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


  •  Mumia on 2020 Elections
    Black Agenda Radio with Margaret Kimberley and Glen Ford
    Mumia on 2020 Elections
    03 Nov 2020
    The polls were wrong in 2016, and they may be wrong this year, too, said Mumia Abu Jamal, the nation’s best known political prisoner, in an essay for Prison Radio.
  • Anti-Queerness in Africa is Complicated
    Black Agenda Radio with Margaret Kimberley and Glen Ford
    Anti-Queerness in Africa is Complicated
    03 Nov 2020
    Thirty African countries have laws against homosexuality, but debate still rages over whether homophobia is endemic to Africa or a European import.
  • Anti-Black Racism is Everywhere in the Americas
    Black Agenda Radio with Margaret Kimberley and Glen Ford
    Anti-Black Racism is Everywhere in the Americas
    03 Nov 2020
    Anti-Black racism is not limited to the US, said Jomaira Salas, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Rutgers University and author of an article on Black Latina girls.
  •  Police “Reform” = Counterinsurgency
    Black Agenda Radio with Margaret Kimberley and Glen Ford
    Police “Reform” = Counterinsurgency
    03 Nov 2020
    Attempts to “reform” the police through body cameras, so-called “community” policing and other such measures “all presume the continued presence of police” in oppressed communities, said Dy
  • The Billionaires’ Duopoly Wins on Tuesday
    Glen Ford, BAR Executive Editor
    The Billionaires’ Duopoly Wins on Tuesday
    29 Oct 2020
    Allegiance to the Democratic half of the duopoly – whether active or passive – is still allegiance to corporate rule, not a strategy for transformative change.
  • Load More
Subscribe
connect with us
about us
contact us