Tag Archives: #HumanRights

As Haiti’s transitional government comes to an end, the U.S. flexes its muscles

by Jim Hodgson

In April 2024, I welcomed the formation of Haiti’s transitional council (known as the CPT). It was the product of negotiations among a broad spectrum of Haitian political parties and civil society organizations, including the business sector.

Within a month, fractures that would block steps toward a new election became apparent. And efforts to create conditions for an election were undermined by a rapid and ongoing increase in neighbourhood-based gang violence – despite the presence of UN-backed soldiers and police.

The mandate of the CPT expired on Saturday, Feb. 7, which also happened to be the 40th anniversary of the fall of the Duvalier family dictatorship. 

The transition ceremony Feb. 7: Haitians are “anti-constitutionally governed” (AlterPresse)

A U.S. warship and two Coast Guard ships sit in the Port-au-Prince harbour and a military plane was on the ground at the international airport. As many as 1.4 million people are displaced by gang violence. The political in-fighting rages.

In moments like this, I try to look at a variety of media sources to understand what is going on. The one I trust most is AlterPresse, a civil society initiative that emerges from among the groups that have worked for decades for a better future for people afflicted by poverty and violence. Haitian elites and their neoliberal allies abroad, meanwhile, seem determined again to impose a new totalitarian state, which is a predator state (like that of Duvalier) safe only for the rich and their cronies.

In the absence of any elections, Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé (a businessman named to the post by the CPT in November 2024) will hold on to power beyond the CPT’s expiry. He will rule like former de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry did from July 2021 through February 2024: a head-of-government without a head-of-state or Parliament. 

Accountability? Only to the foreign governments that have backed him: the United States, France and Canada.

Left: Statement by Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Right: Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils Aimé and Canadian ambassador to Haiti André François Giroux (Le Nouvelliste).

In several recent public statements, U.S. authorities affirmed their support for Fils-Aimé. He is presented as the key figure capable of ensuring institutional continuity. They particularly emphasize his role in building a Haiti that is “strong, prosperous, and free.”

But it is those ships in the Port-au-Prince harbour that remind Haitians that pleasant statements barely mask the history of U.S. hard power in Haiti. 

AlterPresse: strong signals from the United States and uncertainty about the transition in Haiti.

“The naval presence appears to provide the latest proof of Washington’s willingness to use the threat of force to shape politics in the Western Hemisphere,” Diego Da Rin, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, told AP News. Arrival of the ships comes during a months-long build-up of U.S. military force in the Caribbean – already used against Venezuela on Jan. 3. 

An essential historical overview

Gotson Pierre, editor at AlterPresse, wrote Feb. 5 (text is translated and lightly-edited for clarity and length):

For many observers, these developments cannot be understood without a historical overview of relations between Haiti and the United States. This history is marked by repeated interventions, both military and political.

From the occupation of 1915 to 1934, with its devastating human, economic, and institutional consequences, to the [interventions in 1994 and 2004], and including the massive deployment of troops in 2010 following the earthquake, the United States has played a central role in major Haitian crises. Added to this are non-military political interventions, notably during the 2010-2011 elections, and more recently, the case of former Prime Minister Ariel Henry.

Many analysts also believe that regional bodies such as the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Organization of American States (OAS) operate within a framework heavily influenced by Washington. 

Haiti maintains a complex relationship with the United States, characterized by geographical proximity, strategic interdependence, and asymmetrical power dynamics. This proximity … continues to influence the country’s political trajectory.

On the eve of February 7, 2026, amid institutional uncertainties, increased international pressure, and a reinforced military presence, the equation remains unresolved. The coming days will reveal whether these signs signal a simple continuation within established frameworks or a new phase of political realignment under strong external influence.

No to mining, Yes to life

Family members of the ‘Santa Marta 5’ file legal complaint over delay in final ruling

by Jim Hodgson

After four postponements in delivering the final written ruling to confirm the acquittal of the defendants, family members of five anti-mining leaders in El Salvador have filed an official complaint against the judges who provided only a verbal not-guilty verdict after trial five months ago.

The defendants are people that I have known for nearly 25 years through their involvement in the Santa Marta Association for Economic and Social Development (ADES).

The text that follows is a based on a text published this week by the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), supplemented by other media reports.

The complaint against the judges was filed with the Judicial Investigation Directorate of the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ) Jan. 20, 2026, and adds to a series of public actions undertaken by the families, organizations, and human rights groups to demand the definitive closure of the judicial process against the water defenders. They had previously been part of a successful struggle to stop a gold mine from re-opening in the northern part of Cabañas department.

The Santa Marta 5 were arrested Jan. 11, 2023, and charged in connection with the alleged disappearance of a woman during El Salvador’s civil war. The charges were widely denounced as political persecution: the community leaders had been sounding the alarm over indications that the Nayib Bukele government was seeking to overturn El Salvador’s 2017 ban on metal mining, the first and only in the world. 

They were imprisoned for eight months while awaiting trial and subsequently placed under house arrest, a measure that was granted only after pressure from national and international human rights organizations and elected officials.

In December of 2025, El Salvador’s legislature, dominated by Bukele’s New Ideas party, did in fact overturn the law prohibiting mining in the country.

The defendants were acquitted of all charges in October 2024. The Attorney General appealed the decision, and in November 2024, the Cojutepeque Criminal Chamber overturned the dismissal of the charges and allowed a retrial in a new jurisdiction.

When the second trial concluded in September 2025, the San Vicente Sentencing Court reached the same conclusion in its oral ruling, acquitting the defendants of criminal charges. But the court has since delayed delivering its final written ruling four times, unjustifiably prolonging the judicial process and leaving the case without definitive closure.

On Jan. 9, the judges once again postponed the delivery of the written ruling until Jan. 30, a decision that the families believe could constitute a delay of justice in violation to the principle of “prompt and fair justice” and keeps a process indefinitely open that already has two acquittal rulings.

In the document they submitted to the CSJ, the families of the defendants requested an investigation into the delays as they have prevented the sentence from becoming final. Without a written ruling, the procedural deadlines for either a possible appeal or the definitive closure of the case cannot commence.

Media and social media coverage of the new legal complaint.

Milton Rivas, son of Pedro Antonio Rivas, one of the defendants, explained to the media that the judges “have been delaying the final ruling” and that the complaint filed seeks to demand justice for his family members. “We are not asking for anything, nor have we come to beg for anything; we have come to demand justice, because it is unacceptable that it takes them about five months to submit a document that they could have delivered the same day the hearing ended,” he declared.

Social movements, human rights groups, community representatives, and family members of the defendants denounced the court’s stall tactic during a press conference on Jan. 13. Rivas, joined by community leader Alfredo Leiva, stated that the failure to deliver the written ruling has both prolonged the legal uncertainty and kept the defendants, their families, and the community in a constant state of anxiety.  “This delay keeps our family members in a situation of constant anguish and constitutes a denial of justice,” they declared.

A representative of the University Movement for Critical Thought also warned of a broader context of increasing persecution and criminalization in the country. Currently, at least 38 human rights, environmental, labour, and political activists remain imprisoned, while human rights defenders and community journalists continue to report receiving threats, police harassment, and intimidation campaigns against them.

“We demand an immediate end to [this] persecution and respect for the right to defend the environment, to inform, and to organize,” the organizations stated, issuing an urgent call to Salvadoran society and the international community to remain vigilant given the risk of additional arbitrary arrests targeting critical voices and community organizing efforts.

Finally, they reported that a permanent vigil is being held in front of the Metropolitan Cathedral in San Salvador every day at six in the evening as a peaceful act of protest and a demand for justice, freedom, and respect for human rights.

One Nobel winner to another: Why did you ask U.S. to invade Venezuela?

by Jim Hodgson

Perhaps I should be grateful to the Norwegian Nobel Committee for again putting Venezuela into the headlines with its absurd award of the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado, a woman who has never rejected violence as she sought the overthrow of successive Venezuelan governments since 1998. 

The prize came as the United States stepped up its attacks on fishing boats it alleged (without evidence) were carrying drugs from the Venezuelan coast to the United States. It came as the Trump administration ended a “quiet diplomacy” effort with President Nicolás Maduro that was led by Richard Grenell – a victory for hard-liners like Secretary of State Marco Rubio. If the United States opts for war. In the words of James B. Greenberg: “it will not be because diplomacy failed. It will be because war itself is the preferred instrument.”

And today, the New York Times reports that Trump has authorized “covert CIA action” in Venezuela. U.S. officials “have been clear, privately, that the end goal is to drive Mr. Maduro from power.” (That, by the way, is not news: it’s been the goal all along.)

I was astonished by the award, but then also by the responses. 

Most “progressive” U.S. commentators, including historian Heather Cox Richardson, celebrated Machado simply because she was not Donald Trump. Likewise Occupy Democrats, The Other 98%, and U.S. Democratic Socialists: one of them (I forget which) erred in saying she was Colombian. 

Even World Council of Churches and Pax Christi congratulated her. Made me wonder who they talk with in Latin America, where the reaction is strongly against Machado. Then I welcomed the flow of criticism in the threads that followed the WCC and Pax Christi Facebook posts. During the weekend, the WCC amended its message, and Pax Christi shared a new message (above). 

In the United States, author Greg Grandin told Democracy Now that the Nobel prize was the “opposite of peace.” 

But still: how can the Nobel committee see her together with previous Latin American winners like Rigoberta Menchu and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel who allied themselves persistently with the social movements of the poor, the workers, the Indigenous people, women?

I met Pérez Esquivel at least twice: once in Toronto and again in Buenos Aires (above left) at an economic alternatives conference in 2003. Right: the open letter to Machado.

From one Nobel peace prize winner to another

Let’s hear from Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Nobel peace prize winner in 1980 for his non-violent defense of democracy and human rights in the face of Latin America’s military dictatorships, especially the regime of Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina. He published an open letter to Machado on Oct. 13 in the Buenos Aires daily, Página 12. The text is partly translated to English here, source of the following excerpts:

“In 1980, the Nobel Committee granted me the Nobel Peace Prize; 45 years have passed and we continue serving the poorest, alongside Latin American peoples. I accepted that high distinction in their name — not for the prize itself, but for the commitment to shared struggles and hopes to build a new dawn. Peace is built day by day, and we must be coherent between what we say and what we do,” he asserted.

“At 94, I am still a learner of life, and your social and political stance worries me. So I am sending you these reflections,” he emphasized.

In the letter, he argued that the Venezuelan government, led by President Nicolás Maduro, “is a democracy with lights and shadows,” and he underscored the role of former president Hugo Chávez, who, he said, set a path of freedom and sovereignty for the people and fought for continental unity.

“It was an awakening of the Patria Grande,“ he emphasized.

At the same time, he asserted that the United States has not only “attacked” Venezuela but also refuses to allow any country in the region to step outside its orbit and colonial dependence, treating Latin America as its “backyard.” He also highlighted the more than 60-year blockade against Cuba, which he called an attack on the freedom and rights of peoples.

In one of the letter’s toughest passages addressed to Machado, he rebuked her for clinging to Washington even as it confronts her country.

“I am surprised by how tightly you cling to the United States: you should know it has no allies and no friends — only interests. The dictatorships imposed in Latin America were instruments of its drive for domination, and they destroyed lives and the social, cultural and political organization of peoples who fight for freedom and self-determination. Our peoples resist and struggle for the right to be free and sovereign, not a colony of the United States,” he wrote.

On that point, he said the government of Nicolás Maduro «lives under threat» from Washington and from the “blockade,” with U.S. naval forces in the Caribbean and «the danger of an invasion of your country».

“You have not said a word, or you support the interference of the great power against Venezuela. The Venezuelan people are ready to confront the threat,” he warned.

He also criticized that, after receiving the prize, the far-right leader dedicated it to U.S. President Donald Trump. “Corina, I ask you: why did you call on the United States to invade Venezuela?”

“Upon the announcement that you were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, you dedicated it to Trump — an aggressor against your country — who lies and accuses Venezuela of being a narco-state,” Pérez Esquivel said. He compared that accusation to George W. Bush’s false claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, used as a pretext for an invasion that looted that nation and caused “thousands of victims.”

“It troubles me that you did not dedicate the Nobel to your people but to Venezuela’s aggressor. I believe, Corina, that you must analyze and understand where you stand,” the Argentine insisted, arguing that her posture makes her “another piece of U.S. colonialism.”

“You resort to the worst when you ask the United States to invade Venezuela,” he added.

Pérez Esquivel concluded: “Now you have the chance to work for your people and build peace — not provoke greater violence. One evil is not resolved with a greater evil; we would only have two evils and never a solution to the conflict. Open your mind and your heart to dialogue and to meeting your people; empty the jug of violence and build the peace and unity of your people so that the light of freedom and equality can enter.”