Mike's Blog

Ass Clown Coalition pt. Deuce, or, More about Congo than you ever wanted to know (the country, not the movie, jackass)

In regards to my earlier piece, Alissa took umbrage (what a pompous word Tolles) to some of my thoughts on the ‘Coalition of the Willing.” Many of her points are good, the entire piece is well reasoned, and I really appreciate the post. That being said, I have to disagree with some of her points and clarify some of my own arguments (you knew I would, asshole that I am). Below is my response to what she posted. I’ve excerpted some parts, and these appear as italicized text. If you read the rest of my post here, I strongly recommend you first read Alissa’s arguments in the “comments” section of the “Coalition of the No-Talent Ass Clowns,” piece. Hers is number 14 I think. (Aside: if you’re reading this Shawn, post something, sometime, on something, you lazy, lazy bitch.)

So with that disclaimer, here goes…..

I believe that political support is actually a very important aspect of international relations.

I never said that it wasn’t. I meant to emphasize that the political support of countries like Palau contributes little, and certainly cannot be compared with the political support of nations like Turkey, France, Germany, all of whose (critical) support we’ve failed to get.

Norms – just the set of things that are considered acceptable for states to do – are extremely important in setting limits to what states can do, and in setting expectations of what states should do.

Agreed. Which is why I have such a problem with this pre-emption strategy/justification.

Offering support for the US isn’t just saying, “We are afraid of the US, so we’ll go along with whatever it says.” Rather, it’s saying, “The US is doing something good, right, noble, and we believe others should act in a similar way.”

Maybe. Perhaps some are saying some form of the latter statement. Personally, I serious doubt it. Mostly I think it’s the former “afraid of the US,” statement that acts as the prime motivator for a lot of these countries. See the Nigeria example. I think Mexico will be next for retribution, also Chile, and possibly even the EU.

Then again, I can’t really say for sure that these countries aren’t acting out of some sort of high principle. So then I certainly can’t say with any kind of conviction what these countries’ motivations are. I’m not sure this particular debate can be resolved.

I’d also question whether there’s anything wrong with the US offering additional aid to countries that support us – the US is a hegemon, which comes with a lot of responsibilities, but why should we not discriminate in favor of our allies?

I have no problem supporting allies. I have a problem with supporting corrupt govts, dictatorships, and countries that will use the support to further their own wars. Maybe then I just have a problem with soe of these allies. Some of the nations on the Coalition list fit into the above categories. Others examples not on the list, like Pakistan, also fit into these categories. This is, obviously, my own personal judgment, and anyone is free to disagree.

One last comment on the nature of foreign assistance – rarely does it take the form of a check to be spent on whatever the country’s leadership wants to buy. It almost always comes with many conditions – that it has to be spent on products purchased from American companies, on only products from some particular sector, etc. It’s not a bundle of cash sent overseas, not by any stretch.

Yes I know. That’s the idea at least. The money goes to a designated program sometimes/public works policy whatever. Or it gets rerouted. In practice, this is often the way it works. A lot of these governments’ record on corruption and graft ain’t so good. Not infrequently, the U.S./IMF/WB/XYZ/WWF/NWA-set conditions are ignored (see Zaire example below.)

But let’s say for argument’s sake that all the money did go to its intended source(s)/progams. That’s great, but the flip side is that this funding then frees up capital within the receiving country, capital which would have been used on these same sources/programs, to go buy guns, surface to air missiles, land mines, etc. So yes, I’ll stick to my contention that the U.S. is indirectly funding some really dirty wars and turning a blind eye to the consequences.

And then there’s the Africa thing. Here we go……

Africa’s problems can’t be blamed on the US (Liberia excepted, of course) – its security problems are rooted in colonialism, the newness of its institutions, bad governance, etc., as you well know. I don’t think it’s fair to put such blame for Africa’s problems on the US for seeking out multilateral support for a major war.

Oh boy…..Well….not all of Africa’s problems can be blamed on the U.S. Certainly the problems that Alissa lists all contribute to the chaos that is that continent to some degree or another. But as long as we’re assigning blame to outside parties, the U.S. does indeed deserve a shitload of blame (this does not mean Africans themselves get off the hook entirely, they own partial responsibility for different problems to different degrees.)

So gather round kids to listen to Grandpa Crazy Mike tell ya tales of whittlin’, beaver skinnin’, cougar wrastlin’, and African History. Prior to around oh….let’s say 1957, the year that Ghana became the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to gain independence, the U.S. did not really give a fuck what went on in Africa. It had other things to worry about. But by 1960, often referred to as “the year of independence for Africa,” (because of the large number of countries that became autonomous in that year), the U.S. starting taking a real hard look at the continent. You can probably guess why. Two words: Cold War.

Around then, the United States and the Soviet Union started fucking with the affairs of practically every country in Africa. And no, I don’t think that’s an overstatement. Remember: all these countries, even the little ones with no resources and no power whatsoever, had U.N. votes. This was one reason for intervening in Africa, the other big reason being the usual reach for geopolitical power, spheres of influence, yada yada yada. And yes, “fucking with the affairs of a country” is a broad term and is something that takes many forms, ranging from mild to serious.

The biggest example of U.S. meddling in that particular time and place came in 1960, in what used to be the Belgian Congo. In that year, Belgium pulled out, and unlike France and Britain, (but not Portugal) Belgium said, “See ya! You want some help from us? Fuck no! You’re independent remember?” Despite this dick maneuver, Congo went forward and held elections. (Aside: Wasn’t Congo (the Crichton-based project the worst movie ever? I think it was.) The Congo election was won by a guy named Patrice Lumumba, a socialist with close ties the Soviet Union. In 1960 he became his country’s first Prime Minister. This obviously didn’t please the U.S. too much. My parents say they can remember seeing images of Lumumba on T.V., and remember getting the impression that he was a bad guy (Overt TV message then, Socialist = One step shy of Satanist. A lot of that feeling hangs around today.) Washington denounced Lumumba as “Castro or worse,” (source upon request). Like a lot of countries in the first year of independence, Congo was pretty chaotic, and Lumumba had a rough time in office. That is, he did, until he was assassinated.

Among African historians, it’s generally agreed that this wasn’t some random act of violence in a violent country, which was how the story got reported. Four parties were involved in the plot to kill Lumumba and three of those parties were African individuals: Moise Tshombe, a Congolese opposition politician, Joseph Kasavubu, President (not PM) of Congo and a supposed ally of Lumumba, and a guy named Joseph Desireé Mobutu. The fourth party was the CIA. There’s a couple of interesting reads out there on CIA involvement in Africa and particularly in Congo. Yes, the CIA was directly involved in Congo during this time (shocking I know). This fact should not be contestable. After Lumumba’s death, Kasavubu took over until 1965 when he was forced out by General Mobutu. This General later changed his name to Mobutu Sese Seko, and became dictator of the county for the next 32 years. He also renamed the country Zaire in 1971. Mobutu was a brutal dictator who often “used violence against his own people,” (Sound familiar?). He was heavily supported by the U.S. because of his anti-Communist stance and because Congo/Zaire, being the largest and one of the richest countries in sub-Saharan Africa, was in a position to fuck with its neighbors’ political affairs. These were mostly socialist or socialist-leaning nations: Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania, Angola, Zambia, and a few others. Mobutu, when he was not brutally crushing domestic opposition or stealing the U.S. foreign aid for himself (so much for those stringent rules on where foreign aid is supposed to go), or committing atrocities against his more uppity critics, was busying instigating the wars in Central and Southern Africa. The effects of these wars remain today, and a few are even still going on, (see Angola, Rwanda/Burundi).

The point is this (“finally Tolles, you windy asshole” ): The U.S., through its funding and sometimes direct CIA support of African dictators can be blamed, at least partially, for Africa’s problems. Congo/Zaire is the best example of the U.S. supporting a dictator, but other US-backed despots reigned in Malawi (Hastings Banda) and Angola (Jonas Savimbi), and in a few other places. Anyone who wants to get really bored can ask me about these examples and their consequences some other time. The U.S. didn’t care about supporting these dictators and their crimes back then, and the U.S. really doesn’t care when it supports bad guys now. To cite one example, Pakistan has become an extremely important ally to the U.S. recently, despite the fact that Pakistan is run by a military dictator with a not-so-great human rights record, (Pervez Musharaf) who recently re-wrote his country’s constitution so that he could have nearly unlimited powers. And this guy is on our side. So when I hear Chimpy McSmirkster thunder on about how Saddam is a dictator, my reaction is, “Oh Yeah? This hasn’t seemed to matter much in the past.” When I hear the chimp talk about “liberating the Iraqis,” one word pops into my head: hypocrite. End of sermon.

Note to Alissa: If you feel I’ve misrepresented your arguments or have been unfair in any way, I’m sorry. I really didn’t mean to. I can fix/amend things if you have any major objections. And again, I really do appreciate your post.

Posted by mike at April 14, 2003 12:15 PM