Anti-Coup Protesters Launch Garbage Strike in Myanmar

April 6, 2021

Over 500 civilians have been killed since Myanmar’s Feb. 1 military coup. Protests and civil disobedience campaigns launched by pro-democracy activists are ongoing.

An anti-military protest in Myanmar in 2009. The country’s powerful military regime has been at the center of criticism for years. totaloutnow. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

On March 30, pro-democracy activists in Myanmar launched a civil disobedience campaign of throwing garbage into the streets at key intersections in protest of the country’s military rule and the frequent killing of civilians by security forces. At least 512 civilians have been killed since Myanmar’s Feb. 1 military coup.

The military seized control of Myanmar two months ago, ousting democratically elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy (NLD). After Suu Kyi’s landslide victory, the opposition began claiming widespread election fraud and demanded a recount of the votes. The military backed the opposing party’s claims of fraud, despite the election commission’s statement that there was no evidence to suggest the election had been tampered with. On Feb. 1, Parliament was scheduled for its first meeting since the Nov. 8 election, where it was expected to endorse the election results and approve the next government. The military detained Suu Kyi and the leaders of the NLD, arrested a number of writers and activists, and declared a yearlong state of emergency.

The coup returned Myanmar to full military rule after the country’s decadelong quasi-democracy. Myanmar was under full military rule from 1962 to 2011, when the military implemented a parliamentary election system. Since the coup, Suu Kyi has been held in an undisclosed location and faces several charges, including violating the country’s official secrets act.

Protests against the coup began immediately, and are some of the largest and most widespread protests in Myanmar since 2007, when thousands of monks spoke out against the military. A number of civil disobedience campaigns, like the current garbage strike, have been ongoing as well, paralyzing various sectors of the economy. The military’s response to protests escalated quickly, from imposing curfews and limits on gatherings to the use of rubber bullets and live ammunition. Hundreds of civilians have been killed by security forces. March 27 was Myanmar’s Armed Forces Day, and the deadliest day of the coup thus far, with 141 deaths resulting from the military’s attempt to stop protests.

The current garbage strike reportedly began after loudspeaker announcements in some areas of Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city, urged residents to dispose of their garbage properly. Word of the protest circulated on social media alongside the message that anyone could join in protest against the military. Once the protest had started, photos of garbage piling up in the streets began to circulate.

Also on March 30, a joint letter from the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army, the Arakan Army and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army called for the government to stop killing protesters and to resolve political issues.

Uncertainty Reigns in Myanmar Amid Military Coup

February 8, 2021

Soldiers in Myanmar’s military. Stephen Brookes. CC2.0

On Feb. 1, the military opposition in Myanmar staged a coup detaining State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi due to election results in favor of her challenging National League for Democracy (NLD) party. Since then, the military in Myanmar has detained hundreds of political officials and declared a state of emergency for up to one year. An active restructuring of power continues, with 24 government officials already having been replaced.

As of Monday evening, Suu Kyi was released from detention but placed under house arrest. Charges by the military accuse Suu Kyi of illegally importing walkie-talkies. President U Win Myint also faces charges for disobeying coronavirus restrictions. Although these accusations are most likely illegitimate, a criminal offense on the record in Myanmar can prevent politicians from running for reelection. In this way, the military continues to threaten the rise of democracy in Myanmar, placing the country’s political future in jeopardy.

Introducing Myanmar’s Fraught Political Situation

Myanmar’s State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. Utenriksdepartementet UD. CC2.0

Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, is a country located in Southeast Asia known for its myriad of cultural and ethnic groups. Though the country achieved independence from Britain in 1948, an oppressive military regime came to power in 1962 that ruled for almost the next five decades. Military rule plunged the country deep into poverty and resulted in severe crackdowns on journalists, artists and activists. The country's government began to liberalize after the military started to loosen its grip in 2011.

Activist and political leader Aung San Suu Kyi is well known for her nonviolent movements toward democracy in Myanmar. She received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 while being held under house arrest from 1989 to 2010. Suu Kyi founded the National League for Democracy (NLD), which led the first civilian government in the country’s history after winning a landslide election in 2015. Since then, Suu Kyi has remained the head of Myanmar’s government.

However, Suu Kyi’s record remains tarnished. Her government has received international condemnation for human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in Myanmar. In 2017, the military forced a crackdown on the Rohingya Muslim population in Rakhine state, causing over 700,000 refugees to flee to neighboring Bangladesh. Myanmar claims the Rohingya are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and refuses to offer them citizenship and basic human rights. Suu Kyi appeared before the International Court of Justice in 2019, where she denied that the crimes committed against the Rohingya counted as genocide.

In November 2020, national elections predicted a landslide win for Suu Kyi’s NLD. The military government claims election fraud, although this has been disproven by Myanmar’s election committee. Dissatisfied with the election results, the military seized power on Feb. 1 as parliament was about to open. Executive power has been granted to long-standing military leader Min Aung Hlaing. International flights, the internet and social media were all shut down amid the coup. Even a few days later, Wi-Fi access remains spotty in parts of the country.

International Reaction and Opposition

The coup has received harsh international condemnation, with U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling the military’s actions a "serious blow to democratic reforms." The U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting after the coup but took no action as China and Russia refused to denounce it. Other Southeast Asian countries, such as Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines, claim that the coup is an “internal matter” and do not want to meddle in Myanmar’s political affairs.

Resistance to the coup in picked up on Feb. 7, as tens of thousands of protesters crowded the streets of Yangon, Myanmar’s largest city. Many people have banged pots and pans denouncing the coup, while medical workers have walked out and posted photos standing together in solidarity wearing ribbons.

Recent events in Myanmar and around the world reveal the fragility of democracy. Only time will reveal the resounding effects of the coup on Myanmar’s political story.

Myanmar Government Blocks Website Exposing Military Corruption

September 28, 2020

The website for Justice for Myanmar, which is dedicated to exposing military corruption, was blocked by the country’s government for spreading fake news. Over 200 websites have been blocked in the past year.

Screenshot of the Justice for Myanmar homepage.

On Aug. 27, all mobile operators and service providers in Myanmar received a directive from the government to block the Justice for Myanmar website for purportedly spreading fake news. Justice for Myanmar was launched on April 28 by an anonymous group of activists aiming to expose military corruption and advocate for federal democracy and peace. Campaigning for Myanmar’s Nov. 8 general elections began a week after the shutdown, raising concerns that the government was attempting to silence scrutiny and criticism of the elections.

In May, Justice for Myanmar exposed that two top government officials were also directors of Myanmar Economic Holdings Company Limited, a military-owned company, leading to both officials’ resignations from its board. More recently, Justice for Myanmar revealed that a construction company under contract for the government has ties to Lt. Gen. Soe Htut. The site also published allegations that a medical company offering Food and Drug Administration approvals is owned by the family of Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing.

The military controlled Myanmar for decades, until it was replaced by a civilian government in 2011. The current government is headed by Aung San Suu Kyi of the National League for Democracy (NLD), who serves as State Counsellor. She led the NLD to victory in 2015 during Myanmar’s first openly contested election in 25 years. Despite having a democratic ruler, Myanmar is not free from military rule. A 2008 constitutional provision still guarantees the military seats in parliament. One-quarter of parliamentary seats are held by the military, which also controls the country’s defense, border affairs and home affairs ministries.

Aung San Suu Kyi, once regarded as a prime example of a democratic leader, has been the target of international criticism in recent years for her handling of the Rohingya crisis and her persecution of media and activist groups.

In the past year, Aung San Suu Kyi’s government has blocked over 200 websites for allegedly spreading fake news, using Section 77 of the Telecommunications Law. The section allows action to stop the spread of misinformation. Myanmar’s government received criticism earlier this year for limiting press freedom and the flow of information during the pandemic by blocking news sites. The government also imposed an internet blackout in nine townships in the Rakhine and Chin states and in April 2020 ordered a mass blocking of the websites of ethnic media organizations. These actions, as well as the shutdown of the Justice for Myanmar website just a week before campaigning for the general elections began, have been causes for concern from the media, community organizations and rights groups.

Yadanar Maung, a Justice for Myanmar spokesperson, said in a recent press release that the group condemns “the Myanmar government’s attack on our right to freedom of expression and the people of Myanmar's right to information.” Telenor Myanmar, one of the service providers that received the directive to block the Justice for Myanmar site, has opened communication with the government to protest the blocking. A statement on Telenor Myanmar’s website urges the government “to increase transparency for the public” and asserts that the government’s directive does not respect the rights to freedom of expression or access to information.

Many groups and individuals, including James Rodehaver of the U.N. Human Rights Office, have called for reform of the Telecommunications Law.

Rachel Lynch

is a student at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, NY currently taking a semester off. She plans to study Writing and Child Development. Rachel loves to travel and is inspired by the places she’s been and everywhere she wants to go. She hopes to educate people on social justice issues and the history and culture of travel destinations through her writing.

Sudanese people gathering in front of a mosque. Nina R. CC 2.0.

Sudan Separates Religion and State Following al-Bashir’s Ouster

September 23, 2020

The Northeast African nation of Sudan has made the decision to separate religion from the state, dissolving 30 years of governance by Islamic law. The country, which has been attempting to rebuild itself after long periods of colonial rule and political strife, came to this decision in an attempt to quell current tensions between religious and military groups.

Sudan was formerly under colonial rule by the United Kingdom, though the British did not make their presence in Sudan a physical one. They maintained control by partnering with Egypt through a dual colonial government known as the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium (1899–1956). This agreement separated the Muslim-dominated north from the majority-Christian south. As colonial presence grew stronger in the region, so did division along ethnic, socioeconomic, religious and linguistic lines.

Sudan was able to gain independence in 1956, but the country is still overwhelmed with tensions as its citizens and government continue to reconcile with issues caused by colonization. They eventually led to the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005) between the central government in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army, causing an eventual 2 million deaths and the creation of an independent South Sudan. This conflict was amplified when Omar al-Bashir took office by way of a military coup in 1989 in the middle of this 22-year-long civil war. He ruled for 30 years and did so through the suppression of political opponents as well as violence against the Sudanese people. During his presidency, multiple arrest warrants were issued to al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court on charges including war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as his attacks on citizens in Darfur.

Map of Sudan. Muhammad Daffa Rambe. CC BY-SA 3.0.

Al-Bashir continued to hold his power until April 2019 when, after months of unrest, the Sudanese military toppled him. On Sept. 3, 2020, Sudan issued its declaration to sever ties between mosque and state, saying that, “For Sudan to become a democratic country where the rights of all citizens are enshrined, the constitution should be based on the principle of ‘separation of religion and state,’ in the absence of which the right to self-determination must be respected.”

Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. Ola A .Alsheikh. CC BY-SA 4.0.

Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and Abdelaziz al-Hilu, leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North rebel group, signed this document together. Additionally, the document emphasizes its effort toward unity with the statement, “Sudan is a multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural society. Full recognition and accommodation of these diversities must be affirmed.” More than simply separating church and state, the declaration gives the country momentum in its push toward unification.

Renee is currently an English student at The University of Georgia. She lives in Ellijay, Georgia, a small mountain town in the middle of Appalachia. A passionate writer, she is inspired often by her hikes along the Appalachian trail and her efforts to fight for equality across all spectrums. She hopes to further her passion as a writer into a flourishing career that positively impacts others.

Colombian soldiers. Alejandro Turola. Pixabay.

Outrage Mounts as Colombian Soldiers Admit to Rape of an Indigenous Girl

July 8, 2020

On June 25, seven soldiers of the Colombian army confessed to raping a 13-year-old Indigenous girl from the Embera tribe. She was discovered at a nearby school after having gone missing from her home in the department of Risaralda on June 21. Upon seeing that the young girl could barely walk, she was sent to a hospital and then forensic services along with receiving assistance from the Organization of Indigenous Nations of Colombia (ONIC). Luis Fernando Arias, senior adviser for ONIC, told CNN that the girl “was kidnapped and raped for a period of 17 hours.” The Embera community requested that the soldiers be tried under their own laws along with ONIC “demanding that they be tried under Indigenous law, arguing that it's their jurisdiction since the alleged crime was against an Indigenous person, on Indigenous land.”

Since the alleged rape, the seven men accused were fired along with three of their superiors. The country’s attorney general, Francisco Barbosa, stated that if found guilty the men could face 16 to 30 years in prison, but Colombian President Ivan Duque urged a life sentence for the accused soldiers. He stated that, “If we have to inaugurate the life in prison penalty with them, we're going to do it with them. And we are going to use it so that these bandits and scoundrels get a lesson.” Although many are asking for the imprisonment of the soldiers, Gimena Sanchez, Andes director of the think tank Washington Office on Latin America, believes that, “There needs to be education and consciousness raising within the armed forces on how to treat and how to engage with ethnic minorities. Not just with Indigenous but also Afro-Colombians.”

The country’s response was that of fury, albeit bereft of shock due to the long-standing systemic issue of soldiers' abuse and violence against Indigenous women and girls in Colombia. On July 2, after pressure mounted and Indigenous groups held protests against the gender-based violence of Indigenous women, Colombian Army Commander General Eduardo Zapateiro publicly disclosed that 118 soldiers had been investigated due to incidents of sexual violence against minors since 2016, and of those only 45 have been fired. Despite these statistics, Zapateiro stated that, “These abuses are not systemic conduct. Understand that we are 241,000 men, who every day give everything for the Colombian people.” His argument is that this is not a systemic issue but since the reporting of this story, other cases of sexual violence against Indigenous girls have emerged. One case that was not widely reported until now reveals that a 15-year-old girl from the Nukak Maku Indigenous tribe was kidnapped, tortured and raped in the military barracks of troops in the southern Guaviare department.

Colombia is not exempt from the pandemic of sexual violence that affects women all over the globe but following a vote against a peace referendum to end the conflict in Colombia, women are disproportionately enduring violence on a systemic level. Colombia has the 10th highest rate of femicide in the world, according to U.N. data. The Colombian Femicide Foundation documented that “8,532 women and girls reported that they had experienced sexual violence in the first five months of this year. More than 5,800 were under the age of 18.” The outcome of this case may bring hope to those who want to see justice in the form of imprisonment, but the culture that normalized violence toward women remains.

Hanna Ditinsky

is a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and is majoring in English and minoring in Economics. She was born and raised in New York City and is passionate about human rights and the future of progressivism.

Investing in War: How Violence Has Turned into a Profitable Business

November 6, 2019

Violence finds its home most often in some of the poorest places. But money filtrates its way through often gathering in arms businesses and corrupt governments. In recent times, this has been true in many countries throughout Africa and the Middle East. Is the price of death worth it?

Salva Kiir, President of South Sudan. Jenny Rockett. CC BY-SA 1.0.

There is a moral question that has surfaced over the years on whether you would have to choose between the death of someone you loved or thousands of strangers. Most of the time it would be frowned upon if you picked one life at the expense of thousands. But not everybody agrees. That moral standard doesn’t translate when power is involved. Too often the death of innocent people is picked for monetary gain. This isn’t just found with governments often associated with corruption but also can be found in US foreign policy and even in the UN. Just look at the Rwandan Genocide and Iraqi War for example. The US tends to only involve itself in conflict in which it has another interest in, often oil or another economic benefit. In Rwanda, the UN actually left the country when violence broke out and only got re-involved once it reached international attention. After the genocide ended, the country got so much foreign aid that its capital city, Kigali, is being recreated as a post-modern enterprise focused solely on appearance and not reality. This pattern has continued throughout many conflicts. It is, quite frankly, the business of war.

This best current examples of this trend lie in South Sudan and Yemen. The rise of the Arab Spring lead to the intermingling of conflict, with wealthy monarchies fueling and funding neighboring battles. This is seen in both Syria and Libya. The most notable pairing though is the UAE in Yemen. Like most foreign involvement it is motivated by economic gain, namely control of the Red Sea coastline, and military prowess, as presence equals power. The UAE’s influence has led to the risk of starvation for 14 million people and a much more complex civil war. The leaders of militia groups are now benefiting greatly from foreign aid while the gap between rich and poor continues to spread.

South Sudan follows a similar pattern. The civil war has led to leadership on both sides of line pocketing millions and pursuing private business in real estate acquisitions and capital investments. South Sudan’s economy is completely dependent on oil leading to endless conflict over oil reserves and wealth distribution. The war has left over 5 million in need of aid yet little is being done to stop it. When those in charge get nothing but wealth, why save the people?

One of the biggest culprits of profiting from war lies in the companies controlling valuable natural resources. Often these companies are foreign owned and operated and give little thought to the violence surrounding it, focusing only on the influx of cash. These goals often coincide with a repressive regime. A study from the World Bank found that if one-fourth of the country's GDP is from primary commodity exports, the possibility of a civil war increases by 30%. Two examples of this are in Columbia and Tibet. Both areas have repressive governments with Tibet under illegal occupation of China. This has allowed for the expansion of foreign interest in mining in both countries, often with little regard to the surrounding area and the people that live there. In Columbia alone, 68% of displacements occurred in mining areas.

As long as money is involved and there are people, governments, and companies benefitting from war and violence, there is little motivation to change. If only we could learn that you don’t need to fight violence with violence, you fight by combatting the wealth of those with power.

DEVIN O’DONNELL’s interest in travel was cemented by a multi-month trip to East Africa when she was 19. Since then, she has continued to have immersive experiences on multiple continents. Devin has written for a start-up news site and graduated from the University of Michigan with a degree in Neuroscience.

Death in detention: the aftermath of an airstrike on the Tajoura camp in Tripoli in July 2019. EPA

Libya: Ongoing Atrocities Reveal the Trouble with International Military Intervention

August 22, 2019

It’s been eight years since the NATO-led military intervention in Libya. Many analysts consider the action a crucial step forward in protecting civilians from looming atrocity. But today, Libya stands further from peace than ever.

Since April 2019, battles between the UN-sponsored Government of National Accord (GNA) and General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army have raged in Tripoli. By the end of July, an estimated 1,100 people had been killed and a further 104,000 displaced.

In early July, an airstrike on Tajoura migrant detention centre near the Libyan capital Tripoli reportedly killed more than 50 civilians and injured 130. When a strike landed close to the centre just six weeks before, Amnesty International warned of the dangers faced by detainees. Their warnings were ignored and 610 migrants were trapped in Tajoura when a bomb struck. According to one doctor working for Médecins Sans Frontières, there were “bodies everywhere, and body parts sticking out from under the rubble”.

As our new book chronicles, today’s battle for Tripoli is the latest in a long line of horrors. Post-intervention Libya has faced political and economic collapse, with 7,578 violent deaths recorded between 2012 and 2018. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and weapons have spread across the region.

While spectacular acts of violence dominate headlines, the horrors facing civilians in Libya are routine and every day. Migrants are left to die from treatable illness in awful detention centres. One migrant in Libya, writing anonymously for The Independent, said: “We panic every day, we are dying slowly, because of too much depression and starvation.”

Back in late November 2017, the European Union’s migration commissioner, Dimitris Avramopoulos, said he was, “conscious of the appalling and degrading conditions in which some migrants are held in Libya”. And yet, extreme human rights abuses are still being actively enabled by European policies.

Targeting Gadaffi: NATO bombs hit the Libyan leader’s compound in June 2011. EPA

Humanitarian rescue missions have been criminalised, leaving people to drown in the Mediterranean. Migrants captured at sea are sent back to detention centres, including 90 who were forced to return to Tajoura mere days after the airstrike.

Fuelling more violence

Ghassam Salame, special representative of the UN Secretary-General and head of the UN Support Mission in Libya, reports that “external support has been instrumental in the intensification of airstrikes”.

The UN is currently investigating allegations that the United Arab Emirates has supplied Haftar with weapons in violation of a UN arms embargo, and French weapons have been found at a Haftar base. Meanwhile, Turkey is providing weapons to fighters from the GNA.

The G7 and the UN have condemned the violence in Libya. In practice, however, the actions of some of their members fuel the killing and prevent co-ordinated diplomatic action.

It’s often argued that Libya shows the need for more robust post-intervention planning of humanitarian military interventions. This is misleading. Instead, the situation highlights the need for new thinking on civilian protection.

The question of intervention usually emerges at that dramatic moment when civilians are at risk of extreme violence. Often brushed aside is the every day atrocity of the kind seen in Libya today: civilians at risk of starvation, death through treatable illness and killing at the hands of callous policies. This is not only an atrocity in its own right. As our research shows, it also creates an ideal habitat for mass atrocity crimes including genocide and ethnic cleansing. Instead of calling for military action when atrocity crimes occur, our focus should shift towards addressing the injustices that help create them.

Also forgotten is the role the international community plays in fuelling conflict through stoking division and selling arms. France provided Rwanda with weapons used to commit genocide in 1994. Claims that France also provided military training for perpetrators are under investigation by a French commission of experts. US and UK arms are being used against Yemeni civilians. Moreover, members of the international community have supported different sides in the Syrian civil war.

Other options

Events in Libya show what can happen when international players claim to do good things through military action. To prevent future atrocities, the international community must recognise the absurdity of dropping bombs to protect people while also detaining migrants in the centre of war zones, dealing arms, and preventing rescue missions.

Military intervention does not protect civilians. We should call on the international community to change their callous policies that kill every day. We should demand that they stop fuelling atrocity crimes. And we should support non-violent forms of protection such as unarmed civilian peacekeeping, which have proven effective in Colombia, South Sudan, Kosovo and Sri Lanka.

To support military intervention gives further licence to the militarism of those already fanning the flames of atrocity. This will only result in more of the violence seen in Libya today.

MICHAEL NEU is a Senior Lectuer in Politics, Philosophy and Ethics at the University of Brighton.

ROBIN DUNFORD is a Principal Lecturer in Globalisation and War at the University of Brighton.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION.

Venezuelans have faced food and medicine shortages since late 2015. Now power outages have cut off water supplies, too. AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko

Venezuela’s Power Struggle Reaches a Tense Stalemate, as Human Suffering Deepens

April 12, 2019

Even in a country where crisis has become the norm, the past month has been eventful for Venezuela.

On April 3 Juan Guaidó, the Venezuelan National Assembly president who is leading an effort to remove President Nicolás Maduro from office, was stripped of his parliamentary immunity. Arrest seems increasingly likely. Guaidó’s chief-of-staff was jailed on March 22, on charges of organizing a “terrorist cell.”

Two days later, two Russian military planes carrying 35 tons of unspecified equipment and 100 soldiers landed at the international airport in Caracas.

Meanwhile, three blackouts left over 90 percent of the country in the dark. Since water pumps need electricity to run, neighborhoods and families were forced to organize water rationing systems or fetch water from polluted rivers and streams.

Maduro blames the blackouts on “sabotage” by Guaidó and the United States. The opposition blames government corruption and neglect of Venezuela’s energy grid.

Thousands of Venezuelans protesting the power outages on March 30 were met with violent repression. Counter-protestors came out to support the Maduro government.

These extraordinary events may give the appearance that armed conflict is on the horizon. But having researched Venezuela for over 25 years, I believe a prolonged deadlock – and deeper human suffering – is the more likely result.

International conflict

Each side in Venezuela’s political struggle has powerful international backers.

Guaidó has been coordinating with the Trump administration since before assuming the interim presidency, and Trump has made regime change in Venezuela a foreign policy priority. Over 50 countries now recognize Guaidó as Venezuela’s legitimate president.

Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó at a rally in Caracas, March 29, 2019. Reuters/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

Maduro’s government retains important support from Cuba, Turkey and China – though China, which has loaned Venezuela some $60 billionover the last 12 years, has diminished its public backing of Maduro.

Russia has become Maduro’s most important ally. The Russian military equipment and personnel sent in March will likely help maintain and operate Venezuela’s sophisticated Russian-made S-300 air defense system, which protects the capital and key military bases from air attack.

The missile defense system may have been damaged in recent power outages, or left understaffed by desertions from Venezuela’s military.

In a March 29 press statement, White House national security adviser John Bolton called Russia’s military assistance to Venezuela a “direct threat to international peace and security in the region” that will “perpetuate the economic crisis that has destroyed Venezuela’s economy.”

Russian officials retorted that the deployment is part of a prior bilateral arms trade agreement with Venezuela.

“The United States is present in many parts of the world and no one is telling it where it should or shouldn’t be,” said Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov at a March 28 Kremlin press conference.

Regime change stalled

Venezuela’s opposition coalition and its allies in the U.S. appear to have thought that global rejection of Maduro’s re-election and Guaidó’s assuming the interim presidency – coupled with threats of a U.S. military invasion and sanctions on Venezuelan oil – would lead Venezuela’s armed forces to turn against Maduro. That would then usher in a democratic transition.

Eighty percent of Venezuelans oppose Maduro, but he retains some popular support – and the power of the Venezuelan armed forces. Miraflores Palace via Reuters

Recent events have shown that this strategy was simplistic.

More than 500 Venezuelan soldiers have defected to Colombia and Brazil. But most have stayed loyal, as have the generals who hold high positions in Maduro’s government. And Maduro has shown himself quite adept at using dispersed violence to discourage dissent.

Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated mentions of a “military option” for dealing with Venezuela, it’s become clear in recent weeks that the U.S. has no actual plans for military action. Indeed, it does not have significant military assets in position near Venezuela.

Venezuela’s armed forces are the fifth most powerful in Latin America, according to Global Fire Power, which ranks military strength. It has around 200,000 troops, a volunteer militia, plus paramilitary forces and a fleet of Russian Sukhoi fighter jets.

The presence of Russian troops in Venezuela further complicates any plans for U.S. intervention. Russia is a nuclear power, so incurring Russian casualties is probably too big of a risk for the U.S. to take.

Adam Isacson, a defense expert at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights organization, suggests that removing Maduro by force would not only kill thousands of people on the ground, it would likely require tens of thousands of U.S. troops to occupy Venezuela for years in order to stabilize it.

Outside of south Florida, where some 200,000 Venezuelan exiles are clamoring for Maduro’s ouster, few Americans would have an appetite for such a prolonged operation.

U.S. economic sanctions – which are now targeting Venezuelan oil – appear to be hurting the Venezuelan people more than Maduro’s government.

That will only make a democratic transition more elusive. Depriving the Venezuelan government of cash and credit will impede it from fixing the electrical grid by preventing the purchase of new equipment. And without electricity and water, Venezuelans, who in their vast majority oppose Maduro, will be concentrating on survival rather than protest.

Venezuelans protest water shortages in Caracas on March 31, 2019. Reuters/Carlos Garcia Rawlins

Working for peace

An international effort led by the European Union, Uruguay, Ecuador and Costa Rica is seeking to negotiate new elections. Calling itself the International Contact Group, this coalition has sent technical teams to Caracas twice to meet with the Maduro government and the opposition.

The International Contact Group has not actually found much interest on either side.

The opposition and its allies in the Trump administration still believethat their strategy of political pressure and economic punishment will lead to the government’s collapse. Maduro, it appears, thinks he can hunker down and wait out the storm.

There is one glimmer of hope.

After years of political wrangling over humanitarian aid, on March 29 the International Committee of the Red Cross announced that it had brokered agreements with both the Maduro government and the opposition. They will allow the Red Cross to distribute food and medicine to Venezuelans, who have suffered severe shortages of both since 2015.

The United Nations estimates that 94 percent of Venezuela’s population now lives in poverty, and a quarter of its people urgently need humanitarian assistance.

The Red Cross deal shows what can be achieved with “satellite diplomacy” – that is, negotiations that engage with rival factions independently rather than requiring them to meet face to face.

This is significant. It is the first time that this diplomatic technique has succeeded in Venezuela’s conflict.

In the best-case scenario, the humanitarian aid agreement will stick. And it could serve as a model for how international actors can facilitate a democratic transition in Venezuela.

DAVID SMILDE is a Professor of Sociology at Tulane University.

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

Aleppo: The Struggle to Rebuild a City After Years of War

February 26, 2019

The Syrian Civil War has put Syria in the headlines since 2011. The War has devastated the entire country of Syria, and the United Nations Envoy for Syria estimates that 400,000 Syrians were killed in the Civil War. The war was fought between the Bashar al-Assad’s regime (backed by Russian and Iranian forces), ISIS, Kurdish Forces, and others (including Jaish al Fateh, Ahrar al-Sham, and Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki). Because of the violence of the Syrian Civil War, the United Nations estimates that 5 million refugees have fled Syria thus far.

One of the most significant battles in Syria during the Civil War has been the Battle of Aleppo, which lasted from 2012 to 2016. Aleppo is one of the largest cities in Syria. Its significance is partially historical, as Aleppo is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world due to its location on the end of the Silk Road. Before the Battle, Aleppo was controlled by rebel forces, which made Aleppo a target for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was interested in controlling Aleppo due to its significance as an industrial powerhouse. Although the Syrian Civil war is ongoing, the Battle of Aleppo ended in december of 2016 when al-Assad’s forces gained control of the city.

In order to comprehend the damage inflicted on Aleppo during the war, the United Nations recently took satellite photos of Aleppo. The photos reveal that more than half of the buildings photographed have moderate to severe damage, and ten percent of historically significant sites show severe damage. Despite the damage, nearly 60,000 Syrian refugees have returned home now that Aleppo is controlled only by al-Assad. Although the Battle of Aleppo is over, there are still safety issues in the city; in early February of this year, an entire block of apartments collapsed killing 11 people, including four children. Much of the city lacks running water and electricity, and Syrian officials estimate that it will cost upwards of $10 billion to rebuild the city which held 2.3 million inhabitants before the war.

United States and European officials are reluctant to support efforts in rebuilding the city due to their distrust of president Bashar al-Assad. The president has been accused war crimes including using chemical weapons against civilians, and torturing his opponents. It is estimated that 5,000 Syrian civilians have died at the hands of his army. Despite international distrust of al-Assad, the United States has shied away from attempting to remove him from office because he is arguably the most promising chance for stability in Syria. Although the United States will not attempt a coup, former United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted in a speech that: "We will discourage economic relationships between the Assad regime and any other country” (including the rebuilding of Aleppo). The Battle of Aleppo may have ceased, but it will take years before Aleppo is restored to its formed status in Syria.

GINNY KEENAN is an NYU student currently studying abroad in London. She intends to major in journalism, and reads in her free time. She is always looking for new travel opportunities.