Right in Clinton's face - Mandela stands up for Cuba

Workers World ^ | April 9, 1998 | Deirdre Griswold

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bill Clinton's trip to Africa was supposed to be a whirlwind triumph. The president of the world's only superpower swept through country after country with an entourage of 1,000 people in tow.

The peoples of Africa were supposed to be grateful that the rich and powerful United States was taking any interest in them.

For any country, even the richest, it is very difficult to say what they really think about the United States, especially during a visit by the U.S. head of state.

But South African President Nelson Mandela showed the political courage for which he is famous March 27. In a joint news conference with Clinton in Cape Town, Mandela made a point of praising Cuba, Libya and Iran-all countries on Washington's hit list.

"Not only did they support us in rhetoric, they gave us the resources for us to conduct the struggle and win," Mandela said pointedly.

Two days later, Mandela announced to CNN that he would be visiting Iran soon, "and I do not hide those things. Libya, Cuba, Iran are my friends," said Mandela. He added that they supported the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa "when the United States, as other Western powers, at the time of the struggle were really helping our enemy."

Mandela then explained why he opposed the Growth and Opportunity Bill. Now before the U.S. Senate, the bill ties investment in Africa to "democracy" and adherence to International Monetary Fund demands.

Not 'neglect' but bloody intervention

Did Clinton really think he could put one over on Nelson Mandela?

Clinton's tour was hyped as showing that the U.S. government will no longer "neglect" the rich continent of Africa but will foster investment and development there.

Mandela knows just how phony that claim is.

Take the U.S. "neglect" of South Africa during apartheid. Back on July 26, 1979, arms expert Michael Klare wrote in The Nation that "Western sources ranging from the British Broadcasting Corporation to the Washington Post have confirmed that millions of dollars' worth of U.S. arms have reached South African forces via illegal channels."

Some deliveries involved whole shiploads of 155-mm artillery shells. "Pretoria has acquired a wide range of U.S. transport, communications, and surveillance equipment, greatly enhancing its capacity for long-range commando raids against neighboring Black states," wrote Klare.

In fact, U.S. imperialism has never "neglected" Africa. The government that is today preaching "democracy" to Africans has put in power some of the most virulently anti-democratic forces there. And much of the misery in Africa today comes from U.S. intervention.

U.S. corporations have extracted billions of dollars from the Congo, Zambia, Ghana and other countries rich in minerals and agricultural resources, while these countries fell into debt. Then U.S. banks moved in and did very nicely collecting interest.

Nor was the U.S. government somehow unaware of what was going on. The secretive state structures that service the billionaire class-especially the Central Intelligence Agency-have been very interested in Africa.

Their intervention grew in the late 1950s-the period when overt colonialism was ending and U.S. money makers saw the chance to move in to what had been European strongholds.

CIA vs. liberation movements

The main objective of CIA subversion was to prevent the rising liberation movements from setting up stable governments. These new and very popular regimes hoped to at last put Africa's great natural resources at the service of the people.

In this period, the USSR and countries in Eastern Europe, especially the German Democratic Republic, offered free advanced training to Africans who had been denied an education under colonial rule. An entire university-named after Patrice Lumumba-was built in Moscow for these foreign students. These students studied geology, engineering, medicine, agronomy and many other specialties desperately needed in their countries.

Using the excuse of the Cold War because many African regimes had turned to the socialist bloc for aid, the agents of the U.S. super-rich got political support from Congress for their dirty work.

Why doesn't U.S. give up genocide?

Clinton's public-relations people arranged a photo opportunity showing him getting African heads of state to sign an anti-genocide document. But what about U.S.-sponsored genocide?

Millions of people have died because of U.S. intervention in Africa-not even counting the United States role in the world's worst genocide ever, the slave trade.

The CIA was behind the 1960 assassination of Patrice Lumumba-the Congo's first president. That set off decades of bloody struggle over the riches of this key central African nation-a struggle that continues to this day. The CIA picked Gen. Mobutu to rule what became Zaire. At one point, it even hired Cuban exile pilots to bomb the progressive forces in the Congo.

Africa expert Rene Lemarchand wrote that "whatever efforts and resources were 'spent' on Mobutu turned out to be a highly productive investment from the standpoint of U.S. corporate interests."

The CIA deposed the immensely popular Marxist president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah. Seymour Hersh broke the story in the New York Times on May 9, 1978: "The Central Intelligence Agency advised and supported a group of dissident army officers who overthrew the regime of President Nkrumah of Ghana in February 1966, first-hand intelligence sources said yesterday."

Hersh cited CIA officer John Stockwell, who explained how the agency made sure not to leave a paper trail. "Inside CIA headquarters the Accra station was given full, if unofficial, credit for the coup. None of this was adequately reflected in the Agency's written records," said Stockwell.

Ghana was Clinton's first stop on his current trip.

Stockwell's book "In Search of Enemies" tells how the CIA promoted opposition armies in Angola after that country's liberation from Portugal. That covert military intervention, with its liberal use of land mines, caused millions of casualties. So did the war in Mozambique, another liberated Portuguese colony tortured by a mercenary army that had at least tacit U.S. support.

The Clinton administration is relying on a subservient press here to wipe away all memory of this criminal history and portray the U.S. government's interest in Africa in the most altruistic light.

But Nelson Mandela's response to Clinton reflects what Africans really think about these Johnny-come-lately "benefactors."

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Oops! I shouldn't have read this right after dinner --- Major Heartburn Alert!
(Good post anyway, CW.)

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

Clinton's tour was hyped as showing that the U.S. government will no longer "neglect" the rich continent of Africa but will foster investment and development there. Mandela knows just how phony that claim is.

So, if we don't invest in Africa, we are guilty of 'neglect'. And if we do invest there, we are 'extracting billions in wealth'. Lol, more heartburn.
Where did I put my Tums?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes it was a good series. The train is what I was talking about. It is still in use. The British did much to help during their stay.