President elect Bush, Colon Powell and Condoleezza Rice must handle the hypocrisy of Bill Clinton�s policy in Africa. Long before the Economist magazine came out with the story about America� support of Uganda and Rwanda in the conflict that is now raging in the Congo (DRC), it was well known by most Africa watchers.

How could America push a case against Charles Taylor based on what they describe as blood diamonds and then engage in the support of those forces in the Congo that have caused death and destruction, disease and division in a country as large as the whole western half of the United States.

One American official, Under Secretary of African Affairs Susan Rice, described the conflict in the Great Lakes area of Africa as Africa�s first world war. The problem is that America has weighed in on the side of those forces that are at the root of the conflict, which is mainly Uganda and Rwanda.

The death and destruction in the Congo now affects nine nations. And because of America�s support and supplies to Uganda and Rwanda, she has caused the suffering that has taken place in that area. If America withdraws her support, it would help bring Rwanda and Uganda to a peace table much quicker and perhaps bring those rebel forces that are fighting against the legitimate government in Kinshasa.

When President Clinton made his historic 12-day visit to Africa, at a meeting in Rwanda he apologized for America�s not acting quick enough to save the lives of almost one million people. We would hope that the new American administration would not fail to learn the lessons of history and repeat the tragedy that the Clinton administration allowed to take place in Africa.

Will America stand by again as her money and the supplies and training of soldiers causes the death of another million people in the Congo area. In my opinion, instead of General Colon Powell talking tough about what he will do to Iraq, he needs to talk about cleaning up the mess America has made in the Great Lakes area of Africa.

If Africans could take the American leaders to an international court and charge America for all of her meddling in this area, training and supplying soldiers who have plundered and killed in the Congo area, then America could be the one�along with the Europeans�who could be sued for the death and destruction of the people in the Congo area.

America would have to pay a price not only for the embarrassment of our involvement on the wrong side of an issue, but we have to take into consideration that it would bring up America�s involvement in the killing of Patrice Lumumba, and how America supported a dictator, Mobutu, during the Cold War�a leader who plundered the resources of the country. The support of Mobutu, as we look back on history, was wrong.

President-elect Bush and his African advisors have their work cut out for them. The press in Europe and America has not put one word in their papers about the initiative from Libya to help in the conflict in this area. Muammar Gadhafi and the Libyan people have spent time and money trying to broker a peace deal. He has more success on his behalf in talking to the leaders. He has been able to call them all to Libya to face each other to see how they can best resolve this issue. This was not mentioned in the Economist magazine nor in the western press.

The American public should want to know what is the reason America has put herself in the middle of this conflict? What is the strategic interest of the United States? Theses are the questions that the new administration will have to answer on its policy towards Africa.