A Post-INF Nuclear World

Summaiya Khan

President Donald Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty raising complex security concerns with ramifications that could upset an already fractious global nuclear weapons environment.

Background

Despite the 1987 Treaty making a considerable amount of progress, it was not insulated from the mutual trust deficit that emblematised the Cold War era, which continues to this day. The first claims of non-compliance arose under President Obama, with the US alleging in its July 2014 Compliance Report that Russia was in violation of its INF Treaty obligations “not to possess, produce, or flight-test” a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 500 to 5,500 km or “to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.” In March 2017, a top US official confirmed press reports that Russia had begun deploying the non-compliant missile. On 20 October 2018, President Trump announced his intention to “terminate” the INF Treaty, citing Russian non-compliance and concerns about China’s intermediate-range missile arsenal. On 2 February 2 2019, the Trump administration finally declared a suspension of US obligations under the INF Treaty and formally announced its intention to withdraw in six months.

This move by the US has led to Russia officially announcing the suspension of its treaty obligations.

Implications

The abrogation of the INF Treaty by both the US and Russia legitimises the deployment of intermediate range missiles. It also brings into question the future of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which is to expire soon.  

According to the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), Beijing is steaming forward with the expansion of its cruise missile arsenal, potentially neutralising the capability of US warships that could seek to approach the Chinese coastline during a standoff. The US pullout from the INF will allow it the opportunity to balance China’s nuclear capability by re-enforcing its missile capability in the Pacific region. China is currently equipped with sophisticated cruise missiles that can be launched from land, air, sea, and sub-surface platforms. Returning to intermediate range systems will equip US forces with the ability to strike targets that are highly difficult to penetrate for conventional weapons. This will inevitably lead to the strengthening of a global arms race.

There are very clear implications for Europe as well, which faces an immediate threat with the disavowal of the INF. The Treaty required the former Soviet Union to renounce hundreds of missiles directed towards Western Europe. With its termination, Russia is no longer bound by this condition. Of particular relevance is the 9M728 (SSC-7) cruise missile, a part of the Russian Iskander-M tactical missile system. Iskander-M missiles were recently deployed to Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave, within clear reach of parts of NATO members, which is likely only to exacerbate tensions further. The SSC-8 and SSC-7 both use ballistic and cruise systems and with slight adjustment to the flight trajectory, can strike targets in most of Europe.

Russia, for its part, has expressed concerns about the US missile defence system in eastern Europe that can also be used to fire cruise missiles, using targets for missile defence tests with similar characteristics to INF Treaty-prohibited intermediate range missiles, and making armed drones that are equivalent to ground-launched cruise missiles.

To sum up, the dissolution of the INF Treaty by the US and Russia will only contribute to the strengthening of Cold War hostilities. The US will face a litmus test as a security provider, whether it is in Asia or Europe. Russia, China and the US will further resort to the vertical proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the stockpiling of missiles by each of these countries will be to gain a sense of one-upmanship, rather than deterrence, which has traditionally been the norm.Symbolically, this withdrawal from the INF casts the US in a new light – as that of an irresponsible nuclear weapons state, which is at odds with the narrative that has existed until now, that is its its role as a responsible actor in the global nuclear environment.

Liberal International Order and its Discontents

Lydia Walker

In the past two years, in response to the activities and rhetoric of the current US presidential administration, a slew of prominent voices in the study of international relations have bemoaned the demise of an international order, of US power utilised through international institutions and multilateral alliances.An advertisement published in The New York Times in June 2018, and a subsequent petition that continues to circulate online, signed by a broad coalition of well-respected international relations scholars promoted this perspective. These are people whose work has shaped the field of international relations to such a degree that their names bear no small weight. Therefore, the petition became emblematic of a perspective that a liberal international order has been in existence for a significant portion of the 20th century, that its continued existence is under threat, and that this threat creates significant urgency. Due to the stature and number of the scholars signing their names to this point of view, I will call them ‘the consensus’.

In response, as is usual in academic debates, particularly those drawing on real-world events, a group of scholars critiqued the consensus. They pointed out the a-historical elision of post-1945 institutions such as the UN and NATO with post-1990s institutions such as the EU and World Trade Organisation (WTO). They asked, has there ever really been a liberal international order, an international system that was ‘liberal’, ‘international’, and ‘ordered’? Why had the US chosen multilateralism in Europe and bilateral treaties in Asia? Could ‘liberal’ be replaced with ‘American’ in notions of a liberal international order? And see how this international order reflected the projection of US’ economic and military power alongside certain sets of norms and politics? An excellent over-view of this debate is in a recent podcast with Samuel Moyn and Jack Goldsmith.

I presented the debate between the consensus and the critique to a cluster of junior and senior scholars at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in New Delhi in December 2018. There, there was no debate. From the perspective of Indian foreign relations since independence and Non-Alignment, through to the economic liberalisation of the 1990s, the narrative of a liberal international order had always been, to paraphrase Stephen Wertheim, US nationalism without the name, and US internationalism without solidarity. This was old news for those who studied and participated in international relations from an Indian perspective. It is not accidental that another US critic of the alleged demise of an alleged liberal international order is Paul Staniland, who has extensive research experience in South Asia.

As with many academic debates, this one seems low stakes compared to the urgent global crises of rights, refugees, violence and environmental change—even as the debate is in direct response to these issues. When I presented this debate in Delhi, I expected the discussion would grow heated, and through those sparks to gain illumination. I was drawn to the debate as both a citizen (of the US) and as a scholar of the gaps in institutions of international order and of the peoples these institutions have been designed to exclude. But what was illuminating in Delhi was the agreement, the lack of debate, about a set of issues that on another side of the world merited contestation. In Delhi, the critique of liberal international order was the consensus.

What does it say about the current US debate about liberal international order that there is no debate in Delhi? What other debates in international relations might benefit from greater understanding of how US power has been viewed from those who see (and feel) it from beyond its national borders?These questions are not simply pleas for empathy and awareness, though that would not be misplaced. Rather they are a push for understanding how strategies, and their surrounding discourses—such as notions of a post Second World War liberal international order—reflect a US-centrism both in its consensus and its critique.

In his keynote at the January 2019 All-India International and Area Studies Convention, current international relations scholar and past international relations practitioner Shivshankar Menon made the case for improving the study of international relations in India. He mentioned how most analysts of Indian international relations and Indian international history—Indian and non-Indian—receive their training outside India, mostly in the US and UK. This point also works both ways—study of international relations and its history that does not take western-oriented debates, theories, and political geographies as its point of departure is as necessary for scholars based in the global north as in the global south. This is not an original proposal. Yet the fact that debate on one side of the world is consensus on the other, shows that it remains an open proposition.

Zawadi Africa Education Fund Undergraduate Scholarship for Women 2019

Application Deadline: 5th April 2019

Offered Annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Mozambique

About the Award: Zawadi Africa Education Fund is a leadership development program that provides university scholarships and leadership development and life skills training to academically gifted but financially disadvantaged African girls, with the objective of developing a pipeline of young African women leaders.

Zawadi Africa was formed with the belief that together with a world class education and the right character development, these young African women will be able to return to their home countries empowered and equipped with the skills needed to make significant, positive impact in their communities in a continent where traditionally women have not had a voice in the development of their community.

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply for this scholarship, the following criteria must be met:

• A girl who has completed her secondary school examination i.e. The Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination (KCSE)
• Has demonstrated academic excellence (A Plain or A Minus)
• Has demonstrated leadership qualities e.g. in school as a prefect, in the community, church, leadership in peer related activities etc.
• Has overcome insurmountable odds such as serious financial challenges, oppressive social-cultural practices such as early marriages and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) etc. in order to attain academic excellence.
• Come from a financially disadvantaged background.
• Has demonstrated clear financial need

Selection Criteria: includes excellent academics, extracurricular involvement, leadership potential and financial need.

Selection: The Admission decision is entirely dependent on the Universities’ Admission Boards. Shortlisted candidates will be called for an interview a month after the deadline of this application.

How to Apply: Application this year is for Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique. Deadline is April 5th, 2019.

1. If you meet the above criteria, ensure that you download and complete every part of the application form. Your application will only be considered if it completely filled.
2. Attach a one page biography and a passport photo. The biography should be TYPED and highlight your family and educational background, your aspirations, financial status, as well as hobbies and activities that you have undertaken while in school and in your community.
3. Attach a 500-650 word essay on ONLY ONE of three topics listed on page seven.
4. Attach a copy of your high school leaving certificate and K.C.S.E result slip as well as copies of high school certificates that show your involvement in extracurricular activities and leadership related initiatives.
5. Attach a signed recommendation letter from your class teacher or head teacher.
6. Attach a copy of your birth certificate and your National Identity Card (if you have one).
7. Attach a letter from your local chief confirming his knowledge of your family and yourself. The letter should preferably be written on a government letter headed document.
8. Any false statements, omissions or forged documents will lead to automatic disqualification.
9. 9. Submit a Hard Copy of this application form and the required supporting documents on or before the deadline (6th April, 2018) to the designated offices written in the application forms.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

IWMF Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship 2019 for Female Journalists (Funded to MIT, Boston USA)

Application Deadline: 7th March 2019

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts

About the Award: The Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship provides academic and professional opportunities to advance the reporting skills of women journalists who focus on human rights and social justice.
The Neuffer Fellowship is designed for affiliated or freelance women journalists with at least three years of professional experience in journalism working in print, broadcast, or digital media.
The Fellow will complete research and coursework at MIT’s Center for International Studies and journalism internships at The Boston Globe and The New York Times.
The flexible structure of the program will provide the fellow with opportunities to pursue academic research and hone her reporting skills.
Past fellows have taken advantage of opportunities to publish work under their byline through various media outlets.

Type: Fellowship (Career)

Eligibility: 

• The Elizabeth Neuffer Fellowship is open to women journalists worldwide whose work focuses on human rights and social justice issues.
• Journalists working in print, broadcast and/or Internet-based media, including freelancers, are eligible to apply.
• Applicants must have a minimum of three years professional experience working full-time in news media. Internships do not count toward professional experience.
• All nationalities are welcome to apply but non-native English speakers must have excellent written and verbal English skills in order to fully participate in and benefit from the program.

Selection: The fellow will be selected by a committee made up of family and friends of Elizabeth Neuffer and IWMF Advisory Council members. Consideration of candidates will be based on their complete applications, the caliber and promise of their reporting on human rights and social justice issues, and their personal statements explaining how the fellowship would be a transformative experience for their careers. Finalists for the fellowship may be interviewed by the IWMF and the Fellowship selection committee.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Fellowship: 

• A fixed monthly stipend will be provided to cover housing, meals, and ground transportation during the fellowship.
• Round-trip economy airfare will be purchased from the fellow’s place of residence to Washington, D.C., and from Washington, D.C., to the fellowship city.
• The fellow will receive health insurance during the program.
• The fellowship does not include a salary.
• For fellows residing outside of the United States, the fellowship also covers the costs of applying for and obtaining a U.S. visa.
• The fellow will be fully responsible for any additional incidental expenses and other costs.

During this fellowship, the selected journalist will have the chance to complete research and coursework at MIT’s Center for International Studies and participate in internships with media outlets including The Boston Globe and The New York Times. The flexible structure of the program allows Fellows to pursue academic research and hone reporting skills. Past Fellows have taken advantage of opportunities to publish work under their bylines through various media outlets. Fellows have explored a wide range of under-reported issues including gender-based violence, indigenous rights, and religious intolerance.

Duration of Fellowship: Seven months

How to Apply: Submit a complete online application form with the following information in link below.

Visit Fellowship Webpage for details

Award Provider:  The Boston Globe, New York Times,

Important Notes: Family members are welcome to accompany the fellow. However, the IWMF will not be responsible for any arrangements or expenses related to the travel and residence of family members, including support of visa applications.

Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders Awards 2019. USD10,000 Prize + Online Recognition

Application Deadline: 15th April 2019

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders awards are the global awards for local peacebuilding run by Peace Direct. Awarded annually, they offer international recognition for grassroots peace activists in conflict-affected countries worldwide. These are inspiring individuals who are building a better tomorrow for their communities, in the world’s most fragile and needy places.

This year, there will also be a photography prize to celebrate photos that illustrate the theme of ‘local peacebuilding’. The winning entry will receive $1,000 of camera equipment for the photo that best illustrates local peacebuilding in action, or best communicates this theme.

Previous winner Gatwal Gatkouth from Uganda said: “The Tomorrow’s Peacebuilders Awards means so much to my organisation. It marks a new beginning that outlines the fact that, no matter how small one starts an initiative, if the intentions are good, the world one day honours their efforts. We started very small, with so much passion, and before long Peace Direct put our work on the spotlight. We now have a very solid footing for 2019 and we anticipate to scale up our peace building work deep into the grassroots communities.”

One prize is available in each of the three categories below:

• Women-led Peacebuilding
• Youth-led Peacebuilding
• Inter-Religious Peacebuilding

Offered Since: 2013

Type: Contests/Awards

Eligibility: These are global awards. There is no geographical restriction on applications. In order to be eligible to enter, you must:

• Undertake peacebuilding work – your organisation is either a peacebuilding organisation or has peacebuilding as a substantial element of your work.
• Be locally based – your organisation must be based in the country or communities where your work will be done. If your organisation operates in multiple countries, you are not eligible to enter. (Note cross-border projects are eligible.)
• Be an independent organisation, not an in-country or satellite organisation of an international NGO.
• Be working, or planning to work, in at least one of the following thematic areas: women-led peacebuilding; youth-led peacebuilding; or inter-religious peacebuilding.

Selection Process: Peacebuilders strongly recommends applying as early as possible. Peacebuilders will review applications as they are submitted to ensure they are complete and correct, therefore early applications enjoy this advantage and a greater chance of success.

Number of Awardees: 3 organisations

Value of Award: The winners receive global publicity and cash prizes. They are chosen by an international panel of experts including distinguished practitioners, political figures and media. Each winning entry will receive:
·         $10,000 prize funding for peacebuilding activities.
·         Promotion of their work online, including on the Insight on Conflict and Peace Direct websites and newsletters

How to Apply: Entry Forms can be found Here
Send completed applications by following the applic4ation procedure (See in Award Webpage link below).

Visit Award Webpage for details


Award Provider: Peace Direct

USADF-All On Nigeria Off-Grid Energy Challenge 2019

Application Deadline: 15th March 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries


About the Award: The Off-Grid Energy Challenge was launched in 2013 to bring affordable and renewable energy to rural communities across Africa. Since 2013, over $7 million has been invested in 75 energy entrepreneurs in 9 countries to provide off-grid energy solutions to rural communities

The Off-Grid Energy Challenge awards grants of up to $100,000 each to African enterprises providing off-grid solutions that deploy renewable resources and power local economic activities.  Challenge winners will have near-term solutions to power the needs of productive and commercial activities, including agriculture production and processing, off-farm businesses, and commercial enterprises.

Through the Challenge, USADF and its partners, including All On, General Electric (GE), and Power Africa support energy entrepreneurs in 9 countries across the continent, including Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia. To date, USADF has funded over 75 African energy entrepreneurs, totaling an investment of $7 million in off-grid energy solutions.

Type: Contest, Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 

• Applicants should be developing, scaling up or extending energy technologies to off-grid areas of Nigeria.
• applicants must be 100% African-owned, majority Nigerian-owned and managed private companies registered in Nigeria, and must be operating in Nigeria.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Maximum award US $100,000

How to Apply: 

• DOWNLOAD THE APPLICATION AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (Links in the Program Webpage Link below)
• In order to apply, applicants should submit the below application template, as well as the required attachments, to OffGridChallengeNigeria@usadf.gov by March 15, 2019.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue (BETD) Media Fellowship 2019 for Journalists – All expenses paid

Application Deadline: 24th February 2019

Eligible Countries: All


To be taken at (country): Germany

About the Award: On 9–10 April 2019, the German Government invites the world to the annual inspiring dialogue on the global energy transition, the Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue (#betd2019). Every year, high-level participants from politics, industry, science and civil society gather in Berlin for two days to discuss the shift to a sustainable energy system. This year’s focus will be on:
• shifting geopolitics,
• integrated energy transition,
• structural change
• and digitalisation and blockchain.  

Type: Workshop, Fellowship

Eligibility:

Number of Awards: Limited

Value of Award: The BETD Media Fellowship allows young journalists from around the world to come to Berlin and
• gain access to this exclusive conference,
• talk to high-level global energy stakeholders,
• connect with the other BETD Media Fellows,
• and experience the energy transition hands-on with exclusive guided tours and side events during the Berlin Energy Week (8–12 April 2019).

During the conference, the BETD Media Fellows will report on the conference sessions through
• social media channels, especially Twitter,
• video clips, interviews and reports,
• and the official website.
In addition, BETD Media Fellows will have the opportunity to submit photos, stories and interviews and to report on energy-related stories from their own countries.

The German Government will cover travel costs including board and lodging.

Duration of Programme: 8–12 April 2019
How to Apply: 

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage (see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Award Provider: Germany Government

Estonian Government Short Course Scholarships for International Students 2019/2020

Application Deadline: 19th March 2019

Offered annually? Yes


Eligible Countries: International

To be taken at (University): 

• University of Tartu
• Tallinn University
• Tallinn University of Technology
• Courses in Estonian Academy of Arts

About the Award: The scholarships are intended to support participation in summer courses of Estonian language and culture as well as in courses of summer and winter schools related to the English-language curricula of degree study in Estonia.

Type: Short Courses.

Eligibility: 

• The stipend is available for students of Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctoral studies in foreign universities who are actively involved in the studies at the time of application and have been studying at university for at least one year.
• During the period of payment of grant the scholarship recipient should stay in Estonia.
• The candidate should pre-register to the course for applying for the scholarship.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The scholarship is used to reimburse up to 500 EUR of the course fee and accommodation costs of 25 EUR per day for a maximum of 28 days per secondment in a calendar year.

How to Apply: In case of short courses the following documents shall be submitted (Application period is from 19.02.2019 to 19.03.2019):

• application form and motivation letter through online application system (please register to start the application);
• confirmation of admission from the organising higher education institution in Estonia (can be sent by e-mail) or confirmation of submission of required admission documents;
• confirmation of registration from home university containing information on the applicant’s level of study, normal period of studies and progress towards the degree;
• copy of passport or ID-card.

All documents should be in English or Estonian.
All documents should be in English or Estonian. Documents must be translated to any of these languages if the language of issuance is different. The foundation has the right to require the additional documents. Submitted documents will be not returned to the applicant. The applications which are not full complicated, drawn up as required, include false information or arrive with delay are not assessed.

The application system link: https://taotlused.archimedes.ee/EN/pub_login.php. Please register in order to start the application.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details


Award Provider: Estonian Government

US Racism and Imperialism Fuel Turbulence in Haiti

W.T. Whitney Jr.

Beginning on February 7, Haitians have been in the streets protesting against corruption, high prices, shortages, inflation, and power outages. Demonstrators are demanding that President Jovenel Moïse, in power since January 2017, resign. Moïse blames the disturbances on “armed groups and drug traffickers” and is calling for negotiation.

Facing police brutality, masses of Haitians have blocked roads, stoned officials, burned vehicles, and ransacked stores; nine are dead and over 100 wounded. Food and drinkable water are scarce.  The United States withdrew non-emergency diplomatic representatives and issued travel warnings. The Trump administration indicated humanitarian aid may be on the way.

Haitians protested massively in October, 2018 after the highly indebted government raised gasoline prices.  It was complying with instructions from the International Monetary Fund in order to obtain low-interest loans. The protests forced a reversal of the price hike and continued.

Currently the Haitian people’s main complaint is corruption arising out of a 2006 oil deal with Venezuela. Haiti, led by President René Préval,was one of 17 countries joining Venezuela’s Petrocaribe project. The agreement called for Haiti to pay for 60 percent of the oil within 90 days and the remainder after 25 years at 1% interest. Haiti presently owes Venezuela $2 billion.

The government sold the oil to private entities and accumulated some $4 billion in funds. The idea was to use the money for sanitation, health care, education, infrastructure, and agricultural innovations. Needs mounted after the 2010 earthquake.

The funds were “misused, misappropriated, or embezzled by government officials and their cronies,” according to reports released by the Haitian Senate in 2017.  Money flowed into the coffers of President Moïse’s business and into the hands of leaders of the political party formed by Michel Martelly, Moïse’s predecessor as President.

Haiti’s involvement with PetroCaribe ended in October 2017. U.S. anti-Venezuela sanctions had prevented Haiti from paying on its oil bill with Venezuela – or “gave them a golden excuse not to,” according to close Haiti observer Kim Ives. “Life in Haiti,” he writes, “which was already extremely difficult, now became untenable.” Ives castigates Haiti’s January 10 vote at the Organization of American States as “cynical betrayal by Moïse and his cronies.” That day Haiti supported a U.S. motion declaring President Maduro’s Venezuelan government to be “illegitimate.” Ives asserts that for deeply unhappy Haitians, “treachery against the Venezuelans after their exemplary solidarity … was the last straw.”

These troubles play out amid social disaster. For example, some 80 percent of Haitians live in poverty. Income inequality in Haiti, as reflected by the Gini index,rates as the world’s fourth most extreme case. Life expectancy ranks 154^th in the world, And 40 percent of Haitians depend on agricultural income, while 80 percent of farms can’t feed families living on them.

This account now turns to background information. To begin:  Michel Martelly became president courtesy of the U.S. government. Taking advantage of heightened distress in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, the Obama administration retaliated against then president René Préval. His offense was to have cooperated with the Venezuelan government of President Chavez in the matter of cheap oil.

Endorsed by military and paramilitary leaders, Martelly was able to compete in the 2010 presidential elections only after the Organization of American States and the U.S. government strong-armed Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council. Secretary of State Clinton flew to Port-au-Prince to urge Préval “to get out of the way.”

In 2015 Martelly protégée Jovenel Moïse was elected president. As shown by legal observers from abroad, voting was marked by a 26 percent voter turnout, irregular procedures at the polls, and 50 percent fake ballots. The Electoral Council diagnosed fraud, appointed an interim president, and set repeat presidential elections for November 2016. Moïsewon. The turn out was 21 percent. In Haiti, consequently, “there’s a huge apathy when it comes to elections.”

It wasn’t always that way. Progressive theologian Jean-Bertrand Aristide became president in 1990 with 67 percent of the vote.  A U.S. – engineered military coup removed him eight months later. Paramilitaries led by CIA associate Emmanuel Constant subjected Aristide’s supporters to a reign of terror. He was re-elected in 2000 with a 92 percent plurality. Paramilitaries kidnapped him in 2004, again under U.S. auspices. The U.S. government transported him to the Central African Republic.

The United States isn’t alone in abusing Haiti’s national sovereignty. Soldiers of a United Nations “stabilization mission” arrived shortly after Aristide’s removal and stayed until 2017. Those troops introduced a cholera epidemic which added to Haiti’s woes.

What remains at this point is to explore the origins of Haiti’s chronic difficulties. The establishment-oriented U.S. Council on Foreign Relations recently – and reasonably – took note off actors like foreign intervention, debt, “instability,” and natural disasters. But analyst Amy Wilentz goes to the essence of the problem, indirectly. Often the question regarding Haiti, she suggests, is: “How does a state fail?” She explains that “a state fails because of its history,” and not “because of some innate inferiority in its people.”

She thus politely refutes claims from those focused mainly on the fact that Black people established and have maintained the Haitian nation. Such views, racist in nature, point to the role of racism in thwarting Haiti’s development.  Wilentz’s explanation as to a failed state needs modifying. It ought to say: “a state may fail because of a history of racist assaults.”

When Haiti declared its independence in 1804, formerly enslaved people were free.  France sought to recoup the money its citizens lost when slaves no longer were property. Threatening to blockade Haiti, France forced Haiti to provide compensation and thus Haiti’s government between 1825 and 1947 paid France a total of $20 billion to settle the matter. Big question: what ethos other than white supremacy might induce high officials to assign monetary value to human beings who now, like white people, were ostensibly free?

Haiti became an independent republic in 1804, but it was not until 1862 that the United States extended diplomatic recognition and not until 1863 that U. S. economic sanctions were lifted. Racist attitudes were on display when the United States invaded Cuba in 1898. That was the heyday of Jim Crow, and a leading rationale was that of forestalling “another black republic.”  The rebel army included tens of thousands of Afro-Cubans.

The U.S. Army occupied Haiti for 19 years beginning in 1915. The advertised purpose was that of enforcing payments on debts owed to New York banks. But U.S. troops viciously employed torture and massacres as they squashed rebellions and uprisings.

Presidents Duvalier, father and son, ruled in Haiti between 1957 and 1986. They imposed murderous oppression, something that in Washington was purified through the rationale of anti-communism. In fact, U.S. actions in Haiti often have included elements of both racism and imperialism. The boundaries tend to blur.

Nevertheless, U.S. memories of Haiti helped to shape white America’s attitudes toward race. “American slaveholders trembled for their own security as they followed the tremendous revolutionary activity of the French West Indian slaves in the 1790’s.” (Herbert Aptheker – American Negro Slave Revolts) And in his biography of John Brown, ally of slaves, W.E. B. Du Bois states that Brown “was born just as the shudder of Hayti (sic) was running through all the Americas.”

Haiti became a special case, and still is – much to the suffering of the Haitian people.

Venezuela – US Attack Imminent?

Peter Koenig

Imagine, the President of the self-declared, exceptional and unique Superpower, Donald Trump of the United States of America, has the audacity to threaten the Venezuelan military with their lives, if they keep standing behind the democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro, and defending his Government. An open threat – yesterday, 18 February, at a Miami University, in a speech of ‘fire and fury’; this time against socialist Venezuela with which he wants to finish, like with all other socialist nations – especially those in his ‘backyard’. So, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia are next in Trump’s crosshairs – and / or the crosshairs of his handlers. Don’t forget, he is a staged and convenient fool for the “Deep State” or the “Profound Government” – whatever you want to call this secret clan of the Chosen People that intends to rule the world.

I cannot help being amazed at what level of inhumanity we have arrived. Trump calls openly out to assassinate those who stand behind the legitimate President of Venezuela – and the rest of the world just looks on, watches and says NOTHING – zilch, zero – tolerates such atrocity coming from the mouth of a buffoon, aka the strongman of the self-proclaimed one and only superpower of the globe. – No, much worse – the so-called civilized west, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan – and some second- and third class puppet developing countries from South America, whose people are being starved while the elite admires and dances to the tune of the USA; united in what they call the “Group of Lima” (created in Lima in August 2017, to “safe” Venezuela). Members include, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay and Peru.

In the meantime, Mexico, under her new leftwing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or simply, AMLO, abstains from any decision against Venezuela. To the contrary, Mexico is part of the “Montevideo Mechanism” that comprises Mexico, Uruguay, Bolivia and the member countries of CARICOM and seeks conflict resolution through dialogue with the opposition, for which the Maduro Government has been ready from the beginning of the conflict, but which has been boycotted by the opposition, as were the 20 May 2018 elections which the non-participating opposition now calls a fraud.

The Lima Group was initiated, as such unofficial clubs always are, to out-rule the official routes, by Washington. Similarly, Washington created “The Friends of Syria” – all with the objective to bring about “Regime Change”. In the case of Venezuela, to circumvent the official representation of the Americas – the OAS – Organization of American States. – Why? – Because the empire was unable to get the legitimate majority of the OAS members to side with them against Venezuela. So, they organized the Lima Group, a club of the willing, of the utmost corrupted vassals, who believe at the end of the days to receive some crumbs of ‘gracias’ from their northern master and tyrant – or the vassals’ leaders (sic) hope perhaps for a safe haven, a castle in Miami?

I often wonder whether such a dream of eventually, at the end of the day – the end of all days perhaps? – being saved by the surviving elite of the US of A in an untouched paradise, is also the dream of the European puppets, for example those that pull the EU’s strings – the Macrons, Merkels and Mays – and, of course, the rest of the EU, the puppets of the puppets? – What else could make them so miserably betray their people, hundreds of millions of people? – Do they have not an iota of morals left?

---

Coming back to Venezuela – the Buffoon calls for outright war against the Maduro regime – and to salvage the Venezuelan people, he sent US$ 20 million worth of “humanitarian aid” to Cucutá, border town in Colombia, which, of course, the Bolivarian army does not let enter Venezuela. There is no need for humanitarian aid, let alone for US$ 20 million worth, peanuts, as compared to what Venezuela buys on a daily basis in food and medical supplies.

Undeniably, the US warmongers – specially Bolton, Pompeo and Pence – are preparing for a hot war. Whether they will execute it, remains to be seen. But the Bolivarian military does not idly watch what may happen. They are ready to face any Yankee aggression. The US southern military command, SOUTHCOM, stationed in Florida, is preparing an impressive military build-up. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, with 3,200 military personnel, 90 fighter planes and helicopters is positioned off the Florida coast, accompanied by the cruise missile carrier, USS Leyte Gulf, and the destroyers, USS Bainbridge, USS Gonzalez, USS Mason, and USS Nite. Joining the fleet is also the Spanish marine ship ESPS Mendez Nuñez.

The Spanish participation in this war game of criminal aggression is outrageous. The Spanish socialist leader, Pedro Sanchez (who certainly does not deserve the attribute of ‘socialist’), has also had the audacity requesting Nicolas Maduro to resign and call elections. Who is the (faltering) head of the fallen Spanish empire to meddle in another country’s internal affairs? – Maybe because the Spaniards can still not stomach having been defeated by Simón Bolívar, still feel superior and behave racist over the ‘brown’ Latinos, or maybe because he wants to please the masters in Washington – or simply because he needs popular support in his own country, as he is leading a minority, currently non-government and had to call snap elections for 28 April 2019?

There are, however, also Russia and China, solid, but rather quiet partners of Venezuela’s. Russia has made it clear, though, “Don’t mess with Venezuela”. Russia has two nuclear capable bombers, TU-160, deployed to the Venezuelan Caribbean island of la Orchila, where Moscow will establish, with the agreement of Venezuela, a permanent military base.

Both Russia and China have tens of billions worth of investments in Venezuela’s hydrocarbon industry. But besides the commercial interests, Russia and China vie for a multipolar world and want to guarantee the independence of Latin America, the sovereignty of the peoples of the Americas.

On 26 January 2019, the US dragged the “Case Venezuela” to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to condemn Venezuela and to trailblaze the path for a military invasion. However, while nine of the 15 UNSC members voted for a special meeting on Venezuela (Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, United Kingdom, United States), four voted against (China, Equatorial Guinea, Russian Federation, South Africa), with two abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia). The Russian Federation’s delegate countered that the Council has no role to play in a domestic matter that poses no threat to international peace and security. And right he is!

This UNSC event prompted a solidarity movement of more than 50 states, including China, Russia, Cuba, DPRK, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Nicaragua, and many more, supporting Venezuelan’s Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza’s statement before the Security Council, declaring the illegality of unilateral coercive economic sanctions, and territorial invasions by the United States. As Carla Stea reports (https://www.globalresearch.ca/hands-off-venezuela-historic-stance-at-the-united-nations-against-us-imperialism/5668780), this new alliance “constitutes a formidable force which Western capitalism will antagonize at its own peril. This is a long overdue counterforce to Western domination of the United Nations, a domination based on money, on the large payments enabling the US and other capitalist powers to bribe, threaten and otherwise control the direction of the UN, and distort and destroy the independence, impartiality and integrity which the UN requires in order to maintain its legitimacy, and implement the sustained global peace and justice for which Franklin Delano Roosevelt created it.”

This new alignment of more than 50 states comprise more than half of the world’s population, to a large extent people who have been exploited, slaughtered and their countries raped and ravaged for hundreds of years by wester capitalist and colonialist powers. This alliance promises to become a solid new face in the otherwise western dominated and bought United Nations.

As to Venezuela’s fate, Trump has made vague indications of 23 February being the deadline for an assault on Venezuela. We will see whether this remains nothing but an intimidating insinuation, or whether it will be real. The latter case would be a disaster not only for Venezuela, and Latin America, but for the entire world. Will Trump’s handlers allow such blunder? – In any case, Venezuela’s armed forces are disposed to confront the empire’s nuclear aircraft carrier, missile launchers, countless fighter planes and the up to 5,000 US troops and mercenaries newly stationed in Colombia and ready to cross the border into Venezuela.  – And, not to forget, there are also Russia and China.

More lawyers could be police informants in Australia

Mike Head

Further revelations over the past week about the police recruitment of lawyers in Australia to inform on their clients, in violation of the fundamental principle of legal confidentiality, point to the full extent of the abuse being as yet unknown, but certainly systemic.

The affair has thrown a question mark over the entire legal system, undermining the very notion that defendants are guaranteed “fair trials” with the right to independent legal representation. Dozens, if not hundreds, of cases may have to be retried.

The legal and political implications are even broader. The methods involved could be used against anyone targeted by the police and intelligence agencies, particularly political activists.

Far from being confined to a few dozen convictions of “crime bosses” and “drug lords” in the state of Victoria, as the media and government figures have insisted, the use of police informants, including members of the legal profession, to frame up people or orchestrate incriminating information, is clearly much more widespread.

Eight years of efforts by the police and successive governments to cover up the recruitment of lawyers as informers on their clients began to collapse late last year, forcing the current Labor Party government to finally announce a royal commission into the scandal.

When the inquiry held a preliminary hearing last Friday, it was told that police had used or considered using at least eight lawyers or law clerks to provide information on their clients, and the true number could be higher.

The counsel assisting the inquiry, Chris Winneke, told the commissioner, Margaret McMurdo, a former judge: “Subsequent and ongoing investigations by the State and Commonwealth Offices of Public Prosecutions with the assistance of Victoria Police has identified further cases. There may be more.’’

Court orders continue to prevent the identification of any of the eight informers. They include informant 3838 or Lawyer X, whom the inquiry will refer to as EF. The seven others are a court clerk, two legal secretaries, a solicitor, a former solicitor, a “self-proclaimed legal adviser” and a lawyer who has since died.

They all acted either as police informants or “community sources,” even as the police fought in the courts for nearly four years to prevent any details being reported of the role of the first-known informant, dubbed by the media as Lawyer X.

Judging by the informing performed by Lawyer X, the scale of the practice is massive. In a now-released letter to the police, written in 2015, she wrote: “[T]here are literally thousands of hours of recorded conversations and debriefings as well as many thousands of documents proving without doubt, the immense assistance I provided over a number of years…

“To try to encompass my actual value, reliability and work for Victoria Police in any summary is immensely difficult because from September 16, 2005, I spoke to my handlers on a daily basis, often seven days a week for a couple of years.

“Again, the media has informed me that there are approximately 5,500 information reports generated from information I provided to police.

“There were a total of 386 people arrested and charged that I am specifically aware of based upon information I provided to Victoria Police, but there are probably more because as you would know, I did not always know the value or use of some of the intelligence that I was providing.”

Claiming her life was in danger because her treatment as a police source had been botched, Lawyer X sued Victoria Police in 2010 and received a compensation payout of almost $3 million. The backroom settlement of her case began eight years of desperate cover up.

Victoria Police had three chief commissioners during Lawyer X’s time as a registered informant—Simon Overland, Christine Nixon and Neil Comrie—further underscoring the institutional character of the abuse. Yet, Premier Daniel Andrews has repeatedly expressed his full confidence in the current police chief, Graham Ashton, who has been continuing the practice, and covering up for his predecessors, since 2015.

Andrews’ Labor government instigated the royal commission for the purpose of continuing the smokescreen. It is seeking to head off public outrage over the affair, depict informing lawyers as an aberration and minimise the damage to the credibility of the legal system.

The government was compelled to broaden the scope of the royal commission this month when the police admitted that Lawyer X was first registered as a police informant in 1995, not 2005 as originally reported. She was officially recruited two years after the police dropped serious drug trafficking charges against her, while she was still a law student.

In her opening statement, McMurdo, a former president of the Queensland Court of Appeal, voiced revealing concern for the impact of the widening scandal in eroding public trust in the police and courts.

“The police use of lawyers to inform on their clients has obvious potential to undermine the criminal justice system and the public’s confidence in it,” she said. If that happened, “the criminal justice system would regress into a dysfunctional, far more costly, clogged quagmire of universal distrust.”

McMurdo indicated deeper political anxiety, stating: “When those whom the community entrusts to uphold and enforce the law themselves breach fundamental legal principles, confidence in our justice system and indeed our democracy is seriously diminished.”

The judge pointedly ruled out any suggestion of a wider inquiry into the police, not even into the use of other informers apart from lawyers. “It is important to keep in mind that the scope of the Commission’s work is tightly defined by those terms of reference,” she said. “This is not an open-ended, broad inquiry into Victoria Police or even into Victoria Police’s management of police informers generally.”

In addition, the inquiry has no power to quash the convictions of the victims, reduce sentences or order retrials. Nor can it instigate prosecutions of the lawyers and police officers responsible.

Winneke, the prominent barrister assisting McMurdo, also confirmed that while some hearings will be held in public, other sessions will be closed in order to protect the informants, thus shielding the operations of the police. “The matters being investigated by the Commission involve sensitive information about criminal activities and police operations,” he said.

Winneke further noted that prosecutors, judges and officials of Victoria’s anti-corruption body, IBAC, cannot be compelled to testify or provide documents to the inquiry. This means that the prosecutors who ran cases in which lawyers informed on their own clients, and the judges who presided over those cases, as well as the officials who kept secret the true scope of the affair, cannot be questioned, let alone brought to account.

IBAC conducted an investigation into the Lawyer X affair in 2015, essentially continuing a whitewash begun by earlier police inquiries.

Questions are obviously raised about similar police operations in other states, as well as by the Australian Federal Police and its partner agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

In an effort to protect the police in Western Australia, that state’s Labor Party Attorney-General John Quigley formally wrote this week to his colleague, Police Minister Michelle Roberts, asking her to “seek assurances” from the state’s police chief that lawyers have never acted as police informants.

In South Australia, the police issued an evasive statement that it had “no recollection or record” of such practices in that state since 2000.