R
Raymond
Guest
On Feb 16, 1:31 pm, Christian Williamson <c.wi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Leftists have completely ignored Bush's efforts in assisting African
> nations. The "compassionate" of "compassionate conservatism" gets no
> credit from these Bush-haters.
-------------------
George: "Show us on the map Africa."
"No George. That is Greenland. You don't know where Africa is , do you
George ? No, George. That is China."
U.S.political imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region,
like it is in any place in the world where corporate American can
exploit the resources and the cheap labor. Let's not bullshit each
other. G-d Bless the American/Jewish Empire. Onward Christian Soldiers
Marching Off To War.....Shalom aleikhem;.We are All Jews Now
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Jones_Palestine.htm
Ignore Africa at Your Peril George. If you do, Condi Rice will not
allow you and Cheney to rub her head for luck. Besides, the dunce's
trip is a diversion from the Iraq debacle
GEORGE W. BUSH RUBS MAN'S HEAD FOR "LUCK" IN DISPLAY OF APPARENT
RACIST IGNORANCE
C O U N T E R B I A S . C O M E X C L U S I V E
http://www.counterbias.com/news001.html
George W. Bush recently displayed a glimpse of his dark side as he
partook in a public display of racial insensitivity.
Before speaking to a March 3rd Los Angeles audience at the White
House
Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Mr Bush was
introduced by an African-American male, whose head Mr Bush proceeded
to rub while grinning and smirking.
The man, identified as Alphonso Jackson, acting Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, appeared somewhat
bewildered while still preserving an appearance of happiness to
welcome Mr. Bush.
As an individual identified as Cory wrote in letter published online,
rubbing an African American's head for luck was at one time thought
of
as a "joke amongst those who didn't generally say "black person" when
referring to one". He noted that the racist practice "may well have
faded into obscurity", but would've been "a good way to lose a hand"
in more multi-racial neighborhoods in the late seventies and early
eighties.
Mr. Bush has long been thought of by many as a stereotypical elitist
with a notably racist, anti-black attitude, but this latest
misadventure lends credence to such an assumption.
If the intent was not a racist one, the event did make Mr. Bush
appear
somewhat condescending, as well as disrespectful of a high-ranking
government official.
...Investigating Further...
(Note: the above photo has not been edited in any way. See the AP
story w/ similar photo.)
Ignore Africa at Your Peril, Think Tank Warns Bush
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Africa's strategic importance to the United States --
both with respect to Washington's "war on terrorism" and the growing
competition with China for access to energy supplies and other raw
materials -- should be given more attention by policy-makers and the
public, according to a major new report released here this week by the
influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Recent assistance and humanitarian initiatives will likely suffer
without a more comprehensive elaboration of U.S. interests in Africa,
both to Congress and the public
Report: "More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic US Approach Toward
Africa"
The 139-page report, which charges the administration of U.S.
President George W. Bush with lacking a comprehensive, long-term
strategy for dealing with the region, calls on Washington to upgrade
its diplomatic and intelligence capabilities in the region by
appointing an ambassador to the African Union (AU) and opening more
missions in key African cities, particularly in energy-producing
countries.
It also calls for greater high-level attention to resolving conflicts
in the region, particularly those, such as in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC), that threaten the stability of whole sub-regions
or involve large-scale atrocities.
On Darfur, the report urges Washington to work with the AU in gaining
U.N. authorization to deploy a larger force of African and non-African
soldiers to join the nearly 7,000 AU troops already there to protect
nearly two million displaced civilians and take military action,
including a no-fly zone, to counter any threat against them.
However, the report argues that a strictly humanitarian approach to
Africa -- as symbolized by last June's global "Live 8" concerts to
pressure the Group of Eight (G-8) summit to double aid to Africa -- is
not sufficient to maintain the kind of commitment to the continent
that is consistent with its more hard-headed interests.
"Recent assistance and humanitarian initiatives will likely suffer
without a more comprehensive elaboration of U.S. interests in Africa,
both to Congress and the public," according to the report, titled
"More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach toward Africa".
"The United States must recognize and act on its rising national
interests on the continent through a far higher mobilization of
leadership and focused resources that target Africa's new realities,"
said the report, the product of a bipartisan task force headed by
Anthony Lake, Pres. Bill Clinton's first national security adviser,
and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who headed the
Environmental Protection Agency during Bush's first two years as
president.
The report drew sharp criticism from a former CFR director for Africa
studies, Salih Booker, who now heads a grassroots lobby group, Africa
Action. He objected in particular to its dichotomy between
"humanitarian" interests, such as debt relief and anti-AIDS efforts,
and economic and political imperatives, like Africa's oil reserves and
Washington's pursuit of allies in the "war on terror".
"They think they need to take this approach because the establishment
is presumed to believe that we don't have any interests in Africa
other than humanitarian interests," he said.
"This approach establishes a hierarchy of U.S. national interests
where the top priorities are fighting terrorism and securing access to
oil, and African people's human rights are near the bottom," he said.
"This is how Africa was viewed during the Cold War, and it's likely to
have similar negative consequences."
Indeed, in presenting U.S. interests, the report lists Africa's status
as an increasingly important source of oil and gas; growing
competition with China; and the war on terrorism; the HIV/AIDS
pandemic; conflict resolution and peacekeeping; democracy and human
rights; and long-term economic development in that order.
The report commends the administration for launching two major Africa-
related aid programmes -- the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and
the five-year, 15-billion-dollar President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) -- as well as Bush's commitment earlier this year to
double U.S. aid to Africa by 2010 and his offer to eliminate all
tariff and subsidy barriers in agricultural trade if the European
Union (EU) agrees to do the same.
Altogether, U.S. aid to Africa has increased five-fold over the past
decade, according to the report, which argued that the public
constituency for Africa has broadened from traditional humanitarian
groups and the African-American community to include evangelical
Christians, the public-health community, and "U.S. military commands
in Europe and the Middle East" focused on the "war on terrorism."
At the same time, however, there have been disappointments. Congress,
for example, has fallen far short of Bush's requests to fund the MCA,
and the administration's reluctance to support the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria has discouraged other donors from
contributing more to that agency.
In addition, almost all increases in U.S. aid to Africa in recent
years have been devoted to emergency assistance, as opposed to long-
term programs, such as infrastructure and rural development, that
"could lift Africa out of poverty."
Moreover, Africa too often gets the short end of the stick when it
comes to key development and democracy-building programs, particularly
when it is competition for regions that are considered more strategic,
currently the Middle East, South Asia, and the Gulf regions.
It is in this context, the report argues, that policymakers should
offer a more comprehensive elaboration of U.S. interests in Africa.
In particular, Africa's growing importance as an energy producer needs
to be given greater prominence. West African producers currently
provide about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, but that is expected to
rise to 25 percent by 2015.
At the same time, however, Washington faces much greater competition
for those energy resources, as well as other raw materials,
particularly from China, which, according to the task force, "does not
share U.S. concern for issues of governance, human rights, or economic
policy".
In fact, the Bush administration has begun to engage China on its
policies in Africa, according to Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs Jendaye Frazier, who just returned from two days of
"very productive and quite constructive" talks with her counterparts
in Beijing late last week. "I don't agree with the report that China's
interests are in direct competition with the U.S.," she said Monday.
On the war on terrorism, the report complained that Africa "does not
receive sufficient political attention to the threat nor sufficient
funding to combat it," despite the large and growing Pentagon and
intelligence counter-intelligence initiatives for the Horn and the
Trans-Sahelian regions. The report calls for the State Department to
exert more oversight over those initiatives to ensure that they do not
provide "collusion or unintended support for repressive regimes," such
as the military junta that seized power in Mauritania earlier this
year.
Copyright (c) IPS-Inter Press Service
According to Vice President Cheney, Bush thought Africa was in Alabama
and Washington DC, until someone told him that all black people were
not in Alabama.and in DC. Also, Cheney explained that there was oil in
Darfur and decided to send his understudy [Bush] to Africa in order to
secure the oil fields for Halliburton.
Nelson Mandella said, "The Bush Administration ignores Africa's
priorities of peace," However. Mandella did not know that peace is not
in the interest of the Bush/Cheney Family . They are Warriors for Oil
---- their interest is in oil and a new developement in the highly
profitable African slave trade.
War of the Future: Oil Drives the Genocide in Darfur The U.S. Role in
Darfur, Sudan. Oil reserves rivals those of Saudi Arabia..The U.S. is
likely to ignore Africa's priorities, placing military base rights
above human rights.
The war against AIDS, by far the most important global war effort and
an urgent priority especially for Africa, will continue to suffer from
a lack of resources. An American war on Iraq would also have a major
negative impact on the global economy with dire consequences for
African development.....At the end of January, President Bush .a long
time drug user, surprised many (?) by accepting, for the first time,
the need to supply antiretroviral drugs and by promising additional
resources for Africa to fight AIDS. But if the U.S. fails to at least
triple its spending on AIDS this year, the gesture will be seen in
retrospect as simply a public relations adjunct to the push for war on
Iraq. Early signs were not encouraging.... the oil is more
important.and most Americans don't care about African Aids anyhow, but
do care about the oil to operate their SUVs.
by Sara Flounders
What is fueling the campaign now sweeping the U.S. to "Stop Genocide
in Darfur"? Campus organizations have suddenly and foolishly begun
organizing petitions, meetings and calls for divestment. A
demonstration was held April 30 on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to
"Save Darfur."
"Save Appalachia" would be a more rewarding effort
Again and again it is said that "something" must be done.
"Humanitarian forces" and "U.S. peacekeepers" must be deployed
immediately to stop "ethnic cleansing." UN troops or NATO forces must
be used to stop "genocide." The U.S. government has a "moral
responsibility to prevent another Holocaust."
Outrage is provoked by media stories of mass rapes and photos of
desperate refugees. The charge is that tens of thousands of African
people are being killed by Arab militias backed by the Sudanese
government. Sudan is labeled as both a "terrorist state" and a "failed
state." Even at anti-war rallies, signs have been distributed
proclaiming "Out of Iraq--Into Darfur." Full-page ads in the New York
Times have repeated the call.
Who is behind the campaign and what actions are they calling for?
Even a cursory look at the supporters of the campaign shows the
prominent role of right-wing evangelical Christians and major Zionist
groups to "Save Darfur."
A Jerusalem Post article of April 27 headlined "U.S. Jews Leading
Darfur Rally Planning" described the role of prominent Zionist
organizations in organizing the April 30 rally. A full-page ad for the
rally in the New York Times was signed by a number of Jewish
organizations, including the UJA--Federation of NY and the Jewish
Council for Public Affairs.
But it wasn't just Zionist groups that called it. The rally was
sponsored by a coalition of 164 organizations that included the
National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Alliance
and other religious groups that have been the strongest supporters of
the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. The Kansas-based
evangelical group Sudan Sunrise helped arrange buses and speakers, did
extensive fund raising and co-hosted a 600-person dinner.
This was hardly an anti-war or social justice rally. The organizers
had a personal meeting with President George W. Bush just before the
rally. He told them: "I welcome your participation. And I want to
thank the organizers for being here."
Originally the demonstration was projected to draw a turnout of more
than 100,000. Media coverage generously reported "several thousands,"
ranging from 5,000 to 7,000. The rally was overwhelming white. Despite
sparse numbers, it got wide media coverage, focusing on celebrity
speakers like Academy Award winner George Clooney. Top Democrats and
Republicans gave it their blessing, including U.S. Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.), House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer and New Jersey
Gov. Jon Corzine. Corzine, by the way, spent $62 million of his own
money to get elected.
The corporate media gave this rally more prominence than either the
anti-war rally of 300,000 in New York City on the day before or the
millionfold demonstrations across the country for immigrant rights on
the day after.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former Secretary of State Gen.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. Wesley Clark
and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have all argued in favor of
intervention in Sudan.
These leading architects of imperialist policy often refer to another
model when they call for this intervention: the successful
"humanitarian" war on Yugoslavia that established a U.S./NATO
administration over Kosovo after a massive bombing campaign.
The Holocaust Museum in Washington issued a "genocide alert"--the first
such alert ever issued--and 35 evangelical Christian leaders signed a
letter urging President Bush to send U.S. troops to stop genocide in
Darfur. A special national curriculum for students was established to
generate grassroots support for U.S. intervention.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) have embraced the campaign. Liberal
voices such as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Rabbi Michael Lerner of
TIKKUN and Human Rights Watch have also pushed the campaign to "Save
Darfur."
Diversion from Iraq debacle
The criminal invasion and massive bombing of Iraq, the destruction of
its infrastructure that left the people without water or basic
electricity, and the horrible photos of the U.S. military's use of
torture at Abu Ghraib prison created a world outcry. At its height, in
September 2004, then Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell went to
Sudan and announced to the world that the crime of the century--"a
genocide"--was taking place there. The U.S. solution was to demand the
United Nations impose sanctions on one of the poorest countries on
earth and that U.S. troops be sent there as "peacekeepers."
But the rest of the UN Security Council was unwilling to accept this
view, the U.S. "evidence" or the proposed action.
The campaign against Sudan increased even as evidence was being
brought forward that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a total
lie. The same media that had given credibility to the U.S.
government's claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because that
country had "weapons of mass destruction" switched gears to report on
"war crimes" by Arab forces in Sudan.
This Darfur campaign accomplishes several goals of U.S. imperialist
policy. It further demonizes Arab and Muslim people. It diverts
attention from the human rights catastrophe caused by the brutal U.S.
war and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis.
It is also an attempt to deflect attention from the U.S. financing and
support of Israel's war on the Palestinian people.
Most important, it opens a new front in the determination of U.S.
corporate power to control the entire region.
U.S. interest in Sudan
Sudan is the largest country in Africa in area. It is strategically
located on the Red Sea, immediately south of Egypt, and borders on
seven other African countries. It is about the size of Western Europe
but has a population of only 35 million people.
Darfur is the western region of Sudan. It is the size of France, with
a population of just 6 million.
Newly discovered resources have made Sudan of great interest to U.S.
corporations. It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of
Saudi Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it
has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the
world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained its
independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudan's oil policy, the
U.S. imperialist government has made every effort to stop its
development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has
worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration,
drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of
Sudan's oil.
U.S. policy revolves around shutting down the export of oil through
sanctions and inflaming national and regional antagonisms. For over
two decades U.S. imperialism supported a separatist movement in the
south of Sudan, where oil was originally found. This long civil war
drained the central government's resources. When a peace agreement was
finally negotiated, U.S. attention immediately switched to Darfur in
western Sudan.
Recently, a similar agreement between the Sudanese government and
rebel groups in Darfur was rejected by one of the groups, so the
fighting continues. The U.S. poses as a neutral mediator and keeps
pressing Khartoum for more concessions but "through its closest
African allies helped train the SLA and JEM Darfuri rebels that
initiated Khartoum's violent reaction." (www.afrol.com)
Sudan has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world.
Over 400 ethnic groups have their own languages or dialects. Arabic is
the one common language. Greater Khartoum, the largest city in the
country, has a population of about 6 million. Some 85 percent of the
Sudanese population is involved in subsistence agriculture or raising
livestock.
The U.S. corporate media is unanimous in simplistically describing the
crisis in Darfur as atrocities committed by the Jan jawid militias,
supported by the central government in Khartoum. This is described as
an "Arab" assault on "African" people.
This is a total distortion of reality. As the Black Commentator, Oct.
27, 2004, points out: "All parties involved in the Darfur conflict--
whether they are referred to as 'Arab' or as 'African,' are equally
indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local." The
whole population of Darfur speaks Arabic, along with many local
dialects. All are Sunni Muslim.
Drought, famine and sanctions
The crisis in Darfur is rooted in intertribal fighting. A desperate
struggle has developed over increasingly scarce water and grazing
rights in a vast area of Northern Africa that has been hit hard by
years of drought and growing famine.
Darfur has over 35 tribes and ethnic groups. About half the people are
small subsistence farmers, the other half nomadic herders. For
hundreds of years the nomadic population grazed their herds of cattle
and camels over hundreds of miles of grassy lowlands. Farmers and
herders shared wells. For over 5,000 years, this fertile land
sustained civilizations in both western Dar fur and to the east, all
along the Nile River.
Now, due to the drought and the encroaching great Sahara Desert, there
isn't enough grazing land or enough farmland in what could be the
breadbasket of Africa. Irrigation and development of Sudan's rich
resources could solve many of these problems. U.S. sanctions and
military intervention will solve none of them.
Many people, especially children, have died in Sudan of totally
preventable and treatable diseases because of a U.S. cruise missile
attack, ordered by President Bill Clinton on Aug. 20, 1998, on the El
Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. This plant, which had produced
cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis, provided 60
percent of the available medicine in Sudan.
The U.S. claimed Sudan was operating a VX poison gas facility there.
It produced no evidence to back up the charge. This simple medical
facility, totally destroyed by the 19 missiles, was not rebuilt nor
did Sudan receive a penny of compensation.
UN/NATO role in Sudan
Presently 7,000 African Union troops are in Darfur. Their logistical
and technical back-up is provided by U.S. and NATO forces. In
addition, thousands of UN personnel are overseeing refugee camps for
hundreds of thousands dislocated by the drought, famine and war. All
of these outside forces do more than hand out needed food. They are a
source of instability. As capitalist would-be conquerors have done for
hundreds of years, they consciously play one group off against
another.
U.S. imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region. Chad, which
is directly west of Darfur, last year participated in a U.S.-organized
international military exer cise that, according to the U.S. Defense
Depart ment, was the largest in Africa since World War II. Chad is a
former French colony, and both French and U.S. forces are heavily
involved in funding, training and equipping the army of its military
ruler, Idriss Deby, who has supported rebel groups in Darfur.
For more than half a century, Britain ruled Sudan, encountering
widespread resis tance. British colonial policy was rooted in divide-
and-conquer tactics and in keeping its colonies underdeveloped and
isolated in order to plunder their resources.
U.S. imperialism, which has replaced the European colonial powers in
many parts of the world, in recent years has been sabotaging the
economic independence of countries trying to emerge from colonial
underdevelopment. Its main economic weapons have been sanctions
combined with "structural adjustment" demands made by the
International Monetary Fund, which it controls. In return for loans,
the target governments must cut their budgets for development of
infrastructure.
How can demands from organizations in the West for sanctions, leading
to further underdevelopment and isolation, solve any of these
problems?
Washington has often used its tremendous power in the UN Security
Council to get resolutions endorsing its plans to send U.S. troops
into other countries. None were on humanitarian missions.
U.S. troops carrying the UN flag invaded Korea in 1950 in a war that
resulted in more than 4 million deaths. Still flying that flag, they
have occupied and divided the Korean peninsula for over 50 years.
At the urging of the U.S., UN troops in 1961 were deployed to the
Congo, where they played a role in the assassination of Patrice
Lumumba, the country's first prime minister.
The U.S. was able to get a UN mandate in 1991 for its massive bombing
of the entire Iraqi civilian infrastructure, including water
purification plants, irrigation and food processing plants--and for the
13 years of starvation sanctions that resulted in the deaths of over
1.5 million Iraqis.
UN troops in Yugoslavia and in Haiti have been a cover for U.S. and
European intervention and occupation--not peace or reconciliation.
The U.S. and European imperialist powers are responsible for the
genocidal slave trade that decimated Africa, the genocide of the
Indigenous population of the Americas, the colonial wars and
occupations that looted three-quarters of the globe. It was German
imperialism that was responsible for the genocide of the Jewish
people. To call for military intervention by these same powers as the
answer to conflicts among the people of Darfur is to ignore 500 years
of history.
Sara Flounders went to Sudan just after the bombing of the El Shifa
pharmaceutical plant in 1998 with John Parker as part of an
International Action Center fact-finding delegation led by Ramsey
Clark.
Global Research Articles by Sara Flounders
> Leftists have completely ignored Bush's efforts in assisting African
> nations. The "compassionate" of "compassionate conservatism" gets no
> credit from these Bush-haters.
-------------------
George: "Show us on the map Africa."
"No George. That is Greenland. You don't know where Africa is , do you
George ? No, George. That is China."
U.S.political imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region,
like it is in any place in the world where corporate American can
exploit the resources and the cheap labor. Let's not bullshit each
other. G-d Bless the American/Jewish Empire. Onward Christian Soldiers
Marching Off To War.....Shalom aleikhem;.We are All Jews Now
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles4/Jones_Palestine.htm
Ignore Africa at Your Peril George. If you do, Condi Rice will not
allow you and Cheney to rub her head for luck. Besides, the dunce's
trip is a diversion from the Iraq debacle
GEORGE W. BUSH RUBS MAN'S HEAD FOR "LUCK" IN DISPLAY OF APPARENT
RACIST IGNORANCE
C O U N T E R B I A S . C O M E X C L U S I V E
http://www.counterbias.com/news001.html
George W. Bush recently displayed a glimpse of his dark side as he
partook in a public display of racial insensitivity.
Before speaking to a March 3rd Los Angeles audience at the White
House
Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Mr Bush was
introduced by an African-American male, whose head Mr Bush proceeded
to rub while grinning and smirking.
The man, identified as Alphonso Jackson, acting Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, appeared somewhat
bewildered while still preserving an appearance of happiness to
welcome Mr. Bush.
As an individual identified as Cory wrote in letter published online,
rubbing an African American's head for luck was at one time thought
of
as a "joke amongst those who didn't generally say "black person" when
referring to one". He noted that the racist practice "may well have
faded into obscurity", but would've been "a good way to lose a hand"
in more multi-racial neighborhoods in the late seventies and early
eighties.
Mr. Bush has long been thought of by many as a stereotypical elitist
with a notably racist, anti-black attitude, but this latest
misadventure lends credence to such an assumption.
If the intent was not a racist one, the event did make Mr. Bush
appear
somewhat condescending, as well as disrespectful of a high-ranking
government official.
...Investigating Further...
(Note: the above photo has not been edited in any way. See the AP
story w/ similar photo.)
Ignore Africa at Your Peril, Think Tank Warns Bush
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Africa's strategic importance to the United States --
both with respect to Washington's "war on terrorism" and the growing
competition with China for access to energy supplies and other raw
materials -- should be given more attention by policy-makers and the
public, according to a major new report released here this week by the
influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Recent assistance and humanitarian initiatives will likely suffer
without a more comprehensive elaboration of U.S. interests in Africa,
both to Congress and the public
Report: "More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic US Approach Toward
Africa"
The 139-page report, which charges the administration of U.S.
President George W. Bush with lacking a comprehensive, long-term
strategy for dealing with the region, calls on Washington to upgrade
its diplomatic and intelligence capabilities in the region by
appointing an ambassador to the African Union (AU) and opening more
missions in key African cities, particularly in energy-producing
countries.
It also calls for greater high-level attention to resolving conflicts
in the region, particularly those, such as in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo (DRC), that threaten the stability of whole sub-regions
or involve large-scale atrocities.
On Darfur, the report urges Washington to work with the AU in gaining
U.N. authorization to deploy a larger force of African and non-African
soldiers to join the nearly 7,000 AU troops already there to protect
nearly two million displaced civilians and take military action,
including a no-fly zone, to counter any threat against them.
However, the report argues that a strictly humanitarian approach to
Africa -- as symbolized by last June's global "Live 8" concerts to
pressure the Group of Eight (G-8) summit to double aid to Africa -- is
not sufficient to maintain the kind of commitment to the continent
that is consistent with its more hard-headed interests.
"Recent assistance and humanitarian initiatives will likely suffer
without a more comprehensive elaboration of U.S. interests in Africa,
both to Congress and the public," according to the report, titled
"More Than Humanitarianism: A Strategic U.S. Approach toward Africa".
"The United States must recognize and act on its rising national
interests on the continent through a far higher mobilization of
leadership and focused resources that target Africa's new realities,"
said the report, the product of a bipartisan task force headed by
Anthony Lake, Pres. Bill Clinton's first national security adviser,
and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who headed the
Environmental Protection Agency during Bush's first two years as
president.
The report drew sharp criticism from a former CFR director for Africa
studies, Salih Booker, who now heads a grassroots lobby group, Africa
Action. He objected in particular to its dichotomy between
"humanitarian" interests, such as debt relief and anti-AIDS efforts,
and economic and political imperatives, like Africa's oil reserves and
Washington's pursuit of allies in the "war on terror".
"They think they need to take this approach because the establishment
is presumed to believe that we don't have any interests in Africa
other than humanitarian interests," he said.
"This approach establishes a hierarchy of U.S. national interests
where the top priorities are fighting terrorism and securing access to
oil, and African people's human rights are near the bottom," he said.
"This is how Africa was viewed during the Cold War, and it's likely to
have similar negative consequences."
Indeed, in presenting U.S. interests, the report lists Africa's status
as an increasingly important source of oil and gas; growing
competition with China; and the war on terrorism; the HIV/AIDS
pandemic; conflict resolution and peacekeeping; democracy and human
rights; and long-term economic development in that order.
The report commends the administration for launching two major Africa-
related aid programmes -- the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) and
the five-year, 15-billion-dollar President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR) -- as well as Bush's commitment earlier this year to
double U.S. aid to Africa by 2010 and his offer to eliminate all
tariff and subsidy barriers in agricultural trade if the European
Union (EU) agrees to do the same.
Altogether, U.S. aid to Africa has increased five-fold over the past
decade, according to the report, which argued that the public
constituency for Africa has broadened from traditional humanitarian
groups and the African-American community to include evangelical
Christians, the public-health community, and "U.S. military commands
in Europe and the Middle East" focused on the "war on terrorism."
At the same time, however, there have been disappointments. Congress,
for example, has fallen far short of Bush's requests to fund the MCA,
and the administration's reluctance to support the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria has discouraged other donors from
contributing more to that agency.
In addition, almost all increases in U.S. aid to Africa in recent
years have been devoted to emergency assistance, as opposed to long-
term programs, such as infrastructure and rural development, that
"could lift Africa out of poverty."
Moreover, Africa too often gets the short end of the stick when it
comes to key development and democracy-building programs, particularly
when it is competition for regions that are considered more strategic,
currently the Middle East, South Asia, and the Gulf regions.
It is in this context, the report argues, that policymakers should
offer a more comprehensive elaboration of U.S. interests in Africa.
In particular, Africa's growing importance as an energy producer needs
to be given greater prominence. West African producers currently
provide about 15 percent of U.S. oil imports, but that is expected to
rise to 25 percent by 2015.
At the same time, however, Washington faces much greater competition
for those energy resources, as well as other raw materials,
particularly from China, which, according to the task force, "does not
share U.S. concern for issues of governance, human rights, or economic
policy".
In fact, the Bush administration has begun to engage China on its
policies in Africa, according to Assistant Secretary of State for
African Affairs Jendaye Frazier, who just returned from two days of
"very productive and quite constructive" talks with her counterparts
in Beijing late last week. "I don't agree with the report that China's
interests are in direct competition with the U.S.," she said Monday.
On the war on terrorism, the report complained that Africa "does not
receive sufficient political attention to the threat nor sufficient
funding to combat it," despite the large and growing Pentagon and
intelligence counter-intelligence initiatives for the Horn and the
Trans-Sahelian regions. The report calls for the State Department to
exert more oversight over those initiatives to ensure that they do not
provide "collusion or unintended support for repressive regimes," such
as the military junta that seized power in Mauritania earlier this
year.
Copyright (c) IPS-Inter Press Service
According to Vice President Cheney, Bush thought Africa was in Alabama
and Washington DC, until someone told him that all black people were
not in Alabama.and in DC. Also, Cheney explained that there was oil in
Darfur and decided to send his understudy [Bush] to Africa in order to
secure the oil fields for Halliburton.
Nelson Mandella said, "The Bush Administration ignores Africa's
priorities of peace," However. Mandella did not know that peace is not
in the interest of the Bush/Cheney Family . They are Warriors for Oil
---- their interest is in oil and a new developement in the highly
profitable African slave trade.
War of the Future: Oil Drives the Genocide in Darfur The U.S. Role in
Darfur, Sudan. Oil reserves rivals those of Saudi Arabia..The U.S. is
likely to ignore Africa's priorities, placing military base rights
above human rights.
The war against AIDS, by far the most important global war effort and
an urgent priority especially for Africa, will continue to suffer from
a lack of resources. An American war on Iraq would also have a major
negative impact on the global economy with dire consequences for
African development.....At the end of January, President Bush .a long
time drug user, surprised many (?) by accepting, for the first time,
the need to supply antiretroviral drugs and by promising additional
resources for Africa to fight AIDS. But if the U.S. fails to at least
triple its spending on AIDS this year, the gesture will be seen in
retrospect as simply a public relations adjunct to the push for war on
Iraq. Early signs were not encouraging.... the oil is more
important.and most Americans don't care about African Aids anyhow, but
do care about the oil to operate their SUVs.
by Sara Flounders
What is fueling the campaign now sweeping the U.S. to "Stop Genocide
in Darfur"? Campus organizations have suddenly and foolishly begun
organizing petitions, meetings and calls for divestment. A
demonstration was held April 30 on the Mall in Washington, D.C., to
"Save Darfur."
"Save Appalachia" would be a more rewarding effort
Again and again it is said that "something" must be done.
"Humanitarian forces" and "U.S. peacekeepers" must be deployed
immediately to stop "ethnic cleansing." UN troops or NATO forces must
be used to stop "genocide." The U.S. government has a "moral
responsibility to prevent another Holocaust."
Outrage is provoked by media stories of mass rapes and photos of
desperate refugees. The charge is that tens of thousands of African
people are being killed by Arab militias backed by the Sudanese
government. Sudan is labeled as both a "terrorist state" and a "failed
state." Even at anti-war rallies, signs have been distributed
proclaiming "Out of Iraq--Into Darfur." Full-page ads in the New York
Times have repeated the call.
Who is behind the campaign and what actions are they calling for?
Even a cursory look at the supporters of the campaign shows the
prominent role of right-wing evangelical Christians and major Zionist
groups to "Save Darfur."
A Jerusalem Post article of April 27 headlined "U.S. Jews Leading
Darfur Rally Planning" described the role of prominent Zionist
organizations in organizing the April 30 rally. A full-page ad for the
rally in the New York Times was signed by a number of Jewish
organizations, including the UJA--Federation of NY and the Jewish
Council for Public Affairs.
But it wasn't just Zionist groups that called it. The rally was
sponsored by a coalition of 164 organizations that included the
National Association of Evangelicals, the World Evangelical Alliance
and other religious groups that have been the strongest supporters of
the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. The Kansas-based
evangelical group Sudan Sunrise helped arrange buses and speakers, did
extensive fund raising and co-hosted a 600-person dinner.
This was hardly an anti-war or social justice rally. The organizers
had a personal meeting with President George W. Bush just before the
rally. He told them: "I welcome your participation. And I want to
thank the organizers for being here."
Originally the demonstration was projected to draw a turnout of more
than 100,000. Media coverage generously reported "several thousands,"
ranging from 5,000 to 7,000. The rally was overwhelming white. Despite
sparse numbers, it got wide media coverage, focusing on celebrity
speakers like Academy Award winner George Clooney. Top Democrats and
Republicans gave it their blessing, including U.S. Sen. Barack Obama
(D-Ill.), House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Assistant
Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer and New Jersey
Gov. Jon Corzine. Corzine, by the way, spent $62 million of his own
money to get elected.
The corporate media gave this rally more prominence than either the
anti-war rally of 300,000 in New York City on the day before or the
millionfold demonstrations across the country for immigrant rights on
the day after.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, former Secretary of State Gen.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. Wesley Clark
and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have all argued in favor of
intervention in Sudan.
These leading architects of imperialist policy often refer to another
model when they call for this intervention: the successful
"humanitarian" war on Yugoslavia that established a U.S./NATO
administration over Kosovo after a massive bombing campaign.
The Holocaust Museum in Washington issued a "genocide alert"--the first
such alert ever issued--and 35 evangelical Christian leaders signed a
letter urging President Bush to send U.S. troops to stop genocide in
Darfur. A special national curriculum for students was established to
generate grassroots support for U.S. intervention.
Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) funded by the National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) have embraced the campaign. Liberal
voices such as Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Rabbi Michael Lerner of
TIKKUN and Human Rights Watch have also pushed the campaign to "Save
Darfur."
Diversion from Iraq debacle
The criminal invasion and massive bombing of Iraq, the destruction of
its infrastructure that left the people without water or basic
electricity, and the horrible photos of the U.S. military's use of
torture at Abu Ghraib prison created a world outcry. At its height, in
September 2004, then Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell went to
Sudan and announced to the world that the crime of the century--"a
genocide"--was taking place there. The U.S. solution was to demand the
United Nations impose sanctions on one of the poorest countries on
earth and that U.S. troops be sent there as "peacekeepers."
But the rest of the UN Security Council was unwilling to accept this
view, the U.S. "evidence" or the proposed action.
The campaign against Sudan increased even as evidence was being
brought forward that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a total
lie. The same media that had given credibility to the U.S.
government's claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because that
country had "weapons of mass destruction" switched gears to report on
"war crimes" by Arab forces in Sudan.
This Darfur campaign accomplishes several goals of U.S. imperialist
policy. It further demonizes Arab and Muslim people. It diverts
attention from the human rights catastrophe caused by the brutal U.S.
war and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis.
It is also an attempt to deflect attention from the U.S. financing and
support of Israel's war on the Palestinian people.
Most important, it opens a new front in the determination of U.S.
corporate power to control the entire region.
U.S. interest in Sudan
Sudan is the largest country in Africa in area. It is strategically
located on the Red Sea, immediately south of Egypt, and borders on
seven other African countries. It is about the size of Western Europe
but has a population of only 35 million people.
Darfur is the western region of Sudan. It is the size of France, with
a population of just 6 million.
Newly discovered resources have made Sudan of great interest to U.S.
corporations. It is believed to have oil reserves rivaling those of
Saudi Arabia. It has large deposits of natural gas. In addition, it
has one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the
world, along with the fourth-largest deposits of copper.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, however, the Sudanese government has retained its
independence of Washington. Unable to control Sudan's oil policy, the
U.S. imperialist government has made every effort to stop its
development of this valuable resource. China, on the other hand, has
worked with Sudan in providing the technology for exploration,
drilling, pumping and the building of a pipeline and buys much of
Sudan's oil.
U.S. policy revolves around shutting down the export of oil through
sanctions and inflaming national and regional antagonisms. For over
two decades U.S. imperialism supported a separatist movement in the
south of Sudan, where oil was originally found. This long civil war
drained the central government's resources. When a peace agreement was
finally negotiated, U.S. attention immediately switched to Darfur in
western Sudan.
Recently, a similar agreement between the Sudanese government and
rebel groups in Darfur was rejected by one of the groups, so the
fighting continues. The U.S. poses as a neutral mediator and keeps
pressing Khartoum for more concessions but "through its closest
African allies helped train the SLA and JEM Darfuri rebels that
initiated Khartoum's violent reaction." (www.afrol.com)
Sudan has one of the most ethnically diverse populations in the world.
Over 400 ethnic groups have their own languages or dialects. Arabic is
the one common language. Greater Khartoum, the largest city in the
country, has a population of about 6 million. Some 85 percent of the
Sudanese population is involved in subsistence agriculture or raising
livestock.
The U.S. corporate media is unanimous in simplistically describing the
crisis in Darfur as atrocities committed by the Jan jawid militias,
supported by the central government in Khartoum. This is described as
an "Arab" assault on "African" people.
This is a total distortion of reality. As the Black Commentator, Oct.
27, 2004, points out: "All parties involved in the Darfur conflict--
whether they are referred to as 'Arab' or as 'African,' are equally
indigenous and equally Black. All are Muslim and all are local." The
whole population of Darfur speaks Arabic, along with many local
dialects. All are Sunni Muslim.
Drought, famine and sanctions
The crisis in Darfur is rooted in intertribal fighting. A desperate
struggle has developed over increasingly scarce water and grazing
rights in a vast area of Northern Africa that has been hit hard by
years of drought and growing famine.
Darfur has over 35 tribes and ethnic groups. About half the people are
small subsistence farmers, the other half nomadic herders. For
hundreds of years the nomadic population grazed their herds of cattle
and camels over hundreds of miles of grassy lowlands. Farmers and
herders shared wells. For over 5,000 years, this fertile land
sustained civilizations in both western Dar fur and to the east, all
along the Nile River.
Now, due to the drought and the encroaching great Sahara Desert, there
isn't enough grazing land or enough farmland in what could be the
breadbasket of Africa. Irrigation and development of Sudan's rich
resources could solve many of these problems. U.S. sanctions and
military intervention will solve none of them.
Many people, especially children, have died in Sudan of totally
preventable and treatable diseases because of a U.S. cruise missile
attack, ordered by President Bill Clinton on Aug. 20, 1998, on the El
Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. This plant, which had produced
cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis, provided 60
percent of the available medicine in Sudan.
The U.S. claimed Sudan was operating a VX poison gas facility there.
It produced no evidence to back up the charge. This simple medical
facility, totally destroyed by the 19 missiles, was not rebuilt nor
did Sudan receive a penny of compensation.
UN/NATO role in Sudan
Presently 7,000 African Union troops are in Darfur. Their logistical
and technical back-up is provided by U.S. and NATO forces. In
addition, thousands of UN personnel are overseeing refugee camps for
hundreds of thousands dislocated by the drought, famine and war. All
of these outside forces do more than hand out needed food. They are a
source of instability. As capitalist would-be conquerors have done for
hundreds of years, they consciously play one group off against
another.
U.S. imperialism is heavily involved in the entire region. Chad, which
is directly west of Darfur, last year participated in a U.S.-organized
international military exer cise that, according to the U.S. Defense
Depart ment, was the largest in Africa since World War II. Chad is a
former French colony, and both French and U.S. forces are heavily
involved in funding, training and equipping the army of its military
ruler, Idriss Deby, who has supported rebel groups in Darfur.
For more than half a century, Britain ruled Sudan, encountering
widespread resis tance. British colonial policy was rooted in divide-
and-conquer tactics and in keeping its colonies underdeveloped and
isolated in order to plunder their resources.
U.S. imperialism, which has replaced the European colonial powers in
many parts of the world, in recent years has been sabotaging the
economic independence of countries trying to emerge from colonial
underdevelopment. Its main economic weapons have been sanctions
combined with "structural adjustment" demands made by the
International Monetary Fund, which it controls. In return for loans,
the target governments must cut their budgets for development of
infrastructure.
How can demands from organizations in the West for sanctions, leading
to further underdevelopment and isolation, solve any of these
problems?
Washington has often used its tremendous power in the UN Security
Council to get resolutions endorsing its plans to send U.S. troops
into other countries. None were on humanitarian missions.
U.S. troops carrying the UN flag invaded Korea in 1950 in a war that
resulted in more than 4 million deaths. Still flying that flag, they
have occupied and divided the Korean peninsula for over 50 years.
At the urging of the U.S., UN troops in 1961 were deployed to the
Congo, where they played a role in the assassination of Patrice
Lumumba, the country's first prime minister.
The U.S. was able to get a UN mandate in 1991 for its massive bombing
of the entire Iraqi civilian infrastructure, including water
purification plants, irrigation and food processing plants--and for the
13 years of starvation sanctions that resulted in the deaths of over
1.5 million Iraqis.
UN troops in Yugoslavia and in Haiti have been a cover for U.S. and
European intervention and occupation--not peace or reconciliation.
The U.S. and European imperialist powers are responsible for the
genocidal slave trade that decimated Africa, the genocide of the
Indigenous population of the Americas, the colonial wars and
occupations that looted three-quarters of the globe. It was German
imperialism that was responsible for the genocide of the Jewish
people. To call for military intervention by these same powers as the
answer to conflicts among the people of Darfur is to ignore 500 years
of history.
Sara Flounders went to Sudan just after the bombing of the El Shifa
pharmaceutical plant in 1998 with John Parker as part of an
International Action Center fact-finding delegation led by Ramsey
Clark.
Global Research Articles by Sara Flounders