logo
‘Xenophobic': Neighbours outraged over Mauritania's mass migrant pushback

‘Xenophobic': Neighbours outraged over Mauritania's mass migrant pushback

Yahoo16-05-2025
Their situation seemed desperate; their demeanour, portrayed in several videos published by news outlets, was sour.
On a recent weekday in March, men, women, and even children – all with their belongings heaped on their heads or strapped to their bodies – disembarked from the ferry they say they were forcibly hauled onto from the vast northwest African nation of Mauritania to the Senegalese town of Rosso, on the banks of the Senegal River.
Their offence? Being migrants from the region, they told reporters, regardless of whether they had legal residency papers.
'We suffered there,' one woman told France's TV5 Monde, a baby perched on her hip. 'It was really bad.'
The deportees are among hundreds of West Africans who have been rounded up by Mauritanian security forces, detained, and sent over the border to Senegal and Mali in recent months, human rights groups say.
According to one estimate from the Mauritanian Association for Human Rights (AMDH),1,200 people were pushed back in March alone, even though about 700 of them had residence permits.
Those pushed back told reporters about being randomly approached for questioning before being arrested, detained for days in tight prison cells with insufficient food and water, and tortured. Many people remained in prison in Mauritania, they said.
The largely desert country – which has signed expensive deals with the European Union to keep migrants from taking the risky boat journey across the Atlantic Ocean to Western shores – has called the pushbacks necessary to crack down on human smuggling networks.
However, its statements have done little to calm rare anger from its neighbours, Mali and Senegal, whose citizens make up a huge number of those sent back.
Mali's government, in a statement in March, expressed 'indignation' at the treatment of its nationals, adding that 'the conditions of arrest are in flagrant violation of human rights and the rights of migrants in particular.'
In Senegal, a member of parliament called the pushbacks 'xenophobic' and urged the government to launch an investigation.
'We've seen these kinds of pushbacks in the past but it is at an intensity we've never seen before in terms of the number of people deported and the violence used,' Hassan Ould Moctar, a migration researcher at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London, told Al Jazeera.
The blame, the researcher said, was largely to be put on the EU. On one hand, Mauritania was likely under pressure from Brussels, and on the other hand, it was also likely reacting to controversial rumours that migrants deported from Europe would be resettled in the country despite Nouakchott's denial of such an agreement.
Mauritania, on the edge of the Atlantic, is one of the closest points from the continent to Spain's Canary Islands. That makes it a popular departure point for migrants who crowd the coastal capital, Nouakchott, and the commercial northern city of Nouadhibou. Most are trying to reach the Canaries, a Spanish enclave closer to the African continent than to Europe, from where they can seek asylum.
Due to its role as a transit hub, the EU has befriended Nouakchott – as well as the major transit points of Morocco and Senegal – since the 2000s, pumping funds to enable security officials there to prevent irregular migrants from embarking on the crossing.
However, the EU honed in on Mauritania with renewed vigour last year after the number of people travelling from the country shot up to unusual levels, making it the number one departure point.
About 83 percent of the 7,270 people who arrived in the Canaries in January 2024 travelled from Mauritania, migrant advocacy group Caminando Fronteras (CF) noted in a report last year. That number represented a 1,184 percent increase compared with January 2023, when most people were leaving Senegal. Some 3,600 died on the Mauritania-Atlantic route between January and April 2024, CF noted.
Analysts, and the EU, link the surge to upheavals wracking the Sahel, from Mali to Niger, including coups and attacks by several armed groups looking to build caliphates. In Mali, attacks on local communities by armed groups and government forces suspicious of locals have forced hundreds over the border into Mauritania in recent weeks.
Ibrahim Drame of the Senegalese Red Cross in the border town of Rosso told Al Jazeera the migrant raids began in January after a new immigration law went into force, requiring a residence permit for any foreigner living on Mauritanian soil. However, he said most people have not had an opportunity to apply for those permits. Before this, nationals of countries like Senegal and Mali enjoyed free movement under bilateral agreements.
'Raids have been organised day and night, in large markets, around bus stations, and on the main streets,' Drame noted, adding that those affected are receiving dwindling shelter and food support from the Red Cross, and included migrants from Togo, Nigeria, Niger, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea Conakry, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ghana and Benin.
'Hundreds of them were even hunted down in their homes or workplaces, without receiving the slightest explanation … mainly women, children, people with chronic illnesses in a situation of extreme vulnerability and stripped of all their belongings, even their mobile phones,' Drame said.
Last February, European Commission head, Ursula von der Leyen, visited President Mohamed Ould Ghazouani in Nouakchott to sign a 210 million euro ($235m) 'migrant partnership agreement'. The EU said the agreement was meant to intensify 'border security cooperation' with Frontex, the EU border agency, and dismantle smuggler networks. The bloc has promised an additional 4 million euros ($4.49m) this year to provide food, medical, and psychosocial support to migrants.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez was also in Mauritania in August to sign a separate border security agreement.
Black Mauritanians in the country, meanwhile, say the pushback campaign has awakened feelings of exclusion and forced displacement carried by their communities. Some fear the deportations may be directed at them.
Activist Abdoulaye Sow, founder of the US-based Mauritanian Network for Human Rights in the US (MNHRUS), told Al Jazeera that to understand why Black people in the country feel threatened, there's a need to understand the country's painful past.
Located at a confluence where the Arab world meets Sub-Saharan Africa, Mauritania has historically been racially segregated, with the Arab-Berber political elite dominating over the Black population, some of whom were previously, or are still, enslaved. It was only in 1981 that Mauritania passed a law abolishing slavery, but the practice still exists, according to rights groups.
Dark-skinned Black Mauritanians are composed of Haratines, an Arabic-speaking group descended from formerly enslaved peoples. There are also non-Arabic speaking groups like the Fulani and Wolof, who are predominantly from the Senegal border area in the country's south.
Black Mauritanians, Sow said, were once similarly deported en masse in trucks from the country to Senegal. It dates back to April 1989, when simmering tensions between Mauritanian herders and Senegalese farmers in border communities erupted and led to the 1989-1991 Border War between the two countries. Both sides deployed their militaries in heavy gunfire battles. In Senegal, mobs attacked Mauritanian traders, and in Mauritania, security forces cracked down on Senegalese nationals.
Because a Black liberation movement was also growing at the time, and the Mauritanian military government was fearful of a coup, it cracked down on Black Mauritanians, too.
By 1991, there were refugees on either side in the thousands. However, after peace came about, the Mauritanian government expelled thousands of Black Mauritanians under the guise of repatriating Senegalese refugees. Some 60,000 people were forced into Senegal. Many lost important citizenship and property documents in the process.
'I was a victim too,' Sow said. 'It wasn't safe for Blacks who don't speak Arabic. I witnessed armed people going house to house and asking people if they were Mauritanian, beating them, even killing them.'
Sow said it is why the deportation of sub-Saharan migrants is scaring the community. Although he has written open letters to the government warning of how Black people could be affected, he said there has been no response.
'When they started these recent deportations again, I knew where they were going, and we've already heard of a Black Mauritanian deported to Mali. We've been sounding the alarm for so long, but the government is not responsive.'
The Mauritanian government directed Al Jazeera to an earlier statement it released regarding the deportations, but did not address allegations of possible forced expulsions of Black Mauritanians.
In the statement, the government said it welcomed legal migrants from neighbouring countries, and that it was targeting irregular migrants and smuggling networks.
'Mauritania has made significant efforts to enable West African nationals to regularise their residence status by obtaining resident cards following simplified procedures,' the statement read.
Although Mauritania eventually agreed to take back its nationals between 2007 and 2012, many Afro-Mauritanians still do not have documents proving their citizenship as successive administrations implement fluctuating documentation and census laws. Tens of thousands are presently stateless, Sow said. At least 16,000 refugees chose to stay back in Senegal to avoid persecution in Mauritania.
Sow said the fear of another forced deportation comes on top of other issues, including national laws that require students in all schools to learn in Arabic, irrespective of their culture. Arabic is Mauritania's lingua franca, but Afro-Mauritanians who speak languages like Wolof or Pula are against what they call 'forced Arabisation'. Sow says it is 'cultural genocide'.
Despite new residence permit laws in place, Sow added, migrants, as well as the Black Mauritanian population, should be protected.
'Whether they are migrants or not, they have their rights as people, as humans,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

UN coordinator expelled from Burkina Faso over controversial report
UN coordinator expelled from Burkina Faso over controversial report

Business Insider

time16 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

UN coordinator expelled from Burkina Faso over controversial report

Burkina Faso has expelled United Nations regional coordinator Carol Flore-Smereczniak, declaring her persona non grata in response to a UN report that accuses the West African nation of committing violations against children in armed conflict. Burkina Faso has expelled UN regional coordinator Carol Flore-Smereczniak, labeling her persona non grata. The expulsion follows a UN report accusing Burkina Faso of child rights violations in armed conflict. The UN expressed regret over the decision, concerned about its impact on humanitarian efforts in the country. The government, which denounced the findings, said it was neither consulted during the preparation of the report nor informed of its conclusions prior to publication. The decision, announced Monday by a government spokesperson, underscores rising tensions between Burkina Faso 's military-led authorities and international organizations over allegations of human rights abuses. The disputed report, titled 'Children and Armed Conflict in Burkina Faso,' details alleged violations linked to the country's ongoing battle against insurgent groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Authorities in Ouagadougou rejected the document as one-sided and politically motivated, stressing that they were excluded from both the drafting process and the review of its conclusions. The government insisted that its forces remain committed to protecting civilians, including children, even as the country grapples with escalating violence from jihadist insurgencies that have displaced millions and disrupted social services. By expelling Flore-Smereczniak, Burkina Faso has signaled its deep displeasure with the UN's handling of the report and its broader concern that international institutions may be undermining national sovereignty. The move comes amid a broader trend in the Sahel, where governments led by military juntas in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger have increasingly distanced themselves from Western and international organizations, often accusing them of bias and interference in domestic affairs. UN refutes allegations The United Nations has expressed regret over Burkina Faso's decision, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said on Monday. 'The Organization is accorded privileges and immunities, including the right for its staff members to remain in Burkina Faso in order to perform their functions on behalf of the Organization, ' he said. The expelled U.N. official, Flore-Smereczniak, was forced to leave the country despite having more than 20 years of experience in development, security, humanitarian, conflict, and post-conflict settings. She was appointed to the post in Burkina Faso just last year, according to the United Nations.

Why Putin Won't Stop His Quest for the Black Sea
Why Putin Won't Stop His Quest for the Black Sea

Time​ Magazine

timean hour ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Why Putin Won't Stop His Quest for the Black Sea

As European leaders and the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky gather in Washington to persuade President Donald Trump not to abandon Ukraine and to secure Western security guarantees for Kyiv, one thing is certain: Vladimir Putin will not abandon his quest to dominate the Black Sea. In a sprawling naval exercise, 'July Storm,' the Russian navy practiced the very tactics Ukraine used against its Black Sea fleet. Kyiv's asymmetrical campaign deploying naval drone and missile strikes destroyed or disabled one third of Russia's Black Sea fleet, broke the blockade of Ukrainian ports, forced most of the Russia fleet to decamp to southern Russia, and allowed Ukraine's commercial shipping, mostly grain exports, to recover to near pre-war levels. Kremlin took notes. In the July naval drills, Russia used explosive-laden naval drones to sink targets and practiced anti-submarine warfare, mine-laying, and missile strikes. Putin described the naval exercises as designed to train naval forces in 'repelling maritime attacks' and 'unconventional operational and tactical missions,' while referring to 'experience gained' from battles with Ukraine in the Black Sea. Given that Ukraine lacks a significant conventional navy, the Russian exercises seem to be aimed at the coming battles beyond Ukraine. Why the Black Sea matters Russia has long seen the domination of the Black Sea as necessary for its global ambitions, its great power status, and its identity as a civilizational state. From Peter the Great to Nicholas I, the czars fought wars to gain access to and control the Black Sea. Lenin pushed to secure the Black Sea region during the Russian Civil War. Stalin made the Black Sea Fleet a core element of Soviet military strategy. Putin sees Russian identity as defined by a linguistic and cultural sphere that extends beyond the formal borders of the Russian Federation, and his denial of Ukrainian nationhood stems from this worldview. His war against Ukraine is tied to his quest to dominate the Black Sea, which offers strategic access and a pathway to project influence beyond the traditional Russian sphere into the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Africa. The importance of the Black Sea for Russia increased further after Finland and Sweden joined the NATO in 2023 and 2024, reinforcing the alliance's eastern flank and constraining Russia in the Baltic. Putin had already expanded Russian control of the Black Sea coast by occupying parts of Georgia in 2008, the Crimean peninsula in 2014, and Sevastopol and large parts of Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Occupying these Black Sea territories has helped Moscow position itself better to challenge European security through both conventional and unconventional ways. Europe's Black Sea challenge European security today is being forged in opposition to Russia. The Black Sea region stands out as a canvas of chokepoints and competing sovereignties, of energy routes and grain corridors, of overlapping jurisdictions and unresolved conflicts. It is the axis along which European security is being tested and it is poised to become a central theater in the unfolding confrontation between Europe and Russia. The perception of U.S. withdrawal from Europe will likely further embolden Putin to exploit vulnerabilities and test the continent's resolve. Since the election of President Trump, Europe has built some momentum to bolster its collective defenses and increased commitments to defense spending from two to five percent of GDP. European leaders have discussed various scenarios for Black Sea security but, in essence, they circle back to a single strategy: keeping the U.S. engaged in Ukraine and the Black Sea region. If Trump does indeed end his confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and the Black Sea and decides against joining a Western security guarantee for Kyiv, Europe faces the grim prospect of facing Russia alone. In May, the European Union adopted a new Black Sea Strategy, which comes down to establishing a Black Sea Maritime Security Hub tasked with monitoring and providing early warning of emerging threats and malign activities. While it is unclear how such early warnings could translate into action , if it is effectively implemented, the initiative could help constrain Russia's subversive actions and promote a more coordinated response among E.U. member states. Turkey controls the Black Sea's gates—the Bosporus and the Dardanelles—under the Montreux Convention, which governs passages through the Turkish straits in and out of the Black Sea. The West doesn't have the buy in from Ankara for any expanded Western or NATO presence in the region. Turkey sees it as contravening the Montreux Convention and its own strategic interests. Without Ankara's support, the European strategy for the Black Sea has little bite. And the littoral Black Sea states—Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania—are vulnerable to Russian exploitation. Europe also needs to work with NATO to reduce their military, political, and socio-economic vulnerabilities. Ukraine is the hinge. And Europe needs persistent, long term efforts to help Ukraine strengthen its capacity to preserve its control of its coastline and counterbalance Russia, in partnership with other littoral states. A strong Ukraine—with a robust army and navy—is not only crucial for Ukrainian nationhood and statehood but also for restraining Russia in the Black Sea and preventing future conflicts. Rebuilding Russia's Black Sea fleet In the past decade or so, Russia tried to challenge European security from the Black Sea in its east and the Mediterranean Sea in the south. Kremlin positioned four submarines in the Black Sea and two submarines at a Mediterranean Sea base at Tartus in Syria, where it intervened aggressively to support the Bashar al Assad regime. But the Ukrainian naval successes and the fall of the Assad regime battered Russian maritime power in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. In Syria, Moscow is seeking ways to retain part of its Assad-era presence and Damascus is being more receptive. One of Moscow's most pressing ambitions is to rebuild its Black Sea Fleet and to adapt to the changing nature of naval warfare. In June, Putin approved a new naval doctrine aimed at restoring Russia's status as a preeminent naval power. According to Putin's chief aide, Nikolai Patrushev, 'In the coming years, the Black Sea sailors will be further strengthened with the arrival of new frigates, corvettes, aviation, marine robotic complexes.' In his words, the Black Sea Fleet is crucial for containing NATO and countering Western interests in the region. Russia has already started building a naval base in Georgia's Abkhazia region, which Moscow has occupied since the 2008 war. Russian influence in the Mediterranean and the future of its naval base in Syria have become uncertain after the fall of Assad. Moscow is keen to return its two submarines from Syria to the Black Sea to reinforce its fleet but they need to cross the Turkish straits. Ankara has closed that possibility as it exercised the rights granted to it by the Montreux Convention and immediately closed its straits to passages of warships and naval vessels after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Turkey is unlikely to open the straits until a comprehensive peace agreement is reached between Ukraine and Russia. Yet with support from China, in a few years, Moscow could return with a fleet optimized for the Black Sea contest, where harassment and latest threats would keep global commerce anxious, allies divided, and Europe reactive. Thus, cooperation between Europe, Britain, and Turkey is essential. Turkey opposes an expanded NATO presence in the Black Sea, due to the Montreux Convention constraints, its preference for the regional control of the sea, and its opposition to Russian hegemony. Turkey's strategic interests align with maintaining a balance of power, supporting Ukrainian capabilities, and counterbalancing Russian hegemony without escalating NATO involvement. Ukraine, Europe, and the Black Sea Over the past two decades, as Russia's zones of occupation and domination in the Black Sea region expanded, its aggression also pushed regional states closer to the West. Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania are NATO members; Ukraine and Georgia are keen to join the alliance. And while Romania and Bulgaria are part of the EU, Ukraine, Georgia, and Turkey aspire to join it. Russia will try to hinder the integration of these states (apart from Turkey) into Western security and economic structures and compel them to yield to or at least accommodate its demands. To achieve those goals, Moscow is looking at revitalizing its naval power in the Black Sea and consolidating its gains in Ukraine. In any peace talks, Russia will try to seek demilitarization of Ukraine and severe limitations on its militarization and security partnerships with NATO and Europe, which would render Ukraine perennially vulnerable and endanger European security. A NATO membership for Ukraine is unlikely but the U.S. and Europe should strengthen its military capability to counter Russia in the Black Sea. If Putin fails at the table, Moscow is likely to blame Kyiv for its failures and intensify the war to grab more territory. The Black Sea port of Odessa would be an obvious target. The outcome of the war in the Black Sea will also redefine Russia's ambitions toward its near abroad. An emboldened Russia could create a pervasive sense of insecurity from Armenia to Georgia to Kazakhstan to Moldova to the Baltic states. The way hostilities end in the Black Sea will reshape the regional order and redefine Russia's future as a global power. To prevent Russian geopolitical revisionism, European powers, Britain, and Turkey—and ideally the U.S--must ensure that Ukraine remains a Black Sea country—maintains control of Odesa and its adjacent coastline, has credible Western security guarantees and strong defense capability. They should also strengthen other Black Sea littoral states and promote greater cooperation amongst them. The Black Sea will define the future of the European security order for generations to come. Structured security cooperation between the EU, Britain, and Turkey should be the backbone of the order.

Trump Has a Chance To Stop Putin—But He Can't Do It Alone
Trump Has a Chance To Stop Putin—But He Can't Do It Alone

Newsweek

time2 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Trump Has a Chance To Stop Putin—But He Can't Do It Alone

Donald Trump's second-term foreign policies are turning out to be a string of disasters—alienating allies, driving India towards Russia, sowing uncertainties with whipsaw tariff changes that rattle markets, zeroing out foreign development aid, and continuing to supply an Israeli prime minister who has descended into a frenzy of revenge killing and destruction. Now Trump's latest bid to end the long war of attrition in Ukraine, parts of which Russia has occupied since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, appears only to have strengthened Vladimir Putin's hand. Before meeting the Russian president in Alaska, Trump had for weeks threatened new sanctions on Russia if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire and the start of peace talks. Instead, Putin got validation, refused to stop his total war on Ukraine's civilian infrastructure, and Trump has backed off the sanctions threat, right when Russia's economy is starting to falter. Worse, Trump now looks likely to press Ukrainian leaders to give up not just Crimea, but the country's eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, where Putin ginned up separatist movements before his February 2022 invasion. And worse still, Trump may pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to yield most of Ukraine's vital southeastern provinces on the Black Sea as well. Such an outcome would reward the greatest violations of international law in Europe since Adolf Hitler's occupation of Poland. That would be a catastrophe of epic proportions that is sure to enourage dictators worldwide. In exchange, Trump's foreign envoy Steve Witkoff is talking about a "security guarantee" that would promise Ukraine direct military intervention by the U.S., Britain, and France if Russia tries to bite off more Ukrainian lands in future. But Witkoff and Trump appear not to know that Ukraine already received such supposed protection at the end of the Cold War in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons: Russia promised to respect Ukraine's new borders, and the U.S., U.K., France, and China promised to enforce this deal. TOPSHOT - Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump participate in a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2025. TOPSHOT - Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump participate in a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 18, 2025. MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images Putin proved that 1994 guarantee to be hollow, just as Hitler's meeting with Neville Chamberlain taught the "Fuhrer" that he could get away with seizing part of Czechoslovakia. So it's no wonder Putin is willing to trade another such Western "guarantee" in exchange for total triumph in Ukraine's east and southeast. In his eyes, that is a lot of something for nothing. But Trump's instincts, if naive, are not entirely wrong: a tighter economic vise could move Putin to concessions. Direct and secondary sanctions, like tariffs, can be used as effective tools of pressure under the right conditions. Trump's fundamental error lies in not realizing that these tools would be far stronger when wielded not by the U.S. alone, but by a global alliance of democracies of the kind that John McCain had the foresight to advocate in 2008. Such a league of democratic states has to be broader than Europe. It must include Asian and potentially southern hemisphere partners that are not part of NATO. While we should try to coordinate with our European partners on any new sanctions against Russia, U.S. leaders must also be realistic: the EU is not going to mount a credible challenge to Putin's mass-murdering depravity, which has violated all the most sacred principles of international law. Europe's paper tigers could have placed forces from their own nations into eastern Ukraine in January 2022 to enforce the 1994 treaty, thereby preventing the entire war. Instead they dithered, wrung their hands, and eventually imposed largely ineffective sanctions, while delaying shipments of tanks, long-range missiles, anti-missile defenses, and fighter aircraft to Ukraine. And as usual, they shamelessly waited for the United States to take the lead against yet another assault on democracy and human rights on their own continent. About this, Trump's instincts have been correct: weakness, cowardice, and appeasement has been the EU's policy against tyranny since the 1990s—and this has weakened NATO as well. Even with the strong resolve of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to get European members to rebuild credible offensive armed forces and do their share within the NATO alliance, it will take time for them to catch up—time that Ukraine does not have. But imagine a broader alliance that includes most of NATO and the EU, along with South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and potentially also India. Imagine that all the governments within this new bloc collectively imposed new sanctions banning commerce of all kinds coming from Russia (including natural gas)—and combined this with 50 percent extra tariffs on goods coming from any country that trades with Russia. That would put China in danger of losing over half of its export markets unless it cut economic ties with Putin. If Trump could manage this feat, he might actually end Russia's total war on Ukraine's people, and force Putin to abandon most of the stolen territory. Trump needs to learn that a united front of many large-economy nations is far more powerful than the U.S. acting alone. Imagine how much stronger the free world would be as a result. Trump could offer to make such a new alliance into a free trade bloc with mutual economic protections, which would bring nations into an economic alliance of all democracies in the OECD. Instead, he has returned to the unilateralist strategy that failed under George W. Bush, which led McCain to his landmark proposal. Such a global democratic alliance would be the sort of institution that, like NATO, can give a real security guarantee. With inspiring leadership, it could endure the stress that enforcing a total global embargo on Russia would mean. Its allied leaders would have to explain to their peoples that we have reached a critical moment: it is now or never to break Putin's tyrannical empire. This would also require a massive new effort to supply Europe with natural gas from non-Russian sources and to supply India with oil, which would cut off Russia's main revenue stream. It would be a bit like the Berlin airlift, an act of shared sacrifice and determination to return the arc of history to its proper trajectory—towards freedom, democracy, and hope for all peoples on Earth. Then we, rather than Putin, would be "holding all the cards." John Davenport is professor of philosophy and director of peace and justice studies at Fordham University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store