Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement - Zbigniew Brezinski
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL INTERDEPARTMENTAL GROUP FOR AFRICA
This Document is Exhibit 10 of U.S. Supreme Court Case No.00-9587 NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM-46
MARCH 17, 1978
Presidential Review Memorandum NSCM/46
TO: The Secretary of State , The Secretary of Defense, The Director of Central Intelligence
SUBJECT: Black Africa and the U.S. Black Movement
Zbigniew Brezinski (Is now Obama’s Chief Advisor). His agenda is being carried out by Obama.
The Secretary of the Treasury, The Secretary of Commerce. The Attorney General , The Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
STUDY RESPONSE TO PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY REVIEW MEMORANDUM NSC-46 BLACK AFRICA AND THE U.S. BLACK MOVEMENT
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.
II. A. U.S. INTERESTS IN BLACK AFRICA
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.
IV. BLACK AFRICA AND THE U.S. BLACK MOVEMENT
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.
B. THE RANGE OF POLICY OPTIONS
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.
"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 COINTELPRO (acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Federal Bureau of Investigation In August 1967, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) instructed its program "COINTELPRO" to "neutralize" what the FBI called "black nationalist hate groups" and other dissident groups. In September of 1968, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover described the Black Panthers as "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country." By 1969, the Black Panthers were the primary target of COINTELPRO....the BPP was profoundly influenced by Maoist thought.... They were the target of 233 of the 295 authorized "Black Nationalist" COINTELPRO actions. The goals of the program were to prevent the unification of militant black nationalist groups and to weaken the power of their leaders, as well as to discredit the groups to reduce their support and growth.
J. Edgar Hoover called the Black Panther Party “the greatest threat to the internal security of the country,” and he supervised an extensive program of counter-organizing that included surveillance and eavesdropping, infiltration, harassment, false testimony, and a laundry list of other tactics designed to incriminate Party members and drain the organization of resources and manpower. (pg.45)” Through these tactics, it was thought that their potential for further advancement would diminish and probability of continuing to serve as a threat to the general power structure of the U.S,...
From 1966 to 1972, when the party was most active, several departments hired significantly more African-American police officers. Some of these black officers played prominent roles in shutting down the Panthers' activities. In Chicago in 1969 for example, Panthers Mark Clark and Fred Hampton were both killed in a police raid (In which five of the officers present were African American) by Sergeant James Davis, an African American officer. In cities such as New York City, black police officers were used to infiltrate Panther meetings. By 1972, almost every major police department was fully integrated....
Although COINTELPRO was commissioned ostensibly to prevent violence, it used some tactics to foster violence. For instance, the FBI tried to "intensify the degree of animosity" between the Black Panthers and the Blackstone Rangers, a Chicago gang. They sent an anonymous letter to the Ranger’s gang leader claiming that the Panthers were threatening his life, a letter whose intent was to induce "reprisals" against Panther leadership. In Southern California similar actions were taken to exacerbate a "gang war" between the Black Panther Party and a group called the US Organization. Violent conflict between these two groups, including shootings and beatings, led to the deaths of at least four Black Panther Party members. FBI agents claimed credit for instigating some of the violence between the two groups.
On January 17, 1969, Los Angeles Panther Captain Bunchy Carter and Deputy Minister John Huggins were killed in Campbell Hall on the UCLA campus, in a gun battle with members of US Organization stemming from a dispute over who would control UCLA's black studies program. Another shootout between the two groups on March 17 led to further injuries. It was alleged that the FBI had sent a provocative letter to US Organization in an attempt to create antagonism between US and the Panthers.  One of the most notorious actions was a Chicago Police raid of the home of Panther organizer Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969. The raid had been orchestrated by the police in conjunction with the FBI. The FBI was complicit in many of the actions. The people inside the home had been drugged by an FBI informant, William O'Neal, and were asleep at the time of the raid. Hampton was shot and killed, as was the guard, Mark Clark. The others were dragged into the street, beaten, and subsequently charged with assault. These charges were later dropped. The Chicago Police and FBI were never investigated or charged for their role in the event.
“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.” Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests” Henry Kissinger, National Security Study Memo 200, 04//24/74
“African Blood” Saved Obama From Scrutiny in Ghana by Edwin Okong'o
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/%E2%80%9Cafrican-blood%E2%80... Just as in Black America, many Africans on the continent hesitate to criticize Barack Obama for reasons of blood solidarity. Obama bemoans African “wars over land and wars over resources,” but “his African blood prevented us from asking him whether most of those resources (diamonds) end up in the hands of Africans.” The president talks of bribery as if it were an African disease. “African blood makes us hush instead of telling Obama that what Africans need is an end to the policies that allow multinationals to bribe governments to let them to continue stripping the continent of its wealth.”
“The son of Africa continues to push for the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) –- the same policy of militarization we rejected under Bush.”
During his visit to Ghana, President Barack Obama laid out a U.S. policy that wasn’t any different from that of his predecessors. But because Obama’s father hailed from my home country of Kenya, and because blood –- African blood, especially -– is thicker than water, Africans exempted their son’s plan for the continent from the tough questions it warranted.
To understand how important blood lines are in Africa, we have to go back to May, when Obama announced his plans to visit Ghana. Euphoria gripped the continent so tightly that instead of talking about what kind of relationship Africa should have with the United States, we went after each other. We wondered why he chose Ghana. Kenyans –- who thought they had an inalienable right to Obama’s first visit as president –- complained that they had been snubbed. Nigeria wondered why Obama didn’t include the African giant in his itinerary. And, if you were Obama, wouldn’t you automatically pick the land that gave the world Nelson Mandela?
In sheer American fashion, Obama explained boldly that he picked Ghana because of the West African nation’s “democratic commitment.” While Kenyans, Nigerians, South Africans and others were searching their souls, Ghanaians were preparing to do what we Africans do best: dress in colorful attire, sing, dance and chant in praise of presidents.
“We did not ask him how his new plan was different from that of his predecessors.” Although other African countries found their souls very quickly -– “democratic commitment” is such a clear message –- they couldn’t do so in time for Obama to add them to his itinerary. So they joined Ghana and made this “our visit” –- a visit to sub-Saharan Africa. After all, isn’t it blood that binds us, and doesn’t an African son belong to the village?
By the time Obama landed in Ghana, we were so unified by this son of Africa that we did not ask him to tell us what the real purpose of his visit to Ghana was, and how his new plan was different from that of his predecessors. Because Obama is of African blood, no one stood up to tell him that “democratic commitment” is an American buzz phrase we have heard many times, and that, if indeed this was about democracy, Ghana wouldn’t have been the best choice. Doesn’t Ghana have a long history of coups? And didn’t products of those coups rule the country until as recently as 2001?
Couldn’t a better choice have been Tanzania -– where three presidents have left office voluntarily, and equal numbers of Muslims, Christians and indigenous believers have learned to coexist peacefully? (According to the CIA World Factbook, Tanzania’s economy grew by 7.1 percent in 2008.) Does the fact that a single party has mostly ruled Tanzania make it less of a democracy?
“Do the multinationals that give these bribes have any role in this war over resources?” What about Zambia, where Frederick Chiluba -– a former president -– is facing charges for allegedly stealing taxpayers’ money? Yes, President Obama, a court in that supposedly corruption-ridden continent of great suffering has put a former president on trial.
And, by avoiding other African countries, isn’t Obama continuing America’s “old” policies of pitting nations against each other? Isn’t he contradicting the pledge he made on his inauguration day to open dialogue? Even George W. Bush, of “axis of evil” fame, visited five African countries. And, isn’t it stereotypical to slap the “corrupt” label on all African leaders?
“There are wars over land and wars over resources,” Obama said. But his African blood prevented us from asking him whether most of those resources (diamonds) end up in the hands of Africans. What about that other resource that has caused so much havoc in the Niger Delta? Is it because in Nigeria, “the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery?” Do the multinationals that give these bribes have any role in this war over resources? And, is there any likelihood that a newfound resource (oil) off Ghana’s coast pushed the country higher on the American chart of “democratic commitment?”
“Africa is not the crude caricature of a continent at war,” Obama said, yet the son of Africa continues to push for the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) –- the same policy of militarization we rejected under Bush.Why did his administration boost funding –- from $8.3 million in 2009 to $25.6 million in 2010 –- for sale of weapons to some of the same corrupt countries he avoided on his trip? The figure seems meager, but $25.6 million can put at least 25,000 M16 rifles in the hands of some of the corrupt countries. Also, according to Washington, D.C.-based African Security Research Project, the U.S. military is training several African countries including Kenya, Liberia, Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria, and Ethiopia, under a program called International Military Education and Training (IMET). Obama has also proposed new IMET programs in Somalia, Equatorial Guinea, and Zimbabwe.
“Even George W. Bush, of “axis of evil” fame, visited five African countries.” Because he has African blood, we were afraid to tell him that it takes more than a couple of brief visits to Africa to understand the continent. We agreed with him that, “Yes, a colonial map that made little sense helped to breed conflict.” But we failed to explain to him that many of the Africans who bring up colonialism do not do so to blame the West. That we have never denied that in Africa corruption exists in endemic proportions; that we mention colonialism for the sake of practicality; that we want the West to understand that a continent brutalized and looted for centuries cannot turn around in 50 years.
We want the United States to look at where it was 50 years after its independence. Were the African slaves free? Could women vote? Had the civil war even happened? Wasn’t corruption rampant in the new, free nation?
But rather than ask this son of Africa to look at history, we let him spit the same Western rhetoric that implies that any African who utters the word “colonialism” wants Africa to wait 200 years for a strong “democratic commitment.” Because Obama is of our blood, we let him continue to push the same flawed, condescending idea that every African is in dire need of water, food and medicine. “And that's why," he said, "my administration has committed $63 billion to meet these challenges.”
“What Africans need is an end to the policies that allow multinationals to bribe governments to let them to continue stripping the continent of its wealth.” Or that Africans lack education, when in fact the continent is full of highly educated people capable of solving Africa’s problems. African blood makes us hush instead of telling Obama that what Africans need is an end to the policies that allow multinationals to bribe governments to let them to continue stripping the continent of its wealth. We cheered when we heard Obama say that America “will put more resources in the hands of those who need it,” even though we know that most of that aid will end up in the hands of our not-so-democratically-committed African-born sons. We applauded when Obama said, “Wealthy nations must open our doors to goods and services from Africa in a meaningful way,” although it’s no secret that even if the entire world opened its market to Africa, most of us would have nothing to sell.
Ironically, Obama's African blood has made us too blind to see that the heart that pumps it through his veins is American.
Take a Look in the Mirror, America by Solomon Comissiong http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/take-look-mirror-america
“Obama spoke as if America and Europe had nothing to do with... the 'bad' governance Mama Africa has seen since European invaders began their rape, murder and plunder.” Almost six months into the “Change you can believe in” Cult (I mean administration), I am... unpleasantly surprised at the number of people who still, despite strong facts, escape reality by thinking that President Obama is some kind of progressive messiah. He is not progressive much less a messiah... at the unmitigated hubris President Obama shows each time he spews forth disingenuous, insulting and “coded” rhetoric.... If my memory serves me correctly it was America, via the CIA, that funded a coup that murdered the great Congolese Leader Patrice Lumumba and installed the corrupt Mobutu Sese Seko who, with the aid of the US, cast death, plunder, and destruction upon the people of Congo for more than three decades. The US, on the direct orders of President Eisenhower, caused the assassination of Lumumba because he had the “bold” idea that the vast mineral resources of Congo should primarily benefit its people and not the West. Coincidentally, it was also a US supported coup that was responsible for the overthrow of one of Africa’s most progressive leaders, Kwame Nkrumah, in 1966. “The US, on the direct orders of President Eisenhower, caused the assassination of Lumumba.” President Obama knows very well about these American atrocities, and many more...
How can fans of imperialism blame the guy? Obama is reading from the same page of the US imperialist playbook as his presidential predecessors.... So while all of the good Obamanistas continue to drink their spiked kool-aid he and his minions... will continue to build the case for imperial programs such as Africom (African-Command).... Obama’s speech in Ghana was reminiscent of the time, during his campaign, that he impressed his white “handlers” by stepping into a black church and exclusively scolding black men for being irresponsible fathers, as if this was an issue restricted to that demographic. Obama knew very well that he could not go into a white church with that rhetoric despite the fact that philandering and deadbeat fathering exists in every community....
Obama had said in an interview with AllAfrica.com that “excuses” about neo-colonialism had hindered progress on the world’s “poorest” continent. He sounded eerily like some white American liberal or conservative when they feel the need to lecture black Americans that they can all simply pull themselves up from their proverbial “bootstraps.” They, and Obama, deliberately fail to mention, 1) that many people have no bootstraps by which to pull themselves up, and 2) the role institutional racism played and continues to play in maintaining the equality divide between blacks and whites....
Obama can be counted on to advocate for more fettered (structural adjustment-laden) aid from the likes of the World Bank, IMF and USAID. Don’t expect Obama to discuss how nefarious structural adjustment polices have prevented African nations from directing money towards education, healthcare and infrastructure. You best believe that the $20 billion in agricultural aid pledged by the rich G8 member nations comes with some very sticky strings attached. The US president also won’t tell you how these policies induce Western privatization and the hindrance of sales of African exports. He also wont tell you how politically motivated sanctions on Zimbabwe have crippled its economy and its people. Nor will he mention how US sanctions on Iraq contributed to the loss of one million lives, over half of them children. But why would he?... Just like a well-oiled sports franchise that only acquires players who are best suited for the system, Barack Obama is perfectly suited for the US imperialist system. So when Obama closed his speech in Ghana by saying that America with be with Africa every step of the way, he very much meant it… not necessarily a good thing.
Brzezinski: "Its easier to kill a million people...than it is to control them"
This 'man' is deeply sick. Part 2: www.youtube.com Obama Adviser Brzezinskis Off-the-record Speech to British Elites Written by William F. Jasper Friday, 21 November 2008 13:31 Zbigniew Brzezinski, a senior adviser to President-elect Barack Obama on matters of national security and foreign policy, was the featured speaker at Chatham House in London on November 17, 2008. The title of his lecture was Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next US President. Although Chatham House events are known to attract the great and the good of Englands political, financial, and academic elites — as well as many of its top media representatives — there has been virtually no word as to what Brzezinski had to say in any of the worlds press.