A USAToday Editorial: Accountability in Darfur

For five and a half years, government-backed forces in Sudan have committed unspeakable acts  — murder, rape, torching villages  — in the vast western province of Darfur. About a quarter of a million people have died, with millions displaced.

In 2004, the U.S. government condemned this for what it is: genocide. But efforts to stop it, even sending in thousands of international peacekeepers, haven’t ended the horror.

On Monday, the International Criminal Court, a tribunal set up in The Hague, Netherlands, in 2002 to prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity, took a bold action. Its prosecutor asked its judges to indict Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on war crimes and genocide charges — the court’s first indictment of a sitting head of state. (Two others, Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia’s Charles Taylor, were indicted by special nited Nations courts.)

The value of the criminal court’s extraordinary decision is that it continues a movement over the past decade of putting leaders of countries on notice that they might not get away with terrible crimes against their people. That trend gained momentum after Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, in which the world stood by as 800,000 were slaughtered.

Each new effort can also put new pressure on countries that do business with tyrants. China has lucrative oil deals with Sudan and is its main arms supplier. The indictment gives China additional incentive to use its leverage to burnish its image as it prepares to host next month’s Olympic Games.

The potential downside is that the indictment could provoke a backlash by al-Bashir. He has played a game of promising to comply with efforts to end the genocide, including allowing in foreign peacekeepers.

In reality, he has aided the horror. Now, he could end all pretense. Already, worrisome new attacks on peacekeepers include one last week in which seven were killed and 22 injured. The U.N. said Monday it was withdrawing some non-essential staff.

Al-Bashir certainly won’t hand himself over. He is more likely to model himself on a fellow African tyrant, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, who unleashed a murderous onslaught on anyone who opposes him after it became clear he would lose this year’s election.

Like Mugabe, al-Bashir might be counting on help from China and Russia. Both are frequently accused of human rights violations and fear international moves that infringe on national sovereignty. Appallingly, they used their U.N. Security Council vetoes last week to block new sanctions against Zimbabwe.

One organization might have more influence than the international court or U.N. on al-Bashir and Mugabe. That organization
is the African Union.

Its members, led by powerful South Africa, have behaved more like a cozy old boys’ network.
On Monday, they even asked the court to stop the indictment. They should be more concerned with getting the thugs in their club to stop the killing.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY:

Popularity: 3% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

Introduction

The struggle against oppression was the central thesis of Frantz Fanon’s revolutionary philosophy. And colonialism was the target of this fury. Fanon condemned colonialism in the most bitter terms and advocated violence in its most extreme form to confront this plague. In his words, “colonialism is not a thinking machine nor a body endowed with reasoning faculties. It is violence in its most natural state … and will only yield when confronted with greater violence.”

   Frantz Fanon
This revolutionary outlook is reflected in many of Fanon’s works, among which include: Black Skin White Masks, A Dying Colonialism, Toward the African Revolution and The Wretched of the Earth. The latter book, acclaimed as Fanon’s most accomplished work, has been described as the “bible of decolonization” because of its radical impact on, and eventual success of the anti-colonial struggle.

Half a century after Fanon’s death, his thesis of violence still remains an object of heated debate. This controversy is increasingly fanned by the undying contradictions within postcolonial Africa. Dr. Homi K. Bhabha questioned the relevance of Fanon’s radicalism in contemporary Africa. “Is The Wretched of the Earth now only a historical and scholarly artifact?” he asked. Continued he, “In the era of globalization is it a relic of naturalistic struggle? Or do Fanon’s insights transcend the particulars of his time? Might they help us make sense of today’s political and economic tensions?” Dr. Bhabha’s doubts suggest both the climate of tension and uncertainty in Africa on the one hand, and the almost-futile search for solutions to the innumerable problems infecting the continent. All of these calamities always boil down to conflicts of one form or another. Where is Fanon’s place in this violence-plagued continent?

Judged against the background of current upheavals in Africa, one requires a deeper reading and then a second interpretation of Fanon. These twin tasks can only make sense when we strive to understand the climate of Fanon’s time and compare it with that of today. Given that Africa alone currently accounts for more than 35% of the world’s conflicts, Fanon still has many questions to answer. Firstly, did Fanon in the middle of his rage ever prescribe an end to violence in Africa in the foreseeable future? Secondly, what is the difference between the unabated spiral of violence in Africa and the colonial-type violence? Put in other words, is violence in contemporary Africa a mark of change or is it of continuity? Thirdly, is half a century not time enough for Africa to reconsider its reverence for violence? And consequent upon these questions, is the struggle lost for Africa?

Violence in Africa, a colonial heritage

Colonialism was without doubt a turning point in Africa’s history and destiny. It accelerated the pace of devastation initiated by the obnoxious slave trade. In Walter Rodney’s words, colonialism completely destroyed what remained of the political, economic and socio-cultural achievements of Africa and left in its place “nothing of compensatory value.” This colonial havoc was the springboard of Fanon’s philosophy of violence. Its test ground was Algeria where Fanon saw for himself what he later called “the psychiatric disorders of colonialism.” Angered by this bestiality of colonialism, Fanon concluded that the Algerian revolution had created “an irreversible situation” for the entire African continent.

Fanon was not alone in preaching violence as the only way out of colonialism and neocolonialism. Che Guevara in 1964, also made it unequivocally clear that “to solve the problems now besetting mankind, there is need to eliminate completely the exploitation of the dependent countries by the developed capitalist countries.” And he spelt it out clearly “with all the consequences that this implies.” This loud call to arms explains the triumph of violence throughout Africa in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The eventual success of liberation forces in Africa lent credit to Fanon’s dictum that “only violence pay.” Even the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the continental body formed in 1963 to free the continent from colonial rule recognized the need for violence by establishing a Liberation Committee. Its task was to use every means possible, including violence to end colonial rule. And this it did.

In calling on the African masses to resort to violence against colonialism, Fanon did not have to search too far for reasons to convince his audience. He pointed to the exploitative relationship that existed between the settlers and the Africans. The settlers used every means possible to secure their economic interests, including extreme brutality which Fanon describes as “bayonets and caning.” Violence and cruelty were therefore major features of colonialism. Fanon therefore pressed on the need to counter this violence “with greater violence.” Even at the cost of 45.000 lives in Setif, 90.000 in Madagascar, 2000 in Kenya and 250000 in German Tanganyika, Fanon urged Africans to answer violence with violence. This was only part of the price Africans had to pay for carrying the “Whiteman’s burden,” the imposed weight of colonialism.

Like Rodney, Fanon blames the diametrical relationship existing between Africa and Europe entirely on colonialism. Says Fanon, “the well-being and progress of Europe have been built on the sweat and dead bodies of negroes….” And Fanon did not mince words when he made a strong claim that “Europe is Africa’s creation.” To Fanon therefore, the colonized man only “finds freedom in and through violence.” In the course of this struggle, Fanon warns that the native should be prepared to “…sacrifice everything and water their native soil with their blood.” He further cautioned seriously that as a strategy in this struggle, the native can accept a “compromise with colonialism, but never a surrender of principle.”

Another damaging aspect of colonialism which Fanon vociferously decried was the physical and spiritual partition of Africa. It was under colonial rule that Africa was split into several halves for European domination. Colonialism seized African land and minerals for European economic enterprise. It was under colonial rule that Africans were graded, degraded and finally classified into natives and assimiles. Colonialism obliged Africans to carry identification badges on their own soil. On a more dramatic scale, colonialism dissected Africa along the Sahara and prided the northern part of the continent with civilization because it bordered Europe, the land of achievement and wonder. The Southern part of the continent was termed “barbaric” and “uncivilized.” This “primitive” part needed the civilization missions from Europe, hence the justification for European “paternalism” in Africa.

This deliberate attempt at tearing Africa apart was the handiwork of colonialism and a forerunner of (and compliment to) the “divide and rule” policy that marked colonial rule. Added to this puncture on Africa, was the tendency to implant and enforce the notion of racism and ethnicity which have today set Africa ablaze. Observes Fanon, “Colonialism does not simply state the existence of tribes, it also reinforces it and separates them … colonialism is separatist and regionalist.” As a result, continues Fanon, this “legalized racism … maintained in the very depth of the consciousness (of the African people) can only be combated by force.” Fanon’s anger at colonialism is reflected by the dose of fury with which this plague had to be confronted. “No diplomacy, no political genius, no skill can cope with it except force,” he stressed.

Violence in the postcolonial context

Did the coming of independence halt the specter of violence in Africa? Or put in other words, has independence met the expectations of Africans who fought for and eagerly awaited this “wind of Change?” The answer to this question is found on the faces of millions of African children who are either born with disease, or turned refugees or orphans at infancy. It is found on the faces of African youths with bleeding feet on the sands of the Sahara as they make their way to Europe where persecution, prejudice and deportation await them. The answer is found on the faces of millions of Africans caught in the crossfire of civil wars and armed conflicts, genocide and state brutality. Who else can tell the true meaning of independence than those Africans caught in the claws of AIDS, malaria, hunger, mismanagement and corruption? What should the peasants of Africa say of independence when they survive on what Fidel Castro calls “starvation salaries?”

When Europe granted flag independence to Africa, the new breed of European spokesmen in the name of Presidents saw no need to severe the colonial bond. Mr. leon M’ba of Gabon could claim with impunity that “Gabon is independent, but between Gabon and France nothing has changed.” His counterpart in the Ivory Coast, Houghouet Boigny had earlier opposed independence for Africa at the Bamako Conference insisting that “there is no national problem in Black Africa.” The successors of M’ba and Boigny are the current leaders of Africa. This is the bunch Fanon calls “the straw men and traveling salesmen of colonialism.”

In Fanon’s words, independence for Africa simply meant the replacing of one “species” of men with another “species” of men. This new species constitutes the core of the neocolonialist framework, the logical continuation and consequence of colonialism. Here, Fanon singles out two groups of people who need an equal dose of violence. These are the national bourgeoisie of the Third World and the lumpenproletariat. The former group Fanon says, balances its budget with loans and gifts. And together with the latter group, both simply serve the role which Fanon describes as “a transmission line between the nation and capitalism.”

To Fanon, there is a vivid contrast between the bourgeoisie of the metropole and that of the periphery. While the metropolitan bourgeoisie contributed enormously to the development of the colonial country, the bourgeoisie of the colonised country has always remained ignorant and underdeveloped. This group is more preoccupied with what in Fanon’s words are “activities of the intermediary type.” Its major concern is with “the ground nut harvest, with Cocoa Crop and olive yield.” This parasitic group remains contented with sending “out raw materials, being Europe’s small farmers who specialize in unfinished products.”

Fanon has found many apologists in modern Africa. Walter Rodney vividly painted the picture of an African peasant entering colonialism “with a hoe” and leaving “with a hoe.” Five decades after Fanon’s pronouncements on Africa, his views on African agricultural backwardness were repeated by French President Nicholas Sarkozy on his visit to Senegal in 2008. The French President observed that African peasants were living according to the seasons and were therefore outside of history. In”the African imaginary world … there was no place for human adventure or the idea of progress,” he said. Sarkozy however admitted that “Europe had ruined a way of life during its colonization of the continent.” Does Sarkozy share Fanon’s advocacy for violence? It is difficult to tell because the Frenchman expressed sympathy for Africa when he wept “the suffering of the black man is the suffering of all men.”

Insisting that the Third World bourgeoisie exists only in spirit, Fanon observes that this class invests its energy on a “neo-colonialist industrialization in which the country’s economy flounders.” This poorly informed and misdirected middle class instead of investing in the priorities of their people, instead take to leisure thus transforming Africa into what Fanon sees as “Europe’s brothel.” This class makes virtually “no change in marketing of basic products.”

It was against this background of economic inefficiency, mismanagement and misdirected priorities that Fanon reminded the exploited army of peasants throughout Africa that “only violence pays.” His thesis of violence was recently invoked by Nelson Mandela, former South African President and icon of the anti-apartheid struggle. Angered by the level of decay in Zimbabwe, Mandela was among the few African leaders to invoke a “Fanonist” approach to the crisis in Zimbabwe by calling for an uprising against the leadership. “Ordinary people should depose leaders who enrich themselves at the expense of their countrymen,” Mandela said in 2000. Was Mandela Speaking for Fanon?

One very strong case Fanon makes against the bourgeoisie of the Third World is the political weakness of this class. Its Leadership is marked by cruelty, greed and violence. This “unmasked, unpainted and cynical” dictatorship is given a tribal connotation because it emerges from the dominant tribe. If Fanon were alive today, he would have been alarmed by the fact that there is not one country in Africa which has been spared the scourge of tribalism. This tribal dominance of power and resources is at the heart of the ceaseless conflicts in Africa. These conflicts take different forms; civil wars, inter-tribal wars, coups and state brutality. From the Congo and Nigeria in the 1960s, through Rwanda in the 1990s to present day Kenya, Chad and Sudan, cases abound. There is little indication that the wave of violence in Africa shows any signs of ebbing. What then do we make of Fanon’s thesis of violence?

In Fanon’s view, the diminished effect of independence (or its complete lack of meaning) owes largely to the complacency of the Third World bourgeoisie. This class rose to power in the name of a “narrow nationalism.” Unable to put into practice a government even with a “minimum humanist content,” this class took to rhetoric and propaganda. In Fanon’s words, they “bandy about in irresponsible fashion phrases that come straight out of European treaties on morals and political philosophy.” Alex Thomson in his book “An Introduction to African Politics” seems to agree with Fanon on the surge of personal philosophies by African leaders. Thomson cites Sengho’s negritude, Kaunda’s humanism, Nyerere’s Ujama and Mobutu’s Mobutuism.

In recent years, this rhetorical campaign has grown even louder from the state to the continental level. Libyan leader Muammar Gadhaffi takes centre stage as the protector of the oppressed and defender of African unity in modern times. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, the bete noire of the West comes in as champion of a “look east” policy for Africa. South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki poses as the flag bearer of an “African renaissance.”

When cut to size, do these philosophies offer any credible alternatives to the postcolonial frustrations in Africa? Does Mr Mbeki’s silent diplomacy towards Zimbabwe and the recent upsurge of Xenophobia in his country augur well for his “renaissance scheme?” Does Mr Mugabe’s absolutism give him any moral authority to tell Africa which direction to look when his own people have nowhere to turn and no one to look up to? Does the alleged maltreatment of black Africans in Libya and the rest of North Africa speak well of President Gadhaffi’s position as the unifier of a divided continent? Are these leaders still “the transmission line between the nation and Neo-colonialism?”

When one situates Fanon within the context of ceaseless uncertainties in contemporary Africa, one easily identifies the root causes of violence. This remains the only weapon in the hands of the suppressed and exploited masses. To these “wretched of the earth” as Fanon would call them, “national consciousness is nothing but a crude empty shell…the cracks in it explain how easy it is for young independent countries to switch from nation to ethnic group and from state to tribe which is terribly detrimental to the development of the nation and national unity.”

Fanon was very prophetic in foreshadowing what Dr. Bhabha later termed “ethno-nationalistic switchbacks” of our time. In post independent Africa, such switchbacks in the form of violent conflicts are quite visible. The entire continent is ablaze with conflicts of one kind or another all of which trace their origins to bad leadership, neo-colonial intrusion and lack of vision for the continent. While serving with the Press Services of the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria, Fanon seized this opportunity to amplify one of his first themes, “the unity of Africa.” What have African leaders made of this call? Fanon himself saw these compradorbourgeois as obstacles to African unity. As solution, he stressed the need to “turn the revolution inwards” against these agents of African underdevelopment.

From Fanon’s time till present, violence in Africa has taken many forms. State brutality against the people has provoked equally hostile responses from the people against the state as seen in Sudan. Tribes have stood against tribes, leading to unforgettable genocides as seen in Rwanda. Coups and counter coups, border conflicts, religious conflagrations, secessionist attempts and the struggle among people and nations for access to resources such as land and water are among the several causes of this chaos. None however, is as evident as bad leadership, greed, graft and corruption, which remain the worst forms of violence against Africans by Africans.

It was in Fanon’s own Algeria (where he gave his life in the fight against oppression), that the army showered bullets on defenceless youths in 1988. This act of carnage forced Fanon’s widow, Josie, to cry from her sickened heart “Oh Frantz, the wretched of the Earth again.” If Fanon were alive today, he would have reiterated the need for such gruesome acts to “be beaten down by force.”

Conclusion

Fanon died in 1961 at the age of 36 with the language of violence still fresh in his mouth. He was very unrepentant in his claim that “colonialism only loosens its hold when the knife is at its throat.” He would have repeated these same words in the present context of neo-colonial oppression with the conspiracy of Africa’s new “species” of men in the name of leaders.

Since Fanon’s death in the age of “the wind of change,” millions of Africans are yet to know the meaning of change. The challenges still remain for millions more who go night and day without food, clothing in a supposedly scientific, technological and space age. Adding his voice to Fanon’s call for violence against oppression, Rodney not only identifies the presence of “African accomplices in the imperialist system,” but challenges the oppressed masses to take up the responsibility to understand the system and work for its overthrow. There are two lessons to be drawn from this line of thinking. The first is that violence in Africa is intricately linked with the nature of leadership and governance. Secondly, and consequent upon the first implication, Africa still has many conflicts on its way if the current system remains unchanged. The AU and NEPAD do not have to search too far for causes of instability in Africa.

They rather have to search far for solutions beginning with “in-house” cleaning.

Popularity: 26% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

By Khamati Shilabukha

In the past few years, there have been efforts to re-position Africa in the globalising world to take care of relationships among its states and the rest of the world.

The association of African states was restructured from the Organisation of African Unity, to the African Union. Many would argue that this is merely a change in name and not in the character of the organisation.

Proponents of the “new” outfit argue that it is meant to generate a new awareness of who we are. Many also hold the view that Africans are too divided to evolve into a meaningful regional identity.

This argument stems from the myriad conflict situations in the continent. The conflicts are both intra-national and international, with the former more prevalent.

Intra-national conflicts are often the result of internal (political/economic) power squabbles. Sierra Leone, Liberia, DRC, Rwanda, Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Algeria, Ivory Coast and Kenya are some examples of countries that have experienced such conflicts. They have all received adequate media coverage. But the other genre of conflict has not received the same kind of coverage, yet it is crucial in the pursuit of a global and modern Africa.

This conflict derives from all forms of discrimination including racism and xenophobia. It is vicious and has gone on for some time. These forms of discrimination are serious, and efforts have been made to put them on the global agenda.

The most appropriate example is the current attacks on foreigners in South Africa. The question that begs answers is, why at this time in Africa? All sectors of a society have an obligation to contribute to the resolution of this conflict. We need to examine the extent to which as leaders, scholars and policy makers, we can intervene in this scourge called xenophobia.

It is argued that xenophobia is a result of poor intercultural communication. Members of one culture do not understand, appreciate and accommodate those from another culture. They lack adequate information to deal with such people with the least stress and threat.

But acquiring such information does not come easy and the poor management of communication often leads to strife. This could be the case in South Africa. One major source of information that allows us a wide world view and a more holistic perception and appreciation of others is the mass media. But the mass media, as inanimate objects, cannot do anything. It is those who use and manipulate them that can make the difference.

Xenophobia is a global problem. Although the phenomenon is ubiquitous in contemporary societies, its targets vary across countries and nations. It is such that even those who have been a subject of hate also develop hatred for others. But how does this hatred come about? Anthropologists and other social scientists posit that a population composed mainly of foreigners is an environment in which xenophobia can easily thrive.

They distinguish three theoretical approaches to the rise and diffusion of hatred. The first relates to socio-economic status of individuals, the second pertains to their cultural identity and the third the general attributes of society.

Source of hatred

The first approach derives from the “power theory” – a paradigm that views the relationship between groups as a function of their competitive positions. This concept suggests that a threat of one particular group to another is a source of hatred. When people feel insecure in the face of threat, they portray resentment and hate. But here, the intensity of hate need not necessarily depend on real competition on the job market but on the perception of threat. This is sufficient ground to induce animosity. Much of this is absent in the South African situation.

The cultural symbolic approach holds that animosity towards the other is not a consequence of economic competition between rival groups. It is a product of early political and value socialisation. The main issue here is the fear of loss of social status and identity.

Thus, cultural differences among people could be responsible for conflicts and hatred. In this approach, it can be explained that people would prefer to be surrounded by their own kind rather than be exposed to “strangers”. Defining a group of people as “un-belonging” to the national “we” deprives them of the right to belong. Much of this is also absent in South Africa.

The third approach, termed phenomenology, attributes xenophobia not to economic strains or cultural divergence but to general attributes of society. When society experiences deep crises, which occur intermittently, anomic tensions encroach upon social postures.

This leads to a crisis of collective identity “so that the calm self-certainty which might enable unproblematic relations with the minorities gets lost”. Under this approach, xenophobia is interpreted as a way of reassuring the national self and its boundaries, as an attempt at making sense of the world in times of crisis. This could be happening to indigenous South Africans.

To start with, the impeding fallout between President Thabo Mbeki and Africa National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma could be disillusioning to many ordinary citizens of African descent.

Many of them subscribe to ANC with a passion yet they find themselves on the sidelines when major party decisions are being made. At the same time, they have not benefited from the economic prosperity of their country.

Many South Africans still live in squalid conditions and the dream of land reform has turned into a pipe dream. These issues run so deep in their collective psyche that they need reassurance of economic and social survival. But they are directing their anger at the wrong enemy.

Many of the low class Zimbabweans, Malawians, Zambians and nationals of other countries are escaping economic hardship and political violence which South Africa has refused to acknowledge as a problem, especially in Zimbabwe.

They should commit themselves to assisting them to the best of their capacity. And this applies to other countries with a chance to host other Africans in need of refuge and sanctuary.

Popularity: 25% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

What Barack Obama Can Do For Africa — and Vice Versa

The first time Barack Obama came home to his father’s village of Kogelo in western Kenya, it was as a 26-year-old backpacker exploring his family roots. In 1987, he and half-sister Auma rode a dilapidated old bus from Kisumu, the provincial capital, 60 miles away. As they lurched along dirt roads, a couple of chickens nestled in Obama’s lap and mothers passed wet babies back and forth to the two young visitors.

Obama spent his time in Kogelo, a small rural village where people grow maize and raise cows, getting to know his grandmother Sarah Hussein Obama and wandering the fields and dirt lanes his late father had walked as a boy and had returned to after separating from Obama’s mother, an American, when their son was just two…..[MORE][MORE VIDEO]

Popularity: 26% [?]

Sphere: Related Content

  By: Dr. Megalommatis Muhammad
Shamsaddin (Pictured Below)
A great number of readers throughout Africa would like to know more about the reasons for the injustices done to so many nations and the disasters caused to so many peoples in the Black Continent. Whereas it would take a monumental encyclopedia to enumerate the unfair deeds and the mischievous plans carried out by the colonial European powers in Africa, it takes only a brief reading of few thousands of words to get a summarized view of the misperceptions shared by the US Africa policy decision makers.

Many Africans still wonder how America, a country formed in the anti-colonial struggle against England, turned out to be a sort of neo-colonial power that, violating its own ideals and breaching its own principles, has pursued a policy that rather reflects the Anti-American interests of the world’s most vicious and most criminal colonial powers, namely England and France.

The answer to this reveals the political reality as regards the American establishment; during the 19th century part of the European Capital moved from Europe to America, and the trend continued through the 20th century. This caused a tremendous change within the American establishment as one influential faction has consciously acted to subordinate America to interests promoted by the colonial powers – interests that are all detrimental for Africa’s well being and for Africans’ survival.

This faction of the American establishment did not control America continuously but it certainly exercised the strongest impact; assassinations, economic disasters, and all sorts of misdeeds have been employed for this purpose, as these people act as the worst sort of Mafia. Hoover was discredited with a Crash, Kennedy was assassinated, and Nixon was removed from power, whereas numerous scandals have been out of focus for other presidents who happened to be members of the criminal secretive organization that contaminates the essence of Democracy and threatens the quintessence of Freedom. Their paranoid and absolutely racist plans herald nothing positive for various nations allover the world.

One could even ask the theoretical question ‘why America pursues in Africa a self-destructive policy that helps only leave the British and French colonial interests intact in the Black Continent‘? The answer to this question would be very simple:

• - Almost all the people who rule America, by being appointed in the specific decision making posts and by implementing parts of a general scheme, are mostly controlled by a global group of power that does not care about America’s or Africa’s well being or about the promotion of the US interests in parts of the Black Continent but has instead been engaged in the colonial patchwork of conquest and robbery.

This is the reason their positions as regards various issues look so different, self-contradictory, and inconsequential. They do not in consist in a methodic implementation of principles but in a systematic execution of a plan that necessitates specific results here and there. These results cannot be obtained through the same method and policy in every place; the difference can be at times spectacular.

We can get a taste of this biased policy and approach to African issues in the recent Briefing on Africa offered to mass media accredited at the State Department by Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Clint Williamson, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, only two days ago.

I will cite here the discussion as published in the State Department website and then I will add a brief Commentary to highlight contradictions and biases. I did not edit the text, simply to make it more easily comprehensible, I broke it to several units. Numbers encrusted in text refer to my Commentary at the end.

Africa: On-The-Record Briefing

http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/rm/2008/104667.htm
Briefing on Rewards for Justice Search for Rwandan War Criminals
Tue, 13 May 2008 14:20:03 -0500

Jendayi Frazer, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs
Clint Williamson, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues
Washington, DC - May 12, 2008

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to be here today with Ambassador Williamson to reaffirm our commitment to bring to justice all remaining fugitives wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the ICTR.

1994 Genocide in Rwanda [1]

The Rewards for Justice War Crimes program is a valuable tool that has complemented our efforts to end war in the Great Lakes region and to implement the Lusaka, Sun City and Pretoria peace processes. Through it, we received valuable information that led to the arrest of three dangerous fugitives.

These include former government and militia leaders accused of genocide, complicity in genocide, and in crimes against humanity: Tharcisse Renzaho, Jean-Baptiste Gatete, and Yusuf John Munyakazi. These three are now in trial proceeding and waiting — these three are now in trial proceedings and awaiting trial.

In addition to facilitating the apprehension of fugitives wanted for their involvement in the Rwandan genocide, this program showcased our commitment to justice and peace in the Great Lakes region. Since 2004, we have demonstrated U.S. commitment to prevent further conflict and support conflict resolution through the facilitation of the Tripartite Plus process, culminating with Secretary Rice’s chairmanship of the Tripartite Plus Heads of State Summit in December. That would include the presidents of Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and the foreign and defense ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The United States remains very engaged in bringing peace to the Great Lakes region today.

The disarmament processes enshrined in the Nairobi Communiqué and Goma Agreement provide a process to disarm the foreign and domestic armed groups in eastern Congo and represent the next step to continue the work that began at Lusaka, Sun City, and Pretoria.

As part of our strategy to achieve lasting peace in the Great Lakes, we are renewing our efforts to bring to justice those who look to undermine regional peace.

During his recent visit to the region Ambassador Williamson assessed the benefits of re-launching the Rewards for Justice War Crimes program to reward those who will help us bring to justice the fugitives who are still at large and a mark of our determination to lasting peace.

As President Kabila has said, the time is now for the former Rwandan Armed Forces and Interahamwe in eastern Congo who have caused so much insecurity, suffering and devastation to lay down their arms peacefully and return to Rwanda as outlined in the Nairobi Communiqué.

With that, I will turn it over to my colleague, Ambassador Williamson, to go into greater detail about the Rewards for Justice Program.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: As Assistant Secretary Frazer indicated, the State Department is renewing its efforts to bring to justice those most responsible for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. I’m pleased to announce that the Office of War Crimes Issues will be working closely with the Bureau of African Affairs and the U.S. Embassy in Kinshasa to launch a new Rewards for Justice campaign. This campaign aims to secure the arrest of the 13 men indicted by the ICTR for genocide and crimes against humanity who remain at large.

As you know, ethnic violence of the scale and horror that we witnessed in 1994 does not happen spontaneously; it requires extensive preparation and planning. Many of the architects behind the Rwandan genocide have been arrested, thanks to political and material support from a wide range of nations including the United States. These arrests and the trials and convictions that have followed challenge the notion that those who direct crimes such as these can go unpunished.

But years later, thirteen of those indicted remain at large. These men include Augustin Bizimana, Idelphonse Nizeyimana, Protais Mpiranya, Gregoire Ndahimana, Ladislas Ntaganzwa and Félicien Kabuga. All of these individuals exercised positions of power and influence in the lead-up to and during the genocide itself. The impunity of these men, fourteen years after these crimes were committed, and their continuing presence in the region represents a threat to stability and reconciliation.

The State Department is cooperating with other governments, with the UN, and with the ICTR to make it harder for these fugitives to remain at large. The Rewards for Justice initiative that we’re announcing today is one element of an international effort to tighten the net around them.

Because many of the fugitives are believed to be living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, this Rewards for Justice campaign will be focused there. In the next weeks, our Embassy in Kinshasa will work with the UN mission and other partners in the Congo to distribute posters, matchbooks, and other articles indicating that these men are wanted for genocide – and advertising a financial reward of up to $5 million for information that leads to their arrest.

Information generated by the Rewards for Justice campaign will support the efforts of the ICTR, whose team of investigators continue to pursue fugitives. Callixte Nzabonimana, an indicted government minister, was arrested in March thanks to cooperation between the ICTR’s tracking team and the Government of Tanzania. He now awaits trial at the ICTR.

As this shows, some of the most critical steps to ending the impunity of these fugitives must be taken by national governments in the region. Just last week, the Government of Kenya persuaded a Kenyan court to freeze real estate property from which Félicien Kabuga, the ICTR’s most wanted indictee, is believed to have drawn funds to support his life at large. This is a welcome development, but it’s our strong hope that this represents only a single step toward still more aggressive action from all governments in the region to capture these men. We look forward to seeing the results from this campaign. We believe it will accelerate the process of bringing to justice those most responsible for these horrible crimes.

And we would be happy now to take any questions you have.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: In terms of the figure, you’re saying up to 5 million — 5 million?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes, 5 million.

QUESTION: Yes, 5 million reward. Is that per person?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It is. The — a decision on the exact amount that is paid is taken based on the quality of the information, the individual that it leads to, a whole variety of circumstances. And it’s taken by a whole group of actors here in Washington.

QUESTION: So has this been increased from previous rewards that you’ve offered?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: The reward has been up to 5 million in the past as well.

QUESTION: So there’s no difference in –

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: There is no difference, no.

QUESTION: When were those rewards first offered?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: They go back to the late 1990s. The program had continued in full force until 2006. At that point, there was very little information coming in, so we had discontinued it. We have felt like now is the right time to re-initiate it.

QUESTION: Yeah, I seem to remember one of your — or maybe even two of your predecessors had done the same thing –

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes.

QUESTION: — in going to Kinshasa with the matchbooks and the posters.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can — where — you think that Kabuga is in Congo now?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Most of the information has indicated that he’s in Kenya.

QUESTION: That’s what I would –

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, and we have certainly pressed the Kenyan Government to move against him, to help locate him. So that’s why we were encouraged by these recent steps that the government has taken to go after his assets.

The program at this point is focused primarily on the Congo, where most of these individuals are believed to be. Certainly, Kabuga has links to people in the Congo. It’s the same group that he was associated with earlier. So we’re open to expanding this program again in Kenya if we think that it’s useful to do so.

QUESTION: And one more thing. It would seem to me that while these guys were certainly responsible for great evil and atrocities back during the genocide, that currently, in Congo at least, there are people who are more — you know, who are responsible for current — the current state of horrendousness in the east.
Why — you know, when this was announced, my presumption was that you were going to start offering rewards for this guy who is a top aide to Nkunda whose arrest — ICC arrest warrant was just unveiled last week, or perhaps even Nkunda himself. Why not go after some of these dissident elements who are causing, you know, problems right now? Because this program already exists.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Well, it’s — this program has existed, but it has not been operable for the last year and a half, so we are restarting it. But there are statutory constraints on who we can target in this. Right now, the statute provides for people who have been indicted by the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals to be the focus for Rewards for Justice.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It has not been expanded beyond that yet. So that’s going to take action by Congress.

QUESTION: So your alleged new love of the ICC has not gone — it hasn’t gone as far as to allow for rewards to be offered for their indictees?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It hasn’t been yet. So it’s going to be up to Congress if they want to expand it. But as of yet, it hasn’t been.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Just two things. One, just to clarify, so you were eligible for a $5 million reward up to 18 months ago, and then you weren’t and now you are again?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Well –

QUESTION: For these particular 13 individuals?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: People have been eligible for rewards throughout this period. We had discontinued, sort of, the operations for this program. In other words, to run this program in a full force, you need a 24-hour telephone line, you need websites that are monitored, you need ICTR investigators who are going to be available to follow up on information. These things had dropped off, and so this is what we are trying to do right now, is just reinvigorate those efforts.

QUESTION: And I have another question on this, and then if I could ask Secretary Frazer something. The — you said that this – that these people were going to create, I think you said, potentially instability in the region?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that right?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes.

QUESTION: Could you be more specific?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Well, these individuals that are in the Congo that were affiliated with Interahamwe, they’re still operating, they still have the same affiliations that they’ve had all of these years. They continue to be a source of instability there. It’s of concern to the government in Kinshasa, it’s of concern to the government in Kigali and Bujambura. It’s something that needs to be addressed. So again, we have some statutory constraints on who can be targeted through the Rewards for Justice Program. And although we are going after individuals that have been indicted by the ICTR, they certainly are part of a bigger problem. None of these things exist in isolation.

QUESTION: And can I ask Secretary Frazer a question on another topic?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Maybe we should finish with this and then come back to a different topic.

QUESTION: Okay.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Can you — over the past number of years that this program has been in effect, how much has been paid out in Rewards for Justice, for how many people?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: I can’t tell you the exact amount that has been paid out. There are programs for information on terrorists as well as war criminals, so I just don’t know how it breaks down.

QUESTION: Come up with this (inaudible) Rwanda?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Maybe I can — because I was here when –

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Rwanda –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: I was here when this was launched the first time. And frankly, most of the information that we got that led to the arrest of at least three of the individuals that were on this list, came from governments themselves. And we didn’t pay out any reward to the governments. I’m not aware that any individuals during that time had given us information that led to the arrest of any other ones that we’ve gotten.

QUESTION: Can we get a full list of the names of the 13, Gonzo, of the –

QUESTION: I just – I’m not quite clear why now you’re reinvigorating it. You said very little info was coming in as of 2006. What has changed since then?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: A couple of things that — maybe Jendayi as well. The – right now we’re reaching a critical stage in the life of the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunal. They have certain deadlines that had been imposed by the Security Council to complete their work. So there is some urgency in trying to resolve the issue of all the fugitives that are out there. There has also, I think, been renewed interest on the part of the ICTR to operationalize the hunt for these people. They have enhanced the capabilities of their tracking unit. We’ve had new indications of the willingness of governments to take this on. The UN Mission in the DRC has also been very interested in doing this. So I think it’s just all of these factors coming together that we felt like this was the right time to restart it.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: And to add to that on a diplomatic front, we have the Goma Agreement and the Nairobi agreements, which lead to a renewed effort to try to address the FDLR Interahamwe continuing instability in eastern Congo. And part of President Bush’s conversations with President Kagame in February was to go after the leadership of these groups, which often act as hostage — they keep the normal rank-and-file hostage. And so we really do need to, in many ways, cut off the head and these guys are that leadership. And the Secretary had the same conversations when she met in December in Addis Ababa with President Kagame and Museveni and the defense and foreign ministers of the Congo, saying that we would renew our efforts to try to get some type of – not some type of, but to implement the Goma and Nairobi agreement as part of a comprehensive approach to finally resolving the crisis in eastern Congo.

QUESTION: Well, when was the last information about Kabuga being in Kenya? When is the last time that there was a sighting of him or any kind of information about him being there?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: I don’t want to get into too specific a detail, but there has been information over – certainly over the last year indicating that he’s there. Now, whether that can be verified or not, it’s hard to say. But there has been a pretty steady flow of information.

QUESTION: Since then? Because I remember about a year and half ago, there was a big swell in the ICTR people coming to Nairobi and saying “do something” to the Kenyan Government and, you know, we think he’s here.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: I mean, there have continued to be reports over the last year. If that’s it on this issue, I’ll –

QUESTION: Just a point of clarification. So it’s 5 million for each of these people or is it five million total?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: The reward goes up to 5 million as to any individual.

QUESTION: Okay. So it potentially could be ten for two or something like that.

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes.

QUESTION: Potentially, okay (inaudible.)

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: If you got really lucky, yes. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Fifteen for three, in fact.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: If you told us which house he was in, and what hour he was going to be there.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) but that – but that’s just for these five. It’s up to 5 million?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: For the eight.

QUESTION: For the – for the other eight are also five million?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: Yes, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah?

AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON: It’s anyone in a Rewards for Justice program. But as I say, it depends on who the fugitive is. It depends on the type and quality of information that comes in. So all of these factor into the final decision on how much money would be allocated.

Sudan [2]

QUESTION: Secretary Frazer, on another topic, do you have any comment on the JEM-led coup attempt last week and Chad and Sudan breaking off ties? Are you worried that that could fuel further hostilities?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: We are – we certainly are concerned and we’ve condemned the attack of the Justice Equality Movement on Khartoum. [3] And we’ve called for the Government of Sudan to not carry out reprisals, especially against Zaghawa or Darfurians. We are looking at action in the – at the UN, again, to express our concern that this not become a regional conflict and a greater increase in the tension between Chad and Sudan.

QUESTION: What do you make of the latest – I mean, the latest arrest of – Hassan Turabi seems to be in some kind of a revolving door in Khartoum where he’s in and out, in and out, in and out. Is there anything – do you see anything coming from this?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, of course, Khalil Ibrahim, the head of the Justice Equality Movement, is known to have been very close to Turabi. [4] And so there’s a concern that, in fact, the Government of Sudan will overreact and arrest a large number of people because of the political relationships and because of the ethnic association of JEM being in Darfur and their connections with Turabi. So we are trying to encourage the government to be – to not do, you know, blanket arrests, but rather to – you know, try to, of course, (inaudible) their relationship with Chad. But also, we would join with them in denouncing the Justice Equality Movement. It’s unacceptable.

QUESTION: But you don’t see the hand of Turabi in this –

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, it’s kind of early to know, but not necessarily. I think that they’re – it’s a bit over-determined who Justice Equality Movement is getting their assistance from. There are many different sources, possible sources of assistance.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What does – just to follow up, what does this mean for the peace process there?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Which one?

QUESTION: Sudanese reconciliation, you know –

QUESTION: North-South?

QUESTION: No, not North-South. Darfur, Khartoum.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, we’ve always known, which is why we have sanctions on Khalil Ibrahim, that his commitment to peace was tenuous and that his goal was a political agenda to take over. I mean, he’s been very open that his desire is to take over the Government of Sudan. And so, you know, even as far back as the Abuja Peace Accord, there was little expectation that JEM would actually sign on to a peace agreement.

Eritrea – Djibouti

QUESTION: Can I ask about another country? Your old friends, the Eritreans, seem to be stirring the pot again, [5] this time with Djibouti, complaining about them. And I’m just wondering, one, what you make of that, if you think that there’s any – any threat there, particularly given the situation with UNMEE and its withdrawal from Eritrea completely. And also, a while back, you had said that there was some thought being given to putting Eritrea on the state sponsors list. Has that gone anywhere?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: On the first question about their incursion into Djiboutian territory, we are continuing to investigate and study it. There could be any number of reasons for that, including that many of their military are deserting, may be deserting in that direction, and so they’re trying to put a block up. Another explanation is that they may be concerned about peace talks between the Somali opposition that sits in Eritrea and the Transitional Federal Government talks which were supposed to happen in Djibouti. And they’re trying to send a message to the Djiboutian Government. So there are many hypotheses about why. We don’t have firm evidence from the Eritrean Government about why in fact, they’ve, you know, invaded, essentially, or occupied territory in Djibouti. [6]

Somalia

On the second question, we continue to look at this question about state sponsor of terror. We continue to monitor the activity of the Eritrean Government. Our intelligence community is looking very closely at support for opposition versus support for Al Shabab. I think you know that there’s been a split [7[ between the Shabab which is – which has al-Qaida – which has members who have affiliations with al-Qaida, and the – what do they call themselves, [8] the ARS – the Reliberation of Somalia, the Alliance for the Reliberation of Somalia, there’s been a split between those two groups. We clearly see that Eritrea continues to have Aweys who is designated under Security Council resolution and the United States as a terrorist being hosted in Eritrea. So clearly, we have to keep watching it. [9]

We’ve sent messages in to the Government of Eritrea that they need to stop harboring terrorists and not support any terrorists in Somalia and the region as a whole, but no final determination has been made.

Zimbabwe [10]

QUESTION: On another area, do you have any comment on what’s happening in Zimbabwe and the runoff and whether there will be enough monitors? Do you think it could be a fair poll if it does indeed, you know, go ahead?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, right now, the conditions aren’t there for a free and fair runoff, but certainly, we hope that the conditions can be put in place. And those conditions would have to include an end to the violence, which is essentially state-sponsored violence against the opposition. It would have to include a massive number of monitors that can go out into the rural area. We would hope that there would be greater transparency so that there could be international press that would be allowed in. So those are all conditions that we would expect to be put in place prior to the runoff taking place, including conditions so that the leader of the opposition and the person who got the most votes in the first round is not threatened if he returns home to Zimbabwe. So some type of security and guarantees for Morgan Tsvangirai’s safety certainly should be a necessary condition for holding a runoff.

The United States is prepared to assist and support the creation of those conditions by supporting SADC, by supporting the African Union, by working with the United Nations and other institutions and organizations that will be necessary to put in place those — the necessary conditions for a runoff.

QUESTION: Do you think that the SADC countries are doing enough? The Secretary called some of Zimbabwe’s neighbors on Friday to try and get them to do more. Do you think that they are doing enough —

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, I think they’re going to have to keep – it’s not — they’re going to have to keep doing more. It’s sort of a continuous process. And we know that President Mbeki was in Harare. We haven’t yet had a chance to learn more about what was communicated during this trip, but we certainly do hope that he made it very clear to President Mugabe that the violence has to end, that the human rights violations have to come to an end. And we hope that he pushed for allowing international monitors in a runoff. But we yet — we haven’t yet gotten a readout of that meeting from his visit.

QUESTION: Are you dealing directly with Mugabe yourself or are you just channeling everything through SADC?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: We, as the United States, we certainly deal with the Government of Zimbabwe, primarily through our Ambassador James McGee, who is in Harare. We haven’t had a conversation with President Mugabe. He hasn’t — he’s been selective about who he will talk to in terms of answering his phone.

QUESTION: So he hasn’t — have you tried to get hold of him and not been able to?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Early on, very early on after March 29th, we made an effort to speak to him and haven’t been able to — weren’t able to reach him. But not since then.

QUESTION: Back to the conditions that you would like to see for the runoff, how many of those realistically do you expect to see, if any?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Well, we certainly don’t yet know when the runoff will occur. According to the electoral law, it should be 21 days after the announcement of — the ZEC announcement of the outcome. So we are running down that time very quickly. It took them five weeks to make the announcement, but they haven’t yet said when the runoff date would be.

Certainly, if they pull a surprise and they say that the runoff is in a week, it’s very unlikely that you’re going to have the number of monitors there necessary for a free and fair runoff. But we won’t know until we know what the date is. But I think that there’s a clear will on the part of SADC, on the part of the AU and on the part of the international community to try to create the conditions. I’m not so sure that there’s a clear will on the part of the Government of Zimbabwe.

QUESTION: Thank you
.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FRAZER: Thank you.
2008/385

Commentary

[1] - One wonders what makes the Rwandan Genocide ‘real’ for the US State Department, and what makes ‘unreal’, ‘unimportant’ and ‘barely credible’ the ongoing Ogaden Genocide, the deliberate Somali Genocide, the 2003 Anuak Genocide, and the enduring Oromo and Somali Genocides that have been lasting over more than a century with extremely severe phases, involving massive extermination, millions of brutally assassinated, and millions of sold as slaves.

[2] - The American policy in Sudan has been decided in Riyadh by Dick Cheney’s terrorist friend, the pseudo-king Abdullah of Saudi Arabia who cares much about the preservation of a murderous Pan-Arabist regime at Khartoum, and tries hard to avert the much needed dissolution of the tyrannical, colonial creature ‘Sudan’ where a great number of nations from the Nuer and the Dinka to the Anyuak, the Beja, the Nubians, the Hausa and the Furis of Darfur have been exposed to an incredible tyranny and systematic arabization. America’s reluctance to send soldiers in Darfur and opposition to Darfur’s secession and independence contradicts the US policy in Kosova. America’s shameful demonization of the slaughtered people of Darfur - and of their movement of National Independence - consists in a 2nd Darfur genocide, as it helps only perpetuate the killings and the persecution of the Nation of Fur (Darfur) at the hands of the criminal, barbaric Janjaweed of tyrant Al Bashir.

[3] - Any act carried out by the Justice Equality Movement, like the recent attack in Omdurman, western part of Khartoum, is justified in the light of the criminal, pro-Islamist, pro-Arabist, and pro-terrorist stance of the US. If America wants to avert similar acts in the future, there is only one measure to take: Formal Independence for Darfur.

[4] - If Hassan al Turabi is considered close to a movement of national liberation and independence (like JEM), then automatically all claims about his contacts his Osama bin Laden (as proof of Turabi’s extremism) are ridiculous. These claims are as ludicrous as an eventual accusation of Former President Jimmy Carter as Communist, asserted on the occasion of Carter’s contacts with Brezhnev and Mao.

[5] - This journalist is a provocateur; the anti-Eritrean bias of the sort ’seem to be stirring the pot again’ is most probably the result of the shameful acts perpetrated by the bogus-diplomats of the ‘Ethiopian’ embassies. These unrepresentative houses of Neo-Nazi propaganda are manned by Monophysitic Amhara and Tigray racist gangsters who represent only 18% of the country’s total population and are ceaselessly active through their position to further implement, consolidate and perpetuate their ethno-religious group’s tyranny over all the rest, namely the outright majority (82%) of the country. These are the ‘Ethiopian’ scientists of the most atrocious genocide of all times.

[6] - That’s it; there is no evidence (”We don’t have firm evidence”), but there is already an anti-Eritrean predisposition. This is simply called bias.

[7] - What accuracy, and what update! This occurred last September, but Jendayi Frazer presents the fact as having taken place just yesterday!

[8] - This shows Jendayi Frazer’s extremely low credentials and total lack of diplomatic experience and phlegm; to minimize yourself (portraying yourself as uncertain or unaware of some data) in order to diminish your rival or opponent (depict ARS as barely known) is the diplomacy of self-disaster.

[9] - This is an oxymoron; if Aweys is considered as a ‘terrorist’, then certainly Melese Zenawi must be designated as such, and be taken to the International Court of Justice. If we attempt to compare the number of criminal acts perpetrated by both, and the number of innocent people killed by both, I am sure the world community will consider the leader of the Somali Islamic Courts of Justice Aweys as an angel compared to the most abhorrent evil.

And why does Jendayi Frazer care so much about Eritrea hosting Aweys, while at the same she forgets that America hosted Zenawi himself?

10. Similar oxymoron is the UK – US position against Mugabe; it consists actually in an incredible bias. All the anti-Mugabe propaganda is due to the loss of property of some UK origin landowners of Zimbabwe. The shameful colonial criminals were never known for principles other than inhuman materialism and criminally acquired profit. When others practice the same method against them, this is the end of the world, and Mugabe is promoted to an ‘embodiment of the Antichrist’! What a shame for America to have fallen from the hands of the Founding Fathers to the mud of Jendayi Frazer’s diplomacy…..

REFERENCE:

Noam Chomsky is considered the father of modern linguistics. In this richly detailed criticism of American foreign policy, he seeks to redefine many of the terms commonly used in the ongoing American war on terrorism. Surveying U.S. actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Far East and elsewhere over the past half a century along with the modern American war in Iraq, Chomsky indicates that America is just as much a terrorist state as any other government or rogue organization.

George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq drew worldwide criticism, in part because it seemed to present a new philosophy of pre-emptive war and an appearance of global empire building. But according to Chomsky, such has been the operating philosophy of American foreign policy for decades.

Opponents of the Bush administration’s tactics consistently point out how the American government supported Saddam Hussein for many years prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand are easy to come by) as a means of pointing out how the United States is happy to fund despots when it’s in American interests.

But Chomsky, armed with extensive historical notation, takes this notion further, arguing how the repression of other nations’ citizenry is, in fact, the very reason Americans support certain foreign leaders. The charges made throughout the book are severe, as are the dire consequences he posits if current trends are not reversed, and Chomsky is no more likely to make friends or gain supporters from the mainstream now than he’s ever been. But Hegemony or Survival is relatively dispassionate.

Instead of relying on camp or shock value or personal attacks as some of his contemporaries have done, Chomsky drives his well-supported points steadily forward in an earnest and highly readable style.

….More Reviews

Popularity: 36% [?]

Sphere: Related Content