orangecounty@worldaffairscouncil.org

Why Haiti’s City Center Is at War: Gang Violence and Political Turmoil

Haiti, a nation surrounded by political instability and social unrest for decades, is once again surrounded by chaos as armed gangs take control of its streets. Current events have highlighted the minacious state of affairs in the Caribbean, with an uprising in violence targeting key government institutions and prisons, leaving the country of Haiti with political instability and socio economic hardships.

On Saturday night, March 3, armed gangs revealed a simultaneous attack on two of Haiti’s largest prisons, including the National Penitentiary and the Croix-des-Bouquets Civil Prison causing over 1,000 inmates to escape. The violence left nine individuals dead including four police officers. This event showcased despair and shock throughout the country, highlighting the government’s struggle to keep Haiti under control. 

Haiti was declared a state of emergency as a nighttime curfew was placed in an attempt to alleviate the crisis. Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who has been undergoing immense pressure to resign, sought support from the United Nations Security Council to provide international security support and stabilization. Unfortunately, the disputes Haiti have been facing stretch far beyond just security concerns and measures.

The depth of Haiti’s political predicament stems from its ongoing governmental conflicts, including the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021 and the subsequent power vacuum. As the upcoming presidential and parliamentary elections become delayed, the condition of Haiti’s political future remains unclear.

The ongoing violence is a result of gangs who continue to expose the government’s weaknesses, futher expanding their influence over Haitian society. Jimmy Chérizier, a previous elite police officer also called “Barbecue”, currently runs the notorious gang G-9 and has claimed responsibility for the recent attacks. Barbeque strives to urge Haitians to take action against the government. “We are asking the population to rise up,” he said. These gangs have effectively displayed their wrath and control over many neighborhoods of the capital, as gangs were reported to have up to 80% control of Port-au-Prince. They have been coordinating more attacks that include targeting the Central Bank. As a result, the Haitian police force is heavily outnumbered and overwhelmed.  

Recently, G9 and G-Pep, another Haitian gang led by Gabriel Jean-Pierre, attacked critical infrastructure, including Toussaint Louverture International Airport in Port-au-Prince. The airport was closed during the attack and no operating planes or passengers were present, but caused foreign governments to issue travel advisories. The Biden administration expressed concerns over the security situation, and has abstained from committing troops to aid the situation. Instead, the administration has decided to provide help through financial and logistical support.

As Haiti attempts to diminish reoccurring violence, the path to stabilize and recover the country remains a challenge. The government’s ability to restore law and order in handling the root causes of the situation will be pivotal in reassuring the country’s future. At present, national turmoil continuously reigns over the Haitian people as they hope for a brighter future of peace, prosperity, and security.  

After the 72-hour state of emergency and nighttime curfew were imposed in response to the surging violence, Haiti implemented new steps to obtain stability and control of Port- Au-Prince. The Haitian government ordered police officers to apprehend all offenders that escaped prison, prioritizing efforts to improve law enforcement and relieve gang violence. Prime Minister Ariel Henry recognizes that implementing long-term development strategies and tactical security measures, countering recent events, serve as important measures to ensure Haiti’s safety in the future. 

Photo credit:

Haitians urgently collect their belongings in preparation to flee their homes on March 3, escaping the rising violence in the capital Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Photo Credit: Ralph Tedy Erol/Reuters

Written by Research and Development Intern, Arianna Hutcheson

References: 

https://apnews.com/article/haiti-violence-prison-break-curfew-6341d1cda5f02f6c66d351ad2d206e7b

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/haiti-mass-jailbreak-violence-port-au-prince-gangs

https://apnews.com/article/haiti-violence-prison-break-curfew-105ca137aa337b9e6681cf87add9a5c1

https://apnews.com/article/haiti-violence-gangs-prison-attack-kenya-police-1033aba8041637f9934f87a3be883df8

https://apnews.com/article/haiti-prison-break-2788f145b0d26efc2aa199e923724e0f

Read more

Why the West Gets Russia Wrong: Historical Impasses to Achieving Peace in Ukraine

Why the West Gets Russia Wrong: Historical Impasses to Achieving Peace in Ukraine

As the Russo-Ukrainian War enters its third year of full-scale kinetic conflict, the majority of Western politicians, media, and defense analysts contend that continued Western military aid to Ukraine is imperative in order to effectively wage a war of attrition against Russia. Much of this analysis of Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine in February 2022 is predicated on a typology of Russian neo-imperial revanchism, and subsequently maintains that Russia, operating from fundamentally nationalist motives, seeks to conquer the portions of former Soviet states where large populations of ethnic Russians reside. While Russia’s February 2022 invasion undoubtedly violates both Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty and international law, the commonplace depiction of Russia as endeavoring to overturn the existing world order is misplaced, in that it largely fails to examine the specific historical grievances that frame the Russian perspective. The purpose of this article is not to condone Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – which is wholly condemnable – but rather to investigate why the United States and its NATO allies’ framing of the Russian strategic objective suffers from a miscalculation of Russia’s security interests that risks escalating the present conflict rather than diminishing it. 

The first factor that merits consideration is Russia’s claims to eastern Ukraine on the grounds that it has a historical right to them. Setting aside arguments espousing that Ukraine has been a part of Russia since the medieval period in favor of more recent history (where the concept of statehood can be more justifiably applied), one facet that has been largely neglected by most Western analysts is the fact that the Donbas and Crimea were indeed recognized as Russian territory under international law up until 1922 and 1954, when Lenin and Khrushchev, respectively, transferred them from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UkSSR). 

These transfers were not seen by Soviet authorities as the granting of sovereignty over these regions to any independent Ukrainian state, seeing as the UkSSR was itself a union state of the Soviet Union. Indeed, in the case of Crimea, the decision to transfer it from the RSFSR to the UkSSR originates in a remarkably mundane manner: the arrangement of funding for a construction project, the Kakhovka Reservoir and North Crimea Canal. Seeing as the construction site sat astride the RSFSR and UkSSR, Gosplan, the Soviet central economic planning committee, advised that Crimea be transferred from the former to the latter in order to simplify the funding process, since it was then standard practice for large infrastructure projects to be funded by only a single union state. Thus the reason for the transfer of a region with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to what, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, became the sovereign state of Ukraine rests on a procedural decision whose considerations were not only principally financial rather than political, but which were also framed in regard to a single site rather than the entire region. 

The second factor worth consideration is the role that NATO expansion has played in stoking existential fears of encirclement in Russia. While European states have every right to accede to NATO, provided that they meet the organization’s provisional requirements and are unanimously accepted, nonetheless, it would have behooved NATO to consider how these decisions would be perceived by Russia. Scholars have rightly observed that the prerequisite spread of democracy to potential NATO member-states threatens Russia’s authoritarian model. Such a situation is in part exemplified by the 2004 Orange Revolution, poignantly described by Ian Traynor, the late esteemed journalist of The Guardian, as “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing.” The leak of the Nuland-Pyatt phone call, in which Victoria Nuland, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, discussed ways to manage the outcome of the political upheaval that emerged during the 2014 Maidan Revolution further heightened Russia’s concerns that not only was the United States seeking to spread democracy to Russia’s periphery, but that it was also, ostensibly, interfering in Ukrainian politics. Such interference would, so Moscow maintained, violate the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which the United States, Russia, and United Kingdom all agreed to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. Efforts to foster democracy abroad are commendable, but when they risk being perceived as covert meddling, short-term tactical gains might best be set aside out of consideration of greater strategic objectives, of which avoiding accusations of hypocrisy, whatever the merit of such accusations, ought to be one. 

These events, when coupled with others such as the United States’ earlier withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s signing in 2019 of a constitutional amendment that committed Ukraine to joining NATO, and the establishment of a U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Defense Framework in 2021 can thus be seen as having progressively exacerbated Moscow’s fears of encirclement. President Zelenskyy’s remarks on February 19, 2022 at the Munich Security Conference that “I hope no one thinks of Ukraine as a convenient and eternal buffer zone between the West and Russia. This will never happen” as well as “Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security” certainly did nothing to allay Moscow’s concerns. Indeed, Russia interpreted the latter remark as an insinuation that Ukraine would, provided that it became admitted to NATO, endeavor to obtain nuclear weapons, something that would also violate the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The idea of Ukraine, especially a Ukraine including the Donbas and Crimea, possessing NATO nuclear weapons was anathema to Moscow. 

For those Western analysts hoping that a war of attrition will lead to a strategic defeat of the Russian armed forces, it would be prudent to keep in mind that, regardless of whatever degradation that the Russian military has incurred over the past two years, the fundamental problems remain unaddressed. Consequently, as the conflict grows increasingly protracted, the risk increases that Russia will resort to further extremism and violence in order to inculcate its point. Conversely, those in the West who worry that Russia will invade Poland or the Baltic states might do well to recognize the great improbability of such campaigns on logistic and economic grounds. Only through totally mobilizing Russian society into a wartime economy could Russia stand to expand its military operations abroad into any NATO state, and Moscow is unlikely to hazard making such a move owing to the substantial risks and instability that such a transformation would entail. 

Unless the West is able to at least acknowledge the Russian perspective, the present conflict only stands to escalate. This does not mean that the West should accept Russia’s narrative or acquiesce to the spread of authoritarianism. What this does suggest, however, is that democracy might be better fostered abroad through patient engagement – even if it requires uncomfortable short-term compromises – rather than through more overt contestation. As such, considering a negotiated settlement that allows Russia to continue to possess Crimea and parts of the Donbas might, however unpalatable such a proposition may appear, be the only course that spares Ukraine protracted bloodshed and further destruction: if achieving a strategic military defeat of the Russian armed forces comes at the cost of transforming eastern Ukraine into a wrecked crucible, than the West must consider whether the minimization of noncombatant casualties is truly the priority that it so espouses this principle to be. 

After all the destruction that the Russian armed forces have wrought upon Ukraine, engaging with Russia to find an offramp no doubt appears as a most distasteful course of action. Once again, however, such engagement with Russia should not be viewed as an acquiescence or acknowledgement of defeat. Rather, it should be seen as a pragmatic and realistically achievable course of action that can actually deescalate the conflict without humiliating Russia. Western advocates for achieving a strategic military defeat of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine as essential to deterring alleged Russian neo-imperialism would be wise to recall the effects that such humiliation had on Germany following World War I. Those Western advocates who see any form of negotiated settlement as catering to authoritarian domination might very well then be setting the stage for a much worse conflict with Russia in the future. Ending the war in Ukraine might involve the negotiation of an imperfect peace, but such a result is far preferable to a perfect world war. 

Written by: Mason W. Krusch, a master’s candidate in Northeastern University’s Global Studies and International Relations program. 

Read more

What Is The Significance of Navalny’s Death?

February 16th, 2024 signified the loss of another hope for the reconstruction of law and order in modern Russian society. Alexei Navalny was an active opposition to Putin. Navalny started his career back in 2007 and forcefully ended his anti-Putin movement in 2024 due to his unexpected death at the Arctic Circle prison. This event carries greater significance to world affairs and identifies Russian power.

Alexei Navalny was known for his actions, specifically anti-corruption campaigns in Russia, appeals to the nation to rise for revolution, presidential election boycott, and other anti-current government movements that are not welcomed in the non-democratic state. Predictably, his actions were strictly controlled by elites in Russia and were not warmly met by the government.

Specifically, in August 2020, Alexei Navalny was poisoned by the famously known nerve agent, Novichok. This chemical is the deadliest chemical currently known to humanity. Novichok was invented by Russian scientists during the Cold War. Luckily, after the poisoning, Alexei Navalny was able to get to Germany in time to receive medical support and have a successful recovery. The most observable Putin’s opponent stayed in the German hospital and acquired all needed help until January 2021. Navalny then decided it was time for him to fly back to his homeland and facilitate anti-Putin views to the nation. He initiated his campaign by urging people to stand up against current elites and topple Russian governance. While landing Navalny’s airplane at the wrong airport within Moscow, the demonstrations was not deterred; however, not exactly in the way that Alexei was anticipating. Soon enough, he was arrested for the violation of parole and sentenced to prison for 19 years. While the protests continued in Russia, soon after Navalny’s disappearance from the public eye, the Russian government successfully stopped the rebellions. Thereafter, in 2023, Navalny was moved to the Arctic Circle, where he spent his last days and ultimately encountered his death.

The statements relevant to the recent death of the opposition are continuously altering their interpretation by pro-Putin executives. The original justification for death being “blood clot” was later changed to “sudden death syndrome,” as well as the date of his death shifting from February 15th to February 16th.

Navalny was the hope of the Western World to change the authoritarian regime within Russia. Now that Putin is not facing Navalny’s opposition, is there anything else providing hope for a potential freedom of Russia from Putin’s authority? However, with the rise of anti-Putin desires of the Russian nations, new opposition will be found in the country. As of right now, it is possible to predict that the widow of Alexei will be the one shouldering this role. Altogether, it will be ultimately up to the Russian nation to identify the future of their country. If the population is willing and ready for the regime change, the leader will be able to start the process. If the nation has still not gained enough basis to promote an anti-Putin perspective, then there are almost no outside factors that can shake and decrown Russian elites.

At the same time, Putin’s time might end without Navalny’s counterplay. The current president is 71 years old, and his era might be ending in the short future. It is important to note that in Russia, the system is mainly based on Putin’s authority; it is yet stable enough to survive the shift of power without significant institutional changes within the country.

Overall, the death of Navalny again highlighted to the rest of the world the absence of law and order in the Russian Federation, as well as the emphasis on the presence of a stable authoritarian regime within the state.

Written by Events Intern, Sofiia Lobas.

References:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/alexei-navalnys-death-what-do-we-know-2024-02-18/

https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/91665

Photo credit: Rom T

Read more

El Salvador’s New President: Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez

Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez is the 43rd President of El Salvador and has recently been re-elected despite discussion of his re-election being unconstitutional. Prior to his time as President of El Salvador, Bukele served as Mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlan from 2012 to 2015 and then as Mayor of the capital of El Salvador. Nayib was expelled from his political party in 2017 and eventually formed his own political party: New Ideas. He ran for President in 2019, and won with a 53% vote. Bukele has made a name for himself at the international stage after implementing a plan to get rid of gangs and crime in El Salvador.


Bukele’s plan was implemented into phases and increasingly built up. Among a few of his phases was declaring prisons in a state of emergency after spikes in murder rates, territorial gain from gang territories, ‘mano dura’ (strong hand) policies, and crackdown of corruption within the government and police enforcement. Bukele’s actions drew notoriety from international human rights organizations after alarming reports of lack of due process of prisoners and treatment. Bukele targeted individuals boasting and fitting the profile of gang members; widespread gang tattoos over their bodies, namely around the face, head, chest, and back areas. Bukele in response said in 2022, “The focus is always on the rights of criminals, and for the vast majority of honest people? Nobody cares about their rights. In this country we spent thirty years being ridiculed, killed, raped, extorted, threatened, and living in fear, and no one said anything. But suddenly we grab them [criminals], and you have to consider the human rights of rapists. Yes, they have human rights, but the human rights of honorable people are most important.” 

Bukele’s crackdown on gang activity and crime decreased to 60% during his presidency in 2022, and further decreased in 2023 to 70%, the lowest homicide rate in any Latin American country. Bukele’s actions have brought a renewed sense of safety, stability, and security to many Salvadorans which has garnered him an impressive 90% approval rate among Salvadoran citizens. 

In late December 2023, Bukele announced he would be running for the 2024 Salvadoran General Election. Despite many Salvadoran citizens eager to have him as president once again, experts argued it was unconstitutional. Under the constitution in El Salvador re-election is prohibited under Article 154, in which it is stated that a President can only serve for five years. However, Bukele used a loophole under Article 155 that allowed him to step down from his presidency for the speaker of the assembly to take over as President in order for his term to not count completely. On February 4th, 2024, Nayib Bukele won the presidential election in a landslide vote.

Written by Events Intern, Diana Gonzalez

Read more

Looking Ahead: Argentina Under Milei

One Man’s “Chainsaw Plan”

On Nov. 19, 2023, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Javier Milei defeated Union For The Homeland candidate Sergio Massa in a runoff election for the Argentine presidency with 55.7% of votes, the highest for any candidate in the country’s history. The far-right self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist” led a campaign based on state reformation to address Argentina’s economic challenges, specifically its high inflation and debt. His “Chainsaw Plan” consisted of cutting public spending, halving the government’s ministries from 18 to nine, eliminating the central bank and selling state owned companies. Milei’s plans will demand pragmatic approaches. His party, La Libertad Avanza, has a minority in the senate with only seven of 72 positions and 38 of 157 deputies, forcing him to seek multi-party support. Since his inauguration, he has dropped some of his more drastic campaign messages, such as eliminating the central bank and switching from the peso to the United States dollar. Milei’s impact as Argentina’s president on the future of the country has yet to be determined.

Economic Shock 

Milei’s presidency comes at a time when Argentina is facing a severe economic crisis with inflation of 161%, a drought that is shrinking its agriculturally dependent economy, a heavily devalued currency, as well as $45 billion owed to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Milei’s austerity measures are anticipated to be helpful for Argentina’s economy in the long term, but are met with anxiety due to the short term shocks it will cause. Economic Minister of the Argentine Republic Luis Caputo announced on Dec. 12, 2023, that the government would be cutting subsidies for transportation and fuel, and the Argentine Peso would be devalued by over 50% from 391 pesos to a dollar, to 800 pesos. For Argentinians, this devaluation will increase the cost of living as imported goods will become more expensive due to the decreased purchasing power of the peso. However, this could benefit Argentina’s exports by making them more competitive in the global market and consequently stimulating its economy. This change was met with approval by the IMF for helping economic stability and laying a foundation for more private-sector driven growth.

International Implications

Prior to his presidency, Milei took hard stances on Argentina’s foreign policy. He promised to leave the Mercosur, a free trade area consisting of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. His administration’s foreign minister, Diana Mondino, however, has since reaffirmed the administration’s desire for Mercosur’s growth and the administration has contributed to negotiation attempts for a free trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union.

For the U.S. and China, Milei’s presidency may indicate stronger U.S.-Argentine relations and more distant relations with China. While campaigning, Milei vocalized his alignment with the United States and Israel. For his first trip after the election, Milei met with U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and highlighted his support for values of freedom. Milei’s sentiment of not wanting to “deal with communists,” throughout his campaign has insinuated a desire for reduced relations with China. On Dec. 19, China halted a $6.5 billion extension of the existing currency swap with Argentina’s previous president, Alberto Fernández. Argentina has benefitted from Chinese energy investment and consumption of Argentinian soybean and lithium exports. Additionally, despite receiving a letter from China’s President, Xi Jinping, Milei has halted plans for Argentina to join BRICS– an intergovernmental organization consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. These actions could indicate more distant Chinese-Argentine relations in the future.

Written by Research & Development Intern, Eli Sepulveda

Photo credit: Rory Elliott Armstrong & Katy Dartford with Associated Press

Read more

The Maldives: An Intersection of Climate Crisis and International Politics

Turquoise water gently moves over soft, white sands. Palm trees dot the landscape. Boardwalks lead to over-water huts, showcasing its appeal as a favorite destination for tourists. Behind these picturesque beaches lies more than just natural beauty. The Maldives has emerged as a crucial battleground in the escalating struggle for influence between the U.S. and China, a conflict intensified by the rapid reshaping of the islands due to climate change.

Reflecting on this, Dr. Mohamed Muizzu, President of the Republic of the Maldives, stated at COP28, “In our island nations, every coral, every grain of sand, every fish, and every palm tree, carry value. Their loss is a loss to our economy. For our country.” This sentiment highlights the profound impact of climate change on the Maldives, where rising sea levels threaten not just its environment but its very essence.

By 2050, rising sea levels may render most of the nation uninhabitable. This environmental urgency intertwines with an expanding geopolitical struggle. For the U.S., national security interests extend beyond environmental concerns in the Maldives, largely due to its strategic position on key maritime routes. This is due to the nation’s strategic location along vital maritime routes. In this delicate balance of environmental and geopolitical interests, the U.S. has the opportunity to leverage climate change mitigation as a powerful diplomatic tool in the Maldives, creating a stark contrast with China’s approach. 

The U.S. can make a significant impact in the Maldives through targeted climate diplomacy, emphasizing local development and ecosystem preservation. Key initiatives could include blending traditional knowledge with modern science to support ecosystems and renewable energy, as well as responsibly scaling up sand dredging for island elevation, mindful of the ecological balance. Investing in research to minimize environmental impacts during island reclamation is also vital.

This innovative approach, focused on long-term climate adaptation, contrasts heavily with China’s infrastructure-centric strategy. Chinese infrastructure projects in the Maldives, a highlight of the Belt and Road Initiative, have prioritized fast construction. However, this rapid pace often overlooks the environmental cost, especially the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming, a critical concern for a nation like the Maldives. While boosting infrastructure, this strategy creates significant risks to the Maldivian people. The increased carbon footprint and potential ecological disruption from these projects don’t align with the Maldives’ urgent need for sustainable development. As a nation with one of the lowest elevations, the Maldives faces existential threats from climate change, and the environmental impact of large-scale infrastructure projects cannot be overlooked. 

The U.S., pivoting towards sustainability and adaptability in climate change measures, faces a complex landscape. China’s assertive presence in the region necessitates thoughtful implementation of the US’ climate-focused strategy. The recent appointment of a China-friendly President in the Maldives adds another layer of complexity. In this context, adopting a grassroots approach to climate change mitigation could prove effective. Aligning closely with the concerns of the Maldivian population, who are very conscious of their environmental vulnerabilities, underscores the importance of climate resilience at the local level.

When navigating these challenges, the U.S. stands at the forefront of defining how global powers can meaningfully engage in climate diplomacy in a rapidly changing world. By leveraging climate change mitigation as a strategic tool in the Maldives, the U.S. not only counters China’s dominance but also supports a sustainable path that resonates globally. This action goes beyond being a policy choice, it’s an ethical necessity in a world facing unprecedented climate challenges. As the Maldives struggles with the threats of climate change, the actions of the U.S. could set a standard for environmental protection and diplomatic innovation in the 21st century. 

Written by: Elizabeth Feller, a candidate in Northeastern University’s M.S. in Global Studies and International Relations.

Read more

Ukraine: What is Currently Happening?

Soon, another year is coming to an end and the holidays are arriving but Ukraine and Russia are still at war. We are entering a time in the Russo-Ukrainian War where there is little to no coverage of major updates. The Russo-Ukrainian War started on February 20, 2014, with Russia invading Ukraine in early 2022, and from then on attacks and the number of casualties have escalated. 

UPDATES:

During the recent virtual G20 meeting, Vladimir Putin stated that Russia has always been ready to talk with Ukraine to bring an end to the “tragedy” of war in Ukraine. In this meeting, Putin gave the most pacifistic comments yet since invading Ukraine. Although his comments were peaceful, the Russian president proceeded with blaming Kyiv for having no intention of a peace talk about the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

In other recent developments, the Russian foreign ministry has said that relations with the United States of America have become extremely thin and are at risk of being torn at any moment. This is due to the U.S.A.’s involvement in supporting Ukraine in the Russo-Ukrainian War by providing $44.2 billion in security assistance. Russian foreign ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova informed reporters that the actions taken by Washington can lead to “unpredictable consequences” which were not specified. 

Recent data collection from the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Office reported that more than 10,000 civilians have been killed in Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion. More than 560 children have been killed, and more than 18,500 people have been injured since the start of the conflict on February 24, 2022. About half of the deaths in the past three months have taken place far behind the front lines. The UN Human Rights Office expects that the real toll is significantly higher than what was collected. 

The U.S. National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, presented the U.S.’s concern on November 21, 2023, that Iran may provide Russia with ballistic missiles for use in the war against Ukraine. He stated that this development would be disastrous for civilians in Ukraine. Iran already has been providing Russia with unmanned drones, guided aerial bombs, and many more weapons, and announced that Iran might be taking a step further into supporting Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian War. In return, Russia might be providing Iran with unprecedented defense cooperation and has been helping Iran develop and maintain its satellite collection capabilities and other space-based programs. Kirby mentioned how this burgeoning military partnership between Iran and Russia is harmful to Ukraine, Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East, and most importantly to the international community. 

Written by: Events Intern, Anahi Aguirre

Read more

LTG H.R. McMaster (Ret.): Qualified for Duty

Who is LTG H.R. McMaster (Ret.)?

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster (R.) (Herbert Raymond) was born in Philadelphia on July 24, 1962. Upon graduation from the US Military Academy at West Point in 1984, McMaster served as a commissioned officer in the US Army for thirty-four years. McMaster obtained a Ph.D. in military history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and later became an assistant professor of history at the US Military Academy. He is known for his roles in the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

What is LTG H.R. McMaster (Ret.) qualified for and why? 

On February 20, 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump nominated McMaster for National Security Advisor following the resignation of Michael T. Flynn on February 13. When he was nominated, McMaster was to remain in active duty while serving as the National Security Advisor. Some people might have had their doubts about H.R. McMaster becoming National Security Advisor but his experience has shown that he is more than qualified. McMaster has served overseas as an advisor to the most senior commanders in the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In Time’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world released in April 2014, McMasters was described to be “the architect of the future of the U.S. Army.” 

Throughout his years in the army, General McMaster maintained that despite his forward-thinking approach, his understanding of military history remained a huge influence on how he made future decisions. During the Gulf War in 1991, McMaster was a captain commanding Eagle Troop of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment at the Battle of 73 Easting. Although his troop was significantly outnumbered, they encountered the enemy by surprise as McMaster’s lead tank crested a dip in the terrain, the nine tanks of his troop destroyed 28 Iraqi Republican Guard tanks without loss in 23 minutes. He has brought his knowledge to battle and has emerged victorious in countless situations. H.R. McMaster has also had a series of staff positions at U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), including planning and operations roles in Iraq. 

In July 2014, McMaster became Lieutenant General and pinned on his third star when he began his duties as Deputy Commanding General of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command and Director of TRADOC’s Army Capabilities Integration Center. A few years later, H.R. McMaster retired as Lieutenant General in June 2018 following his resignation as National Security Advisor. Today, McMaster is the host of Battlegrounds: International Perspectives on

Crucial Challenges and Opportunities and is a regular on a video series called Goodfellows. He is also a Distinguished University Fellow at Arizona State University.

Written by: Events Intern, Anahi Aguirre

Read more

The Shia Minority and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Threat

The Breakdown

Islam, one of the world’s major religions, has numerous sects among its following with Shia being one that is prominent in the Middle East. While states such as Iraq and Iran have a majority of Shia followers that mostly live in a peaceful coexistence among other Islam sects, Pakistan offers a noticeably different experience for the Shia. In Pakistan, the Shia are the minority. They are consistently met with violent threats, persecution, and discrimination, especially by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi group. By exploring the historical context, distinct discriminatory incidents against Shia in Pakistan, and prior efforts to find a peace, solutions surface that are well within the capability of the government of Pakistan and local communities to ensure peace and protection for this minority group.

The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Widespread Shia Persecution

Shia Muslims in Pakistan represent only a small fraction, specifically 10-20%, of the entire population. Sunni Muslims, who significantly outnumber the Shia have maintained historically rooted antagonistic sentiments. This stems from centuries-old disputes around religious interpretations of sacred Islam texts. At the same time, parts of the Middle East, from the late of the 20th century to today, became a breeding ground for violence justified by religion. The region alone is responsible for 36% of worldwide terrorism, a statistic that alludes to the pressing need for more concentrated peace and reconciliation efforts.

The U.N., recognizing this escalating threat, rolled out the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in 2006. Although well-intended, its primary focus was on the major terror outfits. As a result, smaller yet potent groups like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were often sidelined in global counter-terrorism initiatives. This organization’s modus operandi is unique in that it doesn’t aim for significant political changes, it rather specializes almost exclusively in terrorizing Shia communities. Their atrocities since the onset of the 21st century are grim, causing around 700 Shia deaths, a number that is tragically high for any civil society.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the controversy surrounding Osama Bin Laden’s concealment and subsequent death became a focal point for the world’s attention as it related to Pakistan. Questions arose, hinting at Pakistan possibly providing safe haven to the world’s most-wanted terrorist. Such allegations have added to concerns about Pakistan’s genuine commitment to combating terrorism. With the Prime Minister’s 2020 statement, where Bin Laden was referred to as a “martyr”, the water became murkier. Such developments rose genuine apprehensions that extremist groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi might be operating with impunity in Pakistan, subsequently threatening regional stability.

The Shia, an already vulnerable community in Pakistan, face heightened persecution, compounded by stringent blasphemy laws. An incident involving Syed Kareem, who voiced his sentiments online, served as a case in point. His comments against the killing of a historic Shia figure led to him being branded an extremist, resulting in blasphemy charges. This already volatile situation was exacerbated in September 2022 when widespread Sunni protests erupted with demands that were not only discriminatory, but also alarmingly violent.

Pakistan’s Shifting Political Landscape & Strategic Policy Recommendation 

Pakistan’s political trajectory, especially in recent years, appears to lean increasingly towards extremism. The events of 2017 and 2018, where hardline groups secured political influence, is a testament to this worrying shift. Their growing clout in the parliamentary corridors of power has many international observers concerned, particularly considering their alleged ties to terrorism.

To provide lasting solutions to the issues at hand, a dual approach is required: a strong domestic policy framework augmented by international support. Pakistan, with its intricate socio-political landscape, must design robust mechanisms to screen and disqualify potential office-bearers with extremist leanings or terror affiliations. A stringent governmental background check mechanism should be the cornerstone of this policy, ensuring that individuals with extremist associations are meticulously filtered out.

Emerging from anti-Shia sentiments of the 1990s, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi’s rapid evolution into a dominant extremist force in Pakistan deserves intense scrutiny. Their doctrine, rooted in a rigid Sunni interpretation, sees Shias as apostates. This not only endangers this already threatened minority but also poses significant challenges to Pakistan’s secular fabric. Their operational prowess is further bolstered by their connections with major terror networks, such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Effectively countering their influence demands a multi-faceted approach: a combination of military action, intelligence maneuvers, socio-economic development strategies, and proactive interfaith dialogues. For Pakistan’s national growth, stability, and enhanced international image, neutralizing such threats is non-negotiable.

With deep-seated historical prejudices intensifying, and the nation’s political trajectory seemingly favoring extremist ideologies, comprehensive policies are an urgent need to ensure the Shia community’s safety and the overarching stability of Pakistan.

Written by: Justin R. Boulanger, a MS candidate in the Global Studies and International Relations program at Northeastern University.

Read more

Mexican-American Veterans: Post-World War II Struggles 

When looking back at World War II and U.S. veterans, the perspective of thousands of White and Black soldiers is heavily presented. Little to no perspective of the thousands of Mexican-American soldiers is known. Mexican Americans were either drafted or volunteered for the U.S. armed services, and at the end of the war received the highest percentage of Congressional Medal of Honor winners of any minority in the United States. History has not shown the struggles of returning to the U.S. with expectations of a better future for Mexican Americans but coming home to disappointment. 

During WWII, around 500,000 Mexican-Americans served in the U.S. military fighting for liberty and equality. They went to war to prove their citizenship and allegiance to the country that had taken them in. The war had offered them a new opportunity to be integrated with White soldiers and the opportunity to gain a higher rank within the armed forces and a relationship with White soldiers that they never had in their communities. When returning home, Mexican-American veterans came face-to-face with the same issues they had prior to the war. This time around they were no longer willing to accept second-class citizenship, limited opportunities, and segregation. The veterans had seen tyranny abroad and did not want to face it any longer at home. 

The beginning of the fight for Mexican-American veterans’ rights can be tracked to 1948 when Mexican-American war veterans created the American G.I. Forum, with the direct goal of helping War veterans and later Mexican-Americans’ civil rights. An example of their work in their early years involves a situation in which a Texan funeral home denied use of the chapel for the wake of Felix Longoria, a Mexican American who died in combat during WWII. The chapel offered his family a section in the “Mexican section,” a portion of the cemetery that was separated by barbed wire. This enraged the Mexican-American community and WWII veterans, who were tired of being treated as second-class citizens even after returning as war heroes. The American GI Forum dispatched multiple letters and telegrams to state and local officials condemning discrimination against a Mexican-American soldier who had given his life serving his country. This resulted in successfully obtaining a proper burial for Felix Longoria at Arlington National Cemetery. Unfortunately, there were far worse experiences that many Mexican-American veterans experienced after the war. 

Most discrimination against Mexican-American soldiers went unchecked and the history of Mexican-American veterans’ involvement in WWII has been ignored. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge what Mexican-American veterans have done for our country and what current Mexican-American soldiers will continue to do.

Written By: Events Intern, Anahi Aguirre

Read more