Africa

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden accused of U-turn over Egypt’s human rights abuses

      by

      “It’s a hostage negotiation and it has been all along,” said Sherif Mansour, describing the arrest of his cousin Reda Abdel-Rahman by Egyptian security forces last August as an attempt to intimidate Mansour into silence.Abdel-Rahman has been imprisoned without trial for nine months. Mansour, an outspoken human rights advocate in Washington with the Committee to Protect Journalists, has since learned that he and his father are listed on the same charge sheet, all accused of joining a terrorist group and spreading “false news”.Mansour is one of a growing number of activists, dissidents and analysts angry at the US administration’s suddenly warm relations with Egypt. They point to Egyptian officials’ escalating threats against critics living in exile in the US, including arresting their family members or contacts in Egypt, many of whom are imprisoned like Abdel-Rahman on spurious charges.Twelve members of Mansour’s family have been detained and interrogated by Egyptian security agents since Abdel-Rahman’s detention.“They ask about us, when we last spoke to them, what we spoke about,” Mansour said. “They go through their phones – and if they don’t provide passwords they’re beaten in order to find anything that connects them to us, including Facebook conversations.“It’s why we haven’t been in touch: I’ve stopped talking to my family in order not to give them any reason to harass them,” he said.Joe Biden and the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, held their first official call in late May, four months after Biden took office. As a candidate, Biden promised that there would be “no blank checks” for the man Donald Trump once addressed as “my favourite dictator”. Yet when they spoke, the two leaders discussed human rights in terms of a “constructive dialogue” and “reaffirmed their commitment to a strong and productive US-Egypt partnership”, according to the White House.This followed Egyptian mediation of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, including a recent rare public visit by the Egyptian intelligence chief, Abbas Kamel, to Tel Aviv and Ramallah, and Israel’s foreign minister, Gabi Ashkenazi, travelling to Cairo – the first visit by an Israeli foreign minister in 13 years.HA Hellyer, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinktank, said: “The latest crisis in the Palestinian occupied territories and the Israeli bombardment reminded DC of a very clear and present reality: that there is no capital in the region that has direct and workable relations with the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank other than Cairo.”Biden’s administration capped his warm exchange with the Egyptian president with a decision to request $1.38bn (£1bn) in annual military aid for Egypt – the maximum amount possible.A coalition of human rights groups expressed “strong disappointment” at the administration’s decision. “President Biden campaigned on ‘no more blank checks’ for Egypt’s regime, but requesting the same amount the United States has provided annually since 1987 despite Egypt’s deteriorating human rights record is, effectively, another blank check,” they said.Mansour agreed. “They abandoned the rhetoric calling publicly on Egypt to respect human rights by agreeing to this ‘constructive dialogue’,” he said. “It makes my blood boil to hear this term in many ways. Not just because it’s a repetition of what we as Egyptians, and the United States, have heard from all previous dictators, but it also underscores how naive and timid this administration is when it comes to Egypt.”Since coming to power in a military coup in 2013, Sisi has overseen the broadest crackdown on dissent and free speech in Egypt’s recent history. Tens of thousands remain behind bars for their political views or for activities as benign as a Facebook comment; Egypt’s prisons are at double their capacity, according to Amnesty International.The Freedom Initiative, a Washington-based human rights organisation founded by the Egyptian-American activist Mohamed Soltan, has tracked the increasing numbers of arrests of family members of outspoken Egyptians in exile abroad. It said that threatening phone calls and even physical intimidation were now regularly used against Egyptian dissidents worldwide.“They said they could hire someone here in the States to go after me,” said Aly Hussin Mahdy, an influencer and dissident now in exile in the US. Mahdy described how his family members were detained earlier this year as a way to stop him speaking out against the Egyptian government on social media; his father remains in detention. The threats against Mahdy escalated to menacing phone calls from someone purporting to be an Egyptian intelligence agent after he openly discussed his family members’ arrests.The Freedom Initiative described what it termed “hostage-taking tactics” involving five American citizens whose families were detained in Egypt in order to silence their activism in the US. In addition, it found more than a dozen cases of US citizens or residents whose close relatives were detained in Egypt last year, although it believes the true number to be far higher.It added that one US citizen was warned against speaking to US lawmakers on their release from detention in Egypt, and told that doing so would result in harm to their family.Yet US law contains mechanisms to curb cooperation with countries that threaten US citizens and dissidents abroad. These include the Leahy law, which stops the US funding foreign security forces that violate human rights; the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the government to sanction human rights abusers and prevent them from entering the US; and the “Khashoggi ban”, curbing visas for those engaged in anti-dissident activities.The White House did not initially respond when contacted for comment on this issue. The secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told a congressional hearing this week that “I think we’ve seen some progress in some areas” of human rights in Egypt, but that “when it comes to freedom of expression, when it comes to civil society, there are very significant problems that we need to address directly with our Egyptian partners – and we are. So we hope and expect to see progress there.”US-based activists expressed disappointment at lawmakers’ reluctance to employ sanctions against Egyptian officials, who they say more than qualify for punitive measures.“The fact that Egypt feels it can get away with taking citizens hostage, and so far it did, will continue to be a stain on the Biden administration,” said Mansour. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      Why Is Somalia’s Political Crisis So Difficult to Solve?

      by

      There seems to be no end in sight for the political crisis in Somalia. On February 8, the mandate of President Muhammad Abdullahi Muhammad, commonly known as Farmajo, expired without a date set for either parliamentary or presidential elections. The protests called by the opposition Council of the Presidential Candidates in the following days were met with growing repression from government forces. In April, Farmajo extended his already overdue term by a further two years, igniting violence between the security forces and anti-government militias in the streets of the capital Mogadishu.

      In response, the international community, and the US in particular, increased pressure on Somali actors to come to an agreement, causing the states of Hirshabelle, Galmudug and South West to withdraw their support for Farmajo and call for new elections. Lacking international and domestic support, on May 1, Farmajo backtracked on his extended mandate and paved the way to new elections.

      Russia Joins the Red Sea Scramble

      READ MORE

      Despite optimism around recent advances, Prime Minister Mohamed Hussein Roble, who is in charge of organizing the elections, has a complicated task ahead. Armed confrontation created further distrust between political actors, and violence could easily flare up again in the run-up to the elections. Underlying constitutional, economic and international factors continue to drive this power struggle that is undermining Somalia’s already troubled state-building efforts.

      Federal Tensions

      On September 17, 2020, the federal government and the presidents of the member states agreed on amendments to the electoral process under pressure from the UN mission to Somalia, AMISOM. The agreement fell short of implementation, raising tensions between Mogadishu and the states of Puntland and Jubaland that staunchly oppose federal rule.

      There are three contentious issues on the table. The presidents of Puntland and Jubaland, Said Abdullahi Deni and Ahmed Islam Madobe, accused President Farmajo of staffing federal and state electoral commissions with his loyalists, thereby undermining their expected neutrality. Somaliland is yet another stumbling block on the path to elections. Despite its de facto independence, the transitional constitution still assigns 57 parliamentary seats (46 in the lower and 11 in the upper house) to the region. Those seats could be decisive for the election result, so Farmajo wants the federal government to appoint Somaliland MPs, whereas Puntland and Jubaland want the chairpersons of the houses to manage the selection.

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      Finally, the issue of the district of Gedo has created a deep rift between the parties. Formally, in the state of Jubaland, government forces launched a military operation in February-March 2020 to occupy the region, which is dominated by President Farmajo’s Marehan sub-clan, sparking tensions between Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia. If elections took place at this stage, Farmajo could secure the appointment of loyal MPs from the Gedo district; Jubaland’s Madobe and his allies reject this scenario.

      Behind these flashpoints, however, there are two divergent visions of Somalia’s state-building. President Farmajo envisages the return to a pre-1991 centralized state with himself in the top job. On the other side of the rift, federal member states, specifically Puntland and Jubaland, want to safeguard their far-reaching autonomy within a decentralized Somali state and, therefore, reject Farmajo’s centralization project. Such fear has grown after the president managed to install his allies at the head of the states of Galmudug, Hirshabelle and South West during his tenure. On top of that, the unprecedented reelection of an incumbent could strain the balance of power between the major clans which, until now, have informally rotated the top positions of Somali federal institutions.

      Growing Stakes

      Somalia has faced similar impasses among its elites in the past. Yet this crisis is proving more difficult to solve. One reason for this is economic. Thanks to the 2012 constitutional pact and AMISOM stabilization efforts, federal institutions are no longer powerless and can tap into the economic activities that have sprung up in recent years, especially in Mogadishu. This is consolidating clan-based patronage networks in what Transparency International considers the most corrupt country of the world along with South Sudan. Consequently, the federal government has become a relevant actor in Somalia’s political economy, raising the stakes over its control.

      The most notable of these activities is the housing boom. In 2015, Mogadishu ranked second among the world’s fastest-growing cities as members of the Somali diaspora and wealthy locals built new properties in and around the capital. As there is no land tenure registry, affluent people often bribe public officials to obtain property rights and forcibly evict residents. This phenomenon has also driven severe tensions between public authorities and the local population, especially internally displaced persons.

      How Federalism Can Work in Somalia

      READ MORE

      The oil and gas sector represents the most lucrative opportunity in sight for the Somali rent-seeking elites. Seen as promising by experts, the sector has been reorganized in recent years under the Ministry of Petroleum and the Somali Petroleum Agency and, after the delays due to COVID-19, the first bidding round is about to end. Despite the so-called petroleum law on the distribution of revenues and powers, some outstanding issues remain on the table and the current crisis might catalyze them. Consequently, the oil and gas sector might become another key arena of competition between the federal government and member states in the coming years.

      Some relevant economic opportunities for the government also arrive from abroad. China, for example, showed its interest in Somalia given its strategic location along the Maritime Silk Road and, in turn, the Farmajo administration officialy joined Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2018. With the move, Somali authorities hope to attract investments in the country’s infrastructure. So far, the most visible result of the China-Somali cooperation is the fishing agreement through which Mogadishu granted fishing rights in Somali waters to a group of Chinese fishing companies in exchange for a $35,000 annual fee from each. This agreement, however, risks to upset the fragile livelihood of low-income fishing communities along the Somali coast.

      Neighborly View

      While cooperation with China has future potential, Turkey has been Mogadishu’s strongest partner for the last decade, with partnerships spanning across all sectors, from humanitarian aid to military training. Critically, Ankara has helped the government to train Somali special forces and build major infrastructural projects, like the Aden Adde International Airport in Mogadishu. The Turkish Albayrak Group will soon manage the capital’s seaport and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is even planning to build a spaceport for the Turkish space program on Somali territory, with an estimated investment of $350 million.

      Given its extensive influence within Somalia, Turkey proposed itself as a mediator in the current crisis, with Foreign Minister Melvut Cavusoglu conducting shuttle diplomacy in support of the September agreement. Another Farmajo ally hesitant to take sides is Ethiopia. Despite Abiy Ahmed’s embedded alliance with Farmajo, the Ethiopian prime minister is probably aware that a direct endorsement could prove counterproductive to both the Somali president and to himself as a promoter of regional stability. On top of that, according to International Crisis Group Somalia analyst Omar Muhammad, Ethiopia is busy coping with its multiple domestic crises.

      Embed from Getty Images

      During his years in office, President Farmajo has built strong ties not only with Ankara and Addis Ababa, but also with Doha. After receiving funds from Qatar and refusing to take sides in the Gulf standoff, Farmajo deepened development cooperation with Doha and offered a concession for the Port of Hobyo to the Qatari operator, Mwani, in 2019. This is the reason why Qatar has long backed the Somali president in the current dispute.

      However, as Farmajo’s chances of staying in power are narrowing, Doha is pulling its support and looking for new candidates to back. On the other hand, in reaction to Farmajo’s pro-Qatar stance, the UAE put its weight behind the presidents of Puntland and Jubaland over the past years by providing humanitarian aid, security cooperation and investments in the ports of Bossaso and Kismayo. Abu Dhabi was also the only country openly labeling Farmajo an interim president, a statement that attracted harsh criticism from the Somali government.

      Regardless of diplomatic positioning, the economic and political support provided over the years by external powers has contributed to the current crisis. Investments increased stakes in government positions, strengthened the role of the president and his regional foes, and eventually reduced their willingness to compromise. Electoral commissions, Somaliland delegates and Gedo district remain the core stumbling blocks in the rift between Somali political actors, colliding against divergent visions of governance.

      In the background, the terrorist group al-Shabaab, already in control of around two-thirds of the country, scaled up its bombing campaign at the beginning of the electoral cycle last summer. The international community has spearheaded an important step toward elections and now has to shore up a peaceful path to elections with the help of Somali leaders. Without this crucial support, al-Shabaab is likely to take full advantage of the impasse and further complicate the country’s fragile state-building project.

      *[Fair Observer is a media partner of Gulf State Analytics.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      How the End of the Gulf Crisis Affects Sudan

      by

      Sudan has been at the center of the diverging interests of wealthy Gulf states for many years. Having been close allies of former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar had longstanding business, military and political interests in the country prior to the Gulf crisis in 2017. In June of that year, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt — known as the Arab quartet — cut diplomatic and trade relations with Qatar.

      Mohammed bin Salman’s Neom: A Case of Giga-Narcissism

      READ MORE

      After almost four years of severed ties, reconciliation in January led to the subsequent lifting of the blockade against Qatar and the formal restoration of relations. The resolution of the dispute is a positive regional development. However, it remains fragile because the issues that sparked the rift in the first place were never resolved.

      It is therefore unlikely that the Gulf reconciliation will usher in a new beginning or bring about a return to pre-crisis normalcy. Deep-rooted mistrust between the Gulf countries, ongoing rivalries between them, divergence in their policies and geostrategic competition in Africa could trigger the next diplomatic crisis among member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

      Sudan’s Attempt to Play All Sides

      Most Arab and sub-Saharan African states tried to resist pressure to join the anti-Qatar coalition and delicately maneuver their way into neutrality. These states were uneasy about their move because they feared that the Arab quartet would use their economic might against them. As a result, some African states cut or downgraded ties with Qatar.

      Financial influence in Africa has helped GCC states capitalize on their geostrategic location, increase their food security and advance their diplomatic and security goals. By offering substantial economic incentives, they have been able to bolster peace agreements between warring factions. Some GCC states have achieved notable success, growing influence and African allies that support their policies. Sudan is a case in point. In 2019, Saudi investments in Sudan were estimated at $12 billion, the UAE at $7 billion and Qatar at $4 billion, as per the Sudanese Bureau of Statistics. 

      Due to Saudi Arabia’s large investments, Sudan supported the Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen in 2015 by deploying Rapid Support Forces and severing diplomatic ties with Iran. However, Bashir’s relationship with Riyadh and Abu Dhabi began stalling in the last few years of his rule. As part of the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s regional efforts to counter what they considered political Islam, Bashir was expected to root out Islamists in Sudan. However, since Islamists were deeply engrained in Sudan’s government, he could not risk alienating them and did not oblige.

      The Gulf dispute put Bashir in another uncomfortable position. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar were all key investors in Sudan and he could not afford to alienate any of them. Therefore, Bashir took the safest route of remaining neutral while offering to mediate between the opposing sides.

      The Sudanese leader’s reaction to the Gulf rift was not surprising. Historically, he cooperated with all regional powers, never fully aligning with any of them. His hands-off approach and ability to easily switch from the role of an army leader to an advocate of political Islam, enabled Sudan to simultaneously ally with rival GCC camps. It seems that Bashir’s key goal was to benefit economically from all Gulf states.

      Sudan Under the New Transitional Government

      Unfortunately for Bashir, Sudan’s economy collapsed, nationwide protests erupted in December 2018 and none of his Gulf allies came to his rescue. The GCC states were probably influenced by growing uncertainty regarding Bashir’s future. Their goal was to protect their investments, not Bashir. Without GCC financial support, the Sudanese president found his days in power numbered.

      In April 2019, Saudi Arabia and the UAE backed a military coup that ended three decades of Bashir’s rule and led to the creation of a Transitional Military Council (TMC). The GCC duo promptly promised a staggering $3 billion in aid to support the TMC. However, growing international pressure pushed the TMC to sign a power-sharing agreement with Sudan’s pro-democracy movement. The TMC transferred power to a sovereignty council for a transitional period. Elections to usher in a civilian-led government are planned in late 2023 or early 2024.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Saudi Arabia and the UAE have vested interests in backing the Sudanese military and ensuring it maintains control of the political transition. Consequently, they continue to offer economic and humanitarian support to Sudan. In return, the TMC has supported their war efforts in Yemen and, more recently, in Libya.

      After the 2019 revolution, Sudan temporarily cut ties with Qatar, accusing it of supporting Islamists. Qatar had a close relationship with Bashir’s former ruling National Congress Party that drew the ire of the TMC. However, Qatar has since rebuilt its influence by supporting Sudan’s removal from the US list of State Sponsors of Terrorism (SST). In October 2020, Doha announced that a peace agreement had been brokered between the transitional government and rebel forces. Qatar has also provided much-needed humanitarian relief.

      Sudan remains a country of great economic and security importance to the world. It has an abundance of natural resources. The African Development Bank Group estimates that approximately 63% of Sudan’s land is agricultural but only 15-20% is under cultivation. This offers vast investment opportunities in agriculture. Sudan is also strategically located on the Red Sea just south of the Suez Canal, a key shipping passage for world trade.

      Major Challenges and Future Scenarios

      Sudan’s transitional government recently set its priorities for 2021, which include a focus on the economy, peace, security, foreign relations and the ongoing democratic transition. However, the challenges facing the transitional government are dire. Foreign debt has risen to over $60 billion and inflation has crossed 300%. The country faces massive unemployment and chronic shortages of bread, fuel and foreign currency. Sudan is in the throes of a complex power struggle between civilians and the military. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) threatens Sudan’s water security. Sudanese and Ethiopian troops have clashed at the border. If this was not daunting already, Sudan has registered nearly 32,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19, as of April 9.

      In response to some of these challenges, the transitional government has instituted seismic constitutional changes. After nearly three decades, the US removed Sudan from the SST list in January, eliminating a major hurdle to debt relief and bringing an end to the country’s isolation from global financial systems. However, the transitional government remains under pressure to deliver quick economic wins. If it fails, power may shift back toward the military. In these tough circumstances, the transitional government’s success and Sudan’s democratic future depend on outside financial support.

      For Sudan, the Gulf crisis served as a minor inconvenience. The revolution and Sudan’s removal from the SST list are more significant developments. GCC states are now encountering a growing number of new regional and international players who are looking at Sudan with increased interest. This could very well cause a shift in Gulf–Sudan relations.

      Although GCC states have a shared strategic interest in Sudan’s stability, this takes a back seat to alliances that promote the individual interests of these Gulf countries. They are all trying to increase their regional influence and are turning post-revolution Sudan into another theater of GCC rivalry. Given Sudan’s fragile economic and political situation, it needs financial support. Economic forces played a major role in the fall of Omar al-Bashir’s regime and will determine the survival of the transitional government.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Macron’s Campaign to Reveal France’s Historical Sins

      by

      One of the worst humanitarian disasters of the past 30 years took place in 1994 in Rwanda. Approximately 800,000 people died in a genocidal campaign led by the Hutu majority against the Tutsi minority. The rampage began after Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana’s plane was shot down. The Hutus immediately blamed the Tutsis and initiated a “well-organized campaign of slaughter” that lasted several months. A new French report on the Rwandan genocide has revealed some uglier truths about the role played by Western powers — particularly France.

      Since his election, French President Emmanuel Macron has demonstrated what some French patriots feel is a morbid curiosity about the history of France’s relations with the African continent. In the first three months of 2021, two reports by French historians tasked by Macron to tell the truth have been released. The first concerns France’s role in the Algerian War of Independence between 1954 and 1962, and the second, the Rwandan genocide.

      The Other Side of the Indian Farmers’ Protests

      READ MORE

      Le Monde describes the 1,200-page Rwandan report as “solid, established by independent researchers and founded on newly opened archives.” Shortly after taking office in 2017, Macron asked historian Vincent Duclert to elucidate France’s role in the Rwandan genocide. Al Jazeera describes the report as criticizing “the French authorities under [Francois] Mitterrand for adopting a ‘binary view’ that set Habyarimana as a ‘Hutu ally’ against an ‘enemy’ of Tutsi forces backed by Uganda, and then offering military intervention only ‘belatedly’ when it was too late to halt the genocide.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Binary view:

      A prevalent mindset among leaders responsible for foreign policy in powerful nations, whose tendency to reduce every problem to a contest between two diametrically opposed points of view permits them to justify the most cynical and cruelly destructive policies

      Contextual Note

      In the aftermath of the genocide, analysts speculated about whom to blame, not only concerning the genocide itself but also the failure to prevent it from spinning out of control. As the leader of the nation whose role as “policeman of the world” became consolidated after the fall of the Soviet Union, US President Bill Clinton exhibited an apparent “indifference” to tribal slaughter in Africa. It included deliberate “efforts to constrain U.N. peacekeeping.” Canadian General Romeo Dallaire accused Clinton of establishing “a policy that he did not want to know,” even though since 1992, US intelligence had been aware of a serious Hutu plan to carry out genocide.

      French President Francois Mitterand’s guilt, it now turns out, was far more patent and direct than Clinton’s. The historians who authored the French report call it “a defeat of thinking” on the part of an administration never held accountable for its “continual blindness of its support for a racist, corrupt and violent regime.” Astonishingly, the report reveals that “French intelligence knew it was Hutu extremists that shot President Habyarimana’s plane down, which was seen as the trigger for the genocide.” Le Monde attributes Mitterand’s blindness to his “personal relationship” with the slain Hutu president.

      Historical Note

      By sneaking through the gaping cracks in the traditional parties on the right and left to be elected president, Emmanuel Macron became the leader of a new party created for the purpose of providing him with a majority in the 2017 parliamentary election that followed his historic victory. As a political maverick, Macron felt himself liberated from at least some of the shackles of history.

      He first dared to do what Fifth Republic presidents of the past had carefully avoided when, as a candidate, he attacked the very idea of colonization, which not only played an essential role in France’s past, but continued to produce its effects through the concept of Francafrique. In an interview in Algiers, the Algerian capital, early in the 2017 presidential campaign, Macron described colonization as a “genuinely barbaric” practice, adding that it “constitutes a part of our past that we have to confront by also apologising to those against whom we committed these acts.”

      Politicians on the right predictably denounced what they qualified as Macron’s “hatred of our history, this perpetual repentance that is unworthy of a candidate for the presidency of the republic.” This is the usual complaint of the nationalist right in every Western nation. Recently, columnist Ben Weingarten complained that Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project for The New York Times Magazine was motivated by “hatred for America.” Patriots in every country tend to believe that exposing any embarrassing historical truth is tantamount to hate and intolerance of their own noble traditions. Telling the truth is treasonous.

      Embed from Getty Images

      In January 2021, the historian Benjamin Stora presented the report Macron commissioned him to produce on France’s historical relationship with Algeria. Stora proposed the “creation of a joint ‘Memory and Truth’ commission.” The report also recommended “restitution, recognition of certain crimes, publication of lists of the disappeared, access to archives” and “creation of places of memory.” Suddenly, Macron realized that he had received more than he bargained for. As the website JusticeInfo.net reported, “The French presidency said there was ‘no question of showing repentance’ or of ‘presenting an apology’ for the occupation of Algeria or the bloody eight-year war that ended 132 years of French rule.”

      These two examples demonstrate France’s curious relationship with history. They also tell us about how powerful nations elaborate and execute their foreign policy. France is not alone. Every nation’s policy starts from a sense of national interest. The ensuing analysis begins by assessing threats to it. These may be military, economic or even cultural. In the case of military threat, the nation in question will be branded either an enemy or, if diplomatic politeness prevails, an adversary. When the discord is purely economic, the other nation will most likely be called a competitor or a rival. When the threat is cultural — as when Lebanon and Israel square off against each other about who makes the most authentic hummus — foreign policy experts will simply shut up and enjoy the show.

      On the other hand, three forms of cultural competition — linguistic, tribal and religious rivalries — have real implications for the exercise of power and may seriously influence the perception of whether what is at stake is enmity, rivalry or friendly competition. The danger in such cases lies in confusing cultural frictions with political ambitions.

      The two French reports reveal that the very idea of “national interest” may not be as innocent as it sounds. It can also mean “extranational indifference,” or worse. Indifference turns out to be not just a harmless alternative to the aggressive pursuit of national interest. In some cases, it translates as a convenient pretext for the toleration or even encouragement of brutally inhuman practices. That is why Rwanda may be a stain on both Francois Mitterand’s and Bill Clinton’s legacies.

      Another feature of modern policy may appear less extreme than the tolerance of genocide while being just as deadly. As Noam Chomsky, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies and others have repeatedly asserted, the imposition of drastic sanctions has become a major weapon in the US foreign policy arsenal. Sanctions essentially and often sadistically target civilian populations with little effect on the targeted leaders. Sanctions have become an automatic reflex mobilized not just against enemies or rivals, but also against the economically disobedient, nations that purchase goods from the wrong designated supplier.

      In 2012, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, writing for The Guardian, noted that the Obama administration’s sanctions on Iran were “pushing ordinary Iranians to the edge of poverty, destroying the quality of their lives, isolating them from the outside world and most importantly, blocking their path to democracy.” Nine years later, those sanctions were made more extreme under Donald Trump and continue unabated under President Joe Biden. All the consequences Dehghan listed have continued, with no effect on the hard-line Iranian regime’s hold on power. Can anyone pretend that such policies are consistent with a commitment to human rights? Do they reveal the existence of even an ounce of empathy for human beings other than one’s own voters?

      The French at least have solicited truthful historical research about their past. But politicians like Macron, who have encouraged the research, inevitably turn out to be too embarrassed by the truth to seek any form of reparation. After commissioning it, they prefer to deny the need for it.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Gunfire at Mogadishu Protest Intensifies Somali Election Impasse

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyGunfire at Mogadishu Protest Intensifies Somali Election ImpasseOpposition political leaders said they were attacked by government forces on Friday, and two former presidents said they were targeted hours earlier.People fleeing the site of violent clashes in Mogadishu, Somalia, on Friday.Credit…Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAbdi Latif Dahir and Feb. 19, 2021, 7:25 a.m. ETNAIROBI — Opposition protests in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, were interrupted by gunfire on Friday, heightening a political standoff caused by the government’s refusal to hold elections that were scheduled for two weeks ago.Videos posted on social media and shared by local news outlets showed opposition leaders marching through the streets of the city before ducking and running for cover as gunfire is heard.The unfolding chaos in the capital is a flash point in a deteriorating political situation in Somalia, and it risks exacerbating clan-based grievances, emboldening the extremist group al-Shabab and undermining progress the country has made in recent years.The country has been in crisis after delays to a national and presidential election. The four-year term of Somalia’s president, Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, formally ended last week, but he has refused to leave office, setting off a political crisis.The government put the country under a lockdown before the demonstrations on Friday, suspending all public gatherings. While it said it imposed the restrictions because of the coronavirus pandemic, opposition critics attributed the move to an effort to tamp down protests.Hassan Ali Khaire, the former prime minister and a prominent opposition figure, said in a post on Facebook that he and several other presidential candidates, lawmakers, other officials and civilians survived an “assassination attempt” at the protest. Mr. Khaire later said in a news conference that shells fired against opposition protesters had landed inside the city’s international airport. Hassan Ali Khaire, a former prime minister, center, joined members of opposition parties on Friday to protest against the political impasse in Mogadishu. Credit…Said Yusuf Warsame/EPA, via ShutterstockThe chaos came just hours after an intense exchange of gunfire erupted in Mogadishu in the early hours of Friday morning. In a statement, Hassan Hundubey Jimale, the Somali minister of internal security, said “armed militias” had attacked military posts with the intention of taking over government buildings. Government forces repulsed the attackers, he said.Those raids were followed by reports of attacks by the government on other political figures, including Mr. Mohamed’s two presidential predecessors, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, who said on Twitter that the hotel where they were staying had been targeted.“The government forces tonight attacked the Ma’ida hotel where I and the former president were staying,” Mr. Mohamud wrote in a post on Twitter. “It is unfortunate that the outgoing president is shedding the blood of citizens who are preparing for a peaceful demonstration to express their views.”Mr. Ahmed wrote that he believed the attack was ordered by Mr. Mohamed, who is “trying to suppress and force the Somali people from expressing their views peacefully.” The two men had been staying in the hotel along with other opposition figures ahead of Friday’s rally.Somalia’s president is elected by the country’s lawmakers, a process that was scheduled to take place on Feb. 8, but the country has failed to hold the national elections to select those lawmakers.The impasse has inflamed tensions among the federal and regional governments and opposition parties. It has also alarmed the international community, with the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and several African countries, urging the parties involved to resolve the electoral issues “in order for credible and inclusive elections to proceed.”In addition to intensifying attacks from the Qaeda-linked group Shabab, Somalia is battling rising cases of the coronavirus, desert locusts that are destroying crops and climate shocks — creating a humanitarian crisis affecting millions of people. Somalia also severed diplomatic relations with Kenya in December after accusing it of meddling in its internal affairs.The U.S. Embassy in Somalia also called for “an end to all violence” and urged all parties to finalize an agreement on how to move ahead with the election.On Friday, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia said in a statement that it was “deeply concerned by armed clashes” in Mogadishu on Thursday night and Friday morning and called for “calm and restraint by all parties involved.”The clashes, it said, “underscore the urgent need” for government leaders to come together to reach political agreement on the electoral process.Murithi Mutiga, the Horn of Africa project director for the International Crisis Group, said that despite the unfolding events in the streets of Mogadishu, it was not too late for Mr. Mohamed to build consensus around the election and stave off another crisis in the region.“The region can hardly afford another crisis,” Mr. Mutiga said. “At a time when Ethiopia is experiencing internal turmoil and its troops are facing off with Sudanese forces over a disputed borderland and with Al Shabab seemingly resurgent in Somalia and northern Kenya, renewed violence in Somalia and the possible fracturing of the security forces along clan lines would be significantly destabilizing.”Abdi Latif Dahir More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The Good American review: Bob Gersony and a better foreign policy

      by

      What adjective should describe “the American” active in foreign policy? Graham Greene chose “quiet”, as his character harmed a country he did not understand. Eugene Burdick and William Lederer used “ugly”.
      Robert D Kaplan, one of America’s most thoughtful chroniclers of foreign affairs, proposes “good” to describe Bob Gersony, who in “a frugal monastic existence that has been both obscure and extraordinary” has devoted his life to using the power and treasure of the US to serve others through humanitarian action.
      A son of Holocaust refugees, he never held a formal government position. He was instead a contractor for the state department, USAid or the United Nations. Yet his work improved the lives of millions, saving many, and corrected policies that might otherwise have been implemented by “ugly” or “quiet” figures who did not understand the countries in which they operated.
      Gersony’s method was simple: to conduct interviews through a trusted translator with individuals fleeing conflict, to stay “in continuous, tactile contact with the evidence”. It was exhausting work in extraordinarily difficult circumstances but his information, transmitted to senior policymakers in highly detailed “Gersony reports”, was both essential and frequently (as in Mozambique and Bosnia) the opposite of what the policy community believed or wished to believe.
      The truth about a place “emerges from the bottom up”, he said, and thus “you must always believe refugees”.
      Accountability, absolute integrity, objectivity and boldness in speaking to authority were his watchwords. His independence meant personal insecurity. He often shared a simple shack with a translator and slept with his notes under his pillow. Personal danger and hardship were part of the job, yet in no other way could the truth emerge and successful policy be formulated.
      “When you listen to ordinary people,” Gersony believed, “there is so much wisdom.”
      Kaplan calls Gersony “a business-oriented math brain with a non-ideological conservative streak … think of him as an emotionally tortured character straight out of a Saul Bellow novel, engrossed throughout his life in the brooding and dangerous tropical settings defined by Joseph Conrad.”
      This is also the story of another era of US foreign policy, one in which realism and humanitarianism combined to include human rights in the national interest, against the backdrop of the cold war, so often hot in the developing world. Human rights and grand strategy complemented each other. Gersony had bosses who were “authentic, heartland Americans … the ultimate selfless public servants … deeply moral without being ideological, while operating at the top of the power structure”.
      Gersony started in Guatemala, where he began a language school and after the 1976 earthquake worked with relief organizations. He took charge of hurricane relief in Dominica, standing up to the prime minister, asserting, “If you empower people, they won’t be corrupt.” Moving on to El Salvador in the civil war, he recommended massive employment programs for displaced persons, building sewage canals and cobblestone streets – practical improvements that also discouraged guerrillas from attacking the people.
      His solutions were often elegantly simple because they provided the dignity of work and reflected what people actually wanted. And yet, as Kaplan writes, “He still had no credentials … in the ordinary careerist sense, he had risen as far as he ever would.” For Kaplan, as for Gersony, “a meaningful life is about truth, not success.”
      The assignments kept coming: Vietnamese boat people in Thailand; Sudan and Chad; Honduras, where his counterintuitive but accurate recommendation showed once again that “ground-level fieldwork … triumphs over the discussion of big abstract ideas”. In Uganda’s Lowero Triangle, he uncovered genocide with the unexpected help of a British officer advising President Obote. The secretary of state, George Shultz, cut off aid.
      As Kaplan writes, “History pivoted in southern Africa thanks to Bob Gersony.” After an unusual meeting with Shultz and Maureen Reagan, daughter of the president, the US did not aid Renamo guerrillas in Mozambique. Gersony tackled a highly complex situation in Somalia and in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide worked with UNHCR on the repatriation of Hutus. As one official said, his unwelcome truth-telling “stopped the killing machine”. He worked in northern Uganda with World Vision long before Joseph Kony became a hashtag. Knowing the dangers of travel in that region, “he treated the motor pool chief like a high official”.
      Gersony worked tirelessly. “If we skipped lunch,” he said, “we could interview one more refugee, and each refugee was precious – you never knew which one would yield a breakthrough in understanding.”
      By Kaplan’s own admission, his book is also something of his own story, a lament for a time when internationalist moderates dominated both parties and the foreign service enjoyed “the last golden age of American diplomacy … when the bureaucracy at all levels had sufficient money and rewarded talent” in furthering “that sturdy, moderate national security consensus that no longer exists”.
      Embed
      Kaplan does not quite regret the end of the cold war but he does note the resulting separation between idealism and power.
      Indeed, Gersony’s career ended in a very different world. Kaplan sees Plan Colombia, an early 2000s push against leftwing guerrillas and drug cartels, as “a precursor for the fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq”, where gigantic projects and a “dysfunctional interagency process” often failed for lack of perspective. Gersony’s later tasks included tracking food assistance for North Korea, examining the Maoist insurgency in Nepal (and wishing USAid had continued road-building there), and disaster planning in Micronesia, where “in this emerging naval century … Oceania was indeed at the heart of geopolitics” and control of shipping lanes.
      Can realism and idealism combine again? Only through what the French academic Gérard Prunier wrote about Gersony’s “great respect for the factual truth. The world is not just an interpretation or a place for competing narratives.” In the end, Kaplan’s life of Gersony recalls the advice of another quintessential American, Mark Twain: “Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”
      The Good American is published in the US by Random House More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      El legado de Trump para Biden: un mundo trastocado

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutLatest UpdatesInside the SiegeVisual TimelineNotable ArrestsCapitol Police in CrisisAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAnálisis de NoticiasEl legado de Trump para Biden: un mundo trastocadoEl país perdió su brillo internacional. Las políticas trumpistas de “Estados Unidos primero” impulsaron a otras naciones a ponerse a sí mismas en primer lugar también. Pero apostar contra la capacidad estadounidense de reinvención nunca ha sido una buena idea.El presidente Trump con otros líderes del G7 en Canadá en 2018. Sus posiciones sobre “Estados Unidos primero” impulsaron a otras naciones a ponerse también en primer lugar.Credit…Jesco Denzel/Gobierno alemán, vía Agence France-Presse — Getty Images21 de enero de 2021 a las 12:02 ETRead in EnglishPARÍS — La mayoría de los países perdieron la paciencia hace tiempo. Los aliados consideraban inaceptables, cuando no sencillamente insultantes, los arrebatos erráticos del presidente Donald Trump. Incluso rivales como China y Rusia se sorprendieron ante los tropiezos de las políticas volátiles del presidente. Trump declaró en 2016 que Estados Unidos debe ser “más impredecible”. Y lo cumplió.El repentino encaprichamiento con el gobernante estalinista norcoreano, Kim Jong-un, la sumisión ante el presidente de Rusia, Vladimir Putin, la obsesión con el “virus chino”, el entusiasmo por la fractura de la Unión Europea y el aparente abandono de los valores democráticos fundamentales de Estados Unidos fueron tan impactantes que casi todos ven la salida de Trump de la Casa Blanca del miércoles con alivio.A Estados Unidos se le quitó el brillo, los ideales democráticos están desprovistos de fondo. La huella de Trump en el mundo permanecerá. Aunque abundan las denuncias apasionadas, hay un legado del trumpismo que no se desvanecerá con facilidad en algunos círculos. Mediante su obsesión con “Estados Unidos primero”, incitó a otras naciones a ponerse primero también. No volverán a alinearse con Estados Unidos en el corto plazo. La fractura al interior del país que Trump avivó permanecerá y debilitará la proyección del poder estadounidense.“Trump es un delincuente, un pirómano político que debería ser enviado a un tribunal penal”, comentó Jean Asselborn, ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Luxemburgo, en una entrevista de radio. “Es una persona que fue electa democráticamente, pero a quien la democracia no le interesa en lo más mínimo”.El uso de ese tipo de lenguaje por parte de un aliado europeo para referirse a un presidente estadounidense habría sido impensable antes de que Trump hiciera de la indignación el tema central de su presidencia, junto con el ataque a la verdad. Su negación de un hecho —la derrota en las elecciones de noviembre— fue vista por gobernantes como Angela Merkel, la canciller alemana, como lo que desató el asalto del Capitolio el 6 de enero por parte de los seguidores de Trump.Una turba frenética en el santuario interno de la democracia estadounidense fue para muchos países como ver a Roma saqueada por los visigodos. Para los observadores extranjeros, Estados Unidos ha caído. Los desatinos imprudentes de Trump, en medio de una pandemia, le heredan a Joe Biden, el presidente entrante, una gran incertidumbre mundial.Una turba de simpatizantes de Trump asalta el edificio del Capitolio. Las escenas conmocionaron a observadores de todo el mundo.Credit…Jason Andrew para The New York Times“La era posterior a la Guerra Fría ha llegado a su fin tras 30 años y ahora se desarrolla una era más compleja y desafiante: ¡un mundo en peligro!”, dijo Wolfgang Ischinger, presidente de la Conferencia de Seguridad de Múnich.El talento de Trump para los insultos innecesarios se sintió en todo el mundo. En Mbour, una población costera en Senegal, Rokhaya Dabo, administradora escolar, dijo: “No hablo inglés, pero me sentí ofendida cuando dijo que África era una pocilga”. En Roma, Piera Marini, quien elabora sombreros para su tienda en Via Giulia, dijo que se alegró de saber que Trump se iría: “Tan solo la manera en que trataba a las mujeres era escalofriante”.“Biden necesita abordar el restablecimiento de la democracia en casa de una manera humilde que les permita a los europeos decir que tenemos problemas similares y que por ello debemos salir de esto juntos”, dijo en una entrevista Nathalie Tocci, una politóloga italiana. “Con Trump, de repente, los europeos nos convertimos en el enemigo”, agregó.A pesar de ello, hasta el final, el nacionalismo de Trump tuvo seguidores. Oscilaban desde la mayoría de los israelíes, a quienes les gustaba su apoyo incondicional, hasta aspirantes a autócratas de Hungría a Brasil para quienes era el líder carismático de una contrarrevolución contra la democracia liberal.Trump era el candidato preferido por el 70 por ciento de los israelíes antes de las elecciones de noviembre, según una encuesta del Instituto de la Democracia de Israel. “Los israelíes tienen aprensión por lo que hay más allá del gobierno de Trump”, dijo Shalom Lipner, que durante mucho tiempo trabajó como funcionario en la oficina del primer ministro. Tienen sus razones. Trump fue despectivo con la causa palestina. Ayudó a Israel a normalizar las relaciones con varios estados árabes. Trump era el candidato preferido por el 70% de los israelíes antes de las elecciones de noviembreCredit…Ariel Schalit/Associated PressEn otros lugares, el apoyo a Trump era ideológico. Él era el símbolo de una gran sacudida nacionalista y autócrata. Personificaba una revuelta contra las democracias occidentales, consideradas el lugar donde la familia, la Iglesia, la nación y las nociones tradicionales del matrimonio y el género van a morir. Se resistió a la migración masiva, la diversidad y la erosión del dominio del hombre blanco.Uno de los impulsores de Trump, el presidente nacionalista brasileño Jair Bolsonaro, afirmó este mes que en las elecciones estadounidenses “hubo gente que votó tres, cuatro veces, votó gente muerta”. En una ilustración del papel de Trump como facilitador de autócratas, Bolsonaro pasó a cuestionar la integridad del sistema de votación de Brasil.Viktor Orban, primer ministro húngaro antiinmigrante y firme partidario de Trump, dijo a Reuters el año pasado que los demócratas habían impuesto el “imperialismo moral” al mundo. Aunque felicitó a Biden por su victoria, las relaciones de Orban con el nuevo presidente serán seguramente tensas.Esta batalla cultural mundial continuará porque las condiciones de esta erupción —la inseguridad, la desaparición de los empleos, el resentimiento en sociedades en las que crece la desigualdad debido al impacto de la COVID-19— continúan desde Francia hasta Latinoamérica. El fenómeno Trump también continúa. Sus decenas de millones de seguidores no desaparecerán pronto.“¿Los acontecimientos en el Capitolio fueron la apoteosis y el trágico punto final de los cuatro años de Trump o el acto inaugural de una nueva violencia política estadounidense impulsada por una energía peligrosa?”, preguntó François Delattre, secretario general del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Francia. “No lo sabemos y debemos preocuparnos por los países con crisis similares en sus modelos democráticos”.Francia es uno de esos países donde hay una creciente confrontación tribal. Si el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos pudo politizarse, si los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de las Enfermedades pudieron aniquilarse y si 147 miembros electos del Congreso pudieron votar para anular los resultados de la elección incluso después de un ataque al Capitolio, hay motivos para creer que en otras sociedades fracturadas de la posverdad puede pasar cualquier cosa.“Cómo llegamos aquí? De manera gradual y luego repentina, como le sucedió a Hemingway”, dijo Peter Mulrean, quien fungió como embajador de Estados Unidos en Haití y ahora reside en Francia. “Hemos visto la degradación continua de la verdad, los valores y las instituciones. El mundo ha sido testigo”.Como el historiador británico Simon Schama ha hecho notar: “Cuando la verdad perece, también lo hace la verdad”. Trump, para quien la verdad no existía, deja un escenario político en el que la libertad se ha debilitado. Una Rusia envalentonada y una China asertiva están más posicionadas que nunca para mofarse de la democracia e impulsar sus agendas hostiles con el liberalismo.La política de Trump para China fue tan incoherente que Xi Jinping, el gobernante chino, acabó por recurrir a Starbucks, que tiene miles de establecimientos en China, para mejorar las tensas relaciones entre Estados Unidos y China. La semana pasada, Xi le escribió al ex director ejecutivo de la empresa, Howard Schultz, para “alentarlo” a ayudar con “el desarrollo de relaciones bilaterales”, según informó la Agencia de Noticias Xinhua.El presidente Xi Jinping de China espera a Trump antes de una reunión bilateral en Japón, en 2019.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesSin duda, Xi siente algún aturdimiento respecto a Trump. El expresidente estadounidense lo llamó una vez simplemente “genial”, antes de cambiar de opinión. China, después de negociar una tregua en la guerra comercial de los países hace un año, fue objeto de un feroz ataque por parte del gobierno de Trump por permitir el virus a través de su negligencia inicial y por su represión en Hong Kong. El gobierno también acusó a China de cometer genocidio en su represión de los uigures y otras minorías musulmanas en la región china de Xinjiang..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.La estrategia de Trump fue errática, pero sus críticas fueron congruentes. China, con su Estado de vigilancia, quiere superar a Estados Unidos como la gran potencia mundial para mediados de siglo, lo cual supondrá tal vez el mayor reto para el gobierno de Biden. Biden pretende encabezar a todas las democracias del mundo para enfrentar a China. Sin embargo, el legado de Trump es la reticencia de los aliados a alinearse con un Estados Unidos cuya palabra ahora vale menos. Parece inevitable que la Unión Europea, India y Japón tengan sus propias políticas sobre China.Incluso en los casos en los que Trump impulsó la paz en Oriente Medio, como entre Israel y algunos estados árabes, también avivó las tensiones con Irán. Biden ha sugerido que el presidente Abdel Fattah el-Sisi de Egipto era el “dictador favorito” de Trump. Pero entonces Estados Unidos ya no es la democracia favorita del mundo.“Aunque diga que Sisi no da libertad, ¿en qué lugar del mundo hay libertad total?”, dijo Ayman Fahri, de 24 años, un estudiante tunecino en El Cairo. Dijo que preferiría el reconocido autoritarismo efectivo de el-Sisi a la turbulenta democracia incipiente de Túnez. “Mira a Trump y lo que hizo”.Trump llamó al primer ministro canadiense, Justin Trudeau, “deshonesto y débil”, mientras que el brutal Kim de Corea del Norte le pareció “simpático”. No le veía el sentido a la OTAN, pero se cuadró ante un general norcoreano.Trump y el líder norcoreano, Kim Jong-un, en la Zona Desmilitarizada entre Corea del Norte y Corea del Sur en 2019. Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAbandonó del Acuerdo de París sobre el cambio climático y el acuerdo nuclear de Irán y planeó sacar a Estados Unidos de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Puso de cabeza el orden de la posguerra liderado por Estados Unidos. Incluso si el gobierno de Biden se mueve rápido para revertir algunas de estas decisiones, como lo hará, la confianza tardará años en restaurarse.Ischinger dijo: “Nuestra relación no volverá a ser como era antes de Trump”.Dmitry Medvedev, el expresidente de Rusia y ahora subdirector del Consejo de Seguridad del Kremlin de Putin, describió a Estados Unidos como un país sumido “en una guerra fría civil” que lo hace incapaz de ser un socio predecible. En un ensayo, concluyó que: “En los próximos años, es probable que nuestra relación siga siendo en extremo fría”.Sin embargo, la relación de Estados Unidos con Rusia, al igual que otras relaciones internacionales críticas, cambiará bajo el mandato de Biden, quien tiene profundas convicciones sobre el papel internacional crucial de Estados Unidos en la defensa y la expansión de la libertad.Biden ha descrito a Putin como un “matón de la KGB”. Se ha comprometido a pedir cuentas a Rusia del ataque con agente nervioso perpetrado en agosto contra el líder de la oposición Aleksei A. Navalny, un incidente ignorado por Trump en consonancia con su aceptación acrítica a Putin. Navalny fue detenido esta semana a su regreso a Rusia, una medida condenada en un tuit por Jake Sullivan, el nuevo asesor de seguridad nacional.Trump y el presidente Vladimir Putin de Rusia en la cumbre del G20 en Japón en 2019.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesPutin esperó más de un mes para felicitar a Biden por su victoria. También tomó un tiempo, pero los puestos de recuerdos en Ismailovo, un extenso mercado al aire libre en Moscú, ahora venden muñecos de madera de Biden, al estilo de las matrioskas, y ya no tienen muñecos de Trump. “Ya nadie lo quiere”, dijo un vendedor. “Está acabado”.El mundo, al igual que Estados Unidos, quedó traumatizado por los años de Trump. Todo el alambre de púas en Washington y los miles de soldados de la Guardia Nacional desplegados para asegurar una transferencia pacífica del poder en Estados Unidos de América son testimonio de ello.No obstante, la Constitución prevaleció. Las maltratadas instituciones prevalecieron. Estados Unidos prevaleció cuando se desplegó al Ejército de manera similar para proteger las capitales de los estados durante el movimiento por los derechos civiles en la década de 1960. Trump está en Mar-a-Lago. Y apostar en contra de la capacidad de Estados Unidos para reinventarse y resurgir nunca fue una buena idea, ni siquiera en los peores momentos.Vivian Yee More