On a small and desolate western Virginia road, an unsuspecting driver will come upon a lonely and extremely aged bronze plaque. Commemorating a long forgotten and fairly unremarkable soldier who served in the Revolutionary War, fighting at Valley Forge under his commanding officer, General George Washington, the plaque is actually a tribute to the soldier’s effort to qualify for and receive his military pension long after the Revolution was fought and won. He walked on foot from these mountainous hinterlands of what was the far edge of Virginia (West Virginia had not yet become a state within the US) all the way to the capitol of DC, determined to not lose out on the pension he had justly earned. That soldier often got second looks in the American society of the day, largely because of a significantly darker skin than the mountain people of Virginia, though the rest of his facial features seemed decidedly European. For his part, he assuaged the suspicious looks and curious glances by explaining he was European Spanish, though in reality he was a member of a group that at the time was derogatorily and mysteriously referred to in the area as the “Black Dutch,” referencing a racial mixing of parents that involved Netherland traders deeply embedded with the West African slave trade partaking a bit too intimately with the human cargo. It must be said ‘mysteriously’ to describe the group not because of any odd behavior on its part but because of the ignorance of historians at the time who simply did not care or bother to investigate the tortured roots that produced this curious little by-product along the middle Eastern seaboard of America in the 18th and early 19th centuries. As such, little is still known about this fascinating community.
That soldier was called Gustavus “Dolphin” Crosston and he was my great great great great great grandfather directly by blood. I, of course, never knew of his existence or my own connection to this “Black Dutch” community (nor had I ever heard of that group despite having studied race and racial history throughout my life in America) until I found a need in my 30s to undergo genetic testing. Up until that spit tube, if someone had asked me my genetic background, all I could tell them was that my mother was traditionally ‘mongrelized’ across numerous Northern European mixtures as so many New England Protestants tended to be (mixing English, Irish, and Scottish on my mother’s maternal side with a dominant German streak on her paternal side), while my father, cryptically, would only say he was “100% Italian,” thus explaining why he always got so tan in the summer months and maintained a darker complexion than most even during the winter season. As I would come to learn from the genetic testing, I in fact had almost no Italian blood in me at all and, while admittedly not a mathematician, I was fairly certain that meant my father had lied to me my entire life about our family background on his side. The testing also told me I had a very curious background in my blood, one never mentioned and laid claim to by anyone in my family: a prominent 25% of Scandinavian blood mixed ever so slightly with a 1% ranking of genetic markers from Senegal, West Africa.
Obviously, this fascinated me not only because this odd mixture of Dutch and Senegalese, European and African, could be so easily traced to a sordid period of world history involving the American slave trade, but also because the testing put me in touch with living members of my ‘genetic family’ (99% certainty in fact) who were clearly African-American, with a Senegalese heritage, and from the state of Ohio, where my father’s family and many others had moved at the turn of the 20th century from what is now West Virginia, when the coal mines started to die out and the promise of new jobs and opportunity were being offered in the rubber tire manufacturing plants associated with the emerging automobile industry. Subsequent digging revealed the above portrait of Gustavus “Dolphin,” which nearly gave me a cardiac “eureka” moment when first putting eyes upon it: he was an eerie dead-ringer for my father as I remembered him in my youth.
While I am thrilled to have unearthed family I never knew about and rejoice in the new knowledge of a background and history I had been denied, I am still left with questions and queries about myself and my society that are incredibly difficult to answer as America seems to, once again, be going through yet another wave of racial violence and confusion. The chief query is quite simple: so, who am I really? In the vernacular of so much racial history and strife, am I privileged, passing, or persecuted? The only real answer seems to be, frustratingly, ‘it depends.’ And that, alas, doesn’t depend on me or what I want or how I identify personally. Rather, it depends on which America and when America is being discussed?
- 200 years ago, I would have certainly been oppressed, as the one-drop rule was in full bloom and violently dominant. My supposedly miniscule 1% of Senegalese blood would have been seen as just as black as 100% and I would have been treated just as any slave toiling torturously on the plantations of the Deep South. 200 years ago, how I looked would not have mattered as much as what my racial connection was perceived to be, no matter how small or minimal, so obsessed were Americans at the time in determining the so-called ‘purity of race.’200 years ago, I would have been only black and persecuted.
- 100 years ago, I would have been “passing,” as it is clear from my family tree tracings that nearly every generation since my 5x great grandfather married into purely European (re: white) families, thus diluting not only the prominence of my West African lineage but physically lightening the palette of our family ancestor skin tones.100 years ago, I would have been in an American society still just as tortured and torn by its racial history as a century before, even if America was now a full two generations removed from the Civil War. This was an America splitting itself at the seams with the hypocrisy of Jim Crow legislation, de facto reinstating a pre-Civil War ethos across most of the South and more subtly embedding racist mentality in too many throughout the North. In all honesty, I might not have been able to resist the temptation in my ancestors’ place: white America might have been eager to embrace me just by me keeping hidden the family history that traced back to Africa. By then, America would have seen nothing but a white person looking at me, despite my actual ancestors. Given how America was then, can I resolutely declare I would have been true to my family history or would I have simply chosen the easier and more advantageous route? 100 years ago, I would have been neither black nor white and passing.
- Today, I would be and am simply privileged. Today, my genetic legacy is basically ignored or is a cute and fascinating party trick to trot out at gatherings to surprise people with my “exoticness.” My family history is my own business and only something to share if I so choose and not something that can be leveraged against me in the professional sphere. Perhaps most interestingly, I am often told I am not “allowed” to claim my Senegalese ancestors today. But this is not pushed on me from racists, but rather from white liberals who claim to be fighting the anti-racist fight. In this America, with the sordid and odd stories from the Rachel Dolezals and others who attempt to pass as African-Americans by altering their physical appearance, or the countless multitudes that adopt the dress, style, music, and artistry of African-American culture without necessarily educating themselves to the continued trouble of American racism, it seems like we now have an unspoken reverse 1% rule: where a certain predominant percentage of African blood must be present and proven in order to lay claim to the racial mantel. Ironically, America has evolved to a point where there is an ambiguous but nonetheless high bar one must get over in order to be black. Thus, today, I am only white and privileged.
What a fascinating, but still tortured and twisted, evolution of concept across time and space. Race is often called the “special institution” of the United States. This is not because only America has racists or it alone has experienced systemic discrimination, but because it sometimes seems like only America goes through these violently intermittent convulsions about race, whether it is Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Movement or bussing or Rodney King or Black Lives Matter or I Can’t Breathe or whatever comes next (and truly, none of us think there won’t be a next; in America, when it comes to race, there is always a next and it is almost always negative). And while I never aspired to be a symbol of these tortured convulsions, it does seem like wrapped up in my personal history is a perfect microcosm of how America and its people try to deal with and evolve with the concepts of race, identity, and equality. My family, right or wrong, good or bad, has changed and morphed throughout history, even forgetting an entire part of itself, because of America’s problem with race. I was deprived a real and significant side of my personal history because of that legacy (with ease good old Dolphin is the most historically relevant ancestor I have found in my extensive family tree) and now, because America’s modernity is as inconsistent about race as its legacy is tortured, I literally have no idea whether I will be allowed to lay claim to my family, my ancestors, my history, my identity in full. As such, for now, I am not whole. And as long as that remains true, America – a multiracial society only getting more multi-everythinged – will also remain divided. It will never be whole, always identified by its constituent parts but never truly their sum. It will never be a society in full. Perhaps most of all, that is the damnable shame of this country’s special institution, its curious concept.
*Dr. Matthew Crosston is the first-ever Director of Academic Transformation at Bowie State University, the 4th-oldest HBCU (Historically Black College and University) in America, founded just after the Civil War. He is widely published and sought after on issues of war, intelligence studies, national security, education innovation, and change leadership. His work can be found at https://brown.academia.edu/DrMatthewCrosston.
Sea Breeze 2021: U.S. is worryingly heading closer to conflict with Russia in the Black Sea
On July 10th, the 2021 iteration of the joint military exercise, Sea Breeze, concluded in the Black Sea. This exercise, which began on June 28th was co-hosted by the Ukrainian Navy and the United States Navy’s Sixth Fleet. According to the U.S. Navy, the annual Exercise Sea Breeze consists of joint naval, land, and air trainings and operations centered around building increased shared capabilities in the Black Sea.
This year’s Sea Breeze included participation from 32 countries, including NATO members and other countries that border the Black Sea, making it the largest Sea Breeze exercise since its inception in 1997. All other countries bordering the Black Sea were included in participating in the joint drills, except Russia.
Russia’s exclusion from these exercises is not unsurprising, due to its current tensions with Ukraine and its historical relationship with NATO. However, it signals to Moscow and the rest of the world that the NATO views Russia as an opponent in a future conflict. At the opening ceremony of Sea Breeze 2021 in Odessa, it was made clear that the intention of the exercise was to prepare for future conflict in the region when the Defense Minister of Ukraine, reported that the drills “contain a powerful message – support of stability and peace in our region.”
These exercises and provocations do anything but bring peace and stability to the region. In fact, they draw the United States and NATO dangerously close to the brink of conflict with Russia.
Even though Sea Breeze 2021 has only recently concluded, it has already had a marked impact on tensions between NATO countries and Moscow. U.S. Navy Commander Daniel Marzluff recently explained that the Sea Breeze drills in the Black Sea are essential deterrents to Russian assertions in region. However, these drills have consisted of increasingly provocative maneuvers that ultimately provoke conflict in the region.
These drills have done anything but act as a deterrent for conflict in the Black Sea. In response to the Sea Breeze drills, Russia conducted its own drills in the Black Sea, including the simulation of firing advanced missile systems against enemy aircraft. As the Black Sea is of utmost importance to Russia’s trade and military stature, it follows that Russia would signal its displacement if it perceives its claims are being threatened.
Sea Breeze followed another rise in tensions in the Black Sea, when just a week prior to the beginning of the exercise, a clash occurred between Russia and Britain. In response to the British destroyer ship, the HMS Defender, patrolling inside Crimean territorial waters, Russia claimed it fired warning shots and ordered two bombers to drop bombs in the path of the ship. When asked about the HMS Defender, Russian President Vladimir Putin described the ship’s actions as a “provocation” that was a “blatant violation” of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Putin also went on to claim that Moscow believes U.S. reconnaissance aircraft were a part of the operation as well. Despite this, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded with a denial of any wrongdoing.
Russia’s actions to provocations by the United States-led Sea Breeze and interaction with the HMS Defender in the Black Sea signal its resolve to retaliate if it feels as its sovereignty and its territorial claim on Crimea is being impeded on. Despite Russia signaling its commitment to defending its territorial claims in the Black Sea, the United States still willingly took actions during Sea Breeze that would bring the United States closer to a clash with Russia.
Provoking conflict in the Black Sea does not align with the national security interests of the United States. In fact, it only puts the United States in the position to be involved in a costly clash that only would harm its diplomatic relationships.
As Russia has signaled its commitment to its resolve and scope of its military response in a possible conflict, any potential conflict in the Black Sea would be costly for the United States. Over the past few years, Russia has increased the size and capabilities of its fleet in the Black Sea. Two of these improvements would especially pose a challenging threat to the U.S. and NATO – Russia’s drastically improved anti-access/area-denial capabilities and its new Tsirkon hypersonic cruise missile. This would mean any conflict in the Black Sea would not be a quick and decisive victory for U.S. and NATO forces, and would instead likely become costly and extensive.
A conflict with Russia in the Black Sea would not only be costly for the U.S. and its allies in the region, but could irreparably damage its fragile, but strategically valuable relationship with Russia. If the United States continues to escalate tensions in the Black Sea, it risks closing the limited window for bilateral cooperation with Russia that was opened through increased willingness to collaborate on areas of common interests, as evidenced by the recent summit that took place in Geneva. After a period of the highest levels of tension between the U.S. and Russia since the Cold War, this progress made towards improving bilateral relations must not be taken for granted. Even if the U.S. and NATO’s maneuvers in the Black Sea do not ultimately materialize into a full-scale conflict with Russia, they will most likely damage not just recent diplomatic momentum, but future opportunities for a relationship between the two powers.
In such a critical time for the relationship between the United States and Russia, it is counterproductive for the United States to take actions that it can predict will drive Russia even further away. Entering into a conflict with Russia in the Black Sea would not only engage the U.S. in a costly conflict but would damage its security and diplomatic interests.
Maximizing Biden’s Plan to Combat Corruption and Promote Good Governance in Central America
Authors: Lauren Mooney and Eguiar Lizundia*
To tackle enduring political, economic and security challenges in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the Biden administration is attempting to revitalize its commitment to the region, including through a four-year, $4 billion plan submitted in a bill to Congress.
In its plan, the White House has rightly identified the root causes of migration, including limited economic opportunity, climate change, inequality, and violence. Systemic corruption resulting from the weak rule of law connects and entrenches the root causes of migration, while the increased devastation brought about by climate change exacerbates economic hardship and citizen insecurity.
The renewed investment holds promise: previous foreign assistance in the Northern Triangle has shown results, including by contributing to a reduction in the expected level of violence. As the Biden Administration finalizes and begins implementing its Central America strategy, it should include three pillars—rooted in lessons learned from within and outside the region—to maximize the probability that the proposed spending in U.S. taxpayer funds has its intended impact.
First, the Biden administration should deliver on its promise to make the fight against corruption its number one priority in Central America by supporting local anti-graft actors. The sanctions against officials which the United States is considering are a step in the right direction, but lasting reform is best accomplished through a partnership involving regional or multilateral organizations. Guatemala’s international commission against impunity (CICIG) model was relatively successful until internal pushback and dwindling U.S. advocacy resulted in its dismantlement in 2019. Though Honduras’ equivalent was largely ineffective, and El Salvador’s recently launched version is marred by President Bukele’s campaign against judicial independence, there is room for learning from past mistakes and propose a more robust and mutually beneficial arrangement. The experience of Ukraine shows that while external engagement is no silver bullet in eliminating corruption, the role of foreign actors can lead to tangible improvements in the anti-corruption ecosystem, including more transparent public procurement and increased accountability for corrupt politicians.
In tandem with direct diplomatic pressure and helping stand up CICIG-like structures, the U.S. can harness lessons from prior anticorruption efforts to fund programs that address other aspects of graft in each country. This should involve empowering civil society in each country to monitor government compliance with anti-corruption laws and putting pressure on elected officials to uphold their commitments. While reducing impunity and improving transparency might not automatically persuade Central Americans to stay, better democratic governance will allow the three Northern Triangle nations to pursue policies that will end up expanding economic opportunities for residents. As Vice President Harris recently noted, any progress on addressing violence or food insecurity would be undermined if the environment for enabling corruption remains unchanged.
Second, the United States should support local initiatives to help reverse the deterioration of the social fabric in the region by expanding access to community decision-making. Given the high levels of mistrust of government institutions, any efforts to support reform-minded actors and stamp out corruption at the national level must be paired with efforts to promote social cohesion and revitalize confidence in subnational leaders and opportunities. In the Northern Triangle countries, violence and economic deprivation erode social cohesion and undermine trust in democratic institutions. The U.S. government and practitioners should support civic efforts to build trust among community members and open opportunities for collective action, particularly in marginalized areas. A key component of this is expanding sociopolitical reintegration opportunities for returning migrants. In so doing, it is possible to help improve perceptions of quality of life, sense of belonging, and vision for the future. While evidence should underpin all elements of a U.S. Strategy for Central America, it is particularly important to ensure social cohesion initiatives are locally-owned, respond to the most salient issues, and are systematically evaluated in order to understand their effects on migration.
Lastly, the U.S. should take a human-rights based approach to managing migration and learn from the pitfalls associated with hardline approaches to stem migration. Policies rooted in a securitized vision have a demonstrable bad record. For example, since 2015, the European Union undertook significant measures to prevent irregular migration from Niger, including by criminalizing many previously legitimate businesses associated with migration and enforced the imposition of legal restrictions to dissuade open and legal migration. Not only did this violate freedom of movement and create adverse economic consequences, but it also pushed migration underground, with individuals still making the journey and encountering significant threats to their lives, security and human rights.
A welcome realignment
Acknowledging the role of push factors is key to responding to migration effectively. Most importantly, putting political inclusion and responsive governance at the center is critical for ensuring vulnerable populations feel rooted in their community. A more secure, prosperous, and democratic Central America will pay dividends to the United States not only in terms of border security, but also in the form of improved cooperation to tackle global challenges, from climate change to the rise of China.
*Eguiar Lizundia is the Deputy Director for Technical Advancement and Governance Advisor at IRI
Sinophobia grows in Argentina: The relations still the crucial one
Since COVID-19 came up in Wuhan, China followed by the growth of anti-sentiment China especially in Argentina. In late November 2020, the crowds happened in the capital of Argentina, Buenos Aires that involved the two Chinese entrepreneurs who have a supermarket chain and the customers speak loudly if the owners spread COVID-19 pandemic. According to a recent article, the slogan of ‘China out’ is available to speak up against the government.
At the same time, the Representative of the United States expressed similar concerns over the increasingly close relationship between China and Argentina, which come on top of attacks against Chinese immigrants whose country is blamed for the COVID-19 pandemic. The US also concerns that ‘the close relationship’ would limit Argentina’s economic autonomy.
Despite the troubles and the response from the US, the Argentine government still has incredible ties with China on several sides such as economic, military, and politics.
Economic side is crucial with Chinese government. Since President Xi introduced the ambitious project, Belt and Road Initiative, he imagined it can lift China’s economy. One of the developing countries and a member of G20, Argentina. During 2005-2019, Argentina received a maximum investment from China $ 30.6 billion, which accounted for 39 per cent of total Chinese investment in South America. Besides, the Chinese corporations also gave the proposal to build 25 industrial pig farms in Argentina, which will significantly increase pork exports to China. The project involving investment of $3.8 billion, is expected to generate annual production of 900,000 tons amounting to $2.5 million in annual exports.
Even captured by COVID-19 that caused an economic and health crisis, the government has several agreements within China. At least, Argentina has 15 infrastructure projects on the list that can be presented to Chinese corporations. The projects that Argentina prioritizes for investment from China are the rehabilitation plan of the San Martín Railway system, improvements to the Roca Railway line, infrastructure works on the Miter and Urquiza railway, and the redefinition of the Belgrano Cargas railway network.
A Marco Press reported Chinese government and Argentine government discussed the possibility of selling to Argentina the Sino-Pakistan’s resultant force, JF-17 fighter jets. In the history of both countries noted it was not the first time to have an arms deal. In 2015, the two countries signed a deal for Argentina’s purchase of several weapons systems. Estimated at US$1 billion, the deal included warships, armoured vehicles and fighter jets. These agreements were signed during the presidency of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (2008–2015), the left-wing and Peronist leader who built close ties with China. Despite, the retired right-leaning, Mauricio Macri in 2015 having cancelled these projects, the Peronist government in 2019 tried to revive it.
In late May 2021, The Argentinian government have announced an Ascention Technologies SA will have a collaboration with China’s counterpart, Satellite Hard to install a satellite ground station at an industrial park, The Southern city of Rio Gallegos. But before, since 2017, Argentina also hosted a Chinese military-run space station in Neuquen province. The facility signed between the PRC and the prior government of Cristina Fernandez, is largely operated by Chinese military personnel.
The station’s location and known dish characteristics appear consistent with China’s need for facilities in the hemisphere capable of continuously tracking objects in space, in support of its lunar and planetary space program. While the telescope facility does not have an overtly military purpose, the head of the U.S. Southern Command has mentioned it as an item of concern, as it is conceivably capable of intercepting signals from American or other overflying satellites, or supporting other Chinese strategic missions.
The Chinese space radar telescope is not, however, the only instance of China collaboration with Argentina on issues related to space. Great Wall Industrial Corporation has helped to build and launch 13 satellites for the commercial Argentine company Satellogic. Additionally, the state satellite company ARSAT also maintains commercial service contract relations with Chinese-based firms.
The several relations led by the Argentine government depend on China’s potensial. Instead of the protests that have grown up in Argentina, the government needs to upgrade their economic growth. But, for some reasons, the government should set an alarm if China steps up their acceleration. Besides, the government should be careful and must have more consideration to Chinese firms because the West analysts have stated that China’s foreign policy has an unseen reciprocal, the debt-trap. It had been proven that Sri-Lanka’s port, the Hambantota, went to the China side.
Sea Breeze 2021: U.S. is worryingly heading closer to conflict with Russia in the Black Sea
On July 10th, the 2021 iteration of the joint military exercise, Sea Breeze, concluded in the Black Sea. This exercise,...
Russian Foreign Ministry sees elements of show in “Navalny poisoning”
Russian Foreign Ministry’s press secretary Maria Zakharova has yet again dwelled with her usual sarcasm on last year’s reports about...
Partnership with Private Sector is Key in Closing Rwanda’s Infrastructure Gap
The COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic has pushed the Rwandan economy into recession in 2020 for the first time since 1994, according...
Carbon Market Could Drive Climate Action
Authors: Martin Raiser, Sebastian Eckardt, Giovanni Ruta* Trading commenced on China’s national emissions trading system (ETS) on Friday. With a...
10 new cities chosen for World Economic Forum circular economy initiative
The World Economic Forum’s Scale360° initiative announced today the 10 city-based hubs joining its Circular Shapers programme. Scale360° leverages innovation...
A New Era in US-Jordan Relations
King Abdullah of Jordan is the first Arab leader who met American President Joe Biden at the White House. The...
Reusing 10% Will Stop Almost Half of Plastic Waste From Entering the Ocean
It is possible to prevent almost half of annual plastic ocean waste by reusing just 10% of our plastics products....
International Law3 days ago
Syrian Refugee Crisis: A Critical Analysis Concerning International Law
Intelligence3 days ago
Afghan issue can not be understood from the simplistic lens of geopolitical blocs
Economy2 days ago
Entrepreneurialism & Digitalization: Recovery of Midsize Business Economies
Americas3 days ago
Sinophobia grows in Argentina: The relations still the crucial one
Middle East2 days ago
Greater Middle East may force China to project military power sooner rather than later
Africa3 days ago
Former South African president is pursuing a treasonous strategy
Americas2 days ago
Maximizing Biden’s Plan to Combat Corruption and Promote Good Governance in Central America
Europe2 days ago
Anti-Macron protests underline classism, as corona protesters and gilets jaune join forces