Justice for Eric Garner? From the Justice Department? Don’t Hold Your Breath

by Mark P. Fancher

“The bar is so high that there is no case that is likely to qualify for prosecution – including Eric Garner’s killing.”

When news broke of the grand jury’s refusal to indict Eric Garner’s killer, Spike Lee told CNN interviewers that because the death was video recorded he remains hopeful that the U.S. Department of Justice investigation will produce the results thousands of protesters crave. Based on the Justice Department’s record, it is probably a vain hope.

The Garner killing is not the first one to be captured by cameras. The Justice Department had access to a video record of the police firing squad execution of Milton Hall in Saginaw, Michigan, but no charges were brought against the cops who shot 46 bullets at the 49-year-old homeless black man. The reason? In a statement, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said: “…this tragic event does not present sufficient evidence of willful misconduct to give rise to a federal criminal prosecution of the police officers involved.”

Few who watch the police cruiser dashboard camera footage of the killing reach the same conclusion. That video is probably the best indication that if the Justice Department believes the evidence against Milton Hall’s killers is insufficient, then the bar is so high that there is no case that is likely to qualify for prosecution – including Eric Garner’s killing. While it is possible that public pressure might force Eric Holder to handle the Garner case differently, some legal analysts discount that possibility because they have bought into the Justice Department’s inaccurate and incomplete interpretation of the applicable federal law.

The law that authorizes federal criminal civil rights charges against police officers says that in a homicide case like Eric Garner’s or Milton Hall’s, a police officer can be guilty only if he not only violated the victim’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, but the officer also “willfully” violated that right. In its explanation of why Milton Hall’s killers were not prosecuted, the Justice Department said: “Law enforcement actions based on fear, panic, misperception or even poor judgment do not constitute willful conduct prosecutable under the statute.” Implied in that statement is the belief that it would not be possible to get into the heads of the officers and extract private thoughts that might betray their intent to “willfully” violate a constitutional right.

“They have bought into the Justice Department’s inaccurate and incomplete interpretation of the applicable federal law.”

To the great disappointment of those outraged by Milton Hall’s death, the Justice Department conveniently ignored what the courts have had to say about the “willfulness” requirement. Starting with the U.S. Supreme Court and ending with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over Milton Hall’s hometown) the courts have made it clear that the Justice Department is not required to engage in mind reading in order to hold the police accountable.

The Supreme Court said: “[t]he fact that the defendants may not have been thinking in constitutional terms is not material” to whether they satisfy the willfulness requirement. The Sixth Circuit explained that a jury: “need not, in order to convict, determine that [the accused] actually knew that it was a Constitutional right that they were violating…”

Not only is it unnecessary to prove that an officer was thinking specifically of trying to violate a victim’s Fourth Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court took the additional step of providing a much easier way to charge and convict police who kill. The court said: “[to] act willfully in the sense in which we use the word [is to] act in open defiance or reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement…”

It is therefore hard to imagine why charges cannot be brought when police officers fire dozens of bullets at a homeless man armed only with a pen knife; or when police use a choke hold to put a submissive man on the ground because he was alleged to be engaged in unauthorized cigarette sales. By almost anyone’s reckoning, such conduct should be regarded as “open defiance” or “reckless disregard” for the constitutional rights of the victims.

Will the Justice Department’s investigation result in the criminal prosecution of Eric Garner’s killers? It’s possible, but don’t hold your breath. With each new incident of unpunished police violence, it becomes more likely that concerned observers will conclude that African people born or living in America have no rights that the Justice Department is bound to respect.

Mark P. Fancher is the staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan Racial Justice Project, which pursues justice for Milton Hall. He is also a member of the National Conference of Black Lawyers. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

Euro-American imperialism is now prepared to use raw military force to once again dominate the African continent – with Washington and Paris taking the lead. “In recent years, threats to western economic hegemony in Africa by China, new African self-determination initiatives, terrorism and other developments have prompted western governments to return to Africa with their armies.”

Arrogant Western Military Coordination and the New/Old Threat to Africa

by Mark P. Fancher

“There is a growing willingness of the western countries to publicly declare (without apologies) their plans to expand and coordinate their military presence in Africa.”

Students of African history are well-acquainted with an infamous conference in Berlin where, in late 1884 into 1885, representatives of European countries essentially carved a map of Africa into jigsaw puzzle pieces. The French, British, Belgian, Portuguese and other European participants laid claim to various puzzle-piece regions that they went on to colonize and exploit for decades until the second half of the 20th Century when African independence movements appeared to have driven Europe from the continent.

Sometimes overlooked by the uninformed or casual observer is the fact that the presumed withdrawal of European states did not mark the end of Europe’s domination of Africa. These countries arguably never left because they continued to operate through private corporate proxies and “neo-colonial” African heads of state. In 1965, Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s President, explained:

“Africa is still [for the most part] an uncharted continent economically, and the withdrawal of the colonial rulers from political control is interpreted as a signal for the descent of the international monopolies upon the continent’s natural resources. This is the new scramble for Africa, under the guise of aid, and with the consent and even welcome of young, inexperienced States. It can be even more deadly for Africa than the first carve-up, as it is supported by more concentrated interests, wielding vastly greater power and influence over governments and international organizations.”

For several decades the corporate domination of Africa was both effective and lucrative. European and North American economies enjoyed the benefits of colonialism without the stigma associated with the old, direct rule colonial model. However, in recent years, threats to western economic hegemony in Africa by China, new African self-determination initiatives, terrorism and other developments prompted western governments to return to Africa with their armies. These cautious, low-key military operations have been vigorously opposed in many quarters, but they have not become enough of a political or diplomatic liability to dissuade continuing expansion and entrenchment of a western military presence.

While the United States’ military intervention through its “Africa Command” (AFRICOM) has attracted considerable attention, other western countries have also been militarily active in Africa. France in particular has been heavily engaged in African military operations. Its troops have been on the ground in Mali, the Central African Republic, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Libya and elsewhere.

“France in particular has been heavily engaged in African military operations.”

This level of military engagement by western countries has created circumstances that are in some ways comparable to the dynamics that led to the 1884 Berlin Conference. Then, European countries recognized that by operating independently in Africa they were at times working at cross purposes. They saw value in a coordinated approach to the exploitation of a continent. Now, there appears to be a growing recognition that the various foreign military operations in Africa will benefit from more formal coordination.

Last year, General David Rodriguez, AFRICOM’s commander, told Congress:

“The increasing convergence of U.S. security interests in Africa with those of African partners, European allies, and the broader international community provides opportunities to significantly enhance multilateral cooperation as we work toward long-term stability and security.” He also said: “We are actively increasing regional cooperation with African and European partners, including information-sharing and combined training, exercises, and operations.”

Just last month, the AFP news agency reported that Spain is “…starting negotiations with Washington to host a permanent U.S. Marines intervention force for deployment on missions to Africa.” This operation has been in place since 2013 on a temporary basis with a force of 800 Marines and air support. Citing a Spanish newspaper, the news agency said: “…the new agreement could increase the strength of the contingent to 3,000 personnel if needed.”

There are obvious threats to African self-determination from a “Pan-European” strategy, but there can also be collateral consequences. One of them is the continuing prospect of a more extreme member of the western alliance causing countries with a more measured approach to take more radical actions than they would otherwise. For example, France reportedly interpreted UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to allow more aggressive action against the Gadhafi government in Libya than either the U.S. or the U.K. In situations of that kind, when countries are locked into a more formal alliance, more moderate forces can be pulled into actions they might otherwise avoid.

Africans globally should note with concern that, notwithstanding the universal condemnation of colonialism, there is a growing willingness of the western countries to publicly declare (without apologies) their plans to expand and coordinate their military presence in Africa. Ultimately such imperialist arrogance will prove to be the system’s Achilles heel. But for now it leaves observers breathless with exasperation. It should instead bring home the fact that if imperialists are committed to becoming more organized and effective than they already are, then Africans and those concerned about Africa don’t stand a chance unless they do the same.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

y

by Mark P. Fancher

As AFRICOM, the U.S. military command, wraps its tentacles around the continent and jihadist organizations spread mayhem and massacre, Africa sometimes seems to have lost its internal political compass. “In the absence of sustained revolutionary organizing, desperate, confused, oppressed individuals have unfortunately responded to terrorists’ calls to arms.”

Has Terrorism Stepped into Africa’s Political Void?

by Mark P. Fancher

“The root causes of the proliferation of terrorist activity will not be addressed solely by military means.”

The African Union characterized a recent armed attack that killed more than twenty foreign tourists and others at a Tunisian museum as “heinous and cowardly.” A connection between the five gunmen who staged the raid and terrorist groups has not been confirmed, but a link is suspected.

The continuing escalation of terrorist activity is in no way beneficial to Africans, but it is marginally helpful to western countries because it provides a convenient excuse for their military forces to not only maintain, but increase their presence on the continent. While western countries may have some concern about the innocent people harmed by terrorist activities, it is reasonable to believe the real purpose of the build-up of U.S. and European military troops and installations in Africa is to maintain or gain access to oil fields, mines and other natural resources through intimidation, and if necessary, the use of force against anyone who gets in the way.

For those who regard the elimination of foreign military operations from Africa as essential to the continent’s ongoing struggle for genuine independence and liberation, the role and capacity of the African Union in the fight against terrorism is a matter of great concern. This is because it is all too easy for western militaries to say: “If not us, who?” in response to questions about how Africa will deal with its terrorism problem. Many Africans want very much to respond that Africans can and will address this challenge on their own and that the African Union is the most logical organization to take on the task. However, while the continent-wide body has already deployed 7,500 troops to Nigeria to combat Boko Haram, it has expressed frustration about the ineffectiveness of the effort to date. Hopefully, a lesson can be learned from that experience.

Although western countries have relied heavily on the use of military force in their purported war against terrorism, some experts have suggested that the root causes of the proliferation of terrorist activity will not be addressed solely by military means. They point to social, political and economic conditions as factors that account for the success of terrorist organizations in recruiting new members.

“It is reasonable to believe the real purpose of the build-up of U.S. and European military troops and installations in Africa is to maintain or gain access to oil fields, mines and other natural resources.”

Even Emile Nakhleh, a former CIA analyst, explained: “According to public opinion polls in the past decade, Muslims who trend toward radical ideas have identified domestic and foreign factors as drivers of their radicalism. The domestic issues included unemployment, poverty, poor economic conditions, hopelessness, regime repression and corruption, injustice, inequality, and massive violations of human rights against women and minorities.”

Nakhleh goes on to say: “Foreign factors include perceived anti-Islamic policies by the U.S. and other Western powers, continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the suppression of Palestinian human rights and freedoms, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, drone strikes that result in civilian deaths, as well as western lukewarm support of democratic uprisings and coddling of dictatorial regimes.”

With these findings in mind, the African Union will be best served by rejecting any suggestions that terrorist forces will be defeated by solely military means. A more informed, multi-faceted strategy is required. In developing its 2006 “Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy” the United Nations apparently considered some of the underlying causes of terrorist activity. In addition to diplomatic, military and law enforcement approaches, the U.N. plan included measures to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. These measures included: conflict resolution, negotiation and mediation; promotion of dialogue, promotion of tolerance and understanding among cultures and religions; and the eradication of poverty and promotion of sustained economic growth. These are objectives the African Union can strive to accomplish in order to make distressed regions less susceptible to terrorist recruitment, but the economic initiatives in particular would force the African Union to assume a revolutionary posture in order to reclaim the continent’s natural wealth from imperialist forces.

The unemployment, poverty and government corruption in Africa that sustain the growth of terrorism are conditions that can also sustain the growth of legitimate, productive revolution. Because Africa has long yearned for opportunities to rid itself of the oppression and exploitation caused by western imperialism and its home-grown neo-colonial lackeys, it just may be that the success of terrorist recruitment is evidence that there has been a political void that terrorists have filled. In the absence of sustained revolutionary organizing, desperate, confused, oppressed individuals have unfortunately responded to terrorists’ calls to arms. If the African Union is not prepared to step into that void and become the vehicle for efforts to purge the African continent of foreign corporations and other imperialist forces that exploit and oppress, it will fall to other organizations to provide Africans with the legitimate revolutionary alternatives to terrorism that they crave.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

With the United States military command in the lead, “western troops and advisors continue their forward march across African.” But continental liberation is still possible: it just requires the spark of a decisive example. “At least one African country should, pursuant to its own national legislation, seize and nationalize all foreign oil operations, mines and processing facilities within its borders.”

Dr. Che Guevara’s Prescription for Africa’s AFRICOM Headache

by Mark P. Fancher

“Perhaps it will be necessary for new independent African liberation organizations to establish themselves.”

Last month the United States signed an agreement that will allow a permanent force of 2,200 U.S. Marines into the southern part of Spain where they will be periodically deployed to northern regions of Africa. It is yet another in a long series of solid, steady steps western countries have taken to lock down the African continent militarily to ensure continuing domination and exploitation. These moves have included, among many others: an extensive permanent military presence in Djibouti; collaborative U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) training operations in most of the countries in Africa; repeated drone strikes and surveillance missions; and the supply of arms to select insurgent forces.

Africans have not been silent, passive observers of these developments. In the publication Military Review, one scholar observed: “No single issue or event in recent decades in Africa has provoked so much controversy and united hostility as AFRICOM. The intensity and sheer scale of the unprecedented unity of opposition to AFRICOM across Africa surprised many experts.” Yet, the western troops and advisors continue their forward march across the African continent with no indication that they will be in any way deterred.

In this campaign to dominate a continent, intimidation has proven to be a critical imperialist weapon. It is not easy for African countries to say “no, thank you” to AFRICOM’s military assistance and training when faced with not only military might but also economic and diplomatic coercion. A mere implied threat of potential consequences can be enough to discourage not only active resistance, but also simple non-cooperation. African countries need not concede defeat however, because historical events in Angola show the vulnerability of imperialist power.

“The intensity and sheer scale of the unprecedented unity of opposition to AFRICOM across Africa surprised many experts.”

In 1987, Angola’s army, the Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (FAPLA) found itself battling the armed forces of South Africa’s apartheid regime as well as armed proxies of the United States in the context of Angola’s civil war. The massive military force mobilized against FAPLA was intended to prevent the liberation of Angola’s southern region. FAPLA’s enemies knew that if revolutionary African forces gained control of that area it could become the launching point for cross-border raids into Namibia, which at the time was under the control of South Africa’s apartheid regime. The Angolan central government requested modest assistance from Cuba. Fidel Castro responded with far more weapons and troops than the Angolans requested, and because of that support, the battle at the town of Cuito Cuanavale will forever be remembered for a heroic stand by revolutionary forces against Africa’s enemies. That powerful display of resistance significantly accelerated the demise of political apartheid in the region.

The battle at Cuito Cuanavale was not the first time that Cuba demonstrated its understanding of the potency of united revolutionary forces. In 1965, while fighting alongside freedom fighters in Congo, Che Guevara addressed a meeting of representatives of liberation organizations from throughout the continent.  He implored them to allow their new recruits to gain battlefield experience by fighting in Congo. Guevara said: “I spoke to them of the fundamental importance which the Congo liberation struggle had in our eyes. Victory would be continental in its reach and its consequences, and so would defeat. The reaction was worse than cool. Although most refrained from any kind of comment, some asked to speak and took me violently to task for the advice I had given. They argued that their respective peoples, who had been abused and degraded by imperialism, would protest if any casualties were suffered not as a result of oppression in their own land, but from a war to liberate another country. I tried to show them that we were talking not of a struggle within fixed frontiers, but of a war against the common enemy, present as much in Mozambique as in Malawi, Rhodesia or South Africa, the Congo or Angola. No one saw it like that.”

Whether Africa prevails against AFRICOM will ultimately turn on whether Africans have significantly matured politically since Guevara proposed his Pan-African military strategy fifty years ago. Since 1885 when Europe carved Africa into pieces at a conference in Berlin, successful domination of the continent has depended not only on its geographic balkanization, but also on the acceptance of this division by the Africans themselves. It will continue to be easy for AFRICOM to intimidate individual African countries if African governments continue to believe they stand alone and that the circumstances of each of the countries on the continent are unique with respect to the foreign military presence.

“It will continue to be easy for AFRICOM to intimidate individual African countries if African governments continue to believe they stand alone.”

The defeat of the campaign to militarize Africa is feasible if there is a commitment to a unified African front for at least one go-for-broke confrontation with imperialism. More concretely, Africa should not have to wait one more day to reclaim and use the valuable natural resources that belong to Africa’s people. Zimbabwe started down that road with land, but at least one African country should, pursuant to its own national legislation, seize and nationalize all foreign oil operations, mines and processing facilities within its borders. When the inevitable diplomatic or military confrontation with western powers occurs, the rest of Africa will have the opportunity to belatedly take Che Guevara’s advice by providing the country under siege with the entire continent’s military resources.  The powerful message that an armed attack on any single African country will be met with a united armed response more massive than what imperialism encountered at Cuito Cuanavale can do much to discourage not only an attack on one country, but it can also change imperialism’s perspective on the effectiveness of its strategy to militarize a continent that wants only peace and an opportunity to recover from centuries of oppression and exploitation.

Neo-colonial realities force an acknowledgment of the unlikelihood of a united front of African governments. But historically, Africa’s most significant resistance has come, not from governments, but from an alphabet soup of non-governmental liberation organizations like MPLA, SWAPO, FRELIMO, ZANU, PAIGC, and many more. For any confrontation with AFRICOM and the forces loyal to it, perhaps it will be necessary for new independent African liberation organizations to: establish themselves; ensure ideological clarity among their ranks; receive financial and material support from the global African community; and stand united and ready to fight and bleed if necessary for Africa’s dignity and independence from foreign military domination.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

Organized Little League baseball last year stripped Chicago’s champion Jackie Robinson West team of their World Series title. The injustice blends their anguished voices “with those of today’s young black scholars who are unfairly suspended or expelled and then shoved through a school-to-prison pipeline.” Dreams can be great motivators, but “at a certain point a dream can become dangerous self-delusion.”

Black Children’s Dreams Crushed on a Field of Nightmares

by Mark P. Fancher

“America as a grand field of dreams?”

This week Williamsport, Pennsylvania, will be invaded by the thousands who make an annual pilgrimage to the home of Little League Baseball. As the crowds celebrate the youth athletic program with an international World Series and related festivities, there will be futile efforts to ignore the elephant in the room…er, uh…on the playing field. Large, in charge and unavoidable will be the collective memory of how only one year ago, a team of beautiful black children from Chicago’s Jackie Robinson West baseball program took the field, and with grace, skill and style, whipped team after team until they emerged as national champions.

In the months that followed, figures lurking in the shadows slithered from dark corners and hissed accusations of cheating at certain of the team’s adult volunteers. Members of the team and African people worldwide who took enormous pride in the accomplishments of these children, watched with sick resignation as decisions were made to punish the entire team – not just the adults accused of wrongdoing – but the entire team…of children. Their title was stripped, and they were left reeling from the blow.

In the months that followed, the players, their families and supporters have tried to make sense of it. The players did everything that could be expected. They worked hard. They played with discipline and demonstrated good sportsmanship. They were poised, well-spoken and in a word, everything that America says that young people should be. Nevertheless, when all was said and done, the Little League program and much of America took their collective, figurative, colossal middle finger and thrust it violently skyward while staring at this team of young African innocents.

The wise know that in America, it has always been so. Meander across the vast, green expanse of center field in any ballpark, and if you listen carefully, the wailing voices of African children long gone can be heard crying out for the justice denied them during their hellish sojourn on this soil. Crying out are the slave era’s gaunt, terrified plantation toddlers who clutched the ragged skirts of overworked, abused mothers. Their anguished voices blend with those of today’s young black scholars who are unfairly suspended or expelled and then shoved through a school-to-prison pipeline.

“Their title was stripped, and they were left reeling from the blow.”

During the slave era, when the children were not worked mercilessly, tortured or sexually abused, they dealt with severe neglect.  This unrestrained hostility toward African children extended even to the most sacred bond between mother and child. Charles Ball recalled: “… [M]y poor mother, when she saw me leaving her for the last time, ran after me, took me down from the horse, clasped me in her arms, and wept loudly and bitterly over me…but whilst thus entreating [the master] to save her and her family, the slave-driver, who had first bought her, came running in pursuit of her with a raw hide in his hand. When he overtook us he told her he was her master now, and ordered her to give that little Negro to its owner, and come back with him. My mother then turned to him and cried, ‘Oh, master, do not take me from my child!’ Without making any reply, he gave her two or three heavy blows on the shoulders with his raw hide, snatched me from her arms, handed me to my master, and seizing her by one arm, dragged her back towards the place of sale.”

With this history, America makes it crystal clear to the young Jackie Robinson West athletes that they should not be mystified by the fact that they have been deprived of a championship they rightfully earned. This even as the New England Patriots are not only allowed to retain the Super Bowl title, but America cries crocodile tears along with Tom Brady, the man at the center of the “deflate-gate” scandal. No doubt, many adoring fans believe Brady does not deserve to be punished – even if he cheated. But the Chicago children are unlike golden boy Tom Brady. They committed real crimes. They have been indicted and convicted of the following offenses:

* Count One – They were born black.

* Count Two – They embarrassed white children by beating them at baseball.

A conviction for Count One can carry with it the penalty of death. The murders of Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and countless others are continuing evidence of that fact. Nevertheless, many black parents persist in encouraging their children to dream of the day when the powerful in America will share their power and white supremacists will abandon their hateful ways. After all, dreaming is what we do in this country. There is the grand American Dream. Well-behaved Negroes are expected to confine their social and political aspirations to Dr. King’s 1963 dream. President Obama’s memoir is titled “Dreams from my Father.” There is even a special dream for baseball players – a field of dreams. They made a movie about it. But at a certain point a dream can become dangerous self-delusion.

“They should not be mystified by the fact that they have been deprived of a championship they rightfully earned.”

Children who are at the focal point of war cannot afford to live in a state of denial. Palestinian children who hurl bricks at Israeli tanks are under no illusions about where they stand in the eyes of a Zionist regime. Thus, the best thing concerned adults can do is to awaken black children and escort them into the generations-old struggle to overcome the harsh reality of the African experience in America. Children can be a potent force if even in their pre-teen years they gain the ability to explain with precision not only the mechanics of capitalist and imperialist exploitation in this country and abroad, but also the vulnerabilities of these systems and the vital, strategic value of Africa’s unity and independence. Such children, knowing that the contest they must win is not on a baseball field, will use Little League insults as fuel for their own revolutionary fire.

America as a grand field of dreams? Field of nightmares is more like it. Our children must be saved not only from this society’s cowardly, petty denial of their athletic accomplishments, but also from a system that seeks to enslave their minds with satanic, mind-numbing video games, minstrel celebrities, and a thousand other destructive distractions and threats to their physical, emotional and mental health. At long last let us wake the children and introduce them to the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of generations of freedom fighters, analysts and scholars who have been committed to achieving our liberation.

Mark P. Fancher is a member of a National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) ad hoc committee monitoring developments in the Jackie Robinson West matter. The opinions expressed in this essay are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NCBL. Information about NCBL’s inquiries to Little League International is posted at www.ncbl.org. The writer can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

Why not a Donald Trump run for the White House? With corporations firmly in control of U.S. society, presidents don’t matter much. In recent decades, the job has been “eagerly accepted by: a Georgia peanut farmer; a politician known as “Slick Willie;” a retired actor who once co-starred with a chimp; a former CIA hack and oil man; his ne’er-do-well son; and most recently a black guy with a smooth rap.”

Powerless Whites Want “In” On Chitlin’ Politics

by Mark P. Fancher

“Those who continue to compete for the Presidency appear to be, for the most part, an odd assortment of fools, scoundrels and idiots.”

The widespread fear, amusement and wonder inspired by the political ascendance of Donald Trump will probably cause some to ask whether his success signals the bankruptcy of the U.S. Presidency as an institution and whether competition for that job is perhaps best characterized these days as “chitlin’ politics.”

When it became apparent in 2007 that Barack Obama had a real shot at winning the Presidency, many believed meaningful, progressive attitude changes in the political establishment accounted for a new openness to the participation of people of color in the upper echelons of government. It actually signaled a carry-over of something that was a part of the Black Experience during the slave era.

On slave plantations, the feet and entrails of butchered pigs were unceremoniously discarded as garbage after the ribs, chops and other choice portions of the animals had been set aside for the masters’ families. Desperate, near-starving enslaved Africans retrieved the feet and guts of the swine from the garbage, cooked them, and over time persuaded themselves that chitterlings (chitlins’) and other “soul” foods were delicacies.

The Presidency, which for generations had been regarded among rising, educated, talented leaders from elite families as a highly-prized, powerful position, has in recent decades lost its luster. Those who continue to compete for the Presidency appear to be, for the most part, an odd assortment of fools, scoundrels and idiots. In such company it was possible for a suave, intelligent individual like Barack Obama to shine and appear to be the only reasonable choice in 2008.

“Powerless, bigoted, thoroughly confused white workers, have been driven to enter the chitlin’ politics fray themselves.”

Thus, the Obama campaign became a well-financed excursion into the electoral system’s plantation garbage where it managed to grab the chitlin’ Presidency – a position that privileged white folks with talent have abandoned. At the same time, President Obama’s success has angered powerless, bigoted, thoroughly confused white workers, and they have been driven to enter the chitlin’ politics fray themselves. Enter their champion, Donald Trump.

What accounts for the declining prestige of the U.S. Presidency?  The answer may lie in the evolution of U.S. imperialism.  For decades, private businesses were so closely aligned with the U.S. government that corporate and government interests were practically indistinguishable, and a U.S. President probably had greater potential to make an impact on corporate policy. This potential for influence rested in the fact that corporations needed more than U.S. real estate for their headquarters and production facilities. They also needed full access to the U.S. domestic consumer market and its labor, as well as to the country’s quasi-colonies. When it came to ensuring favorable business regulations, taxes and licensing requirements, a cooperative relationship with the White House could be useful to the corporate community.

This identity of interests between the government and corporations was present from the outset. During the colonial period, England maintained a mercantile relationship with American colonies, whereby the role of the colonies was limited to the supply of raw materials. Manufacture and distribution operations occurred only in England. After independence, the new U.S. government instituted protectionist policies that allowed for the creation and growth of the United States’ own corporations that engaged in the full spectrum of production and mass marketing of products.

“Corporations don’t have to defer to U.S. Presidents, or even listen to them.”

U.S. capitalism eventually expanded beyond national borders.  By the early 20^th Century, the U.S. had secured a foothold in various regions overseas, including Africa. Historian Walter Rodney observed: “The share of the U.S.A. in Africa’s trade rose from just over 28 million dollars in 1913 to 150 million dollars in 1932 and to 1,200 million dollars in 1948.”  Rodney went on to note: “The share of the U.S.A. in West Africa’s trade rose from 38 million dollars in 1938 to 163 million dollars in 1946 and to 517 million dollars by 1954.”

By the late 20^th Century, U.S. corporations were fully aware of their ability to operate anywhere in the world, and an imperialist doctrine emerged that was called “neo-liberalism,” “free trade,” “globalization,” “neo-conservativism,” and any of a number of other names. Author Naomi Klein described one aspect of this approach as: “…a worldview that has harnessed the full force of the U.S. military machine in the service of a corporate agenda.”

In this new arrangement, corporations don’t have to defer to U.S. Presidents, or even listen to them, unless the President happens to also be a corporate heavyweight himself. In fact, Presidents are more likely to be regarded as little more than errand boys who carry out the directives of powerful corporate interests. It is a role rejected by brilliant individuals of all political persuasions who instead choose to spend their careers in corporate suites, large law firms, universities and think tanks. 

Blue bloods may not want the job of President, but it was eagerly accepted by: a Georgia peanut farmer; a politician known as “Slick Willie;” a retired actor who once co-starred with a chimp; a former CIA hack and oil man; his ne’er-do-well son; and most recently a black guy with a smooth rap.  Why then should not Donald Trump take his turn at bat?

“Presidents are more likely to be regarded as little more than errand boys who carry out the directives of powerful corporate interests.”

Trump can’t occupy the White House because notwithstanding the loss of the Presidency’s prestige, it is still a job that requires the ability to competently command the military for the protection of corporate interests. For example, many believe the decision by George W. Bush to invade Iraq was impulsive. It was actually a carefully calculated implementation of a corporate “disaster capitalism” plan. Klein explained: “…[T]he real money is in fighting wars abroad. Beyond the weapons contractors, who have seen their profits soar thanks to the war in Iraq, maintaining the U.S. military is now one of the fastest-growing service economies in the world.”

The next President will inherit a variety of military projects that are high priorities for corporations. Foremost among them is the militarization of Africa, which from a corporate perspective is vital, given capitalists’ fears that terrorists, China and assorted African revolutionary forces pose a threat to corporate access to Africa’s vast supplies of oil and other natural resources. In order to avoid Africa’s resentment and global diplomatic and economic backlash, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) flies below the radar and directs Africa’s armies to do the corporate world’s dirty work. Such an enterprise demands finesse and discretion – qualities lacking in Mr. Trump. It is for that reason that if he does not self-destruct as a result of his own bluff, bluster and balderdash, the corporate world will likely find a way to derail the Trump campaign train.

In the meantime, Africans in America who truly want a taste of liberation will do well to avoid searching for it in the garbage heap, because no matter how much hot sauce you pour on chitlins, they still stink.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net. 

by Mark P. Fancher

Africa has been invaded and re-occupied, militarily and commercially. “Non-African superpowers are competing for and staking claims to Africa’s resources while Africans look on with helpless resignation.” The U.S. military holds sway from the Cape to Cairo. But, “in the 21^st Century ‘scramble for Africa’ China leads the race.”

Big Business, Big Guns and Big Lies in Africa

by Mark P. Fancher

“The Chinese presence is perhaps greatest in Ethiopia.”

One of the world’s worst kept secrets is that the United States has incrementally established a military presence in Africa from the “Cape to Cairo.” Notwithstanding claims that the military is needed there to thwart terrorism and provide Africans with humanitarian assistance, the real reason for U.S. military expansion is protection of corporate interests.

On any given day the website of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) showcases several articles about U.S. military personnel providing medical supplies to rural African villages, or rolling up their sleeves to assist with bringing clean drinking water to devastated regions. Still other articles describe special anti-terrorist training and joint military exercises provided to soldiers in the African countries’ armies. It is all presented with such a distinct air of benevolence that a casual observer can remain totally unaware of the underlying corporate mission.

AFRICOM has not been forthcoming about the corporate lust for economic opportunities in Africa, but the White House has been quite candid. A $14 billion investment by U.S. companies in infrastructure projects in Africa last year prompted a White House official to comment to journalists: "These investments will deepen U.S. economic engagement in Africa, fueling growth that will support broader African prosperity and emerging markets for U.S. businesses, which will support jobs in both the United States and Africa."  However, when it comes to the presence of the U.S. military in Africa and its role in carrying out a corporate agenda, the U.S. government as a whole has not been as transparent.  There is nevertheless plenty of evidence that can be used to connect the dots. China’s African adventure is instructive in this regard.

“Chinese settlements are being built, de facto, in nearly every African nation.”

By all accounts, in the 21^st Century “scramble for Africa” China leads the race. Stephen Hayes, President of the Corporate Council on Africa explained to The Cipher Brief: “China is looking at every country on the continent, north to south, east to west. We (the U.S.) continue to focus on a few, particularly where the markets are large and the potential is equally so. Certainly China is engaged in the extraction industries in order to feed its own economy, but I see a far broader engagement in nearly every sector of the economy. This is especially so when you realize that Chinese settlements are being built, de facto, in nearly every African nation. They are actively engaged in small shop business, as well as in large enterprises. I don’t know that Africa has ever seen such engagement, even in the colonial past.”

Hayes also notes that the Chinese presence is perhaps greatest in Ethiopia. He said: “China’s investment in Ethiopia is enormous and is still well-received by the leadership. Sure, they would like other countries but China is making an enormous difference for Ethiopia right now.”  Any good capitalist knows that large investments must be protected. Thus, it should come as no surprise that China has announced plans to build a military base in Djibouti, which is in geographical proximity to Ethiopia, and which is the same country that is home to the largest U.S. military base in Africa, Camp Lemonnier.

If China believes its military must protect Chinese investments, there is no reason why the U.S. should expect anyone to believe the lie that the U.S. military presence in Africa is driven by different motives. In fact, if humanitarian assistance and anti-terrorism were the dominant reasons for U.S. military engagement in Africa, U.S. officials would be far less jittery about China’s recent moves. Delaware Senator Chris Coons’ comments betray U.S. fears. He told The Hill: “Overall, China’s presence in Africa is certainly something we need to pay more attention to, but not just in Djibouti. Africa’s middle class is growing faster than ever, and the continent offers great opportunities for partnerships between both governments and the private sector. We don’t want to lose out on those opportunities to Chinese companies or the Chinese government, whose interests might not always align with ours.”

“African heads of state pursue the most expedient avenues for the extraction and processing of their respective national, natural resources.”

The U.S. military presence in Africa is already extensive, but the new Chinese military base may prompt even greater expansion. In comments to The Hill, analyst J. Peter Pham said: “U.S. global leadership is predicated heavily on the U.S. role in protecting and to an extent controlling sea lanes of communication. If China establishes itself as a fellow protector of the global commons, then it certainly increases its stature.”  Thus, military brass are likely to conclude that an even stronger U.S. armed presence can preserve military dominance in Africa and bolster non-military efforts to romance China’s new friends. Notably, Ethiopia’s prime minister has been invited to be the keynote speaker at an upcoming U.S.-Africa business summit sponsored by: Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, AstraZenica, John Deere, Microsoft, Ford Motor Company and a couple of dozen other major corporations.

The spectacle of non-African superpowers competing for and staking claims to Africa’s resources while Africans look on with helpless resignation is a tired, pathetic movie that we have seen multiple times before. It never has a happy ending. The re-runs keep coming because African heads of state who pursue the most expedient avenues for the extraction and processing of their respective national, natural resources allow themselves to be seduced or bullied into subservient relationships with non-African corporations and governments. Freedom from these relationships will come only when Africa learns it can and must be completely self-reliant and self-sufficient. The path to this type of genuine liberation is a long, difficult one because it will require first the purging of non-African corporate and government parasites from the continent. This task will be considerably more difficult if foreign militaries are entrenched in Africa. Because African politicians who seek a quick fix will be unwilling to walk this revolutionary path, it must instead be traveled by the broad masses of Africa’s people and the people of the continent’s diaspora.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

The rulers of Michigan believed the quickest path to economic development was to place the state’s Black cities under the control of a single, appointed emergency manager. The policy is domestic colonialism in practice, “an implicit – but distinct – embrace of the idea that people of color are inferior, incompetent” – and disposable.

Colonialism in Michigan’s Little Africa

by Mark P. Fancher

“In some cases, black people are regarded as being so worthless that they must simply be purged.”

Michigan state government’s arrogant, callous indifference to both the plight of the people of Flint and the weight of outraged public opinion is explained quite simply by the fact that some officials regard black Michigan as their own little Africa. With the mentality of colonizers, they created and wielded the mighty weapon of Michigan’s emergency manager law, and they set out to dominate and exploit predominantly black cities with breathtaking indifference to the rights and the welfare of those who live there. Michigan’s emergency manager law gives the governor the power to place all authority of a mayor and city council in the hands of a single unelected individual, supposedly for the purpose of rescuing the municipality from financial distress.

The “rescue” of Flint apparently involved the poisoning of its water supply.

If you ask them, those responsible for the crisis in Flint and other problems resulting from emergency management elsewhere will deny categorically that their actions have anything to do with racial domination. In their minds, it has been about efficient, economical rehabilitation of a state to lay the groundwork for profitable enterprise. But underlying all of that is an implicit – but distinct – embrace of the idea that people of color are inferior, incompetent, disposable and naturally endowed with a superhuman capacity to endure neglect and even imposed misery. In some cases, black people are regarded as being so worthless that they must simply be purged.

Colonial thinking is an ugly thing. Marcus Clarke, a 19^th-Century British literary figure, in speaking of the Maori (New Zealand’s indigenous people) said: “…having got the land, established ourselves there and built churches and public houses and so on, we would be fools not to use our best endeavors to keep [it]. To do this in peace, the Maoris must be exterminated…To make treaties and talk bunkum is perfectly useless; they must be stamped out and utterly annihilated…”

In Michigan, it becomes increasingly clear that “having got the land” and established control over black Michigan, some state officials have regarded as only so much “bunkum” the idea of respecting the political will and the lives of those who live in predominantly black cities.

“Michigan colonizers persuaded themselves and others that black people are incapable of governing themselves, even if emergency managers make things worse.”

The lack of respect is clear because when the people became fed up with the emergency manager law, and after they fought hard battles to have a referendum placed on the ballot and then went to the polls in large numbers to have the law repealed, reactionary forces enacted a new, almost identical emergency manager law with an appropriations provision. In Michigan, a law with an appropriations provision is immune to referendum. The will of the people be damned. Michigan colonizers persuaded themselves and others that black people are incapable of governing themselves, even if emergency managers make things worse. And if the children must drink poison water in Flint in order to save a few dollars, they say let them drink it, because black lives really don’t matter.

None of this is surprising to generations of populations of color in underdeveloped countries and the indigenous nations of the Americas. Africa in particular knows this mentality well. As 1884 drew to a close, leaders of various western European countries, weary of squabbling with each other over who had rights to exploit the natural resources of Africa, gathered in Berlin and huddled around a map of what they called “the dark continent.” They carved Africa’s territory into puzzle pieces that they parceled out for colonization. No Africans were either present or consulted during this process, and for almost a century thereafter, Africa was subjected to wholesale theft and exploitation of its natural wealth and the brutalization and subjugation of its people.

Those who habitually insist that race has no significant impact on life in America will continue to deny the racial reality in Flint. Not so for the generations of people of color who have been witness to the destructive consequences of power in the hands of those hell-bent on dominating and exploiting them. For them, it is yet another sad but familiar chapter in a global, colonial, racial experience.

Mark P. Fancher is the staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s Racial Justice Project. He is a member of a legal team challenging the legality of Michigan’s Emergency Manager law in the federal courts. In addition to the ACLU, the plaintiffs are represented by: the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the law firms of Constitutional Litigation Associates, Goodman & Hurwitz and the Sanders Law Firm. The author can be contacted at: mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

Human rights attorney and frequent BAR contributor Mark Fancher recently had a close encounter of the white supremacist kind. He learned that Donald Trump plans to use his awesome powers to turn a select number of Black people white – which would, of course, be HUGE!

Confessions of a Neo-Caucasian

by Mark P. Fancher

“At long last the children of Africa will have their shot at whiteness.”

What follows is the transcript of my recent conversation with “The Donald”:

Trump– Why so down in the dumps Mark? You look like you just lost your best friend.

Fancher– I’m more than a little upset about all of these people who continue to vote for you. That…and the fact that your supporters beat the crap out of me when I attended one of your rallies.

Trump – Well you are a protester Mark, and protesters get assaulted at my rallies. Everyone knows that.

Fancher– But I wasn’t protesting. I was just standing there listening, trying to figure out your appeal.

Trump– But Mark – you’re black…

Fancher– And your point is?

Trump– All black people are protesters.

Fancher– Well what about Ben Carson, and that black guy at your rally who beat up a man wearing a flag shirt? Are they protesters?

Trump – No, they’re not. They’re also not black.

Fancher – Come again.

Trump– They’re not black. They are “Neo-Caucasian.”

Fancher– I’m afraid you’re going to have to break that one down for me a little more.

Trump – Sure. After I’m elected, in addition to making the Mexicans build a big wall, I’m also going to create a new racial category that will be available to certain people of color called “Neo-Caucasian.” Carson and the gentleman at my rally are trying it on for size.

Fancher– Why would anyone with an ounce of pride be interested in such a thing?

Trump– Well, I’ll let you answer that for yourself. Tell me. What is it that’s got you so upset about all the people who are supporting me?

Fancher – Well, I’ve been thinking about it, and I believe the Trump phenomenon goes all the way back to the slave era.  Slave owners were actually a small minority. The poverty of many white workers during that period rivaled that of enslaved Africans. They were abused and called derogatory names like “white trash” and “lint heads” because they walked out of textile mills at the end of the work day covered in cotton fibers. Slave owners feared a black/white alliance and the elites persuaded poor whites that their racial identity linked them most closely with slave owners. Since that time, the hardships of white poverty have been blamed not on worker exploitation, but on job-stealing, opportunity-taking, trouble-making black people. This game of phony white privilege and scapegoating has been played for years. White progressive activists have never tried to set these confused white workers straight and now you come along and scapegoat immigrants, Muslims and anybody else it’s convenient to blame. It’s frustrating because the thousands of people who show up at your rallies are the very people who should be opposing you. You are their problem!

Trump– That’s exactly right, and the beauty is the thinking of these people is so clouded and they are so confused that even if I told them what you just told me, they wouldn’t hear it. They would still support me. I think it’s wonderful!

Fancher– Well what does that all mean for the election?

Trump– It means I’m going to win, and that brings me back to my new racial category idea.

Fancher– Oh yeah…that.

Trump – Here’s the deal Mark. As long as you’re in the African camp you’re doomed, because I promised all of these hicks and hayseeds who support me that I will get their country back for them. I don’t need to spell it out for you. That means we have to turn the page on this black president thing and make this look like a white country again. So, there’s not going to be a place for people like you.

Fancher – What exactly do you have in mind for the brothers and sisters?

Trump– Prisons. Private ones that my friends and I will own. I’m also working on a plan to get you guys back out in the fields.

Fancher– You’re right. I’m doomed.

Trump– Not necessarily. You can become a Neo-Caucasian and obtain all of the rights, privileges and honors of whiteness thereunto appertaining.

Fancher– You mean I get to be “white” without being white?

Trump – Absolutely!

Fancher– What’s in this for you?

Trump – Hey look, it’s a win-win proposition for both of us. You get to escape the hell that I intend to create for people of color in this country, and we white people get to bolster our ranks in the face of major racial demographic shifts.

Fancher– Do you think it will work?

Trump – Sure it will! We’ve been doing it for generations. There are many white ethnics descended from immigrants who were not given white privilege when they first arrived on these shores. But times change - needs change. At long last the children of Africa will have their shot at whiteness.

Fancher– My mind is spinning because of the absurdity and horror of all of this. I need a glass of water.

Trump – Don’t bother with water. Have a glass of this Kool-Ade.

Fancher – Thanks. Hey that’s pretty good Kool-Ade. I feel different too. So maybe I’ll give this Neo-Caucasian thing a try after all!

Trump– That’s the spirit! Here is some more Kool-Ade. Let’s toast to your conversion!

Fancher– Thanks! By golly, I have a sudden irresistible urge to clobber a protester!

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who has regained his pride in his African identity after undergoing Drop Squad rehabilitation. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net

by Mark P. Fancher

In hindsight, the OJ Simpson trial – the real one, not the flurry of recent documentaries – marked a watershed for White America and its privileges. It was a time when a wealthy former super nigger with a “smooth-talking” Black lawyer won acquittal in the death of two whites over the near-unanimous objections of white people, nationwide.  “The unthinkable occurred when a bunch of bad niggers on a jury let a bad nigger go free.”

O.J.’s Journey From Super Nigger to Bad Nigger

by Mark P. Fancher

“In the minds of many, the Simpson acquittal may have been the first significant sign that hegemony seemed to be slipping from the grasp of white America.”

Back in the 1970s, at least one University of Tennessee Black Studies professor taught his students that in the eyes of much of white America, most Africans fit into one of three categories – “good niggers,” “bad niggers,” or “super niggers.”

Good niggers cause white America no problems. They stay within the established social and political boundaries as they enthusiastically help to maintain mass delusions about the virtues of America. The bad niggers on the other hand smash their way out of the confines of good niggerdom. Some bad niggers are hyper-militant in their demands for political and economic power. Other bad niggers are apolitical but disrespectful of social rules by not only dating and marrying white women, but by also arrogantly flaunting these relationships. This is an offense because, notwithstanding increasingly relaxed responses to interracial relationships, there is still a great deal of private, unexpressed hostility toward those who cross the racial relationship line.

There is also that third category – the super nigger. The super nigger is really nothing more than a bad nigger who enjoys white America’s enthusiastic support for his bad nigger conduct. The primary requirement for super nigger status is the ability and willingness to win power and wealth for white capitalists. Before his fall from grace, O.J. Simpson was a model super nigger. He never made waves politically, but socially he defied all of the rules. He mixed and mingled in an exclusive white world and pursued, almost exclusively, relationships with white women. None of this was controversial or problematic. Everyone loved “The Juice” because he made the right people lots of money and the right people in turn assured the broader public that it was safe to embrace the charismatic Heisman Trophy winner.

“The primary requirement for super nigger status is the ability and willingness to win power and wealth for white capitalists.”

Simpson lost his super nigger status, but remarkably, it was not because of allegations that he murdered two people. Many in white America could easily forgive a little thing like a double homicide. Who can forget how, after a warrant was issued for his arrest, thousands of people lined Los Angeles streets and highways to express their love and support for Simpson during the infamous white Bronco chase? All that Simpson had to do to remain in the good graces of much of the white public was to quietly and meekly endure his criminal trial. There was every possibility that, given his charm, he would be acquitted. But if he were convicted, a loyal and adoring public would be waiting for him after his release from prison, and he could resume the important business of making money for the people who matter.

But Simpson, guided by his take-no-prisoners attorney Johnnie Cochran, threw away the script. His defense became an aggressive counter-attack against the Los Angeles Police Department. He argued that the police framed him by planting key evidence. These acts were motivated, he claimed, by the racism of at least one detective whose vicious anti-black sentiments were a matter of record. In the eyes of much of white America, this defense posture was very much like that assumed by the rabble in the ‘hood. It was in no way appropriate behavior for a privileged super nigger. Though the anger in white communities began to simmer, it did not explode right away because there was faith that a system designed to protect white interests would ensure that Simpson would be punished for his crime – the crime of betrayal – acting like a bad nigger. Yet, the unthinkable occurred when a bunch of bad niggers on a jury let a bad nigger go free. This drove many to the brink of insanity.

“Who can forget how thousands of people lined Los Angeles streets and highways to express their love and support for Simpson during the infamous white Bronco chase?”

More than two decades later, the national interest in this case has returned. The FX network recently completed the airing of a wildly popular series about it, and there are more documentaries on the way. The significance of a revived O.J. obsession during this historical moment may not be coincidental. In the minds of many, the Simpson acquittal may have been the first significant sign that hegemony seemed to be slipping from the grasp of white America. For generations, white America had been conditioned to believe the country’s institutions were hard-wired to protect the white public at any cost. The ability of a smooth-talking black criminal defense attorney to save his client from a conviction that much of the white public desperately wanted was a blow that left many shaken and fearful of what the future might hold for their kind.

As the years have passed, there have been other developments that have inflamed white insecurities about their prospects for holding on to their dominant status. Perhaps the most significant have been: changing racial demographics that will soon render whites a numerical minority, shrinking opportunities for economic advancement, and the election of a black President. Efforts to cope with the perceived loss of privilege in the white heartland have resulted in increasing substance abuse, escalating death rates, and the disintegration of families. In desperation they have sought a messiah, and they have found one who not only aspires to the Presidency, but who will also freeze the racial balance of the population by building a giant wall that will keep Mexicans out of the country.

“The ability of a smooth-talking black criminal defense attorney to save his client from a conviction was a blow that left many shaken and fearful of what the future might hold for their kind.”

Revisiting the O.J. case may be in some ways therapeutic for those in the white population who are emotionally devastated. It is a return to where, from their perspective, things started to go all wrong on the racial front. It also provides them with an opportunity to take a more detached look at a traumatic episode in the life of the white community.

The case also holds appeal for people of color, because in the midst of the current, endless series of police violence incidents, there is satisfaction in remembering how Cochran and his legal team established for the jury that Detective Mark Fuhrman was an admitted racist. The lawyers also posed to Fuhrman, out of the jury’s presence, the direct question of whether he manufactured and planted evidence in the Simpson case. In response, Fuhrman invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself. These facts, coupled with the fact that the blood evidence amounted to only a drop here and there that could certainly have been planted, are more than sufficient for many to have no problem accepting the jury’s conclusion that Simpson’s guilt had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

As even more money is made from this tragedy, it is ironic that somehow, notwithstanding fears of the loss of white dominance, the white capitalists are nevertheless profiting from Simpson, this time without having to give him the benefits of super nigger status.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney and frequent contributor to Black Agenda Report. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

The U.S. Military Command in Africa, AFRICOM, is the West’s standing army on the continent, guardian of multinational corporations and the natural and human resources that keep the North America and Europe on top. AFRICOM claims its mission is “anti-terrorism” – a catch-all, “convenient excuse for AFRICOM to interfere with legitimate efforts to achieve African self-determination.”

AFRICOM: Ready to Sabotage the Revolution

by Mark P. Fancher

“These days imperialist business must be conducted with finesse, subtlety, calculated distortions and when necessary, blatant lies.”

Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, the new director of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), recently told a Senate panel:

“…AFRICOM must continue to work with national and international partners to disrupt these transnational [terrorist] threats and prevent the export of terror on the continent, in the region and ultimately to our homeland.”

It’s that type of rhetoric that may have led Colby College Professor Laura Seay to ask in a Washington Post column: “Is AFRICOM all that bad?” 

Seay readily acknowledges Africans’ suspicions, noting: “The history of United States policy in Africa is largely its Cold War history, and for Africans in particular, memories of those engagements are not often happy ones. Whether propping up dictators in the name of containment or turning a blind eye to human rights abuses by anti-communist forces, the United States earned a reputation for meddling and causing problems for Africa and its people throughout the Cold War. For many observers, it is hard to see how AFRICOM could be anything other than simply the latest iteration of neo-imperialist engagement by yet another bunch of shady, secretive white men sporting khakis, polo shirts and crew cuts.”

But Seay goes on to say: “The world has changed, though, and the environment in which AFRICOM and other U.S. security engagement occurs in Africa is vastly different from the one America’s Cold Warriors imagined.” Seay reaches no conclusions about the virtues or vices of AFRICOM, acknowledging only that “it’s complicated.”

“AFRICOM was already present in northern Africa where it was able to coordinate “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the first stages of NATO intervention in Libya.”

In one respect, Seay is correct in that conditions have changed. To succeed, imperialism has always had to coordinate a seamless global network of governments, capital, mass media, and military resources. Long gone, however, are the days when this complex of industrial, intelligence and military forces can arrogantly flaunt not only its hegemony, but also its agenda. These days imperialist business must be conducted with finesse, subtlety, calculated distortions and when necessary, blatant lies.

If asked, AFRICOM says it is motivated solely by an interest in defeating terrorism, stabilizing Africa’s governments and economies, and providing humanitarian assistance. It is not an entirely untruthful response because doing business in the midst of turmoil is never appealing to major corporations. But on a deeper, more fundamental level, the maintenance of a 21^st century empire demands a quiet, unnoticed presence in select geopolitical regions, not to openly and notoriously exploit, but to simply have a presence there “just in case.”  Kwame Ture used to say his organization, the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, was “ready for the revolution.”  AFRICOM now stands ready to try and stop it. As just one example, in 2011, because of a perceived threat to the U.S. Empire coming out of Libya, western powers were no doubt pleased that AFRICOM was already present in northern Africa where it was able to coordinate “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the first stages of NATO intervention in Libya.

The purported reason for intervention was that endangered Libyan civilians required protection. However, earlier this year, Foreign Policy Journal reported that Hillary Clinton’s emails show that, in addition to the West’s lust for Libya’s oil, the actual reasons for NATO intervention in Libya included a plan by Muammar Gadhafi to establish a gold-backed African currency. Such a currency would create new possibilities for African economic independence from imperialism. This “threat” had to be eliminated, and the U.S. not only intervened in Libya but also supported insurgency against the Gadhafi government. The fact that many of these rebel forces were openly anti-black and committed to purging black people from Libya was apparently of no concern to the U.S. which supported these racists until they cornered Gadhafi and shoved a bayonet into his rectum. After hearing the news of Gadhafi’s demise, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackled and said: “We came, we saw, he died.”

“To succeed, imperialism has always had to coordinate a seamless global network of governments, capital, mass media, and military resources.”

Events like the destruction of the Gadhafi government demonstrate how fighting “terrorism” can be a convenient excuse for AFRICOM to interfere with legitimate efforts to achieve African self-determination. Those who understand this do not ask “Is AFRICOM all that bad?”  They instead take note of the great restlessness among Africa’s young, laborers, the poor, and the continent’s socialist movement. Because the reward for Gadhafi’s quest for an African currency was violent overthrow and death, AFRICOM has similar plans for others who achieve the capacity to strike damaging blows against Africa’s current neo-colonial reality.

AFRICOM must maintain a continuing presence in Africa “just in case.” For that reason, AFRICOM stands as a continuing threat to Africa’s revolution, and it really is as bad as we have all believed it to be.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

Ethiopia’s authoritarian regime, dominated by elites of the Tigrayan ethnic group, faces growing protest by the Oromo and Amhara people, who together make up the majority of the population. Even the U.S. admits that the regime is a serious violator of human rights, yet the U.S. is Ethiopia’s main military ally. Given the glaring contradictions, it is fair to ask: “Will U.S. troops be called into Ethiopia to do battle with civilian protesters?”

Will U.S. Troops Become the Ethiopian Government’s Thugs?

by Mark P. Fancher

“We are all Oromo.”

The government of Ethiopia recently declared a state of emergency in response to a wave of massive protests by that country’s Oromo people. For decades the Oromo have been the targets of government oppression and political repression even though they represent more than a third of Ethiopia’s population. The frequency and intensity of Oromo resistance has increased in recent months, and it was highlighted by a cross-armed gesture made during the Olympics by Feyisa Lilesa, an Oromo who ran the marathon for Ethiopia. (Holding the arms above the head to form an “x” is a gesture of Oromo resistance.)

The most recent crisis follows accusations that Ethiopian security forces fired bullets and teargas into a crowd of an estimated two million Oromo gathered for a holy festival. The Ethiopian government says there were 55 deaths, but activists claim more than 500 people died in the resulting stampede. In addition, by at least one account the government’s recent confiscation of Oromo farmland for purposes of commercial development for foreign businesses sparked protests around the country.

Perhaps of even greater concern to the government is emerging solidarity between the Oromo and Ethiopia’s Amhara people. The current Ethiopian government, dominated by elites of the Tigray people, has encouraged hostility between the Oromo and the Amhara in order to preserve government hegemony. However, the government has reacted violently to the protests of both the Oromo and the Amhara, and the two groups have begun to make common cause. At rallies, Amhara activists have proclaimed: “I am not Oromo but I stand with my Oromo brothers.”  “We are all Oromo.”

“The government has reacted violently to the protests of both the Oromo and the Amhara, and the two groups have begun to make common cause.”

Lurking in the shadows of the upheaval is the United States of America. Ethiopia is among the top ten African recipients of U.S. military financing, notwithstanding complaints that the Ethiopian government has used this support to violate human rights. Even the U.S. State Department has complained about “restrictions on freedom of expression…restrictions on freedom of association, including through arrests; politically motivated trials, and harassment and intimidation of opposition members and journalists.” Nevertheless, in March the U.S. and Ethiopia signed a new security partnership agreement. While the U.S. apparently believes this relationship is necessary because of the supposed role Ethiopia can play in combating terrorism in the region, evolving U.S. military operations in the Horn of Africa make Ethiopia a place to watch carefully in coming months.

Of particular concern is the fact that “Task Force Hurricane,” a U.S. military unit that will work out of Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, was recently launched. This unit is designed to carry out the mission of the East African Response Force (EARF) which, because of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya, is focused heavily on protecting diplomatic personnel. An EARF company commander explained: “The EARF is a rifle infantry company that is on standby for a short notification to deploy rapidly in response to a crisis in a permissive environment.” One of the unit’s private first class soldiers was more plain-spoken. He said: “…if anything was to ever go down, we need to be prepared, we need to be ready to go. The purpose of the EARF is that we are supposed to be ready if we ever get called to go to an embassy or if anything ever goes down, we are ready to fight.”

“Ethiopia is among the top ten African recipients of U.S. military financing.”

What does all of this mean if at any time protesters are perceived to be threats to foreign embassies or U.S. citizens? Already the U.S. embassy has blamed the death of a post-doctoral biology researcher from the University of California-Davis on protesters who allegedly threw stones at her vehicle while she was in Ethiopia for a meeting. Protesters in Ethiopia have also been blamed for damaging a Turkish textile firm’s factory and a Turkish owned cable plant. When commenting on the state of emergency, Ethiopia’s prime minister said: “We want to put an end to the damage that is being carried out against infrastructure projects, health centers, administration and justice buildings.” Will U.S. troops be called into Ethiopia to do battle with civilian protesters?

At the time of the signing of the new security partnership agreement with the U.S., Ethiopian Defense Minister Siraj Fegessa said: “I look forward to continuing the close cooperation of our two defense forces. I have no doubts that we will turn that into a truly successful endeavor.” Speaking for the U.S., AFRICOM’s Commander David Rodriguez said: “Support between the Ethiopians and the U.S. will continue to be broad ranging, and will include equipment, training, advisory support, information sharing, and logistics support.” While visiting Ethiopia last year, President Obama called Ethiopia an “outstanding partner” in the fight against terrorists.

The protests against the Ethiopian government are likely to continue, and there is potential for revolution. The U.S. may ultimately face the hard choice of deciding whether its friendship with the Ethiopian government is worth sending U.S. troops into a country in turmoil to suppress civilians who fight for the most basic human rights.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

Just as slave runaways made common cause with Native Americans in resistance to white settlers, U.S. Blacks should reciprocate the solidarity offered by Cuba, Venezuela and Palestinians, as well as providing whatever assistance is possible to progressive and revolutionary forces in Africa. However, “the task of political disengagement” from the rigged U.S. process “demands assurance that the community is not embarking on a journey into the abyss.”

The New Black Maroons to America: “We Quit!”

by Mark P. Fancher

“There were slaves who looked for opportunities to kill the master and determine their own destiny.”

During eight years of a black Presidency, we witnessed a police violence epidemic, the poisoning of the Flint water supply, the criminalization of black school children, and the militarization of Africa. Many who pinned their hopes on the Obama phenomenon must now decide whether the terror of systemic racial oppression and its consistent disregard for African life are best addressed through continuing pursuit of integration into the political structures and institutions of the oppressor; or by instead walking the path to independence, self-sufficiency and self-determination.

The choice is not new, and through the years Africans have had to make decisions. There were enslaved Africans who aspired to nothing greater than servitude in the slave-owner’s home. At the same time there were others who looked for opportunities to kill the master and escape into the wilderness to establish communities of maroons, who made their own way and determined their own destiny.

“Africans in the U.S. are uniquely positioned to champion the struggles of peoples beyond U.S. borders.”

Some who dreamed of a black nation also recognized the potential for alliances with communities resisting a common oppressor. Africans fled slave plantations and strategically joined indigenous communities. Many journeyed into dense tropical regions of Florida where they united with the Seminoles and shared with them rice cultivation techniques and other agricultural practices brought from West Africa. Historian William Loren Katz explained:

“The Seminole Nation offered their new friends some valuable gifts in return. Africans and other ethnic groups enjoyed an independent village status. Their only obligation was to pay a small agricultural tax to be used for the common defense. If Africans needed something besides freedom, it was a strong defense against slave hunters from the north, so their tax was well spent. Georgia slaveholders were soon invading Florida, seeking their runaways, and were soon meeting a united resistance by red and black armed forces.”

After the institution of slavery was destroyed, Africans’ instinct to live as independent, self-determining people persisted. In 1866, John Sanborn, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs commented: “The [formerly enslaved Africans] are the most industrious, economical, and in many respects, the more intelligent portion of the population of the Indian Territory. They all desire to remain in that territory upon lands set apart for their own exclusive use.”

The instinct to separate from oppressive forces was global. By 1955, regions of the world that had been the focus of underdevelopment and exploitation recognized their shared plight, and in much the same way that enslaved Africans made common cause with First Nations peoples, representatives of so-called “Third World” countries convened in Bandung, Indonesia. That meeting set the stage for the Non-Aligned Movement that, in response to the Cold War, established as its mission, to "create an independent path in world politics that would not result in member States becoming pawns in the struggles between the major powers." 

“The Non-Aligned Movement established as its mission, to ‘create an independent path in world politics.’”

As we approach a new historical milestone, with most Africans perceiving as bleak prospects for integration into a new Trump-inspired political reality, advocates for self-determination may assume the idea of an alternative, independent political path will find greater resonance in the black community. However, for many, the idea of becoming 21^st Century maroons may take a little getting used to.

Throughout the African World, there is a perceived unbreakable connection between black people and the empire. It is a perception inspired by misguided sentiment or ignorance or fear, or some combination of these and other factors. The idea of cutting ties with the imperialist political structure is regarded by some as insane, or at least impractical. Thus, the task of political disengagement demands assurance that the community is not embarking on a journey into the abyss. This challenge might be met by demonstrating that disengagement from global imperialism and exploitative domestic capitalism can be followed in short order by productive engagement and alliance with other enemies of imperialism.

In the same way that enslaved Africans established alliances with indigenous peoples, there are now comparable communities around the world with whom relationships might be established. In recent years, the appetite for such relationships has been demonstrated in various ways. Palestinian activists provided Ferguson protesters with advice about coping with teargas. Venezuela made free and affordable heating oil available to low-income communities in the U.S. Cuba has not only made standing offers to provide cost-free medical education for the youth of underserved communities around the world, but they also stood ready to send a large army of physicians into Katrina-ravaged New Orleans.

“There are progressive to revolutionary forces in various parts of Africa with whom western black communities might make common cause.”

There has likewise been a perception that Africans in the U.S. are uniquely positioned to return the favor of these gestures of solidarity by championing within this country the struggles of peoples beyond U.S. borders. This has certainly been true with respect to the Palestinian cause, efforts to end the economic isolation of Cuba and Zimbabwe, and the ongoing struggle to dislodge U.S. military troops from Africa.

In addition to relationships with progressive countries in the western hemisphere and any movement among the First Nations that might grow out of the Standing Rock experience, there are progressive to revolutionary forces in various parts of Africa with whom western black communities might make common cause. The consolidation of these relationships into a global network that has its own politics, trade arrangements and diplomatic relationships can enhance prospects for the attainment of long-term goals like the establishment of a continent-wide African super state and the eventual triumph of the world’s revolutionary forces over imperial power.

When it comes to politics we don’t have to accept the programs of the Democrats, Republicans or any other players in a rigged political process. Like the maroons we can say no thanks to all of it.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes periodically for Black Agenda Report. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net

by Mark P. Fancher

Ever since NATO’s 2011 regime change in Libya, the U.S. military command, AFRICOM, has had free rein in most of the continent. Boko Haram “terrorism” provides an excuse to intervene, but AFRICOM’s real aim is to secure U.S. control of African economic resources. “It took only the suggestion of potential oil reserves to inspire a U.S. military plan for the success of the oil exploration efforts of the Nigerian government” in the Lake Chad region.

The AFRICOM Snake Slithers into the Lake Chad Basin

by Mark P. Fancher

“Why is AFRICOM meddling in the region when it is neither a home-grown African army nor an organization that specializes in providing the type of humanitarian assistance the Lake Chad Basin needs?”

In April, “Unified Focus 2017,” a special training exercise created by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), will mobilize representatives of various military forces to plan for the protection of the Lake Chad Basin. This region is where national boundaries for Nigeria, Chad and Niger meet. A senior Cameroonian military official explained: “It’s a multinational effort led by the United States to fight terrorism, especially against Boko Haram.”

The participation of Cameroon, Benin, Chad, Niger, and Nigeria in this military exercise is -- in a very confused, misguided way -- logical. But why, in all of its arrogant glory is the United States leading this? While we’re at it, what could possibly motivate the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Italy to also be involved?

For decades, Africa’s freedom fighters have demanded independence and self-determination for the continent. Yet, there has been a stubborn tradition of western meddling and interference manifested most clearly in the final days of 1884 when representatives of European countries met in Berlin. In much the same way birthday cake is served, these colonizers carved out and distributed among themselves big pieces of African territory. Yet again in 2017, western countries are meeting to make plans for Africa, but this time the focus is on the discrete region of the Lake Chad Basin.

Terrorism has been a problem for the Lake Chad Basin, and the issue has not escaped the attention of the United Nations. U.N. officials say multi-national counterinsurgency efforts have made gains against Boko Haram, but the group remains a threat to civilians in the region. It is noteworthy however that notwithstanding the military strategy to be developed by AFRICOM, the U.N. has concluded armed forces will not solve the Lake Chad Basin’s problems.

A U.N. official explained: “A military approach will not bring an end to Boko Haram.” He said the terrorist group’s activities occur in areas where there is extreme poverty, income and social inequality, and the absence of stable government. Another U.N. official said: “Now is the time to act decisively to expand humanitarian assistance and protection as well as basic services, and thus lay the groundwork for early recovery and reconstruction.”

“The U.N. has concluded armed forces will not solve the Lake Chad Basin’s problems.”

AFRICOM has paid lip service to these U.N. experts and others by acknowledging: “The effort to counter Boko Haram’s extremism is not a military only fight. Military has the first part, the security solution, but there are many other organizations involved in the effort.” This begs the question of why AFRICOM, which is first and foremost a military command, is meddling in that region when it is neither a home-grown African army nor an organization that specializes in providing the type of humanitarian assistance the Lake Chad Basin needs? The answer is found in one word- oil.

When the subject is West African oil, it is the Niger Delta, and not the Lake Chad Basin that usually comes to mind. But the Niger Delta has been the scene of unending controversy and conflict. The interest in an alternative oil supply led the Nigerian government and others connected with the oil industry to take a hard look at the Lake Chad Basin. Although the Lake Chad Basin has been the focus of irregular and inconsistent oil exploration for the past three decades, the Nigerian government in particular is motivated to begin more focused efforts.

A Nigerian oil industry publication explains that the new exploration: “…is aimed at building up the nation’s depleting proven oil reserves…” It also notes the country’s plan to increase its oil reserves to 40 billion barrels by 2020. “Besides building up the country’s oil reserve, another reason for the push for oil discovery in the Chad Basin is discoveries made in neighboring countries in basins with similar structural settings with Nigeria.”

An Economic Confidential commentary notes: “If the area does in fact hold accessible reserves, however, the find must be considered within the context of the country’s political and security dynamics...” The article goes on to say: “…any company involved in extraction will face considerable security threats. The vast infrastructure networks on which oil and gas industries are dependent provide attractive targets for militants, and are virtually impossible to secure entirely.” Enter AFRICOM. It took only the suggestion of potential oil reserves to inspire a U.S. military plan for the success of the oil exploration efforts of the Nigerian government. Thanks to AFRICOM, when oil is located by the Nigerians, western oil companies will be right there to get in on the action – or maybe even take total control.

Western imperialists have an established tradition of meeting to decide the fate of Africa. AFRICOM’s meddling and intervention highlight the fact that long overdue are the meetings by Africans to decide not only to purge imperialists from Africa, but to also decide the particulars of when and by what means that will happen.

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He can be contacted at mfancher@comcast.net.

by Mark P. Fancher

The heroic African guerilla struggles against colonialism are history. The African present is dominated by AFRICOM, the U.S. military octopus with tentacles deep in the militaries of supposedly independent African states. “If Africa’s enemies have retreated like cowardly rats to the safety of their offices and boardrooms, then it’s time for us to drag their deliberations and plans out into the light of day -- African Liberation Day.”

In the Light of African Liberation Day Imperialist Rats Will Run Away

by Mark P. Fancher

“The late Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was in the crosshairs of the imperialists’ gunsights.”

On or near May 25^th, there will be commemorations of African Liberation Day around the world. Although this has become an annual ritual, for many African Liberation Day participants the 21^st Century has brought considerable confusion about the nature of the conflict between those who want genuine African independence and self-determination and those who want to continue domination and exploitation of the continent.

As Africa’s wars for independence raged during the 1970s, there was little doubt about the nature of the conflict and where the action could be found. The frontlines of battles against colonizers were in Angola, Zimbabwe, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, Namibia and other regions where liberation organizations with enough letters in their combined acronyms to make alphabet soup mobilized squadrons of guerrilla fighters to carry out hit and run missions that ultimately harassed settler regimes, western armed forces and their proxies out of Africa.

While the stubborn refusal of imperialists to loosen their neo-colonial grip on Africa has meant the struggle for liberation must continue, 1970s-style direct armed conflicts in the African bush between revolutionaries and western troops are rare. The imperialists now take their shots at freedom fighters from behind closed doors at the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, or NATO headquarters in Brussels. On the ground implementation of strategies is conducted by proxies who are sometimes twice removed from the architects of the plans.

Africa’s freedom fighters may be unable to crash through the closed doors of imperialist strategy rooms and confront the plotters directly, but thanks to the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, it is at least possible to know what they have talked about. Media attention devoted to Hilary Clinton’s e-mails has rarely focused on the thought processes of the former Secretary of State and her associates with regard to Africa. But these exchanges provide fascinating and instructive insight into a collective callous, arrogant mindset.

“The imperialists now take their shots at freedom fighters from behind closed doors at the U.S. State Department, the Pentagon, or NATO headquarters in Brussels.”

In 2011, the late Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was in the crosshairs of the imperialists’ gunsights. An April 2, 2011 e-mail to Clinton explains frankly and bluntly why he was targeted. “[Libya’s 143 tons of gold] was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc…”

The e-mail goes on to explain: “French intelligence officers discovered this plan [for a pan-African currency] shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.” The explanation doesn’t stop there: “According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues: a) A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production; b) Increase French influence in North Africa, c) Improve his internal political situation in France, d) Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world, e) Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa.”

African countries were expected to get on board the train to Libyan regime change without resisting or even questioning the reasons for the journey. It is therefore not surprising that the U.S. State Department became not only frustrated, but irritated with the African countries that hinted at a willingness to stray from the customary script neo-colonies are expected to follow.

An internal memo forwarded to Clinton dated March 22, 2011 states: “There is a definite split on the [African] continent with more nations lining up behind the March 20^th [African Union] statement and questioning our military mission -- or at least seeking greater clarity -- than those who are fully articulating support.” Another memo in the same e-mail chain from Johnnie Carson (former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs) relates his conversation with African Union official Ramtane Lamamra who affirmed the African Union’s reluctance to rely on armed force in Libya: “…[Lamamra] noted that the AU is particularly focused on …the need to intensify efforts to resolve the crisis and respond to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people, and notes the joint AU and UN role in facilitating dialogue that leads to political reforms necessary for a peaceful, sustainable solution.”

“Africans knew the imperialist destabilization of Libya would have devastating consequences for the continent.”

Carson reported that Lamamra denied any suggestions that the African Union was making special efforts to preserve the Qaddafi government, and that what the organization wanted instead was a democratic process that would allow the Libyan people to freely and fairly choose their own leaders. Notwithstanding the objective reasonableness of that position, it was clearly in conflict with the U.S. position that “Qaddafi must go.” Carson said: “I told Lamamra the absence of any AU condemnation of Qaddafi was screamingly noticeable.”

Africans knew the imperialist destabilization of Libya would have devastating consequences for the continent. By contrast, the State Department’s hacks, bureaucrats and high-ranking officials are on a mission to manipulate and exploit at whatever cost, and they act with indifference to the pain and turmoil of the people who suffer the consequences of imperialist schemes and operations. Consider the arrogance and cynicism of a February 27, 2011 State Department memo that presumes regime change is inevitable, and offers suggestions for how to handle the aftermath. With respect to the “Italian role” it says: “Should be kept relatively low-profile by virtue of Italy’s colonization of Libya and enduring sensitivities stemming from that. Will be tough to balance Italy’s desire to protect its sizeable commercial interests against the need to play a quiet, less visible role.”

(Ironically, the author of the memo was not a personal acquaintance of Clinton’s and in questioning whether he was still on the State Department payroll, she commented: “I was surprised that he used personal email account if he is at State.”)

Bob Marley said: “Hypocrites and parasites will come up and take a bite. But if their night should turn to day, a lot of people will run away…” If Africa’s enemies have retreated like cowardly rats to the safety of their offices and boardrooms where they not only hide behind U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) but also the various terrorist forces and African armies western governments enlist as military proxies, then it’s time for us to drag their deliberations and plans out into the light of day -- African Liberation Day -- so that Africans can see them and learn how to fight the continent’s enemies more effectively.

(Note: The Clinton e-mails and other State Department documents released under the Freedom of Information Act can be accessed by using the department’s “virtual reading room” at:https://foia.state.gov/Search/Search.aspx )

Mark P. Fancher is an attorney who writes frequently about the U.S. military presence in Africa. He is assisting with African Liberation Day commemorations hosted by the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party. He can be contacted at: mfancher(at)comcast.net.