Black Agenda Report
Black Agenda Report
News, commentary and analysis from the black left.

  • Home
  • Africa
  • African America
  • Education
  • Environment
  • International
  • Media and Culture
  • Political Economy
  • Radio
  • US Politics
  • War and Empire

The Genocidal Fruits of U.S. Africa Policy
11 Jul 2012
🖨️ Print Article

 

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Rwanda’s crimes against Congo are the subject of another United Nations report. The U.S., Rwanda’s ally and protector, “is also liable for the genocide in Congo.” Washington has placed its guns and money in the hands of an aggressive, minority regime – which is not surprising. “U.S. policy in Africa has almost always been to choose chaos in those places where it cannot rule directly.”

 

The Genocidal Fruits of U.S. Africa Policy

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

“Why does the United States place its strategic interests in the hands of the elite of a warlike minority in the heart of Central Africa?”

The United Nations has finally released a report detailing Rwanda’s latest destabilization of the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo. As usual, the delay was caused by the United States, which routinely blocks criticism of its military and political client-state, Rwanda, which has since 1996 been deeply complicit in the death of 6 million Congolese. The United States is, therefore, also liable for the genocide in Congo – the largest mass killings since World War Two.

Apologists for U.S. policy in Central Africa are fond of using the word “strategic.” The United States, they say, arms and protects Rwanda because America has “strategic” business and defense interests in the Congo’s vast mineral deposits. The infinitely corrupt Congolese strongman Mobutu Sese Seko used to be Washington’s attack dog in Africa. But, in the mid-90s, the Americans opted to back an invasion of eastern Congo by the Tutsi-minority regimes in Rwanda and Burundi, and the other U.S. client-state in the region, Uganda. Washington chose to put its strategic interests in the hands of a small but highly militarized people, the Tutsi, rather than help the Congolese government maintain control over its own territory.

“A formula for endless war.”

Why would the United States choose such allies to protect its so-called “strategic interests.” On the face of it, this would seem like a formula for endless war in the region. Even before the mass killings of Tutsis in 1994, they never comprised more than 15 percent of the population in Rwanda or in Burundi, where Hutu people make up the vast majority. Having lorded it over the Hutus during and prior to the arrival of European colonialism, and having massacred many Hutu in both nations after independence, the Tutsi are not loved by their fellow countrymen. They have since become a primary source of destabilization and genocide in Congo. So the question is: Why does the United States place its strategic interests in the hands of the elite of a warlike minority in the heart of Central Africa? Why would Washington invest millions in minority-ruled governments of tiny countries like Rwanda and Burundi, which can only be sources of permanent instability in the region? Don’t the Americans understand that support for tiny, aggressive elites guarantees continued chaos?

The answer is: Yes, they do understand. Since independence, U.S. policy in Africa has almost always been to choose chaos in those places where it cannot rule directly. And chaos brings genocide. The U.S. reasons that, at any given moment, chaos contains many options, an infinity of possibilities for superpower action – whereas stable regimes with broad popular support provide less room for the foreigner to maneuver, less possibilities for a quick change of policy or regime.

Which is one reason that China looks good to Africa and to much of the rest of the formerly colonized world. The Chinese do not foment coups, or encourage whole regions to become saturated in arms. They just want to do business in a stable environment. That’s why China has surpassed the U.S. as Africa’s trading partner, and why U.S. imperialism will ultimately be defeated. Because nobody wants someone around who spreads chaos and mass death everywhere he goes.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.



Your browser does not support the audio element.

listen
http://traffic.libsyn.com/blackagendareport/20120711_gf_ChaosAfrica.mp3

More Stories


  • Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist
    Trump and U.S. Hubris Undid the Plan for Iran's Destruction
    08 Apr 2026
    The U.S. has been temporarily rattled in its regime change effort against Iran. Iranian resistance, hubris on the part of the U.S., and Donald Trump’s personal instability combined to undo a twisted…
  • Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior Columnist , ​​​​​​​ Ajamu Baraka, BAR editor and columnist
    The Twilight of Western White Power Will Usher in the Dawn of a New Global Civilization Without Systemic Degradation and Dehumanization
    08 Apr 2026
    A conversation focusing on U.S. actions against Iran explains why the imperialist drive for domination will actually lead to a superpower becoming much less powerful.
  • Editors, The Black Agenda Review
    ESSAY: Is the US Anti-Caribbean? How to overcome it then, Tim Hector, 1997
    08 Apr 2026
    “...it is like a knee-jerk reaction in the U.S – this consistent, insistent and persistent anti-Caribbean policy in the U.S. from 1776 to the present.”
  • Ann Garrison, BAR Contributing Editor
    Iran’s Nuclear Rights
    08 Apr 2026
    Most of the world would be at greater ease if Iran had a nuclear bomb.
  • Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright
    A Sigh of Relief…But Breathing Easy is Impossible in a Circumference of U.S. Empire (Or, the Perpetual Relevance of Frederick Douglass’s Prescription for Resistance)
    08 Apr 2026
    The ceasefire brings a sense of relief but not safety. Iran showed that the empire is not invincible, but the US commitment to the doctrine of hegemony has not changed.
  • Load More
Subscribe
connect with us
about us
contact us