Susan Rice's Business Links To Paul Kagame And His M23

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

11 posts / 0 new

It is clear that the M23 in the Eastern DRC is used by Anglo-Saxon camp proxies Uganda and Rwanda, to either incorporate or pull into their sphere of influence parts of the Eastern DRC, like Kivu North and Kivu South. They used the excuse of 'genocide' in 1994, to have the US trained and funded head of Ugandan Army Intelligence, Paul Kagame, invade Rwanda from Uganda, using Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). They want to use the M23 to do the same thing in the Eastern DRC.

It is time that all profits from natural resources are recognized as belonging to the people of the country collectively, and transnational corporations and their bankers will stop financially backing militias and armies to extract them.

Also, if natural resources are only extracted to the degree that the people need resources, instead of putting another 0 after someone's Swiss bank account, that will be good for the environment too.

(BLACK STAR NEWS) Ambassador Susan Rice; New York Times article about backing Kagame more damaging than Republican attacks about Benghazi

Two African Dictators Presented Problems For Rice

Most talking heads focus on the role that GOP leaders' professed outrage over the handling of the Benghazi attack played in derailing Susan Rice's prospective nomination for Secretary of State.

A New York Times December 9 article, "U.N. Ambassador Questioned on U.S. Role in Congo Violence" by Helene Cooper, played a bigger role.

It's true that Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham had launched scathing attacks against Rice, claiming that she had misled the public on national TV shows by maintaining that the attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya, had been inspired by the video mocking the prophet Muhammad, when in fact it was a planned terrorist attack.

And, after a recent meeting between Rice and prominent Republican senators, the lawmakers said they were even more dissatisfied with Rice's explanation of her remarks following the Benghazi attack. She had maintained that she used talking points provided by the intelligence community.

Still, Rice had the full support of President Obama and Democratic lawmakers. It's unlikely that the Republicans would have been able to prevent her confirmation as Secretary of State.

It wasn't as if Rice had been responsible for security at the Benghazi Mission and was derelict. And if the Republicans wanted a scapegoat from the State Department, why not Secretary Hillary Clinton?

Another question that came up was Rice's and her husband's investment in the Keystone XL pipeline; as Secretary of State, she would be involved in the decision whether to approve the pipeline from Canada, creating a possible conflict of interest. This would not have been an insurmountable obstacle since Rice presumably would have recused herself or divested her holdings.

What Rice would not have been able to overcome if pressed is her support for Rwanda's dictator Gen. Paul Kagame, especially given the humanitarian catastrophe created in Congo by M23 the terrorist army that invaded from Rwanda in what amounts to a war of aggression from a neighboring country.

(Charles Taylor, Liberia's former president, who played an even minor but critical role in Sierra Leone's bloody conflict is now serving a 50 year term after conviction by an International Tribunal)

A United Nations report found that both Rwanda and Uganda, under Gen. Yoweri Museveni, trained, armed and even supported M23 with their regular army troops. The UN said M23's chain of command led to Rwanda's defense minister James Kabehere.

Nominal leaders on the ground, including Bosco Ntaganda, indicted and wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Sultani Makenga, also reported to Uganda's police chief and the presidential advisor on the military.

Separately, Human Rights Watch issued a report about M23's "widespread war crimes" in Congo, including executions, rapes, and recruiting of child soldiers. Rwanda's and Uganda's support of various militias in Congo through the years has led to the deaths of as many as five million Congolese, according to human rights groups.

Several media outlets, including The Black Star News, deplored this relationship over the years. But the timing of The Times article could not have been worse for Susan Rice: coming when she is being vilified by Republican leaders while being considered for the State Department's top job.

As Helene Cooper reported, when France's and the United Kingdom's representatives to the United Nations proposed publicly disclosing that the UN report had found strong evidence showing Rwanda's support for M23, Susan Rice objected. She succeeded in having any direct reference to Rwanda omitted from the report. And this was not the first time that Rice had backed Gen. Kagame either, Cooper reported.

The most damaging part of Cooper's article was the revelation that Rwanda under Kagame had been Susan Rice's client when she worked at a consulting firm. This raised the question whether her alleged covering up for Kagame, in her capacity as U.S. ambassador to the UN, had been related to their earlier business connections.

The oil pipeline story in itself may not have developed into a major issue. But combined with Rice's strong support for Gen. Kagame, even with overwhelming evidence about his role in the continuing genocide in Congo, The New York Times' article effectively killed chances of Rice's confirmation.

"Speaking Truth To Empower."

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

Comments

The original NYT article:


(NY TIMES) U.N. Ambassador Questioned on U.S. Role in Congo Violence
By HELENE COOPER
Published: December 9, 2012

While President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have taken some of the blame, critics of the Obama administration’s Africa policy have focused on the role of Susan E. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations and a leading contender to succeed Mrs. Clinton, in the administration’s failure to take action against the country they see as a major cause of the Congolese crisis, Rwanda.

Specifically, these critics — who include officials of human rights organizations and United Nations diplomats — say the administration has not put enough pressure on Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, to end his support for the rebel movement whose recent capture of the strategic city of Goma in Congo set off a national crisis in a country that has already lost more than three million people in more than a decade of fighting. Rwanda’s support is seen as vital to the rebel group, known as M23.

Support for Mr. Kagame and the Rwandan government has been a matter of American foreign policy since he led the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front to victory over the incumbent government in July 1994, effectively ending the Rwandan genocide. But according to rights organizations and diplomats at the United Nations, Ms. Rice has been at the forefront of trying to shield the Rwandan government, and Mr. Kagame in particular, from international censure, even as several United Nations reports have laid the blame for the violence in Congo at Mr. Kagame’s door.

A senior administration official said Saturday that Ms. Rice was not freelancing, and that the American policy toward Rwanda and Congo was to work with all the countries in the area for a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

Aides to Ms. Rice acknowledge that she is close to Mr. Kagame and that Mr. Kagame’s government was her client when she worked at Intellibridge, a strategic analysis firm in Washington. Ms. Rice, who served as the State Department’s top African affairs expert in the Clinton administration, worked at the firm with several other former Clinton administration officials, including David J. Rothkopf, who was an acting under secretary in the Commerce Department; Anthony Lake, Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser; and John M. Deutch, who was director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Payton Knopf, a spokesman for Ms. Rice, initially declined to comment on whether her work with Rwanda at Intellibridge affected her dealings with the country in her present job as an ambassador. But on Monday, Mr. Knopf said: “Ambassador Rice’s brief consultancy at Intellibridge has had no impact on her work at the United Nations. She implements the agreed policy of the United States at the U.N.”

Two months ago, at a meeting with her French and British counterparts at the French Mission to the United Nations, according to a Western diplomat with knowledge of the meeting, Ms. Rice objected strongly to a call by the French envoy, Gerard Araud, for explicitly “naming and shaming” Mr. Kagame and the Rwandan government for its support of M23, and to his proposal to consider sanctions to pressure Rwanda to abandon the rebel group.

“Listen Gerard,” she said, according to the diplomat. “This is the D.R.C. If it weren’t the M23 doing this, it would be some other group.” The exchange was reported in Foreign Policy magazine last week.

A few weeks later, Ms. Rice again stepped in to protect Mr. Kagame. After delaying for weeks the publication of a United Nations report denouncing Rwanda’s support for the M23 and opposing any direct references to Rwanda in United Nations statements and resolutions on the crisis, Ms. Rice intervened to water down a Security Council resolution that strongly condemned the M23 for widespread rape, summary executions and recruitment of child soldiers. The resolution expressed “deep concern” about external actors supporting the M23. But Ms. Rice prevailed in preventing the resolution from explicitly naming Rwanda when it was passed on Nov. 20.

Mr. Knopf, the spokesman for Ms. Rice, said the view of the United States was that delicate diplomatic negotiations under way among Rwanda, Congo and Uganda could have been adversely affected if the Security Council resolution explicitly named Rwanda.
“Working with our colleagues in the Security Council, the United States helped craft a strong resolution to reinforce the delicate diplomatic effort then getting under way in Kampala,” Mr. Knopf said.

The negotiations subsequently fell apart, and the M23 continued to make gains in eastern Congo. Last week, the M23 withdrew from Goma but left behind agents and remain in range of the city.

Mr. Knopf declined to confirm or deny the account offered by the United Nations diplomat about the conversation between Ms. Rice and the French ambassador. But he said that “Ambassador Rice has frequently and publicly condemned the heinous abuses perpetrated by the M23 in eastern Congo,” adding that the United States was “leading efforts to end the rebellion, including by leveling U.S. and U.N. sanctions against M23 leaders and commanders.”

Ms. Rice’s critics say that is the crux of the problem with the American response to the crisis in Congo: it ignores, for the most part, the role played by Mr. Kagame in backing the M23, and, as it happens, risks repeating the mistakes of the genocide by not erring on the side of aggressive action.

“I fear that our collective regret about not stopping the Rwandan genocide, felt by all of us who worked for the Clinton administration, led to policies that overlooked more waves of atrocities in the Congo, which we should equally regret,” said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, who has worked closely with Ms. Rice both in the Clinton administration and after.

“For almost 20 years now, the premise of U.S. policy has been that quiet persuasion is the best way to restrain Rwanda from supporting war criminals in the Congo,” Mr. Malinowski said. “It might have made sense once, but after years of Rwanda doing what the U.S. has urged it not to do, contributing to massive civilian deaths, and ripping up U.N. resolutions that the U.S. sponsored, the time to speak plainly and impose penalties has come.”

When Mrs. Clinton appeared before reporters on Nov. 28 to talk about the M23’s seizure of Goma, she sprinkled her talking points with a demand that the rebel group withdraw, calling the humanitarian impact “devastating,” with 285,000 people forced to flee their homes, health workers abducted and killed, and civil workers under threat of death. But she made no mention of Rwanda’s role backing the rebel group, limiting her inclusion of Rwanda to a mention of negotiations with Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo to try to get a cease-fire.

“The M23 would probably no longer exist today without Rwandan support,” said Jason K. Stearns, author of “Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of Congo and the Great War of Africa.” “It stepped in to prevent the movement from collapsing and has been providing critical military support for every major offensive.”

Johnnie Carson, the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, noted that the United States cut a portion of its military financing for Rwanda — around $250,000. But the Rwandan military continues to receive substantial American training, equipment and financial help. In an interview, he said, “There is not an ounce of difference between myself and Ambassador Rice on this issue,” adding that quiet diplomacy was better than publicly calling out Mr. Kagame.

Ms. Rice, who has been at the eye of a political storm over her portrayal of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya, declined to be interviewed for this article. But in recent days, she seems to have tried to publicly distance herself from the M23 — although still not from Mr. Kagame. On Dec. 3, she posted on her Facebook page: “The U.S. condemns in the strongest terms horrific M23 violence. Any and all external support has to stop,” in a reference to action in the Senate.

Her posting drew immediate responses. “Condemn the rape but don’t name the rapist?” one of them said. “What kind of Justice is that?”

A version of this news analysis appeared in print on December 10, 2012, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: U.N. Ambassador Questioned on U.S. Role In Congo Violence.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

A few other good articles on Susan Rice -

http://blackagendareport.com/content/did-bloody-hands-not-black-womanhoo...

And another one here almost 10 years old but still an informative read - thus exposedis the seamless foreign policy towards Africa.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/barefoot-sick-hungy-and-afraid-...

The Obama admin is sending troops to over 1/2 the African nations this year - but no problem - theres nothing to see - Please move along towards the shopping mall clearance sales!

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am

There are pro-imperialist liberals who are liberal at home only, and there are liberals who are anti-imperialist, just as there were in FDR's time. The Commons have to be respected as belonging to the people of the country collectively - now if we had a WTO that enforced that, it would be a different world.

Susan Rice’s defense of Kagame in Congo puts Obama State Department on the defensive
December 19, 2012
by Ann Garrison

U.S. President Barack Obama, Rwandan President Paul Kagame and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice

The Obama administration was on the defensive about the U.S. relationship with Rwanda and its U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice at the Dec. 11, 2012, U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Two days after the hearing, Rice withdrew her name from consideration to become secretary of state. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now appears to be first in line for the job, and Republicans aren’t likely to unleash attack dogs on him because his appointment will give them a shot at his Massachusetts Senate seat.

Will Kerry be any better, for Congo or the rest of Africa? Of course not, unless political pressure forces him to be any better, and there’s some danger that journalists, Africa advocates, and peace and social justice advocates won’t keep their eyes on him as they might have on Susan Rice.

Kerry was an early backer of the invasion of Iraq. He’s down with all the warmongering in East and Central Africa by John Prendergast’s Enough Project and its satellite organizations, including Invisible Children and their KONY 2012 campaign. He toured college campuses with movie star Ben Affleck to promote conflict minerals legislation, a faux solution to the Congo conflict, broken down by Friends of the Congo’s Kambale Musavuli and Bodia Macharia in “Conflict Minerals: A Cover For U.S. Allies and Western Mining Interests?”

In 2011, Kerry was in South Sudan, along with John Prendergast, George Clooney and Bono, to celebrate its independence and deliverance to Glencore International, the new nation’s new oil marketing partner. Why imagine that Kerry would oppose the break-up of the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

Will Kerry be any better, for Congo or the rest of Africa? Of course not, unless political pressure forces him to be any better, and there’s some danger that journalists, Africa advocates, and peace and social justice advocates won’t keep their eyes on him as they might have on Susan Rice.

As a unified nation, D.R. Congo has the resources, including its Atlantic port on the mouth of the Congo River, to become a global powerhouse – much as a unified Sudan did, with its vast resources including its port on the Gulf of Aden. Is it in the USA’s geostrategic interest to see any African nation emerge as a global powerhouse? Especially one where so much of the mineral wealth essential to weapons manufacture is so densely concentrated, as it is in Congo? That’s certainly not in the interest of what we call “the U.S.” as it is now. In a U.S. committed to global community, it might be, but that’s obviously not the U.S. we live in.

At the Democratic Convention this year, Kerry’s most notable remarks celebrated the extrajudicial, summary execution of the U.S.’ best excuse for squandering trillions on imperial wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan: “Ask Osama bin Laden if he is better off now than he was four years ago?”

However, though there’s no reason to expect John Kerry to be any better, Susan Rice’s withdrawal of her name is still a victory for Africa peace and social justice activists. It symbolizes recognition that Rice has been protecting Kagame’s Rwandan regime and Museveni’s Ugandan regime from being named as the aggressors in Congo and protecting their top military and police officers from being subjected to targeted sanctions in U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Is it in the USA’s geostrategic interest to see any African nation emerge as a global powerhouse? Especially one where so much of the mineral wealth essential to weapons manufacture is so densely concentrated, as it is in Congo?

In 2011, Rice flew to Libya after Gaddafi’s extrajudicial, summary execution to say the U.S. got it right this time – that we’d stopped genocide – before flying to Rwanda to say the same. And, like Kagame, she delivered a solemn eulogy at the funeral of brutal Ethiopian autocrat Meles Zenawi. So her appointment would have been a slap in the face of African people well beyond the Great Lakes region.

In one of the contradictions so prominent in Obama’s America, some said that the Republican attacks on her were racist and sexist, and they probably were, but that’s not what kept her from following in the path of Madeline Albright, Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton. As Milton Allimadi wrote in the Black Star News, “What Rice would not have been able to surmount is her support for Rwanda’s dictator, Gen. Paul Kagame, especially given the humanitarian catastrophe created in Congo by M23, the terrorist army that invaded from Rwanda in what amounts to a war of aggression from a neighboring country.”

Delaware Congressman Christopher Smith began his opening remarks at the Dec. 11 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing by saying that the U.S. now stands alone in its support for Rwanda:

“Today’s hearing will examine U.S. policy regarding the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This conflict was exacerbated by Rwanda’s interventions in neighboring eastern Congo, as documented by the release of three United Nations reports this year. These reports confirmed Rwanda’s support of militias that have ravaged and continue to plague this region.

“The State Department was unavailable to testify at our Sept. 19 hearing on this issue, and the subcommittee promised at that time the follow-up when State was available to testify.

“In the aftermath of the 1994 genocide, successive administrations have turned a blind eye to reports of Rwanda plundering the DRC and supporting rebels who have devastated Congo and its people. It seems that guilt over the Clinton administration’s colossal failure, responding effectively, as they did not, to the genocide in Rwanda, has led to subsequent administrations being reluctant to criticize the government of Rwanda.

“We must overcome our regret over what happened 18 years ago. As an NGO letter to President Obama points out, the United States is now out of step with our European allies, who have cut aid to Rwanda because of their ‘interference’ in the DRC.”

After claiming that the State Department was doing all it could by talking to everyone, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson indignantly dismissed the suggestion that the administration had delayed release of the Group of Experts report and gone out of its way to protect the USA’s longstanding ally and “military partner” Rwanda.

Congressman Smith turned to Carson asked: “There are rumors – maybe they’re just rumors – that the administration sought to delay the U.N. Group of Experts report on the DRC this past summer and attempted to soften criticism of Rwandan involvement with M23. Can you speak to that?

“I reject that out of hand,” responded Carson.

The Group of Experts recommended sanctions – specifically travel bans and asset seizures – targeting top Rwandan and Ugandan officials. Carson’s response to Congressman Smith’s question regarding sanctions was that the Administration would welcome Rwanda onto the U.N. Security Council, as a member in good standing, with high hopes.

“The Rwandans join the U.N. Security Council next year. Does that have any bearing on what our policy will be, particularly when it comes to sanctions, since they will be on the Security Council?” asked Congressman Smith.

“Ah, no, it does not,” Carson answered. “I would just hope that the Rwandans, when they join the council, will carry out their duties in a responsible and thoughtful way.”

John Prendergast, a former National Security Council adviser to President Bill Clinton while Susan Rice was his under-secretary of state for African affairs, claimed that no one doubts the administration’s commitment to peace in the Great Lakes Region, most of all that of Under-Secretary of State Johnnie Carson and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice:

“No one is questioning the hard work and the dedication, decades long commitment, that key administration officials have exhibited on behalf of peace in Congo,” Prendergast declared. “I would particularly point out for special commendation Ambassador Johnnie Carson and Ambassador Susan Rice at the U.N.”

Even Prendergast knew that this was his own wishful thinking, however, because in the same breath he decried those who do indeed doubt that commitment, particularly those who doubt Ambassador Rice’s commitment.

“I’m particularly saddened by the personal attacks we’ve seen against Ambassador Rice, in the press and the blogosphere, over the past couple weeks over issues related to the Congo,” Prendergast said. “Knowing Johnnie and Susan, and working with them for over the past 16 years, I can tell you from personal experience that they’ve worked tirelessly for peace in the Great Lakes Region.”

Curious comment, coming from someone who so recently, writing in Foreign Policy, urged Obama to “unleash the dogs of war and let them hunt” in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

Before the hearing was over, Congressman Thomas Marino, R-Penn., called out the Obama administration for its unwillingness to impose sanctions to stop Rwanda and Uganda in Congo, but, true though that was, he should, to be honest, have acknowledged that the unwillingness has been a bi-partisan effort. Neither Clinton, Bush nor Obama – yet – has been willing to stop Rwanda and Uganda in Congo, despite similarly damning U.N. reports since 1998.

Two days after the hearing, Ambassador Susan Rice publicly withdrew her name from consideration to become secretary of state on NBC. The network reported, however, that they do not expect her to leave the Obama administration and imagine that she will stay on as U.N. ambassador or perhaps join Obama’s National Security Council in a powerful post that Congress would not have to approve.

In President Obama’s statement on Susan Rice, issued the same day, Dec. 13, he praised her work advancing America’s interests and specifically mentioned her efforts regarding Iran, North Korea, Libya, South Sudan, Israel and the U.N.

He did not mention Rwanda, Uganda or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

San Francisco writer Ann Garrison writes for the San Francisco Bay View, Global Research, Colored Opinions, Black Star News and her own website, Ann Garrison, and produces for AfrobeatRadio on WBAI-NYC, KPFA Evening News and her own YouTube Channel, AnnieGetYourGang. She can be reached at ann@afrobeatradio.com. If you want to see Ann Garrison’s independent reporting continue, please contribute on her website at anngarrison.com.

Friends of the Congo’s Maurice Carney talks to KPFA Morning Mix host Sabrina Jacobs about the eastern Congo conflict, broadcast Dec. 17, 2012

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Dec. 11, 2012, hearing on eastern Congo and U.S. relations with Rwanda and Uganda, reported by Ann Garrison, also broadcast on the KPFA Morning Mix, Dec. 17, 2012

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

Also, interesting on the Rwandan Genocide, from the Genodynamics website, they write:

Project Summary

While there are many issues we seek to understand, thus far we have concluded several things about the violence that took place in Rwanda during 1994:

1) there were several forms of political violence being enacted at once (genocide - mass killing of an ethnic group and/or mass killing of a political group, civil war, random violence and vendetta/reprisal killings),

2) the extremist Hutu government as well as the Rwandan Patriotic Front engaged in violent activity against Rwandan citizens, and

3) the majority of victims were likely Hutu and not Tutsi.

These findings have implications for public policy, advocacy, humanitarian intervention as well as post-conflict reconstruction as they fundamentally shift our understandings regarding the “lessons” of Rwanda 1994.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

This alone should make it clear what a joke STOPKONY2012 was - Paul Kagame was...

mentored by Ugandan strongman (and Reagan administration favorite) Yoweri Museveni, who is believed to have pioneered the use of child soldiers in modern African conflicts.

From the Black Agenda Report, by Glen Ford:

A Second Wave of Genocide Looms in Congo, with Susan Rice on Point
Wed, 11/28/2012 - 13:14 — Glen Ford
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

Susan Rice is a woman of ghastly accomplishments: suppressor of the facts on genocide in Congo, and chief U.S. warmonger in Africa. Yet African American politicians rush to her defense, as a role model for young Blacks, especially women.

“Susan Rice has abetted the Congo genocide for much of her political career.”

The invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo by U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda, in 1996, set in motion a genocide that left six million Congolese dead. Another wave of mass killings now looms with this month’s capture of Goma, an eastern Congolese city of one million, by “rebels” under Rwandan and Ugandan control.

“People need to be clear who we are fighting in the Congo,” said Kambale Musavuli, of Friends of Congo. “We are fighting western powers, the United States and the United Kingdom, who are arming, training and equipping the Rwandan and Ugandan militaries.”

The main player in suppressing information on Congo’s neighbors’ role in the ongoing genocide, is U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice.

Rice has fought a two-front battle to protect Washington’s murderous clients, delaying publication of a UN Group of Experts report on Washington’s clients’ depredations in Congo, and at the same time subverting efforts within the State Department to rein in Uganda and Rwanda. Last week, Rice blocked the UN Security Council from explicitly demanding that Rwanda immediately cease providing support to M23 rebels who vowed to march all the way to Kinshasa, the Congolese capital.

Susan Rice has abetted the Congo genocide for much of her political career.

Appointed to President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council in 1993, at age 28, she rose to assistant secretary of state for African affairs in 1997 as Rwanda and Uganda were swarming across the eastern Congo, seizing control of mineral resources amid a sea of blood.

She is known to be personally close to Rwanda’s minority Tutsi leadership, including President Paul Kagame, a ruthless soldier trained at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and mentored by Ugandan strongman (and Reagan administration favorite) Yoweri Museveni, who is believed to have pioneered the use of child soldiers in modern African conflicts.

“Rice said not a word about ethnic cleansing and racial pogroms against black Libyans and sub-Saharan African migrant workers.”

On the outside during the Bush years, Rice became a fierce advocate of “humanitarian” military intervention in Africa, urging air and sea attacks on Sudan and championing the U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, in 2006. A senior foreign policy advisor on Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign team, Rice made it no secret she hoped to be named secretary of state.

As UN ambassador, she is the administration’s top gun on Africa, the focus of her outsized aggressions. Rice is widely credited with convincing Obama to launch NATO’s bombing campaign for regime change in Libya. She parroted false media reports that Muammar Gaddafi’s troops were raping Libyan women with the aid of massive gulps of Viagra, refusing to back down even when U.S. military and intelligence officials told NBC news “there is no evidence that Libyan military forces have been given Viagra and engaging in systematic rape against women in rebel areas.”

Yet, Rice said not a word about ethnic cleansing and racial pogroms against black Libyans and sub-Saharan African migrant workers, including the well-documented erasure of the black city of Tawergha.

Susan Rice’s “humanitarian” instincts, like her boss’s, are highly selective – so much so, that a genocide equal to or greater than the Nazi’s liquidation of European Jewry is invisible to her. More accurately, Rice labors mightily to render the genocide in Congo invisible to the world, suppressing release or discussion of reports on Rwanda and Uganda’s crimes.

“Rice labors mightily to render the genocide in Congo invisible to the world.”

The first document, a “Mapping Report,” described human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1993 through 2003. Finally published by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in October of 2010, after long delays, the document specifically charges Rwandan troops with engaging in mass killings “that might be classified as crimes of genocide.” The more recent report by a UN Group of Experts concludes that M23, the Congolese “rebel” group that captured Goma, is actually “a Rwandan creation,” embedded with Rwandan soldiers that take their orders from Paul Kagame’s military. Uganda also supports M23.

Susan Rice, as an energetic protector and facilitator of genocide, should be imprisoned for life (given that the death penalty is no longer internationally sanctioned). But of course, the same applies to her superiors, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. One would think that the Congressional Black Caucus would be concerned with the threat of a second wave of mass killings in Congo. Not so. A Google search fails to reveal a word of complaint from the Black lawmakers about genocide in Congo or suppression of documentation of genocide – or much of anything at all about Africa since the death of New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne, ranking member of the House Subcommittee on African Affairs, in March of this year.

“One would think that the Congressional Black Caucus would be concerned with the threat of a second wave of mass killings in Congo. Not so.”

Instead, incoming Congressional Black Caucus chair Marcia Fudge, of Cleveland, held a press conference with female Caucus members to defend Rice, “a person who has served this country with distinction,” from Republican criticism of her handling of the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya. “We will not allow a brilliant public servant’s record to be mugged to cut off her consideration to be secretary of state,” said Fudge.

In the Congressional Black Caucus’ estimation, Rice’s “record” as chief warmonger in Africa and principal suppressor of the facts on genocide in Congo makes her a role model for African Americans, especially young Black women.

Her relationship to the women of Congo is more problematic. Said Kambale Musavuli, of Friends of Congo, which works tireless on behalf of victims of mass rape in eastern Congo: “Why should you want to help a Congolese woman who is raped, when your tax money is supporting the ones that are doing the raping? That’s a contradiction”

In the Age of Obama, the Black American relationship to Africa is suffocating from such contradictions.

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

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

I see a parallel to what happened to the Jews and what has happened to the Tutsies. Hitler was Genocidal and wiped out many of the Jews and the US and Britain had a guilty conscience (what? the US had a conscience?) and helped to steal Palestine from the Palestinians and give it to the Jews. And back during Bill Clinton's reign, the Majority Hutus killed 800,000 Tutsies with clubs and machetes and now Paul Kagme (a Tutsie) has ruled Rwanda and over the years and went about sending his military, armed with western weapons, off to kill 5,000,000 Hutus in Rwanda and surrounding countries. Many of them were civilians, women, and children. The Jews committed genocide in Gaza and the Tutsies committed genocide everywhere that Hutus have run off to (mostly the DRC). Just as Israel couldn't have done a lot of this without the help of the western powers so too Kagame could not have done this without help from the western powers.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
And back during Bill Clinton's reign, the Majority Hutus killed 800,000 Tutsies with clubs and machetes and now Paul Kagme (a Tutsie) has ruled Rwanda and over the years and went about sending his military, armed with western weapons, off to kill 5,000,000 Hutus in Rwanda and surrounding countries.
That is the official narrative - and if you say differently in Rwanda, you go to jail - just ask Victoire Ingabire and Peter Erlinder.

However, if you listen to prof. Alan Stam, you will find that most people murdered in Rwanda were most likely Hutus, and without a doubt all the people murdered in the DRC were Hutus.

Check out this video, from 09:35 onwards on the role of Paul Kagame and his Ft. Leavenworth, KS, Command and General Staff College military education.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

Roger Casement: Thanks for that link and I watched it. Very interesting. I certainly learned something new about what happened. I also watched this video and found the consciousbeingalliance.com article very enlightening. It's rather long but well worth reading, I think.

Hour long BBC video along with an interesting narrative about the making of the video... This World: Rwanda's Untold Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSm3BsOH08

Quote consciousbeingalliance.com:The confirmation of satellite reconnaissance and intelligence photographs newly implicates the U.S. government in the mass atrocities of 1994, and raises serious new questions about the coverup of the double presidential assassinations of April 6, 1994 and the atrocities committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) commanded by now President Paul Kagame.

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/04/pentagon-reveals-satelitte...

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hi Palondromedary,

Quote Palindromedary:Hour long BBC video along with an interesting narrative about the making of the video... This World: Rwanda's Untold Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSm3BsOH08

Thanks a lot for that link. It was put up on Youtube before but taken down. Jane Corbin is excellent.

(YOUTUBE) This World: Rwanda's Untold Story

Prof. Alan Stam: If a million people died in Rwanda, in 1994, and that is certainly possible, there no way that the majority of them could be Tutsi.

Jane Corbin: How do you know that?

Prof. Alan Stam: Because there weren't enough Tutsi in the country.

Jane Corbin: The academics calculated, that there had been 500,000 Tutsi's in Rwanda. 300,000 survived. This led them to their final, controversial conclusion.

Prof. Alan Stam: If a million Rwandans died, and 200,000 of them were Tutsi, that means that 800,000 of them were Hutu.

Jane Corbin: That's completely the opposite of what the world believes happened in the Rwandan genocide.

Prof. Alan Stam: What the world believes, and what actually happened, are quite different.

Roger Casement's picture
Roger Casement
Joined:
Nov. 22, 2011 11:07 am

It was more of a civil war than a genocide. Neighbor killing neighbor over long pent up grievances with a newly generated excuse to get rid of them. The thing that isn't much talked about is that the Tutsis and Hutus had been killing each other for a very long time prior to the one that got all the attention. The intervening foreign powers like the French and English speaking countries may have just made things worse. The Hutus largely spoke French and the Tutsis largely spoke English.

I'm sure Paul Kagame, who had escaped Rwanda into Uganda when he was a boy and joined the Uganda military as an officer, had no problem when he attended the military training school in Ft Leavenworth, KS back in his early military career. I'm wondering if there weren't some well laid plans, by the US and Kagame, on how to invade and take over Rwanda along with weapons and logistics to do it?

I don't fully understand it all and will probably have to read about it again, and watch the videos again, but my understanding was that the Tutsis, Rwanda's minority in the 50s, were the ruling elite in Rwanda because they won the war between the Hutus and Tutsis where massacres killed many people back then. There were several massacres between the 50s and the 90s.

The Hutus, the French speaking majority, finally won the presidency in the early 90s. Paul Kagame, in Uganda, orchestrated the shooting down of the newly elected Hutu president's plane which ignited an already festering Hutu plan to massacre the Tutsis. All they needed was an excuse. The Hutus rioted and went about killing Tutsis and Hutus but Tutsis were also killing Tutsis and Hutus. Many escaped to the Congo (Zaire) and Uganda.

Paul Kagame, now a high up officer in the Uganda army sent his troops down into Rwanda to take over the country but most of the massacres were happening not in the areas where his troops were. The video showed the progression of Kagame's army from the north moving to the south of Rwanda...and showed where and when in relation to the advancing Kagame army the massacres were taking place in the central and southern parts of Rwanda. Kagame didn't seem to be in any hurry to get to where the massacres were happening...acting as if he wanted the massacres to continue. Clinton offered to send help but Kagame said that he couldn't guarantee that his troops wouldn't fire upon the US troops. So Clinton backed out. The reason the massacres ended was because the French went in from the south of Rwanda and was working it's way up toward the Kagame forces and when they finally met...that massacre ended.

As the movie pointed out...it was the Hutus that were mostly massacred...far more than the Tutsies. But the news media made it look like it was the Hutus only that were massacring the Tutsies. Which doesn't look to be true now.

Rwanda is currently being ruled by iron hand of President Paul Kagame, the Tutsi, and anyone who has spoken out against the country or his rule even in the slightest way, is sent to prison. Kagame had built memorials for the Tutsies that died in the massacre but not for the Hutus. A Rwandan woman simply asked "Where are the memorials for the Hutus?" And she is now in prison.

Kagame has even invaded the Democratic Republic of Congo (once Zaire) and took over the eastern part up to the Congo river all the way up to was was once called Stanleyville. They were going after Hutus in their quest to wipe them out. I would imagine that Kagame has gotten plenty of help from the west ever since his training at Ft. Leavenworth.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

America Needs To Move Seniors Out of Poverty and to Stop Choosing Between Food & Medicine

Thom plus logo For decades, progressives have been talking about eliminating the cap on the Social Security tax and raising Social Security benefits enough that retired and disabled people can actually survive.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system