to everyone listening today, lead seize this moment to build on our common ground and do it is right for the common good, with vision and hard work but also a history as our guide. i believe our country cram prosper in ways we have never seen before by supporting individual freedoms. we can watch our country grow to new heights and restore the american dream. thank you for listening. >> next the conversation on public policy then anita hill. >> sunday, and look at the economic proposals of the republican presidential candidates. alex brill this followed by

rolan fryer. "washington journal" take your calls and e-mails live at 7:00 a.m. here on c-span. >> it has been almost 30 years when a small group proposed building immoral to honor dr. king. this sunday, once the official dedication of the martin luther king, jr. national memorial in washington, dc live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> george mason university school of public policy hosted a conference this week to discuss public policy and risk your panelists included experts from various universities and organizations. during the conversation, they highlighted the issues facing minorities and how policies have played a role, looking at immigration and voting rights. this is an hour and half. >> we are now ready to begin the

second panel of the day. this is dedicated to international issues. we thought it best to look at both sides of this coin, if you will, and thought it very important to bring in an international aspect. to moderate this discussion will be professor clarence of american university. he is the author of numerous books, so many more to name them i will do here. i do want to mention three of them. the first one is ": paul and condoleezza rice -- "ccolin powell and condoleezza rice."

his most recent book is more domestically oriented. that is "the black history of the white house." with that, i will turn it over to professor lou samlusane. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> hello. can you hear me? ok. welcome to the second panel. it is really good to be here. the first panel this morning set up a very excellent foundation for looking at a lot of work issues related to race and public policy. when i want to offer is that all of those issues, whether we are talking about access to voting or criminal-justice issues, issues related to employment -- all of those issues are global. they affect people at the

bottom who tend to be minorities, people of color around the globe. particularly people of african descent. the issues we are addressing are very much related to these issues here in the united states -- related to these issues here in the united states are very much related globally. i will later talk about a project i am working on related to these issues in brazil. but we go to my colleagues. they will speak for about 10

minutes to 15 minutes each. then we will take your questions and we will have a back-and- forth. first, i would like to introduce professor henry richardson who is a professor at temple university school of law. he is the author of the book "african american origins." our next guest is niikwao

akuetteh. third, we have an african affairs specialist. he is a consistent presence. you can hear him often on international and domestic television he is also a member of the scholars council at transafrica. let's begin with professor richardson. [inaudible]

>> yes? i'm just honored to be here with this distinguished panel. and particularly as it addresses international issues of african-americans, which have a long and contentious history, although it is thought that they have a short and apologetic issue. nothing can be further from the truth. they antedate the birth of the united states as a nation. therefore, the collision of african-american international interest and american public

policy has a very long history, especially when we consider american public policy in that regard as prescribed by the white majority. the black american tradition, which is what i like to call it, encompasses this collision between african-american claims or what i have called claims to outside law and american public policy on north american territory as from the late- 1500's to the present day. that is to say from the earliest revolts against slave revolts in the first spanish forts that were founded on the north american continent. moving into the 20th century, we can talk about selected events,

where international interest intersected with u.s. policy, resulting in important consequences for african- american freedom interests. in the united states, both in limiting international strategies as a source of domestic african-american leverage toward greater rights protection and in extending the potential of such strategies toward greater rights protective leverage in the united states. through all of these events, we can noted continuation of the long historical trend of white dominance antipathy and opposition. sometimes deadly against african-americans framing and invoking the outheir internatiol interests, including a law in situations indicating a

prohibition to do so and where african-americans have called on international 40 and support to better expand and protect their rights in the united states. in fact, that is one reason why i set out to write the book, to examine the origins of this historical antipathy. that antipathy actually extends in various forms of to the present day. let me mention five selected historical events in this connection this is by no means an exhaustive list. let me just list them and i will come back and say a few words about each. first is the support of the united states in 85 for the conference of berlin, the tree

which carved up africa according to the european colonial interest on that continent. even though the united states did not ratify that treaty, it arrived in the united states and it was discussed in the united states as the debate among african-americans about immigration back to africa as opposed to remaining in america to fight equality was reaching its last carminative stage -- last culminative stage. african americans and the ratification of the united

states charter in 1945 and 1946, where african-americans publicly anticipated that the ratification of that particular treaty with its human rights provisions defining a new world order, a major prong of american foreign policy of the time, the that treaty coupled with the supremacy clause of the american constitution, which makes trees the equivalent of federal statutes in domestic u.s. law, would in effect emerge as the first federal civil rights act under the treaty clause, if you will. there was great hope and do supported that hope.

the third such event i would mention is the rise and the global recognition of martin luther king as an international human rights leader in the 1960's. and we can spell out the story. it is rather significant. and it has been undervalued and parallels the story of his greatness in the united states and weaves in and out of that story. the fourth event that i would select is the free south africa movement of the mid-1980's. here we had an african-american organized and led the american mass movement which converted

the struggle in south africa and apartheid into domestic civil rights issue and a number of other impacting doctrinal outcomes with respect to american public policy. lastly, in terms of the curve date, where no african- americans have interest in international law and are beginning to invoke them, if time permits, we can talk about the booming -- talk about the implications of this interest in international law by african- americans regarding important issues of american pluralistic

governance in this country. so now, let me briefly go back to the first event. the treaty of 85, as i said, arrived at the very time that there was a debate about the last stage of the immigration -- the african immigration debate. as the essential next step toward liberation of african- americans in the united states. that treaty divided african american leadership at the time.

a group of leaders who favor of immigration back to africa basically saw that treaty as conveying benefits or potential benefits to africans and also to african peoples and also to african-americans in terms of their both providing and sharing in those benefits in liberia, sierra leone, the congo, and elsewhere. but they were opposed and actually quite intensely by leaders such as frederick douglass who oppose immigration and you held the united states should give no support to african american immigration to africa and african americans should remain in the united states and work to ensure equality and have the united states do justice to its people.

in other words, the treaty of 1885 serve as a fulcrum of discussion about a major collective choice that african- americans had to make between immigration on the one hand and trying to struggle and find equality in the event of states and give up all hope -- any hope of going back to africa as a solution to racism. on the charter on in -- on the charter in the un and african- was aans, dodubois member in san francisco. he was not quite a part of the naacp delegation in san

francisco. but he was also have a part of that delegation. dubois worked tirelessly to ensure that the charter would be as a treat an absolute prohibition of colonialism and he also pushed the notion of the legal authority of the human rights provisions. in a word, the charter was ratified, but under pressure from southern senators who needed to get the charter ratified in the senate, president truman interpreted its human rights provisions as having no legal authority in the united states.

this was an example of the interference of cold war-driven white liberal ship trying to control the african-american leadership, but especially trying to control the extent to which african-americans would internationalize the problems of racism in the united states. part of the fallout from this is that dubois was rejected from because of his insistence on holding that african-americans could not secure their rights in the united states without making common cause with colonized peoples of color around the world.

let me go back to the third set of events, the global recognition of martin luther king as an international human rights leader. in 1960, he supported the south african anc, particularly coming out after the sharpeville massacre. he had followers on that point among blacks and liberal whites alike. if you add the influence of his philosophy on non-violence, you look at him as being awarded the nobel peace prize in 1964 for his american civil rights leadership. that award confirms the global recognition of the u.s. civil rights movement as a global human rights movement. in other words, there had grown

up at this time separate negatives. there was the human rights narrative and the civil rights narrative. there was the human rights narrative outside of the united states, but also the u.n. treaties as part of u.s. law. and the civil rights narrative to constitutional law and the official policy was that near the queen should meet -- that should meet.ween their drive for freedom in the domestic united states by going to human rights law, which is a more rights protected body of thosedin trying to bring rights into the law of the

united states. king picked up this prong of struggle. you can see it in the -- you can hisyoit even more in riverside speech. it may be just as great as his "i have a dream" speech four years before. it has an international law argument about the illegality of the vietnam war. this demonstrates the historic antipathy on the one hand and the public policy determination of the united states throughout

-- i would say since slavery, but certainly in the 20th- century, against the internationalization of the american civil rights movement. leading rider to the civil rights movement, king had shifted much of his focus in the movement from goals of political civil rights to goals of economic rights. the free south africa movement, 1984-1987, we do not write about it much. somehow or another, we might be afraid of its success.

look at what it did. it further internationalized the black community. it took a foreign policy issue away from the reagan demonstration. it forced -- from the reagan administration. it forced congress to support by sanctions black south african workers. it prescribed the emergence of new legal doctrines, including the corporate and organization of duty to divest their stock in corporations that were doing business in apartheid south africa. it prescribed the legal doctrine that trade with systemically a racist country is indeed to give assistance, prohibitive assistance to that

country. and if prescribed the sullivan principles. the sullivan principles, which set standards -- rev. sullivan is a member of the board of directors -- and it would set the first standards to regulate corporations along a human rights set of standards for treatment of their overseas workers, which led to further growth in international law along the lines of greater liability of multinational corporations for human rights violations. the sullivan principles became a template for an opening of international law to regulate

human rights standards. we have now and we have had, because of the combination of these events and many others -- we know that effort commit -- african-americans know that they have interest in international law. what implications does this have? one implication is that america must run its foreign policy and washington must relate to the hinterlands and its population differently. now washington is relating to a population where each minority group has its own international jurisprudence. the genie is already out a bottle. and african-americans developing their own international law

interest have led the way here. this means that on the other important questions that concern whether or not a particular american foreign policy interest will abide by or be characterized under international law as opposed to being characterized under executive discretionary power politics or being characterized under some other form of executive discretion or being characterize only to the limits of federal statutes that this particular question of bringing in international law is no longer subject to the monopolistic control by washington. washington increasingly will have to convince african americans, latinos, other minorities of color that the exclusion of standards of

accountability under international law, such as with respect to torture, that the exclusion of rights protected regulation under international law that would benefit african- americans here in the united states is justified in some value terms rather than justified by some kind of preemptive constitutional interpretation. that i believe will have large interest in the future as the previous panel mentioned. and as the demographic of the united states changes and as society does not become a dominant leapredominately white. international law within the

united states has invoked by domestic groups, particularly by domestic minorities, is necessarily going to play a role and must play a role with respect to washington's foreign policy making. so let me stop there. >> i want to say thank you. i am very appreciative to be here today. a conference about race and public policy makes a lot of sense for us to talk about haiti in this context. if we look to starkly and more recently, we can see that racism has always defined policy toward haiti. i will take a couple of examples from history and then talk a little bit more about the post- earthquake haiti situation and u.s. immigration policy toward haitians. historically, the united states

has been considered the first independent nation in the americans. although most of us are aware that, at the time the u.s. declared its independence, there were three and a 60,000 people living in slavery. if you go to any encyclopedia, it is likely to tell you that the first country to abolish slavery was england. but in reality, it was haiti. after a 12-year revolutionary war, in 18 04, haitians declared their independence and abolished slavery. the black slaves of haiti defeated napoleon bonaparte's burress army and europe never forgave the humiliation. sthis was an error that was clearly defined by racism -- this was an era that was clearly defined by racism. it defeated the strongest army

in the world. it was never treated as an equal independent country at that time. it was seen as a threat to the security of all the nation's that were still practicing slavery. even though it was a free nation throughout the 19th century, he was treated as this threat. it was required to pay france in reparation of 150 million francs. these preparations were actually for the property that france and french people have lost during the revolution, in other words, the haitians themselves. this put haiti into a very theervient position anin economy of the time. haiti was not allowed to trade equally and fairly at the time. it was considered insecure for foreign creditors. these were the same creditors that he had taken loans from and

a crusade that in order to pay reparations for the property lost to the french. the marines occupied haiti for 19 years. washington rewrote the haitian constitution. a lot of changes were made to the haitian economy, such as the central asian of the economy to the port-au-prince, as well as foreign ownership for the first time allowed by land and property in the country, which had impact on first -- on food security in the 20th-century. these are just a couple of public policy issues that affected haiti is directly where we can see very clearly that race played a role. i want to talk today about the earthquake response and how it was colored by a series of assumptions about patients. i do not think it would shock anyone in this and to say that haiti is most frequently referred to as the poorest country in the western hemisphere. it is considered to be chaotic,

and security -- insecure, wracked with political violence, and images of haiti that we're all accustomed to seeing. and when they earthquake first happened, this sort of expectation about the culture and the people of haiti, these assumptions really colored the response. so the first response to haiti's earthquake was a military spawns. in the first days following the earthquake, the united states took control of haiti's one international airport. italy has won one running in a country that is large enough -- if only has one runway. there was an expectation that violence could break out at any moment. so priority was given to amending military equipment and military personnel pin some of us who were working as first responders noted that what we needed was gauze, not guns. but what was prioritized was

military response. we know that mainstream media sensationalizes the haitian people. we saw that the real first responders were haitians themselves. but whenever the media caught an image of a haitian carrying a machete or racial down the street looking to find loved ones in the rubble, they were defined as looters. the united states military control the airport and it was a disadvantage to the victims of the earthquake. we had a lot of haitian doctors on the ground who did not have the supplies they needed to give people the year to care. there were amputations been done without the proper tools. invitations were done without anesthetics or other types of medicine needed. sometimes, these were not even necessary habitations, but it was the only route to take because of lack of materials. beyond landing military

personnel and equipment before doctors, there was a system set up to decide who would get access to the runway. it was a random entry system. leave a message on a voice mail system requesting clearance to land your airplane at the port- au-prince airport. sooner or later, someone would get back to you. i had the privilege of going to speak with members of the congressional black caucus only nine days after the earthquake. i sat at the table with representative bobby rush who had a constituent of his who had a full team of surgeons with donated equipment and supplies and donated private helicopters. all they needed was clearance to land on the ground so they could assist a community where they had a twin pairs where they had -- a twin parish where they had been working for many years. they could i get approval to get in. they turned to me. we have already left a message on the voice mail system.

nobody ever called us back. eventually come others were prioritized before this team to the team lost their private helicopters and were never able to land. however, john travolta landed on the runway the very next day with a team of psychologists who arrived to proselytize the haitians in the wake of the earthquake. this was the united states response initially. it is not the same as the american public response, which was extremely generous. we know now the statistics of how many thousands and hundreds of thousands of american families donated to the response. but the humanitarian response set up on the ground was a way that was very exclusive and exclusionary of the haitians themselves. i want to talk a little bit about the united nations in this context. initially and to this day, the humanitarian response was based on the united nations logistical

base. it reinforces the message that haitians were a dangerous other. as one observer noted, regardless of what is real or perceived, people act according to their perceptions. a lot of well-meaning foreign aid workers, a lot of young and inexperienced or experience in other parts of the world and had never been to haiti before were being flown into haiti on short- term contracts to a military base behind guarded walls. this is where they did work in the relief and recovery effort. they quickly felt the state needed protection from earthquake victims. they had seen these images of the haitian people. aid workers refused to do distributions of lifesaving food and water without either united states or united nations military there to accompany them. even with military

accompaniment, many times they would fail because there was no communication happening with haitians. a truck load of supplies would show up with foreign aid workers. they would stop, the military would get out and surround the vehicle, and then amalia would ensue as people were desperate to get these supplies -- and then a melee would ensue as people were desperate to get these supplies. we also saw a racist sense of security pervasive in the security measures that were set up around these foreign aid workers. they were taken from place to place in expensive suvs with drivers that doubled as bodyguards. there were not allowed to walk on the streets for the tent camps where these people were living. some of the aid agencies were managing camps in red zones of the city. the aid workers were not allowed to get out of cars in those zones. i knew a woman who would roll up to a camp and rolled down her window to talk to the haitians

were managing the scams because she was not allowed to step foot out of her car in that area where -- managing the camps because she was not allowed to step foot out of her car in that area. there had never been any chaos. there had never been a riot. there had never been any evidence that the haitian people were on the verge of a violent meltdown. the united states osha system really solidified the exclusion of haitians. not only wasn't behind these massive well-guarded walls of the united nations lydgate -- allegis obeys, but haitians were initially determined -- united nations logistical walls, but haitians were initially determined not to be allowed to participate in their own aid.

we saw first response coming from haitians, but the four military response was that they could not be involved in the relief and recovery policies. but the military response was that they could not be involved in the relief and recovery policies. they were repeatedly refused entry to base even though they have the proper credentials. i had a paper that i printed for my computer and laminated at a local store and i never once had a problem with papers. a haitian american, dreadlocks, very professional, she could not get on to the log base, unless she waited outside on the road and hopped into my car. if i drove through the gate and

flashed my card, she never had a problem getting onto the base. for those who did manage to get on base, they found themselves surrounded by foreigners. the meetings were held in english, which is a language that the haitians do not meet. eventually, the language was french, which is also not the predominant language in haiti. they speak creole. very quickly, we saw homeless earthquake victims, families that had gone to live in the parks and public places of port- au-prince -- initially, there were 1.5 million internally displaced people -- they quickly became referred to as squatters and trespassers by the humanitarian aid workers who were part of the system. because people were coming in on these contracts, they were held to these crazy security

standards and never interacted with the haitian people. it was really easy for people to believe the myth that patients and other people to go and that they were not really displaced and living in these camps just to take advantage of the aid that was offered to them there. i just want to talk a little bit about the united nations peacekeeping mission that actually predated the earthquake. this is a very symbolic -- it is a potent symbol. the peacekeeping mission that was imposed in haiti in 2004 was put in place despite the fact that there was no war, no warring factions or armed factions. there were no peace accords to monitor. so this was the first time there was a peacekeeping mission put into a country that was at peace already. it was deemed that he was a threat to the security of its neighbors. this is mainly because of a constant flow of economic refugees. these are people were leaving

the country because of deep- seated social and economic problems, not because of violent armed conflict. the united nations peacekeeping mission, which is known by its french acronym, has been in haiti now for seven years. it cost $7 billion, yet it has not yet succeeded in its original mandate, which is to train 14,000 haitian national police to provide security for the people of haiti. this year, the budget is $865 million, yet there are only 7000 haitian police seven years later. it is also important to note that this budget is five times the budget that the united nations tried to raise to fight cholera. that is an epidemic that entered the country it through the peacekeeping soldiers. since the earthquake, i hope i have illustrated that the response has been deeply colored by race. there has been no participation

of haitians, from the lowest to highest levels of the recover response. we can even look at the interim a recovery mission, which is cochaired by bill clinton and there have been times where the haitian members that launched their complaints formerly in the official letters say that they literally were not given a seat at the table during the board of directors' meetings in the corporate average commission. as i demonstrated, haitian people working in civil society organizations, grassroots-based organizations, haitian ngos, there were not able to go in and participate in the meetings. finally, we can look at the fact that asian companies are not receiving the reconstruction contracts -- that haitian companies are not receiving the reconstruction contracts. these decisions are being made not by the people most affected by the earthquake, rather by people here in washington for the most part. the last public policy issue that i must address is the u.s.

immigration policy toward haitians. there has been a desperate -- a disparate treatment of patients for quite some time. certainly, there is the example of cubans verses haitians. if cubans arrived on the shore, they can stay in the united states where as haitians are systematically return to haiti despite the fact that over 600,000 people are still living in camps, despite the fact that there's still a cholera epidemic raging in the cans, and so little money that has been disbursed has reached the ground. and now we have haitians fighting for family reunification program, one that was granted in 2007. it allows patients who are already legitimately and lawfully living here in the united states can apply for their minor children and their

spouses to come and live with them. if they are approved, they can be paroled here in the united states rather than being in a waiting cycle in haiti where conditions are rather harsh. there are 16,000 minor children and spouses who are legally here in the united states who could benefit from the family reunification program and 25,000 cubans have already benefited when it was passed for them in 2007. i just want to say to wrap up -- i do not just want to leave you with this harsh analysis and not say that there are solutions that we very much can support right now. one is to support the family reunification parole program for patients. it would have an impact immediately. it would have remittances going back to haiti where families are struggling everyday to rebuild their lives since the earthquake. the has to be a timeline to read -- to withdraw the united

nations peacekeeping mission. it has to fulfil its mandate and have some concrete bench marks. once you reach these points, you have to pull out. we have not seen a military solution work for the security in haiti. there are escalating gender- based violence happening in the camps of these people. soldiers cannot fight that. which you need is a well trained police force. i think we need to refocus the project on haitians. they need to normally be given the funds and the contracts, but the decision-making power to decide what will happen next. and we need to combat the media stereotype that paints haiti with a broad stroke that is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. i have lived there for seven years now and i have never

feared for my security. at transafrica, we want to engage africans more with u.s. policy. in order to impact this net of public policy that comes out of racism, we must have african- americans who are actively engaged in our foreign policies so that it reflects the kinds of values and human rights values that we really hold dear. thank you. >> thank you very much. i want to start off by thanking dr. fauntroy. i also want to tell the audience that there are a couple of things to be noted. [inaudible] i thought he would eventually revealed that he and i are

friends. we met during the free south africa movement. [inaudible] everyone here has talked about that. the way i interpreted the invitation and the focus, i think the conference theme is just great. public policy and race and the search for issues and solutions. i am focusing on africa, the african continent. i am sure you noticed my accent. i was born in ghana. when i look, there are so many different instances where race in packs u.s. policy toward

africa. i said, look, i will take just one instance and make it a case study. then i also said that i am particularly struck that foreign policy and in padilla is driven by public opinion, public sentiment. i also thought that i should talk about the impact -- i mean, the instance of race and how the mainstream media covers and does not cover africa. i thought i would take just this one case study in each instance. but as i started to put down points, the list kept growing of where you can see policy issues

where race is such a dominant factor. so i want to look at the way she approached it and put down a couple of things. i'm hoping that in the q&a, i can expand on these. of course, the free south africa movement was all about the apartheid system in south africa. transafrica is like my family. i have so many -- no one should say that the free south africa movement here and the anti- apartheid act of 1986 freed south africa. south africans free themselves. but what u.s. policy did in 1986 with the free south africa movement was to remove and support from the apartheid

government where it had been until then, until law was passed. you look at different u.s. administrations. all of them found excuses to do little or nothing above why it had this horrible system in place. if you want to give a little bit credit, you could say that jimmy carter was a little bit less supportive of the apartheid regime than the other u.s. administrations. going beyond the government, you could give robert kennedy some credit. but the point is that washington was pretty supportive of the authority of the regime until when things got really bad and the free south africa movement said it was wrong for this

government to be on the wrong side of this issue. so this is very much an issue that was dominated by racism. the second one cover is a pretty long space of time. rhodesia and mugabe, once again, the united states, when it came to the independence of zimbabwe and the rhodesian war, it took the usa long time to be on the side of the freedom fighters in rhodesia. finally, when the u.s. had no choice, it decided that independence in rhodesia and zimbabwe would be tolerable. but these days, if you read the media stories, you will see that

robert mugabe is in the dog house. but he did not get into the u.s. media doghouse until 1990, 10 years later. i think you need to look at what prompted those issues and would put him in the dog has, what made him a pariah in the west. it had something to do with the fact that, after being promised by washington and london that he would be given funds to take ,ack for the zimbabwean sais suddenly he became a bad person. somalia is in the news now as we speak, but in all of these instances, i think it is important to reflect on what led it to this place. in somalia, if you go to youtube

now and search fox and clinton, you will see when clinton was interviewed by chris wallace. it was maybe a year and a half ago. the thing the strikes me is that i remember the very first year he took office in 1993, president bush 41, george h.w. bush, and he sent troops into somalia on a humanitarian mission. as soon as clinton took over, senator jesse helms led a group of senators to say we want our soldiers out of somalia. i remember the language they use struck me.

the presence of an american soldier in somalia, there's great pressure on president clinton to pull out. the fact that it descended into war with blackrock down did not improve the situation. -- with black hawk down did not improve the situation. but somalia has descended to this day to where the country is split and there is fighting and there's chaos and it has something to do with the policy that if this is an african country, we do not want u.s. troops there even saving lives. the argument made by senator helms and others -- if you go on youtube now, the clip is there. and president clinton was arguing with chris wallace because chris wallace was making

the charge that mr. clinton needs to be blamed for 9/11 because he did not have a strong policy in the middle east starting with somalia and mr. clinton pushed back and said that you forget that you republicans said that i should not be in somalia. the next thing no one to look at is u.s. policy towards rwanda today. the president of rwanda today -- the united states is one of its closest allies. i happen to think that he is a dictator and that the u.s. has no business supporting african dictators. when i come to listing one of two things to be done, solutions, i want to return to this point. and i should have said at the beginning that, in looking at u.s. policy toward africa, i am confining myself of course to

the last 50 years since africa became independent. to me, the striking part that you see in u.s. policy toward african countries is the shocking closeness of washington being allies with so many dictators. perhaps the biggest poster child is mobutu in condo who was there for 37 years. it was part of the cold war struggle. when i look at u.s. foreign policy, what i am looking to see is an achievement of mutual interest. u.s. interest and african interests. therefore, it seems to me that u.s. support for dictators and africa -- none of them have a

good record -- if supportive dictators would help othe them, it should be a shining example. this category of foreign policy, chains by racism, if you look at the history of the current government of rwanda, the president of rwanda, he has been involved in several wars. many people have died. millions of congolese have died, probably 5 million to 6 million, depending on who was counting. i find it hard to believe that, in any other situation, a person who has been involved in that kind of bloodshed would be a close u.s. ally. finally,