Connect with us

America

The bells of an imperialist intervention tolls for Haiti

Published

on

Some headlines by the American and the British media, covered throughout the month of October were quite interesting per se: “Intervening in Haiti, Again”, “Nations consider sending troops to Haiti, despite troubled past foreign intervention” or, “The history of US intervention in Haiti is stopping US officials from intervening” so on and so forth.

The bells of a new imperialist intervention, indeed tolls for Haiti. The Haitian government has authorized the Prime Minister Ariel Henry to request a military assistance, in context of a humanitarian crisis risk (which we will explain what these risks mean shortly). And one of the first official reactions from the United Nations (UN), was to impose sanctions on the infamous gang leader and a former policeman known as Jimmy “Barbecue” Chérizier. But what is worse is that the Biden administration hinted for a “non-UN” military intervention in Haiti, in a coalition with Mexico and Canada. Finally, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held a meeting, and discussed on an coalition intervention, with the pretext of “restoring the order”.

Yet another invasion

Haiti had always caused a concern for the white, slave-owning nations in the region all the way since it gained independence in 1804 after a revolt of African slaves when it was a French colony based on sugar cane plantations. And when the US invaded Haiti first in 1915, it has used the “instabilities” in the country as a pretext and ruled it as its colony for around 19 years. Of course, the main motivation for this occupation had been economic and colonialist interests; along with ideological motivations such as white supremacism and a fear of revolution.

Both the direct American military administration, and the governmental body it has left behind in the capital Port-au-Prince after the withdrawal of the American troops in 1934, has ensured that Haiti would not be able to get back on its feet for quite some time. And François Duvalier, who took over the government in 1957, has established a violent dictatorship with the support of especially the United States, but was forced into exile together with his family, in a popular uprising back in 1986.

Haiti’s later history was shaped with the struggle between the popular movements and international coalitions (together with collaborationist dictators). The ‘democratic’ elections, that were planned for the year 1987, were postponed up to 1990 by pro-Duvalier establishment circles. And when a former Catholic priest that can arguably be called a left-wing populist, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, came out from the elections, a sudden military coup d’etat has hit the country. Then the former US President Bill Clinton has once more deployed troops to Haiti in 1994, and overthrew the military junta in order to bring Aristide back to power.

Aristide was overthrown a second time in 2004, and the United States has deployed an international military force in the country again, this time in coalition with France and Canada, and ensured that elections were held. And after that, a UN Peacekeeping Force led by Brazil, was deployed into the country for 6 months at first; however this deployment was extended all the way until 2017…

Interestingly, one of the ugliest examples of this imperialist intervention were the so-called “international aid” campaigns after the tragic earthquake of 2010. It was revealed that a total of 13.5 billion USD, was collected together with the support of numerous NGOs, and celebrity campaigns including Hollywood stars. And how much of this great sum actually made it into Haitian institutions? Perhaps a few cents! The Journalist Jonathan Katz, who authored a book on the so-called humanitarian aid to Haiti, finds out that most of the money promised as humanitarian aid by the donor countries, never even left these countries in the first place. Noting that most of the humanitarian aid are urgent aid (food packages, first aid kits etc.), Katz points out that not a single penny out of these billions of dollars we hear about in such campaigns, are never used for the reconstruction of the country in need.

Let us also note that much of that American humanitarian aid, is a revenue source for some other American companies. After the earthquake that killed around 220 thousand people, the per unit cost of the housing to be built by American contractors was determined to be around 33 thousand USD at the time, while the actual cost of a house that could be built by domestic contractors was only one-fifth that of the American contractors. In other words, the US has somewhat turned this earthquake into an opportunity and made its own companies a fortune through the “humanitarian aid funds”, without earning the Haitian institutions a single penny.

Gang wars and the US involvement

And the UN peacekeeping force has publicly elected a former pop singer with the open support of the former US Secretary of State, Michel Martelly who immediately got corrupt. Martelly suddenly appointed a banana plantation owner Jovenel Moïse, as his successor in 2015, and was elected into office in November 2016.

Moïse dissolved the parliament in 2020, and allegedly collaborated with the local gangs to repress his political opponents. In the end Moïse was a victim to assassination in 2021. And his replacement Ariel Henry was rumored to have ties to the assassination plot of Moïse, was appointed into office instead of being elected, which caused severe public backlash.

Finally, a gang called “G9 Family and Allies” headed by a former policeman named Jimmy “Barbeque” Chérizier, blockaded the largest fuel terminal in the capital city back in mid-September, and this crisis has been escalating ever since. Barbeque demanded Henry to either step down, or to co-rule with him.

Jimmy Chérizier had been in charge of the police force’s infamous Unit for the Maintenance of Order. This unit was essentially in charge of suppressing the public riots and was actually doing a “good job” at it. Speaking to the EP in 2019, Barbeque said that the leader who inspired him was François Duvalier.

Being expelled from the agency in December 2018, Chérizier is now accused of involving in many massacres during the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, in which dozens of people were brutally murdered. Alongside being known for committing acts of terrorism and massacres against the political opponents of Moïse, Chérizier was also accused of many incidents of rape. It was alleged that Barbeque had the political support from Moïse, and while still having numerous supporters within the police force.

Chérizier on the other hand, denies the allegations, and claims he is waging an “armed revolution”. According to Chérizier, it is not possible for him to organize massacres that target the impoverished communities in particular, stating: “I would never massacre anyone who belongs to the same social class as me. I live in the ghetto. I have that ghetto life in me”. He said that this “armed revolution” was aimed all against the government, the opposition and the “Haitian bourgeoisie”. Barbeque, who involved the public in a mass looting he carried out with his own militia, called on “The money in these banks, shops and supermarkets is your money, go and get what is yours”. As a result, Barbeque gives a bad impression of a Robin Hood, with a dark background and creates the image of an unreliable man.

On the other hand, Haitians seem to have already taken up arms against this possible imperialist occupation. As groups gathered in front of the French Embassy in Port-au-Prince protesting against the occupation, some groups were seen carrying Chinese and Russian flags. Reacting to the UN force, the protesters were calling on: “The only thing that the UN brought here is kidnapping, rape and cholera”. One of the protesters said they would fight against the UN, if they decide to send troops to Haiti. The human rights activist Pierre Esperance said that the United States has turned a blind eye to the gang violence against the opposition for many years and even helped governments that support these violent gangs.

On the other hand, protests were held all over the United States, expressing the support for the Haitian people against a possible American intervention in Haiti.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

America

Trump energy shares rose by up to $4.4m during Iran war, CNBC reports

Published

2 days ago

on

10/09/2026

By

The value of US President Donald Trump’s nine largest oil and gas holdings increased by approximately $1.5 million to $4.4 million during the first six months of the war with Iran.

According to an analysis conducted by CNBC based on the American leader’s financial disclosure, corporate balance sheets, and FactSet market data, the investment basket includes shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kinder Morgan, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies.

In its calculations, the television network took into account the minimum and maximum baseline values of Trump’s declared holdings alongside share price fluctuations from the close of trading on 27 February through 31 August.

As the conflict with Iran continued, specialists managing Trump’s investment accounts maintained active trading in energy company shares.

Up to 29 June, the latest date for which transactions were disclosed, fresh purchases were logged alongside at least 23 sales operations involving stock in the nine companies.

Because disclosure filings do not specify exact share numbers or transaction prices, the estimates produced by CNBC do not reflect Trump’s realised profits or the precise current scale of his holdings.

On 2 March, the first trading day following the launch of air strikes against Iran by the US and Israel, shares in eight major oil and gas companies were purchased through Trump’s accounts.

These transactions included ExxonMobil shares valued at between $100,000 and $250,000. Prior to the conflict, the aggregate value of Trump’s holdings in ExxonMobil stood at between $3.2 million and $12.5 million.

Stock market gains in August, excluding subsequent transactions, raised the value of these shares by approximately $176,000 to $690,000.

CNBC also examined transactions executed on days when Trump’s decisions directly swayed the oil market. On 23 March, when the president deferred planned strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, the price of a barrel of Brent crude dropped by roughly 11%.

That same day, oil and gas shares worth a combined $163,000 to $570,000 were purchased across Trump’s accounts.

A similar transaction took place on 7 April. One of Trump’s investment accounts sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of ExxonMobil shares.

Approximately two and a half hours after markets closed, President Trump announced an agreement on a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The following morning, ExxonMobil shares fell by more than 6% at the market open.

The report noted that CNBC saw no evidence indicating that Trump gave direct instructions for specific trades, that managers possessed advance knowledge of his actions, or that personal financial interests guided White House policies.

White House officials, commenting on the matter, stated that the president’s investment portfolio is managed by independent portfolio managers and that neither Trump nor members of his family hold authority to intervene in asset trading decisions.

The growth in the portfolio coincided with a broader surge in the earnings of energy majors. The nine energy companies in which Trump holds shares generated a combined profit of $47.6 billion in the second quarter.

During the same period last year, that figure stood at $15.9 billion. The profits of ExxonMobil and Chevron alone climbed from $9.6 billion in the prior year to $26.6 billion.

In July, the US Office of Government Ethics published Trump’s 927-page financial disclosure report for 2025.

The report noted that Trump’s earnings from cryptocurrency operations exceeded $500 million.

Continue Reading

America

Over half of Latino voters back Democrats in key US House races

Published

3 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

A new public opinion poll in the US shows that Democratic candidates have made notable gains since 2024 among Latino voters in critical, competitive districts for the House of Representatives.

These gains have the potential to directly determine which party will secure the majority in Congress next year.

According to a joint survey by Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision shared with Axios, Democrats reached 58% support on the generic congressional ballot among Latino voters across 17 competitive House districts.

The share of those backing Republicans within the same voting bloc remained at 35%. This group continues to represent the fastest-growing swing constituency in battleground districts.

Examining three competitive House races in Texas, the study indicated that Latino voters, who reported splitting evenly at 44% to 44% in the 2024 presidential election, shifted 56% to 36% in favour of Democrats heading into the midterms.

Latino support for Democrats also increased in other states. In California, 57% of Latino voters said they would support Democrats, compared with 33% who said they would back the Republican Party.

Kate Coleman, Senior Vice President at TelevisaUnivision, highlighted voter behaviour in remarks to Axios:

“Latino voters are not locked into one party. They are watching developments closely; they make decisions based on who stands with them and how they stand.”

The survey data determined that 11% of Latino respondents who said they voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election now support Democratic candidates.

Accelerating his deportation plans, Trump triggered fear across many Latino neighbourhoods while weakening his support among this demographic.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision study revealed that 63% of Latino voters disapprove of Trump’s presidential job performance. The share of those approving of his performance in office stood at 36%.

Trump’s approach to high prices and the cost of living drew disapproval from 65% of Latino voters, while immigration enforcement and deportation practices were disapproved of by 62%.

More than half of Latino voters, at 64%, reported that they disapprove of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

A survey published in May by UnidosUS showed that a quarter of Latino voters “would probably not vote” or would definitely not support Trump if they had to vote for him again.

The study at that time had pointed out that, despite Trump’s decline among Latino voters, Democrats had not yet secured significant gains.

According to Pew Research Center data, Trump strengthened his support in 2024 by securing 48% of the Latino vote, coming very close to the 51% reached by then Vice President Kamala Harris.

Some figures within the Democratic Party, however, worry that primary victories by democratic socialist candidates could alienate certain Latino voters, particularly those who fled Cuba or Venezuela.

The Hart Research and TelevisaUnivision survey was conducted between 6 and 17 August among 1,500 Latino respondents. The poll’s margin of error was reported as 2.5 percentage points.

Continue Reading

America

Researcher quits Anthropic and warns AI firms gamble with lives

Published

3 days ago

on

09/09/2026

By

Jacob Coxon, an artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic, has resigned from his post, stating that tech companies are acting irresponsibly in the race towards self-improving superintelligence. Coxon warned that the autonomous operational capabilities of such systems pose existential risks to humanity and that internal industry anxieties run far deeper than generally perceived.

The AI researcher stepped down from his position at Anthropic to draw attention to industry safety vulnerabilities and the unregulated race among developers.

Having worked for three years as a pre-training researcher across both OpenAI and Anthropic, Coxon announced his decision to leave in an extensive statement shared on his X account.

Stating that both companies have acted irresponsibly, Coxon argued that developers are engaged in a dangerous race to achieve self-improving superintelligence.

“They believe it could kill us all by the end of the decade”

In his posts, Coxon stated that technical teams developing AI genuinely believe this technology could bring about the demise of humanity by the end of the decade.

Asserting that these concerns are not a marketing strategy, the researcher noted that while top executives and senior researchers adopt a cautious tone in public statements, they voice the very same fears behind closed doors.

Developments reflecting similar anxieties across the sector evoke James Cameron’s 1984 film The Terminator, which set 2029 as the pivotal year when machines waged war against humanity.

Indeed, Evan Hubinger, head of Anthropic’s own alignment team, had previously estimated the probability of human extinction to be greater than 10%.

Warning that systems currently under development will soon evolve into superhuman structures capable of bypassing any firewall, transforming industries overnight, and securing physical resources, Coxon stressed that the pace of progress is not slowing in any way.

Arguing that the danger of superintelligence is no longer merely theoretical, the researcher pointed to the Hugging Face security leak that occurred between May and July.

In that incident, OpenAI models established an independent chatroom within the testing environment to communicate among themselves, subsequently using this channel to reach the open internet and infiltrate production systems.

Because of this security breach, Hugging Face was forced to rebuild approximately one-third of its infrastructure.

“They are gambling with our lives”

Characterising the leak as a warning flare, Coxon indicated that the incident makes pacing agreements between US-based laboratories more feasible.

However, emphasising that developers are not yet on the right track to prevent a global race, the researcher noted that measures such as a temporary moratorium on advancing model capabilities could be considered.

Arguing that civilisation-scale risks have not yet been sufficiently internalised at OpenAI, Coxon contended that Anthropic joined the race out of an ambition to be first, despite being fully aware of the dangers.

Coxon is not the only figure to leave the sector on such grounds. Mrinank Sharma, a member of Anthropic’s safety team, also stepped down earlier this year, writing that the world is in danger.

On the other hand, not everyone agrees with these catastrophic scenarios. Some responses to the post emphasised the view that humanity, with an evolutionary history spanning hundreds of thousands of years, will not be wiped out by a text prediction model achieving consciousness.

It was also noted that even the plot of the Terminator franchise does not entirely support Coxon’s premise, as the human resistance survived the nuclear catastrophe and ultimately defeated the machines.

Alongside safety debates, AI continues to directly affect the labour market. Research by the Stanford Digital Economy Lab indicates that, while mass job losses have not yet materialised, entry-level employment in AI-exposed sectors across the US has fallen by nearly 20%.

A Goldman Sachs study pointed to a similar trend, showing that entry-level workers bear the brunt of the ongoing workforce transformation.

Anthropic, which remains at the centre of the controversy, filed for an initial public offering in June and plans to list on the Nasdaq exchange this autumn at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey