The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first - 21st century

The emerging international order

THE DECLINE OF IMPERIAL INTIMIDATION:  THE WORLD IS MOVING BEYOND THE POLITICS OF DOMINATION

October 11, 2026

By Dr Kevin Turnquest Alcena

Nassau, The Bahamas

The rise of a multipolar world, the limits of coercive power, and Africa’s historic demand for two seats at the United Nations, will happen.

The global order is undergoing a profound transformation.  For decades, economic sanctions, military superiority, financial dominance, and political pressure have served as instruments through which powerful nations have attempted to influence the behaviour of others.

Yet the world is increasingly demonstrating that possessing overwhelming power does not automatically translate into political submission.

The United States’ use of sanctions against international judicial institutions raises fundamental questions about the relationship between power, international law, and accountability.

When powerful states use economic or political pressure against institutions tasked with upholding international justice, concerns arise about the independence of those institutions and the consistency with which international rules are applied.

The central argument is not that American influence has disappeared, nor that sanctions have become meaningless.  It is that imperial intimidation is no longer a universally reliable instrument for securing obedience.

Nations are increasingly willing to resist external pressure, diversify their international partnerships, and defend their right to determine their own political and economic futures.

Machiavelli and the traditional architecture of power

Niccolò Machiavelli captured one of the enduring principles of political domination in The Prince:

“It is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII.

For centuries, this logic has informed the exercise of political power.  Fear, punishment, and the threat of consequences have been used to discourage resistance and reinforce hierarchies.  In international relations, economic sanctions, military deployments, and diplomatic isolation can function as instruments of coercion.

But the critical question confronting the modern world is whether fear alone can sustain international dominance when targeted nations develop alternative economic relationships, strengthen domestic resilience, and establish strategic partnerships with other powers.

The answer is increasingly complicated.  Sanctions can inflict serious economic damage, but economic pain does not invariably produce political capitulation.  Military superiority can deter adversaries, but it does not automatically secure their cooperation.

Financial dominance can create leverage, but that leverage may diminish when countries develop alternative markets, payment arrangements, and trading relationships.

A superpower may command armies, influence financial systems, and impose sanctions, but it cannot automatically manufacture the consent of nations determined to defend their sovereignty.

Machiavelli also observed the difficulty of establishing a new political order:

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

— Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter VI, in a common English translation.

This observation speaks directly to the contemporary international transition.  Moving from a system shaped predominantly by a handful of powerful states towards a more representative, multipolar arrangement will not happen without resistance.

Existing institutions, strategic interests, and established concentrations of power do not disappear simply because the world demands change.

Nevertheless, the growing insistence on sovereign equality, institutional reform, and a greater distribution of global influence demonstrates that the existing order is being challenged.

The limits of American pressure: Iran and China

Iran’s long-standing resistance to American pressure illustrates the limits of coercive diplomacy.  Decades of sanctions have imposed substantial economic costs, yet they have not compelled Iran to abandon all of its strategic objectives or simply submit to American demands.

This is an important distinction: resisting pressure does not mean escaping its consequences.  Rather, it demonstrates that the relationship between economic coercion and political outcomes is more complex than the assumption that the stronger state can always dictate the result.

China presents a different dimension of the changing international landscape.  Its economic scale, industrial capacity, expanding diplomatic relationships, and growing role in international trade have contributed to a world in which American predominance faces greater competition.

These developments do not mean that the United States has ceased to be a major global power.  They do, however, illustrate why international influence can no longer be understood solely through military supremacy or the ability to impose economic penalties.

The emerging global reality is that power can impose costs without necessarily securing compliance.

The lesson is not that every country resisting American pressure will prevail, but that the outcomes of international confrontations increasingly depend on economic resilience, political legitimacy, strategic alliances, and the willingness of states to absorb the costs of resistance.

Voltaire and the politics of justification

The French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire offered a warning about the dangers of unquestioned political narratives:

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

— Voltaire, Questions sur les miracles (1765), commonly translated into English.

This quotation offers a useful lens through which to examine how political power is justified.

Throughout history, domination has frequently been defended through narratives that portray the interests of powerful states as synonymous with international stability, security, or civilisation.

Yet a genuinely rules-based international order must be measured by whether its principles are applied consistently, including when those principles challenge the interests of powerful states.

International law cannot command lasting legitimacy if states are expected to respect institutions only when their decisions are politically convenient.

Nor can global justice remain credible if accountability appears to depend on the relative power of those involved.

The issue is not whether every international institution is beyond criticism.

It is whether disputes should be addressed through lawful processes, institutional reform, and consistent standards rather than through the assumption that the most powerful actors should determine the limits of accountability.

The question facing the international community is therefore straightforward: can a system claim to uphold universal principles while allowing geopolitical power to shape how those principles are respected?

Africa must claim its rightful place in the global order

For Africa, the transformation of the international system represents a historic opportunity.

The continent must not remain a spectator while decisions affecting international peace, security, finance, trade, and development are made in institutions where its representation remains inadequate.

“Africa’s exclusion is not only unacceptable, unfair, and grossly unjust; it also undermines the very credibility of the United Nations.”

— William Ruto

Africa’s demand for two permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council is central to this struggle.

The Security Council was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, and its permanent membership reflects the distribution of power at that historical moment.

The geopolitical realities of the twenty-first century are considerably different.  Africa’s population, regional significance, economic potential, natural resources, and contribution to global affairs make the question of its representation increasingly consequential.

The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus calls for two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on a reformed Security Council.  Questions concerning the selection of representatives and the exercise of veto rights remain important elements of the reform debate.

This is not simply a demand for prestige.  It is a demand for a more legitimate international system in which African states have a meaningful role in decisions that affect their security and development.

Africa must not remain a spectator in the making of the world order.  A continent that has contributed profoundly to human civilisation must have a meaningful voice in shaping humanity’s future.

The transition towards a more multipolar world will not automatically resolve Africa’s challenges.  The continent must strengthen regional integration, develop productive capacity, expand intra-African trade, improve governance, and coordinate its diplomatic positions.

Greater representation must be accompanied by the institutional strength and collective strategy required to exercise that influence effectively.

A permanent seat is not an end in itself.  It is part of a wider struggle to ensure that the international system reflects the principle of sovereign equality in practice rather than merely in rhetoric.

Imperialism is losing its power as a universal instrument of intimidation

The deeper transformation taking place is not the disappearance of power, but the changing relationship between power and obedience.

Military capabilities remain consequential.  Economic sanctions continue to influence the behaviour of states.  Financial networks and strategic alliances still shape the international environment.  But none of these instruments guarantees submission in every circumstance.

Countries increasingly assess external pressure against their own national interests, domestic political realities, and alternative international relationships.

Some resist, some negotiate, and others adjust their policies in response to the costs imposed on them.  The outcomes vary, but the assumption that power always produces obedience is no longer sufficient to explain international relations.

This is where the traditional logic of domination encounters its limits.  A world in which more countries can pursue independent partnerships and coordinate their responses to external pressure is a world in which coercion must compete with diplomacy, legitimacy, and cooperation.

The challenge is not to replace one dominant power with another.  It is to build an international system in which no country assumes that superior military or economic strength grants it an unrestricted right to dictate the choices of others.

The true measure of global leadership should not be how effectively a country can intimidate other nations, but how effectively it can build partnerships, earn legitimacy, and sustain cooperation.

Conclusion: A new era of sovereign equality

The world is not yet beyond imperialism, nor has geopolitical coercion become obsolete.  Powerful states continue to possess instruments of influence that can impose substantial costs on weaker countries, for example Cuba’s conflict with America.

But resistance to those instruments, alongside the growth of alternative economic and diplomatic relationships, demonstrates that their effectiveness has limits.

The emerging international order is being shaped by a contest between concentrated power and wider representation, coercion and cooperation, inherited hierarchies and demands for sovereign equality.

For Africa, this moment demands strategic clarity.

The continent must press for meaningful reform of the United Nations Security Council, pursue its claim to two permanent seats, and strengthen the collective institutions necessary to translate its demographic and economic significance into diplomatic influence.

The objective should not be to humiliate one power or celebrate the rise of another.

It should be to establish an international system in which international law is respected, accountability is applied consistently, and the voices of developing nations carry greater weight.

Imperialism may retain its instruments, but those instruments do not guarantee submission.

The defining question of this new global era is whether power will continue to dictate the rules of international life, or whether nations will build a more representative order founded on sovereignty, mutual respect, and meaningful cooperation.

The future will not be determined by military and economic strength alone.  It will also depend on legitimacy, resilience, alliances, and the capacity of nations to shape their own destinies.

Africa and Cuba must be ready to help shape that future.

“There can be no political independence unless there is economic independence.”

— President Fidel Castro, UN General Assembly address, September 26, 1960.

Source / Comment

Venezuela and the Perils of Ceding Sovereignty

US imperialism is “not to be trusted even a little bit,” much less considered a “partner” in a “cooperation agenda.” - Che Guevara

By Ricardo Vaz

 

On January 3, the US bombed Venezuela’s capital region and kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro.  The unprecedented attack represented the culmination of a quarter-century of imperialist hybrid war, including devastating unilateral sanctions, mercenary incursions, “color revolution”-style insurrections, media disinformation, and NGO infiltration.

The four months since have brought a flurry of developments, from renewed diplomatic ties with the US to an overhaul of key legislative pillars of the Bolivarian Revolution.  Additionally, the Trump administration established semi-colonial control over Venezuelan oil revenues, with the amounts and timings of disbursements back to Caracas left entirely at US officials’ discretion.  The arrangement is similar to the one Washington has forced on Iraq since the 2003 invasion.

This compromised sovereignty is a catalyst for other issues.  On the one hand, it makes it tougher for the Venezuelan government to improve living standards without challenging business interests.  On the other, the burden of Venezuela’s external debt might see Washington attempt to impose an IMF loan that will bury the country in debt and dependency for decades.

The acting Rodríguez government’s tenure has been marked by accelerated political and economic transformations.  On the international front, Caracas has restored diplomatic ties with Washington and recently resumed dealings with the US-controlled International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

Domestically, Rodríguez has changed key cabinet and military posts, while pushing through the National Assembly a number of reforms with the explicit goal of making the country more attractive for private sector investment, especially from Western multinationals.

Plans to reform pension, tax, housing, and the landmark 2012 labor law are in motion.  Mining and hydrocarbons have already undergone pro-business overhauls, with slashed fiscal responsibilities, decreased oversight, and disputes subjected to international arbitration.  In contrast to Chávez’s reassertion of oil sovereignty, which underpinned the massive sociopolitical achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, the reformed energy law brings back the old concession model that puts operations and sales in the hands of private corporations.

In tandem, the Trump administration has issued licenses to pave the way for Western conglomerates to return to Venezuela, and several have already struck deals under the new highly favorable conditions.  The licenses maintain and even double down on US sanctions by barring dealings with China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia and mandating that all Venezuelan state revenues from oil and mining be deposited in US Treasury-run accounts.

The subordination to US impositions saw Venezuelan authorities extradite former diplomatic envoy and minister Alex Saab to face charges in the US with little to no explanation.  The move was shocking but not out of context.  In recent weeks, there has been a succession of ceremonies at Miraflores presidential palace where Trump officials get the red-carpet welcome and escort corporate executives to sign contracts under the new pro-business incentives.  Far-right tech moguls, including Palantir founder Peter Thiel, are already taking advantage of Trump’s leverage to establish a lucrative foothold in the country.  For his part, the US chargé d’affaires holds regular publicized meetings with Venezuelan cabinet ministers. 

Caracas’ technocratic and pragmatic approach has dovetailed with a corresponding shift in discourse.  On foreign policy, the anti-imperialist rhetoric has all but vanished.  As Trump unleashes a savage war against Iran and threatens to “take over” Cuba, Venezuelan leaders have refrained from condemning the escalating imperialist aggression while emphasizing their desire to build good relations with Washington.  At the same time, references to Maduro have drastically decreased, as documented in a recent investigation.  Domestically, the central focus has become macroeconomic stability and attracting foreign investment.  Both Acting President Rodríguez and her brother, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, acknowledged receiving “recommendations” and “suggestions” from oil majors amid the recent hydrocarbon overhaul. 

Rodríguez and the Bolivarian leadership, under ongoing US pressure, are betting that the pro-business opening will lead to accelerated economic growth that will trickle down into improved living conditions, thus allowing the government to rebuild social legitimacy and political prospects.  However, this plan faces serious roadblocks.

The first issue is that the acting authorities may not have a lot of time to improve the living conditions of the Venezuelan people. 

Over the previous seven years, with the economy asphyxiated by the US economic blockade, the Maduro government prioritized macroeconomic stability and reduced inflation first and foremost, through a strict monetarist policy package.  While the approach, coupled with a modest oil industry recovery, did lead to slowed down inflation and modest economic growth, it came at a price of freezing wages, consumer credit, and public spending.  The minimum wage, last raised in 2022, is now worth less than US $1 per month, with further increases replaced by non-wage bonuses that cheapen labor costs for employers.

Though these bonuses have increased periodically (the income floor is now $240/month for public sector workers), they are still far from covering living costs.  On May 1, Rodríguez ignored growing calls for a minimum wage hike, the conversion of bonuses to wages, and the restoration of collective bargaining rights, instead doubling down on the bonus policy.  With government officials announcing a labor reform soon, it is likely that the return of the minimum wage will come alongside a significant erosion of workers’ rights and employer responsibilities.

However, apart from its commitment to fiscal discipline, the Rodríguez acting government has little room to maneuver because of its lack of direct management over oil revenues.  At the mercy of the Trump administration to return export earnings in the amount and timing of its choosing, Venezuelan authorities are unlikely to commit to anything that might unsettle the budget.  Rodríguez herself warned that wage increases must be “responsible.”

There is a delicate balance to strike.  To implement the current pro-business agenda, not to mention the US rapprochement, the government needs social peace, and only improved material conditions for the working-class majority can ensure that in the short term.

It is not just the pressure for better living standards that looms large on Venezuela’s economic front.  There is a growing expectation that creditors will soon reengage with Venezuelan authorities to collect on a sizable external debt: a combination of defaulted bonds, unpaid loans, and arbitration awards that, with interest accrued over years, may amount to as much as $170 billion.  The Venezuelan government recently announced the launch of a debt restructuring process, while Washington issued a license allowing the hiring of financial and consulting services. 

Given the recent overtures to foreign capital, Venezuelan leaders will be hard-pressed to honor whatever commitments necessary to render the country a favorable investment climate.  Nevertheless, a major chunk of this debt is illegitimate.

On the one hand, debt ballooned in the mid-2010s as Venezuela’s credit rating was unjustifiably downgraded and borrowing costs went up, as Washington slapped its first rounds of sanctions on the Caribbean country.  The Maduro government made a strategic choice to prioritize debt service as the economy reeled following a collapse of global oil prices, hoping that this “discipline” would stave off a scenario where the country was shut out of financial markets.  It turned out differently.

Venezuela was gradually locked out of global finance after the Trump administration’s 2017 financial sanctions.  Bonds defaulted one after another and have been accruing interest ever since.  And the notoriously corrupt US-backed “interim government” also played its part in running up Venezuela’s liabilities and pilfering state assets abroad.

The diverse group of bondholders and corporations owed arbitration awards is sure to receive the backing of the White House, which holds the purse of Venezuela’s export proceeds.  This mechanism could be utilized to directly transfer Venezuelan state income to creditors in what would effectively amount to international wage garnishing.  Given how Venezuelan bonds have risen in recent months, investors are eagerly eyeing a significant windfall.

Venezuela’s unsustainable debt burden opens the door for further US imperial predations.  Even if there is an agreement to pay 50 cents on the dollar for Venezuela’s $170 billion debt for a period of 15 years, that comes to $5.6 billion a year, roughly a quarter of the present budget.  It is simply unpayable.

While Caracas may be able to settle with some creditors by privatizing Venezuelan state assets, it will not amount to much.  Venezuelan leaders will stress that, with the recent reforms and US opening, the economy will grow tremendously, and they will be able to honor all commitments.  But creditors are not willing to wait when they can cash in now, especially given Venezuela’s weak bargaining position.  The government cannot maintain a functioning country in the short term with a huge debt burden.  As a result, the US might take advantage of the crisis to impose a major loan from the IMF or some lending coalition.

An IMF or similar loan program is more than just an agreement to lend some amount under certain repayment conditions.  It is an opportunity to impose neocolonial arrangements on Global South countries.  In Venezuela’s case it is even more symbolic: it would mean exacting the proverbial pound of flesh for Chávez’s revolutionary audacity to challenge US hegemony in the Western hemisphere.

An eventual long-term credit program would surely come alongside a structural adjustment package of mass privatizations, gutted social expenditure, and all-around liberalization of the economy.  Given the current leverage over Venezuela, US officials may attempt to further entrench the rollback of the Caribbean nation’s sovereignty.

Between the growing domestic demands for improved living conditions and the specter of debt renegotiation, the acting Rodríguez government will find it increasingly difficult to walk the tightrope of maintaining social peace while continuing to make one concession after another to monopoly capital and the Trump White House. 

With the limits of US imperialism nakedly exposed in Iran, Trump needs a victory in Venezuela.  But that victory does not entail a buoyant economic recovery with social justice, let alone the survival of a sovereign and revolutionary project.  Victory for the US is a dependent country, mired in debt and underdevelopment, where Western corporations plunder natural resources and geopolitical rivals are kept at bay.

Ultimately, any long-term plan for sovereign development needs to start from the fact that US imperialism, to echo Che Guevara,  is “not to be trusted even a little bit,” much less considered a “partner” in a “cooperation agenda.”  It will undoubtedly be a major hill to climb.  But thankfully, even if it means starting over, the Bolivarian Revolution is not starting from scratch.

Source: Sovereign Media

The Neofascist Colonial Agenda

What's the Agenda of the Neofascists and Neocolonialists?

Deo Adjuvante, Non Timendum

“With God as My Helper, I Have Nothing to Fear”

Understanding the Neofascist Colonial Agenda: African Solidarity, Global Oppression, and the Struggle for Black Liberation

By Dr. Kevin J. Turnquest-Alcena
Nassau, NP, The Bahamas

Introduction

In today’s rapidly changing world, it is more important than ever for the people of Africa, the Caribbean, and the wider diaspora to understand the dangers of the neofascist colonial agenda.  Although classical colonialism officially ended in the twentieth century, its strategies have evolved into more subtle and sophisticated systems designed to control weaker nations through political marginalization, economic dependency, and cultural domination.

While slavery and direct colonial rule may belong to the past, new forms of oppression have emerged under the labels of progress, globalization, and development.  History has shown us repeatedly that when societies fail to learn from the struggles of the past, they are destined to repeat them.  Our ancestors fought courageously against slavery, colonization, and systemic injustice, believing they were securing freedom for future generations.  Yet today, many of the same forces that once divided and exploited humanity are resurfacing in modern forms.

As Malcolm X warned, “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”  The manipulation of information has become one of the most powerful tools of modern domination.

African Solidarity and Pan-Africanism

Across Africa and the diaspora, the call for solidarity has always been central to the fight for liberation.  Pan-Africanism, pioneered by leaders such as Marcus Garvey, Kwame Nkrumah, and W.E.B. Du Bois, taught that people of African descent across the globe share a common history and a shared destiny.  It called for unity between Africa, the Caribbean, and global Black communities as a strategy to resist oppression and reclaim sovereignty.

Modern institutions such as the African Union (AU) and CARICOM are building on this vision.  The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) aims to increase intra-African trade, reduce dependency on foreign markets, and strengthen Africa’s bargaining power on the global stage.  At the same time, CARICOM has launched a Reparations Commission to demand accountability for centuries of exploitation.

In recent years, CARICOM and the AU have begun coordinating their diplomatic efforts at the United Nations to ensure that reparations, debt justice, and equitable development remain central to the global agenda.  Pan-African solidarity is not symbolic. It is a practical strategy for empowerment.  By pooling economic resources, harmonizing policies, and strengthening regional alliances, African and Caribbean nations can create collective bargaining power in a global system that is still stacked against them.

Neofascism and the Global Power Struggle

Neofascism represents a dangerous resurgence of authoritarianism, systemic control, and concentrated power.  It does not always resemble the fascism of the early twentieth century. Instead, it has adapted to modern contexts, embedding itself within global policies, financial systems, and cultural institutions.

Although many African and Caribbean countries are politically independent, their economies remain tied to powerful global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).  These institutions promote policies that often deepen dependency rather than strengthen self-reliance.  Unequal trade agreements, restrictive loans, and one-sided investment deals are now tools of control designed to maintain global hierarchies.

As Kwame Nkrumah warned, “Neocolonialism is the last stage of imperialism.” Many nations appear politically free but remain economically constrained, unable to shape their destinies without external approval.

The Resurgence of Neo-Colonialism and Neo-Classism

In recent decades, there has been a clear resurgence of neo-colonialism.  While direct colonial rule has ended, new systems of control now operate through debt dependency, exploitative trade agreements, privatization policies, and resource extraction that benefit external powers far more than local populations.

At the same time, neo-classism has become a growing internal challenge. A small elite, often aligned with foreign interests, gains wealth and political influence while the majority face limited access to opportunities, poverty, and systemic inequality.

This resurgence is dangerous because it creates a double oppression. Nations are pressured externally by neo-colonial systems and internally by widening class divides. Those in power are sometimes co-opted into maintaining these global hierarchies, weakening resistance movements and fragmenting solidarity.

Neo-classism also deepens existing social divides, including elitism, privilege, and exclusionary access to education and economic advancement. Without addressing these structural inequalities, the vision of Pan-Africanism and Caribbean integration will remain incomplete.

Systemic Inequality and Global Dependence

Global economic systems continue to sustain dependency in developing regions.  International financial structures often favor large economies while limiting smaller nations’ ability to compete on equal terms.  Resource-rich regions still struggle with unfair contracts that undervalue exports, while illicit financial flows drain billions annually that could otherwise fund healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

As Marcus Garvey stated, “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin, and culture is like a tree without roots.”  Understanding the systemic nature of these challenges is the first step toward dismantling them.

The Caribbean Experience: Discrimination in Latin America

There is also a growing concern over how Caribbean citizens, especially Jamaicans, are treated when traveling to certain Latin American countries.  Many are initially welcomed through tourism campaigns and diplomatic agreements that appear friendly on the surface.  Yet, when they arrive, some face discrimination, hostility, or are even asked to leave despite following immigration rules.

This is not an isolated issue but part of a broader neocolonial pattern.  These nations create the appearance of openness and regional partnership, yet they engage in practices that exclude and marginalize Caribbean citizens.  It reflects deeper systemic biases disguised as immigration control.

CARICOM has a responsibility to act.  As a regional body, it must defend the dignity and rights of its citizens wherever they travel.  Stronger diplomatic negotiations, fairer travel agreements, and policies that ensure equal treatment across Latin America are necessary.

True Caribbean integration cannot exist if CARICOM members remain silent on these injustices.  Solidarity requires collective action to challenge discriminatory practices and ensure that Caribbean citizens are respected and protected.

External Destabilization and Regional Instability

African and Caribbean nations continue to face destabilization through geopolitical manipulation.  From economic sanctions and predatory loans to covert political interference, powerful actors often undermine independent leadership to secure strategic advantages. Conflicts are fueled, governments are destabilized, and economies are weakened in ways that make external intervention appear inevitable.

Modern strategies rarely rely on military invasion. Instead, influence spreads through financial dependency, trade manipulation, and security agreements. Achieving true sovereignty requires recognizing these patterns and creating regional strategies to resist them.

Self-Reflection: Internal Barriers to Progress

While external systems shape much of the struggle, internal challenges cannot be ignored.  Corruption, mismanagement, and weak governance in many African and Caribbean nations deepen poverty and inequality.  Transparency International’s 2024 data shows Sub-Saharan Africa scored lowest globally on the Corruption Perceptions Index, highlighting major accountability gaps in institutions.

Brain drain also weakens regional development.  Skilled professionals often leave in search of better wages and working conditions, depriving their home countries of vital talent.  While diaspora remittances are important, sustainable growth depends on creating conditions that encourage skilled workers to remain, return, and invest.

How Do We Fight Against These Things

The first step in fighting neocolonial and neofascist systems is awareness.  We must expose these structures and reveal the forces that continue to undermine sovereignty and development.  Many operate quietly, disguised behind trade policies, debt programs, and diplomatic partnerships.  By bringing these practices into the open, we weaken their influence and empower communities to act.

As Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and it never will.”  Progress requires confronting systems directly rather than accepting the narratives we are given.

Education must be prioritized.  Schools and communities across Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora need to teach accurate histories of colonization, exploitation, and resistance.  Without knowledge of the past, we cannot defend our future.

Economic independence is equally critical.  Initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and CARICOM integration strategies must be accelerated to strengthen intra-regional trade and reduce dependency on external markets.

CARICOM also needs to defend Caribbean citizens more forcefully, especially in cases of discrimination when traveling within Latin America.  Stronger diplomatic representation and legal protections are essential.

Externally, reforms are needed in global financial institutions and trade systems to ensure fairness.  Exposing exploitative contracts, restructuring unfair debt, and closing channels of illicit financial flows are critical to breaking cycles of dependency.

Internally, greater transparency, strong governance, and community-driven development are necessary.  Corruption, neo-classism, and elite capture must be addressed so that resources benefit populations rather than narrow interests.

Finally, regional unity is our most powerful defense.  A united Africa, Caribbean, and diaspora can speak with one voice, resist manipulation, and negotiate equitable partnerships on the global stage.

Conclusion

The neofascist colonial agenda threatens to reverse decades of progress by replacing open conquest with systemic dependency, financial manipulation, and cultural domination.  However, the power to resist lies within collective action, informed leadership, and regional solidarity.

As Malcolm X stated, “You can’t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.”  Through education, exposure, economic cooperation, and unity, African and Caribbean nations can reclaim sovereignty and chart their own path toward development and dignity.

The future depends on vigilance, collaboration, and a refusal to accept systems that exploit, divide, and silence us.

August 21, 2025

Source / Comment

Is civil society becoming extinct?

By Anthony GOMES

 

THROUGHOUT the world, civil society is disappearing and being replaced by violence of all descriptions and brutality of the worst kind.   Apart from the cultural coarsening of civil society, whether they include violent street protests.  engaging the police at one end of the spectrum, or civil war fuelled by sectarian lifestyle differences, the planet again faces the possibility of world conflagration.

The humanitarian tragedy of Syria, the Boko Haram Islamic uprising in Nigeria, the sabre-rattling aggression of North Korea, the unwinnable Afghanistan campaign, the neutralising of al-Qaeda in Yemen, the intense cultural differences between Sunni and Shea in Iraq, the interventions by Iran in Iraq and Lebanon by Hezbollah, and incursions by al-Qaeda in Mali, Algeria and Libya all began with inaccurate Western intelligence regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), that were never found.  Theey were recently believed to be stored in Syria, mainly consisting of chemical weapons, and used, according to France and the EU, against the Syrian rebel cohorts.  Let us also not forget the struggle in Pakistan against the al-Qaeda Taliban.   Being a nuclear power with a well-stocked atomic arsenal, Pakistan is of serious concern to the Western powers, lest atomic weapons were to fall into the hands of the Taliban.

As described above, there is no denying that the deadly plague of terrorism is spreading beyond all borders, in the name of Islam.   In recent years al-Qaeda has suffered heavy losses resulting from drone strikes that regrettably have a high rate of collateral damage, which has made them a very unpopular offensive weapon.  The al-Qaeda magazine Inspire has revealed their newly devised strategy that calls for home-grown individual jihadists, who have been radicalised to carry out attacks, mostly on "soft" targets; similar to the Boston bombings, the murder of the young Fusilier in London, and the latest shootings with the resemblance of an al-Qaeda operation in Santa Monica, US, that is yet to be confirmed.  The Western Christian powers are still considering how to deal with this new offensive self-sacrificing run of events.

Since the end of WW II, the faith and morals of the Christian West have undergone serious diminution in the cause of social freedom, sovereignty, and fuelled by secularism that has given new intepretation to what is right or wrong.   Traditions and other cultural norms have been tested in the legal and ecclesiastical domains, widening the meaning of "truth" to embrace influential factors of human rights, gender and race, all of which have spawned pernicious arguments, which may be termed "modern" jurisprudence.   In colloquial language: "One can do no wrong," if you can afford a skilled defender.

These liberalised modern statutes represent a departure from what was considered normal or accepted, or regarded as right.  This new-founded attitude has given rise to open disobedience that challenges all the rules of the historic social establishment which, in too many cases, ends up in tragedy.  The sinister characteristics can be seen in the murder of innocents, the aged, decapitations, abortion, and euthanasia, to list some of the more common acts that stalk the "land we love".   The defenders of human rights from abroad find it difficult to grasp the multiple and brutal murders that occupy the pages and waves of our media.  They find it difficult to understand why capital punishment is appropriate in such indescribable assaults on human kind.  This mindset is due, in part, to the landmark case of Ruth Ellis, which changed the previously held attitude to capital punishment in the UK.

In 1955, in Britain, the practice of capital punishment encountered a major challenge which resulted in the mandatory requirement for the death penalty in capital cases being removed.  Until then, there was strong support for the application of the death penalty, dictated by the law at that time.  However, with the landmark case of Ruth Ellis, a 28-year-old young woman born in North Wales on 9th October 1925, who was the last woman to be hanged on 13th July 1955 at Her Majesty's woman's prison, Holloway, in London.  Her case was one of premeditated murder to which she confessed, and, according to public opinion, would have been classified in this century as a "crime passionelle" that warranted life imprisonment.  She was executed by Albert Pierrepoint, a member of the historically famous family of executioners.   The event caused a fundamental change in public opinion that has reshaped contemporary jurisdiction in the UK.

Since then, Western societies have witnessed a raft of dramatic liberalisations which have changed the current social lifestyles across the Western hemisphere from same-sex unions to rampant multiple shootings of innocent civilians and schoolchildren, due to the easy possession of powerful military-type firearms which, in the case of the US, is enshrined in the Second Amendment of their constitution and relentlessly upheld by the powerful National Rifle Association.

The cost of maintaining the new-found liberalised lifestyle comes at a high price, with many deserving malevolent souls walking free, given the present complex system of proving guilt due to the monumental earnings in circulation from the drugs trade, and the threatened reprisals against the families of witnesses that form the themes of the nightly television stories that are becoming more realistic as time goes by.

May we be guided to calmer waters by the prayers of the faithful.

June 12, 2013

Jamaica Observer

The dangers of the hemisphere operating without the Inter-America Commission on Human Rights' (IACHR's) guidance

By Catie Duckworth
Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs

In recent months, members of the Organization of American States (OAS) have intensified their criticisms of the Inter-America Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).  The IACHR is an independent body established in 1959 by the OAS to create a Pan-American framework for dealing with human rights violations.

Heavily based upon the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, it was the Americas’ first universal human rights document, which was adopted at the same meeting that the region chartered the OAS. [1] However, strong opposition from OAS members throughout the years has heavily compromised the independent nature of the IACHR.  Critics of the organization, such as Bolivian President Evo Morales, have called for its elimination.

The 42nd OAS General Assembly that convened from June 3 to 5 in Cochabamba, Bolivia, where it found fault with the IACHR’s proceedings and rulings, claiming that the Commission has acted as a tool for modern US imperialism and thereby further fueling Morales’ discontent. [2] Calls to terminate the organization were problematic before the IACHR had even been effective in holding past administrations accountable for human rights violations and setting a higher standard for the treatment of people by the state in Latin America.  There is a possibility that OAS-proposed reforms will cause concern, because the OAS will most likely put limitations on the Commission’s independence.

However, this was not the first time a member state has expressed discontent with the organization.  In April, President Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would withdraw from the IACHR.  This announcement was initially dismissed at the time when OAS Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza pointed out that in order for Venezuela to remove itself from Commission jurisdiction, Chavez must withdraw from the OAS all together. [3] Claiming the Commission acts as a US contrivance, recalcitrant leaders from Ecuador and Nicaragua have joined Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez in their calls for reform in order to decisively bring an end to US imperialism in the region.  All four of these nations’ leaders have threatened to withdraw from the IACHR if reforms are not set. [4]

Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa asserted, “We cannot accept the double morals and inconsistencies.  We need to focus on the priorities of our America -- neocolonialism is over.” [5] Although all 34 countries represented at the Assembly have expressed their concern regarding recent proceedings carried out by the IACHR, most only call for reform, not dissolution like their more emphatic ideological neighbors.  As a result, the Assembly decided to draft a reform plan and meet again in six months to approve the changes.  If sanctioned, the reform will mark the first jurisdictional changes initiated outside the Commission since its founding over fifty years ago. [6]

At the June assembly of the OAS, IACHR Chair José de Jesús Orozco defended the organization and argued that the Commission is among the world’s most successful supranational organizations working to protect human rights.  Stressing the necessity of the IACHR, he asserted, “This is about regional guarantees and effective mechanisms to ensure that nobody in the Americas feels defenseless when it comes to his or her most basic rights, and that the States -- through their current and future governments -- see themselves as bound to respect those values that… they embraced and made an international commitment to safeguard.”

The Commission, like all supranational organizations, requires that member nations sacrifice some measure of their sovereignty.  By deeming, on some occasion, policies of member states unlawful through a Western-centric lens, critics allege that the Commission has taken on too progressive of a role in terms of a radical agenda.  However, the public ought to scrutinize the motivations of Latin American leaders for advocating the dissolution of the commission.

One initiative of this was a letter written some time ago by José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch’s Americas Division, who wrote a letter that found itself to the OAS General Assembly, which stated, “If this organization has been so successful, why then has a campaign against it been launched?  Very simple: Because it has touched the interests of important governments that possess clear autocratic tendencies or are sufficiently powerful as to believe that they are entitled to not render accounts to a supervisory regional body.” [7] In other words, many leaders advocate reform because the supranational organization has prevented them from fulfilling their political agenda.

For example, in April 2011 the IACHR provoked Brazilian authorities after ordering them to halt the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam project in order to ensure the livelihood of multiple indigenous tribes on the Xingu River, who faced the threat of displacement as a result of the project.  Unhappy with the decision, Brazil recalled its delegate to the organization, suspended payment of dues to the Commission, and withheld its ambassador to the OAS in protest.  Yet Brasilia quickly reembraced the Commission when it proposed to set up a Truth Commission to investigate the human rights transgressions during the Brazilian military dictatorship of 1964-1985, demonstrating how Brazil’s loyalty to the IACHR at times has been based on political expediency. [8]

The Commission has lost popularity among a number of its members by refusing to yield to governments with unsatisfactory human rights standards.  Leaders of this bloc cite historic acts of US imperialism in the region as a basis for disregarding IACHR rulings that do not work in their favor.  From the perspective of these critics of the Commission, the IACHR continues to kneel to US regional foreign policy interests while overlooking cases that are contrary to US national interests.  Tensions tend to arise when the Commission is bold enough to condemn an administration for violating the human rights of its own citizens.

As Manuela Picq, a recent visiting professor and research fellow at Amherst College, said, “These cases demonstrate that the Commission’s decisions are supported when they are aligned with governmental agendas and attacked and discredited when the Commission’s actions are perceived as inconvenient.  The challenge is not as much to reform the Commission’s proceedings as to appease the wrath of states when rulings interfere with their political agendas.” [9]

Many Latin American countries may want to see the end of the IACHR just to conceal their own self-serving and at times compromised human rights practices.  In order to draw attention away from their own corrupt institutions they passionately insist that the United States at times is using the organization as a mechanism for imperial calculations.  To put to rest any claims that Washington is using the organization to further its interests, Washington has decided to take a neutral role at the June OAS gathering, stating that member nations ought to work together in harmony with the Commission. [10]

As one of the most economically stable and democratically open states in the OAS, the US delegation should not take a neutral stance, but rather support the Commission.  However, the United States to this day still has not signed the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights Pact of San Jose, which means that the Inter-American Court in Costa Rica does not have any jurisdiction in the United States. [11]

To avoid further allegations of imperialistic intentions, the United States should thus lead by example and must give some thought to allowing the Inter-America Court some jurisdiction to operate within its borders and offer more assertive support for human rights activism while steering clear of anti-human rights advocacy.  Washington has a duty to not turn a blind eye to its southern neighbors’ human rights violations, it should, as a would-be promoter of democracy in the region, be consistent and careful not to set double standards based on its own narrow intentions.

The IACHR is a necessary body, and must be actively protected to ensure the UN Declaration of Human Rights is upheld in the region.  There are few doubts that some reforms need to be made to the IACHR, which will include limits on the Commission’s independence.  However, it is this independent nature of that body that makes the IACHR effective.  If the Commission’s independence is taken away, it will have to conform to the narrow partisan political agendas of some of its member states, and that would mean at times acting contrary to its entirely noble purpose.

Citations:

[1] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[2] Picq, Manuela. “Is the Inter-American Comission on Human Rights too progressive?” Aljazeera. June 9, 2012.
[3] “Human Rights in the Americas: Chipping at the foundations.” InterAmerican Security Watch. June 7, 2012.
[4] “Human Rights in the Americas: Chipping at the foundations.” InterAmerican Security Watch. June 7, 2012.
[5] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[6] “Human Rights in the Americas: Chipping at the foundations.” InterAmerican Security Watch. June 7, 2012.
[7] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[8] Picq, Manuela. “Is the Inter-American Comission on Human Rights too progressive?” Aljazeera. June 9, 2012.
[9] Picq, Manuela. “Is the Inter-American Comission on Human Rights too progressive?” Aljazeera. June 9, 2012.
[10] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.
[11] Pearlman, Alexander.“OAS rights body facing criticisms, dissolution.” InterAmerican Security Watch. IASW Jun 8, 2012.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

July 28, 2012

Caribbeannewsnow

Cari-Crisis... again

By Norman Girvan:


“Crisis” is one of those words that is used so much that it has practically lost its meaning. And if there were a competition among regional organisations on which was most often said to be “in crisis”, my bet would be on CARICOM winning by a wide margin.


In the run-up to the half-yearly meetings of CARICOM leaders, we have become accustomed to a flurry of reports, studies, speeches and media commentaries bemoaning the sorry state of the regional movement and promising renewed attention to the dying patient.

Latest in the procession are two reports in the regional media appearing this week, just a fortnight before the March 8-9 “Intersessional meeting” of CARICOM heads of government in Suriname.

Veteran regional columnist Rickey Singh is quoting at length from a letter said to be sent by Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines to newly installed CARICOM Secretary General, Irwin LaRocque. The letter is said to offer a “blunt assessment” of CARICOM.

According to the Prime Minister, "CARICOM's current mode of marking time at an historical moment of overwhelmingly awesome challenges for our region which compelling demands a more profound integration, is mistaken…"; and further that "Minimalism in integration has its attractions but in our regional context, it can be fatal to our people's well-being.”

One must commend Prime Minister Gonsalves for caring sufficiently about CARICOM to take the trouble to craft this letter, and for his candour. But one is hard put to find anything in the extensive passages quoted that hasn‘t been said before.

Neither is there any hint of what specific actions Mr Gonsalves is proposing in order to salvage the regional enterprise.

I also wonder if the prime minister is aiming his guns at the right target. Seems to me he should be addressing his fellow heads of government directly; and with concrete proposals about how to move out of the present malaise. As everyone knows, the way that CARICOM is structured endows the secretary general with very limited authority to act on his own. More of a “secretary” he, than a “general”.

In any case, the expectations that accompanied Secretary General LaRocque‘s appointment six months or so ago, have all but dissipated. Seems to be business as usual!

Prime Minister Gonsalves concedes that he himself took part in a collective decision in 2011 to put the Single Economy “on pause” -- a decision which, ironically, was taken at a Special Retreat hosted by then President Jagdeo of Guyana, which had precisely the opposite objective.

So what reason do we have to believe that the latest letter, sincere though it may be, will make one iota of difference this time around?

The second news item, coming out of Bridgetown on February 22, tells us that a “Project Management Team” has warned that without a “fundamental change”, CARICOM could expire slowly over the next few years as stakeholders begin to vote with their feet…

Well, well. I wonder which planet these gentlemen inhabit.  Don‘t they know that stakeholders have been “voting with their feet” for some time? Whatever happened to the Caribbean Business Council, brainchild of former Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur? How active are the Caribbean Chamber of Commerce, the Caribbean Association of Industry and Commerce, the Caribbean Congress of Labour, the Caribbean Policy Development Centre?  These organisations have just about given up on the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).

1. Don‘t they know that the OECS is prioritising their own union?   That three CARICOM countries have joined ALBA, with two more in the queue?  That Guyana and Suriname are founding members of the Union of South American States (UNASUR), and looking southwards?  That Belize looks as much -- if not more -- to Central America as to the Caribbean?  Isn‘t it already “every man for himself”?

I have some other news for the Project Management Team: it’s all been said before.

For instance, here is what the present writer wrote seven years ago:

“The pessimistic scenario is for fragmentation of the Community and eventual abandonment of the CSME as an objective. This could result with loss of momentum in the integration movement due to the difficulties discussed in this paper, the growth of ‘implementation fatigue’ among governments and of ‘implementation cynicism’ in the regional public, waning political support for integration, and increased economic divergence.”

Long before that -- twenty years ago, in fact, there was Time For Action - Report by the Independent West Indian Commission -- -which spoke at length about the “Implementation Deficit” as the Achilles Heel of CARICOM.  More recently, one can point to any amount of studies, comments and warnings by regional media commentators, business leaders, academics, statesmen, leaders and former leaders. These have grown in the light of the still incomplete project to complete the CARICOM Single Market -- supposedly inaugurated by the governments in 2006 -- and the frequent missed targets for completing the CARICOM Single Economy, first set for the end of 2008.

So what‘s new?  Well, if the “Project Management Team” is supported by external donors, and has some foreign consultants among them, its report may be taken more seriously.  A cynical view might be that “Aid-driven integration” and “colonial mentality” could succeed, where all else has failed.  Even so, I wonder if the PMT is being correctly reported in their conclusion that “Hopes for arresting the crisis depend on a willingness on the part of Heads of Government to bite the bullet on the elusive issue of ‘fundamental changes’ in the management structure and operational modalities of the Georgetown-based CARICOM Secretariat.”

I have to ask if this isn‘t putting the cart before the horse.  The CARICOM Secretariat is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  How can decisions be taken on its structure outside of the context of larger decisions about the course that integration should take over the next 5-10 years; the priorities; the road map; the method of governance of the Community and the degree to which regional organs will be legally endowed with the authority to exercise “collective sovereignty”, in order to solve the recurrent problem of “implementation deficit”?

In reality, the “bullet” that needs to be “bitten” is the necessity to share sovereignty in designated areas of regional action, and to put structures of governance in place to give this practical effect.  Anyway you look at it, a revision of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas is inescapable.  And possibly a revision of several national constitutions as well.

A tall order, perhaps.  But to pin hopes on a reformed secretariat outside of this framework looks to me like a recipe for wasted investment, heightened frustration and continued decline.

So people, as the Suriname meeting approaches, dream of the best, but expect more of the same.  Don‘t hold your breath. You might be waiting to exhale for a long time.


February 25, 2012
caribbeannewsnow