“Rice revealed herself to be an apostle of George Bush’s War on Somalia.”
By Glen Ford | BAR
If you believe that Barack Obama will pursue a policy in the Horn of Africa that is substantially different than that of George Bush, you are in for a deep disappointment. Only weeks after Ethiopian regime’s U.S.-instigated invasion of Somalia almost two years ago, Susan Rice, Obama’s choice for Ambassador to the United Nations, endorsed the aggression – an atrocity that has resulted in the displacement of 1.5 million Somalis and impending starvation of 3.5 million more.
Rice is a proponent of so-called “humanitarian military intervention” – but supports a U.S. Somalia policy that created “Africa’s worst humanitarian crisis,” according to the United Nations.
There is every reason to believe she will counsel the next president to continue George Bush’s policies in the Horn of Africa. In January, 2007, while Ethiopian regime troops attempted to crush Islamists who had brought a brief period of relative peace and stability to Somalia, and U.S. air and sea forces pounded the countryside with missiles and bombs, Rice revealed herself to be an apostle of George Bush’s War on Somalia (and the so-called War on Terror in general). Rice told the PBS News Hour that U.S. collaboration with the Ethiopian invaders was justified by what she called America’s “counterterrorism imperatives,” which she said “really are real in the context of Somalia.” In Rice’s words, “We have to go after the terrorist cells where we find them.”
The Bush regime gave no estimate of how many persons with ties to Al Qaida were operating on Somali soil, but the number appears to have been very small. The main goal of the Americans and their Ethiopian allies was to crush the government that had been created by Somali Islamists. The Islamic Courts regime, as Abukar Arman writes in the journal Global Politician, operated “schools, hospitals, and for six months before the occupation removed every checkpoint in Mogadishu and brought a semblance of peace.” Two years after the invasion, the Islamists have retaken much of southern and central Somalia, and the Ethiopians appear poised to withdraw – after killing, starving and displacing millions in partnership with the United States.
“On Darfur, Rice is more bellicose than Bush.”
The “humanitarian” component of Susan Rice’s militarism is quite selective.
She has long been a super-hawk on punishing Sudan for its behavior in Darfur. Back in October, 2006, Rice declared, “It’s time to get tough” with the government in Khartoum.” In a Washington Post column, she advised the Bush regime to give Sudan “an ultimatum: accept unconditional deployment of the U.N. force within one week or face military consequences.” (explain China and oil and Israel)
On Darfur, Rice is more bellicose than Bush. She sees no contradiction in calling for military action against Sudan, supposedly to end a “humanitarian crisis” in Darfur, while simultaneously backing a savage U.S.-Ethiopian assault that causes an even larger humanitarian calamity in Somalia. Rice claims to seek safety for civilians in Darfur, while supporting a total absence of security for Somali civilians. Darfur is a military/political convenience for “real-politic” operatives like Susan Rice. As Bruce Dixon wrote in his November 2007 BAR article, “If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?” (See “Ten Reasons Why ‘Save Darfur’ is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa.“)
“Her sole concern is projection of U.S. power by any means – or pretext – that is available.”
Rice’s behavior in Africa has always been morally inconsistent. She was a member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council during the 1994 Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi minority. Later, she “swore” she would go “down in flames” if necessary to prevent future genocides. But after her promotion to Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, she failed to publicly advocate action against U.S. allies Uganda and by then Tutsi-ruled Rwanda – the main perpetrators in an ongoing war that his killed millions
Susan Rice’s brand of “humanitarian intervention” is a farce, a pretext to justify military aggression under the guise of preventing human suffering. She has amply demonstrated that her sole concern is projection of U.S. power by any means – or pretext – that is available.
Rice embraces a policy that causes mass death and starvation in Somalia and ongoing genocide in Congo. Although she’s no blood relative of Condoleezza Rice, on African issues she seems headed in the same direction as the current Secretary of State.
(BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected])
15 thoughts on “Ethiopia: Susan Rice is bad news for Africa”
Madame secretary of state Clinton sets policy, not Susan Rice.
Yes US is a huge power in world politics and has to be reckoned with. But amidst of such opportunity, the Somali insurgents as well as the people in general should unit, oust aggressors and reconcile differences. The parties in Somalia should see themselves not as enemies or enemy like competitors but rather allies with strong common interest -establish free, peaceful, and prosperous Somalia….
Sons of Somalia should overcome evil mentality like greed, pride, revenge, anger, hate etc. and work together for their lofty goals. The Ethiopian peoples as well as other Africans are beside them!
Libona Yisten!!!!!!
Change my a..! Where is the change so far, all I see is old dogs coming to power. If somebody wants to change anything, he need some fresh and more educated people and not old first lady etc…It´s not secret her man will make her job, as far as I can fellow her race against Obama, she was lame and dump. And Rice is really educated person but she however has no other choice than to protect American interest and this interest by hook and crook is what hurt Africa. Forget change, there is no change for Africa as long as we don´t change ourselves. We have to act like President Isaias Afewerki! We have to take our life on our own hand and stop to serve any extern countries interest.
clinton will continue her husband foreign police which is not diffrent than Rices ignorance.
the only resolution to avoid weyane are ethiopians who are very capable of doing these but keep divided by a minor things that comes from the divisionary cadres of weyane and the divisive role players of EPRP and thier newly member hailu shawel.
now if we ethiopians come together at least for the sake of our common enemy weyane, all the amerericans and others will be on our side.
otherwise if you keep dreaming that the obama adminstration will challenge the weyane regime with out no input form our side, it is just a joke and nothing wont happen.
so to make a diffrence lets organize our sleves in diffrent political and civil organizations and come up with one common goal to destroy weyane irrespective of our diffrence. yet we need to forget the dirty propaganda of the eprp egoiest group and thier reminant hailu shawel who has nothing but still trying to drag the struggle.
Madam Clinton is no different. Her hubby is an acomplice in Zenawi’s atrocities. I guess, only God can rescue Ethiopia and the horn, in fact the whole troubled world.
where is the much talked about Ginbot 7?
I think that we will have to wait and see what Susan Rice’s influence and actins will be in this context. If we take President-Elect Obama at his word until we see different then he will be setting policy and both Secretary of State Clinton’s and Ambassador Rice’s (to the UN)job will be to carry that policy out not act on their own.
Her actions and support of the Bush policy and Ethiopian intervention in Somalia clearly showed one that she does not understand Somalis and their culture and two that she is clueless about how Somali’s practiced Islam, before this fiasco. In her new position in this administration she will be representing the US at the UN so we will need to remain vigilant on that point in regards to her intentions and actions towards Africa.
I agree with BAR Susan Rice’s policy prescription for Horn of Africa would not be essentially different from that of Bush/Cheney administration.
From the sound bites she & the pundits make about her, it seems more and more of Clinton era “military intervention to stop genocide” may be forthcoming during Obama’s administration. Susan Rice and her former boss share “projection of power” mentality with Neocons and Bush/Cheney administration.
“We have to go after the terrorist cells where we find them.” That is typical neocon and Bush/Cheney. My question to her would be, why this “counter-terrorism imperative” is exclusive right to U.S.A. or those allied to America such as Israel, Turkey, Colomia or the mini potentates in Ethiopia & Rwanda? Why is this same right or “counter-terrorism imperative” do not extend to countries such as India to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan, or Russia to go after cells in Turkey or in the case of Sudan to go after cells in Chad.
This kind of statement is not surprising if it came from Bush/Cheney officials whose bosses do not give a hoot about the implication of the policy in World affairs. However, when it comes from Democrats who were criticizing the Bush/Cheney administration for sidelining international law & disregarding world opinion, it makes them super hypocrites.
While it is true neither Susan Rice nor Hilllarry Clinton set the rules, the question is however, does Mr. Obama really understand the issues in the Horn to be a fair and effective leader. If one goes by his statements like establishing a “No fly zone” in Darfur against a sovereign Sudan and his asenine statement of bombing Pakistan without the concent of the Pakistani authorities – gives a chill in any peace loving and justice seeking person. While Hillary is not Bill, I suspect she probably won’t be different from her husband when it comes to beeing “Non challant” at best when it comes to the impoverished and marginalized Horn area.
Listen guys
First we say Obama Obama Obama and he get elected; we celebrate his election by eating tirre siga that is ok! but when he is doing his job we get panic because we are still expecting manna from up in the sky. wake up and smell the coffee. Do your own job because somebody is doing his/her job eg Somalians. You know what he says to his home land people, Kenyans, “I know your expectation from me but I want you also to know I have got limitations…”. He is right, It is up to me and you to be or not to be.
We love Susan Rice. What else one can say at this point in time.
We should plan and be determined to succeed without a favourable US policy. It is unwise to think for Clinton or Rice to do our job. The most important driving force is the support of the Ethiopian people. The internal situation is ripe requiring action for change. What OLF (Dawud Ibsa) and G7 (B. Nega) are planning to do is decisive, instead of Obama’s plan for Ethiopia.
God Bless Ethiopia
By the way, it was reported here in ER & Other ethio websites that some Ethiopian Americans were employed by Obama campaign team or Hilary Clinton’s team, as campaign managers. Can these individuals or those involved in E4O efforts use the connection they have developed during the camaign to faciltate dialog between Ethiopian diaspora and the new officials? Members of our community were mobilised and had given their whole hearted support. The new officials have to realise that we expect at the minimum dialogs and open engagements with the diaspora community.
My Ethiopian brothers and sisters, the US has no permanent friends or enemies, it has PERMANENT INTERESTS, those interests don’t match up with the hope and desire of the people of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and Somalia, no matter who the administration is. I can tell you from the Eritrean experience, the US policy towards Eritrea was to not let the Eritrean people decided their fate in 1952 by concocting a federation with Ethiopia for ten years then for the Eritrean people to have a referendum on indpendence or permanent federation with Ethiopia. In 1961 the US looked the other way when Emperor Haile Selassie dissolved the Eritrean parliament and annexed Eritrea while the US got its huge military bases in Asmara and Massawa.
When the Eritrean people decided to fight for their independence the US helped Haile Selassie by arming his troops to the teeth and unleashing them on the Eritrean people. During the Dergh era the US never even thought about helping the Eritrean fight for freedom, to the contrary the US and its western allies helped the Dergh regime economically in the name of famine to feed the largest military in sub saharan Africa, when in 1988 the back bone of the Dergh army was defeated in Sahel, the US through former president Carter invited the EPLF for “peace talks” to accept a bogus autonomy. The EPLF stuck to its guns and told former president Carter its stand is the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops and for the Eritrean people to have a referendum on wether they want full indpendence or to be under Ethiopian rule from Addis Ababa, that’s how the talks broke.
When the EPLF liberated Eritrea on 24 May 1991 it didn’t rush to proclaim independence, in fact they called the UN back to Eritrea to show them what they should have done in 1952 and 1962 and conducted a referendum with the whole world watching and the Eritrean people voted 99.8% for independence. The US was one of the first countries to recognize Eritrea’s independence but never wanted the EPLF to be in power because the EPLF taught them a lesson only one nation taught the US since WWII, that is Vietnam. Soon enough the US bought Woyanne and pushed them to invade Eritrea to reverse its independence, it is because their interest lies in keeping the free people of Eritrea under their dependency. They have the same policy towards every nation in our area. The only way to be independent is to fight for it and guard it jealously with your blood and tears. Freedom is never free.
As usual you guys were jumping up and down, without even having a clue about Obama’s foreign policy now go ahead start crying foul as usual….what a bunch of disgrace