Why is the Democratic Republic of Congo so strategic?

On the one hand, because of its geographical location in Africa, which is out of the Atlantic Ocean. On the other hand, it is one of the richest countries in the world in mineral resources. These resources are very important for the military and technological industry. Kongo has a lot of coltan, widely used in modern telephones and computers; it is also rich in cobalt, a raw material necessary for the joining of electric cars; one of the most important minerals in the country is uranium, necessary for the military industry. There is also gold and diamonds, among others. It is full of the raw materials needed for the powers of the world, and this is what makes Congo so important.

In the Basque Country, and in general in the western countries, Canada is a peaceful and neutral country, but you have questioned it in Le Canada dans les guerres en Afrique Centrale (in the Central African wars). What is Canada’s role in the imperialist wars in Africa?

If you look above, you think Canada has no imperialist history. But if you look closely at it, you'll understand that this country has been in many wars for years. In addition, it must be clear that Canada is the world’s leading power in the mining industry. 75 per cent of the global mining industry is based on the mining industry, as its government, by its special legislation, attracts the external mining industry. Canada is the main ally of the United States; if the United States cannot intervene in a country, they ask Canada for help. People don't know, because Canada doesn't have an apparent imperial story. It became clear in the Iraq War. Canada did not officially participate in the war, but it did help the United States. Today in Venezuela, the same. In Africa, most mining companies are Canadians and these companies finance the war with the support of the Government of Canada. That is why I say that imperialist history is a country with very little history, because they have done everything in silence and EE.UU. It has been highlighted once again. Canada, on the pretext of helping countries, destabilizes countries in defence of their interests. It doesn't have a large army, because it uses NGOs and international structures to destabilize countries.

He has also done a lot of research on Libya and in particular on Muammar al Kadafi (Objective: In the book Kadafi) It says that Kadafi became an early enemy of the Western powers in the 1970s and 1980s. So why did they kill him in 2011?

Many times they had tried to die before, but it was not easy for them. French, American, Israeli, British -- they tried to kill him. They took a long time to arrive, because Kadafi wasn't stupid.

For many European countries, Kadafi was a friend and ally; for Nicolas Sarkozy and José María Aznar, for example. But from one day to the next he had become a tyrant. Many experts say that it was because it decided to leave the dollar as a reference, in order to create a common currency in Africa, but that is not the case.

It's one of the reasons. The main problem between Kadafi and the West was that they couldn't control it. Sarkozy wanted to sell his arms to him in a $10 billion operation, but he told him no, he was going to negotiate with Russia. And so did the United States. Kadafi wanted to create the united currency of Africa, the Bank of Africa -- everything for Africa. Kadafi's goal was to put the continent on the world map, gain importance in the world, but the Western powers wanted to continue to control Africa. That's why he became his enemy, and that's why he was killed. In 2009, all U.S. companies that were in Libya were attempted to nationalize, so their death was prioritized and the Arab Spring was used for it.

In the Arab Spring, the media said protests were taking place because the citizens were not happy with Kadafi, but the protests were uneven in each country. In Libya and Syria, for example, protesters went from one day to the next to join the Assad Army. Why did this happen?

In Egypt and Tunisia, the demonstrators were civilians, but in Libya and Syria they were armed by NATO and seized. Most of them were Islamists, and as I say in my book, those who were in Libya then went to Syria. They were not civilians demonstrating peacefully in demand for democracy, but people with a paid mission.

Libya is now destroyed. After NATO's military intervention, the country has more than one government, the country is divided equally. How would you describe the situation?

Chaos. The situation is really chaotic. There are currently two “governments”: one in Tripoli and the other in Tobruk, under the command of General Khalifa Haftar, and both struggle with each other to gain control of the country. It is curious, because the regional forces and the Western countries collaborate with both governments. There are more than a hundred militias, more than a hundred! Now Libya is not a country, it is a place where anyone can do whatever they want.

What can you tell us about Khalifa Haftar, head of the Libyan National Army?

Member of the Kadafi Government, he was kidnapped by the Chadis in the conflict between Libya and Chad in the early 1980s. He was then expelled from the army for treason and signed by the United States, becoming an agent of the cia. Before the Arab Spring he lived in Virginia, and when the war began in Libya, the CIA brought him back to him to fight Kadafi. Sometimes, NATO seems to need excuses to make military interventions and, when it does not have them, invents them, for
example, in Iraq or Kuwait. Did the same thing happen in Libya?

In this Arab Spring story, NATO was locked in it. At the time, protesters, Kadafi, who were involved in the protests, said that they were dying and that the police were monitoring them. Today we know it was not true. The British Parliament published a study on this matter in which it admitted that Kadafi did not kill any demonstrator, but it said that this served as an excuse to invade the country and kill the president.

In his speech he said that for years NATO has killed millions of people. Is it exaggerated to say that NATO is a terrorist organisation?

NATO is a criminal and terrorist organisation. War leads it anywhere, to control countries and to local resources. In the case of Libya, they said they wanted to protect civilians, but they did not. In the city of Bengazi, more than 100,000 people were killed in a car bomb attack on the jihadist. It's terrible, it's criminal.

In an article, you say that Africans do not know the truth about Libya and Kadafi because they see every day the U.S. CNN. What is the strategic role of the major Western media in Africa?

The media works for the big powers and are controlled by private interests. The role of the media is, therefore, to guide the thinking of society in saying what citizenship has to think, what it has to protect to get in the head. This is the problem of the media, which control our brains and lie to us every day, also here.Of the top ten countries that see the BBC's English television channel outside the United Kingdom, the United States is the only country in the West, while the rest are
peripheral countries: Nigeria, India, Bangladesh, Iran, Afghanistan --
yes, it is. We have to understand that chains like the BBC or CNN don't reflect the truth. This is what people have to know and understand. Don't believe journalists in the mainstream media. Today some prefer alternative media, because they have no reason or need to lie.

To realize the real role of the United States, he says he has to live there or in Canada. Why?

If you live in the United States or Canada, you'll understand how these people think. Saying ‘Europeans are our allies’ is fashionable, it is politically correct, but in reality they do not think so. For them, Europeans are a tool. Today, we can see this clearer with Donald Trump, which is not politically correct. Europeans don’t understand this, but I think they are now beginning to understand with Trump’s legislature. European countries have the United States as allies, while the United States has Europe as a tool. In NATO, the United States is a leading country and Europe has to pay that money. NATO is an organisation governed by the United States and obeyed by Europe.