Skip to Content

Freedom Rider: Susan Rice and American Evil

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

 

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

Some African Americans associate racial progress with Black people achieving “the right to perform the evil acts which were once the reserve of whites.” The ascension of Black secretaries of state marks “the first time that black Americans began to look the other way and excuse their government’s inhumanity.”

 

Freedom Rider: Susan Rice and American Evil

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

The people who hold these supposedly august positions are in fact no better than criminal enforcers in organized crime families.”

Why does it matter if Susan Rice serves as secretary of state? That is a trick question, because in fact, it doesn’t matter at all. American foreign policy will be unchanged regardless of who the next secretary may be. The full force of imperialism will be brought to bear against the people of the world under the Obama administration. The democratic president has made real the goals of the neo-con ,Project for a New American Century a 21st century version of Manifest Destiny, the belief that the United States should rule the world and do so with a vengeance.

Rice’s nomination is a non-issue but is treated as an important one for many black people because of the words of right wing racists. The sight of the embittered sore loser John McCain calling Rice “unqualified” and “not very smart” reminds black people of the slights they are personally subjected to in their lives every day. It is especially galling for the insult to come from McCain, the quintessential entitlement baby. He was admitted to the U.S. Naval Academy because his father and grandfather were admirals. The legacy leg up didn’t help much because the mediocre young McCain still graduated at the bottom of his class. McCain’s insistence that the obviously sub-par Sarah Palin was a qualified vice presidential candidate makes the racist slaps at Rice all the more offensive.

The yearning to see a black face in one of the highest and most rarified places is a very deep one and not to be easily dismissed, but it is crucial to note that Rice is no different from John McCain in her beliefs of how the United States should conduct itself in the world. The facts against Rice and her predecessors are obscured by a corporate media which hides all the atrocities committed by the United States government, making the Rice story appear like nothing more than that of a high achieving black woman being slandered by evil racists.

Rice is no different from John McCain in her beliefs of how the United States should conduct itself in the world.”

The case against Rice or whomever is nominated by the president should be a case made against United States foreign policy and all of the people who now or ever were in charge of carrying it out. The presidents, secretaries of state, United Nations ambassadors, national security advisers and their ilk are held up as paragons of virtue, intelligence and moral rectitude. They emerge from elite institutions and are held up as the “best and the brightest” the country has to offer.

A secretary of state not only has a prestigious position, but is considered an elder statesman or woman for life. Of course, he or she also can walk into positions of great wealth after their public service has ended. Corporate speeches, book deals and lucrative board positions await every living secretary of state from Henry Kissinger to Condoleezza Rice.

The true horror is that the people who hold these supposedly august positions are in fact no better than criminal enforcers in organized crime families. American secretaries of state have plotted invasions and assassinations, occupied countries, destroyed economies, fomented coups and in a myriad of other ways laid waste to sovereign nations. Countries which try to bring about their own democracies are thwarted if their plans are seen as a threat to American interests.

No secretary of state should be lionized and there is nothing wonderful about black people having the right to perform the evil acts which were once the reserve of whites. The Dulleses and Kissingers and their predecessors and successors made wars on huge swaths of the planet and did in fact crush attempts at democracy so that American businesses might be able to harvest bananas at cheap prices.

The appearance of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as part of the Bush administration foreign policy team ended the white monopoly on American state terror. Colin Powell went to the United Nations with his power point presentation full of lies in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also removed Jean Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s democratically elected president, from office. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice covered up her own incompetence and the still murky facts which brought the September 11th terrorist attacks onto American soil.

The black man who destroyed Libya and Somalia and who is on the road to destroying Syria will have another terrorist of color by his side.”

It was during the Bush administration that the black face in the high place joined in committing the worst kinds of dirty work to be carried out by the United States around the globe. It was also the first time that black Americans began to look the other way and excuse their government’s inhumanity. Defending Colin and Condi became substitutes for analysis and the ideology that once made black Americans the group least supportive of their government’s acts of aggression.

The ascendancy of Barack Obama to the presidency accelerated this grotesque delusion of racial uplift. Not only are NDAA, kill lists, and naked imperialism to be overlooked, but the black man who destroyed Libya and Somalia and who is on the road to destroying Syria will have another terrorist of color by his side. In a perverse way this terrible duo will increase the joy of a people who a mere five years ago recoiled at the very behavior which Obama and Rice have exhibited toward the rest of the world.

America is and will continue to pose terrible threats to the rest of the world, whether the next secretary of state if Susan Rice or John Kerry or an unknown player to be named later. That should be the crux of any debates about who should serve in these positions. Anything else is just drama playing out while the world burns because the United States keeps lighting the match.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Share this

Comments

Perfect,Ms. Kimberly. Sad. True.

Yes, Ms. Kimberly.

USING THE POOR/ DISADVATAGED TO GET AHEAD!

(a) In his re-election, The President got over 90% of African American votes and a big chunk of Hispanics votes

(b) In African, the war on Islamic terrorists in Somalia is now being fought by trained Kenyans and other African young men! These men are sacrifising their lives in order to put food on the table. The young African men are college educated, but cannot find jobs anywhere in the continent that has vast minerals that are making multinational corporations very, very rich

(c) In Goma region of The Democratic Republic of Congo, Paul Kagame is recruiting African children (M23), to be the lethal killing machines. And who are they kiling or raping?-> African women (mothers, grandmothers, sisters and any woman they come across). Whose interests are they serving?-> the interests of people who are supplying them with lethal arms and are hell bent on looting the vast minerals in Congo at all costs!

(d) In Uganda, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni's loyalty to multinational corporations has made supreme president of Uganda for life or until he will have exhausted his usefullnes to the multinationals

African ruling elites are armed to the teeth for the sole purpose of being "ARMED SECURITY GUARDS" favoring the foreign interests. Susan Rice is the UN Ambassador, principally, to ensure that these AFRICAN GUARD DOGS do not forget whose interests they must serve in order to stay alive!

(e) The powerful are well organized and unionized to protect their interests. But they are fighting like hell to ensure that those below them or those who are working for them are not organized to complain about how much they are being paid or for how long they can work or hold their jobs.

DO NOTUSE THE DISADVANTAGED TO GET AHEAD!

It is one thing for someone like Susan Rice, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice or Alan West to use their intellects to advance their careers and earn descent life styles. I will applaud them for their accomplishments!

The big problem is when these individuals use their blackness to get these powerful positions only to become ardent spokespeople, vouching out for causes which have absolutely nothing to do with core issues important to the ethnic group with whom they identify. The moment their personal ambitions and careers hit the glass ceilings, then their affiliation with the very people they have ignored becomes the paramount talking points. This is a gross misuse and abuse of 99% of Africans or African Americans who are left to fend for themselves on planet earth!

Susan Rice is and has been heavily invested in causes which protect the interests of multinational corporations in Congo, Libya or elsewhere in the world. Her education and career have served her and  these corporate interests very well indeed.

What is  very alarming is Susan Rice’s unshakable support for Paul Kagame and his brutal M23 forces operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

(a)             Ms. Rice has used her position as US Ambassador to the UN to delay the publication of UN report denouncing Paula Kagame of Rwanda and his M23 on the atrocities he has inflicted on African civilians, many of whom are now living in refugee camps

(b)            Ms. Rice watered down the UN Security Council resolution that strongly condemned Kagame’s M23 for widespread rape, summary executions and use of child soldiers

As brilliant as Susan Rice is:  a woman of color, a mother with children and UN Ambassador, I would have preferred if she could have used her platform as the UN Ambassador to be a thoughtful diplomat instead of being a political hack for special interests who are using her academic achievements to damage people in Democratic Republic of Congo or anywhere else beyond repair!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/world/un-envoy-rice-faulted-for-rwanda-tie-in-congo-conflict.html?pagewanted=all

Black Faces in High Places

A friend of mine asked why does it matter if Susan Rice prevented from being Sec'y of State? I told him it matters because she was qualified & the only reason she was denied is because she is black! And why do black people always to have be moral esp. in a world that ain't, never has been and never will be?! Nobody asks white people to moral. Hell, they don't even have be qualified! She should've been Secy of State his 1st term, but a weak ass Knee-Grow like Uncle Barry felt he needed Hillary more when should've let her racist ass rot! But, he's scared of white folks. As far as Rice's Africa policy goes, it stinks! But, as my friend said, it does not matter who's in the position. They're expected to fulfill the mission. And even if hers & Barry's hearts were in the right place, they couldn't do much. The Africans on the Continent must do it for themselves!!! African-Americans have carried the load for all of the other blacks here and around the world. It's time they step up over there. We got our own fight here! Look, I wish blacks who have prominence, wealth, & power would step up & lead our people. But, they can't/won't because we are a weak & foolish people who'd rather accept slavery that feels like freedom instead freedom that feels like slavery. Meaning black people don't want to sacrifice today for tomorrow. So, why stick your neck out when no one else will?! So, all u can do is get yours and that's what's wrong with us. Almost every black person is out trying to get his/hers to detriment of our race. But, that's the way it is. Best you and I can do as individuals is help ourselves, our families, and if we can a few deserving and appreciative non-related black persons who come along our way.

Surge Master Gen 'Resigns' for Adultery_Now Killary 'Faints'

due to a supposed 'stomach virus' that causes her to hit her ole noggin giving her a 'concussion'- that leaves her fully awake w her faculties fully intact, requires no hospitalization nor a CAT Scan- just bed-rest- BOTH before they were scheduled to testify about Benghazi 9-11-2012. REAL CONVENIENT!!! 

So Xmas & New Years kicks in, then the MLK Holiday then Obama's re-inaguration, then we're into Feb 2013. By then Killary will likely be gone as Sec of State, so she may never testify RE Benghazi-gate. REAL CONVENIENT!!!

SUSAN RICE

Susan Rice's is very close to Paul Kagame of Rwanda and the multinational corporations who are looting the mineral resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The relationship between Ms. Rice and Kagame started while she was the Under Secretary of State for African Affairs during the reign of the "First Black President", Bill Clinton. Everybody knows that Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan and  Madeline Albright did not lift a finger when 800,000 Africans were exterminated within a matter of 90 days- that was the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. The lucrative COLTAN and other minerals trade ( Coltan comes from CONGO and  is used to power cellular phones, video game gadgets):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltan_mining_and_ethics

The COLTAN WAR in the Congo is waged in Goma area by Paul Kagame and his M23 troop. Kagame has be slaughtering Africans to facilitate the operations and there is total news blackout about the atrocities being inflicted on local African population!

Susan Rice, being the UN Ambassador, understands very well  about the operations of Paul Kagame and his M23 in Goma area!

Almost all African elites do not work to protect the interests and welfare of 99% powerless African population worldwide. That includes Susan Rice. These people work for their self-aggrandizements. Period!

FYI: Sue Rice Throws in the Towel as Obama's Next Sec of State-

So the field is now wide open for John Kerry. but he might be whom the power elites really wanted in that position all along. After all he's one of them- even more so than Ms Rice.

The "Pivot" towards China:

In the event Kerry should be given the State Department

by Thierry Meyssan

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) |

28 NOVEMBER 2012

[Photo: Mr. and Mrs. Kerry with Mr. and Mrs. Assad, during a private dinner at a restaurant in Damascus, 2009.]

http://www.voltairenet.org/article176730.html

Enjoying a legitimacy reinforced by his reelection, President Barack Obama is preparing to launch a new foreign policy – drawing the conclusions from the relative economic weakening of the United States, he has renounced the idea of governing the world on his own. US forces continue their departure from Europe and their partial disengagement from the Middle East in order to take up positions around China.

From this perspective, he wants to weaken the developing Russo-Chinese alliance at the same time as sharing the burden of the Middle East with Russia.

Consequently, he is ready to apply the agreement on Syria which was reached on the 30th June in Geneva - deployment of a UN peace force, composed mainly of troops from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, and maintenance of Bachar el-Assad in power if he is designated by his people.

This new foreign policy is running into strong resistance in Washington. In July, a series of organised leaks to the Press sank the Geneva agreement and forced Kofi Annan to resign.

This sabotage seems to have been hatched by a group of senior officers who are unable to accept the end of their dreams of a global empire.

It remains for Barack Obama to compose his new Cabinet by finding men and women who are capable of forcing acceptance of this new policy. He is counting especially on former Democratic candidate for the Presidency and current President of the Senate Committee for Foreign Relations, John Kerry.

Moscow has already made it clear that his nomination would be welcomed. In particular, Kerry is known as an "admirer of Bachar el-Assad" (The Washington Post) whom he has frequently met in preceding years. [1]

In the event Kerry should be given the State Department, the Department of Defense may be entrusted either to Michèle Flournoy or Ashton Carter, who would continue to apply the current budgetary restrictions.

In the event that Kerry should take over the DoD, the State Department could be given to Susan Rice, a nomination which would be sure to pose certain problems - she was seen to be particulary discourteous when Russia and China opposed their recent vetos, and doesn’t seem to possess the cool head this job requires. And in fact, the Republicans are attempting to block her nomination.

John Brennan, who is known for his particularly unethical and brutal methods, may become the new head of the CIA.

He would be tasked with turning the page on the Bush years by liquidating the jihadists who are working for the Agency and dismantling Saudi Arabia, which is of no further use. Failing this, the mission would be offered to Michael Vickers or even Michael Morell, the shadow advisor who was at George W. Bush’s side on a certain 11th September, and who dictated his conduct.

The noted Zionist, but nevertheless pragmatist, Antony Blinken may become head of the United States National Security Council, and could revive the plan he had elaborated at Shepherdstown in 1999 for Bill Clinton - make peace in the Middle East by relying on the Assad family.

But even before the nomination of the new Cabinet, the political about-face has already begun with the resumption of secret negotiations with Teheran.

In fact, these new policies require an end to the isolation of Iran, and the recognition of the Islamic Republic as a regional power.

The first consequence - the construction of the new gas pipeline has resumed. It will link South Pars, the largest gas field in the world, with Damascus, and then the Mediterranean and Europe - an investment of 10 billion dollars which could not be profitable unless there is lasting peace in the region.

Obama II’s new foreign policy is going to upset the Middle East in 2013, but in the opposite way to that announced by the Western and Gulf media.

Solidarity with whom, then?

So, should we be in solidarity with Latinos, Native Americans, Asians,  or white liberals/gays/jews/socialists?  They all hate blacks.  So, where does that leave us?  The problem hasn't been racial solidarity.  It's been a lack of accountability for the leaders for their ineptitude and/or treason.  We have to do a better job in selecting who we follow and then hold them accountable if they fail us.

Black Power Gone Wrong

Walter Rodney was a Black intellectual and the author of a classic book, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa. Born in Georgetown, Guyana, in 1942, he was the victim of a political assassination there in 1980. During his short life he studied in Jamaica and London, taught in Tanzania, and his Marxism provoked controversy in Canada and other countries around the world. He also took part in a symposium on "African Peoples and the International Political Economy," held by the Institute for the Black World (IBW) in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1974. A small book, Walter Rodney Speaks, is a transcript of some of the things he said during a follow-up discussion with the IBW at the University of Massachusetts in 1975. Much of what he said is relevant today, such as this excerpt from near the end of the book:

"White Marxists, although they have never theoretically accepted it, of course, have always in practice recognized the leading role of the black working class, because that's the only place they've gone to try and engage in some practices. You can't go to Mr. Meany's union [AFL-CIO] to practice any socialism. There is no possibility within that structure, as it is presently, of engaging in day-to-day worker education and the like, because the few who have tried it have been sucked into a meaningless pro-imperialist trade unionist type of politics that [has] nothing to do with working class power. And this is what socialism is about."

But earlier in the book Rodney said something that turned out to be so incorrect that it is difficult to believe:

"Can the American state simply bring its armed forces to bear on the African continent without causing an explosion of the already developing anti-imperialist sentiments of the black people of this country? Can they get away with it by playing up racism and hoping to have the white sector of the population going with them? My feeling is that it is going to be extremely difficult, for it becomes more difficult as time goes on for the U.S. to manipulate. Cambodia and Laos were places that seemed rather far away and, as Lt. Calley said at one time, there weren't people there, only communists, things that you could kill. But now communists are assuming this human form and they are coming closer and closer to home. They have defeated imperialism in one area. When it crops up in Africa, I think the first major stumbling block will be the black population in this country. I don't care whether there are black congressmen, or whether there are black mayors, or whether they're supposed to be conservative or not. I really cannot see any black person in this country with any viability outside of a mental institution who could actually support the United States sending troops to intervene in Africa. And that is going to be a major contradiction. I know they won't come out and say that. And if there is some black mayor or congressman going into South Africa, I believe he would put his life in physical jeopardy from some other brothers around. I don't think it's a simple task at all for the U.S. to just go and jump into Africa."

With the benefit of hindsight, we know just how tragically wrong Rodney was. Right now AFRICOM is intent on recolonizing Africa, having destroyed the most prosperous country on that continent, Libya, and assassinated its leader, Muammar Gaddafi, who had been almost single-handedly preventing the US from obtaining a military base on African soil--and it was all done under the direct command of a Black President with the fervent support of those US Blacks and whites who voted to reelect him for a second term. Rodney's incorrect assessment may have been due to his preoccupation with Marxism, so that he interpreted almost everything he saw in the context of an ideology that was more suited to a different time and place. He also overestimated the potential of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements. The biggest resistance to capitalist imperialist among US Blacks was not among workers, who had a vested interest in the system, but among the lumpenproletariat who were locked out of the system and who derived only oppression with no corresponding benefits from it.

Obama wasn't hanging out with any revolutionary brothers, he was working within the system alongside other Blacks and whites who were almost equally ambitious. Obama's road to success was paved with two prerequisites: never to do or say anything to offend or alienate a white person, and to always support the capitalist imperialist agenda.

I'm glad that Rodney never lived to meet Clarence Thomas or Colin Powell, who are not only Obama's Black brothers, but his ideological kin. The US didn't get support for invading Africa by "playing up racism and hoping to have the white sector of the population going with them," it simply put a Black man in charge of the program and insinuated that anyone who didn't support his capitalist imperialist white supremacist neocolonialist agenda in Africa was racist. And it worked.

Black Power should mean power to the people, not tokenism to the Black 1%.

The capitalist Jay Gould once said, "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." It is no less true with Blacks than it was with whites--with capitalism you can still hire half of any group to kill the other half.

Black Solidarity has to be Nuanced

Like everything else racial solidarity is situational and therefore has to be nuanced.  While blacks in the US should be in solidarity with blacks on the Continent and in other parts of the Diaspora, we can't have more solidarity with blacks who live abroad than those who live here.  As a matter of practicality, it doesn't make sense because we live here and what happens here affects directly.  If black leaders are going to be held accountable for what they do to, for, and against other  black people here and not so much for what they do to, for, or against those abroad.  This compartmentalization of loyalities is even more complex when you involve family or individual survival.  Now, Obama, Rice, or black official in the State or Defense Depts have to consider the internationational implications of their actions precisely because their decisions have a global impact.  But, for the rank and file black person or politician its much less so because their actions and decisions have less of a global impact and they have much less information at their disposal to make these kinds of distinctions.  I think the authors of the Black Agenda Report know this and they are being dishonest when they pretend they don't.  They are being even more dishonest when they hold black people more accountable than they do black leaders and blacks as a whole more accountable they do white people for black people's plight.

I don't see the moral equivalency you want to project here

First of all, when it comes to accountability I guess I'm just ol school because my parents taught me that being Black I had to be twice as good as a White person.  And frankly, I still believe that to be the case.  I don't believe we've progressed to where that mindset is unnecessary.  Here's part of the reason why:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/study_finds_weaker_social_networks_cause_of_black_unemployment_20121215/ 

I thought this was the money line:

It turned out that the white men did much better getting jobs, which she said grew in part from their access to a more robust network of contacts.

“It just happens to be the case that if you are a white guy you are more likely to know people who have access to a certain set of jobs,” she said. “It has to do with becoming part of a network of reciprocity.” 

Don't you just love the artful use of language to obscure the reality of a good ol boy network: the "network of reciprocity."  Love it.

Second, I will never have solidarity for war criminals, moral degenerates, mass murderers, or destroyers of civilization, I don't give a damn what nationality or race they are. 

In all fairness, your approach is the one that actually sanctions compartmentalization of moral responses and conduct.  If we learned anything from Martin Luther King, Jr. it was that deprivations at home and deprivations abroad were symptons of the same disease.  Dr. King linked poverty in the US with colonialism in Africa and Asia, which is where we find ourselves smack dab today.

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/tag/martin-luther-king/ 

Few people celebrating King’s legacy today realize that in addition to being a civil right leader in the U.S., King also saw that struggle as connected to other struggles for human rights around the globe. King was also presciently aware of the connection between white supremacy in the U.S. and the system in South Africa, several decades before anti-apartheid became a popular political movement here. King goes on the speech to highlight a Pan-African sensibility, explicitly drawing connections between the continent of Africa and, in the language of his day, “the American Negro.” He goes on to extend the struggle to include whites as well: 

I for one could give two cents about anti-human Black leaders, at home or abroad.  I cut these monsters no slack for their social-climbing tendencies.  It's not okay that a Black Sec. of State is behind the genocide of 5 million individuals and we defend it on the grounds that its not so bad because the White Sec. of State was behind the genocide of 7 Million.  Using your argument sorta sounds to me like this:  "We shouldn't be so critical of the Black man who massacred 16 school kids because the White man massacred 20, or the Asian at Virginia Tech slaughtered 32 persons." "We ain't no worse than them."

What you are advocating is moral relativism, which is precisely what others and I reject.  These symbolic Black "up and comers" don't mean anything to me, more often than not they make me sick to my stomach.  I never defend actions that are associated with plain ol evil. 

Black People Run the Moral Spectrum

Dear Cynic,

We are all moral relativists to some degree.  It just depends on the person or the situation.  We all "tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it. "  For example, people tolerated Bill Clinton's adultery and lying about adultery because they liked him.  Same thing with R. Kelly and his  marriage to Aalilyah and the subsequenty sex tape that he produced with a minor.  People loved his music and they didn't want to see him go to jail.  Although these examples are extreme, they highlight the little compromises we make everyday with our own & other people's public & personal morality.  You're saying because Obama and Rice are evil that trumps their blackness and that we shouldn't defend them or at least be upset when they are attack because they are black not because of their policies.  I hear black people all the time say that a black person's crimes do not justify police brutality and racist mistreatment.  Doesn't that also apply here.  By placing ourselves and our leaders on a pedestal or moral high horse, we set up ourselves and our leaders for failure b/c they can't meet an impossible standard.  And we choose our leaders on subjective standards like blackness rather than competence and experience.  Furthermore, more we shouldn't have to pass an MLK litmus test.  That we all have to believe in non-violent civil disobedience, christian socialism, and the end of war and abolition of the military.  Such thinking says that if you're not like MLK or Malcolm X then you're not an acceptable black leader.  I think because we're an oppressed minority in someone else's land that we can't envision ourselves as wielding power especially coercive.  There's enough in the world for black imperialists as well black pacifists.  Ramses II, Hannibal, and Shaka Zulu were all black kings who conquered other peoples and built empires.  Are they not black enough for you b/c they used their militaries for offensive as well as defensive purposes?  We have to see ourselves as masters as well as slaves.  B/c we have this myopic focus on our slave history we can't see beyond being an oppressed people.  We have to conquerors 1st before we can be more than conquerors.  Like it or not that's the way of the world.  In order for some people to advance, another people have to fall.  I'm not bothered that Obama and Rice imperialists.  I just wish they do on behalf of black people instead of white ones.



Clicky Web Analytics
Dr. Radut | blog