The West launched a PR campaign for its leaders in Africa. Michelle Obama, Carla Bruni, Angelina Jolie and their ilk demand the captured Nigerian girls should be released. Where were they when the West was killing Syrian children? Is it all a prelude to deploying American troops in the country that is the richest with hydrocarbons on the African continent?
Two hundred and thirty girls from a boarding school in Chibok, Borno Province, were kidnapped on April 14. Since then, protests take place in the country daily; people demand the government should take a decisive action, although nothing is being done to rescue the girls. However, the hypocrisy of the so-called "international community" in the face of Western divas and first ladies has been slopping over. They vigorously promote President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron. To rescue the girls, they sent their experts to Nigeria, Western media report. The experts will conduct negotiations with Boko Haram group - a well-organized Islamist formation that has been committing mass murder and robbery since 2010 on the money from the CIA.
"Making humanitarian gestures and shedding crocodile tears - this is selective in the West," Vladimir Anokhin, vice president of the Russian Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Ph.D. in political science, told Pravda.Ru. "This is disgusting PR, against the backdrop of aggressive global policy on all continents. It is hard to imagine that Obama saves Syrian children and arms the criminals who constantly cross the border with Syria at the same time. Nigeria is something neutral; as they say, "I'll show my humanity somewhere on the side." where there are my interests, where there is my democracy - this is the psychological basis of it," said the expert.
However, the Americans do not shed tears for no reason. At first, let's take a look at the position of the Nigerian government. In response to criticism for inaction after the kidnapping of the schoolgirls, a spokesperson for Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan told the BBC: "We have to take collateral damage into account, the rebels do not. They can kill soldiers, they can kill civilians, but we can not. People should understand this, we have to act within the rules of the use of force." This seems to be a strange and evasive response to the unprecedented crime.
In Africa, Nigeria is the richest country in terms of proven gas and oil reserves. Among OPEC countries, Nigeria is the seventh largest oil producer - about 1.95 million barrels per day (two percent of total world production). All oil and gas infrastructure in the country is mainly concentrated in the region of the Niger Delta, which is the center of numerous conflicts. Oil companies complain of oil theft. Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, Petrobras - all of them have been selling their assets in Nigeria recently. It is evident that there is an active redistribution of oil and gas market in the country and this reform does not come in favor of Anglo-Saxon companies. It is Nigerian (with Chinese capital) and South African companies that purchase the available assets. Nevertheless, oil supplies from Nigeria continue, and the players insure possible risks of supply disruptions.
Against this background, kidnappings and murder continue to occur. Last week, Nigerian president gave up and accepted the help from the USA and the UK to rescue the girls from Chibok. This caused heated discussions in Nigerian media and blogs. Many people write that the president shows utter helplessness and gives sovereignty to foreigners. The people do not see goodwill in the actions of the U.S. and UK. They see another subtext - to use the rebel movement Boko Haram to achieve their goals through the Africa Command of the Armed Forces of the United States (AFRICOM), against which the predecessor of the sitting president was fighting.
The countries that respect themselves should be able to defend themselves as well, The Vanguard newspaper wrote. Nigeria has one of the most powerful armies on the continent. When a much more dangerous movement (Maitasine) attacked Nigeria in 1980, "President Shagari did not invite Americans to get rid of the armed rebels from Chad, he simply mobilized three divisions and drove the militants back to Chad."
The true interests of the United States in Nigeria were exposed in an article of Global Research titled "Humanitarian Intervention" in Nigeria: Is the Boko Haram insurgency another CIA covert operation?" The article is based on materials from Wikileaks. The bottom line of the story is that the United States, through its embassy in Nigeria, conducts subversive activities against the government through financial espionage on leading Nigerian officials, supporting and funding subversive groups and insurgents, sponsoring opposition and mass anti-government propaganda to force senior Nigerian officials to act in favor of U.S. interests.The ultimate goal is to eliminate Nigeria as a potential strategic rival of the U.S. on the African continent and dismember the country by 2015 on the scenario of Sudan to seize Nigeria's natural resources. The author recalls that Nigeria had dared to act independently in several African conflicts before. In particular, the country sent its peacekeeping contingent to Liberia without coordinating it with the UN.
The article also analyzes the special role of AFRICOM, which aims to capture the key strategic areas in Africa and put them under the control of the United States to block China's access to vital energy facilities and mineral reserves. To do this, the author writes, one should weaken the strong African countries through internal contradictions and make them feel so vulnerable they need to inevitably seek protection from the United States or ask for international intervention. The author predicts Nigeria will split into two parts in 2015 as it happened to Sudan.
"I think that this struggle (for the redistribution of oil and gas markets) will be happening not only in Nigeria in particular, but on the continent as a whole. The Americans established the African command a few years ago, because Africa is the continent of the conflict of interests, primarily of China, India and the United States, so everything is still ahead," Pavel Zolotarev, Deputy Director of the Institute of USA and Canada told Pravda.Ru.
NATO has abandoned positive agenda in relations with Russia. It does not exist. So far there are no indications of NATO's knowledge of a way to get out of this impasse