[Peace-discuss] Congo and Darfur: the Inconsistent U.S. Position

[C. G. Estabrook]

As many as five million people have died in the Democratic Republic of 
Congo. A quarter million or so have perished in Darfur, western Sudan. 
Both are abominations, genocides, crimes against humanity, but only 
Darfur rates coverage in the U.S. corporate media, action by the United 
States on the diplomatic and military front, or concerted interest by 
the Congressional Black Caucus. The Congolese genocide, triggered 
directly by the U.S. and its surrogates, is masked in silence. In 
Darfur, "Arabs" who are indistinguishable from their Black African 
Muslim neighbors are demonized as enemies in the "clash of civilizations."

	A Tale of Two Genocides, Congo and Darfur:
	The Blatantly Inconsistent U.S. Position
	by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

"A human death toll that approaches the Nazi's annihilation of Jews in 
World War Two unfolds without a whiff of complaint from the superpower."

Possibly a quarter million people have lost their lives in Darfur, 
western Sudan, in ethnic conflict. The U.S. government screams its head 
off in denunciation of genocide, in this case. In the Democratic 
Republic of Congo (DRC), as many as five million have died since 1994 in 
overlapping convulsions of ethnic and state-sponsored massacre. Not a 
word of reproach from Washington. A human death toll that approaches the 
Nazi's annihilation of Jews in World War Two -- an ongoing holocaust -- 
unfolds without a whiff of complaint from the superpower.

Why is mass death the cause of indignation and confrontation in Sudan, 
but exponentially more massive carnage in Congo unworthy of mention? The 
answer is simple: in Sudan, the U.S. has a geopolitical nemesis to 
confront: Arabs, and their Chinese business partners. In the Congo, it 
is U.S allies and European and American corporate interests that benefit 
from the slaughter. Therefore, despite five million skeletons lying in 
the ground, there is no call to arms from the American government. It is 
they who set the genocidal Congolese machine in motion.

Active U.S. Passivity

In 1994, Rwanda was on the brink. The Hutu majority, which had for a 
century been oppressed by Tutsi surrogates for European colonialists, 
feared that another massacre of their kin was imminent. There had been 
many massacres of Hutus, before, in Rwanda and neighboring Burundi, also 
under minority Tutsi control. Pent-up hysteria exploded in an orgy of 
violence that claimed the lives of as many as 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus 
that did not support the genocide.

The U.S. did nothing to interfere, because they had two actors in the 
game. Ugandan dictator Yoweri Museveni was now the Americans' guy in 
central Africa. Tutsi Rwandan exiles, headed by Paul Kagame, were an 
integral part of Museveni's army. As the genocide began, Kagame's forces 
launched an offensive from Uganda into Rwanda. It did not halt the 
massacre of Tutsis, but succeeded in driving the disorganized Hutus into 
neighboring Congo. The Americans now had another player in the African 
game: the new head of the Rwandan Tutsi-dominated state, Paul Kagame. 
His forces then invaded eastern Congo, chasing the fleeing Hutus.

  "The eastern Congo was up for grabs, and everybody grabbed some."

All hell broke loose. President Mobutu Sese Seko, America's man in the 
Congo, then called Zaire, was terminally ill. He fled and died in exile 
in 1997. The eastern Congo was now up for grabs, and everybody grabbed 
some. Eastern Congo is one of the most minerally rich places on Earth, 
an extractors' paradise. According to the CIA's "Factbook," the DRC 
abounds with "cobalt, copper, niobium, tantalum, petroleum, industrial 
and gem diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, uranium, coal, 
hydropower, timber." All of these resources are exploited by European 
and American corporations that maintain their own mercenary armies to 
guard the extraction fields. For generations they have run their patches 
of Congolese land like governments, with the support of France, Belgium, 
the United States and other powers. The so-called civil war effectively 
gave them full autonomy in the wake of Mobutu's corrupt demise, as the 
power of the central government in Kinshasa crumbled. Mass carnage raged 
around them, but did not interrupt the extraction process.

Geopolitical Crimes

In the thirteen years since Rwandan Tutsi Paul Kagame's forces -- 
surrogates for the U.S. puppet president of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni -- 
invaded the eastern Congo, possibly five million people have died. 
President Bill Clinton, the man who stood aside while the Rwandan 
genocide took place, then presided over a far bigger mass murder in 
Congo. He has apologized for only one. In a visit to Kigali, capital of 
Rwanda, Clinton said:

"We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the 
United States and the world community did not do as much as we could 
have and should have done to try to limit what occurred."

But what occurred is not over. The bloodshed spread rapidly to eastern 
Congo, unleashed by U.S. surrogate forces, and continues to this day. 
Paul Kagame, the Rwandan president, has served U.S. imperial ambitions 
well. He supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and continues to 
destabilize Congo with his forces in the eastern region. Multinational 
corporations, of course, operate their own airstrips and communications 
networks. Their patches of Congo proceed like business as usual, while 
the death toll mounts by millions among the people, who are overrun by 
militias of various ethnicities and Kagame's Rwandan army.

	"A quarter million people have died in Darfur,
	compared to five million in Congo."

The Congolese genocide is not part of the American political discussion. 
When Africa is mentioned at all, it is about Darfur. A quarter million 
people have died there, compared to five million in Congo. Both 
holocausts are crimes against humanity, but only the smaller one, 
Darfur, is a fit subject for inclusion in the U.S. political debate. 
During the June 3 CNN Democratic debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer demanded 
that the candidates "raise their hands" if they supported the imposition 
of a no-fly zone in Darfur -- an act of war against the government in 
Khartoum according to international law. Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and 
former Senator Mike Gravel declined to endorse the violation of Sudanese 
sovereignty. In the following Republican debate, the consensus was 
almost unanimous, except for Rep. Ron Paul: impose a no-fly regime over 
the western Sudan.

  Imperial Chess Game

The Congressional Black Caucus follows the same script as Wolf Blitzer. 
Members have lobbied and demonstrated against the Sudanese regime, to 
the applause of the corporate press. But they have never said a word, as 
a body, about the hellacious carnage in Congo. It is a taboo subject, 
too close to "vital American interests." But the Sudanese conflict is 
fair game, and so the Black Caucus joins in the general mob attack. They 
make common cause with imperial ambitions in the Horn of Africa, while 
ignoring the murder of millions in central Africa.

	"The Black Caucus makes common cause with
	imperial ambitions in the Horn of Africa."

The preferred narrative of Darfur fits nicely with that of the Israeli 
lobby in the United States. Although all the antagonists are Black 
Africans and Muslims, the aggressors are classified as "Arabs." A 
regional inter-African, inter-Muslim conflict is made to appear as part 
of the "clash of civilizations" -- the new Cold War. The proof is that 
the Chinese are partners with the Khartoum regime, having engaged in oil 
contracts. The evil Chinese menace threatens American interests, and it 
follows that any country that deals with the Chinese is involved in an 
anti-American conspiracy. If they are Arabs (although black as my shoe), 
then the narrative is complete. Arabs have collaborated with Chinese to 
kill Africans just as black as themselves. Let's declare war on them, 
beginning with a no-fly zone that violates their sovereignty.

The scenario is the same as Iraq: take control of their skies and the 
land beneath it, and bomb at will. Remove any semblance of government 
authority, under the guise of ending genocide. Extend the reach of the 
U.S. military's paws in the Sahel region. The African Union has tried 
mightily to put an effective peace-keeping force on the ground in 
Darfur, but the United States and the Europeans refused to supply the 
logistical forces that are necessary; the C-130s to reinforce and supply 
the African troops. The Americans and Europeans held out until the 
African contingent was at the breaking point, and then forced through 
the UN Security Council a plan to place 26,000 U.S. and European-led 
soldiers on the ground. Another piece of Africa will pass into foreign 
hands.

Darfur has been made into a stage-set of anti-Arab conflict, which 
perfectly suits the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. Congo, where far more 
people have died, remains a gargantuan killing field, uncovered by the 
corporate media and ignored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the 
array of Democratic presidential candidates. Genocide depends on who is 
doing the killing, apparently.

Glen Ford is executive editor of Black Agenda Report. He can be 
contacted at Glen.Ford at BlackAgendaReport.com

	###