posted
by BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon Since the end of the Cold War, under Democrats and Republicans alike, the US has provided tens of billions of dollars worth of military aid, military training and arms transfers to 50 of the 54 nations in Africa. America's militarized foreign policy has transformed Africa into the poorest and most war-ravaged continent on earth, with several armed conflicts raging at any one time over the last two decades, and American arms and training a factor in at least one of each. It is the militarization of US policy toward Africa that has manufactured the "failed states" which, like the Congo are ideal for the extraction of African resources, as well as the desired excuses for further military intervention.
The only solution is the complete de-militarization of all US foreign policy on the African continent, and the withdrawal of all US bases and troops from Africa.
No Arms! No Transfers! No Military Aid! It's Time To Demilitarize US Policy in Africa
by BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon
It's time to demilitarize US policy toward the African continent. Since the end of the Cold War in 1989, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have provided military aid, military training, military assistance and arms transfers to at least 50 out of 53 African nations, and fomented no less than fourteen wars. Bipartisan US policy until now has been about arming Africans, and keeping the continent hungry, sick, desperately poor and permanently at war with itself. Thanks to our policy of flooding the African continent with arms, the price of an AK-47 assault rifle is lower on the African continent than anyplace else on earth.
Of the nine countries where armed conflicts are now in progress, US-supplied arms and training are a factor in every one. In the Ethiopian civil war, in the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia, in Chad, in Morocco and Western Sahara and Sudan, in the continuing Algerian civil war and of course in the Congo's holocuast, which has accounted, conservatively, for six million dead since about 1996, the highest death toll of any conflict since World War 2. The US has equipped, trained and supplied every one of the national armies that have invaded and occupied parts of the Congo, from Kenya and Uganda to Rwanda, Burundi, Angola and even Namibia. US arms are also in the hands of non-government gangs and private armies that ravage and depopulate whole regions to facilitate the extraction of the coltan for our cell phones and computers, the titanium for our aircraft, and the uranium for our nukes.
America's militarized foreign policy on the African continent does not benefit Africans. The inauguration of AFRICOM, the US military headquarters for the African continent, was met with universal condemnation and scorn by ordinary Africans across the continent, and their governments. Africans don't want US arms, they don't want US intervention, and they don't want US bases.
African opposition to US military presence was the reason Bush did not set foot in the continent's most populous country, Nigeria or in South Africa during his recent visit, and why he stayed only a matter of hours in Kenya, Tanzania and Burundi. Not one African country has dared the wrath of its people by requesting to host AFRICOM. But the ring of US bases, from Mombasa to Djibouti on the east to Angola and the Gulf of Guinea on the west, continues to grow. US forces regularly fly bombing missions over Somalia in support of the Ethiopian invasion.
America's foreign policy elite, its multinational corporations, the Pentagon and its constellation of military suppliers and mercenary contractors know what they want. They want the coltan, the oil, the gold, and the diamonds. They want to privatize every state and social resource, down to the water supplies. They want to tie African agriculture to genetically engineered American crop varieties, and collect royalties for the use of these “patented” plants. They want to prevent African nations from spending their own wealth from their own resources on health and education infrastructure, on food subsidies, on growing jobs and healthy internal economies. And they want to keep Africa a war-torn hell on earth, because it's good for business. If you're not a “failed state” yet, they'll make you one.
On the other hand, Africans know what they want for themselves. They are keen observers of the US political scene, and well aware that the next president may be a man with more direct ties to the African continent than most of us. Africans are waiting for the American people, especially African Americans to speak up and support their demands for the US to keep its bases, its military “assistance” and its arms to itself. How long will they have to wait?
It's time this year to build a from-the-ground-up movement to hold the little clay feet of the Congressional Black Caucus to a higher standard on Africa policy, on African demilitarization, and on African debt, pressing the US and international bodies to cancel the debts and loan-shark interest owed by African nations, many of which have already been repaid several times over.
The Jubiliee Movement is one such effort on the part of hundreds of churches and community organizations to do just that.
Next year a new administration will be in the White House. Should we wait and see what its elite advisers, its policy wonks and campaign contributors and contractors convince it to do in Africa? Or should we make it plain what ought to be, what must be done?
For now, a good start would be calling your Congressman, and a random member of the Black Caucus about the Jubilee Act now before that body. And later this year, we'll be covering visits to Congressional representatives, especially members of the Black Caucus, asking them to help in the demilitarization of US policy in Africa.
BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon can be contacted at Bruce.Dixon(@)BlackAgendaReport.com.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that the media in the U.S. is controlled by the same system, this type of information does not get to the general public.
The six million dead in Congo is only given a small blurb in the headlines, while Sudan has been in the news for years and STILL hasn't been stopped. ALL of the conflicts world wide are primarily conflicts that are in the interest of the global military industrial elite, the trilaterals, the bilderburgers and others behind the new world order. Their goal is to rape, pillage, murder and steal as much money as they can and create an international society of slave states with most of the money going to less than 3% of the world's population.
Even more unfortunately, the voice of black nationalism is gone mute lately, lulled to sleep by the Al Sharptons and Barak Obamas and not really fighting the good fight against the system that continues to destroy black life world wide.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are still missing it. Why blame the US. The US selling or aiding arms is no the problem.
It is the DEMAND. Great movie is - Lord of War w/ Nick Cage.
Point is there will always be someone willing to selling arms. Russian, Chinese, Isreali whatever. even SA. So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman, I think you're missing Doug's point. There will always be evil people in the world, as there have always been before America existed. "Evil" is a Human reality and relates to conciousness. The issue here however, is a matter of scale. It appears that:
quote: ALL of the [HUGE] conflicts world wide are primarily conflicts that are in the interest of the global military industrial elite, the trilaterals, the bilderburgers and others behind the new world order. Their goal is to rape, pillage, murder and steal as much money as they can and create an international society of slave states with most of the money going to less than 3% of the world's population.
^Are you saying the above statements by Doug are incorrect?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
But I was referring to the first Arwa's article eg -
The only solution is the complete de-militarization of all US foreign policy on the African continent, and the withdrawal of all US bases and troops from Africa.
No Arms! No Transfers! No Military Aid! It's Time To Demilitarize US Policy in Africa
Someone is going to sell it to Africa once the demand is there.
Funny thing is the soldiers are carry AK's (Russian/Chinese) NOT AR's/M16(US)
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In essence, this was the same argument made in favor of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We are still missing it. Why blame the US. The US selling or aiding arms is no the problem.
It is the DEMAND.
Point is there will always be someone willing to selling arms. Russian, Chinese, Isreali whatever. even SA. So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed. NATIVE CIVILIAN AFRICANS are not demanding weapons.
Those "demanding weapons" are non other than the fake-leaders installed by Western governments in Africa. Without these fake-leaders there would be NO DEMAND and without the "militaristic policies" of the West, there would be no fake-leaders.
The fake-leaders and the Western governments are "in concert".
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We are still missing it. Why blame the US. The US selling or aiding arms is no the problem.
It is the DEMAND. Great movie is - Lord of War w/ Nick Cage.
Point is there will always be someone willing to selling arms. Russian, Chinese, Isreali whatever. even SA. So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
This is a very good question xyyman.
We think that the oppressor is always the White Man, but that is a false picture. It includes all colours and nations.
Watch this video (Symposium on Cedric J. Robinson, the greatest living thinker in our time)
start in Q & A section ; 1:25 or 5 min. end of lecture where an audience from Latin America ask similar question as yours.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's like saying the bros are killing each other on the streets because of too many guns. Stop the guns and they will stop killing each other. bruhah!!
Solution there also - economic alternatives and fathers stick around, take care of your families. Good conservative values.
So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
quote:Originally posted by Arwa:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We are still missing it. Why blame the US. The US selling or aiding arms is no the problem.
It is the DEMAND. Great movie is - Lord of War w/ Nick Cage.
Point is there will always be someone willing to selling arms. Russian, Chinese, Isreali whatever. even SA. So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
This is a very good question xyyman.
We think that the oppressor is always the White Man, but that is a false picture. It includes all colours and nations.
Watch this video (Symposium on Cedric J. Robinson, the greatest living thinker in our time)
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: That's like saying the bros are killing each other on the streets because of too many guns. Stop the guns and they will stop killing each other. bruhah!!
Solution there also - economic alternatives and fathers stick around, take care of your families. Good conservative values.
So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
quote:Originally posted by Arwa:
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: We are still missing it. Why blame the US. The US selling or aiding arms is no the problem.
It is the DEMAND. Great movie is - Lord of War w/ Nick Cage.
Point is there will always be someone willing to selling arms. Russian, Chinese, Isreali whatever. even SA. So why single out one country. And say if this country stop sell or aid arms that will help. No it won't!!!
This is a very good question xyyman.
We think that the oppressor is always the White Man, but that is a false picture. It includes all colours and nations.
Watch this video (Symposium on Cedric J. Robinson, the greatest living thinker in our time)
start in Q & A section ; 1:25 or 5 min. end of lecture where an audience from Latin America ask similar question as yours.
Crime in the inner cities is very much managed and orchestrated to produce a given outcome. It is no coincidence that in ALL the countries where blacks were once oppressed that there is such high crime. Drugs and Guns are not produced in the ghetto. Drugs were PUSHED into the ghetto in order to lull people to sleep. Guns are a common tool of exploitation used to turn inner cities into shooting galleries. How on earth do you explain people living in the shanty towns of Brazil having access to military weapons? They are among the poorest people on the planet, so how are they getting all the weapons? Obviously, the system gives them the guns. And they give it to those who they know they can use to help keep the population destabilized, just like they do everywhere else.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
xyyman: Point is there will always be someone willing to selling arms. Russian, Chinese, Isreali whatever. even SA.
Within the confines of that sentence then yes. As long as you have willing buyers of all ethnic stripes and skin colors you will always have AK47s, Russian and Chinese-made, and a host of American made weapons for sale. See Adnan Khashoggi, billionaire Saudi international arms dealer from the 70s.
From what I recall this idiot supplied both warring sides, whomever they were at the time, with weapons to kill one another. He even made 60 minutes way back when. He denied everything of course.
I'm sure there's a link on this guy someplace on the net.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Africa is not the most war-ravaged continent. Asia is: in terms of volume of amd quality of weapons and numbers of people killed.
In Asia there are wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Burma, Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan(low-grade civil unrest with frequent suicide bombings), Turkey(against the Kurds), Cambodia(low-grade forest war involving the remnants of the Khemer Rouge).
6 MILLION KILLED IN THE CONGO.
Pure Western media propaganda--easily lapped up by those who uncritically accept the "news" as the Western media define and propagate it.
The Congo is a vast land, about 35% the size of the U.S. with a population of some 70 million people. The wars fought are not much more than gang wars pursued by renegade supposedly "ex-army men" who run a round with with basic, cast-off weaponry[especially RPGs] and some old trucks used for transporting the mainly illiterate and minimally trained mercenary recruits.
As the fighting draws close, people in their villages just pack up their belongings and flee. When people die, it's on account of illnesses they acquire as they become refugees on the march.
So it's sheer propaganda to claim that 6 million people have been killed in the Congo conflict. Further proof is that the major cities in Congo such as Kinshasa and Lubumbashi are not overwhelmed by refugees.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One may wonder then as to why would the Western media seek to massively inflate the numbers of people "killed"[this usually includes people who die from natural and other non-direct militray causes]in Africa's conflicts.
The answer is easy: in the Western mind and psyche Africa is "the barbaric continent", so immediately after any conflict breaks out the Western reporters rush in to the capital of the country in conflict then begin to send out uncritically any numbers of casualities they receive or imagine.
The bigger the numbers reported the better because bigger numbers of casualities set in motion the well-organised and financed network of AID groups whose function is to rush out to play in African country in conflict. The bigger the conflict, the more refugees you have and the more fundings are sought after.
Again, this idea of "poor, hapless Africans requiring the help and rescue efforts of Europeans" reinforces another central idea that the West has of Africa: its inhabitants are unable to care for themselves without "great white father/mother intervention".
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic