Top Menu

Susan Rice, Scourge of Africa, May Become Secretary of State

Susan Rice, scourge of Africa, may become Secretary of State

Originally published: Black Agenda Report (November 11, 2020)   | 

Rice has been intimately involved in covering up the deaths of more than six million Congolese, and has cultivated close relations with every U.S.-backed tyrant on the continent.

At this point it seems six of one, half-a-dozen of the other as to who’ll be president come 2021. The election hasn’t been certified yet. Trump has sued to keep Pennsylvania from certifying their results, and there will be recounts in Georgia and probably at least one other state. If Biden drops below the 270 electors required to win, or this isn’t settled by December 8, the decision goes to the House where each state delegation gets one vote and Trump wins because there are more red states than blue states, just barely. With Mitch McConnell and Republicans standing behind Trump’s legal right to challenge results, this seems far from over, and the scenario Greg Palast laid out in “How Trump Stole the 2020 Election”  seems less and less farfetched.

But let’s stop fidgeting over election news long enough to imagine Joe Biden in the Oval Office. If he gets there, it’s quite likely that one of the worst people on the planet—Susan Rice—will become his Secretary of State. In 2011, as Obama’s National Security Advisor, Rice traveled to Libya to congratulate U.S. proxies on the total destruction of the Libyan state, the most prosperous in Africa because it was sovereign over its own vast reserves of light sweet crude, oil that needs only the most minimal refining. After Gaddafi was gruesomely executed and Hillary Clinton cackled, “We came, we saw, he died,” the Waha Group (Marathon, ConocoPhillips and Amerada Hess) said that they were encouraged by an apparent “sea change in the NOC’s attitude  toward its U.S. partners.”

China had a lot of construction contracts in Libya too, and much of what it had constructed was blown to smithereens.

So Susan Rice had a lot to celebrate when she arrived on the ground in Libya. But instead she bragged that the U.S. had stopped genocide. That’s the kind of ruthless, bloodthirsty, lying, hypocrite she is.

Then she flew on to Rwanda to meet with President Paul Kagame and crow that the U.S. “got it right this time.” By that she meant that the Clinton Administration, in which she served first on the National Security Council and then as Under Secretary of State for African Affairs, had failed to intervene to stop genocide in Rwanda, but that it had learned its lesson and stopped it in Libya.

But in fact President Bill Clinton didn’t stand by during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Through his UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, he made sure that UN troops were withdrawn from Rwanda till the bloodbath was over and Paul Kagame, one of the USA’s yes men in Africa, seized power.

Allan Stam, University of Virginia Professor of Public Policy and Politics, spent ten years researching the Rwandan Genocide with University of Michigan Political Science Professor Christian Davenport. In Stam’s presentation “Understanding the Rwandan Genocide,” he said that the Pentagon had imagined that the cost of installing Kagame might be 250,000 Rwandan lives, but instead it cost something closer to a million. Susan Rice is infamous for saying at the time, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November (congressional) election?

President Obama considered making Susan Rice his Secretary of State after his reelection in 2012, when she stepped down as his UN Ambassador, but at that time both Rice and the U.S. relationship with Rwanda were under fire in the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Kagame’s M23 militia was then ravaging the eastern DRC’s resource-rich Kivu Provinces, which Kagame and his U.S. backers have been determined to annex to Rwanda for decades. A courageous group of investigators in that year’s UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republi c of Congo  had reported that M23 was under the direct command of Rwandan Defense Minister James Kabarebe and thus the president himself.

Two days after the hearing, Rice withdrew her name from consideration to become Secretary of State and President John Kerry, a billionaire scion of empire, got the job. She instead stepped into the arguably more powerful position of National Security Adviser.

The U.S. and its allies fears a strong, unified Congo

Susan Rice, along with John Prendergast and Samantha Power, applauded the January 2009 peace agreement that “integrated” the National Congress for the Defence of the People  (CNDP) into the Congolese army in the Kivu Provinces that Kagame has so long wanted to claim with U.S. support. The CNDP was a previous incarnation of M23, a Rwandan militia whose goal is to loot resources and drive Congolese people into refugee and IDP camps, making way for Rwandans. Ultimately, these Rwandans might be expected to leave Congo and become part of Rwanda, or at the least, to become some sort of “free trade zone” that would make it easier to get Congolese resources out through Rwanda and Uganda.

DRC has the resources, including its Atlantic port on the mouth of the Congo River, to become a global powerhouse–much as a unified Sudan might have become with its vast resources including its port on the Gulf of Aden. If Congolese people controlled and fairly distributed the country’s natural wealth, they would have one of the highest living standards in the world, and they would, like Libya under Gaddafi, be in a position to help the rest of Africa. As Friends of the Congo’s Kambale Musavuli once said to me, “If Congo stands up, so does Africa.”

It’s obviously not in the geostrategic interest of U.S. power elites to see any African nation emerge as a global powerhouse. Especially one where so much of the mineral wealth essential to weapons and renewable energy manufacture is so densely concentrated, as it is in DRC. It’s not in the interest of what is commonly called “the U.S.,” but it could be in a U.S. committed to national sovereignty, the first principle of international law as defined in the UN Charter. That is not the U.S. we live in or the one that Susan Rice would wish on the world, despite all her perverse campaigning for “humanitarian interventions” and “stopping genocide.”

Comments are closed.