Tag Archives: US interventionism

US-Rwandan backed general, Laurent Nkunda, to ‘liberate’ Congo again- Watch out!

Posted on by
5

Laurent NkundaRenegade Congolese General Laurent Nkunda has told the BBC he is now fighting to “liberate” the whole of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Nkunda and Rwanda, alongside some other players, have caused around 6,000,000 deaths in Congo over less than the last decade, far surpassing the number who died during the genocide in Rwanda previously. So who all has their hand in this new state of affairs? To help answer that, first let’s trip over to the US State Department for some info about current US-Rwanda relations.

‘In 1998, Rwanda, along with Uganda, invaded the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.) to back Congolese rebels trying to overthrow then-President Laurent Kabila. Rwandan troops pulled out of the D.R.C. in October 2002, in accordance with the Lusaka cease-fire agreement.

In the fall of 2006, Rwanda broke diplomatic relations with France, following a French judge’s indictment of senior Rwandan officials on charges of having participated in the shooting down of the presidential jet in 1994. Rwanda rejects these charges. Rwanda, along with Burundi, joined the East African Community in 2007.

U.S.-RWANDAN RELATIONS
U.S. Government interests have shifted significantly since the 1994 genocide from a strictly humanitarian concern focusing on stability and security to a strong partnership with the Government of Rwanda focusing on sustainable development. The largest U.S. Government programs are the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative, which aim to reduce the impact of these debilitating diseases in Rwanda. Other activities promote rural economic growth and support good governance and decentralization. Overall U.S. foreign assistance to Rwanda has increased four-fold over the past four years.’

Information provided to us from the US Dept. of State website. And, information about Laurent Nkunda can be found at wikipedia and other sources.

Why is it that we think of there having been a Rwandan genocide, yet nobody in the US talks about there having been a Congo genocide? Part of the reason I think, is simply that US citizens don’t really know that much about any part of Africa, Congo and Rwanda included as well as Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia, the so called Horn of Africa. They tend to want to accept at face value the prettified US Government USAID version of US interventionism in Africa. However, aid to Rwanda involves much more than Macy’s sale items or other such silly little nonsense as highlighted at the USAID site.

US aid to Rwanda is also US interventionism into the affairs of Congo and General Laurent Nkunda is a primary player in what is being bought. In D.R.Congo, Laurent Nkunda Forces On The Offense Again

The US blocked the United Nations from ever having confronted and disarmed Laurent Nkunda and his army, simply because it was part of the Rwanda military in the region, a military allied with the Pentagon. Now, that may be about to unravel into terrible bloodshed once again?

Why is the US playing around in Africa in the first place? Isn’t AFRICOM now the biggest player in the region? How much is Laurent Nkunda really in rebellion against the US? Perhaps he is more allied to the Pentagon than opposed? And maybe the commander of AFRICOM, US General William E. Ward might have the answers to some of these questions, but wouldn’t it be better if we were not intervening into and stroking the flames of Africa’s internecine strife?

Both France and the US need to get out of Africa once and for all. These games for influence in the region are quite deadly to the people that live there.

The Blame China pro US interventionists come to town today

Posted on by
Reply

The group Save Darfur comes to town with their Blame China pro-US interventionist campaign today at Colorado College. This campaign is heavily backed by the Democratic Party and is designed to take the heat off the Democrats for backing Bush’s genocide against the Iraqi people. Many people unfortunately seem to be falling for the con.

It is disgraceful that the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission is also slipping this antiChinese campaign onto its list of events to promote. Why? The Chinese are about the last nation to be blaming for all the bloodshed that European colonialism backed up by US imperialism has brought to the African continent. Instead of concentrating on the misdeeds of our own American government, some in the PPJPC seem intent on promoting US interventionism into Africa instead.

Sure, the liberal interventionists take great pains to hide their true program. They say they are trying to save lives, not trying to push US military interventionism in Sudan. But that that is not so is clear by their entire lack of any campaign to get the US out of Africa. Instead, they play the US government blame game and encourage its campaign against China.

Shame on you Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission! If there was any sort of democratic discussion and decision making inside this organization, maybe a stop could be put to this local push for US interventionism? But the organization seems totally undemocratic in structure, and little is being done to change that despite so many promises to do so.

It is time for this organization decide whether they will continue to encourage doing pro intervention work in favor of greater US involvement into African affairs, or not. It is one thing if individual members on their own bring in their signs and banners For US Intervention, but quite another when the organization as a whole encourages participation as a whole in these pro US interventionist campaigns.

US Out of Africa Now! It’s time to reign in the US military and not to call for yet more aggression against foreign countries. It’s time for the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission to stop playing dumb on the issue of US interventionism into other countries’ affairs, even when the media says it is all for a good cause.

Darfur is not 2 sides fighting each other

Posted on by
Reply

The false version, put out by the ‘Save Darfur’ pro- do something folk, is that Darfur is a matter of 2 sides, a good side of Black victims and a bad side of Arab murderers. This couldn’t be farther from the truth though, yet this ‘Black and Arab’ view is very useful for prompting US interventionism into the region.

In truth, the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan is just one regional conflict amongst many throughout Sudan and neighboring countries. It isn’t even the deadliest of these wars. Both the conflicts in the Horn of Africa and those throughout Congo and the countries to the East of Congo hav been far more deadlier in loss of life.

Even in Darfur itself, the conflict is far more complex than Western ears usually hear about. Darfur is much more than the land of the Fur people, since there are several other ethnic groups living in Darfur than the just the Fur themselves.

The Fur themselves live in not just Sudan, but also in Chad and the Central African Republic. Those who want intervention from the US and Europeans, paint a picture of Arab horsemen from outside the region, raiding and raping into Dafur to genocidally wipe Blacks of the Fur off the face of the map to take over the region for themselves.

Here is another picture of the conflict that is quite different. Darfur Conflict Takes Unexpected Turn

In Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and the Balkans, we have begun to see the dangers of plopping ourselves down inside multi-ethnic conflicts that our society poorly understands. It certainly is good for the munitions industry that supplies ‘our troops’ when we do get involved in these conflicts. They make a killing.

Our own US population foots the bill for the killing fields ‘our troops’ involve themselves in creating…. the killing fields that benefit nobody outside those who have jobs or stock portfolios in the military-industrial complex.

Incredibly, many liberal Democrats have positioned themselves in favor of some sort of interventionism into Sudan, while the Bush Administration has actually, in this case, tried some to avoid it, though they favor interventionism throughout other parts of Africa (like in Somalia). We should be quite aware, though, that all calls for humanitarian intervention easily and quickly morph into calls for ‘humanitarian intervention’ delivered by military forces. In fact, Blackwater is already in Sudan, supposedly carrying out relief operations in the southern portion of that country. We need to get them out of there.

Mengistu found guilty of genocide

Posted on by
Reply

Ethiopia’s ex-ruler and Leonid Brezhnev’s African superstar, Mengistu, was found guilty in absentia for genocide today. He fled Ethiopia for Zimbabwe after the capital, Addis Ababa, was taken by rebel forces in 1991. He has been tried in absentia by a regime that itself is now having real problems with keeping its repression from running totally out of control. Still, Mengistu was definitely a bloody tyrant despite his original revolutionary drive. Under his Dergue regime, somewhere beetween 1 and 2 million died during his time in power, either from famine, through war, or directly through assassinations ordered by Mengistu’s people. He deserves his conviction, though he alone was not responsible for all those who died.

The problem one has though in assigning responsibility for crimes such as genocide, is that often there is so much blame to share all around. All of Africa became an arena for proxy fights in the ‘Great’ Cold War between the US plus its allies Portugal, France, Spain, Belgium, Britain, and the White Apartheid regimes of Rhodesia and South Africa, all combined in struggle to keep the former Soviet Union from influencing the region in alliance with various indegenous rebel groups. This combined European-US interventionism caused the deaths of millions upon millions of Africans. And yet no genocide trial for the Whites.

Much has been made of Brezhnev’s miserable decision to have Russians fight it out on foreign soil in Afghanistan against the Islamic proxy troops of the US. This was actually a reasonable fight though, since what went on in that country certainly effected the Soviet Union, too. But why on earth Brezhnev continued to side and fund Mengistu in the Horn of Africa wars is hard for many to understand. He truly was a totally incompetent and corrupt leader, and his decisions he took in regard to the African tribal conflicts, certainly had a major effect on what ultimately led later on to Gorbachev’s own reaccionry and embecilic policies. That in turn led to the ultimate fall of the Soviet Union back into a group of many barbaric and often warring, Fourth World capitalist states.

That all being said, one positive effect of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, is that it pulled the rug out from under Mengistu’s foreign funding for war in the Horn of Africa. When he finally fell in 1991 from power, he was about as credible as Pol Pot had become in Kampuchea after beating back the US in SE Asia. Lesson learned once again? An intial revolutionary movement that comes to power with war being waged continuously by imperialist powers against it, can lead to a meltdown of the revolution and a total disintegration into slaughter and famine.

US-sponsored death squads continue to rampage in the Philippines and Colombia

Posted on by
Reply

The US military is holding joint military exercises this month with the Philippine military. Yet, the death squads are rampaging there like they did in the Ferdinand Marcos era. Did Americans think that the US military was truly out of that poor country’s life? And in Colombia the death squads also continue to rampage, with funding from the US for its military operations in the last 5 years at over $3 billion dollars. Tens of thousands have lost their lives due to the US intervention in that South American country. A signal card of many Colombian death squad attacks is the use of the chain saw on their victims. Our US government sponsors terrorism around the globe, and these 2 countries have been among the worst victims of our government’s evil interventions. Lest we forget, Iraq is defintely not the only country shredded by US interventionism. And in all cases the US intervenes, to have different groups of the native populations go at each other’s throats, while US troops direct the carnage.

Mexico’s election and ours, the different and the same

Posted on by
Reply

Across the US political spectrum it is now widely understood that the US government does aggressively intervene in Latin America, no matter whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. So no matter what political stripe your average Joe and Jane neighbor may be here in Colorado Springs, you are not too likely to have one deny that the US has historically intervened South of The Border in some form or another; militarily, economically, and culturally. The neighbor leaning Left might say that this has been negative for those countries, while the Rightist will most probably sing interventionism’s praises. The memory of Reagan’s Central American wars of the ’80s remains strong, because some of these wars were so widely covered in the press.

There is one caveat to mention here. The belief that the US is intervening, and has intervened in the past in Latin America, is mostly confined within opinion by the American public, that this is so only south of Mexico. Why? The answer is in that the US press as a whole, treats mention of US interventionism in Mexico and its politics as its grand taboo. Despite the fact that Mexico is a huge and populous country and is where the Third World meets the US to our South, the US press does all it can to keep Americans just as ignorant about Mexico as they can be made.

As one example, just how many non Hispanic Americans can name the Mexican states that border the US? How many of these same Americans know that Mexico is divided into states even? But how many of these same folk yet have strong and basically uninformed opinions regarding immigration from that country? The sum total of belief the US non Hispanic public has been taught by the English language US press, is that Mexico is poor and that many want to live here because of that. Further information is kept back, and the widespread Anglo public view is that Mexicans run their own country and the US has nothing to do with that. Unfortunately, that perception is totally false.

To illustrate the point that the US in fact has a major role in directing Mexican life, let me just mention a few facts about Walmart in Mexico. This American company is Mexico’s largest private employer with over 100,000 employees and over 800 stores there. It now is entering into the countries banking structure as a major player, too. It is just ridiculous to imagine that the Walton family of Arkansas is just standing to the side when political and economic decisions are being made, whether in Spanish, or not.. They have an agenda, and push it just as hard in Mexico as they do in the US. Their agenda, in short, is to make profits in that country and to move those billions to Bentonville, USA.

I don’t want to pick on Walmart here. They are just one of many prominent examples of US presence in Mexico, and exploitment of it. They have high level company officials, as other US companies and the US government itself do, that interact with the Mexican elites themselves to maintain a ‘good business climate’. What existed before the year 2000, was the longest running one-party dictatorship in the world. Both Mexican and US elites decided was that this was not good for business at that time. Previously, they had agreed that this dictatorship was absolutely just the thing for business and US government support for the PRI dictatorship was kept solid. And the US press’s silence about this ran solid for decades, too.

In the last 2 US presidential elections, the results left many believing that fraud had carried Bush into office twice. At any rate Bush received less votes (called popular votes, as if that made them insignificant) than Al Gore did in 2000, and yet got the office! Gore realized that though he had won the vote count and that the Republicans had fraudently purged voter lists of largely eligible Black voters, that he was not as popular amongst the US elite as Bush was at the time. So he laid down his claim for the presidency, and conceded without a struggle! And America has been as it has, ever since.

Mexico had its presidential election about 10 weeks ago. News of it was kept quiet in the US daily press, as if it was of no real concern to Americans. Pretty strange behavior for what bills itself as the ‘free press’, but not real shocking if we consider how the US press has been largely lap dogs in support of Bush’s multiple invasions, occupations, and wars. Not much coverage of Bush in Haiti these days, neither. How much real examination has there been of whether the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had roots in the White House?

But what came out of this election south of us was a fraudulent result that will possibly impact the US as much as Iraq now does. After all, the US and Mexico are intertwined on the North American continent, and neither country will ever become an island into itself,no matter how hard it is tried. I could go into the many details of why the results were fraudulent, something that is now being denied in US daily editorial after another. That would seem arcane and boring to most readers though. What counts, is that about half of the Mexican population is certain that the results are fraudulent and the official president stands with little legitimacy in their eyes. And the US supports that man, as do the Mexican church, government, and economic elites that have long impoverished that country.

What really is fearful to the US media, is that the official ‘loser’ of the Mexican presidential race, Antonio Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), has chosen a path completely in contrast to that of our US loser of the past, Al Gore. He has decided to struggle against the fraud rather than to meekly surrender to it. Despite the effort to reconstruct Gore’s image amongst the US public as Mr. Ecology, he will probably go down in history as the goat that led to the construction of the Bush Administration. Mexico’s ‘loser’, AMLO, may well go down to being seen as a hero in the struggle against US control of his country, and the destruction of its national integrity.

The situation in Mexico now is quite complex. The country’s highest court just put a man in office, that even with fraud in his favor, gathered less than 40% of the votes! The south of the country went for AMLO, and the north went more to Calderon, now the official ‘president’. About 30% of the country stuck with the PRI, party of the no supposedly defunct one-party dictatorship of the past. Fact is, that both Calderon’s party and the PRI have been acting in conjunction with each other, as if they were but 2 wings of one corporate party. Does this ring a bell for some Americans?

Our government and institutions should not fall into line accepting Mexican electoral fraud as they are now doing. The fact that they have done so bodes poorly for our own embattled system. Neither country can afford to continue where only elites make decisions that effect all of us. Neither country needs Tweedle-Dee/ Tweedle-Dumb governance. That way leads to national insecurity for both nations.