Podcasts about foreign intervention

In this episode of Good Morning Liberty, Nate and Charlie discuss the return of Charles Thompson after a short break, the departure of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and the controversial fallout from the recent Dave Smith and Douglas Murray debate on Israel-Palestine. They dive into the implications of Waltz's exit, the nuances of US foreign policy, particularly towards Israel and Palestine, and the impact of ongoing military actions. Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh's perspectives are also explored, highlighting differing viewpoints on US involvement abroad. Tune in for an in-depth discussion on recent geopolitical events and their broader implications. (01:30) National Security Advisor Shake-Up (02:29) Mike Waltz's Departure and Signal Gate (09:09) Iran Tensions and Military Maneuvers (15:18) Matt Walsh on Israel and Foreign Policy (19:52) Debating Foreign Aid and National Sovereignty (20:27) The Israel-Ukraine Comparison (20:41) Matt Walsh and the Daily Wire's Stance (21:16) The Ethics of Foreign Intervention (21:38) Historical Context and Isolationism (22:51) The Debate on Israel's Military Actions (27:11) The Futility of Destroying Hamas (29:53) The Moral High Ground and Collateral Damage (34:20) The Broader Implications of War   Links:   https://gml.bio.link/   YOUTUBE:   https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv   RUMBLE:   https://rumble.com/c/GML   Check out Martens Minute!   https://martensminute.podbean.com/   Follow Josh Martens on X:   https://twitter.com/joshmartens13   Join the private discord & chat during the show!   joingml.com   Bank on Yourself bankonyourself.com/gml   Get FACTOR Today! FACTORMEALS.com/factorpodcast     Good Morning Liberty is sponsored by BetterHelp! Rediscover your curiosity today by visiting Betterhelp.com/GML (Get 10% off your first month)     Protect your privacy and unlock the full potential of your streaming services with ExpressVPN. Get 3 more months absolutely FREE by using our link EXPRESSVPN.com/GML  

Every Saturday, we revisit a story from the archives. This originally aired on October 4, 2023. None of the dates, titles, or other references from that time have been changed. Since last year, Haiti's government has been asking the international community for help to restore peace and security. This week, the United Nations Security Council approved sending an international police force led by Kenya to Haiti. Kenya signed on to send 1,000 police officers, with Washington pledging $100 million and logistical support. The Caribbean country has been gripped by spiraling gang violence as well as poverty and food insecurity. And if assistance does succeed in pushing back the gangs, there's still a need to address Haiti's lack of governance and political power vacuum. The last UN mission there lasted from 2004-2017 and faced accusations of rights abuses, sexual violence, and starting a cholera outbreak that killed more than 9,000 people; so, can this foreign intervention avoid repeating those mistakes? In this episode:  Harold Isaac (@HaroldIsaac), journalist in Haiti Episode credits: This episode was updated by Tamara Khandaker. The original production team was Miranda Lin, Sarí el-Khalili, Amy Walters, and host Kevin Hirten, in for Malika Bilal. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our lead of audience development and engagement is Aya Elmileik and Adam Abou-Gad is our engagement producer. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer, and Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook

Haiti is in crisis and foreign security forces are coming to help stabilize the country, but will their help be welcomed? Ernesto Sagas, professor of ethnic studies at Colorado State University, looks at the complexities of the political situation. Dr. Ernesto Sagás is Professor of Ethnic Studies at Colorado State University. He has a Ph.D. […]

Deeg is back for some oral history lessons about LAGAI-Queer Insurrection (formerly Lesbians And Gays Against Intervention), a radical collective that started organizing in 1983 in response to the US war machine meddling overseas. Some of the same members from forty years ago continue to meet, plan direct actions, and send thousands of copies of their zine UltraViolet into prisons for free, with no 501(c)3 and next to no funding. We talk: avoiding burnout and cooptation, how to measure movement successes (and why sometimes you can't), and more. This is Part 1 of a two-part episode. UltraViolet (LAGAI's zine) "How a queer liberation collective has stayed radical for almost 40 years" (Toshio in Waging Nonviolence) Episode with Deeg on the Boycott of Manny's in the Mission Episode with LAGAI member Kate Raphael: Queers for a Free Palestine

Find me and the show on social media @DrWilmerLeon on X (Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube Facebook page is www.facebook.com/Drwilmerleonctd   Some articles referenced in the episode: Libertarian article: To End the War in Ukraine, Expose Its Core Lie | The Libertarian Institute Nato Watch article: How Gorbachev was misled over assurances against NATO expansion TruthOut article: The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made | Truthout   FULL TRANSCRIPT: Announcer (00:06): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:15): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon. I am Wilmer Leon and this is a special episode. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum and we're failing to understand the broader historical context in which many of these events occur during each episode. Usually my guests and I have probing, provocative and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur, and this enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live on today's episode. The issue before us is what's really behind this most recent spate of military spending and is democracy really at risk? My guest for this discussion is me as the brilliant philosopher of the late Maurice White with Earth, wind and Fire said in all about love. (01:23) I want to take this moment to run down a couple of things about things we see every day. So in this episode it's just going to be you and I, president Joe Biden. On Wednesday the 24th of April, he signed into law the So-called Military Aid Package. It's worth $95 billion of your hard earned tax dollars. It includes nearly $61 billion that's going to Ukraine, $26 billion for Israel and $8 billion for the Indio Pacific. After signing the bill, president Biden said quote, it's a good day for America. It's a good day for Ukraine. It's a good day for world peace. The aid package, Biden said is going to make America safer. It's going to make the world safer, and it continues. America's leadership in the world. Is it and does it really well. So these statements by Biden, they're going to be kind of the broad outline of my comments for today. (02:43) What's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, Israel and the Indio Pacific, and is it an investment in safety or is it profit for the military industry? On January 17th, 1961 in his farewell address to the nation president Dwight Eisenhower, a former general and Republican warned the country and the world against the establishment of what he called the military industrial complex. Eisenhower said, and I quote, A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might ready for instant action so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. He was talking about a defensive military, not an offensive military. He went on to say American makers of plowshares could with time and as required make swords as well, but now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions and this is really the key, this conjunction, this is Eisenhower of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications in the councils of government. (04:28) We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex, the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. I repeat that the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist and that's what we see today. Eisenhower was incredibly prophetic in his concern of the dangers of American foreign policy becoming the ideological play thing of the arms industry. So coming out of World War II in 1945 coming out of the Korean conflict in 1953 and entering the Vietnam conflict around 1955 or 1956, it's very easy to understand Eisenhower's position on the need for a strong and prepared military. We're not going to debate that point. That could be a whole nother program, but with that, he admonished us not to fail to comprehend the grave implications, the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought by the military industrial complex. (05:57) So again, what's really behind all of this money to Ukraine, all this money to Israel, all this money to the Indio Pacific. Let's start with Ukraine and most of this will center around Ukraine because that's where a bulk of the money is going and that's also where for the most part, the most immediate risk of conflagration exists. There's a great piece that's published in the Libertarian Institute. It's entitled to end the War in Ukraine, expose its core lie to end the war in Ukraine, expose its core lie it's co-authored by Ted Snyder, a regular columnist on US foreign policy at antiwar and history at anti-war dot com as well as the Libertarian Institute and it's also it's co-authored by Professor Nikolai Petro. He's a political scientist at the University of Rhode Island and he's also the author of a number of books and since their piece is so well researched and so well written, I'm just going to quote from it, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they did a phenomenal job with this piece and I suggest everybody read it anyway. (07:19) They write. The essential argument used to avoid negotiation and continue support for the war in Ukraine is based upon a falsehood. They call it a falsehood. I call it a lie. That falsehood repeated by Joe Biden is that when Russian president Putin decided to invade Ukraine, he intended to conquer all of Ukraine and annihilated its falsity and this is Snyder and Petro its falsity has been exposed multiple times by military experts who have pointed out both before and after the invasion that Russia could not have intended to conquer all of Ukraine because it did not invade with sufficient forces to do so. Indeed, this was the key reason why senior Ukrainian officials and even President Zelensky himself argued just days before the invasion it would not occur. Now, I take issue with their use of the word invasion because it's really a military intervention, but again, that's a discussion for another time. (08:33) Folks, if you just strip away the rhetoric and the lies, and if you just look at the facts, the US started this fight with Russia and is using Ukraine as its proxy to do so. Schneider and Petro also have a piece, it's a shorter version of piece that I just referenced and it's entitled four Myths that Are Preventing Peace in Ukraine. Again, their work is so well researched and written, I'm just going to quote them again, I'm not going to try to reinvent the wheel they write. If diplomacy is to have a chance at settling the bloody conflict, then four persistent myths about Ukraine need to be exposed and refuted. Myth number one, Putin. I'm sorry, myth number one. If Putin is not defeated in Ukraine, he will roll into Europe. You've heard this many times. If Putin takes Ukraine, according to President Biden, he said this in Congress on the 6th of December, 2023, he won't stop there. He's going to keep going. He's made that pretty clear. (09:53) The problem with that statement is no evidence to support it has ever been presented. Petro and Snyder go continue, but Putin has not made that pretty clear. In fact, Putin has consistently said that the Ukraine crisis is not a territorial conflict. The issue is much broader and more fundamental and is about the principles of underlying the new international order. Simply put, it's about President Putin being concerned about Russian territorial security, sovereignty and integrity in the same manner that any other leader in the world is concerned about their territorial security, sovereignty and integrity. He's not doing anything different than what any other world leader would do. There's a piece@natowatch.com, I think.org, nato watch.org entitled How Gorbachev was Misled Over Assurances Against NATO expansion. And this piece that I'm referencing is kind of background to give you some greater context about what Schneider and Petro have written the US was trying to convince. The Soviet Union, this is back in the nineties, was trying to convince the Soviet Union to allow for the reunification of East and West Germany. (11:40) The then US Secretary of State, James Baker, his famous not one inch eastward assurance about NATO expansion while he was meeting within the president of Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. This was on February 9th, 1990 was only a part of a cascade of similar assurances, meaning not only did James Baker say it, but other European leaders said this to Gorbachev as well. In February of 1990, baker assured the Soviet Union, and at the time he was the US Secretary of State under then President George HW Bush, he assured his counterpart Edward Chevron Nazi, that in a post Cold War Europe, NATO would no longer be belligerent, less of a military organization, much more of a political one, and then it would have no need for an independent capability. This is what the United States told the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, baker promised Shepherd Nazi ironclad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction of forces would not move eastward meaning no closer to the then Soviet Union. (13:12) On the same day in Moscow. He famously told the Secretary General that the alliance would not move one inch to the East The following day, O Cole, the future chancellor of a United Germany repeated the same thought to Gorbachev even though they were disagreeing on other issues. Tillman Cole told Gorbachev not one inch eastward. That's what convinced Gorbachev to agree to the reunification of east and West Germany. I believe France, Britain and possibly one or two other European countries made the same assurances as well. And again, as a result of these insurances assurances, Germany was reunited the West NATO and Western allies or US allies have violated this agreement ever since. That's what's at the crux of the conflict. That's why when President Putin and President Biden met in Geneva, Switzerland before the Russian intervention, Putin told Biden, I'm giving you my security concerns in writing and I expect your response to my concerns to come back to me in writing. (14:46) He demanded the written response because Baker had stated the commitment verbally to Gorbachev. So now Putin wants this in writing and just quickly to those that say, oh, well, because it was just a statement and it was not written, it's not valid. Nene, I say to you, there's a case, I think it's Norway versus Greenland. It's a 19 35, 19 36 international law case that holds statements made by official representatives of states or countries are valid. They are enforceable. So the fact that Baker said it and didn't write it does not mean it's not valid. Again, according to Norway v Greenland, it's a 19 35, 19 36 international case. Okay with that. Now let's go back to Petro myth number two. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was never about nato. That's the myth that this has. The conflict in Ukraine has nothing to do with nato. Western officials insists that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked and that Russia's decision to illegally invade Ukraine was never about NATO expansion and crossing Russia's red lines, but rather it's a senseless war against a sovereign freedom loving nation. (16:29) Petro Snyder continue. On the 7th of September of 2023, NATO's secretary Jens Stoltenberg made the stunning admission that Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was indeed provoked by NATO encroachment on Ukraine. The United States wanted to put missiles into Ukraine too close to the Russian border. Prior to making that decision to go into Ukraine, Stoltenberg said that Putin had sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent to us, Stoltenberg said and was a precondition for his not invading Ukraine. And Stoltenberg said, of course, we didn't sign that. Myth number three, the war in Ukraine is a war on democracy versus autocracy. According to this narrative, Russia cannot be allowed to win because this war is not just about Ukraine. It's the first battlefield in a larger war for democracy against autocracy. (17:55) But Russia abandoned the goal of exporting ideology when the Soviet Union collapsed. In fact, the Russian constitution, article 13 of the Russian constitution explicitly prohibits the imposition of a single state ideology and the exportation of such. And for those of you who will say, oh, you all didn't know Russia has a constitution, president Putin is bound by that constitution. Russia has a parliament, they have a democracy. Vladimir Putin, contrary to popular belief and narrative is not an autocrat. He's no more of an autocrat than Joe Biden is an autocrat and some would tell you that Joe Biden is an autocrat. But anyway, this and this is my input. If the US is spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to defend democracy, then why did the United States go in and overthrow the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich in Ukraine in 2014? To that point, there is a piece in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made. (19:18) You can find this in truth out the Ukraine mess that Newland made assistant Secretary of State at the time, Victorian Newland engineered Ukraine's regime change without weighing its likely consequences. This is by Robert Perry, a RRY, as the Ukrainian army squares off against ultra-right, and neo-Nazi militias in the west and violence against ethnic Russians continues in the East, the obvious folly of the Obama administration's Ukraine policy has come into focus even for many who tried to ignore the facts or what many have called the mess that Victoria Newland made assistant Secretary of state for European affairs. Tor Newland was the mastermind behind the February 22nd, 2014 regime change in Ukraine, plotting the overthrow of the democratically elected government of President Victor Jankovich while convincing the ever gullible us mainstream media that the coup wasn't really a coup but a victory for democracy folks. She worked with Nazis in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected Jankovich government in 2014. (20:51) It's called the ma don coup or ma don coup. Look it up, M-A-I-D-O-N. Everything I'm telling you right now, you can verify for yourselves. In fact, I implore you to do so. I'm not just taking this stuff off the top of my head. This is not my opinion. If it is my opinion, I will tell you that it is. This is historic fact. Myth number four, Putin again, this is Snyder and Petro Putin is not interested in negotiating. The West insists that Putin is not interested in negotiating an end to this conflict despite multiple news reports that he has been signaling through intermediaries that he is open to a ceasefire and that he is ready to make a deal. The White House continues to insist that he has shown absolutely no indication he's willing to negotiate. And that's just not true. My opinion, that's just not well, that's a fact. (22:08) He my opinion is not interested in negotiating based upon the usual tactic that the United States uses. The United States usual tactic of negotiation is capitulation. The United States comes to the table and says, here's how it's going to go. And once you agree to how we believe it's going to go, then we can sit down and talk about it. And Putin's saying, no ne nay, I'm not going to do that. You want to negotiate this. We're going to sit down and negotiate this. And that's one of the big problems. My opinion, again, that's one of the big problems that the United States has with dealing with a peer such as Russian president, Putin back to Petro. But the historical record shows that Putin has sought a negotiated settlement since the opening days of conflict. And by all accounts, Russia and Ukraine had even reached a tentative agreement in Istanbul in April of 2022. And that has been confirmed by American reporting by then Israeli Prime Minister Neftali Bennett by former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder by Turkish Foreign Minister, and Newman Tuus, sorry for that struggle with those names. He's the deputy chairman of Erdogan, Turkish president of Erdogan's party. In fact, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, he went to Ukraine and told Zelensky in April of 22, under no circumstance is the West going to allow you to negotiate a settlement with Russia. (24:29) I say that again as the United States says that Russia has no interest in negotiating. They were already negotiating and they had reached an agreement. And there have been some instances, some press conferences where Putin has held up the agreement and said, I got it right here. But Bojo Boris Johnson went and told on behalf of the West, went and told Zelensky, under no circumstances is the West going back that play. So if Putin isn't interested in negotiating, negotiating, why did he participate in the mens agreements, the series of international agreements which sought to end the Donbass conflict that was fought between armed Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatist groups and the armed forces of Ukraine. Folks look up the Minsk accords. And when you look up the Minsk accords, here's the problem. You can find this at the World Socialist website. You can find this a number of places former German chancellor, Angela Merkel Min, that the mins accords or the mins agreement was merely to buy time for Ukraine's arms buildup. The 2024 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Merkel told a German newspaper, it was also used. They also used that time to become stronger as you can see today. (26:16) And Angela Merkel was one of the key conveners of the Minsk meetings under the pretext of negotiating a settlement between what were called the ethnic Russians in the Donbass region and the rest of Ukraine. See, once you had the 2014 Midon coup and the Yakovich government was thrown out, then a pro Ukrainian nationalist Western leaning government backed by Nazis in Ukraine was implemented. And they then, because they were Ukrainian nationalists, they started ethnically cleansing what were called ethnic Russians in what's known as the Donbas region of Ukraine. And those folks in the Donbas were begging President Putin to intervene on their behalf. They're Ukrainian citizens with Russian background, Russian families, many of them speak Russian. They are members of the Russian Orthodox Church. They travel back and forth between the Donbass and Russia because they have families in Russia. But the Ukrainian nationalists wanted to ethnically cleanse them from the country. (27:50) And so in order to stop the conflict, they came to what was called the mens accords, which is why if you go back and look at the record, you'll see Putin telling Biden before he went into Ukraine, all you got to do is implement the Minsk agreement and we're good. All you've got to do is implement the Minsk agreement. And I'm not going in. We've already negotiated this. All you have to do is implement it. And the United, he told that to Biden when they were in Sweden in Geneva, you can look it up. The United States ignored it. So folks, this is a cursory view, cursory overview of the situation. You can research this for yourselves. Tony Blinken, Joe Biden, even Malcolm Nance, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, they're all lying to you. This is not about defending democracy, it's not about stopping the further advance of Russia. It's all about selling weapons around the world and they're using your nickel to do it. (29:22) Of the $60.7 billion that's going to Ukraine, $38.8 billion isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to US factories that make missiles, munitions, and other military gear. It's going to replenish the United States military stocks that have been depleted as a result of this fool's errand called Ukraine. It's going to Lockheed Martin, it's going to General Dynamics, it's going to General Electric, it's going to Boeing, it's going to Raytheon, it's going to a whole lot of other American arms manufacturers or as Eisenhower refer to them, the military industrial complex. And I'm not making these numbers up. You can look it up. This came from an Associated Press story and guess where the Associated Press got their numbers? They got their numbers from the Biden administration. So again, not my opinion, it's the facts. There's a great summary at the World Socialist website. (30:48) I referenced the story a little earlier in this piece, but if you're asking yourself, so what's the motivation behind the United States for using Ukraine as its proxy to confront Russia? The summary is as follows, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has pursued the goal of remaining the sole world power. To this end, Washington has waged numerous criminal wars and expanded NATO into Eastern Europe. Now it wants to integrate Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics into NATO and subjugate Russia in order to plunder its resources and isolate China. You may have heard the pivot towards China from the Obama administration. That's what this isolation of China is all about. It's a pivot away from Afghanistan, a pivot away from a conflict with Russia, and the focus is on China. So the 61 billion in aid to Ukraine, the 26 billion for Israel, the $8 billion for the Pacific, those are your tax dollars with infrastructure crumbling in the United States, healthcare, pensions, education, we don't have the money to deal with those things as the rate of suicide is up in the United States as the rate of depression is up in the United States as inflation is ravaging the pocketbooks of the middle class and the working class and the poor in this country, they got 95 billion of your tax dollars that they can send to Ukraine now 26 billion for Israel. (33:09) What a mess that is contrary to the dominant narrative. This conflict did not start on the 7th of October. In fact, there's a piece in the publication in these times entitled History didn't Begin on October 7th. The Israeli military is currently carrying out an attack on the besieged Gaza Strip bombing homes, bombing mosques, bombing hospitals, churches cutting off access to water, assassinating children, assassinating doctors. They're cutting off electricity, they're cutting off food. The Palestinian death toll has risen to over 35,000. 70% of those 35,000 are women and children, 80% of GA's, 2.3 million residents have been displaced GA's and suffer untreated injuries and a continual lack of medical supplies. (34:28) While this collective punishment, which by the way violates international law, has been justified by right wingers. Israeli defense minister Yoav Glan called Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip human animals and US Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina that's never met, a war he didn't like, called for the military to level the place in a sitting American senator has called upon the Israeli government to level Gaza, which by the way is in violation of American law because Israel is using American money and American weapons to ethnically cleanse, to collectively punish, to engage in genocide against the Palestinian people. Look up the Lehe law, thehe Amendment, look it up. Look up the Arms Export Control Act, and you'll see very clearly that the United States is in violation of its own law by providing weapons to Israel. While it's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while it's defense Minister Gallant and others have stated very clearly that they are engaging in genocide. (36:16) Now, as I talk about this and as I talk about what Hamas' response, Hezbollah's response in Lebanon, ansara Allah in Yemen, I'm not saying this to condone violence or to condone killing in no way, shape or form, but you have to understand the context in which these actions and reactions are taking place. Dr. King told us many times that war is an enemy of the poor, and he also talked about the three evils of society are racism, militarism, and poverty about racism. He said, if America does not respond creatively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men. That not only applies to how the United States government treats Native Americans, that not only applies to how the United States government treats Mexican and other Latino or Hispanic immigrants. That does not only apply to how the United States treats African-Americans, it applies to how the United States spends and spends its money to back fund and organize genocide against the Palestinians. (38:03) The second evil was militarism. And Dr. King said, A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. 95 billion sent of our tax dollars to foreign countries for war, for oppression to maintain this unitary or unilateral hegemony that the United States has become used to since World War II and our bridges are collapsing. You have people in the United States that are having to decide between do they pay their rent, do they pay their mortgage, or do they pay their grocery bill? And that takes us into the third element, the third evil of society that Dr. King talked about poverty where he says the poor black and white are still perishing on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. What happens to a dream deferred? It leads to bewildering frustration and corroding bitterness. (39:29) The people cry for freedom and the Congress attempts to legislate repression. They just voted to send $95 billion of your tax dollars to oppress another people, repress another people, Dr. King, millions. Yes, billions are appropriated for mass murder. That's not me, that's Dr. King for mass murder. But the most meager pittance of foreign aid for international development is crushed in the surge of reaction. Unemployment rages at a major depression level in the black ghettos, but the bipartisan response is an anti-riot bill rather than a serious poverty program. Or you've got Mike Johnson going to Columbia calling for the arrest of protesting students that are protesting what? They're not protesting against Judaism. They're not protesting against Israelis, they're protesting against genocide and they're protesting for the freedom and the rights of Palestinians at the time that he gave this speech, which I think was 1968, right before he died, $26 billion. (40:56) I'm sorry, this is me now, my problem, my mistake, 26 billion of your tax dollars are being invested in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Context, folks. Context is incredibly, incredibly important here. I'm not going to go through the 75 years of apartheid and oppression right now that's going on in pal. I'm not going to go through that right now. Let's just look at some of the most recent incidents. According to Chatham House, the Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus on the 1st of April. You remember Israel sent missiles into Damascus, Syria and struck the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing an Iranian general and a number of other diplomats. That's unprecedented. That's an unprecedented escalation by Israel against Iran in Syria, an unprecedented escalation. Folks, it's a violation of international law for one country to attack the embassy or the consulate of another country, and they did it on Syrian soil, which means they also violated Syrian sovereignty. (42:37) What did Iran do after consultation with the United States and agreement with the United States? Some say it was Bill Burns from the CIA A with the US and other countries in the region and based upon and consistent with international law. That's a very, very important point here is that after Israel on April 1st illegally struck the Iranian consulate in Syria, Iran did not just react in a knee-jerk manner. They didn't just send a barrage of missiles into Tel Aviv. They sat down and they spoke with the United States and they said, look, we can't allow this to stand. (43:29) We just can't sit I lead by anymore and let them do this to us. So here's what we're going to do Based upon international law, we are allowed to retaliate rarely. When you read about this in the newspaper, does it say that Iran retaliated against Israel? What they usually, how they usually describe it, and this is why context is important, they usually describe it as Iran struck Israel. Iran attacked Israel. No, they retaliated. And under international law, what you are allowed to do is you are allowed to strike military targets that were tied to the offensive strike that you endured, and you're also allowed through international law to strike support targets well such as radar towers, communication facilities. And so Iran sat down, I think it was Bill Burns from the CCIA A and Bill Burns said to Iran, okay, so long as you don't hit civilian targets, we the United States will not respond. So what did Iran do? (45:02) They retaliated as international law allows them to, and when they finished, they even gave the United States and Israel the heads up. They said In five hours, this is what we're going to do. And they used these slow moving drones so that the United States and Israeli radar could track the drones. They even gave them time to get their newly acquired F 35 jet fighter planes that they had just gotten from the United States out of harm's way. They did all of that to make a point, and when they were finished, they said, we now consider the matter closed. You struck us. We retaliated we're good, but Israel wasn't satisfied. (46:10) And what did Israel do? They struck again in violation of international law. Fortunately, president Raisi as well as Supreme Leader, Khomeini and others in the Iranian government, fortunately they are thoughtful. Fortunately, they have a longer view of history than Americans do. Fortunately, they exercised restraint and they have not struck back. Think about that context, folks. Context is very important. President Biden tells us that we're protecting security and democracy in Israel. Here's the newsflash. There's nothing secure about Israel and there's nothing democratic about a colony that oppresses over 30%. Its population. Palestinians do not have the same rights to vote as Israelis do. Palestinians do not have the same right to travel throughout the country as Israelis do. (47:46) Many Palestinians have been relegated to living in an open air concentration camp called the Gaza Strip, where their caloric intake is monitored and managed by the Israeli government. Their access to water, their access to electricity is managed by the Israeli government. That's not democracy. That's not even humanity. It's called genocide. And your tax dollars are being used to fund it. There's nothing democratic about a United States that is arresting students for peacefully protesting against genocide. Now, over 40 colleges and universities are engaged in protests. The University of Southern California in Los Angeles has canceled graduation. They are not allowing, well, the first thing they did was they decided that the valedictorian of the class of 2024, a Palestinian American woman was not going to be allowed to give her valedictorian address and they claim due to security concerns. So instead of protecting her and allowing her to give her speech, they have been held hostage by threat, by innuendo, by social media posts. Think about that. (49:29) Over 40 colleges and universities are now engaged in protests and presidents of these universities are calling out the police. They were arresting students. Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house, just went to Columbia University and threatened or called for the resignation of the President of Columbia because she's not following the script. And to show you how prevalent this has become, there are now high school students, high school students in Washington DC at Jackson Reed High School, the largest high school in the District of Columbia. They have had to file a lawsuit being represented by ACL U. They have filed a lawsuit against their principal saying that the principal has infringed upon their first amendment rights by barring them from holding pro-Palestinian events and distributing information materials. So apparently the First Amendment doesn't apply if your speech is in support of those that the Israeli lobby deems to be offensive. (51:06) And for those of you listening to this that say that this is an anti-Semitic analysis, no, it's not. It's anti-Zionist is what it is. And contrary to what they have now wanted to say from Congress and what many backing the Israeli lobby will tell you, Zionism and Judaism are not the same thing. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. Zionism is a political ideology that is racist, that is white supremacists and is used as the basis for genocide against the Palestinians, whereas Judaism is a religious belief system. Two totally different things. Finally, what the United States loves to call the Indio Pacific, basically what they're doing is trying to start a war with China, and they're using the island of Taiwan as the United States has used Ukraine as its proxy to start a war with Russia. The United States is using the island of Taiwan in a similar manner, and fortunately, president Xi of China is thoughtful, patient, reserved, and is not responding to the provocations as the United States would do if China were trying to do to Puerto Rico or trying to do through Puerto Rico. What the United States is trying to do to China through Taiwan, missiles would be flying and bullets would be shot. (53:17) But G is a wise man and he's not falling for the banana in the trick. He's not going to allow the United States to provoke his country into a conflict. So the United States is engaging in military exercises with South Korea. The United States is engaged in military exercises with Japan. The United States is engaged in military exercises with the Philippines. The United States is building more military bases in along the Pacific Rim. All of this, and heaven knows why, because it's a fight. The US can win. We don't have the technology, we don't have the technology that they have. We don't have the capacity, the capability, the hypersonic missiles. Look, the United States going back to the Iranian, I'm sorry, going back to, yeah, the Gaza conflict, the United States sends in the USS Eisenhower, was it Gerald Ford? I think it was the Gerald Ford. They send in the Gerald Ford carrier Group into the Mediterranean off the coast of Israel. And President Putin says to Biden, he says, why are you doing this? He says, you're not scaring anybody. These people don't scare. He says, oh, and by the way, we Russia can sink your aircraft carrier from here with hypersonic missiles. (55:26) Hypersonic missiles. These things fly at something like nine times, 10 times the speed of sound they have, I think it's the SU 35, which is a fighter jet that Russia has, and they're called Kja. I think it's K-I-N-J-A-L, Ken jal missiles. Look it up. They can sink the carrier from the Black Sea before the carrier even recognizes that the missiles are incoming. That thing is on its way. That carrier is on its way to the bottom of the Mediterranean before they even know that the missiles are incoming, and China has the technology as well. Some say that Iran has the technology. (56:20) So folks, why are your tax dollars being used being wasted when there is such drastic need at home? And this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. Democratic, this is a NeoCon, and you got Republican and Democratic neocons. This is a NeoCon issue. They are lying to you about the rationales and the so-called logic that they are employing so that it's a money laundering scheme, is what it is. The United States through its proxy, Ukraine starts a conflict with Russia so that the Biden administration can tell you that we have to increase our military spending to stop the fight with Russia to stop the war in Ukraine, to defend the Ukrainians. Well, if you hadn't started the fight in the first place, there wouldn't be a fight. (57:57) Joe Biden tells us we have to defend security and democracy in Israel as the United States Arms funds, trains, provides logistics support to the Israeli government as it engages in genocide against the Palestinians. It's very simple. Joe, if you want to bring a stop to this as you ring your hands and cry, crocodile tears about protecting innocent Palestinian civilians, pick up the phone. Tell Benjamin Netanyahu, you don't get another damn dime. Very simple, very simple. The way you end the fight is don't start the fight in the first place. The United States is trying to provoke a war with China over Taiwan, even though it is clearly stated, articulated by then President Nixon, secretary of State, Kissinger, the one China policy. The United States considers Taiwan to be a part of China. The UN recognizes Taiwan is a part of China. The majority of Taiwanese believe support that they are Chinese citizens. If you don't want to have a fight with China, then don't provoke the fight with China, as they say on the corner. Don't start nothing. Won't be nothing. So folks, here's what you really need to think about. What does this mean? I just went through Ukraine. I just went through Israel. I just went through the conflict with China, and what does this mean? What's at stake? Well, first of all, world War iii. Remember, Russia is a nuclear armed country. China, I believe, has nuclear weapons. Israel, that's the worst kept secret in the world, is a nuclear armed country. So the United States as a nuclear power is trying to start a conflict with other nuclear powers. A nuclear war is unwinnable by anybody. Everybody loses in the course of a nuclear war, (01:01:06) Even if the war doesn't go nuclear. Look at all the resources that have been wasted that could have been used to make America truly safer. When our infrastructure is sound, the country is safer. When our children are better educated, our country is safer. When you have social security, our country is safer. Why can't we have the healthcare, the mental healthcare, the family care that this $95 billion, and that's just the most recent of the So-called aid bills. That's just the most recent of them, 95 billion. Where could that money go, and what could that money do to help you life easier to ensure a better standard of living for you? (01:02:32) What could be done with that money instead of being used to fund a fight that the United States started? Again, don't start. Nothing won't be nothing. But when militarism is all you have, what is the adage? When your only solution is a hammer, every problem is a nail. When militarism is your solution, every problem is a conflict. And oh, by the way, you're starting the conflict. So folks, in all the stuff that I've said over this past hour, if you heard that on M-S-N-B-C, have you heard that on CNN? Have you heard that on Fox News? Probably not. But when you do a little research, you'll find everything I've said to you is true. (01:03:45) The truth is the light. So again, this is on you because this is impacting you, and you've got to start at the local level, starting with your city council, starting with your state and local government and working its way up. You've got to look at what those kids are doing on college campuses and on high school campuses. Now they are getting engaged. Now, I'm not saying you got to pitch a tent on somebody's lawn, and no, there are a myriad of ways that you can reengage in the process, but it starts with reading. So with that, I say to you, I got to thank my guest, who by the way, is me. Thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting the Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wilmer Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Go to patreon.com/wilmer leon and contribute. Please contribute. It costs to produce this program every week. We could do more programs in the week if we had the funding to do so. So please contribute. Go to patreon.com/wilmer Leon, leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can find all the links below in the show description. And remember that this is where the analysis of politics, culture, history, converge, talk without analysis is just chatter, and we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace Announcer (01:06:11): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.

Following a disastrous UN mission in 2010, several Western-backed coups d'état, and the U.S. occupation of 1915-1934, the initiation of yet another foreign intervention in Haiti aligns with the longstanding imperial policy of the U.S., Canada, and European powers towards the country. Jafrikayiti, author and activist for Solidarité Québec-Haiti, underscores the broken social contract in Haiti, where installed leaders are neither elected by nor are accountable to the people but serve the interests of the private sector, over a dozen rich families, and the countries of the Core Group.

EDITORIAL: Shielding PH elections against foreign intervention | Mar. 29, 2024Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Tune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#VoiceOfTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Danny and Derek speak with Jemima Pierre, professor of global race in the Institute of Race, Gender, Sexuality and Social Justice (GRSJ) at the University of British Columbia, about foreign intervention in Haiti—namely instances led by the U.S. and European powers— from the country's inception to PM Ariel Henry's resignation last week. They delve into the early history of Haiti's relationship with the U.S. and Europe, America's 1915-1934 occupation of Haiti, the Ottawa Initiative and Jean-Bertrand Aristide's fall in 2004, the 2004-2017 United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), and the current crisis. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.americanprestigepod.com/subscribe

On this episode of the American Prestige podcast, we speak with Jemima Pierre, professor of global race in the Institute of Race, Gender, Sexuality and Social Justice (GRSJ) at the University of British Columbia, about foreign intervention in Haiti—namely instances led by the U.S. and European powers— from the country's inception to Prime Minister Ariel Henry's resignation last week.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Since last year, Haiti's government has been asking the international community for help to restore peace and security. This week, the United Nations Security Council approved sending an international police force led by Kenya to Haiti. Kenya signed on to send 1,000 police officers, with Washington pledging $100 million and logistical support. The Caribbean country has been gripped by spiraling gang violence as well as poverty and food insecurity. And if assistance does succeed in pushing back the gangs, there's still a need to address Haiti's lack of governance and political power vacuum. The last UN mission there lasted from 2004-2017 and faced accusations of rights abuses, sexual violence, and starting a cholera outbreak that killed more than 9,000 people; so, can this foreign intervention avoid repeating those mistakes? In this episode:  Harold Isaac (@HaroldIsaac), journalist in Haiti Episode credits: This episode was produced by Miranda Lin and our host Malika Bilal. Sarí el-Khalili and Amy Walters fact-checked this episode. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our lead of audience development and engagement is Aya Elmileik and Adam Abou-Gad is our engagement producer. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer, and Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook

Sudan's neighboring countries have rejected foreign intervention in the country, following their summit in Cairo. Participants at the meeting also urged immediate talks between the rival military factions in Sudan.

This week on The Sound Kitchen you'll hear the answer to the question about the summit in Paris on Lebanon. There's the “Listeners Corner” with Michael Fitzpatrick, “Music from Erwan”, and a call to submit essays to The Sound Kitchen essay contests. All that, and the new quiz question, too, so click on the “Play” button above and enjoy!  Hello everyone! Welcome to The Sound Kitchen weekly podcast, published every Saturday – here on our website, or wherever you get your podcasts. You'll hear the winner's names announced and the week's quiz question, along with all the other ingredients you've grown accustomed to: your letters and essays, “On This Day”, quirky facts and news, interviews, and great music … so be sure and listen every week.The ePOP video competition is open! The deadline for entries is 20 April  – but don't put it off! Start now!The ePOP video competition is sponsored by the RFI department “Planète Radio”, whose mission is to give a voice to the voiceless. ePOP focuses on the environment, and how climate change has affected “ordinary” people … you create a three-minute video about climate change, the environment, pollution – told by the people it affects. So put on your thinking caps and get to work ... and by the way, the prizes are incredibly generous!To read the ePOP entry guidelines – as well as watch videos from previous years – go to the ePOP website.Erwan and I are busy cooking up special shows with your musical requests, so get them in! Send your musical requests to thesoundkitchen@rfi.fr  Tell us why you like the piece of music, too – it makes it more interesting for us all!Be sure you check out our wonderful podcasts!In addition to the breaking news articles on our site, with in-depth analysis of current affairs in France and across the globe, we have several podcasts which will leave you hungry for more.There's Paris Perspective, Spotlight on France, and of course, The Sound Kitchen. We have an award-winning bilingual series – an old-time radio show, with actors (!) to help you learn French, called Les voisins du 12 bis. And there is the excellent International Report, too.As you see, sound is still quite present in the RFI English service.  Keep checking our website for updates on the latest from our staff of journalists. You never know what we'll surprise you with!To listen to our podcasts from your PC, go to our website; you'll see “Podcasts” at the top of the page. You can either listen directly or subscribe and receive them directly on your mobile phone.To listen to our podcasts from your mobile phone, slide through the tabs just under the lead article (the first tab is “Headline News”) until you see “Podcasts”, and choose your show. Teachers, take note! I save postcards and stamps from all over the world to send to you for your students. If you would like stamps and postcards for your students, just write and let me know. The address is english.service@rfi.fr  If you would like to donate stamps and postcards, feel free! Our address is listed below. Another idea for your students: Br. Gerald Muller, my beloved music teacher from St Edward's University in Austin, Texas, has been writing books for young adults in his retirement – and they are free! There is a volume of biographies of painters and musicians called Gentle Giants, and an excellent biography of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., too. They are also a good way to help you improve your English - that's how I worked on my French, reading books which were meant for young readers – and I guarantee you, it's a good method for improving your language skills. To get Br. Gerald's free books, click here.Independent RFI English Clubs: Be sure to always include Audrey Iattoni (audrey.iattoni@rfi.fr) from our Listener Relations department in all your RFI Club correspondence. Remember to copy me (thesoundkitchen@rfi.fr) when you write to her so that I know what is going on, too. N.B.: You do not need to send her your quiz answers! Email overload!And don't forget, there is a Facebook page just for you, the independent RFI English Clubs. Only members of RFI English Clubs can belong to this group page, so when you apply to join, be sure you include the name of your RFI Club and your membership number. Everyone can look at it, but only members of the group can post on it. If you haven't yet asked to join the group, and you are a member of an independent, officially recognized RFI English club, go to the Facebook link above, and fill out the questionnaire !!!!! (if you do not answer the questions, I click “decline”).There's a Facebook page for members of the general RFI Listeners Club too. Just click on the link and fill out the questionnaire, and you can connect with your fellow Club members around the world. Be sure you include your RFI Listeners Club membership number (most of them begin with an A, followed by a number) in the questionnaire, or I will have to click “Decline”, which I don't like to do!We have a new RFI Listeners Club member to welcome: Aynal Hoque from Natore, Bangladesh.Welcome, Aynal! So glad you have joined us! Be sure you join the RFI Listeners Club Facebook page!You too can be a member of the RFI Listeners Club – just write to me at english.service@rfi.fr and tell me you want to join, and I'll send you a membership number. It's that easy. When you win a Sound Kitchen quiz as an RFI Listeners Club member, you receive a premium prize, AND, you can join our Facebook page, the RFI Listeners Club page. You must ask to join the group, and you must furnish your RFI Listeners Club membership number. I'll approve you, and off you go!This week's quiz: On 11 February, I asked you a question about an article written by RFI English journalist Michael Fitzpatrick: “Paris summit in effort to lift Lebanon out of political paralysis”. That week in Paris, representatives from several countries met to discuss how to help Lebanon get back on its feet – the country has been without a president since October.You were to re-read Michael's article and send in the answer to this question: representatives of which countries were in Paris to discuss solutions for how to help Lebanon out of its current political crisis?The answer is, to quote Michael: “The Paris gathering is to be attended by representatives from France, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt.”In addition to the quiz question, there was the bonus question, suggested by listener Liton Rahaman from Naogaon, Bangladesh: “What did you feel when you received your very first paycheck?” Do you have a bonus question idea? Send it to us!  The winners are: RFI Listeners Club member Vladimir Gudzenko from Moskovskaya oblast in Russia. Vladimir is also the winner of this week's bonus question: “How did you feel when you received your first paycheck?”Congratulations, Vladimir!Also on the list of lucky winners this week are Ferhat Bezazel, the president of the RFI Butterflies Club Ain Kechera in West Skikda, Algeria; RFI Listeners Club members Jean-Maurice Devault from Montreal, Canada and Md. Junaid from Odisha, India. Last but not least, RFI English listener Nasir Aziz from Sheikhupura, Pakistan.Congratulations winners!Here's the music you heard on this week's programme: “Gone with the Wind” by Allie Wrubel and Herb Magidson, performed by the Wes Montgomery Quartet; the traditional Lebanese “Amaken”, performed by the Andre Hajj Ensemble; “The Flight of the Bumblebee” by Nicolai Rimsky-Korsakov; “The Cakewalk” from Children's Corner by Claude Debussy performed by the composer, and “Yes or No” by Wayne Shorter, performed by the Wayne Shorter Quartet.Do you have a musical request? Send it to thesoundkitchen@rfi.fr This week's question ... you must listen to the show to participate. After you've listened to the show, re-read our article “Tunisian thriller ‘Ashkal' snags top gong at Africa's Fespaco film fest” to help you with the answer.You have until 3 April to enter this week's quiz; the winners will be announced on the 15 April podcast. When you enter, be sure you send your postal address with your answer, and if you have one, your RFI Listeners Club membership number.Send your answers to:english.service@rfi.frorSusan OwensbyRFI – The Sound Kitchen80, rue Camille Desmoulins92130 Issy-les-MoulineauxFranceorBy text … You can also send your quiz answers to The Sound Kitchen mobile phone. Dial your country's international access code, or “ + ”, then  33 6 31 12 96 82. Don't forget to include your mailing address in your text – and if you have one, your RFI Listeners Club membership number.To find out how you can win a special Sound Kitchen prize, click here.To find out how you can become a member of the RFI Listeners Club, or form your own official RFI Club, click here.  

Today on the Show: The USA using asylum as a political weapon Cuba and Venezuela are prime examples of the deadly US policy. Also US funded and supported death squads continue to destabilize Haiti, as US officials consider another US/UN occupation. The post Gangs In Haiti and The Pretext For Foreign Intervention appeared first on KPFA.

On Antiwar Radio this past Sunday, Scott was joined by Muhammad Sahimi to discuss the protests in Iran. Sahimi gives some background about how the brutal death of Mahsa Amini after she had been detained by Iranian morality police sparked protests led by the country's younger generations. While both are supportive of the Iranian people in their resistance to the theocracy, Scott and Sahimi are also wary of the potential for foreign intervention to make the situation worse for everyone. They talk about which governments are already getting involved, what different factions in Iran are pushing for and examine the danger the U.S. government could turn this into another Syria.  Discussed on the show: The Murder of Mahsa Amini, Iranians' Quest for a Democratic State, and the Role of Outside Forces” (Libertarian Institute)  Muhammad Sahimi is a professor at the University of Southern California who analyzes Iran's political developments, its nuclear program, and foreign policy. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and Thc Hemp Spot. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Download Episode. On Antiwar Radio this past Sunday, Scott was joined by Muhammad Sahimi to discuss the protests in Iran. Sahimi gives some background about how the brutal death of Mahsa Amini after she had been detained by Iranian morality police sparked protests led by the country's younger generations. While both are supportive of the Iranian people in their resistance to the theocracy, Scott and Sahimi are also wary of the potential for foreign intervention to make the situation worse for everyone. They talk about which governments are already getting involved, what different factions in Iran are pushing for and examine the danger the U.S. government could turn this into another Syria.  Discussed on the show: The Murder of Mahsa Amini, Iranians' Quest for a Democratic State, and the Role of Outside Forces” (Libertarian Institute)  Muhammad Sahimi is a professor at the University of Southern California who analyzes Iran's political developments, its nuclear program, and foreign policy. This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: The War State and Why The Vietnam War?, by Mike Swanson; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; and Thc Hemp Spot. Get Scott's interviews before anyone else! Subscribe to the Substack. Shop Libertarian Institute merch or donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal or Bitcoin: 1DZBZNJrxUhQhEzgDh7k8JXHXRjYu5tZiG.

Simply put, foreign intervention doesn't work, it never has and never will.

Elizabeth Schmidt joins Long Reads for a discussion about Somalia's modern history of politics, crisis, and foreign intervention. Elizabeth is professor emeritus of history at Loyola University Maryland and the author of six books about Africa, including Foreign Intervention in Africa After the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror.Read her piece, "US Interference in Somalia Has Been a Disaster for Somalis," here: https://jacobin.com/2022/08/somalia-siad-barre-islamists-us-militaryGet a year-long subscription to Jacobin, including our new issue, "Inflation," for $20: https://bit.ly/jacobinradioLong Reads is a Jacobin podcast looking in-depth at political topics and thinkers, both contemporary and historical, with the magazine's longform writers. Hosted by Features Editor Daniel Finn. Produced by Conor Gillies, music by Knxwledge. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thanks for listening to Afrofiles! In this episode, Dr. Miles Tendi, professor of Politics and African Studies at Oxford University, talks with Luke St. Pierre and Sarah Daly about recent coups in north and west Africa. Find Miles on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MilesTendi and check out his most recent book, The Army and Politics in Zimbabwe: Solomon Mujuru, the Liberation Fighter and Kingmaker (2020) See references discussed in the interview: · Ruth First, Barrel of a Gun: Political Power in Africa and the Coup d'État(1970) https://www.ruthfirstpapers.org.uk/term/cluster/barrel-gun · The famous picture of Condé on his couch during the coup, when he was detained in his office: https://news365.co.ke/2021/09/06/president-conde/ · Kevin Koehler and Holger Albrecht, “Revolutions and the Military: Endgame Coups, Instability, and Prospects for Democracy,” Armed Forces and Society (November 4, 2019). · Holger Albrecht, Kevin Koehler, and Austin Shutz, “Coup Agency and Prospects for Democracy,” International Studies Quarterly 65, no. 4 (December 2021). · Samuel Decalo, Coups & Army Rule in Africa, 1990, https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Samuel-Decalo/Coups-and-Army-Rule-in-Africa--Motivations-and-Constraints-Second-Edition/12827694 · Elizabeth Schmidt, Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (2013); and Foreign Intervention in Africa After the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror (2018); https://www.loyola.edu/academics/history/faculty/schmidt · Boubacar N'Diaye, various publications, https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Boubacar-NDiaye-2002747900 · Larry Diamond, “Democratic Regression in Comparative Perspective: Scope, Methods, and Causes,” Democratization 28, no. 1 (2021), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2020.1807517 This episode was produced by Luke St. Pierre and Sarah Daly, with help from Ed Hendrickson. This episode was edited by Sarah, which explains any and all listening woes.

This week on Historia Obscura: how the American flag was hoisted over a foreign nation for the first time less than thirty years after the United States came into existence. Special thanks to Patreon subscribers Barbara and Tom! Subscribe to my Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/historiaobscura! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/historiaobscura/message

Guest: Giorgio Cafiero. We talk about the upcoming elections in Libya, scheduled for December 24, 2021. The situation still remains chaotic and uncertain with just a few days left. To quote Giorgio in one of his recent articles:  “Libya is at a delicate point in its history. The deeply fractured and divided North African country has the first round of presidential elections officially set for December 24, yet we do not know if the elections will be held that day. Whether or not elections are held then, and whether the second round and parliamentary elections are held in February will matter significantly. But more importantly, how various domestic and foreign actors act in the period following elections matters even more.” In a bonus episode we talk about the possibility of Libya being integrated into the broader Arab world and to become one of the countries who normalize relations with Israel. We also talk about the main candidates Haftar, Ghaddafi and the interim prime minister Dbeibeh.  Giorgio Cafiero is a Washington based analyst and CEO of Gulf State Analytics. He is a regular contributor to many media outlets, an adjunct fellow at the American Security Project, an affiliate at the Mena Center and an analyst at London-based advisory Rosa & Roubini Associates.  FOLLOW @GiorgioCafiero and find his work at gulfstateanalytics.com Around the Empire aroundtheempire.com is listener supported, independent media. SUBSCRIBE/FOLLOW on Rokfin rokfin.com/aroundtheempire, Patreon patreon.com/aroundtheempire, Paypal paypal.me/aroundtheempirepod, YouTube youtube.com/aroundtheempire, Spotify, iTunes, iHeart, Google Podcasts FOLLOW @aroundtheempire and @joanneleon.  Join us on TELEGRAM https://t.me/AroundtheEmpire Find everything on http://aroundtheempire.com  and linktr.ee/aroundtheempire Recorded on December 13, 2021. Music by Fluorescent Grey. Reference Links: Libya's planned elections are a ticking time bomb, Giorgio Cafiero, TRT UN Security Council Resolution 2323: The situation in Libya (2016) Libya's presidential election was meant to unite the country, The Economist Different Nations for One Libya, Karim Mezran Gaddafi's Ex-Spox: Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi Has Widest Support Heading Into Libyan Elections, RT Going Underground WATCH: Armed men surround Tripoli government HQ, RT Armed groups deploy around key sites in Libya's Tripoli, Al Arabiya Libya, Al Samoud Brigade Besieges Tripoli. Elections At Risk, Southfront UN Chief: ‘Unprecedented Levels' of Foreign Interference in Libya, VoA  

It was 51 years ago this week when that Hafez Assad seized power in Damascus and launched his family's rule over Syria. Following his three decades as dictator, his son Bashar has clung to power now for 21 years - half of which involved a bloody civil war mixed with foreign interventions. With Russia, Turkey, the United States, Iran and Israel all involved in moves and operations - along with Kurds, various opposition groups and a beaten-but-not-gone Islamic State; what is the state of affairs in this war-torn country? Panel: - Jonathan Hessen, Host. - Amir Oren, Editor at Large, Watchmen Talk and Powers in Play Host. - Col. (Ret.) Dr. Eran Lerman, Co-Host TV7 Middle East Review, Powers-in-Play Panelist, JISS VP and Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. - Col. (Res.) Reuven Ben-Shalom, TV7 Powers-in-Play Panelist, Cross-Cultural Strategist and Associate at ICT, Reichman University. Articles on the topic: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/syria-alleges-new-idf-strike/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/assad-putin-meet-as-syria-violence-worsens/ https://www.tv7israelnews.com/assad-set-to-win-syrian-presidency/ You are welcome to join our audience and watch all of our programs - free of charge! TV7 Israel News: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/563/ Jerusalem Studio: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/18738/ TV7 Israel News Editor's Note: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76269/ TV7 Israel: Watchmen Talk: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/76256/ Jerusalem Prays: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/135790/ TV7's Times Observer: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/97531/ TV7's Middle East Review: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/997755/ My Brother's Keeper: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/53719/ This week in 60 seconds: https://www.tv7israelnews.com/vod/series/123456/ Those who wish can send prayer requests to TV7 Israel News in the following ways: Facebook Messenger: https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Email: israelnews@tv7.fi Please be sure to mention your first name and country of residence. Any attached videos should not exceed 20 seconds in duration. #IsraelNews #tv7israelnews #newsupdates Rally behind our vision - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/donate/ To purchase TV7 Israel News merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/tv7-israel-news-store Live view of Jerusalem - https://www.tv7israelnews.com/jerusalem-live-feed/ Visit our website - http://www.tv7israelnews.com/ Subscribe to our YouTube channel - https://www.youtube.com/tv7israelnews Like TV7 Israel News on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/tv7israelnews Follow TV7 Israel News on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/tv7israelnews/ Follow TV7 Israel News on Twitter - https://twitter.com/tv7israelnews

#TeamKrulak is excited to invite you to our first panel event of the Academic Year 2022 webcasting season! To discuss the research and conclusions of the project on Civil Wars, Violence, and International Responses by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, we are proud to present Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Professor Stephen Krasner, Professor Steven Heydemann, and Dr. Michele Barry. You can learn more about the project here: https://www.amacad.org/project/civil-wars-violence-and-international-responses Intro/outro music is "Evolution" from BenSound.com (https://www.bensound.com) Follow the Krulak Center: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thekrulakcenter Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thekrulakcenter/ Twitter: @TheKrulakCenter YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcIYZ84VMuP8bDw0T9K8S3g Krulak Center homepage on The Landing: https://unum.nsin.us/kcic

In this episode, we are joined by fellow podcaster Wesley Livesay of History of the Great War and History of the Second World War to discuss one of the most intriguing, historically important, yet oft-forgotten pieces of interwar history: Allied intervention during the Russian Civil War. With his help, we take a look at the reasons why the Allied powers thought it important to intervene: From Bolshevism being a new and unpredictable form of politics in the world, Wilsonian ideals about the spread of democracy, Japanese expansion in Eastern Russia, to the amazing story of a marooned army of more than 60,000 Czech troops fighting their way across an entire continent East to Vladivostok... to get back to Czechoslovakia. We also discuss how important the foreign intervention in Russia was on world politics for years to come, why it isn't well-remembered, and why it, along with so many other pieces of interwar history should be. A huge thanks to Wesley for coming on the show! Check out his podcast, History of the Second World War here: http://historyofthesecondworldwar.com/ Our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/historysmost Our Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/729271677922830 Thank you to our Executive Producers: Marc Frost, Tom McCool, Justus Ebel, Jeremy Marcoux, and Tony Turrin, to all our Patrons, and to all our listeners.

This week we are once again asking you to forgive Hunter for his poor audio quality! We have been adjusting to new work schedules for the summer but we should be back to putting up more regular content! Thank you all for bearing with us, we hope you enjoy the show!

Tyson David talks about foreign intervention by the United States and some of the wars it has been part of. He also talks of Davis county's new 2nd amendment policy .

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT & MILITARY EXERCISES, RACIAL TENSION & POLICE SHOOTINGS / PROTESTS, POLITICS & FOREIGN INTERVENTION, VOTING, CRIME, LOCKDOWNS & COVID, IMMIGRATION

With clear warnings that supporters of Joe Biden intend to rampage through the streets of American cities if they lose, in an intentional replay in the U.S. of the "Color Revolution" regime change operations run in foreign countries, it is urgent that voters turn the election into a referendum against foreign intervention in U.S. elections—no, not by Russia, but by the City of London—and a referendum for a second Trump administration to adopt the Four Economic Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, to revive the economy. For that to happen, it is not enough to just vote, but become active with LaRouchePAC to shape the future. [See Roger Stone's article here: https://larouchepac.com/20201101/democrats-plan-steal-election-roger-stone] Send questions to Harley to harleysch@gmail.com Every weekday morning Harley will brief you on what you need to know to start your day. If you haven't already, sign up for Harley's weekly articles, harley.larouchepac.com/join

Guest: Giorgio Cafiero. We discuss the civil war and complicated foreign intervention in Libya. We first do a review of what has happened in Libya since the 2011 overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and then we sort out the situation in Libya right now. There is an extra (bonus question) for patrons only (Ep 173EXTRA) about the outlook for Libya going forward, whether it’s likely to split and/or be used as a battlefield by larger powers.  Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO and founder of Gulf State Analytics, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Washington, DC. His research interests include geopolitical and security trends in the Arabian Peninsula and the broader Middle East. He is a regular contributor to the Middle East Institute, Al Monitor, LobeLog, Inside Arabia, and New Arab and he frequently appears as a commentator on various media networks. He is also an adjunct fellow at the American Security Project, an affiliate at the Mena Center and an analyst at London-based advisory Rosa & Roubini Associates. FOLLOW @GiorgioCafiero. Find him at Gulf State Analytics.  Around the Empire is listener supported, independent media. Pitch in at Patreon: patreon.com/aroundtheempire or paypal.me/aroundtheempirepod. Find all links at aroundtheempire.com.  SUBSCRIBE on YouTube. FOLLOW @aroundtheempire and @joanneleon.  SUBSCRIBE/FOLLOW on iTunes, iHeart, Spotify, Google Play, Facebook or on your preferred podcast app. Recorded on June 28, 2020. Music by Fluorescent Grey.  

Guests:Jacqueline R. McAllister is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Kenyon College.Wesley K. Clark is a retired four-star general in the U.S. Army and was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO during the Kosovo War. He is currently a Senior Fellow at UCLA’s Burkle Center.International Security Article:This episode is based on Jacqueline R. McAllister, “Deterring Wartime Atrocities: Hard Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal,” International Security, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Winter 2019/20), pp. 84-128. Additional Related Readings:Wesley K. Clark, “John Bolton is dead wrong. The U.S. has every reason to cooperate with the International Criminal Court,” Washington Post, September 21, 2018.Dan Sabbagh, “‘Still Needed’: NATO Marks 20 Years in Kosovo,” Guardian, June 12, 2019.Jacqueline R. McAllister, “Bending the Arc: How to Achieve Justice at the International Criminal Court,” Foreign Affairs, August 3, 2015.Eric Stover, Victor Peskin, and Alexa Koenig, “Radovan Karadzic and the (Very) Long Arc of Justice,” Foreign Policy, March 24, 2016.Marlise Simmons, “Yugoslavia Tribunal Leave Rich Legacy, but ‘Immense’ Challenges Remain,” New York Times, December 23, 2017.Jacqueline R. McAllister, “The Extraordinary Gamble: How The Yugoslav Tribunal’s Indictment Of Slobodan Milosevic During The Kosovo War Affected Peace Efforts,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, Fall/Winter 2019, 26(1): 201-213.Hayley Evans and Paras Shah, “ICC Appeals Chamber Authorizes Investigation Into Crimes in Afghanistan,” Lawfare, March 13, 2020.

A conversation with Grey Jabesi on human nature and gov [...]

Welcome back to another episode of Liberty Revealed, the show dedicated to revealing personal liberty to all who listen. I am your host, Mike Mahony, and today I want to talk to you about why the United States should stop its constant interventions in foreign countries.Over several decades, Libertarians have expressed opposition to United States intervention in foreign countries. We have offered alternatives that have been ignored by the leadership in Washington DC. Every election cycle the Republican and Democrat candidates claim they will bring peace and stability and never seem to do that. The American people are growing weary of this constant cycle of intervention. Is it now time for a Libertarian foreign policy?Adam Smith taught that for there to be a tolerable government, there needed to be in place the essential ingredients of peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice.” War doesn’t make the list for good reason. It is probably the largest and most far-reaching of all statist enterprises. It's an engine of collectivization that undermines private enterprise, raises taxes, destroys wealth, and subjects all aspects of the economy to regimentation and central planning.It also alters the citizens' view of the state in a subtle way. "War substitutes a herd mentality and blind obedience for the normal propensity to question authority and to demand good and proper reasons for government actions," the late scholar Ronald Hamowy writes in The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. He continues, "War promotes collectivism at the expense of individualism, force at the expense of reason and coarseness at the expense of sensibility. Libertarians regard all of those tendencies with sorrow."Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman stated the issue more clearly. "War is a friend of the state," he told the San Francisco Chronicle about a year before his death. "In time of war, government will take powers and do things that it would not ordinarily do." The evidence is solid and irrefutable. Throughout human history, the government has grown during wartime, rarely surrendering its new powers when the guns fall silent. War is a means used for the government to increase in size and that’s not a good thing.Some people make the claim that a particular threat to freedom from abroad is greater than anything we could do to ourselves in fighting it. But that is a hard case to make. Even the post-9/11 "global war on terror" — a war that hasn't involved conscription or massive new taxes — has resulted in wholesale violations of basic civil rights and an erosion of the rule of law. From Bush's torture memos to Obama's secret kill list, this has all been done in the name of fighting a menace — Islamist terrorism — that has killed fewer American civilians in the last decade than allergic reactions to peanuts. It seems James Madison was right. It was, he wrote, "a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."Some would say the United States is an exceptional nation that serves the cause of global liberty. The United States pursues a "foreign policy that makes the world a better place," explains Sen. Lindsey Graham, "and sometimes that requires force, a lot of times it requires the threat of force." By engaging in frequent wars, even when U.S. security isn't directly threatened, the United States acts as the world's much-needed policeman. That's the theory, anyway.In the real world, the record is decidedly mixed. This supposedly liberal order does not work as well as its advocates claim. The world still has its share of conflicts, despite a U.S. global military presence explicitly oriented around stopping wars before they start. The U.S. Navy supposedly keeps the seas open for global commerce, but it's not obvious who would benefit from closing them — aside from terrorists or pirates who couldn't if they tried. Advocates of the status quo claim that it would be much worse if the United States adopted a more restrained grand strategy, but they fail to accurately account for the costs of this global posture, and they exaggerate the benefits. And, of course, there is the obvious case of the Iraq War, a disaster that was part and parcel of this misguided strategy of global primacy. It was launched on the promise of delivering freedom to the Iraqi people and then to the entire Middle East. It has had, if anything, the opposite effect.Libertarians harbor deep and abiding doubts about the government's capacity for effecting particular ends, no matter how well-intentioned. These concerns are magnified, not set aside when the government project involves violence in foreign lands.In domestic policy, libertarians tend to believe in a minimal state endowed with enumerated powers, dedicated to protecting the security and liberty of its citizens but otherwise inclined to leave them alone. The same principles should apply when we turn our attention abroad. Citizens should be free to buy and sell goods and services, study and travel, and otherwise interact with peoples from other lands and places, unencumbered by the intrusions of government.But peaceful, non-coercive foreign engagement should not be confused with its violent cousin: war. American libertarians have traditionally opposed wars and warfare, even those ostensibly focused on achieving liberal ends. And for good reason. All wars involve killing people and destroying property. Most entail massive encroachments on civil liberties, from warrantless surveillance to conscription. They all impede the free movement of goods, capital, and labor essential to economic prosperity. And all wars contribute to the growth of the state.It is my own personal belief that when something isn’t working we should stop doing it. Clearly, this constant intervention into foreign issues is not working. We are not accomplishing the goals our leadership claims exist for these interventions. Instead, we are risking both American and foreign lives in a fruitless endeavor to be the police for the world community. While the concept may on the surface appear admirable, the end result is anything but. This is where a Libertarian foreign policy would change everything.Now, as my regular listeners are aware, I am a pragmatic Libertarian. While I believe 100% in libertarian principles, I know that our society is fully entrenched in its current ways and any change is going to take time. There are a lot of political and structural impediments to the government doing less of anything. We face a problem when dealing directly with the American people. There's a strong bias among the American people that when you face some economic or social problem — from healthcare to education to welfare — the government should do something. When you say the government should do less or limit its response, many are skeptical.When it comes to foreign crises, you're constantly faced with bad actors on the international stage — from dictators to ayatollahs. The argument that we should restrict intervention or avoid projecting strength often doesn't resonate with the public. What's interesting, however, is that you generally don't get both of these attitudes — government activism at home and abroad — from the same person. Those most likely to grasp that government is not the solution to every domestic problem are the most likely to be skeptical of that argument when it's presented in relation to foreign policy. And that really means that those advocating a libertarian foreign policy are men and women without a country. In our binary political system, there's no party or constituency that's really speaking for that viewpoint.You can see the evidence of that in the congressional vote for the Iraq War. Among Republicans, there were only seven who voted against authorization. What's less well remembered is that half the Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize the Iraq War. The list includes Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid. These are not "back-bencher" Democrats. They're some of the most prominent figures, including the supposed Peace Party's most likely next candidate for president of the United States.That means that the parties really present an echo, not a choice. There's this "me tooism," even when it comes to Democrats. In some respects, that makes sense because they're the party that believes in the government's ability to keep us safe all of the time and in every situation. But some of it is also a relic of politics from the 1980s and 1990s, when a lot of these people came of age at a time when the Democratic Party was seen as weak on foreign policy. A lot of Democrats internalized that critique and regarded it as a political liability. Ultimately, they tried to counter that liability by becoming more hawkish.The odd thing about that is that it doesn't reflect many of the trends in public opinion, particularly those of rank-and-file Democrats. But politicians tend to stick with the ideas they adopted during their formative years. So you have a generation of hawkish Democrats leading a party of people who are hesitant to see such an outsized U.S. role in the world, and particularly in the Middle East. Thus a lot of the core assumptions that are being batted around by both parties in discussing the potential nuclear threat from Iran are very similar to the core assumptions that led us into the Iraq War.So what do we do about this? There was a period when we were seeing real growth in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party, and some chastened conservatives seemed to be moving in that direction. But, again, it's easier to make those arguments when everything is going well. As soon as there's any significant instability in the world, it becomes much harder to make non-interventionist arguments in foreign policy. The Republican Party seems at the moment to be reverting to form.But I don't think all is necessarily lost. True, the political incentives for even the best-intentioned libertarian-leaning Republicans are bad. They will be punished by the loudest voices on the right if they say anything that deviates from the idea of aggressively projecting strength. At the same time, there's been a lot of success framing a libertarian non-interventionism as President Barack Obama's foreign policy. Now I find it interesting that a president who escalated one war, launched two more without congressional approval, and proposed a fourth is any kind of non-interventionist. But there you have it. Our binary political system makes it difficult to have these debates in a nuanced fashion.On the positive side, I've always argued that we need to get people who are engaged in economics — those conservatives and libertarians who specialize in fiscal areas — to be a little more vocal on foreign policy. In private, you often hear a lot of conservative budget experts express their doubts about an ever-expansive military footprint abroad. There, of course, still needs to be some foreign policy expertise that comes from a less interventionist perspective on the right.But, in the meantime, as we cultivate those voices, there's a vacuum that needs to be filled by people who are philosophically sympathetic to less intervention and yet specialize in other issues. They shouldn't let the wall of separation between budget gurus and defense hawks dictate what the Republican Party's foreign policy is going to be.Tell me your thoughts on this by leaving a voicemail on the Yogi’s Podcast Network hotline at (657) 529-2218.That’s it for this episode of Liberty Revealed. .If you like what you’ve heard, please rate us 5 stars on Apple Podcasts and Google Play. If you’d like to learn more about personal liberty, grab your free copy of my book “Liberty Revealed” by heading over to http://yogispodcastnetwork.com/libertyrevealed. Until next time...stay free!

This is a segment of episode #224 of Last Born In The Wilderness “Six Months On, No Regrets: The Hong Kong Uprising, A Ground-Level View w/ Vivek Mahbubani.” Listen to the full episode: http://bit.ly/LBWmahbubani Learn more about Vivek: https://funnyvivek.com In this segment of my interview with Hong Kong citizen, bilingual stand-up comedian, and activist Vivek Mahbubani, I ask Vivek to provide a much needed ground-level view of the historic and ongoing uprising in Hong Kong these past six months. Vivek does a spectacular job sussing out the nuances of this movement, as Western media tends to overly-simplify and flatten the nature of this movement in countless ways, with outside supporters and detractors of this protest movement focusing on very specific details that only serve to reinforce each of their respective narratives on the aims of the movement. As someone who understands and speaks fluent Cantonese and English, Vivek is able to more fully explain how this leaderless movement continues to organize itself, including how tactics have been developed to effectively counter increasingly violent and intrusive police repression, as well as what to make of the seemingly pro-American and pro-British displays by demonstrators within the protests. Vivek Mahbubani is a Hong Kong-bred bilingual stand-up comedian performing in both Cantonese and English. Having been crowned the Funniest Person (in Chinese) in Hong Kong in 2007 followed by his victory in the English category at the Hong Kong International Comedy Competition in 2008, Vivek has had the opportunity to take his sense of humor all over the world including Hong Kong, China, Macau, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, Australia, Canada and USA.  WEBSITE: https://www.lastborninthewilderness.com PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/lastborninthewilderness DONATE: https://www.paypal.me/lastbornpodcast DROP ME A LINE: Call (208) 918-2837 or http://bit.ly/LBWfiledrop EVERYTHING ELSE: https://linktr.ee/patterns.of.behavior

SUMMARY of Episode 10 – Cold War Pawns – Summary of ForeignIntervention in AfricaThis episode discusses, in a high level, African colonisation and the fight forAfrican independence. We tackle the Berlin Congress, which was used byNorth American and European countries to split up Africa betweenthemselves. Once freedom came in Africa, problems started to arise.Tribalism among African natives. Foreign interference by former colonialpowers. Genocide. Corruption. Civil War. Was the Cold War good for Africa?Listen to this episode and find out.Starring: Germany; Ghana; Mahatma Gandhi; The Berlin Congress;Colonisation; African Independence; Tribalism; African Civil Wars; and muchmuch more See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Questions and discourses around intervention in African nations are quite frankly opaque and attempt to sell contradictory and conflicting reasoning. For instance, the very notions of foreign—intervention—and its relationship between the logic of racial capitalism and its attendant operational institutions and systems, such as—colonialism/neocolonialism, imperialism, unequal trade, forced and coerced migration, issues of citizenship, imposition of colonial borders, who has the right to have rights, human dignity, scramble and (re)scramble for control of material and nonmaterial resources, and international development…are marginalized, hidden, or often ignored. To be clear, the notion of intervention itself—its philosophical and epistemic groundings in Western logics is inherently problematic. One need not move far on the world historical map to see the material implications of Western (or outside) intervention and its deleterious impact across the African world. For many critically thinking folk, the differentiation between intervention and invasion are slim or non-existent. And if we are to understand the roots of contemporary intervention—we must surely deal with the earlier histories and philosophies of raw, unbridled invasions to extract natural resources and to control human physical and intellectual productive forces, and its evolution into post-modern versions of a liberal, gentler imperialism. Nevertheless, the current reality is that Africa consistently face multiple levels of intervention, all normally rooted in a weak and narrow idea of humanitarianism, or a racial capitalist-driven development, not to mention, the justification of intervention under false notions of governance rooted in a Western historiography, of which these same governments do not practice in totality themselves. Today, we deal with the current reality of Foreign Intervention in Africa, specifically After the Cold War and its relationship between Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror with Dr. Elizabeth Schmidt. Dr. Elizabeth Schmidt is currently a professor emeritus of history at Loyola University Maryland. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and has written extensively about US involvement in apartheid South Africa; women under colonialism in Zimbabwe; the nationalist movement in Guinea; as well as foreign intervention in Africa before and from the Cold War to the war on terror. Some of her works include: •Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror; •Mobilizing the Masses: Gender, Ethnicity, and Class in the Nationalist Movement in Guinea, 1939-1958; •Peasants, Traders, and Wives: Shona Women in the History of Zimbabwe, 1870-1939; •Foreign Intervention in Africa From the Cold War to the War on Terror; and •Decoding Corporate Camouflage: U.S. Business Support for Apartheid to name a few. Today's program, as always, is produced in solidarity with the Native/Indigenous, African, and Afro Descendant communities at Standing Rock, Venezuela, the Avalon Village in Detroit; Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Cooperation Jackson in Jackson Mississippi; Palestine, South Africa, and Ghana and other places who are fighting for the protection of our land for the benefit of all peoples!

David and Tim discuss the use of tax dollars for intervention in foreign countries. Both in terms of military, peacekeeping and economic support. How should the government use your money?Thank you to our sponsor, The Warrior Path. Sign up for a free 1 week trial: https://thewarriorpathpro.com/And get 5% the online store (on your first order) with code: HOL5BTI Media: https://www.btimedia.ca/Libertarian Party of Canada: https://www.libertarian.ca/Music by Alan Poettcker: amp_49@hotmail.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Anna Mwaba (@AnnaKapambwe), the McPherson/Eveillard Postdoctoral Fellow in Government at Smith College and the featured guest in Ufahamu Africa episode 25, wrote this review of Foreign Intervention in Africa After the Cold War, a 2018 book written by Elizabeth Schmidt and published by Ohio University Press (@OhioUnivPress). In this bonus recording, hear Ufahamu Africa host Kim Dionne read Mwaba's review. … More Bonus: Anna Mwaba’s review of Elizabeth Schmidt’s book on foreign intervention in Africa

Elizabeth Schmidt discusses her new book, Foreign Intervention in Africa After the Cold War, and refugee resettlement in Baltimore with Akalu Paulos.Elizabeth Schmidt is a professor emeritus of history at Loyola University Maryland. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and has written extensively about US involvement in apartheid South Africa, women under colonialism in Zimbabwe, the nationalist movement in Guinea, and foreign intervention in Africa from the Cold War to the war on terror. Her books include: Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror; Cold War and Decolonization in Guinea, 1946-1958; Mobilizing the Masses: Gender, Ethnicity, and Class in the Nationalist Movement in Guinea, 1939-1958; Peasants, Traders, and Wives: Shona Women in the History of Zimbabwe, 1870-1939; and Decoding Corporate Camouflage: U.S. Business Support for Apartheid.  Since the mid 1980s, Akalu Paulos has been an active participant in development programs as a practitioner, consultant and researcher, working for public, non-profit, and international multi-lateral governmental organizations in Ethiopia. In the last 13 years in the United States, Akalu’s career has largely focused on refugee resettlement and training in Baltimore, under a program funded by the US Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement. In his capacity as the Refugee Program Manager for Baltimore City Community College since July 2012, he has facilitated the linguistic, economic and civic integration of more than 4000 refugees resettled in Baltimore. He earned his masters in Development Studies from the University College Dublin, in Ireland, and has extensively written and spoken on issues of human rights, gender, governance, and civil society at international conferences in four continents.Writers LIVE programs are supported in part by a bequest from The Miss Howard Hubbard Adult Programming Fund.

Elizabeth Schmidt discusses her new book, Foreign Intervention in Africa After the Cold War, and refugee resettlement in Baltimore with Akalu Paulos.Elizabeth Schmidt is a professor emeritus of history at Loyola University Maryland. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin and has written extensively about US involvement in apartheid South Africa, women under colonialism in Zimbabwe, the nationalist movement in Guinea, and foreign intervention in Africa from the Cold War to the war on terror. Her books include: Foreign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror; Cold War and Decolonization in Guinea, 1946-1958; Mobilizing the Masses: Gender, Ethnicity, and Class in the Nationalist Movement in Guinea, 1939-1958; Peasants, Traders, and Wives: Shona Women in the History of Zimbabwe, 1870-1939; and Decoding Corporate Camouflage: U.S. Business Support for Apartheid.  Since the mid 1980s, Akalu Paulos has been an active participant in development programs as a practitioner, consultant and researcher, working for public, non-profit, and international multi-lateral governmental organizations in Ethiopia. In the last 13 years in the United States, Akalu’s career has largely focused on refugee resettlement and training in Baltimore, under a program funded by the US Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement. In his capacity as the Refugee Program Manager for Baltimore City Community College since July 2012, he has facilitated the linguistic, economic and civic integration of more than 4000 refugees resettled in Baltimore. He earned his masters in Development Studies from the University College Dublin, in Ireland, and has extensively written and spoken on issues of human rights, gender, governance, and civil society at international conferences in four continents.Writers LIVE programs are supported in part by a bequest from The Miss Howard Hubbard Adult Programming Fund.Recorded On: Wednesday, July 10, 2019

***  The main issue was with Venezuela and should we get militarily involved.  My contention is no.  We could donate all kinds of guns to the people so they could defend themselves, but we don't want to get into another nation-building, eternal money pit, taking on all of Venezuela's problems, after a military-interventionalist operation to switch out a dictator, Maduro, for a socialist, Guaido, where neither is going to be great for U.S./Venezuela relations.  To me it's the same old battle between the globalist permanent war class, and the nationalist America first class.  Guess which one I'm in?  We talked about May Day origins and how it's now a communist/anarchist protest day worldwide for whatever people want it to be.  We had a great Creek Tribe Report with Vice Chief Dan Helms, 30 minutes into the show, and joined by Brian a caller, we covered interesting issues from presentations at the Creek Cultural Center, to should illegal aliens be put on reservations, and Native Americans be free of that system to destroy them.  Then back to Venezuela for the second hour of the show. Stay connected by going to the "Action Radio with Greg Penglis" Facebook page:   https://www.facebook.com/radiolegislature/ Please share our show with friends and family at: BlogTalkRadio.com/citizenaction Check out our citizen written bills at:  www.WriteYourLaws.com Join us on Facebook also at: Action Radio Podcasts with Greg Penglis, The Action Radio Group Page, The Fetke Report, The Action Radio Video Page, Action Radio Writers Group, and The Action Radio Youtube Channel.  Also our new groups: the Action Radio Vaccine Project, Action Radio Family Law Project, and the Action Radio Art Project.

Of all the blank spots in the mental maps of many Americans, Africa is one of the largest. Informed by a number of misconceptions and popular myths, knowledge of the continent’s complexity is poorly understood not just by ordinary citizens but by policymakers as well. This ignorance informs foreign relations with African states: as Maxine Waters once put it, when it came to the Rwandan Genocide, she couldn’t tell whether the Hutus or the Tutsis were right, and because of that she couldn’t tell anybody else what to do. Consequently, the drivers of foreign intervention in Africa are often ill-informed about local contexts, and this has driven a number of disastrous foreign interventions that have rarely fixed the problems they set out to resolve. In Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror (Ohio UP, 2018), Elizabeth Schmidt picks up where she left off in an earlier book and examines several different foreign interventions in Africa. Using a variety of different case studies, she illuminates some of the patterns that have informed western intervention in Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere, and the complicated role of international institutions in this process. By pointing out the ways that intervention has been shaped by concerns around the War on Terror, access to natural resources, and varying degrees of concern over human rights issues, Schmidt illustrates how these interventions fail or lead to unexpected and new problems. Written for a broad audience, the book is an excellent synthesis of a very complicated topic. Zeb Larson is a PhD Candidate in History at The Ohio State University. His research is about the anti-apartheid movement in the United States. To suggest a recent title or to contact him, please send an e-mail to zeb.larson@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Of all the blank spots in the mental maps of many Americans, Africa is one of the largest. Informed by a number of misconceptions and popular myths, knowledge of the continent’s complexity is poorly understood not just by ordinary citizens but by policymakers as well. This ignorance informs foreign relations with African states: as Maxine Waters once put it, when it came to the Rwandan Genocide, she couldn’t tell whether the Hutus or the Tutsis were right, and because of that she couldn’t tell anybody else what to do. Consequently, the drivers of foreign intervention in Africa are often ill-informed about local contexts, and this has driven a number of disastrous foreign interventions that have rarely fixed the problems they set out to resolve. In Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror (Ohio UP, 2018), Elizabeth Schmidt picks up where she left off in an earlier book and examines several different foreign interventions in Africa. Using a variety of different case studies, she illuminates some of the patterns that have informed western intervention in Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere, and the complicated role of international institutions in this process. By pointing out the ways that intervention has been shaped by concerns around the War on Terror, access to natural resources, and varying degrees of concern over human rights issues, Schmidt illustrates how these interventions fail or lead to unexpected and new problems. Written for a broad audience, the book is an excellent synthesis of a very complicated topic. Zeb Larson is a PhD Candidate in History at The Ohio State University. His research is about the anti-apartheid movement in the United States. To suggest a recent title or to contact him, please send an e-mail to zeb.larson@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Of all the blank spots in the mental maps of many Americans, Africa is one of the largest. Informed by a number of misconceptions and popular myths, knowledge of the continent’s complexity is poorly understood not just by ordinary citizens but by policymakers as well. This ignorance informs foreign relations with African states: as Maxine Waters once put it, when it came to the Rwandan Genocide, she couldn’t tell whether the Hutus or the Tutsis were right, and because of that she couldn’t tell anybody else what to do. Consequently, the drivers of foreign intervention in Africa are often ill-informed about local contexts, and this has driven a number of disastrous foreign interventions that have rarely fixed the problems they set out to resolve. In Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror (Ohio UP, 2018), Elizabeth Schmidt picks up where she left off in an earlier book and examines several different foreign interventions in Africa. Using a variety of different case studies, she illuminates some of the patterns that have informed western intervention in Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere, and the complicated role of international institutions in this process. By pointing out the ways that intervention has been shaped by concerns around the War on Terror, access to natural resources, and varying degrees of concern over human rights issues, Schmidt illustrates how these interventions fail or lead to unexpected and new problems. Written for a broad audience, the book is an excellent synthesis of a very complicated topic. Zeb Larson is a PhD Candidate in History at The Ohio State University. His research is about the anti-apartheid movement in the United States. To suggest a recent title or to contact him, please send an e-mail to zeb.larson@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Of all the blank spots in the mental maps of many Americans, Africa is one of the largest. Informed by a number of misconceptions and popular myths, knowledge of the continent’s complexity is poorly understood not just by ordinary citizens but by policymakers as well. This ignorance informs foreign relations with African states: as Maxine Waters once put it, when it came to the Rwandan Genocide, she couldn’t tell whether the Hutus or the Tutsis were right, and because of that she couldn’t tell anybody else what to do. Consequently, the drivers of foreign intervention in Africa are often ill-informed about local contexts, and this has driven a number of disastrous foreign interventions that have rarely fixed the problems they set out to resolve. In Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror (Ohio UP, 2018), Elizabeth Schmidt picks up where she left off in an earlier book and examines several different foreign interventions in Africa. Using a variety of different case studies, she illuminates some of the patterns that have informed western intervention in Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere, and the complicated role of international institutions in this process. By pointing out the ways that intervention has been shaped by concerns around the War on Terror, access to natural resources, and varying degrees of concern over human rights issues, Schmidt illustrates how these interventions fail or lead to unexpected and new problems. Written for a broad audience, the book is an excellent synthesis of a very complicated topic. Zeb Larson is a PhD Candidate in History at The Ohio State University. His research is about the anti-apartheid movement in the United States. To suggest a recent title or to contact him, please send an e-mail to zeb.larson@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Of all the blank spots in the mental maps of many Americans, Africa is one of the largest. Informed by a number of misconceptions and popular myths, knowledge of the continent’s complexity is poorly understood not just by ordinary citizens but by policymakers as well. This ignorance informs foreign relations with African states: as Maxine Waters once put it, when it came to the Rwandan Genocide, she couldn’t tell whether the Hutus or the Tutsis were right, and because of that she couldn’t tell anybody else what to do. Consequently, the drivers of foreign intervention in Africa are often ill-informed about local contexts, and this has driven a number of disastrous foreign interventions that have rarely fixed the problems they set out to resolve. In Foreign Intervention in Africa after the Cold War: Sovereignty, Responsibility, and the War on Terror (Ohio UP, 2018), Elizabeth Schmidt picks up where she left off in an earlier book and examines several different foreign interventions in Africa. Using a variety of different case studies, she illuminates some of the patterns that have informed western intervention in Rwanda, Somalia, and elsewhere, and the complicated role of international institutions in this process. By pointing out the ways that intervention has been shaped by concerns around the War on Terror, access to natural resources, and varying degrees of concern over human rights issues, Schmidt illustrates how these interventions fail or lead to unexpected and new problems. Written for a broad audience, the book is an excellent synthesis of a very complicated topic. Zeb Larson is a PhD Candidate in History at The Ohio State University. His research is about the anti-apartheid movement in the United States. To suggest a recent title or to contact him, please send an e-mail to zeb.larson@gmail.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode we rant about alternative milk, political correctness and foreign intervention. Be a part of the conversation by joining us at our next event! Follow us: instagram.com/buppesociety facebook.com/ppesocietybu ppesocietybu.wordpress.com Intro song: Show Me How - Men I Trust

What happens when two personal and academic journeys collide? Marlon Valencia discusses his early research and educational influences. He helps us understand how inspiring others to make changes in the community so we can move forward in today’s society is not only an intricate task but a hard-labouring one. Marlon’s experiences from high school, undergrad and graduate studies in relation to language learning are key to his work on imagination and possibilities to forge a future. We discuss current sociopolitical situations in Colombia, Venezuela and Canada and how there has been a progressive erosion of democracy in times of far-right tactics to isolate us from the other. We, finally, question our role as researchers and language educators and how our practices would look in today’s classrooms. Cite this podcast (APA): Ortega, Y. (Producer). (2019, March 19). Chasing Encounters - Episode – 7 – Imagination possibilities and realities [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/chasingencounters/chasing-encounters-episode-7-imagination-possibilities-and-realities Sources: Valencia, M. (2013). Language Policy and the Manufacturing of Consent for Foreign Intervention in Colombia. Profile; Bogota, 15(1), 27–43.

The world we live in today has Dwight Eisenhower's fingerprints all over it. When Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell address on January 17, 1960, he warned the American people of the growing influence of a “military-industrial complex.” What few people remember is that it was Eisenhower who oversaw the transformation of the American military into the large-scale force that spans the globe. “Ike” also helped facilitate the ceasefire in Korea that remains in place over six decades later, and his administration's use of the CIA and covert operations to install regimes friendly to US interests continues to haunt America's foreign relations with countries such as Iran today. In this episode, Bob & Ben speak with the University of Virginia's William Hitchcock to talk about Dwight Eisenhower and the ways his eight years in the Oval Office can still be felt more than half a century later. Along the way, we discuss how Eisenhower's experience as a General during World War II shaped his world view, and where Eisenhower fits within the history of the Republican Party and the greater history of American Presidents.  Dr. William Hitchcock is Professor of History at the University of Virginia and the Randolph P. Compton Professor at UVa's Miller Center. He is the author of six books, the most recent of which The Age of Eisenhower: American and the World in the 1950s was published by Simon & Schuster in March of 2018. The Road to Now is part of the Osiris Podcast Network. For more on this episode and all others, visit our website: www.TheRoadToNow.com.

Iron Man may have been one of the antagonists in the film, but was he really just a lackey for the UN or were the superhuman accords really the best way to protect individual liberty and national sovereignty? The lines between liberty and security are blurred in this episode covering "Captain America: Civil War --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/the-remso-martinez-experience/support

We are pleased and honored that former U.S. Congressman (Texas) and past Presidential Candidate under the Republican and Libertarian banner, has agreed to be on our show to discuss the Federal Reserve and U.S. foreign interventionism. 

In February 2012 Intelligence Squared Asia presented leading voices and influential figures in a debate about foreign intervention. This discussion raised questions such as: Does foreign intervention lend itself to long-term partnerships characterized by respect and progress? Does it pose fundamentally damaging practical and moral problems? What country has the right to meddle in the affairs of another? Do human rights violations compel other nations to embrace interventionism as foreign policy? Under what circumstances may the presumption of sovereign state integrity be set aside? Arguing in favour of the motion were Dr Edward Luttwak, a leading public intellectual, historian and government consultant on strategic affairs; and Professor Zhang Weiwei, author of 'Shifting Gravity' and professor of International Relations at the Geneva School of Diplomacy. Against them were Emily Lau, Legislative Council (LegCo) member and vice-chair of the Hong Kong Democratic Party; and MJ Akbar, Editorial Director of... See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Elizabeth Schmidt‘sForeign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013)depicts the foreign political and military interventions in Africa during the periods of decolonization (1956-75) and the Cold War (1945-91), as well as the periods of state collapse (1991-2001) and the “global war on terror” (2001-10). In the first two periods, the most significant intervention was intercontinental. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and the former colonial powers entangled themselves in numerous African conflicts. During the period of state collapse, the most consequential interventions were intracontinental. African governments, sometimes assisted by powers outside the continent, supported warlords, dictators, and dissident movements in neighboring countries and fought for control of their neighbors' resources. The global war on terror, like the Cold War, increased the foreign military presence on the African continent and generated external support for repressive governments. In each of these cases, external interests altered the dynamics of internal struggles, escalating local conflicts into larger conflagrations, with devastating effects on African populations. Schmidt's book is an excellent synthesis of the past 70 years of African history and politics. Her book is provocative, thoughtful and passionate. It is a superb book for students, general readers as well as scholars.

Elizabeth Schmidt‘sForeign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013)depicts the foreign political and military interventions in Africa during the periods of decolonization (1956-75) and the Cold War (1945-91), as well as the periods of state collapse (1991-2001) and the “global war on terror” (2001-10). In the first two periods, the most significant intervention was intercontinental. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and the former colonial powers entangled themselves in numerous African conflicts. During the period of state collapse, the most consequential interventions were intracontinental. African governments, sometimes assisted by powers outside the continent, supported warlords, dictators, and dissident movements in neighboring countries and fought for control of their neighbors’ resources. The global war on terror, like the Cold War, increased the foreign military presence on the African continent and generated external support for repressive governments. In each of these cases, external interests altered the dynamics of internal struggles, escalating local conflicts into larger conflagrations, with devastating effects on African populations. Schmidt’s book is an excellent synthesis of the past 70 years of African history and politics. Her book is provocative, thoughtful and passionate. It is a superb book for students, general readers as well as scholars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elizabeth Schmidt‘sForeign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013)depicts the foreign political and military interventions in Africa during the periods of decolonization (1956-75) and the Cold War (1945-91), as well as the periods of state collapse (1991-2001) and the “global war on terror” (2001-10). In the first two periods, the most significant intervention was intercontinental. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and the former colonial powers entangled themselves in numerous African conflicts. During the period of state collapse, the most consequential interventions were intracontinental. African governments, sometimes assisted by powers outside the continent, supported warlords, dictators, and dissident movements in neighboring countries and fought for control of their neighbors’ resources. The global war on terror, like the Cold War, increased the foreign military presence on the African continent and generated external support for repressive governments. In each of these cases, external interests altered the dynamics of internal struggles, escalating local conflicts into larger conflagrations, with devastating effects on African populations. Schmidt’s book is an excellent synthesis of the past 70 years of African history and politics. Her book is provocative, thoughtful and passionate. It is a superb book for students, general readers as well as scholars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elizabeth Schmidt‘sForeign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013)depicts the foreign political and military interventions in Africa during the periods of decolonization (1956-75) and the Cold War (1945-91), as well as the periods of state collapse (1991-2001) and the “global war on terror” (2001-10). In the first two periods, the most significant intervention was intercontinental. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and the former colonial powers entangled themselves in numerous African conflicts. During the period of state collapse, the most consequential interventions were intracontinental. African governments, sometimes assisted by powers outside the continent, supported warlords, dictators, and dissident movements in neighboring countries and fought for control of their neighbors’ resources. The global war on terror, like the Cold War, increased the foreign military presence on the African continent and generated external support for repressive governments. In each of these cases, external interests altered the dynamics of internal struggles, escalating local conflicts into larger conflagrations, with devastating effects on African populations. Schmidt’s book is an excellent synthesis of the past 70 years of African history and politics. Her book is provocative, thoughtful and passionate. It is a superb book for students, general readers as well as scholars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elizabeth Schmidt‘sForeign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013)depicts the foreign political and military interventions in Africa during the periods of decolonization (1956-75) and the Cold War (1945-91), as well as the periods of state collapse (1991-2001) and the “global war on terror” (2001-10). In the first two periods, the most significant intervention was intercontinental. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and the former colonial powers entangled themselves in numerous African conflicts. During the period of state collapse, the most consequential interventions were intracontinental. African governments, sometimes assisted by powers outside the continent, supported warlords, dictators, and dissident movements in neighboring countries and fought for control of their neighbors’ resources. The global war on terror, like the Cold War, increased the foreign military presence on the African continent and generated external support for repressive governments. In each of these cases, external interests altered the dynamics of internal struggles, escalating local conflicts into larger conflagrations, with devastating effects on African populations. Schmidt’s book is an excellent synthesis of the past 70 years of African history and politics. Her book is provocative, thoughtful and passionate. It is a superb book for students, general readers as well as scholars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elizabeth Schmidt‘sForeign Intervention in Africa: From the Cold War to the War on Terror (Cambridge University Press, 2013)depicts the foreign political and military interventions in Africa during the periods of decolonization (1956-75) and the Cold War (1945-91), as well as the periods of state collapse (1991-2001) and the “global war on terror” (2001-10). In the first two periods, the most significant intervention was intercontinental. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and the former colonial powers entangled themselves in numerous African conflicts. During the period of state collapse, the most consequential interventions were intracontinental. African governments, sometimes assisted by powers outside the continent, supported warlords, dictators, and dissident movements in neighboring countries and fought for control of their neighbors’ resources. The global war on terror, like the Cold War, increased the foreign military presence on the African continent and generated external support for repressive governments. In each of these cases, external interests altered the dynamics of internal struggles, escalating local conflicts into larger conflagrations, with devastating effects on African populations. Schmidt’s book is an excellent synthesis of the past 70 years of African history and politics. Her book is provocative, thoughtful and passionate. It is a superb book for students, general readers as well as scholars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Some leaders are so objectionable – Bashar al-Assad, Robert Mugabe – that it may seem only right to strain every sinew to get rid of them. But ghastly as their regimes may be, is there any reason to think that foreign intervention makes the situation better? Quite apart from the loss of life and limb to those intervening, what are the costs to those being "liberated"? In the end, forced to choose between these two evils, wouldn't most of us prefer tyranny to anarchy? In this one on one debate from March 2011, David Aaronovitch and Rory Stewart debate the perils of foreign intervention. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Seeking global clout, China's position on sanctity of sovereignty evolves.