidence that indicates direct U.S. and Saudi involvement in the chemical weapons attack. To begin with one merely has to answer the fundamental question “Who Benefits”, and the answer is definitely not “the Syrian government”.

In fact, the Federal German Intelligence Service (BND) claims that it has intercepted phone calls between Syrian officers and the Syrian High Command. The BND is convinced that none of the Syrian forces have used a chemical weapon. Leaving alone any moral considerations, the domestic and international repercussions were foreseeable and there would not have been any strategic benefit for the Syrian Army or the government.

In the end, it was the USA, Saudi Arabia and Israel who achieved a major strategic and political victory by forcing the Syrian government to put its chemical weapons under international control for destruction.

The USA benefits from UNSC resolution 2118 (2013), which calls for measures under the UN Charter´s Chapter VII in the case of non-compliance by the Syrian government.

Moreover, UNSC Resolution 2118 (2013) paved the way for a presidential statement by the Security Council which for the first time introduced the “Responsibility to Protect” principle in the conflict.

Also, the involvement of Saudi Arabia ultimately points towards Washington and the White House. The involvement of Liwa-al-Islam in the chemical weapons attack establishes a strong chain of circumstantial evidence to the Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

The supreme leader of Liwa-al-Islam and commander of the groups’ chemical weapons specialists, Zahran Alloush, has been working for the then Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Turki al-Faisal in both Afghanistan and Yemen in the 1980s.

Since the 1990s, Alloush was involved in the Salafist – Wahabbist terrorist networks in Syria which led to his arrest by Syrian intelligence. He was released in early of 2011, when the Assad administration granted a general amnesty. Immediately after his March 2011 release from prison, Zahran Alloush began receiving substantial funds and weapons from Saudi intelligence, which enabled him to establish Liwa-al-Islam as a de facto Saudi Arabia sponsored mercenary brigade under the auspices of the Saudi Interior Ministry.

Liwa-al-Islam is not the only al-Qaeda brigade which the Saudi Interior Ministry has deployed to Syria. Russian and Syrian intelligence services reported already in late 2011, that intercepted internet chatter indicated that Saudi Arabia had deployed al-Qaeda´s Omar Brigade to Syria. The Omar Brigade is specialized in high level assassinations and large scale bombings.

Saudi funding enabled Alloush to establish the Liwa-al-Islam as a major fighting force in Syria. The group gained fame due to risky, high-profile attacks. On 8 July 2012, the group carried out a bomb attack against the headquarters of Syria’s National Security Council in Rawda Square, Damascus. The group succeeded in assassinating several high profile members of Syria’s security establishment, including the Deputy Minister of Defense and brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad, Assaf Shawkat, Defense Minister Dawoud Rajiha, Hassan Turkmani, a former Defense Minister and military adviser to then Vice-President Farouk al-Sharaa.

Weakening Qatar, Strengthening the U.S.-Saudi Axis.

After the defeat of the predominantly Qatar-backed Muslim Brotherhood and Free Syrian Army (FSA) forces, which were reinforced by Libyans in June and July 2012, the U.S. – Saudi Axis was strengthened. Uncooperative Qatari-led brigades which rejected the new command structure had to be removed.

The influx of Salafi – Wahhabbi fighters to Syria was documented by the International Crisis Group in their report titled “Tentative Jihad”. The CIA and Saudi Interior Ministry man, Zahran Alloush, and Liwa-al-Islam should also play a lead role in this development.

In June 2013 Alloush withdrew his Liwa-al-Islam troops during a major battle with the Syrian Arab Army without announcing the sudden withdrawal to the Qatar-sponsored First Brigade and the Liwa Jaish al-Muslimeen. Both brigades were literally wiped out by the Syrian Army.

Qatar-backed forces have not made a significant recovery in the Syrian theater since the June 2013 defeat, and the primary fighting forces today are Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam. Both of them receive weapons from the USA and Saudi Arabia. The development has also weakened the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which in the middle of 2013 had become a minor player in the Syrian theater.

The influx of Saudi backed mercenaries and the prospect of Syria being “Balkanized” into any number of infighting Caliphates caused many patriotic FSA commanders to consider a realignment with the Syrian Arab Army and the government. The Syrian government encourages these commanders’ decisions and offers reasonable and honorable conditions.

In conclusion; the primary, foreign-backed “opposition forces” in Syria since July 2013, are U.S. – Saudi – backed al-Qaeda brigades. Most prominent among them are Jabhat al-Nusrah and Liwa-al-Islam, while the FSA still receives some support, which is primarily granted for the purpose of giving the White House the possibility to maintain a narrative about supporting “moderate forces”. Another aspect is, that the FSA is the last representative of Qatar’s, Turke’s and Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood in the Syrian theater.

Both the USA and Saudi Arabia cooperate closely with Jabhat al-Nusrah, Liwa-al-Islam and other al-Qaeda brigades, including the brigades which were responsible for launching the chemical weapon on 21 August to change the tide during a catastrophic, strategic defeat.

U.N. Inspectors protected by Perpetrators of Chemical Weapons Attack in East Ghouta, Damascus, on 21 August 2013.

The U.S. – Saudi hand is also clearly visible with regards to the inspection of the scene of the chemical weapons attack by U.N. Inspectors.

Before looking at the details at the scene of the crime, however, it is necessary to note that the U.N. Inspectors only agreed to accept Syria´s invitation after considerable diplomatic pressure from Russia, and after Syrian troops seized massive stockpiles of chemicals from the insurgents.

The seizure of 281 barrels of chemicals from terrorists in the city of Banias prompted the Syrian U.N. Ambassador, Bashar Jaafari to announce:

“The Syrian authorities have discovered yesterday, in the city of Banias, 281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials, capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country”.

In late August, when U.N. Inspectors prepared to inspect the scene of the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta, the convoy was delayed because an “unidentified sniper” fired at the U.N. Inspectors’ vehicles.

Moreover, the “opposition” insisted that Zahran Alloush and the Liwa-al-Islam would escort the U.N. experts, and provide security for them while they investigated the use of chemical weapons in Eastern Ghouta. Zahran Alloush delegated the actual on the ground “security escort” for the U.N. experts to his close ally, the Liwa al-Baraa brigade from Zamalka. The U.N. inspectors who gathered evidence in Eastern Ghouta were thus in the custody of those who had perpetrated the chemical weapons attack.

The renown and arguably world leading expert on chemical weapons, Dr. Abbas Forouthan, sharply criticized the U.N. expert´s report, pointing out sharp irregularities. Dr. Forouthan´s statements about the report were published in an article by Sharmine Narwani, titled “CW Expert Opinion on UN Report on Syria”. Dr. Forouthan concludes, that:

Overall in my view this report should be received/accepted medically with great caution and should be observed again by a team of international expert clinicians. My intention is not the denial of sarin but at least from the clinical point of view, the evidences of this report are not enough to prove the existence of a nerve gas [sarin] in this incident.

Russian and other experts have repeatedly stated that the chemical weapon could not have been a standard issue Syrian chemical weapon and that all available evidence, including the fact that those who offered first aid to the victims were not harmed, indicates the use of liquid, home made sarin. This information is corroborated by the seizure of such chemicals in Syria and in Turkey.

Zahran Alloush receives Orders directly from Saudi Intelligence.

everal commanders of al-Qaeda brigades in Syria have stated that Zahran Alloush receives his orders directly from Saudi Intelligence. Russian diplomatic sources stated among others, that many, even opposition members, were appalled by the use of chemical weapons in Syria and that people of many different political observances have provided information to Russian diplomats.

Statements to the effect that Zahran Alloush receives his orders directly from the Saudi Intelligence are corroborated by the fact that both Alloush and the Liwa-al-Islam are financed by the Saudi Interior Ministry. The group was literally established with Saudi money after Alloush was released from prison in 2011. According to international law, this fact alone is sufficient to designate Alloush and the Liwa-al-Islam as Saudi mercenaries.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has acceded the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (Mercenary Convention) on 14 April 1997 (with reservations). Whether these reservations are sufficient to exempt Saudi Arabia from the provisions of the convention or not in this case would be for experts in international law to determine.

Regardless the answer to this question however, Saudi Arabia is sponsoring an internationally banned terrorist organization and is issuing direct orders to a terrorist organization’s supreme commander, Zahran Alloush. Al-Qaeda commanders in Syria have also repeatedly stated that the Saudi Intelligence Chief, Prince Bandar, considers Liwa-al-Islam as his personal brigade in Syria. If proven in a court of law this would have severe implications for Bandar, Saudi Arabia as well as for U.S. Officials. That is, implications with regard to the political responsibility for the attack and the Nuremberg Principles.

Political Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack in East Ghouta, Damascus, on 21 August, arguably, at the highest level of the White House.

Even though no evidence has yet transpired that would tie Prince Bandar directly to the chemical weapons attack on 21 August, his role in the attack could place the political responsibility for the attack directly with him, the President of the United States, Barack Obama and other top-U.S. Officials.

Moreover, it is likely that a thorough investigation within the framework of an international court of law would produce the evidence. Leaving the question whether to investigate or not to the ICC, knowing that it is unlikely that the ICC would investigate, let alone charge Saudi or U.S. Officials, it is necessary to suffice with the now available evidence which is circumstantial, but sufficient to warrant further investigation. It is also sufficient to approach the ICC to demand that action be taken.

To begin with, it would be sufficient to look into the many documented and admitted cases in which the Saudi Interior Ministry either admitted, or in which it has been proven that Saudi Arabia supports al-Qaeda brigades. With regards to the chemical weapons attack in East Ghouta, there is one point that stands out. That is Bandar’s threats during a meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. The minutes of the meeting clearly suggest Bandar’s direct involvement with regards to political responsibility, and Bandar also implies political responsibility of top-U.S. Officials.

The Bandar Putin Meeting

On 2 August Prince Bandar met Russia’s President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. Putin and Bandar spoke, among others, about the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta and the future of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Bandar tried to bribe Putin with weapons and oil deals in order to gain the Russian President’s support for ousting the Assad government. Bandar supposed that the Syrian government should be replaced with the Saudi-backed and sponsored opposition.

Bandar guaranteed that Russia’s interests in Syria would be preserved by this Saudi-backed government if Russia supported the regime change. While Bandar attempted to gain Putin as a potential ally for regime change in Syria, he also delivered a thinly veiled threat, saying among others:

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the direction of the Syrian territory without coordinating with us. These groups don´t scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria´s political future”.

Putin responded by saying that the Russians know that the Saudis have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade, and that the support which Bandar just had offered was utterly incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism.

Bandar continued discussing Syria, saying words to the effect that the Assad government has no future and that Saudi Arabia would not allow Assad to remain at the helm.

Putin stressed that the Russian position is that the Syrian people are best to speak for themselves, rather than those liver eaters. Putin referred to an al-Qaeda commander who had cannibalized the liver of a slain Syrian soldier.

Bandar resorted to threats again, warning Putin that their dispute over the future of Syria led him to conclude that there is no escape from the (U. S. -led) military option, because the political stalemate would leave the military option as the only available choice to end the stalemate.

The most important statement Bandar made however, was that he said that he expected such a U. S. -led military intervention to come soon and that Bandar made this statement almost three weeks before the chemical weapons attack in eastern Ghouta.

The Statement indicates Foreknowledge. CIA Chief Brennan and Washington have most likely been informed.

Bandar’s statement strongly suggests foreknowledge, and given the close relations between Bandar and the U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, John Brennan, one must imply that top-level White House executives, including President Obama have been briefed and have had the same foreknowledge. The implications warrant an in depth investigation by an international prosecutor.

Another strong indication of foreknowledge at top-White House level is that Bandar, during his Moscow visit insisted, that his initiative and his message had been coordinated with the highest authorities in the Obama administration. Either Prince Bandar lied to Putin, or top-White House officials were informed. Bandar said:

“I have spoken with the Americans before the visit, and they pledged to commit to any understandings that we may reach, especially if we agree on the approach to the Syria issue”.

Foreknowledge – U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey visit to Jordan.

nother strong indicator of foreknowledge by top-U.S. Officials can be deducted from the visit of the United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey to Jordan and a statement he made prior to the Jordan visit.

On 18 July, Dempsey said at a hearing at the U.S. Senate´s Armed Services Committee, that the Obama administration is preparing various scenarios for a possible U.S. Military intervention in Syria, and considering whether the USA should use “the brute of the U.S. Military, and kinetic strikes”. “The issue”, said Gen. Dempsey, “is under deliberation inside of our agencies of government”.

Already on 7 July however, nsnbc international published a report, based on information from a Syria-based, Palestinian intelligence expert, who stated that the armed and political opposition, along with the international alliance behind it, is preparing a large political and military campaign in August – September.

The report mentions specifically the chemical weapons use and the Jordanian city al-Mafraq, where U.S. Special forces train insurgents.

Dempsey in Jordan only Days before Chemical Weapons Attack and while Saudi / U.S. Weapons Deliveries begin flowing across the Border from al-Mafraq.

On 15 August 2013, the website of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) informed that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey is visiting troops in Jordan. Dempsey’s visit came against the backdrop of major weapons deliveries to the Syrian opposition, including advanced weapons like the Konkurs anti tank missile.

On the agenda in Jordan was, among other, the “Team Jordan”. The DoD informs, that “The team Jordan also includes liaison officers linking them to the services, special operation forces, the U.S. Embassy in Jordan, USAID, Britain, Canada and France. Its primary focus is planning for Syria”.

It is inconceivable that U.S. Special Forces and the CIA would have given the green light for the use of chemical weapons – for example in a situation where the insurgents lose their hold on the Jobar Entrance – without the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the very least being informed about it.

As stated before, U.S. Special Forces in al-Mafraq were training insurgents in special operations, including the securing of captured chemical weapons. A Palestinian intelligence expert stated to nsnbc that informants have claimed that U.S. Special Forces were training insurgents in chemical weapons use.

Shortly after Dempsey arrives, on 17 August, the insurgents suffer a major strategic defeat en route from al-Mafraq to Damascus. On 21 August, shortly after Dempsey’s departure, the Liwa-al-Islam brigade launches the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta because the insurgents could, despite the delivery of some of the new, advanced weapons not hold the Jobar Entrance and Jobar district of Damascus.

Criminal Charges on the Basis of the Nuremberg Principles.

Even though Prince Bandar’s statement in Moscow does not directly involve the U.S. President in the chemical weapons attack, the implied threat along with the statement that he is authorized by the highest level at the White House, places political responsibility with the U.S. President.

The guilt of Prince Bandar is sufficiently documented even in this article. It is unlikely that CIA Chief Brennan and Bandar did not coordinate the Moscow visit as well as the use of chemical weapons. It is inconceivable that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was not informed about the planned use of chemical weapons in August – September. The involvement of the above mentioned mercenaries could be corroborated, arrests need to be made. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has more than sufficient material to warrant an investigation into the alleged guilt of all of the above.

Additional articles and the Need to Establish an International Commission for the Prosecution of the 21 August Chemical Weapons Attack and Related Crimes:

The following articles support top US, Saudi, and other core NATO and GCC member states as well as top Libyan officials political and command responsibility for the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Ghouta on 21 August 2013, as well as related crimes.

The articles are divided into the categories 1) UN Report, 2) Falsification of Evidence, and 3) Evidence.

The total body of information contained in these articles establishes a solid foundation for the initiation of in depth investigations by international prosecutors.

I strongly suggest the establishment of an international commission to produce a report to be styled to the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Should the ICC fail to investigate and prosecute, the commission would be tasked with establishing other mechanisms for the prosecution of the 21 August chemical weapons attack and related crimes.

Witnesses experts and representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations who are in a position to further the establishment of such a commission are invited to contact us at contact@nsnbc.me.

Analysis

Mystery about Germany´s Gold in the US Solved

Published

on

Nobody wants to admit it openly. The German Gold Reserves in the United States are gone, used for financing the United States war chest and bet for “Global Full Spectrum Dominance”. So why is even the German Federal Bank trying to avoid further speculation by referring to a non-existent “full transparency” ? The answer is quite simple. Nobody wants the current backwardation of the gold market to turn into a permanent backwardation of the gold market. The consequence would be the inevitable collapse of global trade and civilization as we know it.

nsnbc international report from April 2013 “in the money” – “to take to the bank”. In April 2013, nsnbc international published a report by nsnbc contributor, Prof. Long Xinming, revealing that the German government had asked to visit the vaults of the US Federal Reserve to determine the actual existence of the German gold reserves.

Germany has deposited about half of its gold reserves in the USA. The FED refused to permit Germany to examine its own gold, stating “security” and “no room for visitors” as reasons. Nothing else.

When Germany finally was “permitted” an audit, the auditors were admitted into the vault´s anté chamber where 5 or 6 gold bars were shown to them as “representative for Germany´s holdings”.

The German auditors apparently returned a second time, when the FED granted them permission to “look into” 1 of 9 rooms without allowing them to enter or touch the gold, before the auditors were sent back home to Germany. The report on nsnbc prompted worldwide discussions.

In July 2013, the US American hedge-fund manager William Kaye created a stir when he picked-up the ball, stating:

” Germany won´t ever see its gold again…… Central Banks, such as the FED, where most of the reserves had been deposited, had lent the gold to U.S. Banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

The gold has been used in the market to lower the gold price and the FED has received securities in exchange…. Germany won´t ever see that gold again, because it is safely kept in my accounts and the accounts of our investors”.

William Kaye, who previously has been working for Goldman Sachs is by no means a “nobody” on the global markets, and the fact that his statement caused a stir was less surprising than the surprise non-insiders got when they heard the news about Germany´s gold. In fact, nsnbc´s initial report was doubted by many but was, as it turned out right “in the money”, one could, so to speak, take our report to the bank.

German Federal Bank. A Real Embarrassment and Non-Existent Transparency. Not surprisingly either, is the fact that the situation became an embarrassment for the German Federal Bank, Deutsche Bundesbank (DB).

A DB speaker said, that the Deutsche Bundesbank told the German financial publication “Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten” (German Market News), that the DB does not want to comment on the statement and referred to the full transparency which it had provided about the German gold reserves in January 2013. “The situation” said the DB spokesperson, “has remained unchanged since then”. The statement however, was only 50 % true. The true 50 % of the statement is, that the Deutsche Bundesbank does not want to comment.

The untrue 50 % is the statement about the purported full transparency which the DB has provided in January 2013. While it is understandable that it is an embarrassment that one´s purported “ally“, whom many Germans consider more of a political, economical, cultural and not to forget military occupier rather than an ally, has the audacity to put Germany´s auditors off with “no place for visitors” and shows them 1 of 9 chambers, “but don´t enter and touch” after protests from Berlin, is understandable.

After all, no German functionary would ever be allowed to, and no German politician in his right mind would ever dare to say, that “Germany still has not regained its full sovereignty”without risking the carrier – or more.

But talking about full transparency is equivalent to literally ask for trouble from one´s compatriots.

The demand that Germany repatriate its physical gold reserves is becoming increasingly outspoken, and not only among German patriots and conservatives like Member of Parliament for the Christian Social Union, CSU, Peter Gauweiler.

After all, it can hardly have escaped the DB spokesperson and German as well as international observers, that Germany´s Federal Accounting Office has issued a statement in late 2012, in which it criticized the Deutsche Bundesbank because it had not ever had any of its staff to personally audit the German gold reserves abroad. That is, “Not Ever”.

No Audit of German Reserves “Ever”. Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten (German Market News) also asked the DB spokesperson whether any of the German Federal Bank´s officials has ever taken to Paris or the USA to personally audit the German gold reserves. The DB spokesperson replied, or rather tried to avoid answering the question, saying:

“The Deutsche Bundesbank has, with regard to the storage, appropriate storage and deposit contracts with those Central Banks with whom the gold is being deposited”.

He then added, that these contracts, however, were subject to confidentiality, and by the way, he added,

“the Chair for Cash, Settlements and Payment Systems of the Deutsche Bundesbank, Carl-Ludwig Thiele had said in January that he had been there”.

Given this answer, the journalist probably knew that his job would be entering the “Danger Zone” if he would have asked:

” Was there ? Where ? In France ? In New York ? Did Herr Carl-Ludwig Thiele inspect the gold and how much was there ? Is it documented anywhere ? Can I see a copy ? I mean, we are speaking about full transparency right ? ”

An ode to independent media! So, the poor German journalist could keep his job, the Bundesbank spokesperson was proud about his evasive PR skills and that he could keep his job, and we remain in the dark. Everybody is happy. Right ? Business as usual !

The effect of the Deutsche Bundesbank´s complicity in covering-up the obvious theft of Germany´s gold reserves by Germany´s occupying ally USA, the United States blatant arrogance in dealing with his “Trans-Atlantic Partners in Germany” however is beginning to backfire.

How much longer the scandal can be contained is becoming increasingly questionable, and Germans begin to organize themselves to demand the repatriation of the country´s gold reserves.

A group of renown Germans, including the member of the European Taxpayers Association, Rolf Baron von Hohenhau, Peter Boehringer of the German Precious Metals Society, M.P. Frank Scäffler, Author and former IBM Germany CEO, Prof. Hans O. Henkel, Ralf Flier, the Editor in Chief of Smart Investor Magazine, and numerous others have organized themselves in the Association “Repatriate Our Gold” (Holt unser Gold Heim)

The Co-Initiator of the Initiative, Peter Boehringer, states that he considers it absolutely plausible, that the German gold reserves no longer exist within the USA in terms of physical gold bars. Moreover, Boehringer states, that one can strongly suspect it. Boehringer concludes:

“We do believe the Deutsche Bundesbank in its statements, but we do not believe that the Bundesbank can believe what its contractual partners say. The Deutsche Bundesbank simply cannot be sure, that the gold reserves still are present at the FED in the form of gold bars” .

“The Bundesbank does not even officially claim this, or cannot prove the physical presence according to appropriate principles of accounting. The Bundesbank has officially informed us, that the depots and Partner Central Banks have a marvelous integrity, and that the doubts, which we have forwarded in the form of questions, are unsubstantiated”.

He then, correctly remarks the fact which the Bundesbank obviously attempts to omit, which is, that the FED has not performed any official audit of its gold holdings since 1953, and the fact that the Americans they don´t even trust the FED. Ask any US citizen in any major city in the USA and ask: “Can the FED be trusted?”. If you can ask the question with a straight face, people will either believe that you are retarded or that you are part of a new “Candid Camera show”.

Repatriate Our Gold therefore demands, that the Deutsche Bundesbank publishes all the lists with the gold bar numbers of gold bars, which are deposited abroad as well as in Germany.

The question one may ask is, whether the publication of the gold bar numbers would add any credibility to the claims that the gold is physically present, and the ultimate proof can only be given by a full inspection, rather than a dog and pony show, in which German auditors at the fed are shown one out of nine vaults “but don´t enter and don´t touch”. Repatriate Our Gold is therefore still insisting on a full, physical audit of the gold.

Repatriate Our Gold warns, that the repatriation of the German gold reserves from the USA and France by 2020, as the Bundesbank states it would, is far from sufficient. Boehringer states, that the Bundesbank seem to be betting on time because, as he states:

“If German gold reserves really have been used as collateral, one will first have to buy them back”.

And here, Boehringer is touching the most touchy of issues. It is correct, that the FED would first have to buy the gold before it could deliver, but the trouble is, that the gold-market has been in backwardation since early July 2013. To buy gold requires that there is someone who is able and willing to sell gold, and with the market being in backwardation that is impossible.

According to a nsnbc international report with World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes, we may be facing a global currency war as corruption at the World Bank unsettles the gold market. Karen Hudes has worked 20 years as legal counsel at the World Bank´s legal department. Hudes was sacked in retaliation after she blew the whistle and reported massive corruption in the Bretton Woods institutions.

Hudes has since been reinstated, but the US administration continues its retaliation, and is, as a stakeholder analysis shows, under arrest of a conglomerate or megabank, has Hudes describes it, which prevents that the USA begins to comply with international accounting standards.

Already in May, Hudes warned that the consequence of failure to address the problems would be a permanent backwardation of the gold market and a global currency war that would, one started, grind world trade to a standstill. Moreover, Hudes states:

“A stakeholder analysis derived from accurate game theory modeling shows a clear fork in the road for the United States: rule of law and the transatlantic alliance or corruption and the ascendency of China.”

It may very well be that the United States and Germany, the FED and the Deutsche Bundesbank perceive it as being in their shared interest to cover-up the fact that Germany´s gold is gone, that:

” Germany won´t ever see its gold again…… Central Banks, such as the FED, where most of the reserves had been deposited, had lent the gold to U.S. Banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. The gold has been used in the market to lower the gold price and the FED has received securities in exchange…. Germany won´t ever see that gold again, because it is safely kept in my accounts and the accounts of our investors”.

as William Kaye said it. The shared interest would in that case be the attempt to prevent the permanent backwardation, the subsequent currency war and the grinding of world trade to a hold. The problem for both the FED and the Bundesbank is, that the “Gini has left the bottle”, the truth is out and no complicity of silence will make it return into the bottle on its own volition. More simplified: “How to get the paste back into the tube?”.

When push comes to shove we will see that the German gold and the gold of numerous other countries who deposited their gold in the USA after WW II has been used to line the pockets of the US military industrial complex and has financed the US bet for global, full-spectrum dominance. Not surprisingly, many, especially older Germans come to think “Dresden and Pforzheim” when they are confronted with that fact.

Continue Reading

Analysis

French Africa Policy Damages African and European Economies.

Published

on

Since the independence of the former French colonies in western Africa they are in spite of the richness of their natural resources and the productivity of their populations still catastrophically under-developed.

In 2007 the French and European economies began deteriorating into a devastating recession. France seems to be like a man who is standing at the edge of a cliff, transfixed by the thought of falling into the abyss. In fear of losing the lucrative racket of controlling the western African economies he forgets that there is Terra firma and a possibility for both French, European and African prosperity behind him. Africans and leading European politicians expected that the administration of President Hollande would bring much-needed change with respect to French control over the economies of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, the Republic of Congo, Senegal and Togo. However, also Hollande´s administration seems to be so transfixed by the prospect of falling into the abyss that it does not fathom the possibility of taking one step back.

Will France remain transfixed in fear and drag western Africa and Europe with it when it falls or does it dare to loosen up its grip on control over the good old CFA racket in its former colonies and discover the true potential and value of the African markets. As painful as it may be, the primary prerequisite for a progressive development and prosperity is the truth about the current state of affairs.

The root causes for the lacking development of the western African economies are closely related to the fact that France, contrary to other former colonial powers, managed to install its commissars at the heart of its former colonies economic and monetary system and that it still maintains almost unchallenged control over them. The system was created by German National Socialists during the 1930s and 40s. It was used to usurp France and other German occupied nations.

The Genesis of the CFA-System in Nazi Germany and the German Occupation of France.

On 9 Maj 1941 Hemmen, the German Ambassador to France declared that he had signed a treaty with the French Admiral Darlan. The treaty would place German commissars within the French National Bank´s departments for foreign currencies and international commerce.(1) The treaty was negotiated under the auspices of German Minister of Finance Herman Göring, whose father, Heinrich Ernst Göring has been the German Governor of German West Africa, todays Namibia, from 1885 to 1890. Herman Göring was among other notorious for his plundering the occupied nations’ economies through operations accounts and for his special interest in treasures and art from the German occupied areas.

At the end of world war two and the occupation of France, the French President Charles de Gaulle created the CFA Franc as a currency for the western African colonies. De Gaulle created a monetary union whose functions of control were based on the model Germany had used to usurp German occupied France.

Even though the colonies have since gained independence, the system of almost absolute control over their economies by the installment of commissars with the Central Banks of the West African Monetary and Economic Unions, the B.E.A.C., the B.C.C., and the B.C.E.A.O. persists.

Modo-Colonialism, the Veto Right by French Commissars over African Economies.

Together, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, the Republic of Congo, Senegal and Togo, establish the Monetary and Economic Union of West Africa (U.M.E.O.A. / UMEAO. Their currency, the CFA-Franc is printed under supervision of the French National Bank in Charmaliéres, France. The Council of Presidents of the fifteen U.M.E.O.A. member states constitutes the highest authority of the union. Decisions of the Presidential Council are made unanimously. The Ministerial Council of the U.M.E.O.A. defines the monetary and credit policy of the union and it is responsible for the economic development of the region. According to the constitutions of all fifteen member states the creation of their currency, the regulation of its value as well as the regulation of parities and modalities is the exclusive privilege of the nation and its people and decisions about it are made by the parliament.

The placement of French commissars within the heart of the nations and the union`s banking system however, creates an obvious dichotomy between the apparent sovereignty of the union, its constituents, and direct control from the previous colonial power.

Three of the thirteen of the Directors of the B.E.A.C. are French and four of the eight Directors of the B.C.C. are French. The Board of Directors of the B.C.E.A.O. is constituted by sixteen Directors; two from each country plus two additional Directors from France who take part in the management of the bank under the same conditions and with the same privileges as the other Directors. The number and placement of the commissars gives them a Veto right at the board of each of the Central Banks. No decision can be made without their approval and France can enforce its policy by threatening to deadlock the economies unless decisions are made in compliance with French suggestions.

The French Veto right also extends to the nomination of the Governor of the B.E.A.C.. The Governor is elected with the unanimous vote of the Board of Directors, on suggestion of the government of Gabon, and after the approval of the other member states as well as France.(2)

The Central Bank does not only have the privilege to create the currency. It also has the privilege to grant credit for the current accounts of the national treasuries at its discount rate. The Board of Directors is making the decisions about the temporalities and about the total amount that is granted for financing the economies of each of the member states.

Feeding France, Bleeding Africa – Current Accounts and the System of Usurpation.

While the primary instrument of control is the installment of French commissars, the primary instrument for usurping the western African economies is their current accounts. The member states agree to deposit their foreign currency reserves in a shared reserve fond.

The foreign currency reserves are subject to deposition in an operations account at the French National Bank. Between 1945 and 1973 one hundred per cent of the foreign currency reserves had to be deposited in the operations account, in 1973 it was reduced to sixty-five, and on 27. September 2005 to fifty percent. (3) Another fifteen percent is kept in a guaranty fund.

In other words sixty-five per cent of all foreign currency reserves of the fifteen nations and all revenue generated outside of the unions territory is kept at the French National Bank. On 3 Mai 2010 the website of Jeune Afrique quotes the former French Minister of Finance and Commerce, Christine Lagarde: “The Bank of the States of Central Africa, for instance, places an almost 90 per cent of their reserves in the French National Bank”. (4)

In 1960 Jean Boissonat, a member of the currency committee of the French National Bank wrote: “Almost all decisions were made in France .. The Franc Zone allowed France to deliver certain natural resources to itself without having to spend any foreign reserves. It was estimated that this represented two hundred and fifty million US-Dollar savings in terms of foreign reserves per year …” Boissonat continues by stating that approximately half a million Frenchmen in Paris receive their means of survival from the Franc Zone.(5)

The French socialist Jean-Noël Jeanny wrote in 1963 that: “all that the African nations achieve by increasing their export is the generation of more foreign currency reserves for France”.(6) He could as well have added “and the creation of debt for themselves”. Beside profiting on African foreign currency reserves which are returned to the West African nations in the form of debt, France is also profiting from African gold.

The gold reserves of the fifteen nations are kept in France, supposedly to guaranty for the value of the CFR Franc. In 2001 the West-African gold reserves at the French National Bank had an estimated value of 206,528 billion CFR Franc. In an interview for Le Liberation in 1996 the late President of Gabon, Omar Bongo said: “We are in the Franc Zone. Our operations accounts are managed by the French National Bank in Paris. Who profits from the interests that our money generates ? France.” (7)

France is indebting and enslaving Africans by means of Africa’s own wealth; for example: 12.0000 billion invested at three per cent creates 360 billion in interests which France grants as credits to Africa at an interest rate of five to six per cent or more. The allegory of “Bleeding Africa and Feeding France” is no exaggeration, not alarmist, and not revolutionary. It it is a sobering fact of French modo-colonialism and the cost in terms of under-development and human suffering is staggering. The current accounts and the French usurpation are a humanitarian disaster that is induced by France and financed by those who are suffering from it.

Coups, Crisis and French Finance-Nazism in Africa.

In 1996 France devalued the CFR Franc in spite of the protest of most western African nations. Former French Prime Minister Eduard Balladour justified the French dictated devaluation of the CFR Franc because “ it was considered to be the best possibility for aiding the development of the western African countries” (8), even though another statement by Balladoure indicates that he was aware of that the regulation of a currency is a matter of national sovereignty(9).

The late President of Togo, Etienne Gnassingbé said about the devaluation: “One uses to say that violence overrules justice. I was not the only one who issued the warning….. But France has decided otherwise. The African voices don´t count for much in this affair”.(10)

The words of the late Etienne Gnassingbé indicate that the Bleeding of Africa can be taken literally. According to the statutes of the monetary and economic union every member state is free to leave it. So much to theory. In practice, France has left a trail of post-modern coup d´etats, violence, and murder in those nations who tried to get out from under what many West-Africans perceive as French Finance-Nazism in Africa.

In January 1963 the President of Togo, the late Sylvanus Olympio was murdered three days before the issuing of a new currency.

On 19. November 1968 the late President of Mali Modibo Kéita was ousted in a coup and arrested. In 1977 Modibo Kéita died in prison. Kéita was poisoned.

On 27. January 1996 the President of Mali was ousted in a military coup d´etat.

On 15. March 2003 the late President of the Central African Republic Angè Félix Patassé was ousted by the “rebel leader” Francois Bozizé. In all cases the monetary union and France have played a role.

Ivory Coast´s President Laurent Gbagbo, France, the ICC and Modo-Colonialism.

When Laurent Gbagbo became the President of Ivory Coast one of his first official initiatives was the erection of a concrete wall in the tunnel that connects the French Embassy with the Presidential Residence. Gbagbo wanted Ivory Coast to abandon the CFA and institute a new regional and if possible a Pan-African, gold-backed currency. The initiative toward the establishment of a gold-backed Pan-African currency enjoyed the sympathy of many African nations and enjoyed unequivocal support from Libya, which until the so-called Arab Spring in 2011 was the richest and most developed of all African nations.

As if it was a conditioned reflex, France seemed transfixed by is fear of falling into the abyss, of losing the CFR racket that has kept the French economy afloat since it was conceived by de Gaulle in 1945. Rather than seeing a potential, France was biding its time until an opportunity for a post-modern coup d´etat. The 2010 Presidential elections in Ivory Coast. France sided with Alessanne Outtara. Libyan intelligence reports from 2009 and 2010 indicated that the French Intelligence Service D.G.S.E. had begun infiltrating, financing and arming a group of “rebels” in the northern region of Ivory Coast.

The outcome of the Presidential election was apparently very close. The electoral commission declared Alessanne Outtara the winner but the election result was disputed by Laurent Gbagbo.

There had been registered serious irregularities. In one particular village with a population of approximately ten thousand, Alessanne Outtara seemed to have received almost one hundred thousand votes.

Western mainstream media began building a narrative: The electoral commission had declared Outtara to be the winner. The despotic Laurent Gbagbo refused to hand over the reins of power to the winner of the elections. Gbagbo is cracking down on peaceful protesters. Gbagbo is cornered in his bunker…

What western media generally failed to report, underreported, or conveyed in a distorted and strongly biased fashion was that: Laurent Gabgbo and his party had brought the case to the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court of Ivory Coast had recounted the votes; that the Supreme Court had taken notice of election fraud in favor of Outtara; and that the Supreme Court of Ivory Coast had declared Laurent Gbagbo to be the winner of the elections and the rightfully elected President of Ivory Coast. That French backed guerrilla began attacking predominantly pro-Gbagbo villages, committing massacres, and that French backed “rebels” were attacking the Presidential Residence.

What was emphatically reported in French and western media like the BBC was that “security forces” clamped down on peaceful protesters, and that “Ouattara´s Army” is cornering “Gbagbo in his bunker”.(11)

Nobody seemed to ask the important question. Where in the world had Outtara, who just claimed to have won the elections gotten an “army” from ?

It is symptomatic for the high prevalence of racism and condescending modo-colonialist reasoning among European populations that only very few commentators and analysts said:

“But the electoral commission is not the one who has the competence to approve of election results, it is the Supreme Court”.

A comparison can illustrate the point: When George W. Bush and Al Gore had the closest of all elections that have been held in the United States of America; who certified the election ? The Supreme Court, of course. (12)

Many Americans felt utterly disenfranchised but the population respected the Supreme Court. Could anyone have even thought about the remote possibility of “Al Gore´s Army cornering Bush in his Bunker” of “Gore neglecting the Supreme Court because the electoral commission had pronounced him to be the winner ?” And where in the world would Al Gore have gotten his army from Anyways ? And where did Alessanne Outtara get his army from ?

The capture of Laurent Gbagbo cost the lives of approximately 1.600 young Ivorian soldiers. Young patriots who were willing to defend the President of Ivory Coast from the onslaught of a French-backed post-modern coup d´etat. The capture an arrest of President Laurent Gbagbo was possible only after French special forces violated international law by blasting a hole into the wall which Laurent Gbagbo had erected inside the tunnel that connects the French embassy with the Presidential residence.

The sealed boxes with the ballots from the 2010 elections are kept at the United Nations. So far U.N. Secretary General Ban Kyi-moon has failed to order an independent re-count of the ballots. The fact that the United Nations has so far failed to re-count the ballots to determine the legitimacy of either Laurent Gbagbo´s or Alessanne Outtara´s claim for the Ivorian Presidency, combined with the selective and one-sided prosecution of Laurent Gbagbo at the ICC and of military officers who were loyal to him in 2010 is symptomatic for grave systemic and procedural problems at the United Nations and the International Criminal Court at The Haag. The case against Laurent Gbagbo ought to have been dismissed on the basis of selective prosecution from the very start. His prosecution at the ICC after French involvement in the aggravation of post-election violence in Ivory Coast and the arrest with the aid of French special forces is a blatant example for the abuse of the ICC as an instrument of modo-colonialist control. The most recent selectively prosecuted case is that against General Dogbo Ble in Ivory Coast. Also here western media are de-facto sentencing a political opponent of modo-colonialism before he is even heard in court.(13)

A recent analysis of the systemic and political problems with the ICC, the United Nations, the Rome Statute and the explosion of international law at its very root by Dr. Hans Köchler (14) reads as if it was written to elicit the injustice that is being perpetrated against Laurent Gbagbo and the people of Ivory Coast.

Missed Chances for African and European Economies and the Urgency of Change.

A growing number of African and European leaders are becoming impatient about the paralysis of France. African leaders are impatient because the obvious usurpation of their nations is unbearable for the African economies and their populations. European leaders are mostly impatient because France prevents a European adaptation to the last decades geopolitical changes in Africa and because the crisis of the Euro requires initiative rather than stagnation. Failure to integrate the western African economies into the economic sphere of Europe is bound to have devastating long term consequences for both Africa and Europe.

China has recognized the colossal market potential of a developing African middle class. The French and Trans-Atlantic model of usurpation and subjugation is not only criminal and unethical, it is also uncompetitive.

Recent statements made by the French political heavyweight Jacques Chiraq, who said that France does not have to be a benefactor, it must merely stop usurping Africa, are indicating a potential for change. Chiraq stated that failure to change French-African relations can have catastrophic consequences. 2012 Presidential candidate Jean Luc Mélenon stated that the CFA represents the severe mistake not to tie the western African economies to the economies of the European Union. Mélenon demanded that France abandons its veto right at the Boards of the African Central Banks.

The European Council stated that France is blocking for any project of the European Central Bank that attempts to change the nature or the bearing of the French involvement in the western African Central Banks. The French approach to managing French-African relations is not only bleeding Africa. It is increasingly bleeding both the French and European economies who are missing out on the market potential of an emerging African middle class.

Some political analysts have suggested the establishment of an African-European Peace and Reconciliation Commission that is dealing with the crimes of the past, the building of trust, the review of highly politicized cases at the International Criminal Court, such as the prosecution of Ivoryan President Laurent Gbagbo to ease a transition toward new African-European relations.

The question for this and the coming year is whether France will continue standing at the edge of the cliff and fall while dragging both western Africa and Europe into the abyss together with it, or if it dares to listen to the voices of reason from Africa and its European partners, turn its gaze away from the abyss and see that there is fertile land, right behind it.

“We want to express our recognition and gratitude to Prof. Nicolas Agbohou. The historical context of the article and references about it are inspired by his speech at the Conference on African-French Relations in Paris City Hall, on 09 October 2012. – NSNBC International.”

NB.: If you like this kind of journalism, please sign up for a free subscription for our newspaper at the bottom left of this page and if possible, donate a few coins per month by using the donate button in the right side column. Thank you for informing yourself and for your support.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Turkey’s Constitutional Court Removes Minimun Legal Age Clause: More Child Brides Coming

Published

on

Turkey’s Constitutional Court annulled legislation that prohibits all sexual acts with minors under the age of 15 as sexual abuse. The Court’s ruling caused outrage among rights activists and academics. A study conducted by researchers at Gaziantep University revealed that one in every three marriages in Turkey is child marriage.

The Constitutional Court ruled on the issue after a district court complained that the current law does not discriminate between age groups in cases of child sex abuse. In practice, the law makes no difference regardless whether an adult has sex with a 14-year old or a 4-year old.

The district court noted that the law does not provide legal consequences for the “consent” of victims in cases where the child victim is from 12 to 15 years of age and able to understand the meaning of the sexual act.

The District Court added that: “This creates an imbalance between legal benefits and sanctions that should be preserved in crime and punishment”. In a 7 – 6 decision the judges at the Constitutional Court agreed with the District Court and annulled the provision. The new (old) rules will come into effect on January 13, 2017.

The ruling prompted protests from women’s rights activist, child rights activists as well as from prominent academics who stress that all persons under the age of 18, under international conventions to which Turkey is a party, are children.

Nazan Moroğlu, the coordinator od the Istanbul Women’s Association and lawyer criticized the Constitutional Court for even considering the District Court’s application in the first place. Moroğlu stressed that the ruling will lead to children being vulnerable to sexual abuse and rape and will lead to more female children getting married at an early age without getting an education.

She added that the problem with child brides is already acute in Turkey, noting that there are some 3.5 million of them already and that the ruling guaranteed that their numbers will increase.

Sabit Aktas, the head of the Child Rights Center of the Ankara Bar Association, warned that many children will be affected and suffer due to the Constitutional Court’s decision. Aktas said:

“We can foresee what this decision will bring about. Those jurists who are distant from society in their ivory towers should go to courtrooms to see and hear what those children go through when describing their experiences. They should only make a ruling on this issue after doing that”.

In 2013 the Turkish AKP government under the then Prime Minister R. Tayyip Erdogan adopted the so-called 4+4+4 educational system for Turkey. A large number of Turkish experts in social sciences and education stressed that this new educational law especially encourages young Turkish girls to leave school at a very early age rather than seeking education.

Statistics from 2013 showed that 853 women were murdered in the last four years;  15% of them were killed because they wanted to divorce, 66% were killed by their ex-husbands or boyfriends. 12.5% were killed by their husbands, even though they filed a complaint and were provided with protection by the state. Violence against women in Turkey is more prevalent in the countryside where girls more often are taken out of school at an earlier age and where child marriages are more common.

In October 2013 a study conducted by researchers a Gaziantep University revealed that one in every three marriages in Turkey is a child marriage. The marriage of Turkish child brides to older men has repeatedly led to fatal tragedies. Among the most known cases in 2014 alone, is the death of two so-called child brides.

In January 2014 one 14-year-old teenage girl died from “several” allegedly self-inflicted gunshot wounds in what was declared a suicide. Police investigations suggested that the girl may have been as young as ten or eleven years when she was married away to a significantly older man. In July 2014 the 15-year-old Seter Aslan succumbed to a gunshot wound in what was declared a suicide.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NSNBC INTERNATIONAL.