Press "Enter" to skip to content

Are Cynthia McKinney and Jello Biafra, so-called ‘leading lights of the US Green Party,’ lending support to Middle Eastern tyranny?

The following is an excerpt from an interesting post on New Jewish Resistance, via a complementary post on California Greening, which calls for the Greens not to nominate anyone in 2012 who “align with the likes of Ahmadinejad, Qadaffi or Asad.”

Two leading lights of the US Green Party, Jello Biafra and Cynthia McKinney, have betrayed the party’s platform and values by loaning support to Israel and Qaddafi, respectively. If the Green Party wishes to maintain any legitimacy, it must quickly repudiate them…

Yet, somehow, Jello has seen fit to buck the boycott of Israel by playing a gig in Tel Aviv  on July 2. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)  has issued a statement to the lapsed punk pioneer, “Appeal to Jello Biafra: Do not cross our picket line.” But Jello apparently intends to do so, condescendingly offering to “debate” the issue with his critics. In an open letter of his own to the critics, he wrote that “both the Israeli Left and the Palestinian Left are divided right down the middle as to whether this kind of a boycott is a good idea at all.” As if we should give equal weight to the “left” wing of an occupied people and an occupying power.

Equally problematic is Cynthia McKinney, who was the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2008. Embarrassingly, since the NATO bombing campaign she has been openly shilling for blood-drenched dictator Moammar Qaddafi. Last month, McKinney spoke on Libyan state TV—in what appeared to be a live interview in Tripoli—to blast the NATO bombing, saying the “last thing we need to do is spend money on death, destruction and war.” Such pacifistic sentiments might have some legitimacy—if McKinney were not speaking over a propaganda organ of the Qaddafi regime, or if she at least offered some recognition that Qaddafi is also guilty of perpetrating “death, destruction and war…”

The Green Party must forthrightly repudiate Jello Biafra and Cynthia McKinney until they halt their depraved conniving with oppressive regimes.

The rest of the post is certainly worth reading, with links to things like an open letter from a group of Palestinians to McKinney asking her to stop supporting Qadaffi and McKinney’s own commentary linked on the front page of the Green Party’s website.


  1. Alex Kack Alex Kack July 24, 2011

    As a registered GreRren I can say that I would never vote for McKinney shes a crackpot and a shinning example of whats wrong with the party. If she gets the nod again Ill probably vote for R lee wrights.

  2. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN July 21, 2011

    How about this one?

    I say it all the frigging time

    The Second Amendment is NOT for hunters rights
    It is to protect the First. Which is under attack.

    Or how about this one?

    I may lean to the left but my rifle shoots plenty straight.

  3. paulie paulie July 20, 2011

    Interesting to see a liberal opposed to gun control.

    That’s what I was before I became a libertarian.

  4. Shii Shii July 20, 2011

    Interesting to see a liberal opposed to gun control.

  5. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN July 19, 2011


    FACTS are hard for right wing nut jobs to deal with.

    Colonel Qaddafi has been handing out millions of military weapons to the people of Libya. Brutal dictators do not do that.

  6. Dennis "DJ" MIkolay Dennis "DJ" MIkolay July 19, 2011

    McKinney cuddles with terrorists domestically (New Black Panthers) so why not snuzzle with them abroad as well.

  7. Barack HUSSEIN O’bama is the real supporter of Middle Eastern tyranny and terrorism because he loves himself some good old-fashioned Zionism, mhm mhm good!

  8. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN July 19, 2011

    Wayne Root is a nutjob.

    Cynthia McKinney is solid. Except to extreme right wing nut jobs.

  9. Jimmy Clifton Jimmy Clifton July 18, 2011

    Cynthia McKinney is about as believable as Byron de la Beckwith was. A nut job is a nut job whether on the far left or the far right.

  10. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN July 18, 2011

    I talked to Cynthia McKinney last week when she was in Minnesota.

    It is so much simpler to listen to what the media says about the Libya conflict than find out the actual facts. After all, the corporate media lied us into a war with Iraq and Afghanistan. WMD’s and incubators being stolen from babies babies, remember?

    According to Cynthia (who was actually there) the situation is a great deal more complex.

    Did you all know that Qaddafi was handing out MILLIONS of weapons to the general population in Libya?

    Brutal dictators do not do that.

  11. Michael Cavlan RN Michael Cavlan RN July 18, 2011

    Another take on Libya hubris for China
    By Peter Lee

    Western self-regard was on full display in a United States headline describing the Libya Contact Group confab in Istanbul over the weekend. It read: World leaders open Libya talks in Turkey. [1]

    Well, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was there. Much-diminished leaders of 19th-century world powers Britain and France – and first millennium world power Italy – were there, too.

    But attendance from the BRICS countries was patchy: Nobody was there from Russia, which boycotted the talks. China declined to send a representative. Brazil and India only sent observers, which meant they had no vote in the proceedings. South Africa didn’t attend, and blasted the outcome of the meeting. [2]

    It is an indication of the altogether ghastly reporting on Libya that
    there has been little effort to determine the Libya Contact Group’s constituting authority, its decision-making processes, or even its membership, let alone the legitimacy of its pretensions to set international policy on Libya.

    The LCG was formed in London on March 29 under the auspices of the United Kingdom, at a conference attended by 40 foreign ministers and a smattering of international organizations. Its declared mission was be to “support and be a focal point of contact with the Libyan people, coordinate international policy and be a forum for discussion of humanitarian and post-conflict support”. [3]

    Since then, the group has met three times and its attendance seems to have stabilized around a core of 20 or 30 countries, mostly drawn from members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), conservative oil-rich states in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and GCC cadets Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco. Dutiful ally Japan has also tagged along.

    The unambiguous American template for Libya – and the LCG – is Kosovo, another humanitarian bombing campaign cum regime change exercise conducted by NATO in disregard of the United Nations.

    United States Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg invoked the Kosovo precedent – and a prolonged diplomatic and sanctions campaign that grew out of a “humanitarian military action” – in testimony before the US Congress on Libya:

    Our approach is one that has succeeded before. In Kosovo, we built an international coalition around a narrow civilian protection mission. Even after Milosevic withdrew his forces and the bombing stopped, the political and economic pressure continued. Within two years, Milosevic was thrown out of office and turned over to The Hague. [4]

    NATO decision-making is a rather fraught exercise in consensus-building, especially when it involves political as well as military issues. NATO’s military command draws its legitimacy in Libya from UN resolution 1973 (the infamous no-fly + protect civilians undertaking), which it obviously interprets as it sees fit. Political undertakings like the LCG appear to be adjuncts to the military operation, a state of affairs that has not served NATO particularly well in Afghanistan.

    NATO’s political policy on Libya is in the hands of the “North Atlantic Council” or NAC; for obvious reasons this crusaderish piece of nomenclature is not often invoked in the Libyan situation.

    A 2003 paper by the Congressional Research Service described the decision-making process and applied it to the Barack Obama administration’s explicit template for bombing people into freedom, the Kosovo air war:

    The NAC achieves consensus through a process in which no government states its objection. A formal vote in which governments state their position is not taken. During the Kosovo conflict, for example, it was clear to all governments that Greece was immensely uncomfortable with a decision to go to war. NATO does not require a government to vote in favor of a conflict, but rather to object explicitly if it opposes such a decision. Athens chose not to object, knowing its allies wished to take military action against Serbia. In contrast to NATO, the EU seeks unanimity on key issues. [5]

    In other words, the dominant powers decide the policy; then it is up to the other guys to decide if they wish to undermine NATO’s unity, credibility and image by obstructing the mission.

    Inside NATO, it appears that most countries choose to opt out in order to affirm their diplomatic, doctrinal or political concerns, but not raise a formal, explicit objection.

    For instance, when NATO took over the Libya mission, a US State Department official noted:

    With respect to the Germans, Germans have made from the very beginning a very clear – a clear statement that they would not participate militarily with their own troops in any operation. But they’ve also made clear that they would not block any activity by NATO to move forward. [6]

    Long story short: it’s likely that NATO countries vote as a bloc when it comes to LCG matters.

    GCC decision-making is even more opaque, but it is not unreasonable to assume that the smaller states are voting in a bloc with lead member Saudi Arabia on the Libya issue.

    In other words, NATO and the GCC get their ducks in a row before the LCG meetings, which appear to be political window-dressing to convince Western opinion, at least, that a legitimate international process – well, maybe not quite as legitimate as UN debate – is going on.

    China and Russia recognize the LCG as an effort by the proponents of military intervention in Libya to take the political bit in their teeth as well, in order to keep any further Libya discussions out of the UN Security Council where China and Russia – which were spectacularly burned by Resolution 1973 – would undoubtedly wield their veto power to the fullest to sidetrack the NATO/GCC-led campaign.

    China has been relatively circumspect in its criticisms of the LCG, politely declining Turkey’s invitation to join the Istanbul meeting – and thereby adding a further veneer of political legitimacy to the exercise – with the statement that it would skip the meeting “because the function and method of operation of this contact group need further study”. [7]

    The Russians have been much more blunt. In May, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared that it was the LCG, and not Muammar Gaddafi, that had a legitimacy problem:

    “The contact group is a self-appointed organizational structure that somehow made itself responsible for how the (UN) resolution is carried out,” Mr Lavrov said …

    “From the point of view of international law this group has no legitimacy.” [8]

    In rejecting the Turkish invitation to join the meeting in Istanbul, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its objections:

    [W]e were called upon many times to join this Group by our other partners through various channels … At the same time, the Russian approach to this issue has not changed. We are not a member of the Group and do not participate in its work. This applies to the upcoming meeting in Istanbul as well. [9]

    In the most unflattering construction, therefore, the LCG is not a united effort by “the leaders of the world”; it is an effort to circumvent the UN Security Council, largely coordinated by Atlantic ex-colonial powers and anxious Arab autocrats who are most deeply committed to the bombing campaign against Gaddafi.

    That effort is not going particularly well. NATO has strayed well beyond its “protect civilians” UN mandate – or, at the very least, creatively interpreted the mandate so as to render its intent and limitations meaningless – to conduct air operations against Gaddafi’s forces for the past four months.

    Nevertheless, the Libyan rebels have been unable to drive Gaddafi from power and thereby demonstrate the potency of Western arms and self-righteous bluster, even when exercised at safe distance and through enthusiastic proxies against an isolated Third World potentate.

    At Counterpunch, Alexander Coburn excoriated the rebels, the media and Western delusions that this would be a quick and politically advantageous war: He wrote:

    In a hilarious inside account of the NATO debacle, Vincent Jauvert of Le Nouvel Observateur has recently disclosed that French intelligence services assured [President Nicolas] Sarkozy and foreign minister [Alain] Juppe “from the first [air] strike, thousands of soldiers would defect from Gaddafi”. They also predicted that the rebels would move quickly to Sirte, the hometown of the Qaddafi and force him to flee the country. This was triumphantly and erroneously trumpeted by the NATO powers which even proclaimed that he had flown to Venezuela. By all means opt for the Big Lie as a propaganda ploy, but not if it is inevitably going to be discredited 24 hours later.

    “We underestimated al-Gaddafi,” one French officer told Jauvert. “He was preparing for forty-one years for an invasion. We did not imagine he would adapt as quickly. No one expects, for example, to transport its troops and missile batteries, Gaddafi will go out and buy hundreds of Toyota pick-up in Niger and Mali. It is a stroke of genius: the trucks are identical to those used by the rebels. NATO is paralyzed. It delays its strikes. Before bombing the vehicles, drivers need to be sure they are whose forces are Gaddafi’s. ‘We asked the rebels to a particular signal on the roof of their pickup truck, said a soldier, but we were never sure. They are so disorganized …’ ” [10]

    In fact, it appears that an important purpose of the Istanbul meeting was to jumpstart the ineffectual efforts by the Libyan rebels and, in particular, deal with calls by Turkey and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) for a ceasefire during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (approximately August 1 to August 29 this year).

    Ramadan is traditionally a time of fasting and peaceful reflection. In Libya, it would also undoubtedly be an opportunity for Gaddafi to regroup his forces and engage with the myriad interlocutors and negotiators – in addition to African Union, France and Italy were also reportedly meeting with Gaddafi’s representatives – who were trying to end the embarrassing mess.

    Both Turkey and the OIC – as well as otherwise disengaged Islamic power Indonesia – have warned NATO that continuing the bombing campaign during Ramadan would be a dangerous political miscue.

    Therefore, to guard against the dread prospect of peace breaking out in unwelcome ways post Ramadan – and Gaddafi remaining in Tripoli without having received the necessary chastisement by the righteous democratic powers – the LCG made two important decisions:

    First, it recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) headquartered in Benghazi as the legitimate government of Libya, declared that Gaddafi’s regime had lost its legitimacy, thereby pre-emptively taking Gaddafi’s political survival off the table.

    This was despite the fact that the TNC probably controls less than half of Libya’s sparse population and vast territory while Gaddafi is still in firm control of the western half of the country, most of the population, and the capital.

    Foreign Policy’s Joshua Keating noted that, before Libya, only twice has the United States declined to acknowledge the legitimacy of a nation’s ruling power.

    First, in 1913, president Woodrow Wilson, who objected to the unsavory (and suspected anti-US business) tendencies of Mexico’s strongman of the moment, Vicotriano Huerta, and refused to recognize his government until it collapsed, courtesy of Pancho Villa and the US occupation of Veracruz.

    The second was China; the United States quixotically not only refused to recognize the communist conquest of the mainland for 50 years; it also countenanced Chiang Kai-shek’s pretensions to rule all of China, even as he exercised sway over only the formerly marginal province of Taiwan. [11]

    The recognition of the TNC supposedly served the purpose of unlocking the frozen-asset goodie room for the Benghazi forces, which were officially blessed as freedom-loving, not riddled with al-Qaeda sympathizers, and committed to the honoring of previous foreign contracts in Libya, thereby reducing the cash-strapped Western forces’ financial exposure to the Libyan imbroglio in general and the TNC in particular.

    It is a rather amusing sidelight to the conflict that the Western powers, laboring through recessions, cutbacks in government services, and overall political disgruntlement, have taken certain steps to minimize the stated cost of the Libya intervention.

    Brad Sherman, a US Congressman from California – and an accountant – pointed out that the US has decided to count only marginal expenditures as costs of the Libyan conflict: that means direct costs such as munitions and fuel consumed and combat pay disbursed, giving a misleading idea of how much it costs to pound even a third-rate power into submission.

  12. Roger Roger July 18, 2011

    Jello Biafra actually called off his concert.

    “I am going to Israel and Palestine to check things out myself and may yet conclude that playing for people in the belly of the beast was the right thing to do in the first place,” he wrote. “The toll and stress on the band members and myself has been huge, both logistically and as a matter of conscience. I can’t drag anyone any further into rough waters without being better prepared than some of us thought we were.”

    As for McKinney, a number of Greens involved in GP-US have expressed concern about her support of Qaddafi and the appearance of GP support of him. While condemning the NATO actions, the GP should not even give the appearance of supporting a brutal dictator.

  13. Ross Levin Ross Levin Post author | July 17, 2011

    The author takes a critical stance toward Israel – he’s complaining that Jello Biafra didn’t participate in a boycott that the Green Party (and others) endorsed.

Comments are closed.