3/11 Black Is Back Coalition Conference on the “Other” U.S. Wars; Black Africa & U.S. Black Movement, Brzezinski's NSCM 46

"It's not good enough to just be for peace," says Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations. "One has to be against imperialism, which is responsible for wrecking the world." The traditional anti-war movement, he said, "has never been able to deal adequately with what's happening in Haiti, Congo or throughout Africa, or with the war waged against African people right here in the United States" - the "other" wars.

Black Is Back Coalition March 26 Conference on the “Other” U.S. Wars
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
The bulk of U.S. and European anti-war movements have never opposed all imperial domination and have therefore been selective about which conflicts would be recognized as actual “wars” Thus, U.S. armed theft of Haitian independence is not considered a war, and the U.S. is free to deny culpability for the six million killed in Congo by America’s proxy wars. The Black is Back Coalition “will reexamine the globe to define more objectively where U.S. imperialism and its partners – heirs to previous European empires – are waging war against the various peoples of the world, and what to do about it.”

If there were a war that didn’t directly involve U.S. troops and killed mainly dark people, would what purports to be the U.S. anti-war movement care, or even notice? In fact, there are numerous such wars under way right now, including within U.S. borders, but many white Americans who claim to oppose their country’s aggressions agitate only against those wars that cost the U.S. most heavily in lives and money: Iraq and Afghanistan. The victims of U.S. imperialism’s “other” wars exist only in the margins of the consciousness of much of the white Left, who assume the privilege of picking and choosing the anti-war movement’s priorities.
“It is this historical defect of the U.S. Left that prevents it from giving genuine practical and material solidarity to the national liberation struggles of Africans and other peoples within the U.S,” said Omali Yeshitela, chairman of the Black Is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations. In response, the Coalition will hold a “National Conference on the ‘Other’ Wars,” March 26, in Washington, DC. “The concept of the “Other Wars” is designed to highlight wars happening in the world that the traditional white Left does not recognize, though they are the very struggles that have critical significance for the continued survival of imperialism.”
A racist public in North America and Europe tolerated and even cheered atrocities against the oppressed and colonized peoples of the planet, who they refused to recognize as fully human. “Wars” were deemed primarily to be affairs between white nations, while the constant armed aggressions perpetrated against the colonized people’s were accepted as part of the White Man’s Burden, the dirty little business of maintaining order abroad and prosperity at home. The costs to the black, brown and yellow victims of empire – the people that actually bore the White Man as a burden – amounted to little or nothing in the white public mind. Yet, the same deeply implicated white public believed, then as now, that they were the rightful arbiters of how, when and to what extent the empire should be dismantled. They would decide which tools of liberation the oppressed might rightfully employ, and whether the “wretched of the earth” were worthy petitioners or savage terrorists. Always – whether it was the French suppressing Algeria, the British versus the Mau Mau rebellion, or the scores of piratical U.S. interventions in Latin America – always, the white public reserves for itself the privilege of identifying the wrongs (that it was complicit in committing) and prescribing solutions.

“If slavery and colonialism were forms of warfare, then who won?”
They even feel qualified to decide which conflicts are to be elevated to classification as wars, and which are something else, something less…compelling. The slave trade, a centuries-long crime that provided the material basis for the development of capitalism at a cost to the Africans that cannot be fully tabulated, was one long war, whose unfinished battles reverberate in our own era. Yet African enslavement is not called a war, or a succession of wars, but rather treated as a kind of dark and violent weather that clouds our common history. The purpose is to obscure the historically gargantuan fact that white Europe and America waged slavery, as they waged war, the two being inseparable. If slavery and colonialism were forms of warfare, then who won? If the oppressed do not believe they have won, based on their current material and other conditions, then they cannot allow the war to be declared over. And from that conclusion, many others flow.
Recognizing the true facts of war is, therefore, of crucial political importance. Participants in the March 26 Black is Back conference will reexamine the globe to define more objectively where U.S. imperialism and its partners – heirs to previous European empires – are waging war against the various peoples of the world, and what to do about it.

Certainly, Somalia is a victim of U.S. war-making. Washington attempted to occupy the country in 1993, suffered military setbacks (Blackhawk down), then returned to invade the country in December 2006 through its proxy, Ethiopia, buttressed by U.S. Special Forces and air and naval support. The invasion, which interrupted Somalia’s first, brief period of relative peace in decades under an Islamic Courts regime, caused what United Nations officials called “the greatest humanitarian crisis in Africa” at the time, “greater than Darfur,” displacing 3.5 million [4] people. When the Ethiopians withdrew with heavy casualties, the Americans waged a “food war” [5] against the Somali populace to starve the “Shabab” resistance into submission. The U.S. bulldozed the UN, its European allies and the African Union into recognizing a puppet regime huddled in a tiny corner of the capital city, Mogadishu – a rump entity that is incapable of serving any purpose other than preventing Somalis from establishing control over their own country. In the process, Washington has destabilized the entire region, sowing the seeds of wider war [6]. An American financed and directed offensive is currently underway in the capital and on the borders with Kenya and Ethiopia. This is a U.S. war. End the War Against Somalia! U.S. out of the Horn of Africa!

The main protectors of Somalia’s puppet regime are Rwandan troops, who act as hit men and mercenaries for the U.S. in Africa, as does Uganda’s military. A United Nations report charges both U.S. allies with the mass killing of Congolese during Rwanda and Uganda’s invasion, occupation and systematic looting of eastern Congo. Hutus of Rwandan and Congolese nationality were systematically selected for slaughter [7]: genocide. Congolese blame the U.S.-backed foreign militaries for the bulk of the six million deaths since the mid-Nineties, yet the U.S. has made no substantive changes [8] in its policies in the Great Lakes region of Africa since the UN report was formally released, in October.
“The U.S. paid for and engineered the biggest killing field since World War Two, and is legally and morally culpable for waging aggressive war against peace.”
Has the U.S. been at war with the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo? Emphatically “yes,” a continuation of the war America has waged since Eisenhower ordered the assassination of Congo’s elected president, Patrice Lumumba. The U.S. paid for and engineered the biggest killing field since World War Two, and is legally and morally culpable – not only for genocide and crimes against humanity, but for waging aggressive war against peace, along with its Rwandan and Ugandan hirelings, in eastern Congo. Washington Must Pay for Six Million Dead! U.S. Out of Central Africa!

America’s war against Haiti goes back to the days when the U.S. waged slavery, which is inseparable from war. The free Black Republic of Haiti was quarantined, harassed, subjected to extortion, constantly bombarded and invaded by U.S. privateers and uniformed forces until 1915, when an official, 19-year U.S. occupation began. Nobody called this a “war” on Haiti; you will not read of America’s “Haitian wars,” but thousands were killed by rifle, grenade and machine gun, or by aerial bombardment. And, since the U.S. is not thought to have ever been at war with Haiti, it can pretend to be a good and caring neighbor when it sponsors coups or physically re-invades, such as in 1994 and 2004.
The 2004 invasion – at first by proxy through a few hundred U.S.-trained and -financed terrorists, then by uniformed American troops – put a definitive end to Haiti’s sovereignty, which is what sometimes happens when countries lose wars to merciless adversaries. The U.S. military occupation was transformed by extra-legal magic into an armed United Nations occupation, commanded by Brazilians. This is, of course, a continuation of the original invasion and, therefore, inseparable from the American war. Free Haiti! End the Occupation! Washington, Stop Your Wars Against Haiti!

Inside the United States
There must be a U.S. war raging against Black America – otherwise, where did all the prisoners come from? A million Black Americans are behind bars at any given moment, and majorities of young Black males growing up in inner city neighborhoods can expect to become prisoners of this war - if they live long enough. The U.S. war against Blacks is closely related to the War on Drugs, rather curious since the same people that claim there is no war against living, breathing Black people imagine there is an actual war against inanimate chemicals and peaceful plants. But the war is undeniable: one out of every eight prisoners on planet Earth was captured by armed Americans, which makes the U.S. War on African Americans one of the major ongoing conflicts – wars – on the planet, although dwarfed by the U.S. war against the Congolese. Other domestic wars continue to be waged against Mexicans and Native Americans, who can tell their own war stories. Abolish the Black Prison Gulag! Self-Determination to the Black Nation!

Defining the Struggle
We see the American aggressions that much of the Euro-American Left refuse to recognize as wars are actually the basic stuff of U.S. imperialism, which is waging war all the time, against a multitude of people. Some theaters of battle heat up and threaten to quickly alter the status of forces in the world; other theaters grind on, like trench warfare, often producing far larger casualties, such as in Congo, than the universally acknowledged “wars.”

The March 26 conference, at Festival Center, 1640 Columbia Rd. NW, welcomes all anti-racist, anti-imperialist strugglers and activists in the anti-war movement.

Topics will include:
· The Permanent War Against Africa
· U.S. Aggression in Colombia/Africans Under Fire
· War at the U. S. Borders
· Economic Warfare/Sub prime mortgages, foreclosures and gentrification
· Nation behind Bars/Mass Incarceration and Political Prisoners
· Reparations/Payment for war crimes
· Haiti Under Attack
· War on U.S. Streets/Police terror and murder

We must correctly define wars, and then measure anti-war “movements” by how they respond to these “other” wars, the ones actually most representative of the general workings of U.S. imperialism and its related domestic racial subjugation. That’s why, as Black Is Back chairman Yeshitela pointed out, these “other” wars are “the very struggles that have critical significance for the continued survival of imperialism.”

For more information on the “National Conference on the ‘Other’ Wars,” go the blackisbackcoalition.org [9].
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [10]. [11]


Digest note:
The 911 made-in-usa pretext for waging a 'GWOT' threat "If you're not with US, you're with the terrorists", directed to all who might even consider resisting the new world war, reflects its strategic weakness and its fear because the vast majority in the world know its real terrorist enemy beneath bogus excuses and relentless 'strategic information warfare' to maintain its grotesque, doomed white supremacist dominance driving it to new, unprecedented, unspeakably horrendous crimes.
COINTELPRO had killed major BPP leaders and wreaked havoc on BPP's internal unity, but could not kill what amerika fears most everywhere in the world including its fascist 'homeland' : genuine revolution. A deep-rooted socialist revolution to rip out the roots of the moribund capitalist system, with the leadership of the Black Nation, historically the cutting edge of revolutionary politics in the usa.
The 1978 NSM blow reveals that US imperialist zionism, #1 enemy of all exploited and oppressed peoples and nations worldwide, knows its major enemy and knows its own geostrategic vulnerability. Isn't it time we identify, strategize and organize to defeat our major common enemy?
"The Negro youth and moderate[s] must be made to understand that if they succumb to revolutionary teachings, they will be dead revolutionaries."
J. Edgar Hoover,FBI Chief, re:COINTELPRO against the Black Panther Party

Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement
Zbigniew Brezinski

This Document is Exhibit 10 of U.S. Supreme Court Case No.00-9587
MARCH 17, 1978

Objective of our policy toward Black Africa is to prevent social upheavals which could radically change the political situation throughout the area. The success or failure of our policy in the region depends on the solution international
and internal issues whose importance of the United States is on the increase.


A multiplicity of interests influences the U.S. attitude toward black Africa. The most important of these interests can be summarized as follows:

If black African states assume attitudes hostile to the U.S. national interest, our policy toward the white regimes; which is a key element in our relations with the black states, may be subjected by the latter to great pressure for fundamental change. Thus the West may face a real danger of being deprived of access to the enormous raw material resources of southern Africa which are vital for our defense needs as well as losing control over the Cape sea routes by which approximately 65% of Middle Eastern oil is supplied to Western Europe.

Moreover, such a development may bring about internal political difficulties by intensifying the activity of the Black movement in the United States itself.

It should also be borne in mind that black Africa is an integral part of a continent where tribal and regional discord, economic backwardness, inadequate infrastructures, drought, and famine, are constant features of the scene. In conjunction with the artificial borders imposed by the former colonial powers, guerilla warfare in Rhodesia and widespread indignation against apartheid in South Africa, the above factors provide the communist states with ample opportunities for furthering their aims. This must necessarily redound to the detriment of U.S. political interests.

Black Africa is increasingly becoming an outlet for U.S. exports and investment. The mineral resources of the area continue to be of great value for the normal functioning of industry in the United States and allied countries. In 1977, U.S. direct investment in black Africa totaled about $1.8 billion and exports $2.2 billion. New prospect of substantial profits would continue to develop in the countries concerned.


Apart from the above-mentioned factors adverse to U.S. strategic interests, the nationalist liberation movement in black Africa can act as a catalyst with far reaching effects on the American black community by stimulating its organizational consolidation and by inducing radical actions. Such a result would be likely as Zaire went the way of Angola and Mozambique.

An occurrence of the events of *1967-68 would do grievous harm to U.S. prestige, especially in view of the concern of the present Administration with human rights issues. Moreover, the Administration would have to take specific steps to stabilize the situation. Such steps might be misunderstood both inside and outside the United States.

In order to prevent such a trend and protect U.S. national security interests, it would appear essential to elaborate and carry out effective countermeasures.
1. Possibility of Joint Action By U.S. Black and African Nationalist Movement.
In elaborating U.S. policy toward black Africa, due weight must be given to the fact that there are 25 millions American blacks whose roots are African and who consciously or subconsciously sympathies with African nationalism.
The living conditions of the black population should also be taken into account. Immense advances in the field are accompanied by a long-lasting high rate of unemployment, especially among the youth and by poverty and dissatisfaction with government social welfare standards.
These factors taken together may provide a basis for joint actions of a concrete nature by the African nationalist movement and the U.S. black community... renewal of the extremist national idea of establishing an "African Republic" on American soil. Finally, leftist radical elements of the Black community could resume extremist actions in the style of the defunct Black Panther Party. ...
Basically, actions would take the form of demonstrations and public protests, but the likelihood of violence cannot be excluded. There would also be attempts to coordinate their political activity both locally and in international organizations.

In the context of long-term strategy, the United States can not afford a radical change in the fundamentals of its African policy, which is designed for maximum protection of national security. In the present case, emphasis is laid on the importance of Black Africa for U.S. political, economic and military interests.

In weighing the range of U.S. interests in Black Africa, basic recommendations arranged without intent to imply priority are:
1. Specific steps should be taken with the help of appropriate government agencies to inhibit coordinated activity of the Black Movement in the United States.
2. Special clandestine operations should be launched by the CIA to generate mistrust and hostility in American and world opinion against joint activity of the two forces, and to cause division among Black African radical national groups and their leaders.
3. U.S. embassies to Black African countries specially interested in southern Africa must be highly circumspect in view of the activity of certain political circles and influential individuals opposing the objectives and methods of U.S. policy toward South Africa. It must be kept in mind that the failure of U.S. strategy in South Africa would adversely affect American standing throughout the world. In addition, this would mean a significant diminution of U.S. influence in Africa and the emergence of new difficulties in our internal situation due to worsening economic prospects.
4. The FBI should mount surveillance operations against Black African representatives and collect sensitive information on those, especially at the U.N., who oppose U.S. policy toward South Africa. The information should include facts on their links with the leaders of the Black movement in the United States, thus making possible at least partial neutralization of the adverse effects of their activity.


The concern for the future security of the United States makes necessary the range of policy options. Arranged without intent imply priority they are:
(a) to enlarge programs, within the framework of the present budget, for the improvement of the social and economic welfare of American Blacks in order to ensure continuing development of present trends in the Black movement;
(b) to elaborate and bring into effect a special program designed to perpetuate division in the Black movement and neutralize the most active groups of leftist radical organizations representing different social strata of the Black community: to encourage division in Black circles;
(c) to preserve the present climate which inhibits the emergence from within the Black leadership of a person capable of exerting nationwide appeal;
(d) to work out and realize preventive operations in order to impede durable ties between U.S Black organizations and radical groups in African states;
e) to support actions designed to sharpen social stratification in the Black community which would lead to the widening and perpetuation of the gap between successful educated Blacks and the poor, giving rise to growing antagonism between different Black groups and a weakening of the movement as a whole.
(f) to facilitate the greatest possible expansion of Black business by granting government contracts and loans with favorable terms to Black businessmen;
(g) to take every possible means through the AFL-CIO leaders to counteract the increasing influence of Black labor organizations which function in all major unions and in particular, the National Coalition of Black Trade Union and its leadership including the creation of real preference for adverse and hostile reaction among White trade unionists to demands for improvement of social and economic welfare of the Blacks;
(h) to support the nomination at federal and local levels of loyal Black public figures to elective offices, to government agencies and the Court.

from http://www.burbankdigest.com/node/215