(Hillary Clinton:... unrelentingly tortured tale ... now blames “white men” for loss)
Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe
HILLARY CLINTON has continued her unrelentingly tortured tale of why she lost the
November 2016 US presidential election to Donald Trump, her
anti-establishment opponent. In the latest episode, narrated to an audience in
Mumbai, India, where she was on a visit, Clinton now blames “white men” for her
poll defeat: “We [did] not do well with white men and [did] not do well with
married, white women. And part of that is … a sort of ongoing pressure [for the
latter] to vote the way [their] husband, [their] boss, [their] son, whoever,
believes [they] should…” (Jack
Crowe, “Hillary: white women were ‘pressurised’ to vote for Trump by their
husbands”, National Review, 13 March
2018).
The reflections here will not assess the veracity
or otherwise of Clinton’s claims on the role of “white men” in that election
but would focus more pointedly to what impact this demographic constituency,
which Clinton undoubtedly feels is crucially important to her political
ambitions and destiny, had on her performance and policy outcomes on Africa
specifically, whilst she was US secretary of state in January 2009-February
2013.
Contradictory
Contradictory
THE background to Clinton becoming US secretary of state in 2009 would, in the overall, appear to lend some element of credibility to the premise of her presumed problematic relationship with the country’s “white men” electorate, albeit contradictorily. In the previous year, 2008, Clinton had had a bitterly fought presidential election contest with Barack Obama, an African American, in which she was beaten. On winning, Obama actively sought Clinton’s goodwill by offering her the position of secretary of state in his incoming administration and paying off her huge outstanding campaign debts with surplus funds from the former’s campaign organisation. Clinton’s acceptance of Obama’s cabinet position offer helped in the process of “healing” in the Democratic party after the evidently rancorous poll and her tacit agreement not to challenge the latter in the 2012 election cycle, if he were to seek another term’s presidential run, also included an “understanding” that a 2-term President Obama would deploy the incalculable resources of such an incumbency to support his former rival to run again for the presidency in 2016.
So, thanks to Barack Obama, the African American,
i.e., “[not]white man”, indeed
the first African-descent elected president after 233
years of the founding of the US republic, Hilary Clinton becomes secretary of
state in January 2009 and is duly emplaced on the path of contesting for the
presidency, yet again, this time with the expected robust backing of her new
“ally” and employer.
Imposition and invasion
On Africa, right from the outset, two distinct policy areas defined the Obama administration’s focus: imposition and invasion – not too distinct from generally the case in previous US administrations. And both (new) president and secretary of state were in tandem in the formulation and implementation of this mission. A year in office, Obama reinstated the notorious trail of France’s invasion history in Africa which his predecessor, George W Bush (“white man”, “right-wing”!), had blocked for seven years as “punishment” for the 2003 French refusal to join the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq. Prior to Bush’s ban, the French had carried out 48 military invasions of most of the so-called 22 so-called francophonie states in Africa between 1960 and 2003 which every US president of the era each supported.
On Africa, right from the outset, two distinct policy areas defined the Obama administration’s focus: imposition and invasion – not too distinct from generally the case in previous US administrations. And both (new) president and secretary of state were in tandem in the formulation and implementation of this mission. A year in office, Obama reinstated the notorious trail of France’s invasion history in Africa which his predecessor, George W Bush (“white man”, “right-wing”!), had blocked for seven years as “punishment” for the 2003 French refusal to join the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq. Prior to Bush’s ban, the French had carried out 48 military invasions of most of the so-called 22 so-called francophonie states in Africa between 1960 and 2003 which every US president of the era each supported.
Elated by the Obama approval, French President
Sarkozy at once resumed his country’s 50 years of flagrant military
campaigns in Africa. Sarkozy ordered his military to invade Côte d’Ivoire (French
invasion no. 49 of an African state since 1960) which overthrew the government
of President Laurent Gbagbo in the process and installed a new regime
headed by an Ivorian puppet who would oversee the vast French economic and
strategic interests in the country and region. During the assault, 2300
Africans were murdered and several business and residential districts of the
commercial city of Abidjan, the principal focus of the invasion, were
significantly destroyed.
Emboldened by the French “success” in Côte
d’Ivoire in southwestcentral Africa, Obama mapped out further to the north
of the continent, to Libya, a year later, 2011, to implement his next
invasion target in Africa which would be executed by the US and the
French, and Britain, the other lead EuropeanConqueror-state of Africa. This
time round, the US would be a far more active, direct participant in
the operation. Indeed, Hillary Clinton took up the composite range of most
uncompromising advocacy for the US involvement in the Libya invasion that its
politics and aftermath became the central plank of her record as secretary of
state.
Just as in Côte d’Ivoire, the invasion of Libya was
catastrophic. The West tripartite force overthrew the Muammar
Gaddafi regime during the attack, Gaddafi himself was murdered as well as
some members of his family in addition to some influential officials of his
regime, hundreds of other Libyans were murdered, and most Libyan cities and
principal communication network (outstanding achievements of the Gaddafi years
in office) were spectacularly smashed up. Obama could not restrain himself in
emphasising the crucial role of the US in this operation: “we [the US] had
wiped out all [Libyan] air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure
[for the invasion]” (Jeffery Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine”, The Atlantic, April 2016 Issue,
April 2016).
Besides
these military invasions of stipulated states, the other method that the Obama
administration pursued its aggressive policy of “leadership” imposition in
Africa was to interfere or meddle in elections/“elections” in countries
elsewhere on the continent as shown in Egypt (2012), Kenya (2013)
and Nigeria (2015). Both interferences in the polls in Egypt and
Kenya failed spectacularly but in Nigeria Obama succeeded in
imposing Muhammadu Buhari, one of the vilest Nigerian genocidist islamist/jihadist operatives
during these 52 years of the Igbo genocide (1966-present day) as head of
Nigeria regime. For Obama, given the historical background noted earlier
as the first African-descent president of the US republic in 233 years of
existence, his unflinching support for
an African-led genocidist regime in Africa waging genocide, a crime against
humanity, against an African people is the abhorrent legacy of his
presidency. In that last 18 months’ duration of the presidency after the Buhari
imposition (May 2015-November 2016), the genocidist Buhari military and
its Boko Haram and Fulani militia adjunct terrorist forces (two
of the world’s five deadliest terrorist organisations – Melissa Clarke, “Globally, terrorism is on
the rise – but little of it occurs in Western countries”, ABC News, 17 November 2017) murdered 2000 Igbo across Biafran cities, towns and
villages. Neither Obama’s White House nor his state department nor his embassy
in Nigeria ever condemned any of these stretches of murders.
IT should be added
that Obama’s imposition of Buhari was carried out with David Cameron, then
British prime minister, and had been preceded by the Obama-Clinton insistence, whilst Clinton was secretary of state, of
not designating Boko Haram terrorist despite
the latter’s murder of thousands of African peoples, overwhelmingly Igbo,
during the period. It was therefore not surprising to quite a few observers
when a US-based social group claimed in November 2016 that the Buhari regime
had donated “[US]$500 million to the [Hillary] Clinton [election] campaign” (247ureports.com, 16 November 2016,
accessed 17 November 2016). It was no secret that the Buhari regime was
confident that Clinton would win the election and continue Obama’s support for
its genocide against Igbo people.
The score: “white men” vs “[not]white men”
As far as the Obama presidency (January 2009- January 2017) was concerned, it was in fact business as usual on Africa as its policy programme developed and implemented on the continent explicitly demonstrated. Following Hillary Clinton’s choice of that lexical configuration, “white men”, other likely expressions in the same semantic field should now be invoked to elaborate on this policy programme in the concluding notes here.
It would undoubtedly be the case that the former secretary of state wouldn’t state that she worked for an administration headed by a “white man” but a “[not]white man”. During two terms of presidency, this “[not]white man”-headed government deployed a dual track policy on Africa marked by invasions of states and impositions of “leaders” as we have indicated. Prior to January 2009, in US administrations since the 1960s, all headed by “white men”, invasions and impositions of leaders, directly or indirectly (especially in approval or in complicity with allies particularly France, Britain, Portugal, South Africa, Rhodesia [see, for instance, Mohamed A El Khawas and Barry Cohen, ed. The Kissinger Study of Southern Africa: National Security Memorandum 39 {SECRET}, 1976]) also featured highly as foreign policy goals in Africa. Indeed, given the overriding importance of Libya to Clinton’s work in the Obama administration, we should recall that on 14 April 1986 the “white man”/“right-wing”-led Ronald Reagan government ordered the US air force to bomb Libya, pointedly for a raid that was over in just an hour; 25 years later, in 2011, another US president, this time a “[not]white man”, ordered the same US air force to bomb Libya – but for a much longer duration and the consequences duly recorded. Additionally, it should be noted that Hillary Clinton was closely supported in her hardline “invade-Libya” position by none other than Susan Rice, an African American woman, another “[not]white man”, Obama’s advisor on national security who was assistant secretary of state on Africa in the Bill Clinton presidency back in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide, executed by “[not]white men”, and had covered up this crime at the time because the administration she worked for decided not to intervene to stop the slaughter. (cf. Alice Gatebuke, “On this anniversary of Rwandan genocide, Bill Clinton’s words ring hollow”, Huffpost, 14 April 2017.)
As far as the Obama presidency (January 2009- January 2017) was concerned, it was in fact business as usual on Africa as its policy programme developed and implemented on the continent explicitly demonstrated. Following Hillary Clinton’s choice of that lexical configuration, “white men”, other likely expressions in the same semantic field should now be invoked to elaborate on this policy programme in the concluding notes here.
It would undoubtedly be the case that the former secretary of state wouldn’t state that she worked for an administration headed by a “white man” but a “[not]white man”. During two terms of presidency, this “[not]white man”-headed government deployed a dual track policy on Africa marked by invasions of states and impositions of “leaders” as we have indicated. Prior to January 2009, in US administrations since the 1960s, all headed by “white men”, invasions and impositions of leaders, directly or indirectly (especially in approval or in complicity with allies particularly France, Britain, Portugal, South Africa, Rhodesia [see, for instance, Mohamed A El Khawas and Barry Cohen, ed. The Kissinger Study of Southern Africa: National Security Memorandum 39 {SECRET}, 1976]) also featured highly as foreign policy goals in Africa. Indeed, given the overriding importance of Libya to Clinton’s work in the Obama administration, we should recall that on 14 April 1986 the “white man”/“right-wing”-led Ronald Reagan government ordered the US air force to bomb Libya, pointedly for a raid that was over in just an hour; 25 years later, in 2011, another US president, this time a “[not]white man”, ordered the same US air force to bomb Libya – but for a much longer duration and the consequences duly recorded. Additionally, it should be noted that Hillary Clinton was closely supported in her hardline “invade-Libya” position by none other than Susan Rice, an African American woman, another “[not]white man”, Obama’s advisor on national security who was assistant secretary of state on Africa in the Bill Clinton presidency back in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide, executed by “[not]white men”, and had covered up this crime at the time because the administration she worked for decided not to intervene to stop the slaughter. (cf. Alice Gatebuke, “On this anniversary of Rwandan genocide, Bill Clinton’s words ring hollow”, Huffpost, 14 April 2017.)
IT SHOULD now be obvious that:
1a. “white man”-president can invade, overthrow, impose; “[not]white
man”-president can invade, overthrow, impose
1b. “white man”-state
functionaries can pursue policies to invade, overthrow, impose; “[not]white
man”-state functionaries can pursue policies to invade, overthrow, impose
2. “white man”-president/“white man”-king/ “white
man”-chancellor/“white man”-prime minister/“white man”-general/“white
man”-journalist/“white man”-academic/“white man”-cleric/“white
man”-farmer… has planned, executed, supported genocide(s) against a
people or peoples over the course of recent history
3. “[not]white man”-president/“[not] white man”-king/“[not]white
man” attorney/“[not]white man”-journalist/“[not]white man-academic/“[not]
white man”-cleric/“[not] white man”-sergeant/“[not]white
man”-corporal/“[not]white man”-general… has planned, executed, supported
genocide(s) against a people or peoples over the course of recent history
Surely, a serious, fruitful examination of any feature of human society requires the development, articulation and deployment of critical tools of analysis to help or enhance interpretation and understanding. As we have shown, Hillary Clinton’s “white man” lexicon and its variations have surely not been helpful tools to enable us understand what, in fact, presents as the unchanging thrust and tenor in the trajectory of US foreign policy in Africa for the greater part of the past 50 years irrespective of whether or not the president and/or other state officials in office are “white men” or “[not]white men”.
Surely, a serious, fruitful examination of any feature of human society requires the development, articulation and deployment of critical tools of analysis to help or enhance interpretation and understanding. As we have shown, Hillary Clinton’s “white man” lexicon and its variations have surely not been helpful tools to enable us understand what, in fact, presents as the unchanging thrust and tenor in the trajectory of US foreign policy in Africa for the greater part of the past 50 years irrespective of whether or not the president and/or other state officials in office are “white men” or “[not]white men”.
JUST as in Africa, Clinton’s “white man” mantra would hardly be fit for
purpose as an explanation for
why she lost the United States November 2016 presidential poll.
References
Clarke,
Melissa. “Globally, terrorism is on the rise – but little of it occurs in
Western countries”. ABC News, 17 November 2017, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-17/global-terrorism-index-increase/6947200,
accessed 17 November 2015.
Crowe,
Jack. “Hillary: white women were ‘pressurised’ to vote for Trump by their
husbands”. National Review, 13 March
2018, https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/hillary-clinton-white-women-pressured-husbands-vote-trump/,
accessed 13 March 2018.
El Khawas, Mohamed A. and Barry Cohen, ed. The Kissinger
Study of Southern Africa: National Security Memorandum 39 (SECRET).
Wesport: Lawrence Hill, 1976.
Goldberg, Jeffery.
“The Obama Doctrine”. The Atlantic, April 2016 Issue, April 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/, accessed 16 March
2016.
247ureports.com. “Buhari donated $500
million to Clinton campaign: US group”. 16 November 2016, http://247ureports.com/2016/11/buhari-donated-500m-to-clintons-campaign-us-group/,
accessed 17 November 2016.
(Jaki Byard Trio, “Trendsition zlidjian” [personnel: Byard, piano; David Izenzon, bass; Elvin Jones, drums; recorded: Prestige, New York, US, 31 October 1967])
*****Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe is the author of Readings from Reading: Essays on African Politics, Genocide, Literature (2011) and author, with Lakeson Okwuonicha of Why Donald Trump is great for Africa (2018)
Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe
No comments:
Post a Comment