What Barack Obama Left Out of His Foreign Policy Speeches

From Bill Blum’s Anti-Empire Report:

I’ve compiled a list of CIA assassination attempts, successful and unsuccessful, against prominent foreign political figures, from 1949 through 2003, which, depending on how you count it, can run into the hundreds (targeting Fidel Castro alone totals 634 according to Cuban intelligence)2; the list can be updated by adding the allegedly al Qaeda leaders among the drone attack victims of recent years. Assassination and torture are the two things governments are most loath to admit to, and try their best to cover up. It’s thus rare to find a government document or recorded statement mentioning a particular plan to assassinate someone. There is, however, an abundance of compelling circumstantial evidence to work with. The list can be found here.

For those of you who collect lists about splendid US foreign policy post-World War II, here are a few more that, lacking anything better to do, I’ve put together: Attempts to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, most of which had been democratically-elected.

After his June 4 Cairo speech, President Obama was much praised for mentioning the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh. But in his talk in Ghana on July 11 he failed to mention the CIA coup that ousted Ghanian president Kwame Nkrumah in 19663, referring to him only as a “giant” among African leaders. The Mossadegh coup is one of the most well-known CIA covert actions. Obama could not easily get away without mentioning it in a talk in the Middle East looking to mend fences. But the Nkrumah ouster is one of the least known; indeed, not a single print or broadcast news report in the American mainstream media saw fit to mention it at the time of the president’s talk. Like it never happened.

And the next time you hear that Africa can’t produce good leaders, people who are committed to the welfare of the masses of their people, think of Nkrumah and his fate. And think of Patrice Lumumba, overthrown in the Congo 1960-61 with the help of the United States; Agostinho Neto of Angola, against whom Washington waged war in the 1970s, making it impossible for him to institute progressive changes; Samora Machel of Mozambique against whom the CIA supported a counter-revolution in the 1970s-80s period; and Nelson Mandela of South Africa (now married to Machel’s widow), who spent 28 years in prison thanks to the CIA.4


My Comment:

The issue here isn’t whether you or I approve of everyone of these leaders…or not (I don’t).

The issue isn’t whether some other country might not have done even worse if it had the power the US had (they might have).

The issue is – is it the business of the US government to interfere in the rule of other countries, foment coups and revolutions, police, bomb, and spy on millions of people?

And how does any of that make us safer, richer, or freer?

3 thoughts on “What Barack Obama Left Out of His Foreign Policy Speeches

  1. Pingback: What Barack Obama Left Out of His Foreign Policy Speeches | LILA … | kozmom news

  2. The Issue is simple: it is the business of US Business houses to use the US Government’s resources to- interfere in the rule of other countries, foment coups and revolutions, police, bomb, and spy on millions of people – so that their ventures remain safe, they become richer and become financially freer – with your money.

    Please read Lt Gen Samuel Butler’s “War is a racket” for some timeless answers. They were applicable for the time he wrote about, they are applicable today, with some fascinating adjustment in figures. Inflation, you know!

    Americans lost fathers, brothers, husbands, sons and fiances, just so that Americans companies could retain control over the oil in the Gulf. Had that not happened, there are any number of American intellectuals who would tell you that you would not have been able to afford driving your car. Don’t really know if they lost anyone, the politicians who sent the men out to die certainly protected their own. Why, the Prez who declared the war had an enviable record of service by evading action through the good offices of his powerful father.

  3. Well – that’s why the fundamental problem is unreality.

    We don’t have a firm grasp of what anything costs at all, because risk and reward are separated.
    Soldiers take the risk, politicians take the reward.
    Savers take the risk, borrowers get the reward.
    Good businesses take the risk, bad businesses get the reward.
    Why would’t the people on the good side of the trade want this game to continue?

    Real life has consequences attached to actions.
    Scam someone, and they refuse to do business with you.
    But if you’re the government, you can can keep scamming, because the public is forced to do business with you…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *