Breaking News

‘Quarantine’ politics to win Covid-19 fight — WHO

WORLD Health Organisation (WHO) director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and African Union (AU) Chairperson ...

Get breaking news alerts.
Don't miss a thing.

Ebola, psy-ops and militarisation of Africa

29 Sep, 2014 - 00:09 0 Views
Ebola, psy-ops and militarisation of Africa

The Herald

The Obama has pledged to help Africa  with $1,26 billion to fight Ebola. However, this is also seen as a ploy for America to militarise Africa as it will send mostly armed forces members

The Obama has pledged to help Africa with $1,26 billion to fight Ebola. However, this is also seen as a ploy for America to militarise Africa as it will send mostly armed forces members

Narcisse Jean Alcide Nana and Jon Rappoport
The international system has long become inured to the relentless hiccup of African insecurity malaise. Major clichés and few strong allegories conjure up the spasms of this ongoing malaise to the point of oversimplifying the field of African security. A cascade of crises encapsulated by patterns of socio-political ‘fragility’, ‘failure’, and ‘vulnerabilities’ has been plying the continent’s security environment with regards to the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the Ebola outbreak in West and Central Africa, as well as the hydra of terrorism and bout of violent conflicts.

To be sure, the continent as a surrogate ideological battle ground between Western democracies and a soviet-centric security dilemma has been put to rest.
Noticeably today, a post 9-11 terror-centric security messianism has been perking up on Washington’s foreign policy chariot wheels in Africa. This security messianism is characterised by an insulated minimalist engagement riding on a missionary rhetorical commitment to African security.

Not surprisingly, the continent is broadly painted under a missionary diplomatic utopia that promises to terminate the ills of Africa.
Putting aside some headier geopolitical matters, President Bush in July 2005, with an evangelical tone, made the confession that the U.S. ‘seek(s) progress in Africa because conscience demands it.’ Binding tightly moral imperatives with security concerns, Bush exited the White House cementing his signature legacy as the AIDS president.

He left behind a strong savoury trademark of his long-standing gig to defeating the tides of malaria and AIDS on the continent. By the time he left the world stage, President Bush had increased aid to the continent by more than 640 percent. In humanitarian aid, the continent was the beneficiary of more than $5 billion a year. The $46 billion President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was instrumental for at least 2 million people who received anti-retroviral drugs.

To be sure, the fine apostles of HIV/AIDS policy work have been battling out support for access to drugs and treatment for AIDS patients. As a result of this global battle, expensive treatment and drugs for AIDS had garnered public resources and attention as well. Ironically, expensive drugs and treatment have been raining down on environments without proper hospitals, qualified medical doctors, and poorly equipped clinics.

While anti-retroviral drugs are available to patients, the resources to training health workers and building schools of medicine have been drying up. Tellingly, American Ebola victims from the West and Central have to be flown home to Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta for treatment. Though the much-hyped PEPFAR project christened President Bush as the healer-inchief on African shores, the everlasting romance between militarised health foreign policy and security is hard to disconnect. As a shining jewel on President Bush’s chest, PEPFAR stands out as a corporate bonanza for US pharmaceutical corporations to harvest safe vouchers from financial manna.

Oil corporations such as Mobil Oil and Chevron own a share of some HIV-medicine patents and medication. Not only had US foreign policy aid to HIV made vast profit for US firms, but it softly tied up HIV/AIDS’ industrial headquarters to oil corporations and the creation of the unified command for Africa to oversee security and conduct military operations as necessary.

Of course, the hotly touted Obama’s West African foreign policy pledged a major US military-led surge to stop the Ebola virus as a global health and national security threat. Far from throwing a monkey wrench on military expansion, such a foreign policy vision has not divorced from a militarised version of epidemic diseases.

On September 16, 2014, President Obama made public his decision to establish a joint military command headquarters in Liberia by quickly dispatching 3,000 US troops to Monrovia and Senegal. The Ebola outbreak crafted its own response to the military footprint on the continent.

The Obama administration pledged $1.26 billion to fighting against Ebola that has already claimed more than 2,800 lives in West Africa. The crisis has spurred the opportunity to hew a close look at some nichified source of security fixes in order to reinforce the post-9-11 security quandaries.

President Obama’s quick policy stand is not unprecedented. The root of the militarisation of Washington foreign policy goes back to 1947 with the Cold War.
The National Security Act of 1947 amends the US armed forces as intrinsically embedded with national security policy in peacetime. To be sure, demilitarising epidemic diseases in West Africa will divert resources to building roads that lead to good hospitals and schools of medicine to train public health personnel for the continent.

Myth of heroic doctor
Every psy-op (psychological operation) needs heroes as well as villains.
So-called epidemics are managed out of a playbook.
The playbook looks very much like something the CIA would come up with.
I’m going to give you my raw notes. They tell the story.
One: Here’s how the medical matrix is built: “Heroes come to the rescue.” Doctors set up clinics in the middle of epidemics and save lives. They work miracles.
Two: These heroes expose the need for more clinics, more healthcare centres, more hospitals. “The grand solution.”
Three: Globally, there is great disparity in medical care for the rich and the poor. This disparity must be overcome. This is the great mission.
Four: These are all lies.
Five: And many doctors, medical bureaucrats, pharma executives, researchers, and NGO organisations know these are lies.
Six: No bacteria/virus-epidemic will ever be solved by medical intervention, because those epidemics aren’t caused by germs. They’re caused by weakened and destroyed immune systems, which can’t fight off the germs.

Seven: Not long after one epidemic runs its course, a new one begins in the same territory.
Eight: It’s all about the terrain, in which debilitated immune systems are a chronic condition.
Nine: Any old germ which sweeps through such an area kills large numbers of people.
Ten: Widespread immune-system failure is caused by non-medical factors, and can only be fixed by eliminating those factors.
Eleven: The true immuno-suppressive factors include: severe malnutrition; starvation; war; contaminated water; basic lack of sanitation; overcrowding; fertile growing-land stolen from the people; industrial pollutants and pesticides; toxic medical drugs and vaccines which push already compromised immune systems over the edge into complete failure.
Twelve: The image of the heroic doctor is actually promoted as a diversion, a cover story, a false trail, a way to conceal the true causes of illness—and a way to refrain from eradicating these true causes.

Thirteen: A debilitated and destroyed population doesn’t have the ability to resist corporate takeover of their countries’ land and resources.
Fourteen: If the kill rate isn’t high enough to suit the depopulationists, they can introduce more toxic vaccines. They can insert more toxic elements into those vaccines. They can administer more toxic medicines and spread around more pesticides. They can start a new war.
So they pick a symbol — a heroic doctor, a politician, a medical organisation — and they say: “That is goodness. My ‘role models’ are good. I’m good. And isn’t what’s happening so very, very tragic.

We must help. We must remedy ‘the inequality in healthcare’”.
How many dupes can dance on the head of a pin? Apparently, there is no limit. — Pambazuka

Share This:

Sponsored Links