by keith harmon snow
Behind the genocide in Congo and elsewhere stand a host of well-paid academics, entertainers, politicians and professional propagandists for U.S. imperial policy. One of them, “Dr. Gerald Caplan, ignores the pain, mutilations, rapes and deaths caused by the western power brokers Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni to millions upon millions of Burundian, Congolese, Sudanese and Ugandan people.”
by Thomas C. Mountain
Movie superstar George Clooney has put his mass magnetism in service of “humanitarian” warfare. His job is to point in the other direction when his masters and their proxies commit crimes against humanity and world peace.
by BAR managing editor Bruce A. Dixon
For more than five years, the Save Darfur Coalition has used a slick and star-studded multimillion dollar ad campaign to paint a horrific vision of 400,000 dead in a black vs Arab war of extermination. No historic or political causes are offered for this scenario; it's genocide a case of good vs. evil demanding our attention and action. But the big lies underpinning the Save Darfur campaign are coming undone. Reporters, scholars and even US envoys are returning from the region affirming that if there ever was a genocide in Darfur, and there may not have been, there isn't one now. The British government has even ruled that Save Darfur cannot, in that country, use the figure of 400,000 dead which it throws around in all its US advertisements, cause it just ain't true.
The Save Darfur Coalition has convinced a large portion of the American public that “genocide” is underway in Darfur, the western Sudan. As propagandists, the coalition has done a highly effective job. Among the few public intellectuals in the U.S. to debunk the genocide story is Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, of Columbia University, who concludes, “There's no attempt to eliminate a people here. This has been a conflict over land.”
By BAR Managing Editor
Bruce A. Dixon
What does it mean for Africa when right wing end-of-the-world-is-near evangelical Christians join forces with the Robert F. Kennedy Center For Human Rights? What does it mean for African Americans when Bush, Obama, and nearly all last year's presidential candidates from both parties encourage the continuation of an African civil war rather than a political settlement between the parties? What does it mean when 21st century PR firms employ FaceBook, slick viral marketing and millions of dollars to create a simple, satisfying, feel-good excuse for military intervention on the African continent?
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir had no choice but to expel the western "aid" organizations that had merged with the American propaganda machine aimed at regime change in Khartoum. Obama operatives like UN Ambassador Susan Rice have for years been "eager to blockade Sudan's ports" and to launch "selective" bombing raids against Sudan. When imperial doctrine claims the right to intervene whenever disasters overtake sovereign countries - and proceeds to create and exacerbate those disasters - then no government is safe against regime change. President Obama "appears to be fine-tuning a ‘humanitarian' interventionist doctrine that is applicable to any point on the planet."
The picture of the conflict in Darfur as "Arab-on-black" or even "black on black" genocide tells more about the U.S. than it does about Darfur, Sudan, or Africa. It is a false picture, brought to us by the corporate U.S. media to justify one of Uncle Sam's (maybe even Uncle Barack's) oil and resource wars in Sudan. After all, Sudanese oil IS flowiing to China through Chinese companies, not Western ones, and that will not be tolerated.
by Mark P. Fancher
Imperialism ain't easy. Times change, and the neocolonial exploiters have to stay on their toes. They must encourage "the illusion of independence" in the formerly colonized world, the better to maintain effective economic control. "Enter Africa Command - better known as AFRICOM," whose "mission is to conduct ‘sustained security engagement through military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations as directed to promote a stable and secure African environment in support of U.S. foreign policy." The key phrase is, of course "in support of U.S. foreign policy," a point that has not been lost on African nations.
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
Barack Obama's nominee for United Nations Ambassador is a very aggressive woman - militarily speaking. Susan Rice is "more bellicose" than George Bush when it comes to threatening Sudan over the plight of the people of Darfur, "while simultaneously backing a savage U.S.-Ethiopian assault that causes an even larger humanitarian calamity in Somalia." One is forced to conclude that "Susan Rice's brand of ‘humanitarian intervention' is a farce, a pretext to justify military aggression under the guise of preventing human suffering."
The star-studded hue and cry to "Save Darfur" and "stop the genocide" has gained enormous traction in U.S. media along with bipartisan support in Congress and the White House. But the Congo, with ten to twenty times as many African dead over the same period is not called a "genocide" and passes almost unnoticed. Sudan sits atop lakes of oil. It has large supplies of uranium, and other minerals, significant water resources, and a strategic location near still more African oil and resources. The unasked question is whether the nation's Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite are using claims of genocide, and appeals for "humanitarian intervention" to grease the way for the next oil and resource wars on the African continent.
"Out of Iraq - Into Darfur" cartoon by Mike Flugennock. Find more of his work at www.sinkers.org
by Keith Harmon Snow
The Darfur region of Sudan possesses the third largest copper and the fourth largest uranium deposits on the planet, in addition to strategic location and significant oil resources of its own. Is the US-based "Save Darfur" movement snowing the US public on the fundamental nature of the conflict in Sudan? Are "Save Darfur" and the prevention of genocide the covers of convenience for the next round of US oil and resource wars on the African continent?
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
by Roger Howard
Some Black bodies are more worthy of attention than others. The three million dead in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where U.S. allies such as Rwanda keep the genocidal pot boiling and multinational corporations field private armies to guard their mineral extraction enterprises, get scant mention in corporate media. But Darfur, where 200,000 Black Sudanese lives have been lost, is cause for crocodile tears among right-wingers and Arab-haters. Genocide sensitivity is, apparently, an acquired, selective taste: it depends on who is doing the killing, and how much oil is in the mix.
by BAR Executive Editor Glen Ford
The flow of refugees now streams both ways on the border of the cauldron of death, Darfur. To the east, the major culprits in the crime against humanity are the rulers of Sudan. To the west, a U.S.-dominated Chadian regime is in charge, firmly implanted in the matrix of the new U.S. Africa Command. Yet tens of thousands flee Chad into the hell of Darfur! Something horrific is afoot, rooted in the historical U.S. strategy of sowing chaos in Africa, to advance its own imperial agenda. The objective: a failed continent, ripe for occupation and exploitation - all under the guise of "humanitarian" assistance.