The controversial leader of Haiti was shot and killed, his wife wounded, in his home on Wednesday, according to multiple reports this morning.
Interim prime minister Claude Joseph said president Jovenel Moïse was killed by gunmen overnight. He called the attack “odious, inhuman and barbaric” and called for calm.
Haiti has been on a slow boil for the last several months as Moïse was accused of violating the constitution and election law by extending his term as president when he was supposed to step down on Feb. 7, spurring protests. This followed, according to writer-activist Brian Concannon, years of corruption, gang violence and brutal crackdowns on dissent. He wrote in Responsible Statecraft in March that just before Feb. 7, Moïse's police arrested a Supreme Court justice and several dissidents in what he believed was an attempted coup plot, and later fired the justice and two of the judge's colleagues, as police violently cracked down on ensuing protests.
To say the climate was tense before today, and that Haiti has never recovered from not only its devastating natural disasters, but the systematic corruption, autocratic rule, and poverty dominating the island, is an understatement. More details will follow in Moïse's assassination, but unfortunately the script was written long ago, making the plot ring all too familiar.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
Haitian President Jovenel Moïse on stage at the Miramar Cultural Center. He spoke to a capacity audience about Haiti's progress during his first year in office. (shutterstock/gregory reed)
This week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered his starkest warning yet about the need for new military aid from the United States.
“It’s important to specifically address the Congress,” Zelensky said. “If the Congress doesn’t help Ukraine, Ukraine will lose the war.”
Unfortunately for Zelensky, Congress does not appear to be listening. In fact, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is now on the verge of losing control of the House due to deep Republican disagreements over Ukraine aid and a host of other issues. If Johnson fails to rein in his colleagues, the House may be unable to pass much of anything for the rest of the year.
As Kyiv’s ammunition shortage worsens, a Wednesday dispute revealed just how weak of a hold the speaker has on his caucus. Johnson is trying to renew a spying authority before it expires on April 19, but a last-minute intervention from former President Donald Trump led Republicans to kill his bill before it even reached the floor.
Ukraine and its allies seem to have internalized the lesson that Johnson is now learning: As the presidential election season gets into gear, the center of gravity in Republican politics has shifted southward. Hence why British Foreign Minister David Cameron’s pro-Ukraine charm tour made its first stop in Palm Beach, Florida.
Cameron met with Trump Monday at Mar-a-Lago, where he pushed the Republican candidate on aid. “[I]t’s in everybody’s interest that Ukraine is in a strong position and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is in a weak position at the end of this year,” Cameron said following the meeting. “Whoever is president wants to be able to push forward in a way that is backing success and not trying to overturn failure.”
The former British prime minister then went to Washington, where he met with congressional leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Cameron did not, however, sit down with Johnson. A British source told Politico that there were scheduling issues, though the symbolism is hard to ignore.
The Biden administration, for its part, has made some efforts to bridge the gap in hopes that the House will eventually pass a new aid package. The White House authorized a $138 million weapons sale on Tuesday, and it followed up by sending Ukraine thousands of Iranian guns and ammunition that the U.S. had seized en route to Yemen last year. But this pales in comparison to the billions of dollars worth of weapons that Kyiv received each month in the early stages of the war.
All of this is further complicated by the fact that corruption in Ukraine has led to price gouging on some items purchased by Ukraine’s Defense Ministry. “Corruption has been deeply ingrained in Ukraine’s defense sector since Soviet times, with manufacturers routinely bribing officials to purchase equipment at inflated prices,” the Wall Street Journal reported. “Changing those practices would be hard enough in peacetime, let alone in the midst of war.”
This leaves Ukraine in its weakest position since the early weeks of the war. Without new aid, Kyiv risks losing both on the battlefield and at the negotiating table, with Moscow holding an apparent advantage in each domain.
This wasn’t always the case. In late 2022, when Ukrainian forces pushed Russia from the outskirts of Kyiv all the way back to the Donbas, Ukraine had the momentum in every domain. As George Beebe of the Quincy Institute wrote at the time, “Ukraine’s successes on the battlefield have provided it with substantial leverage to shape the terms of any settlement.”
“This success story does not mean that either Russia or Ukraine is yet ready for serious negotiations,” Beebe, who previously led Russia analysis at the CIA, argued. “But it offers a window of opportunity for the United States to prepare the diplomatic ground for an eventual settlement of the conflict — a window that may get smaller over time if we do not act now.”
Beebe’s prediction has proved prescient. Russia, now in a much stronger position, has far fewer reasons to grant concessions to Ukraine than it did a year ago.
This does not necessarily mean that all is lost. If Congress can pass a new Ukraine aid package, then Kyiv may be able to at least hold onto the stalemate that has prevailed for much of the past year. This would create an opportunity to sue for peace, though likely on less favorable terms than were previously possible.
But it does mean that maximalist goals — including the reconquest of Crimea, which Russia has held since 2014 — are that much less realistic now than they were in 2022. Even some mainstream Democrats are coming around to this position, as exemplified by recent comments from Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
“Realistically, Crimea is not coming back to Ukraine, and we can absolutely win this war and absolutely make a difference even in that reality,” Smith said in a hearing Wednesday.
“We do not have to have Crimea to make it 1000% worth it to give Ukraine the money,” he argued. “We need a sovereign democratic Ukraine that can survive.”
In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:
— Three drones slammed into a Russian-occupied nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, on Sunday, reigniting fears that the war could spark a nuclear accident, according to the BBC. Russia blamed Ukraine for the strikes, while Ukrainian officials argued that the Kremlin may have staged it as a “false flag” attack. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the attack was the first direct hit on the plant since late 2022 but noted that there are “no indications of damage to critical nuclear safety or security systems.”
— European states penned a new deal to enhance cooperation on protecting undersea infrastructure in the North Sea, according to Reuters, which noted that attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022 has focused attention on security issues along Europe’s northern coast. Not noted in the Reuters report is the increasingly popular view that Ukraine or pro-Ukrainian forces were behind the attack. The pact — signed by Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom — mostly focuses on sharing information about threats to underwater cables and pipelines, with a focus on potential Russian malfeasance.
— The European Union tightened restrictions on imports of Ukrainian produce in an effort to stem concerns that European farmers are being undercut by cheap goods from Ukraine, according to Politico. The issue has taken on particular salience in the run-up to the EU elections, with politicians anxious to avoid political costs from drawn-out fights with farmers, who have staged major protests in Poland and France. As Politico notes, the short-term tug of war over Ukrainian imports signals a larger problem: If Ukraine joins the EU, then farmers across the continent risk being put out of business by Kyiv’s massive agricultural sector.
— In The Hill, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) argued that “peace talks remain the only viable option” to end the war in Ukraine. “No hard power endgame is viable for the U.S. in Ukraine, and the terms for Ukrainians get worse every minute the U.S. enables the continuation of this war,” Lee wrote. “Our best hope to stop the bleeding is at the negotiating table. The blank checks must end, and American statecraft must start.”
U.S. State Department news:
In a Monday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller renewed the U.S. call for Russia to withdraw from the Zaporizhzhia power plant following this week’s attacks. “Russia is playing a very dangerous game with its military seizure of Ukraine’s nuclear power plant, which is the largest in Europe,” Miller said. “We continue to call on Russia to withdraw its military and civilian personnel from the plant, to return full control of the plant to the competent Ukrainian authorities, and refrain from taking any actions that could result in a nuclear incident at the plant.”
keep readingShow less
photo : U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as he visits Israel amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Tel Aviv, Israel, October 18, 2023. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
The U.S. and Israel have been raising the alarm of a possible Iranian retaliatory strike in response to last week’s Israeli attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Damascus. The president once again pledged “ironclad” U.S. support for Israel in the event of an Iranian response, and the head of Central Command, Gen. Erik Kurilla, was reportedly headed to Israel Thursday to coordinate with Israeli leaders ahead of the expected strike. The administration is moving in the wrong direction. The U.S. ought to be distancing itself from Israel’s illegal attack, but instead the Biden administration is moving to shield Israel from the consequences of its own actions.
Israeli forces have routinely struck Iranian and other targets in Syria for more than a decade, but the attack on the consulate in Damascus was a major escalation both in terms of the location and the rank of the Iranian officers that were killed. The Israeli government appears to want to goad Iran into a military response to divert attention from the slaughter and famine in Gaza and to trap the U.S. into joining the fight. The president has made it that much easier for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by volunteering to walk into the trap.
The U.S. is at considerable risk of becoming involved in a direct conflict with Iran thanks to the reckless actions of the Netanyahu government and the president’s lockstep support. This does not serve legitimate U.S. security interests. The U.S. cannot afford another conflict in the Middle East, and siding with Israel exposes U.S. forces to significant unnecessary dangers. The U.S. is under no obligation to come to Israel’s defense if Iran retaliates against an Israeli strike, and the president has no authority to commit the U.S. to fight a war for another country, especially when that country is not a treaty ally.
President Biden said this week that the U.S. would do “all we can to protect Israel’s security,” but this knee-jerk response is the wrong one under the circumstances. Why is the U.S. putting itself on the hook to protect a state that is more than capable of fending for itself? It is an unnecessary commitment, and it is unwise. It risks fueling a regional war that the administration has said it wants to avoid, and it rewards Netanyahu for his rogue behavior.
American troops have already come under attack because of our government’s support for the war in Gaza. The administration’s response to the war over the last six months has already been detrimental to U.S. interests and harmful to America’s reputation. This latest commitment to protect Israel while the war in Gaza continues compounds these earlier errors and does even more damage to our country’s global image.
U.S. intelligence has reportedly warned that an Iranian response is “imminent.” It remains unclear exactly what form Iranian retaliation might take, but it seems very unlikely that the Iranian government will choose not to answer a direct attack as brazen as this one was. The response could involve missile launches from Iranian territory, as we saw in the response to the U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani in 2020, or it could be some combination of missile and drone attacks from various Iranian proxies. Whatever shape the response takes, the U.S. should steer clear of the ensuing conflict. The U.S. should not lift a finger to assist an Israeli government that went out of its way to provoke this fight.
The war in Gaza has been a wake-up call for the United States that its “ironclad” relationship with Israel is a serious liability for American interests. Jon Hoffman of the Cato Institute recently laid out the case against continuing the “special relationship” with Israel: ”A special relationship with Israel does virtually nothing for the United States while actively undermining U.S. strategic interests and often doing violence to the values that Washington claims to stand for.” Given how little the U.S. benefits from this relationship, the automatic and “ironclad” commitment to Israel’s security that Biden endorses makes no sense.
Perhaps there was a time when extensive U.S. support for Israel made some sort of strategic sense, but that time is long gone. Today this support makes the U.S. complicit in Israeli violations of international law, exposes the U.S. to intense regional hostility, and puts U.S. forces at greater risk in exchange for very little. When the Israeli government isn’t actively undermining U.S. diplomacy with other states in the region, it is openly ignoring Washington’s preferences and defying Washington’s requests. The U.S. gets all the headaches and costs that come with foreign entanglement without gaining a reliable, constructive partner.
U.S. officials have often called the relationship with Israel “unshakeable” and several presidents have taken pride in ensuring that there is no “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel in public, and that is why the relationship has become such a bad, dysfunctional one. In practice, preventing any “daylight” between our governments has meant catering to the Israeli government’s preferences at the expense of our own position. The “unshakeable” relationship has remained that way largely because the U.S. keeps indulging its client regardless of the consequences. It isn’t possible to have a balanced, respectful relationship with any country when the other government expects and receives such extraordinary deference. Instead, it creates a toxic relationship in which one government always takes advantage of the other.
Reflexive U.S. backing for Israel has not only enabled the catastrophe unfolding in Gaza and implicated the U.S. in war crimes, but it has also encouraged dangerous Israeli behavior in the wider region for years. Unconditional U.S. support for the war in Gaza has led the Israeli government to believe that it can keep pushing its luck with more provocative actions against other regional states as well. Now the Israeli government is potentially facing some real blowback, and the U.S. should want no part of it.
U.S. and Israeli interests have been diverging for decades, but U.S. policy has failed to keep up. The president remains wedded to a version of the relationship from the previous century with a country that no longer exists. We need to bring U.S. policy up to date and to bring it into line with the current realities of the Middle East, and to do that the U.S. has to give up this idea of an “ironclad” commitment to Israel.
keep readingShow less
House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Adam Smith (Photo: VDB Photos / Shutterstock.com)
House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Adam Smith (Photo: VDB Photos / Shutterstock.com)
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered a rare Democratic rebuke of the Biden administration’s rhetoric on the war in Ukraine during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.
Smith, the ranking member on the committee, was following up on questions from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla) to Celeste Wallander, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, on whether the administration considered the repatriation of Crimea and the Donbas as necessary for a Ukrainian victory.
“It's a fascinating world we live in because I actually agree with Mr. Gaetz on something around Ukrainian policy,” Smith said. “Realistically, Crimea is not coming back to Ukraine and we can absolutely win this war and absolutely make a difference even in that reality. We do not have to have Crimea to make it 1000% worth it to give Ukraine the money, okay? We need a sovereign democratic Ukraine that can survive.”
During her exchange with Gaetz, Wallander repeated the Biden administration refrain that it would be up to Kyiv to decide what constitutes a Ukrainian victory, and that Washington’s ultimate goal was to ensure “Russia’s strategic failure,” which includes “reinforcing the international law that borders cannot be changed by force.”
“I've heard this phrase over — ‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.’ Forgive me. That is a ridiculous thing for any U.S. diplomat or person in U.S. policy to say,” Smith said. “We got partners all over the world and, yes, we listen to them, but when we're footing the bill, when we are spending so much money over there, we have a say.” Watch:
Smith, who has been a staunch supporter of continuing aid to Ukraine, made clear during his comments that approving the next tranche of funding for Kyiv was vital to accomplishing his goal of having a “sovereign democratic Ukraine that can survive.”
The congressman asked earlier in the hearing how Washington would handle the delicate situation of pushing Kyiv to negotiate and accept territorial concessions.
“What would you say is the scenario and the administration's position on negotiations? So we get them the aid, we stop Russia so that Russia cannot achieve their maximalist goals. I see risk if at that point we continue (...) to keep fighting because we got to get it all back.” he said. “I mean Ukraine should have pre-2014 borders, but what should happen, isn't the same as what can happen. How do you handle that discussion to get to a peace in Ukraine?”
Wallender responded that the administration would not force Ukraine to the negotiating table and that thinking that territorial concessions would placate Vladimir Putin misunderstood the Russian president’s goals.
“He's not after territory, he's not after Bakhmut or Avdiivka or even Odesa, he's after Ukraine,” she said.
As George Beebe of the Quincy Institute has argued, finding a way to end the war quickly is an essential step to upholding Kyiv’s democracy.
“It is a mistake to believe that Ukraine will emerge from the war as a strong and prospering democracy no matter how it ends or how long it takes. The longer it continues, the bleaker will be Ukraine’s future,” Beebe wrote in RS last August. “It is time to combine our defensive support for Ukraine — which is essential to preventing further Russian territorial gains and pushing the Kremlin toward negotiations — with a diplomatic offensive aimed at a compromise settlement. The sooner we do, the better off Ukraine will be.”
A growing group of congressional Republicans have expressed skepticism about the Biden administration’s policy, with some focusing on the lack of a clear mission or endgame. Smith’s comments mark the first time that a Biden congressional ally has conveyed similar misgivings about the administration’s strategy.
The national security supplemental that the Senate passed in February and includes approximately $60 billion in aid for Ukraine remains stalled in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said that his chamber will address the issue soon, though it is unlikely that the House will vote on the Senate bill. The Speaker has instead floated “important innovations” to address some of his caucus’ concerns, but what exactly those look like are unclear.