Rice Material for 4pm call | WIKILEAKS PODESTA 17367 | OCT 31, 2008
Susan Rice Biography | Attachment A (SR Public Vet) (word document)
Susan E. Rice enjoyed a rapid rise in the Clinton Administration’s foreign policy apparatus, starting her career in the National Security Council and becoming an Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs at the age of 33. As Assistant Secretary, she was responsible for formulating and implementing U.S. policy toward the forty-eight countries of sub-Saharan Africa, including political, economic, security, and humanitarian issues. Rice helped to raise the profile of African affairs and worked on the continent’s enduring problems, most notably the persistent conflicts in the region.
Rice, along with others on the Clinton foreign policy team, has been criticized for failing to cooperate with Sudan to make inroads against al-Qaeda, a charge Rice strongly denies. Regarding Rwanda, a 2002 book review in the National Journal quoted Rice as asking, at a 1994 interagency meeting, about the effect on the upcoming congressional elections if the U.S. used the word “genocide” and then failed to do anything about it, a remark that could be characterized as inappropriately political. However, Rice later characterized U.S. inaction in Rwanda as “one of the greatest failings of the Clinton administration.”
Rice, 43, is the daughter of one of Washington, D.C.’s elite black families. Her mother, Lois Rice, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants who worked as domestics, attended Radcliffe and has served as a director on corporate and nonprofit boards. Her father, Emmett Rice, was an economics professor at Cornell and has worked as an advisor to the Central Bank of Nigeria, in the Treasury Department, at the World Bank, and as a governor on the Federal Reserve Board.
From 1991-1993, she served clients in oil-and-gas, steel, transportation, retail, public/non-governmental and pulp/paper sectors.
Rice’s first post in the NSC was as Director for International Peacekeeping, which she held from 1993-1995. In 1995, she was promoted to Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs. As an NSC staffer, Rice visited Rwanda in 1994, which she has described as her “most searing experience”
Susan Rice Questionnaire | Attachment B (SR Questionnaire)
Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.
I was the junior NSC staffer responsible for the UN and peacekeeping during the Rwandan genocide in 1994, and there have been some false public accounts of my role in US policy-making on this issue.
U.S. policy towards Sudan (1995-2000). During which period we sought to increase pressure on Sudan to halt its support for terrorism, its war in the South, use of starvation as a weapon against civilians, continued practice of slavery and religious persecution and efforts to destabilize it neighbors,
U.S. efforts to help resolve the civil war in Sierra Leone in the late 1990s. Though my personal role was minimal, there were some who took issue with US policy at the time.
Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter | BBC NEWS | APR 7, 2014
In just 100 days in 1994, some 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda by ethnic Hutu extremists. They were targeting members of the minority Tutsi community, as well as their political opponents, irrespective of their ethnic origin.
Why did the Hutu militias want to kill the Tutsis?
About 85% of Rwandans are Hutus but the Tutsi minority has long dominated the country. In 1959, the Hutus overthrew the Tutsi monarchy and tens of thousands of Tutsis fled to neighbouring countries, including Uganda. A group of Tutsi exiles formed a rebel group, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which invaded Rwanda in 1990 and fighting continued until a 1993 peace deal was agreed.
On the night of 6 April 1994 a plane carrying then President Juvenal Habyarimana, and his counterpart Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi – both Hutus – was shot down, killing everyone on board. Hutu extremists blamed the RPF and immediately started a well-organised campaign of slaughter. The RPF said the plane had been shot down by Hutus to provide an excuse for the genocide.
Rwanda’s mystery that won’t go away | BBC NEWS | NOV 29, 2006
The question of who shot down the plane carrying the former president of Rwanda in April 1994 could turn out to be one of the great mysteries of the late 20th Century.
The act served as a catalyst for the genocide of some 800,000 (others say as high as one million) people in just 100 days.
A French investigative judge, Jean Louis Bruguiere, has accused the ethnic Tutsi rebel leader at the time, Paul Kagame, of having been responsible.
Mr Kagame, now Rwanda’s president, was furious and broke off diplomatic relations with France.
Judge Bruguiere mounted the inquiry in France because the families of the French aircrew, also killed when the plane went down, laid a judicial complaint.
When the Rwandan president’s Mystere Falcon executive jet was blown out of the skies over Kigali airport at about 2000 local time on 6 April 1994, it was the beginning of a bloody nightmare for Rwanda.
The ethnic Hutu president, his aides and his French air crew were all killed.
Within minutes, on the ground, extremist Hutu army officers and their militias began taking revenge on the minority Tutsis and other government opponents.
The Rwandan genocide had begun.
The extremist Hutus blamed Tutsi rebels, led by Paul Kagame, and Belgian mercenaries, for downing the plane.
But others, including senior United Nations officials present on the ground suspected that Hutus, or mercenaries working for them , may have carried out the attack in order to stop the late president signing a compromise peace deal with the Tutsi rebels.
France backed the Hutu government at the time.
A British expert on the Rwandan genocide, Linda Melvern, author of the investigative study Conspiracy to Murder, says she is surprised at the lack of convincing new evidence in the French judge’s allegations given that, at the time of the shooting down of the plane, France had very close relationships in the region.
“At the time of the planning of the genocide the French government had 47 senior officers embedded into the Rwandan army , which subsequently played such a large role in the genocide , and the best informed government of (them) all of what was going on in Rwanda was the French,” she says
Ms Melvern said the evidence the French judge had presented alleging President Kagame’s involvement in the murder of his predecessor was very sparse, and that some of it, concerning the alleged anti-aircraft missiles used to down the presidential jet, had already been rejected by a French Parliamentary enquiry.
A brief look at the Judge’s 64 page report, as made available on the websites of some French newspapers, also reveals that the report appears to have been written in something of a rush.
Several of the key players, including two former heads of state, have their names mis-spelt.
Anyone who has followed Rwanda in recent years, and seen the extraordinary lengths to which people are prepared to use violence, to gain and hold on to power, will accept that almost anything is possible.
I met Paul Kagame many times when he was a rebel commander, and have interviewed him since he became president.
I have no doubt that had he wanted to down the plane he would have had the technical and military capacity to do so.
But his denials have been so vehement, so public and so consistent that they might put his domestic political credibility on the line if he is ever proven wrong.
Kagame is not overly-concerned about his international credibility – ever since the genocide he has made it clear that he has no respect for an international community which largely stood by while hundreds of thousands were killed.
Of course, the debate about who shot down the Mystere Falcon may be a purely theoretical one.
It is most unlikely that any of the accused Rwandans would make the mistake of finding themselves in France and available for arrest. Judge Bruguiere’s allegations may never be tested in an independent court.
The current Rwandan government accuses France of deliberate political manipulation of the facts.
While the genocide of ethnic Tutsis and other government opponents was being carried out by the extremist Hutu regime, the then-Tutsi rebel Paul Kagame mounted a conventional war against the French-backed government.
His officers were almost all men – and a few women – who had been exiled and educated in neighbouring, English-speaking Uganda.
When he won the war, the outcome, highly unusually, led to a change in Rwanda’s official second language from French to English.
Some observers believe that whatever crimes Paul Kagame may or may not have committed, the French establishment has never really forgiven him for challenging its influence in Africa.
SHATTERED LIVES | Sexual Violence during the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath | HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | 1996
During the 1994 genocide, Rwandan women were subjected to sexual violence on a massive scale, perpetrated by members of the infamous Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe, by other civilians, and by soldiers of the Rwandan Armed Forces (Forces Armées Rwandaises, FAR), including the Presidential Guard. Administrative, military and political leaders at the national and local levels, as well as heads of militia, directed or encouraged both the killings and sexual violence to further their political goal: the destruction of the Tutsi as a group. They therefore bear responsibility for these abuses.
Although the exact number of women raped will never be known, testimonies from survivors confirm that rape was extremely widespread and that thousands of women were individually raped, gang-raped, raped with objects such as sharpened sticks or gun barrels, held in sexual slavery (either collectively or through forced “marriage”) or sexually mutilated. These crimes were frequently part of a pattern in which Tutsi women were raped after they had witnessed the torture and killings of their relatives and the destruction and looting of their homes. According to witnesses, many women were killed immediately after being raped.
Other women managed to survive, only to be told that they were being allowed to live so that they would “die of sadness.” Often women were subjected to sexual slavery and held collectively by a militia group or were singled out by one militia man, at checkpoints or other sites where people were being maimed or slaughtered, and held for personal sexual service. The militiamen would force women to submit sexually with threats that they would be killed if they refused. These forced “marriages,” as this form of sexual slavery is often called in Rwanda, lasted for anywhere from a few days to the duration of the genocide, and in some cases longer. Rapes were sometimes followed by sexual mutilation, including mutilation of the vagina and pelvic area with machetes, knives, sticks, boiling water, and in one case, acid.
Throughout the world, sexual violence is routinely directed against females during situations of armed conflict. This violence may take gender-specific forms, like sexual mutilation, forced pregnancy, rape or sexual slavery. Being female is a risk factor; women and girls are often targeted for sexual abuse on the basis of their gender, irrespective of their age, ethnicity or political affiliation.
CLINTON IN AFRICA: THE BLOOD BATH; Critics Say U.S. Ignored C.I.A. Warnings of Genocide in Rwanda | NEW YORK TIMES | MAR 26, 1998
When President Clinton confessed today that ”people like me” failed to see the storm of mass killings that swept Rwanda in 1994, he acknowledged a bitter truth for the first time.
The Clinton Administration ignored powerful warnings of impending genocide, including a Central Intelligence Agency study saying half a million people could die if Rwanda exploded, former Administration officials and human rights experts said today.
”Never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence,” Mr. Clinton said.
But even when it was clear that hundreds of thousands of Rwandan civilians were in mortal danger, the United States stopped the United Nations from taking action that might have saved those lives, the critics of the Administration’s policy said.
The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994 | Evidence of Inaction | THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE | AUG 20, 2001
On April 6, 1994, Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana’s personal plane, a gift from French president Francois Mitterand, was shot down as it returned to Rwanda, killing Habyarimana, Burundian president Cyprien Ntarymira, and members of their entourages. The two presidents were returning from Tanzania, where they’d met with regional leaders concerning events in Burundi. Habyarimana himself was pressed to implement the power-sharing Arusha Accord his government had concluded with the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in August 1993, which capped three years of war, cease-fires and negotiations. To do so, however, would mean the effective end of his 20-year, one-party rule over Rwandan politics and society. Extremists in the military and government bitterly opposed the accord; they are the likely culprits in his assassination. Within an hour of the plane crash, the Presidential Guard, elements of the Rwandan armed forces (FAR) and extremist militia (Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi) set up roadblocks and barricades and began the organized slaughter, starting in the capital Kigali, of nearly one million Rwandans in 100 days time. Their first targets were those most likely to resist the plan of genocide: the opposition Prime Minister, the president of the constitutional court, priests, leaders of the Liberal Party and Social Democratic Party, the Information Minister, and tellingly, the negotiator of the Arusha Accord. Those who hesitated to join the campaign, such as the governor of a southern province, were quickly removed from positions of influence or killed. As a US intelligence analyst noted in late April,
“The plan appears to have been to wipe out any RPF ally or potential ally, and thus raise the costs and limit the possibility of an RPF/Tutsi takeover… No end to the unprecedented bloodshed is yet in sight.” (US Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Intelligence Assessment, “Roots of the Violence in Rwanda”, April 29, 1994)
Bystanders to Genocide | THE ATLANTIC | SEP 01, 2001
In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country’s Tutsi minority. Using firearms, machetes, and a variety of garden implements, Hutu militiamen, soldiers, and ordinary citizens murdered some 800,000 Tutsi and politically moderate Hutu. It was the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century.
US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide | THE GUARDIAN | MAR 31, 2004
President Bill Clinton’s administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.
Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.
Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis” before the slaughter reached its peak.
It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington’s top policymakers.
The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.
“It’s powerful proof that they knew,” said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.
The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.
It discovered that the CIA’s national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to “stop the genocide, which … is spreading south”.
Three days later the state department’s intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted “genocide and partition” and reported declarations of a “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis”.
However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying “acts of genocide”.
Ms Des Forges said: “They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn’t want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination.”
The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.
William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. “Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials – even aid workers – provided timely information up the chain,” he said.
“That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda.”
Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.
Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.
Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance. “The level of US intelligence is really amazing,” said Mr Ferroggiaro. “A vast array of information was available.”
On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.
In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: “It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.”
A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.
The Great Rwanda “Genocide Coverup” | GLOBAL RESEARCH | FEB 20, 2008
BUSH AND OTHER WAR CRIMINALS MEET IN RWANDA : THE GREAT “ RWANDA GENOCIDE”– COVERUP
As George Bush begins his much bally-hooed African safari, he has already begun to heap praise on Rwandan President Kagame as a “model for Africa .” But, recently issued French and Spanish international “war-crimes” warrants and new evidence at the UN Rwanda Tribunal have exposed Kagame as the war-criminal who actually touched-off the 1994 “Rwanda Genocide” by assassinating the previous President and who is benefiting from a decades-long U.S.-sponsored “cover-up” of Pentagon complicity in massacres committed by Kagame’s regime, which even Britain’s Economist has called “the most repressive in Africa.” 
Multiple “War Crimes” AWarrants Issued for Rwanda ’s Leaders
Just last week, a Spanish Judge issued 40 international warrants for current and former members of Kagame’s government, including senior staff at Rwanda ’s Washington Embassy. The warrants charge Kagame’s clique with war-crimes and crimes against humanity, that may even fit the definition of “genocide.” But, these are not the only international arrest warrants issued for Rwanda’s current leaders.
French Judge Bruguiere (famous for indicting “the Jackal”) has also issued international warrants against nearly a dozen members of Kagame’s inner circle, too. Bruguiere also met with Kofi Annan in late 2006 to personally urge the U.N. Rwanda Tribunal to prosecute Kagame for the assassination of Juvenal Habyarimana, the war-crime that re-ignited the four-year Rwanda War and the massive civilian killings in the war’s final 90-days.
Could it be that no-one in the Bush Administration was aware of these pending charges against their Rwandan hosts….or is it that they just don’t care? In either case, the French and Spanish international arrest warrants have pierced the wall of U.S./UK/Rwandan propaganda about who bears responsible for the massive tragedy that unfolded in Rwanda …but the “official story” has actually been unraveling for some time (although largely un-reported in the U.S. media).
As genocide raged, general’s pleas for help ignored | CNN | DEC 10, 2008
The Canadian lieutenant general and son of a soldier was about to take up the biggest command of his career — leading United Nations peacekeepers in the central African nation.
A year later he left Rwanda a broken man, having watched helplessly as more than 800,000 people perished in Rwanda’s genocide despite his pleas for more troops to stop the massacre.
“We could have actually saved hundreds of thousands,” Dallaire told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour for “Scream Bloody Murder.”
“Nobody was interested.”
U.S./U.N. cover-up of Kagame’s genocide in Rwanda and Congo | SF BAY VIEW | SEP 17, 2010
A long-standing code of silence inside the U.N. is coming to an end regarding what is probably the largest genocide ever since the U.N. founding: the genocide committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front since 1990
On Aug. 27, the French daily Le Monde leaked the news that a long report by U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay of South Africa calls the “systematic, methodical and pre-meditated crimes perpetrated against the Hutu” by the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) in Zaire in 1996-1997 “crimes against humanity, war crimes, and even genocide crimes.” The report has not yet been officially released but is already circulating freely.
What Susan Rice Has Meant for U.S. Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa | THE ATLANTIC | DEC 3, 2012
How the possible-next Secretary of State helped the U.S. continue a Cold War-style approach to the continent — and aided a new generation of dictators in the process.
There is another way to think about the prospective nomination of Susan Rice for secretary of state.It is one that is immeasurably more consequential than the Washington-centered and highly politicized controversy over her role in explaining the September 11 attack on the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi.It is a way of thinking that looks at what kind of power the United States has been over the last 20 years, and it asks probingly about what kind of role it will play in the thick of this present century.
In any discussion of Susan Rice’s career, there is no escaping Africa. It is the place where she cut her teeth and built her essential record as a diplomat and national security official. Although there has been nary a hint of this in the fuss about Benghazi, I would go further still and say that one would be hard pressed to find anyone in American government who has played a larger and more sustained role in shaping Washington’s diplomacy toward that continent over the last two decades.If Rice survives the current controversy over Libya and is nominated to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, understanding the details of her past work in Africa, and drawing her out about Washington’s approach toward the continent in the future, should be a matter of serious national concern.
Right now, Africa is changing with extraordinary speed and in surprising ways, but American policy there remains stale and stuck in the past: unambitious, underinvested and conceptually outdated.
This holds true at a time when the continent is growing demographically and urbanizing faster than any place before in history. Africa is booming economically as well, with an overall growth rate faster than Asia, and an emerging middle class larger than India’s.
China, the United States’ preeminent global rival, clearly gets this, and treats Africa not just as a place from which to extract mineral wealth — which of course it does — but also as a vital source of growth for the world economy going forward. China also views Africa as a geopolitical space of rapidly developing markets and huge business opportunities, including a nearly endless supply of new and underserved consumers.China is not alone, either. Brazil, India, Turkey and Vietnam, to name just a few of the other fast-growing players, see Africa in much the same way, and are racing to establish a new, mature style of relations with the continent — one driven by promise, and not by the pity and strong paternalism that have characterized so much Western engagement for so long.The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in an approach whose foundation dates to the Cold War, when we cherry-picked strongmen among Africa’s leaders, autocrats we could “work with,” according to the old diplomatic cliché.
Susan Rice and Africa’s Despots | NEW YORK TIMES | DEC 9, 2012
ON Sept. 2, Ambassador Susan E. Rice delivered a eulogy for a man she called “a true friend to me.” Before thousands of mourners and more than 20 African heads of state in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ms. Rice, the United States’ representative to the United Nations, lauded the country’s late prime minister, Meles Zenawi. She called him “brilliant” — “a son of Ethiopia and a father to its rebirth.”
Few eulogies give a nuanced account of the decedent’s life, but the speech was part of a disturbing pattern for an official who could become President Obama’s next secretary of state. During her career, she has shown a surprising and unsettling sympathy for Africa’s despots.
This record dates from Ms. Rice’s service as assistant secretary of state for African affairs under President Bill Clinton, who in 1998 celebrated a “new generation” of African leaders, many of whom were ex-rebel commanders; among these leaders were Mr. Meles, Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Jerry J. Rawlings of Ghana, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Yoweri K. Museveni of Uganda.
“One hundred years from now your grandchildren and mine will look back and say this was the beginning of an African renaissance,” Mr. Clinton said in Accra, Ghana, in March 1998.
In remarks to a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that year, Ms. Rice was equally breathless about the continent’s future. “There is a new interest in individual freedom and a movement away from repressive, one-party systems,” she said. “It is with this new generation of Africans that we seek a dynamic, long-term partnership for the 21st century.”
Her optimism was misplaced. In the 14 years since, many of these leaders have tried on the strongman’s cloak and found that it fit nicely. Mr. Meles dismantled the rule of law, silenced political opponents and forged a single-party state. Mr. Isaias, Mr. Kagame and Mr. Museveni cling to their autocratic power. Only Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Mbeki left office willingly.
Rice’s Failure in Rwanda Precludes Her From Becoming Secretary of State | HUFFINGTON POST
That Susan Rice either willfully misled the American people on the Benghazi attacks, or lazily absorbed intelligence briefings without the least bit of personal involvement, is obvious. That she was covering for the Obama Administration in denying a terror attack just weeks before the election is speculative but likely. That she does not, therefore, deserve to become Secretary of State is arguable.
But what is not arguable is that she deserves to be denied the post for a different reason altogether: Rwanda. What emerges when taken together — Rice’s weak response in Benghazi, blaming the murder of four Americans on a stupid video, and her shameful lack of action in the Rwandan genocide — is a career diplomat of singular weakness, lacking the spine or muscularity to assert American moral influence in the world.
Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team that in 1994 refused any involvement whatsoever in the Rwanda genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded. The Clinton Administration had just been spooked by the Black Hawk down incident in Somalia and wanted no further foreign entanglements. But the lengths to which they went to deny assistance to the Tutsis, with Rice being central to the decision-making process, will forever live in infamy.
Susan Rice, the War-Lord-Dictator of African Dictators | TESFA NEWS | OCT 9, 2014
Susan Rice has been waltzing with Africa’s slyest, slickest and meanest dictators for nearly two decades. She has been the acknowledged Guardian Angel, champion, apologist, promoter, advocate and matriarch of the late Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawi. When it comes to Eritrea, however, her hate for President Isaias Afewerki and the people of Eritrea has clouded her judgment to the point where she cannot differentiate between American national interests and her personal vendetta.
IT is hard to imagine but true, the hawkish Susan Rice wields tremendous power and influence on African matters in the White House and on the dictators of Africa that kowtow to her whims. Absent of solid US Africa policy, absent of mature balanced approach and, absent of African experts with power in higher places; Susan Rice, as a security advisor, has the ears of trigger happy President in the White House.
On an interview with the Voice Of America Amharic, Ambassador Herman Cohen, who at one time was United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 1989 to 1993, and mentored Ambassador, now Security advisor Susan Rice said,
“the sanctions on Eritrea are baseless and they are pushed by vindictive individuals that have hatred towards President Isaias Afewerki. There is no proof that links Eritrea with extremist elements in Somalia. Furthermore, in order for peace and prosperity to reign on the Horn of Africa, there must be peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia. That means Ethiopia must withdraw from Eritrean territories.”
The vindictive person Ambassador Cohen is referring to is none other than Susan Rice, who along with the late Ethiopian dictator Meles Zenawi designed and manipulated the illegal and unjustifiable sanctions and handed the people of Eritrea as a gift on Christmas Eve in 2009. What this demonstrates is the vulnerabilities that individuals based on personal agendas could hold the US national interest hostage.
Genocide Under Our Watch | FOREIGN POLICY | APR 16, 2015
Newly declassified White House documents place Richard Clarke and Susan Rice at the forefront of U.S. efforts to limit a robust U.N. peacekeeping operation before and during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Nearly two weeks into the 1994 mass killings in Rwanda that would ultimately be called genocide, Eric P. Schwartz, a human rights specialist on the National Security Council, wrote a memorandum to his White House colleagues voicing alarm over reports of tens of thousands of slaughtered ethnic Tutsis.
Human rights groups were pleading for the Clinton administration to help keep 2,500 U.N. peacekeepers on the scene in the Central African country. Human Rights Watch, the New York-based advocacy group, was warning that “Rwandans will quickly become victims of genocide.”
“Is this true?” Schwartz asked Susan Rice, at the time a 29-year-old director of international organizations and peacekeeping on the National Security Council (NSC), and Donald Steinberg, then the NSC’s new director for African affairs, according to a recently declassified White House memo dated April 19, 1994. “If so, shouldn’t it be a major factor informing high-level decision-making on this issue? Has it been?”
In the end, the fate of Rwanda’s victims hardly figured at all in U.S. calculations about the international community’s response to what turned out to be the worst mass killing since the Holocaust, according to hundreds of pages of internal White House memos.
On the contrary, Richard Clarke, a special assistant to President Bill Clinton on global affairs in the NSC and Rice’s boss, had already been looking for a way out of Rwanda for months. Rwanda’s descent into mass killing, paradoxically, provided a fresh opportunity.
“We make a lot of noise about terminating U.N. forces that aren’t working,” Clarke wrote on April 9, just three days after the genocide started. “Well, few could be as clearly not working. We should work with the French to gain a consensus to terminate the U.N. mission.”
The Clinton administration’s failure to muster a credible international response to Rwanda’s mass murder has been amply documented over the past two decades. President Clinton and his key aides — including National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright, and Rice, who has since risen to become President Barack Obama’s top national security advisor — have all publicly expressed regret that they didn’t do more to stem the killing.
But the recently declassified documents — which include more than 200 pages of internal memos and handwritten notes from Rice and other key White House players — provide a far more granular account of how the White House sought to limit U.N. action. They fill a major gap in the historical record, providing the most detailed chronicle to date of policy instructions and actions taken by White House staffers, particularly Clarke and Rice, who appear to have exercised greater influence over U.S. policy on Rwanda than the White House’s Africa hands.
The documents provide few fresh insights into the thinking of President Clinton, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, or other top officials, reinforcing indications that Rwanda policy was left to midlevel bureaucrats. They place Clarke and Rice — who were overseeing a far-reaching review of U.N. peacekeeping — at the crux of American efforts to limit U.N. involvement in Rwanda in the face of mounting congressional pressure to rein in U.N. peacekeeping costs. The death of 18 U.S. Rangers in Mogadishu while participating in a raid on a Somali clan on Oct. 3, 1993, less than six months before the genocide began, only hardened the administration’s resolve to say no to an ambitious new peacekeeping operation in a country with few historical links to the United States.
The Rwandan genocide officially began on April 6, 1994, following the shooting down of a plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi back from a peace conference in Tanzania to the Rwandan capital of Kigali. Their murder dealt a lethal blow to the Arusha Peace Agreement, a wobbly pact aimed at reconciling the country’s predominantly ethnic Hutu government with an insurgency comprised of ethnic Tutsi exiles. Over the following three months, hard-liners in the Rwandan government, backed by armed militias, carried out a systematic rampage, targeting ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu officials who had favored the peace process. U.S. diplomats on the ground in Rwanda recognized the nature of what was unfolding before their eyes. Over the coming three months, in a country of nearly 8 million, more than 800,000 would be dead, 2 million would flee for their lives to neighboring countries, and another 2 million would be driven from their homes.
In the early days of the violence, the United States devoted all its efforts to securing the evacuation of more than 250 American nationals in the country and scaling back the U.N. presence. By April 11, the American evacuation had been completed. President Clinton and then-first lady Hillary Clinton visited the State Department that day to pay tribute to Prudence Bushnell, the deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs, and other staffers who had organized the evacuation.
At the same time, American diplomats were working behind the scenes to pull the U.N. peacekeeping mission, known as the U.N. Assistance Mission for Rwanda, or UNAMIR, out of Rwanda.
Poverty, Global Health and Infectious Disease: Lessons from Haiti and Rwanda | US NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
[A]id financed much of the machinery of exclusion, inequality, and humiliation; provided it with legitimacy and support; and sometimes directly contributed to it. To their credit, some aid agencies—some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) foremost among them—may have had different impacts; they may have softened some parts of the crises faced by ordinary Rwandans. Yet, by and large, aid was an active and willing partner in the construction of structural violence in Rwanda, as it is elsewhere in Africa .
Further, many weapons used in the genocide did not originate in Rwanda, but rather in many of the political and economic powers of the world .
The physical and structural violence of the Rwandan genocide directly impacted the spread of communicable disease. Systematic rape during the genocide served as a vector for HIV transmission . The exodus of Rwandans into refugee camps in the Democratic Republic of the Congo without adequate food, water, and sanitation gave rise to epidemics of infectious disease (such as cholera) that resulted in a crude mortality rate of 20 to 35 per 10,000 people each day . Increased incidences of both malaria and tuberculosis have lasted far beyond the formal end of the genocide .
Careful attention to Rwanda’s and Haiti’s places in global history, economics, and politics readily demonstrates that the forces of structural violence increase risk of communicable disease for resource-poor populations in ways quite distinct from the behavioral and cultural explanations uncritically circulated in academic literature and the popular press.
AIDS Intersects with Genocide | THE SENTINEL PROJECT | DEC 1, 2013
During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 women and girls were raped in a systematic attempt to annihilate the Tutsi community and remove Hutu moderates and sympathizers (Amnesty International). Sexual violence has long been practised in the context of war, but what makes many armed conflicts over the past 20 years unique — besides Rwanda, think of those in the Balkans, Liberia, DRC, Sudan, CAR, Sierra Leone — is the scale at which sexual violence has been and continues to be used as a weapon of war. Add to this the exposure to sexually transmitted and other diseases that rape victims faced, especially to HIV/AIDS in countries where the epidemic was already ramping up.
U.N. Ambassador Rice Helped Thwart Bin Laden Capture | INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | NOV 21, 2012
Terrorism: Our U.N. ambassador, champion of the altered Benghazi talking points, helped block attempts by Sudan to turn over the world’s most wanted terrorist outright or share intelligence leading to his capture.
Our U.N. ambassador, champion of the altered Benghazi talking points, played a key role in blocking attempts by Sudan to turn over the world’s most wanted terrorist outright or share intelligence leading to his capture.
It does not surprise us that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice either willfully or blindly parroted altered Benghazi talking points, going on five Sunday news shows on Sept. 16 to push the false narrative that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was not a terrorist attack but a flash mob inflamed by a months-old Internet trailer insulting to Islam. This isn’t the first time she has been clueless about and blind to the reality of terror.
As we mentioned in an earlier editorial about her possible appointment as secretary of state, “In 1996, while serving as assistant secretary of state for African affairs under former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Rice helped persuade President Clinton to rebuff Sudan’s offer to turn Osama bin Laden, who was then living there, over to U.S. authorities.”