Connect with us

Americas

The logic and strategy of Trump’s Presidency

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] W [/yt_dropcap] hich are the psycho-political mechanisms and the actual policies that have led Donald Trump to power? It is not something simple to define. Certainly the Presidency of the businessman having a German origin – as former President Eisenhower’s – has gone against all the tenets and dogmas of the now intolerable politically correct. It has tackled the core of the US crisis that is much more evident at social level than Europe’s, which is not politically correct but at least has the Welfare State.

For example in almost 8% of American homes, there are “food insecure” children – a politically correct way to say that they do not eat enough.

Furthermore, in 2014, there were 43.1 million poor people in the United States, 19.4 millions of whom lived in extreme poverty.

Even the government statistical offices tell us that one of the major causes of poverty is immigration.

The immigrants coming from other neighbouring countries, namely Mexico, are ready to be paid less than the native people – hence the low-wage jobs are becoming increasingly rare and increasingly low-paid.

Then there is the huge military and security spending, which is 50% of the government’s discretionary spending. All this finally leads to what some sociologists have defined as the “culture of inequality”.

Indeed, the United States are alien to any social tradition of solidarity, which remains Protestantly withdrawn into the soul of the single individual.

Therefore populations are always segregated by income and race and, as already said, jobs are rare and underpaid, which generates mass crime and spreads the model of the “single parent family”.

Hence this is the starting design: the long progressive season in the United States; a political culture more interested in gay marriage than in mass poverty; a political language focused on the body and its “rights”; the pop culture as the axis of young people’s communication, education and training.

Young people have to be considered future consumers, not producers.

Conversely Donald Trump speaks, first and foremost, to the underprivileged masses, who are huge in the United States.

The Midwest region which voted for Trump, the Rust Belt of abandoned factories and endemic poverty of the former working class followed the Brexit example and voted for the New York’s tycoon.

All the universalistic political classes that remember what is useless and forget the new poverty will be wiped out.

In addition, and this still holds true at psycho-political level, Trump’s election campaign was specifically “male chauvinist and sexist”, without bending to the various current mythologies – as Barthes called them – which idealize and enhance the role of women and conversely make men an often unnecessary corollary.

Trump’s other chance of victory was Hillary Clinton herself.

She endangered the US ambassador to Libya, Stevens, who later died in an attack by Ansar al Sharia, by denying additional support to make the Benghazi’s offices safe. Not to mention the misuse of the Clinton Foundation, used as a bribe for those who wanted to talk to the Head of the State Department.

She was also blamed for the 15,000 e-mails on her personal server, as well as for her obviously not good health conditions and the aura of cynicism and truth denial shown in her political activities.

In short, only the naive Europeans, with their poor minds still tied to the myths of Kennedy’s “New Society”, could fund her publicly, being ill-informed of how the election campaign was going and later subjected to Trump’s revenge.

Let us not forget that, even during the election campaign, Hillary Clinton was focused on continuing to implement the tragic strategy of “bringing” democracy throughout the Middle East.

In fact, she had started the insurgency which unsuccessfully tried to oust   Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria.

Indeed, she used all the jihad delinquents, renamed – for the occasion – “moderate Islamists”.

Maybe those groups included also Ansar al Sharia, precisely the one which had assassinated Stevens and the others in Benghazi …

The jihadist fighters trained by CIA and the Department of State shot one another while, after the US training, some “moderate” jihadist groups went immediately to enlist and swell the Isis ranks.

The comedy of tragedy.

Reverting to the election campaign, it is not hard to guess that Bernie Sanders’ supporters voted for Hillary Clinton, but bringing not even an additional voter to the polls for supporting her.

However, what is President-elect Trump planning to do? He will most likely be the political leader putting an end to globalization, which was an Americanization and, hence, can only be stopped “at source.”

In more concrete terms, Trump said the united States should stop the great immigration from the South, namely from Mexico, which should pay for the now notorious “wall.”

Hence less immigration, less competition for “low-paid jobs” and wage increase in those sectors.

Trump, a politician from the Right, is the first candidate for the Presidency to talk about the poor during the election campaign.

This is not so strange. It was Bismarck, with the help of the Social Democrat Lassalle, to make insurance mandatory for workers.

Moreover, again in Trump’s mind, the Muslims coming from countries with a proven record of terrorism against the United States should be barred from entering the country.

However, are there Islamic countries not falling within this category?

Currently there are 3.3 million Muslims living in the United States.

An even smaller religious minority than Hindus and Sikhs in America.

Obviously Trump wants to avoid the quick expansion of this ethno-religious area, which the new President regards as a “fifth column” of all forms of Islamic insurgency.

This is another limit to globalization: one of its founding myths was everybody’s freedom to move everywhere to find good jobs, salvation and survival.

This was also a way to stabilize the Third World countries’ regimes which, thanks to emigration, got rid of their “dangerous masses.”

This is no longer the case in the United States.

Maybe the US stance and behaviour on these issues will encourage the countries recording strong migration flows to seal their borders permanently.

The issue of borders recurs everywhere – those borders which, according to Régis Debray, were the first motivation for a State.

Another issue raised in the election campaign, which will soon be implemented, is the end of “Obamacare”, the system of health insurance for the poor people that has also greatly irritated and vexed the US old and new Right.

In essence, “Obamacare” is the State support for purchasing health insurance, thus forbidding insurance companies from refusing to insure people for their past health conditions or economic status.

In the United States healthcare spending accounts for 10% of GDP, while in countries characterized by the Welfare State, such as Italy, it accounts for 9.2%.

The reason for all this is complex to explain, but one point is clear: it is a health system focused on doctors’ income.

Trump, however, believes that everyone should have health coverage, but not linked to the insurance market, which has other criteria than those of the healthcare system, because it only wants to make profit.

Nevertheless it is not yet clear how Trump wants to solve this problem in the future.

Furthermore the new President-elect believes that we should certainly set great store by clean air and water, but he thinks that “climate change” is a real hoax.

And to think that a former vice-President had made it the focus of his election campaign, fearing huge destruction which did not occur.

Certainly we must take care of the environment, but the scare-mongering campaign of “climate change” supporters has much to do with science fiction movies.

As to the global strategy, Trump has dared to challenge one of the most deeply-rooted common places in the US public, by saying that the world would be better if Saddam and Gaddafi were still in power.

They both fought terrorism better and made their countries stable; it was a US severe mistake to make them collapse.

This is an essential step: with Trump, America will cease to bring democracy everywhere, with the results that are before us to be seen.

Will it be a new isolationism? No, it will not.

It will be a new US position in the world, in close relation with China’s strong economic and political expansion, a more assertive Russia and an irrelevant Europe.

Not to mention the hot spots: Syria, North Korea and the whole Middle East.

Trump has already stated he is harshly opposed to the JCPOA Treaty on Iran’s nuclear power.

In his opinion, the 5 + 1 Treaty is a way to enrich Iran and not to really stop its nuclear weapons, thus making it continue to play its role as sponsor of international terrorism.

Certainly, as already discussed at length, the JCPOA Treaty has many chances to be circumvented and, in any case, it does not stop the Iranian race to nuclear weapons.

Trump has also stated he has a plan to eliminate Isis, but he has not delved into the issue during the election campaign.

Furthermore – and this is a sore spot for Europeans – Trump has dismissed NATO as “obsolete”.

In other words, the President-elect thinks that the primary axis of defence is not what unites Europe to America, but he believes that the United States should take autonomous and independent actions with regard to China, the Russian Federation and the other growing geopolitical powers.

Just to quote the witty remark of its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, NATO had been created to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down”.

Today, this is no longer the case: the Germans are autonomous and often make foreign policy with the United States and not with the other EU Member States; the Russians are out but, despite the current NATO doctrine, they are not a deadly threat.

Now the new strategic potentials are elsewhere.

Hence if NATO is obsolete, we shall rethink the EU’s foreign policy, which will not have the automatic protection ensured by the Atlantic mechanism.

Therefore the EU shall rethink all its foreign and defence policy lines, including the most recent ones, and accept the fact that globalization, at least its first phase, is over.

The United States will play their game, regardless of Europeans liking it or not.

Moreover the European Union shall rethink its strategic role.

Shall it only be an economic union, with the euro that nobody wants any longer? It will soon fail because every political union has a strategic and military principle.

However, there will be a real European army, as some people hope after Brexit?

And who will dictate the strategies: the EU universalistic humanitarianism or other countries more aware of the new threats?

In short, with Trump, Europe is alone. It shall operate in a new world without the forms of protection which had arisen in the aftermath of World War II.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Trump impeachment failure: What is in store for America and the world?

Published

on

On February 5, the US Senate found President Donald Trump not guilty of actions which could be classified as requiring his removal from office. All Republican Senators, who have a majority in the house, except Mitt Romney, turned down both charges against the president which accused him of “abuse of office” and ” obstructing Congress work.”

That impeachment is not the option was obvious to any Washington insider from the very beginning. To remove Trump from office it was necessary to enlist the support of two thirds in the Senate, which is unrealistic at the moment. The more moderate opponents of the head of the White House could, if they wanted, remind themselves and others that until the very last they were calling for considering all the pros and cons of an attempt to remove the president from office. A number of experts believed that “a threat of the impeachment procedure, without specific measures to this effect, would be a much safer way to ensure the defeat of Donald Trump in the next year’s presidential election.”The hearings as such would demonstrate the “incompetence” of the current head of state. Even Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, who ultimately came to lead the Democratic attack against Trump, warned in March last year that “impeachment divides the country in such a bad way that … we should not follow this path”. Last December, The Washington Post pointed out that in America, “there is extremism, there is no political clairvoyance, while the voices of reason are drowned in hyper-party cacophony.”

Over the past years, Washington has indeed seen a continuing buildup of fierce political battles. The political layout which came into place after the mid-term elections in 2018 – the Democrats control the lower house and the Republicans have majority in the upper – has resulted in a situation in which battles are waged not just for every yard, but for every inch of political space.

Success in the lower house midterm elections, that is, getting the largest number of seats since 1974, has clearly encouraged the Democrats. Given the situation, an attempt to impeach the president was seen by their leadership as a good opportunity to return anti-Trump inquiries to the political agenda. In addition, the expectations of Democratic Party supporters regarding the launch of impeachment procedure were so high that a refusal of the party leadership to try to remove Trump from office could cost Democrats votes this year. We should not forget that we are talking not only about the presidential election, but also about the next congressional election campaign.

The confrontational scenario of the 2020 election campaign appears almost inevitable. Critics of the president do understand this, so their statements after the failure of the impeachment move are predictably radical – now Trump is unbound. They believe that he will now move with renewed vigor towards the implementation of his “anti-American fantasies.” Trump’s supporters are so dazed by ideological confrontation with the opponents that they are ready to accept and defend “any lie from his mouth.” As for the American democracy, it is vulnerable “as never before.”

Trump, in turn, makes it clear that he craves political revenge. He has already fired several officials who testified against him during the impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. Most likely, Trump will continue to rely on “American nationalism” and “white identity”, so hated by Democrats. He has also got more grounds to blame the obstruction-creating Democrats for all his failures during the election campaign. Moreover, what with all the achievements in the midterm elections two years ago, the Democrats were defeated, or could not sufficiently build up their positions in a number of states which are considered to play a key role in the upcoming presidential election. And the recent primaries in Iowa where the calculation of the results dragged on for several days demonstrated that the Democratic Party is still experiencing chaos and confusion.

According to a generalized view of domestic political processes in the United States, the executive branch’s futile attempts to push through the Congress projects of significant legislative changes have long become a “tradition” in American domestic politics. This process originated a long time ago – after the end of the Cold War, when the need for coming to a bipartisan consensus lost the status of a national security issue. As a result, discussions of almost every important point of the presidential election campaign are accompanied by  emotions, which prevail over facts and over attempts to propose a reasonable and comprehensive solution.

This trend is consistent under Trump. On the one hand, the Republican president has a good reason to criticize the legacy of his predecessors. He would also be right to appeal to the importance of launching “at last” the practical implementation of reforms, the need for which has been acknowledged by all administrations since the mid-1990s. On the other hand, the presence of a political will faces the realities of the political process, the participants of which, as before, appeal not so much to national interests as to the moods of the public. Demand gives rise to supply – Trump prefers to focus on issues that find the strongest emotional response in society. In response, the opponents accuse Trump of pursuing a “chaotic” policy on almost any issue. However, in the long run, what is taking place is a split that is running through the entire spectrum of American political system, and this split, as impeachment battles have demonstrated, has been deepened by the efforts from both parties, which are ready to contribute to its worsening with “unprecedented” vigor.

Aggravation of internal political struggle in the USA, as historical experience shows, often pushes American presidents into abrupt, often ill-conceived foreign policy measures. A similar situation happened in the days of Nixon and Clinton. It could be the impeachment threat that prompted Trump to take two steps that could “blow up” the Middle East – the assassination of Iran’s IRGC leader Kassem Sulejmani and an ostentatiously one-sided plan for a Middle East “settlement” that has already been rejected by the Palestinians and a number of Islamic states.

Yet, even after the failure of the impeachment move the international community is unlikely to be able to breathe a sigh of relief. In the context of an easily predictable clash with Democrats in the House of Representatives, which is fraught with a dead end in promoting the legislative agenda, the most natural way for Trump to demonstrate effectiveness in the eyes of voters is foreign policy. From a legal point of view, it is in the field of foreign policy that the US president is least bound by the need to coordinate his steps with the Congress.

And hardly can we talk about the USA easing confrontation with China or Russia. Moreover, Washington has a bipartisan consensus on the need to tighten policies in relation to the two countries. On February 5, Trump’s National Security adviser Robert O’Brien said in Washington: “Look, our challenge and the challenge of our generation is China’s growth and the role that Russia continues to play on the world scene”.

After the failure of impeachment, the Democrats may well try to use their majority in the lower house to resume attempts to get the issue  of “Trump’s relations with Moscow” and “Kremlin interference” in US domestic politics back into the spotlight. The tightening of parliamentary pressure on the White House will create new obstacles to prevent contacts between Washington and Moscow. Meanwhile, there are grounds to fear that Washington will see a new round of fight for the title of the most irreconcilable opponent of Russia.

Optimists among Russian experts believe that the main focus of the White House, like all of American politics, is finally shifting to domestic issues. This may give Russia a certain freedom of maneuver in international affairs. Dmitry Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center argues, “the risk of Congress introducing new sanctions against Russia will dwindle in the very near future.” Especially, if the Republicans consider them a potential threat to the image of Trump and his administration. On the other hand, … “Republicans may agree to approve the sanctions to once again dissociate themselves from” toxic “Russia,” – the expert said.

According to pessimists, for both Washington parties, relations with Russia remain “one of the main grounds of confrontation.” “Fairly soon, Americans may opt for a new strike on Nord Stream-2, the German Handelsblatt believes.” If Russia tries to complete the construction of the missing kilometers of the pipeline through the Baltic Sea, the House of Representatives and the Senate are ready to initiate another sanctions law, Washington’s diplomatic circles say. ”This bill could include sanctions against project investors from Europe, or companies that plan to buy Russian gas through the pipeline.“ As reported, a move to this effect  could be taken in in the very near future, possibly in February or March. ”

In general, the failure of impeachment is likely to further increase the degree of uncertainty in US policy. The realities of the political process remain the same – its participants will continue to appeal not so much to national interests as to public opinion, which is experiencing an ever deepening split. A certain political stabilization of America can be expected only after one of the parties regains control over both the executive and legislative branches of government.

From the point of view of an outside observer, what happened on Capitol Hill is all but a political formality. In essence, the US foreign policy will remain intact. 

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Americas

Impeachment & Intervention: Where American Foreign Policy Goes Wrong

Published

on

To any ordinary American citizen, it’s well known that government spending is spiraling out of control. The U.S. budget deficit now exceeds $23 trillion — with $1.109 trillion being added to the deficit in the fiscal year of 2019, and another $1.103 trillion projected to be added in 2020. Recently, on December 20th of last year, President Donald Trump signed into existence the huge 2,300-page general bill that includes two spending packages that approximate to $1.4 trillion. The bill received mostly bipartisan support and was lauded as a compromise on both sides.

Senator Ted Cruz, who is an open critic of the bill, said, “This is why Washington is corrupt. This is an example of a government of the lobbyists, by the lobbyists, and for the lobbyists.” This is the unfortunate reality Americans are faced with when it comes to the spending of taxpayer dollars, at home and abroad. In an age where every topic is politicized and party lines are drawn, there is little resistance to multiplying the national debt. While there is mostly bipartisan agreement in Congress for enlarging the deficit, it’s quite the contrary when it comes to impeachment.

The hyper-partisan impeachment of President Trump is an ongoing matter. Both, the right and left have eagerly worked to spin the story to fit their narrative. Republicans say that it’s just another attempt by the left at overturning the 2016 election and/or undermining the upcoming 2020 election; Democrats allege that the President abused his power and tried to use foreign aid as leverage to coerce the newly elected Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate corruption linked to the Biden family. Whether you like Trump’s politics or not, what’s notable is that Democrats “have failed to allege a violation of established law, i.e. a ‘crime’ or ‘misdemeanor.’ Such an allegation has been present in every other impeachment in history, but not here.”

Nonetheless, foreign aid to Ukraine is at the core of the issue. Specifically, the aid amounted to $391 million of military and medical equipment to assist in their deadlocked civil war that started in 2014 with pro-Russian separatists. Since that time, the U.S. has handed over $1.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine overall. Instead of funding war, the U.S. should be actively promoting diplomacy. To what advantage, to the U.S. or its citizens, is sending billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine to help fight yet another proxy war? Absolutely none. Career politicians and academics on the left and right will say otherwise. In reference to the conflict, Stanford Professor Pamela Karlan told the House Intelligence Committee during impeachment hearings that intervening in Ukraine was vital, “so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to fight them here.” Karlan’s logic is not only absurd, it’s dangerous with consideration to what she is suggesting. There is absolutely no evidence to back up her claim that implies Russia would eventually invade the U.S. if they didn’t arm the Ukrainians. This is the new era of McCarthyism. An era in which everything that has gone wrong or could possibly go wrong is blamed on Russia. And, if you disagree — well, you’re a Russian asset and do Putin’s bidding. This kind of manipulative narrative not only validates but fuels American interventionist foreign policy around the world. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine is just a small sample size of this truth. If you want to see the true ramifications of this type of foreign policy initiative, and the rabbit hole it sends the American taxpayer down, look no further than the Middle East.

Within the aforementioned omnibus bill, $4.2 billion is appropriated for the Afghan Security Forces Fund. That’s correct. The U.S. is sending $4.2 billion to Afghanistan to continue its seemingly endless endeavor in the Middle East. In recent years, there have been serious concerns regarding U.S. foreign aid to Afghanistan. Furthermore, this news is shocking bearing in mind the release of the Afghanistan Papers, which lay out in detail how senior U.S. officials knowingly misled the public to make it seem as if reasonable progress was being made in the region. The report bluntly states that over the years they “failed to tell the truth about the war,” “making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” Critical statements from Ret. U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn provoked the extensive investigation that uncovered what many feared to be true. This is not the first time the American public has been fed lies from its government, abetted by the mainstream media, in order to mask the true intent of the war on terror. What is the real reason the U.S. is still to this day in Afghanistan? No one can be sure, but remarkably, opium production has skyrocketed since the U.S. arrived. What is now the longest armed conflict in U.S. history, spanning almost 19 years, there is still no end in sight. How much money has to be spent, and how many lives have to be lost before it’s all said and done with? The U.S. military occupation in Afghanistan is the prime example of foreign policy interventionism gone terribly wrong.

The American government should continue to stand strong with its allies and be an advocate of human rights, but they need to reevaluate the ways in which they do that. The U.S. needs to look at and approach international issues from a cost-benefit perspective. It’s time for a change in the establishment. There are valid questions to be asked about how, where, and why foreign aid is appropriated. These are questions of accountability. The status quo in the American government has gone on long enough, unimpeded, serving foreign interests with little benefit to the American public. The U.S. involvement in Ukraine and Afghanistan are just two instances at different scales that demonstrate this reality seen around the world. President Trump needs to critically assess foreign aid distribution, orient and repurpose the aid to specific points of interest that directly help the U.S.; imagine how much could be accomplished with respect to healthcare, education, and infrastructure if the U.S. started investing in itself more. Moreover, the U.S. would be better equipped to address more pertinent national security problems such as securing the border. President Trump would be addressing policy issues for the left, right, and everybody in between by confronting topics that are owned by his political opponents running for the Democratic nomination. If Trump wants to help solidify his chances at reelection, he should take a firmer stance in his “America First” policy and start putting America first.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Americas

Former Senator Moise Jean-Charles to Win the Next Haitian Presidential Election

Werley Nortreus

Published

on

The former Senator, Moise Jean-Charles is the founder and leader of the powerful political party called Platfòm Pitit Desalin or Pitit Dessalines and he’s working really hard to change the situation of his home country called Haiti. For years, the former Senator organized press conferences and rallies across Haiti because he really hopes to deliver Haiti from the devil called ‘Haitian Tèt Kale Party’ because the current Haitian Government led by President Jovenel Moise and PHTK is not really on the population side at all after voting against Venezuela then joined the U.S. and the Trump administration. 

According to reports, Senator Moise Jean-Charles was a voice for Haiti during the PetroCaribe scandal and he met with President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela then apologized on behalf of the Haitian population for the mistakes and the wrongdoings of President Jovenel Moise and Haitian Tèt Kale Party that caused a long-term protest across Haiti when the PetroCaribe money went missing. Back in 2016, Senator Moise Jean-Charles lose the election for President but he hopes to run again in the next election bid coming up soon. The former Senator said that he is getting ready to run again anytime the next presidential election is set to begin and he will win.

Before President Jovenel Moise won the election in 2016, the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles knew the country might go through a crisis under the Government of President Jovenel Moise and Haitian Tèt Kale Party (PHTK). Years later, all the sectors in Haiti surprised to see how the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles was right about his speech and the long-term protest for the resignation of President Jovenel Moise will cause President Jovenel Moise and PHTK to lose the next election coming up because everyone in Haiti no longer trust President Jovenel Moise.

“Pita gen pou pi tris.”, said Moise Jean-Charles, the former Senator, during an interview with Radio Télévision Pacific.

The former Senator, Moise Jean-Charles want to see a better Haiti for this generation and upcoming generations. The former Senator said the current leaders in the Haitian Government were wrong for voting against Venezuela because the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has done a lot more for Haiti than any other country in the world. According to local media like Bon Déjeuner! Radio and Radio Television Caraibes, Senator Moise Jean-Charles is looking forward to running for President again in the next election coming up.

“I think everyone in Haiti believes that the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles is the answer for Haiti and I guarantee you that Haiti will prosper when Platfòm Pitit Desalin or Pitit Dessalines lead the country.”, said Mr. Werley Nortreus, the founder of Vanyan Sòlda Ayiti, on BDR! Live.

Officials organized a poll so people could vote, and according to the voting results, 99% of the Haitian population across Haiti and in the Diaspora want President Jovenel Moise to step down so an honest leader like Senator Moise Jean-Charles or else can lead the country in the right direction in 2020. The other 1% want President Jovenel Moise to stay in power. According to these votes, the Haitian population no longer wants PHTK and ‘Les Mulâtres’ in power because they failed the country during their Presidency.

The Haitian population is not against former Senator Nenel Cassy, Mr. Youri Latortue, Mr. André Michel, and other opposition leaders or judges because they are all fighting for a better Haiti but the Haitian population believes the former Senator Moise Jean-Charles is the answer for Haiti and they are looking to vote for him in the next election coming up. 

Since President Jovenel Moise’s Presidency failed the country, President Jovenel will not win the next election coming up. According to Zenith FM, the population continues to demand his resignation in 2020 after another crisis hit the country again.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Americas12 mins ago

Trump impeachment failure: What is in store for America and the world?

On February 5, the US Senate found President Donald Trump not guilty of actions which could be classified as requiring...

Newsdesk4 hours ago

Year-old peace agreement must be implemented for ‘lasting peace’ in Central African Republic

Following a visit to the Central African Republic, a UN independent expert said that everyone must take all measures necessary...

African Renaissance6 hours ago

The forgotten world of female silence (around issues of mental cruelty and abandonment)

I think of victims of abuse. Have I been a victim of abuse all of this time, all of these...

EU Politics8 hours ago

Climate-neutral Europe: EU invests more than €100 million in new LIFE Programme projects

The European Commission today announced an investment of €101.2 million for the latest projects under the LIFE programme for the...

South Asia10 hours ago

Pakistan puts press freedom at the core of struggle for new world order

Sweeping new regulations restricting social media in Pakistan put freedom of expression and the media at the heart of the...

Environment12 hours ago

Mobile game aims to bridge gap between citizens and leaders on climate action

Millions of people worldwide will get to share their views on climate action through a UN campaign launched on Thursday aimed at connecting them with Governments and...

Defense13 hours ago

Lithuania: To serve or not to serve in the army

It is well known that in 2015 Lithuanian authorities reintroduced compulsory military service due to the potential threat caused by...

Trending