Daily Archives: August 25, 2022

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Slavery helped bring about the deadliest military conflict in the history of the United States the American Civil War.

The Trans-Atlantic trading routes brought in more than 12 million enslaved Africans to the Western Hemisphere between 1525 and 1866. However, approximately 388,000 slaves were brought into North America with only 10.7 million surviving the voyage to the New World. The Abolition Movement was a key part of the fight to abolish slavery in the United States.

Slavery in the United States was officially abolished on December 6, 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment after it was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865. The amendment declares that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Previously, the most significant effort to end slavery was made by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation which stated, "all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." This, however, did not end Slavery because it only freed slaves in areas actively rebelling against the Union and not in the border states such as Kentucky or West Virginia. Therefore, Lincoln sought to make the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery the top priority of the Republican Party platform in the 1864 Presidential election.

Slavery was one of key issues that caused the American Civil War. (REUTERS/Brian Snyder)

Congress passed the 13th Amendment shortly before conclusion of the Civil War. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

HOW LINCOLN, DOUGLASS EMERGED TO REUNIFY AMERICA IN 'THE PRESIDENT AND THE FREEDOM FIGHTER'

Initially, the 14th Amendment passed the Senate but failed to pass in the House of Representatives in April 1864. However, after the 1864 election, the House voted in favor of the amendment with a vote of 119-56. In February 1865, Lincoln approved the resolution and submitted it for ratification in the state legislatures. Thereafter, the 14th and 15th Amendments soon joined the 13th in order to protect the civil rights of Americans in the aftermath of the Civil War.

JUNETEENTH: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO WE CELEBRATE IT?

Mississippi was the last state to ratify the 13th Amendment in 1995 but did not submit the official paper work until 2013. (AP Newsroom)

The 13th amendment was ratified by the necessary three-fourths of states in December 1865. Mississippi became the last state of the four that voted not to ratify it. In 2013, Mississippi officially ratified the amendment after failing to make it official by notifying the US Archivist when the state legislature originally ratified it in 1995.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Read the original here:

What year was slavery abolished in the US? - Fox News

The United Nations Human Rights Council met for its 50th Regular Session from June 13 to July 8, 2022. If you missed it, here is what happened regarding the abolition of the death penalty!

DURING THE DEBATES

Opening her last session as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet informed the Human Rights Council about the evolution of the human rights situation in the world. This speech was marked by strong information about the death penalty: In Singapore, I am also concerned about the recent executions of two people for drug-related offenses. It is estimated that more than 60 defendants are on death rowI urge the government to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, especially for non-violent drug crimes. Michelle Bachelet also welcomed the announcement of measures taken to abolish the death penalty in its entirety in the Central African Republic and to abolish the mandatory death penalty in Malaysia, as well as the commitment of the President of Zambia to abolish the death penalty.

Yao Agbetse, spoke about some positive developments in the country, including the adoption of the law on the abolition of the death penalty.

The death penalty was also mentioned during the presentation of the Secretary-Generals report on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Javaid Rehman. He expressed concerns about the increase in executions, particularly for drug-related offenses.

The Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, Anas Marin, spoke about the death penalty in Belarus: Amendments to the Criminal Code have broadened the scope of the death penalty to include planning or attempting to commit terrorist acts.

CIVIL SOCIETY ORAL STATEMENTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY

On the occasion of this 50th session, several members of the World Coalition against the Death Penalty presented oral statements on the death penalty.

During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on 22 June, the International Federation of ACATs (FIACAT) wished to draw attention to some news concerning the death penalty in sub-Saharan Africa during their oral statement. Ensemble contre la peine de mort (ECPM), also intervened in a video recording to highlight the increase in executions in 2021 as well as the use of the death penalty as a political tool or means of diplomatic pressure by certain States. ECPM also encouraged states to vote in favor of the Resolution for a universal moratorium on the use of the death penalty in December 2022.

On July 6, 2022, the interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on the Central African Republic was held. ECPM, the International Federation of ACAT (FIACAT) and Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in the Central African Republic (ACAT-RCA) intervened in an oral statement to congratulate the Central African authorities and deputies for the vote in favor of the abolition of the death penalty in CAR.

In an oral statement by Harm Reduction International (HRI) to the UN Human Rights Council on the right to life, the organization referred to the fact that the death penalty remains a punishment for drug-related offenses in 35 countries today and urged member states to respect the obligation to protect the right to life.

A group of 20 experts issued a statement on the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, noting that the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found widespread rights violations related to drug law enforcement, including extrajudicial killings and abuse of the death penalty.

The Human Rights Council adopted the outcome of Southern Sudans Universal Periodic Review on July 4. The recommendations on the abolition of the death penalty were and the authorities of Southern Sudan were also urged to work towards the abolition of the death penalty.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

The Human Rights Council adopted 23 resolutions and one decision and appointed eight mandate holders. Although there was no specific resolution on the death penalty at this session, one of them was related to the death penalty:

Belarus In a resolution on the human rights situation in Belarus, the Council expressed concern about the use of the death penalty in a context where fair trial guarantees are not respected. It extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus for a period of one year.

SIDE EVENTS

Contrary to the last session held in March, the side events were able to resume in a hybrid format. However, very few were organized during this session in general.

A side event on youth and the death penalty was organized by the Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations, the International Commission against the Death Penalty (ICDP) and eight UN member states (Belgium, France, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and Timor-Leste).

The International Commission against the death penalty co-organized with Kazakhstan a side event consisting of a roundtable on lessons learned by countries from national experiences in the global campaign for a universal abolition of death penalty.

Finally, the Human Rights Council marked its 50th session by organizing an interactive high-level discussion allowing stakeholders to reflect on achievements and lessons learned since its first session in 2006. Take a look at the origins and work of the Human Rights Council.

The fifty-first regular session of the Human Rights Council is scheduled to take place in Geneva from 12 September to 7 October 2022.

View post:

The United Nations Human Rights Council met for its 50th Regular Session from June 13 to July 8, 2022. - WCADP - World Coalition Against the Death...

Preferential tax regimes are often used to attract high-income and high-wealth foreigners by offering them a lower tax burden on their income and wealth. Such developments have indirectly created an environment in the EU where member states compete against each other for labor and capital. In the end, this will likely have a harmful effect on the EU single market, unless member states reconsider their tax policies.

The EU Tax Observatory recently published an empirical study of tax competition between member states, paying close attention to the taxation of individuals. The study found that certain preferential tax regimes implemented by member states could be harmful to the EU single market if they continue.

This comes in the wake of a recent crackdown by the EU on member states selling golden visas and schemes to acquire EU citizenship by investment. Reported abuse of such schemes by Russian oligarchs shone a further spotlight on the practice in certain member states, particularly since the invasion of Ukraine.

Typically, when an EU member state offers lower tax rates on wealth and, especially, on (high) personal income, it must find a way to cover the lost revenue that is a natural result of preferential tax regimes, since state expenditure and commitments do not reduce.

To achieve this, some member states have opted to increase social security rates which are paid by the general population and only some foreign workers. (Foreign workers who are temporarily assigned to work in another member state will in most cases be exempt from social security contributions in the host member state because they continue to be covered by social security in their home country.) The EU Tax Observatorys report shows that this option is generally preferred by countries in the eastern part of Europe.

Other member states have opted to compensate for the lost revenue by increasing taxation on the general population or by introducing other forms of taxation.

This contrasts with some non-member states, such as Switzerland, that actively pursue a policy of attracting talent and capital by offering low taxes at both the individual and corporate level, with no intention or need to raise revenue elsewhere to compensateon the basis that attracting business increases overall tax revenues and GDP.

For the past 15 years since the global financial crisis, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, G20 and EU have been laser focused on addressing the harmful effects of tax policies and practices globally that provide perceived unfair advantages to certain businesses and corporates. This has produced a number of initiatives, such as enhanced transfer pricing rules, anti-avoidance treaty provisions, new nexus and apportionment rules for the digital economy, reporting of potentially aggressive tax arrangements, abolition of harmful tax practices, and, most recently, a minimum global corporate tax rate. Taxation on personal income and wealth, however, was not a part of that Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) agenda.

It is only more recently that the EU has picked this topic up following the study published by the EU Tax Observatory. In January 2022, the University of Munich produced a report, at the request of the European Parliaments Economic and Monetary Affairs Sub-committee on Tax Matters, that considered tax competition for mobile taxpayers. The report looked at preferential personal tax arrangements and tax rates within the EU, and the evidence for tax-induced mobility. The study considered preferential tax rules in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Austria, Belgium, France, Malta, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland and Luxembourg.

Consequently, we can expect that the attention of policymakers will begin to turn towards harmful tax practices with respect to the taxation of mobile taxpayers, particularly as the long-running G20/OECD project grinds to a conclusion with the agreement on BEPS 2.0 Pillar One (allocation of business profits) and Pillar Two (minimum corporate tax rates). The time is certainly near when similar focus is given to personal tax competition between states.

Now that the pandemic has accelerated hybrid home working, more individuals are looking to work remotely across borders. A consideration for tax rates in such arrangements is often a significant influence on a choice of destination for remote working. If this trend of remote working across borders continues to increase, as many predict, it will potentially shift tax revenues from high-tax to low-tax countries, thereby depleting state revenue in high-tax countries. Several countries already promote themselves as digital nomad and remote worker destinations by offering work visas that do not require a local sponsor, often in conjunction with tax concessions (and nicer weather).

It is often argued that sovereign states are free to compete for talent, tax revenue and capital, just as they are free to compete on trade and technology. As we have seen with the BEPS project, however, the global community takes a dim view of harmful competition arising from excessive tax exemptions and negligible tax rates, and is willing to act multilaterally to discourage such practices.

Although EU initiatives on taxes on personal income and wealth have a long way to go before an agreement is reached and changes are implemented, the EU continues to introduce a range of other reforms that will have a lasting effect on the EU labor market. In 1996, the EU adopted a directive that defines a set of core terms and conditions for employment that an undertaking must follow when it posts employees from one EU country to another (the host country). This directive has been revised recently and one of the more significant revisions concerns salary. According to the revised directive, posted workers must be paid at least as much as local workers in the same position (the so-called equal pay condition) and the payment must include all mandatory elements of a salary and not only a base salary.

Additionally, the EU has implemented mandatory registration of posted workers in the host country. Several member states have extended the registration obligation beyond the scope of the EU directive, such as requiring registration of workers posted from a non-EU country and registration of self-employed persons. Non-compliance with the core terms and conditions for employment and the registration of posted workers is usually heavily sanctioned and is often treated as a criminal offense. Recently, authorities have been focusing on labor inspections and more audits are expected.

There are more EU directives coming into effect that place additional requirements on employers, such as written contracts with clearly defined terms and conditions when work is expected to last at least four weeks. The EU is also putting pressure on member states to define and update minimum wages and engage social partners to organize and to bargain salaries and other working terms and conditions collectively.

Countries will be forced to comply with EU defined norms and parameters of what constitutes fair tax competition, and they will need to look for international solutions when they think about new tax policies and other initiatives aimed to attract foreigners and capital. Otherwise, the current imbalances in the EU single market regarding movement of people and their capital will create losing and winning member states that, in the end, could erode the foundation of the EUs free movement of persons, services and capital.

The more holistic approach to policies and initiatives is already relevant for the increasing number of cross-border remote workers. The EU Economic and Social Committee has just published an opinion urging member states to offer flexibility in taxation of remote workers, such as implementing thresholds that would postpone the triggering of taxation in the host member state. The same flexibility is proposed in the field of social security contributions.

Although there is a generally positive view on diminishing burdens on remote workers and their employers, these discussions are facing new issues. One of these concerns is the definition of remote workers. If certain relaxations are implemented in respect of remote workers, should they apply only to individuals working from home or should they also encompass those working from a hotel or a short-term rental? Should relaxations applicable to remote workers apply irrespective of the type of work an individual performs, or should there be other requirements? For example, no interaction with local markets, etc.

These discussions will determine whether the future holds an aligned approach to remote working or a situation where each member state acts unilaterally. The outcome of these discussions and solutions could eventually influence general attitudes towards the EU and national governments, especially if some states are left behind, unable to access qualified workforces and sources of capital. It should be remembered, of course, that tax positions between member states of the EU are largely governed by bilateral tax treaties rather than EU regulations, so this is an area where the OECD plays an important role.

The Netherlands provides an interesting example of an existing preferential tax regime for inbound workers. The Dutch regime offers an exemption to foreign workers in which 30% of their income is free from Dutch taxes. This is generally considered to be a very advantageous tax regime that has attracted a lot of qualified workers to the Netherlands. However, the Dutch government is currently considering abolishing the regime altogether.

Similar to the crackdown on golden visas and corporate profit-shifting, we can expect multilateral action by the powerful high-tax countries in the OECD and G20 to force the abolition of harmful individual tax practices in smaller states seeking to attract expats, digital nomads and inbound investment.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Daida Hadzic is KPMG Head of Quality for Global Mobility Services (EMA) and Daniel Foster is KPMG Director, Tax & Legal, Global Mobility Services, Switzerland.

The authors may be contacted at: danielfoster@kpmg.com and Hadzic.Daida@kpmg.com

View original post here:

Special Tax Regimes for Mobile Individuals and Their Impact on the EU's Single Market - Bloomberg Tax

The programs grant funding means that students get paid for their work and research. Forty-two Young Scholars, 10 Ignite Research Scholars and one Community-Based Researcher participated this summer.

The Newsroom connected with some of the student scholars to find out more about what they studied, what its like to work with a faculty mentor and how their research benefits their academic careers.

Major: Computer engineering

Research Title: Effect of Recycled Concrete Aggregate on Concrete Properties

Faculty Mentor: Rita Lederle, Engineering

Grant: Ignite Research Scholars

Describe what youre researching this summer.The research consists of testing concrete with varying levels of recycled concrete aggregate, or RCA. Testing includes compressive strength, flexural strength, electrical resistance, shrinkage, and freeze thaw stability testing.

What is the most interesting thing youve found so far in your research?The electrical resistivity of concrete. Through this research I have found concrete can act as an insulator when dry and therefore high resistance, or can be conductive when wet with a lower electrical resistance.

What has been the most valuable part of having funded research be part of your undergraduate experience at St. Thomas?I get to learn something new and outside of my comfort zone while still having a connection to the engineering field, which allowed me to find my interest in the electrical resistivity test.

What have been the biggest benefits of working with an academic adviser like you have this summer?The greatest benefit of working with Dr. Lederle is learning about all the different connections other fields have to civil engineering and just how important it is to be able to work with others of a different field. Dr. Lederle also gave me many opportunities to find my own interests in this research and explore that, making this a valuable experience.

Majors: Biology and Spanish

Research Title: Dopamine-Related Gene Expression in the Social Decision-Making Network in Response to an Infidelity Challenge in the Monogamous Zebra Finch

Faculty Mentor: Sarah Heimovics, Biology

Describe what youre researching this summer.I am conducting research on gene expression in the brain of zebra finches in relation to their pair bond status and maintenance. Zebra finches are socially monogamous birds who pair bond with a single mate. I am measuring relative amounts of gene expression using a technology called RT-qPCR. This technology allows us to use mRNA from the brain regions of interest. We are interested in characterizing the role of dopamine in fidelity and pair bond maintenance. Therefore, I use brain regions in the social decision-making network and look at genes that are related to dopamine.

What is the most interesting thing youve found so far in your research?I have found that a brain region called the nucleus accumbens has a significant role in the maintenance of relationships in relation to dopamine. We found that the gene expression of an enzyme that makes dopamine is higher in males who do not participate in extra-pair courtship.

What has been the most valuable part of having funded research be part of your undergraduate experience at St. Thomas?This experience has taught me valuable new technical skills, but additionally skills such as troubleshooting and science communication. I have also created important relationships with my peers and mentors. Undergraduate research opportunities were a large reason I chose to attend St. Thomas, so having my own project funded has been a priceless experience for me. I hope to continue research after graduation and feel that UROP has helped me prepare for my future.

What have been the biggest benefits of working with an academic adviser like you have this summer?Dr. Heimovics is an incredible mentor who really encourages independence in relation to my research but also provides the support I need. She trusts me to perform much of my work on my own and allows me to follow my interests within neuroscience. She has provided me opportunities that felt impossible at the undergraduate level like writing my own manuscript and presenting at large conferences. Additionally, she helps me network with other faulty to advance my research and scientific knowledge. Dr. Jenne Westberry also plays an important role in our lab and in my research. I have the ability to strengthen my scientific skills through the partnerships of different specialties. Both professors enhance my research experience and are role models to me in and outside of my research.

Research Title: The Dakota Conflicts and the Union Soldier

Faculty Mentor: David Williard, History

Describe what youre researching this summer.I am researching soldiers from Minnesota who fought in the U.S.-Dakota War from 1862-65. Many of these soldiers joined the military to fight the Civil War but found themselves stationed on the Minnesota frontier. The research focuses on examining how these men viewed their service, themselves and the conflict in which they were participating in light of the larger Civil War.

What is the most interesting thing youve found so far in your research?Seeing how the soldiers who were stationed on the frontier in Minnesota thought about the Civil War. Even though these soldiers were stationed just about as far from the Civil War as they could be, the central questions of the war were frequently on their minds. Issues like the preservation of the Union, supremacy of the federal government, and the abolition of slavery are frequently mentioned in the letters and diaries of these soldiers and were important to them.

What has been the most valuable part of having funded research be part of your undergraduate experience at St. Thomas?Getting the experience of real historical research. I have been able to practice archival research and have been exposed to many different types of primary and secondary sources. Overall, this experience and the skills I have learned are great building blocks to be able to continue the study of history.

What have been the biggest benefits of working with an academic adviser like you have this summer?Working with Dr. Williard has been a great experience! The biggest benefits of working with him is the depth of his knowledge on and passion for this subject and his experience with this sort of research. His advice on how to approach archival research was especially helpful. Meeting with Dr. Williard regularly throughout the summer has really helped me stay on track and explore some interesting directions to take this project.

Research Title: Wearable Driver Monitoring System

Faculty Mentor: Cheol-Hong Min, Electrical and Computer Engineering

Describe what youre researching this summer.I have been researching the development of a machine learning algorithm for a noninvasive, wearable system using electroencephalography to automatically detect and monitor drowsiness in drivers on the road. The goal is to create a warning system to alert the user of periods of inattentiveness to increase awareness and prevent accidents that are a result of distracted and drowsy driving.

What is the most interesting thing youve found so far in your research?How to take large amounts of data that at first glance have seemingly no meaning to it and extract valuable insights to be analyzed and applied elsewhere.

What has been the most valuable part of having funded research be part of your undergraduate experience at St. Thomas?Having the opportunity to gain hands-on experience and develop critical thinking skills while applying them to find solutions for relevant problems in the world.

What have been the biggest benefits of working with an academic adviser like you have this summer?One of the biggest benefits has been having a source of professional guidance, motivation and expertise to aid in learning and understanding the essential skills necessary to conduct successful academic research.

See the article here:

Undergraduate Summer Research Highlights - Newsroom | University of St. Thomas - University of St. Thomas Newsroom

A landmark decision was made recently in the long history of efforts to protect people from injury and illness at work. At a hybrid conference held by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva, for those attending in person, delegates voted in favour of a resolution to make the principle of a safe and healthy work environment a human right. Thats correct; we managed to reach the third decade of the 21st century without a safe workplace being a fundamental right of us all.

Safety, health and wellbeing at work is, without question, the most important of all responsibilities facing those who employ others. It can be a matter of life and death and deserves to be front and centre of any debate on work as it is performed today as well as the future of work. That it isnt in the public conscience in the same way as, say, climate change has long been the challenge facing those of us who work in the health and safety profession and who strive to make workplaces healthier and safer. Yet, nearly 2.8 million people are estimated to lose their lives each year to avoidable, unnecessary work-related injuries or illness. That is a conservative estimate, in my view, and many, many millions more suffer serious, often life-changing injuries or ill health at work.

Are we talking only of high hazard industries here, such as construction and mining? No, work of all kinds can damage both our physical and mental health as well as our wellbeing, and the figures for workplace fatalities, injuries and ill health tell us that collectively we are failing to protect everyone at work, and that is simply unacceptable.

All human beings, wherever they live and work, have a right to a safe and healthy workplace

So, the decision by delegates at the 110th International Labour Conference to adopt the resolution was more than simply a landmark decision in the history of safety and health at work; it was vital.

Personally, I have always believed that this was a glaring omission from the ILOs Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, but now it sits alongside the effective abolition of slavery and child labour and the elimination of discrimination at work as a fundamental right of all us.

Is it really going to make a difference? Lets consider it. The decision ensured all ILO member states declared a commitment to respect and promote the right to a safe and healthy work environment. In human rights terms, it means the right to return home safely at the end of a working day is inalienable or unconditional. It is universal, meaning all human beings, wherever they live and work, have a right to a safe and healthy workplace.

You could argue that in a world in which we have international standards and regulatory frameworks, occupational safety and health doesnt need to be ratified as a human right. You could say there are ample checks and balances, in the shape of rules and regulations, enforcement agencies, societal pressures and scrutiny from investors and customers, to make this decision unnecessary.

I understand these reservations, but I dont agree with them because based on my 30 years on international health and safety experience it is not a level playing field and some countries have much more advanced frameworks and processes in place than others. I am sure you all know that. I am conscious that a lot of progress has been made in the 20th and 21st centuries to upgrade the safety and health of working people in most parts of the world. In fact, the promotion of safe, healthy workplaces is now considered central to the sustainability agenda and a core consideration at Board level by many companies.

The statistics on workplace fatalities tell that us we are still falling woefully short, however. The ILO decision matters because it brings other things into the picture.

Human rights create a common framework of values recognised universally. Essentially, they are the only values system recognised globally, and state actors, such as Governments, are duty-bound to put in place frameworks and challenge violations where they confront them. Regulatory frameworks differ from country to country, but human rights, in their universality, make us accountable to each other.

International human rights law will also provide an essential framework and guidance to responsible and sustainable policy-making and I am convinced that in developing and emerging countries, the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work can now guide the formulation of new safety and health regulations.

I now hope to see Governments and other state actors put in place the framework, policies and control processes to position the health, safety and wellbeing of their greatest assets first and forefront. They need to stand up and challenge violations of the human right to a safe and healthy work environment, internally within their own countries and externally within their value chains. Hopefully governments and policy makers can look to responsible corporations and see how they apply best-in-class standards across their sites globally and then take internationally-recognised standards from other countries and use this as a frame for their own policies and regulations.

The decision, to make safe and health work environments a human right, means I will now be speaking more regularly to my colleagues both within and outside of LOral. I suspect similar conversations will be had in organisations worldwide.

Based on my experience as an occupational safety and health professional, the ILO decision is a game changer and will result in legislative changes across many countries where legislation is light, non-existent or not enforced. It could also result in more visibility within the human capital, sustainability (people sustainability, that is) and ESG agendas. This is an historic decision, and it will save lives.

Malcolm Staves is Global Vice President Health & Safety at LOral, occupational health and safety strategic partner for the Capitals Coalition and a former advisory board vice-chairman of the Centre for Safety & Health Sustainability. Malcolm is also co-founder of OneWish, a global coalition of organisations working to see more women assume leadership positions in the field of health and safety.

The rest is here:

A safe and healthy working environment is now a human right - Workplace Insight

The new edited volume Wicked Problems: The Ethics of Action for Peace, Rights, and Justice (Oxford University Press, 2022) brings together interdisciplinary authors to explore the ethical questions, dilemmas and obligations that both activists and academics have to confront in the midst of work to build a more just and peaceful world. The book was co-edited by Ernesto Verdeja, associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dames Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick, associate professor of sociology at the University of San Diegos Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies, and Douglas Irvin-Erickson, assistant professor and director of the Genocide Prevention Program, at George Mason Universitys Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution.

The book grew out of conversations between the three editors about the lack of sustained ethical reflection in policymaking efforts and many social movements.

The genesis came from noticing that there are all these opaque spots in our respective fields, said Verdeja. We wanted to write something that was a serious work of scholarship,and also accessible and punchy. We wanted it to draw in authors who have a foot in both the academic and practice worlds, and the book includes contributions not only from scholar-practitioners in academia, but also many practitioners working in peacebuilding everyday, from high-level policymaking to grassroots activism

The result was an edited volume featuring 17 chapters exploring topics ranging from Black armed resistance and police abolition to nonviolent direct action to end poverty to rethinking the roles of allies in social movements and understanding dilemmas within transitional justice processes.

The final volume includes chapters by three additional Kroc Institute faculty members. Ashley Bohrer, assistant professor of gender and peace studies, explores dilemmas of prefigurative and harm-reduction approaches in social movement work, deconstructing the typical binary between working to achieve preferred ends in the present despite actions that might cause potential harm versus developing a movement where the methods and ends are in harmony.

Laurie Nathan, professor of the practice of mediation and director of the Kroc Institutes Mediation Program, wrote a chapter focused on the ethics of negotiating with armed actors during armed conflict, a situation that often necessitates tradeoffs and compromise, and where the actions needed to ensure justice, accountability, and peace might be in conflict with one another. George Lopez, the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C., professor emeritus of peace studies, co-authored a chapter focused on establishing an ethical code for (re)building peace after the use of sanctions. Verdeja himself also wrote a chapter focused on the dilemma of making decisions that might cause harm in the present in order to prevent future atrocities.

We hope that people will engage with the book as an opportunity to wrestle with the profound ethical dilemmas at stake in peace studies work, said Verdeja. Sometimes framing questions abstractly gets us away from the messiness of everyday practice, and were hoping that this book can help fundamentally reorient our approach to some of these challenging questions.

The authors wrote the book with a wide range of audiences in mind, including academics, practitioners, people involved in ongoing movements for justice, lay people and students.

The book was written in an accessible way because we want younger or early career people involved in peacebuilding and peace studies to explore these kinds of questions, said Verdeja. They are the future of the field and these movements.

Listen to a podcast featuring a conversation between all three authors:

Originally published by Hannah Heinzekehr at kroc.nd.edu on August 22, 2022.

Read this article:

New book explores wicked problems facing peace studies scholars and practitioners // Department of Political Science // University of Notre Dame -...

While the Congress party is accusing the Haryana government of abolishing posts of about 20,000 teachers in the state-run schools, Education Minister Kanwar Pal, on Monday, said the states Education Department will neither close any school nor will it abolish the posts of teachers.

Terming the reports of closure of schools and abolishing the posts as baseless, Minister Kanwar Pal said that some schools with low student strength have been merged with the school within the nearest three-kilometer radius.

The Education Department will neither close any school nor will it abolish the posts of teachers, but after these transfers, the posts which remain vacant will be filled through Kaushal Rozgar Nigam and through direct recruitment. Complaints and suggestions given by teacher organizations are also being considered, he said.

On the rationalisation of teachers, the minister said there are many schools where the number of students is very less where teachers are taking only two periods in a day. He said that the Education Department is making efforts to take special care of the science faculty in these transfers so that science students also have an adequate number of teachers to teach them.

On the online transfer drive being run to overcome the shortage of teachers in schools, the Minister said that these transfers of teachers are being done to maintain teacher-student ratio as per the norms of the Right to Education Act norms.

The Minister said that the Education Department is executing the work regarding the transfer drive in a transparent and fair manner. In some schools, the strength of teachers is not equivalent to the strength of students, he said, adding that in view of this, the Education Department is trying to ensure that the prescribed student-teacher ratio is maintained in every school across the state.

Earlier, former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda alleged that Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar led BJP-JJP government is pushing the states education system and the future of its children into darkness through rationalization and Chirag Scheme.

He alleged that there has been a severe shortage of staff in many schools of the state due to the new transfer policy of teachers. Instead of filling vacant posts, the government is eliminating those posts and the relevant subjects from the schools, Hooda said.

The government has so far abolished the posts of about 20,000 teachers, whereas the truth is that about 38,000 teachers posts are lying vacant in schools. Thousands of youth are waiting for the recruitment but this government is going to eliminate vacant posts without recruitment, the Congress leader alleged.

Citing details procured under the RTI Act, the former CM said that from November 2014 to April 2022, this government has opened only eight new schools in the state and upgraded only 463 schools. While the government has so far closed a total of 196 schools, three days ago, the government closed 105 more schools. The Congress government had made Haryana a hub of education, he said on Saturday.

Haryana Chief Minister Khattar had earlier this month said that the State government is rationalizing teachers in schools. We are working constantly to bring reforms in the system. The government is taking dedicated steps to help poor children. In the future, more reforms will be introduced in the education sector, he had said.

Giving his reply during the Monsoon Session of the Haryana Assembly, the CM said that under Chirag scheme, the government will give Rs 700 to private schools for children studying in Class I to Class V, while an amount of Rs 900 and Rs 1100 will be paid for the students studying in classes VI to VII and IX to XII respectively.

So far, around 300 schools have given their consent under this scheme and 2700 children have enrolled, he informed.

Read this article:

Haryana dismisses alleged abolition of teachers post as baseless - The Statesman

How do universities relate to the cities in which they are located? How does the expanding corporatization of higher education fit into the conversation about how universities occupy and reshape local spaces and local economies?

Davarian L. Baldwin, the Paul E. Raether Distinguished Professor of American Studies at Trinity College, is the author of In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities are Plundering Our Cities (Bold Type Books). This very well-written and provocative book discusses what Baldwin refers to as the rise of UniverCities, a phrase which signals the complicated relationship between higher education and urban life and reflects how universities are shaping todays cities in grossly inequitable ways, with class, racial and deep financial implications. Baldwins timely book adds to the growing body of scholarship examining the corporate refashioning of colleges and universities. In this interview, Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt and Bertin M. Louis Jr., co-editors of Truthouts Challenging the Corporate University series, speak to Baldwin about his work, diving into the concept of UniverCities and exploring what an equitable relationship might look like between a university and the town it occupies.

Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt and Bertin M. Louis Jr.: Are UniverCities essentially modeled after the logic of for-profit corporations?

Davarian L. Baldwin: My notion of UniverCities includes a discussion of what we call the corporatization of higher education but also exceeds the normal framing of that discussion. On one side, yes, the ramped-up retreat from the public funding of both public and private higher education forced schools to look for new revenue streams. Many became, in their own words, more entrepreneurial, marked by soaring tuition costs, corporate-funded research, the early push for cost-effective online learning, and the growth of a contingent faculty labor force. But on the other side, this narrative suggests that a sort of pristine higher education was corrupted by economic concerns instead of the new face of late capitalism. We must understand the degree to which colleges, universities and affiliated hospitals drive todays dominant knowledge economy by bringing their research to the private market and, by extension, as the largest employers in cities and regions across the country.

Greater focus on the knowledge economy frame helps us understand my notion of UniverCities, which marks higher educations growing control over urban development and political governance in, specifically, urban America. In this context, the campus as an urban form becomes the central vehicle for wealth capture, not just for schools but for financial institutions and the state. The campus exempts real estate expansion and private corporate partnerships from taxation. The campus converts the profitable labor of students into work study or apprenticeship status which, until recently, made this work exempt from collective bargaining. The notion of campus safety further protects the above wealth extraction by deputizing private police forces with public authority and uneven public accountability.

In short, my UniverCities concept is best framed by the knowledge economy instead of corporatization. Because here, the campus has not been corrupted, but in fact, the campus form is the clearest vehicle for value capture as city blocks are converted into what one developer calls knowledge communities.

In your introduction you state, There is no question that higher education institutions can deliver positive community outcomes for their cities. But the central question remains: What are the costs when colleges and universities exercise significant power over a citys financial resources, policing priorities, labor relations and land values?

It is obvious from your analysis that the growth that universities claim comes at the cost of adversely and disproportionately impacting communities of color (particularly Black and Latinx communities). How should our neoliberal universities address this imbalance, both for low-income minoritized citizens living in these cities and for students who face financial hardships? Furthermore, what are the racial implications of UniverCities?

So first, we must dismantle the presumption that there is a stable divide between the so-called town and gown. As I try to lay out in my book, the very prosperity that we see on campuses ensconced in ivy, glass and steel is directly extracted from the public wealth, knowledge and labor power of the many times impoverished host communities. At a basic level, these imbalances are rooted in wealth extraction, so they can be remedied through reparations. Reparations include scholarships for the descendants of the enslaved and Indigenous whose labor and land made these institutions possible. Reparations means addressing the collusion between universities and both private real estate developers and state agents in the 20th century segregation, demolition, and displacement of communities through a redistribution of university land and its resources. Reparations can also mean pro-rating endowment and property tax exemption based on university commitments to community-driven engagement and investment. These are just a few examples, but the bottom line here is whether its wealth, land, curricula or historical markers, we are talking about a new vision of shared governance where aggrieved communities (which goes beyond simply blood-verifiable descendants) must have a binding say in the university prosperity they help generate. The racial implications for this are direct and profound because while non-white people have been central to campus wealth, they remain largely marginalized from campus possibility whether that be educational access, neighborhood governance or resource sharing.

In your book, you write: Despite the clear racial disparities of a two-tiered system, schools all across the country looked to [University of Chicago] as a model for policing urban campuses.

Post-George Floyds murder in 2020 and calls for creating anti-racist universities and large student protests about the outcomes of campus policing, what has changed? How have private universities responded to these protests while also garnering support from politicians and political forces for increasing police presence (sometimes an armed police force, as endorsed by Michael Bloomberg)? Are there ways in which minoritized students, faculty and staff have been retaliated against due to protesting racist police and policing policies on university campuses?

One of the most powerful results of the Black Spring protests of 2020 was that the broader movement for police abolition turned its attention to higher education, which brought greater light to existing campaigns like Cops Off Campus. Many universities continue to increase their police forces in the name of servicing surrounding Black and Brown communities or deputize health workers and instructors in the name of abolition. But its organizations like the Cops Off Campus Coalition, and others, that call out these tactics and demand a real framework of divestment from militarized policing and investment in trauma care, living-wage jobs, and housing and food security as real public safety, to start.

Private schools like Amherst College and Tufts, or public schools like San Francisco State have been pushed to form task forces or even mandates towards some form of abolition. But we will see. After massive movement work, Johns Hopkins was forced to put a hold on their massive private police department. But during the current backlash to Summer 2020, they are seizing on resentments to restart the policing process and they are not alone. Black and Brown residents pay the biggest price. Community members of color are racially profiled and stopped by campus police at rates that far exceed their population. At the same time, all across the country, students and staff of color have told me stories of being overpoliced because they look like locals. They are also attacked and profiled for protesting general campus policing practices or the very notion that the presence of local (non-white) residents on campus should justify heightened policing. Meanwhile, women of all backgrounds pay the price from over-policing the perimeter and under-policing the campus because addressing largely white-on-white crimes like sexual violence and assault would tarnish the brand of the institution. The only solution is divest/invest.

A significant focus of your book is on urban universities and the ways in which urban universities exploit their cities while claiming urban revitalization and growth. What about universities and college campuses located in rural spaces? Are they plundering the rural communities in a similar manner?

As an urbanist, my primary focus remains cities and their neighborhoods. But there is no question that the issues I explore apply to both college towns and rural communities. This plundering includes the expansion of campus police jurisdiction over entire counties or states. We see the encroachment on rural lands, which includes Indigenous reservation areas. There is also the appropriation of local farming techniques and seed cultivation into intellectual property by agricultural schools for the bioscience market. But the rural story is one that is ripe for further study and political coalition building.

Have universities fundamentally shifted their mission from serving the common good to serving the neoliberal and corporate interests creating unjust universities?

I think universities have ramped up a focus on their profiteering interests, whether that be to counter the state divestment in education, to gain great power and profits with private partners, or both. But, as historian Craig Wilder has pointed out, this contestation between the profit university and the peoples university goes back to the U.S. colonial period and its slave economy. At the same time, the pushback against this unjust university is also hardly new. In periods like the revolutionary 1960s, there were visions of a broader campus community that included police abolition, affordable community housing on campus, free education, and other elements that go beyond some of todays seemingly radical platforms. But one thing that is vital about previous blueprints is that most never advocated tearing everything down but instead advocated for a reconstruction and redistribution of knowledge and resources driven by a common vision of higher education, an abolition of current conditions.

Many universities and colleges opened during the COVID pandemic, forcing faculty, staff and students to return to campus to serve corporate interests (housing, food services, etc.). How have these UniverCities capitalized on the COVID pandemic?

Yes, I lived this! But my privileged capacity to self-protect in this pandemic has far exceeded the capacity of the so-called essential campus workers, a status which perfectly aligned with the conditions of low-wage and contingent campus workers who are most vulnerable and easy to exploit. COVID-19 simply amplified an already existing exploitative relationship that has now been brought into the stark relief of life and death. Campuses placed service workers on furlough, many times with limited benefits. They are pushing fiscal austerity measures while simultaneously stuffing CARES Act money into record high endowments. Schools capitalized on social distancing to shift curricula towards more labor-suppressive (and hence cost-reductive) online learning. In expensive cities, where graduate students depend on university-owned housing, administrators refused to freeze or reduce rates. Elder and immunocompromised faculty have been refused online teaching options and forced into retirement while replaced with more precarious labor.

But the travails of COVID-19 extend beyond campus work. Residents in West Philadelphia made clear to me the health risks that come with introducing thousands of students, with various health care practices, into an already vulnerable Black community so schools can capitalize on tuition, residential life and retail revenues.

How have Trinity College, where you work, and other institutions reacted to your work? What reactions were you expecting?

I think surprising to me, Trinity has actually been quite supportive, providing the seed money for my now very busy Smart Cities Research lab. The broader university reaction to the work reveals the stratified nature of campus communities that defies the caricature of radical snowflakes. Administrators have largely tried to ignore the work or counter with their good projects because they cant contest the research. Many tenured faculty resent that I am broadening the battle beyond faculty concerns with academic freedom, shared governance or simply faculty housing. Junior and contingent faculty and graduate student workers are energized and mobilized as the book came during a vibrant strike wave across campuses. Except for places with unions, campus service workers remain silent in fear of reprisal or find ways to give me the head nod of approval. And most powerfully, community groups have pushed me to convert this research into advocacy because while they live the stories that I tell they say the book confirms their experiences and makes them feel seen and part of a story that is bigger than anecdotes and single campaigns.

So now, through my lab, I am all over the country organizing with groups drafting state policy for property taxation, fighting for affordable housing and just campus labor conditions, working with medical professionals to ensure that university hospitals honor their indigent care mandates, advocating equitable occupancy and use of campus buildings, writing campus histories to push for reparations, drafting new urban citizenship curricula, designing social footprint mapping techniques to assess university wealth and reach. This blending of academic and activist labors has been just as transformative for me as for anyone else and now I see this as the core of my vocation, in the highest sense.

If universities were to take your argument about inequality and exploitations seriously, what are steps that UniverCities can take to address the issues of inequity raised in your book?

Hmmm, I think I have covered much of this in previous questions. But I will give an example that I discuss in the work as an additional example. I was blessed to spend time at the University of Winnipeg in Canada. And there, administrators created a vision of sustainability that included not just the environment but also social, economic and cultural matters for a campus situated in an Indigenous and multi-racial, immigrant community. So, this meant building housing that was not only LEED-certified but also available to both students and community residents with price points ranging from premium rate to rent-geared-to-income without a reduction in quality. Sustainability meant placing the new recreational center under a community charter that guarantees community use of the facilities during peak hours. Sustainability also meant getting rid of one of the food service multinationals, like Aramark or Sodexo, and creating the independent Diversity Foods where 65 percent of workers come from marginalized communities with the push for profit-sharing and 70 percent of supplies come from small family operations within a 100-kilometer radius. Now to be clear, even this model has its limitations as many residents from surrounding neighborhoods still find it hard to gain full access to these resources. In fact, University of Winnipeg professor Jim Silver realized that most Indigenous residents would never come to the main campus. He raised independent money to convert a dangerous boarding house into a learning annex with affordable housing right at the heart of the Indigenous North End community. The point here is that there are no guarantees in any of these projects, but the capacity to organize around a different set of values and the resolve to have those values reflected through the infrastructure of another university it is possible.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Read the rest here:

Universities Are Plundering Cities. How Can This Relationship Change? - Truthout

Edinburgh council should issue an apology for the citys historic links to slavery and colonialism, a report commissioned in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests has said.

Sir Geoff Palmers report has made 10 recommendations for how the city can address the legacy of slavery and colonialism, including ordering a significant new public artwork.

It says statues, street names and buildings associated with those who profited from the practices should be retained but re-presented in a way that gives a fuller explanation of their consequences.

Sir Geoff was commissioned by the council to chair the review following the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2020.

The review group has published its report after working for 18 months.

Next week, councillors will consider how to take forward his recommendations at a meeting of the councils Policy and Sustainability Committee.

According to an action plan drawn up by council officers, from next year Edinburgh will begin observing the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and its Abolition every August 23.

The work of re-presenting statues, buildings and street names associated with slavery and colonialism is set to take several years, starting from 2023.

However, the issuing of an apology for Edinburghs past role in the practicesshouldtake place within a year, according to the action plan.

Sir Geoffs report also recommends establishing friendship agreements with cities and countries most impacted by slavery and colonialism.

In his foreword to the report, the Heriot-Watt University emeritus professor said: I was born in Jamaica.

I am descended from slaves and Scots who enslaved them, and there are Scottish names in my family such as Gladstone, Mowatt and Wood.

The baptisms list of chattel slaves belonging to Lord Balcarres in Jamaica 1819, includes the name of my great grandfather.

His name was Henry Larmond. One of my names is Henry.

With so intimate a bond to this legacy, it was a great honour to be invited by the City of Edinburgh Council to chair this independent review and oversee the creation of a set of recommendations addressing Edinburghs slavery and colonialism legacy in the public realm.

Sir Geoff stressed the importance of education in tackling historic racial injustices.

His report said the slave trade had shaped the city but its history had largely been hidden from the public.

It said: Slavery contributed to the flow of wealth into Edinburgh that manifested itself in the elegant construction of the New Town.

Compensation to slave owners was often reinvested in the railway boom.

Statues were erected to honour people whose deeds linked them to perpetuation of slavery or notions of racial superiority.

It noted a number of prominent locations and buildings with links to the slave trade, noting that 74 slave-owning New Town residents received compensation for the loss of their property upon abolition in 1833.

Sir Geoffs report mentions that Bute House, which is now the First Ministers official residence, was historically owned by people who benefitted from the slave trade.

The total cost of the review, which included a community consultation, was 18,500.

Edinburgh council leader Cammy Day said: We commissioned this independent review because we felt it was an important and useful starting point for a wide-ranging public discussion about the modern-day impact of this legacy, and to acknowledge that race-based discrimination has deep roots in our capital.

It still shapes the life experiences of black and minority ethnic residents today, and that is unacceptable.

Racism must be talked about, and action to end it must be supported if it is to be stamped out and we are to be the inclusive and welcoming city that the vast majority of its residents wants and expects it to be.

Original post:

Edinburgh should apologise for role in slavery and colonialism, says academic - STV News

In the early 1990s, Senator Patrick Moynihan campaigned for the abolition of the CIA. The brilliant campaigner thought the US Department of State should take over its intelligence functions. For him, the age of secrecy was over.

In a New York Times opinion piece, Moynihan wrote:

For 30 years the intelligence community systematically misinformed successive presidents as to the size and growth of the Soviet economy Somehow our analysts had internalised a Soviet view of the world.

In the speech introducing his Abolition of the CIA bill in January 1995, Moynihan cited British author John le Carrs scorn for the idea that the CIA had contributed to victory in the cold war against the Soviet Union of Leonid Brezhnev and his successors. The Soviet Empire did not fall apart because the spooks had bugged the mans room in the Kremlin or put broken glass in Mrs Brezhnevs bath, Le Carr had written.

This was one of the CIAs lowest points since its establishment in 1947 (my new book marks the agencys 75th anniversary). It was created with two key goals in mind: thwarting Soviet expansionism, and preventing another surprise attack like that carried out by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour during the second world war. While Moynihans campaign to shut down the CIA did not ultimately prevail, there was certainly a widespread perception that the agency was no longer fit for purpose and should be curtailed.

This story is part of Conversation InsightsThe Insights team generates long-form journalism and is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects to tackle societal and scientific challenges.

Throughout the cold war, many had regarded fighting communism as the CIAs raison dtre. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the agencys role was less clear, and it came under heavy criticism for having distorted intelligence and blatantly pandered to one ideological viewpoint: blind anti-communism. Without the cold war, Moynihan predicted, the CIA would become a kind of retirement programme for a cadre of cold warriors not really needed any longer.

Three decades on, however, Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine has put Russias threat to the stability of the world back at the top of the US foreign agenda. With a formidable Kremlinologist now in charge of the CIA and Donald Trump out of the presidential picture (for the moment, at least), the agency might be expected to be an influential player in the US response to this new cold war. But how much does Washington trust the CIA these days and how much influence does it really have on events in Ukraine? To shed light on these questions, we need to go back to the early days of the Ronald Reagan presidency.

As US president from 1981 to 1989, the neoconservative Reagan unleashed the CIA from restrictions that had been imposed on it during the reforming post-Vietnam 1970s.

Like other anti-communists, Reagan saw the agency as a prime weapon in weakening the Soviet Union, which he famously denounced as the evil empire, and preventing the worldwide spread of communism. The new US president was convinced that in opposing an unethical foe, one could not afford to be too scrupulous. He chose as his CIA director Bill Casey, a veteran of intelligence in the second world war a time when it had been gloves off for dirty tricksters.

An outright cold warrior, Casey resuscitated old CIA habits, running covert operations against the left-leaning but democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua from December 1981 to the ceasefire of March 1988. Even the veteran conservative senator Barry Goldwater admitted he was pissed off when, in 1984, the CIA mined Nicaraguas harbours without informing Congress. Accosted with this oversight, the uncompromising Casey replied: The business of Congress is to stay the fuck out of my business.

The CIA worked closely with the Contras, right-wing terrorists who sought to overthrow the Sandinista government. The agency trained these guerrillas in secret camps in adjacent countries and organised munition drops from planes stationed in clandestine bases. In one initiative, a contracted CIA operative wrote a manual for the Contras explaining how to assassinate individuals on ones own side skulls had to be fractured in just the right way and then blame the enemy.

A disapproving US Congress banned these weapons drops and cut off the necessary funds. To get around this, arms were illegally supplied to Iran (then at war with Iraq) via Israel paid for by covert Iranian financial assistance to the Contras. However, fearing the wrath of Congress should this ruse be discovered (as it later was), the Reagan administration bypassed the CIA in administering the Iran-Contra scam. While the president had not lost confidence in the agency, this was a sign that the CIA was becoming increasingly toxic in the eyes of Congress making it too risky to deploy its spooks in the customary manner.

Read more: Venezuela failed raid: US has a history of using mercenaries to undermine other regimes

On the threat posed by the Soviet Union, though, there was far greater accord. CIA director Casey lined up with the secretary of defence, Caspar Weinberger, and the majority of Reagans cabinet in adopting an intransigent stance towards Moscow. They were supported by the CIAs senior Russia expert, Bob Gates, who having gained his PhD in Russian affairs without ever visiting the country, proclaimed that the Soviet Union was an example of oriental despotism.

A keen boy scout in his youth, Gates whether out of conviction or career calculation glued himself to the American flag and offered no challenge to any president who wanted to play up the Moscow menace. Under Reagan, Casey and Gates, the CIA worked tirelessly to undermine the Soviet Union secretly supporting Polands opposition movement Solidarity, and engaging in acts of economic sabotage against the Soviet economy.

Indeed, according to Republican partisans who argued that President Reagan won the cold war (the victory thesis), the US launched its Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or Star Wars) with the aim of forcing Moscow to respond, thus ruining the Soviet economy and bringing about the collapse of communism. SDI was a multi-billion-dollar space defence system designed to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles. According to the victory thesis, Gates exaggerated estimates of Soviet military might were not an instance of unthinking anti-communism but rather, a cunning ploy designed to persuade Congress to fund the Star Wars bluff.

Gates would go on to lead the CIA from 1991-93, the years when Senator Moynihan was campaigning for its abolition. The Senate confirmation hearings that preceded Gates tenure would be the occasion for some bitter denunciations from erstwhile colleagues. Gates later recalled that these charges of 1980s intelligence distortion truly imperilled my confirmation.

Jennifer Lynn Gaudemans, who in 1989 had left the CIAs Office of Soviet Analysis (Sova) in a disillusioned state of mind, accused Gates of seeing Soviet conspiracies around every corner, and of blatantly pandering to one ideological viewpoint.

At the Senate hearings, Gaudemans testified that Sova analysts were deeply upset when Gates suppressed their findings that the Soviet Union was not, in fact, orchestrating mischief in Iran, Libya and Syria. She claimed he had denied them even the opportunity to publish dissenting footnotes. Sova division chiefs were, she said, routinely dismissed for being too soft on issues such as Soviet policy in the developing world, and arms control.

But while the agencys analysts had problems with Gates, more powerful individuals not least, the US secretary of state George Shultz were prepared to listen. Sova-generated data and findings made their way on to the desks of US negotiators.

On November 18 1985, the eve of Reagans summit meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva, the president and his negotiators received an intelligence assessment to the effect that, while Gorbachev was repairing the economic damage of the Brezhnev era, he would not meet his growth targets. Because of this and the acute nationalist discontent in Poland, CIA analysts told Reagan that Gorbachev was ready to deal with the US.

Through such insights, the agency played an important role in ending the old cold war, culminating in the dissolution of the Soviet Union on Christmas Day, 1991. But in the process, it also unwittingly contributed to the idea that the CIA might no longer be needed by the now-globally dominant US.

A decade later, the USs confident post-cold war demeanour changed at a stroke when two hijacked planes flew into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. And the CIA would be the fall guy.

The attack masterminded by Osama bin Laden glaringly exposed the CIAs inability to uphold its founding mission of preventing another Pearl Harbour-style attack on the US. Under renewed pressure to justify its existence, the agency succumbed to the demands of the George W Bush administration in the war on terror that arose from the ashes of 9/11.

As the US government desperately sought a rationale for invading Iraq, a deal was struck. Senior leaders of the agency may squirm at the charge, but the CIA supplied intelligence to please in exchange for the right to survive. Its leadership endorsed the mythical charge that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And when the ensuing war was a disaster, the CIA took the hit for having delivered that faulty intelligence.

Even in the early days of the Iraq war, however, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 had already stripped the agency of its central role in evaluating intelligence, handing the job to a new and independent director of national intelligence, John Negroponte.

With the role of the CIA thus diminished, the US intelligence community became an unresolved puzzle. Demoralised CIA personnel threw up their hands in despair. CIA veteran Art Hulnick, now teaching intelligence studies at Boston University, was at a loss to explain to his students the new arrangements for analysing intelligence. Hulnick complained of an overreaction to what he termed the threat du jour.

Resources were being poured into the huge and unwieldy Department of Homeland Security; the Department of Defence was poaching assets from the CIA; and the agency had even lost its monopoly on preparing the presidents daily briefing (the first item on the presidents desk each morning, memorably described by Michelle Obama as the death, destruction and horrible things book.)

By the mid-2000s, intelligence work was being heavily outsourced to private businesses in accordance with the ideology of the George W Bush administration. Private recruiters such as Blackwater were appearing at the CIA HQs cafeteria in Langley, Virginia, hiring personnel with promises of big salary increases before sometimes subcontracting them back to the agency at inflated rates.

The CIA had never been a fainting lily but now, in the interests of its own survival, its directors agreed to engage in unsavoury practices including torture, illegal kidnapping, and execution-by-drone without trial. Waterboarding, whereby water is poured over a cloth on the victims face to produce a sensation of drowning, was a common practice in the agencys dark sites secret interrogation centres in Poland, Egypt and other countries around the world where kidnapped suspects were held.

Read more: Senate CIA torture report release: expert reaction

Investigative journalism and persistently curious congressional committees are staples of American democracy, and these dubious practices were bound to come to light with the aid of whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden. Snowden had worked for the CIA as a highly regarded computer security expert before moving to a private subcontractor engaged by the US foreign signals intelligence organisation, the National Security Agency (NSA).

In 2013, Snowden leaked numerous files to the Guardian and Washington Post before fleeing to Russia in order to evade rendition by the CIA. His revelations about US internal surveillance practices infuriated the guardians of Americas secrets, and fed the fears of those who deplored the use of dirty tricks abroad and the development of a secret state at home. Snowden was accused of having revealed the identities of CIA personnel on active duty to the possible detriment of their safety a form of treason (should it be proved) that was a deeply sensitive matter within CIA headquarters. It was fortunate for the agency, though, that the main thrust of Snowdens revelations was about the NSAs role in global surveillance.

By 2007, while the Iraq war grew mired, the Bush administration was talking loudly about another familiar Middle Eastern foe: Iran.

In 1953, the CIA had conspired to overthrow the countrys democratically elected but mildly leftist government headed by Mohammad Mossadegh. There followed a period of despotic royal rule by the last shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His overthrow in 1979 saw a period of priestly mullah rule and of alienation, mitigated only briefly by the Iran-Contra deal.

While the Iraq war continued, the US shared the concerns of Israel, its fellow nuclear power and Irans regional rival, that Tehran was developing the wherewithal to produce an atomic bomb. The hawks in the Bush administration issued strident warnings on the subject, but had to contend with a rising force in the intelligence community: the US National Intelligence Council (also known as Nick).

Read more: US and Iran have a long, troubled history

By this time, Nick was generating national security estimates that informed US security and foreign policy. While it traced its origins to pre-CIA days, once the agency was founded Nick became reliant on the data and analysis it provided an arrangement that increasingly caused resentment on the part of state department officials.

After 2004, however, things changed: Nick could now call in other experts to help formulate its analyses and conclusions. And in 2007, Nick determined that Iran, contrary to claims made by the vociferous hawks in the Bush administration, was not developing nuclear weapons. This was an outstanding example of intelligence to displease of speaking truth to power. The CIA was still supplying Nick with data and with some skilled analysts. But according to Thomas Fingar, who presided over Nick at the time of the 2007 Iran estimate, CIA groupthink no longer prevailed.

As Nick drew on a wider base of experts, it could not be accused, as the CIA had been, of gnawing at the same bone over and over again. Fingars colleagues backed his firm stance on Iran. Overcompliance was avoided in a manner that had not been possible in earlier cases such as the WMD scandal, when the CIA had enjoyed unalloyed supremacy.

Perhaps because of this, many CIA analysts appear to have been at ease with the new arrangement a point stressed by Peter A Clement, who was in charge of Russian analysis at the point of transition to the new system. Elsewhere in the intelligence bureaucracy, however, there was discontent. The CIAs counterterrorism units absorption into a new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) elicited this comment from former agency employee and sociologist Bridget Rose Nolan:

There is a general sense that NCTC was almost a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 a way for the government to treat the symptoms, but not the cause, of the perceived problem.

Compared with others within the agency, the CIAs analysts could think themselves fortunate. Though some of them had transitioned to other units, their own team of Russian experts remained intact and unrivalled within the US intelligence community.

Perhaps surprisingly, the CIAs fortunes really began to revive with the election of Donald Trump as the 45th US president on November 8, 2016.

At first glance, Trumps election looked like more bad news for the CIA. In keeping with its mission, the agency was alert to any threat to American interests and security posed by the Kremlin. Trump, on the other hand, was keen to achieve an era of renewed Russian-American friendship an ambition fuelled by his appetite for deal-making, his acquaintance with Russias president Vladimir Putin, and perhaps even his ambitions to make a memorable contribution to world peace.

The indications were that Trump, once in office, would not wish to bolster the role played by the ever-suspicious CIA in Russo-American relations. Yet in the immediate aftermath of his election, the outgoing Barack Obama administration effected a policy shift which saw a significant strengthening of the CIAs Russia capability. This shift arose from the specific circumstance of Russias interference in the 2016 election but in the process, promised a wider and timely refocusing of the US intelligence effort.

In the words of the subsequent US Senate inquiry, a St Petersburg entity called the Internet Research Agency had sought to influence the 2016 US presidential election by harming Hillary Clintons chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin. It was an attempt to subvert American democracy, and the ease with which the Russians obtained Clintons confidential emails confirmed there was a wider threat to national security.

Trump gave the CIA little support during his presidency (2017-2021) and treated its personnel with contempt. He accused the agency of being elitist and of conspiring against him in the 2016 election. He dispensed with the daily intelligence briefing to which the CIA still contributed, telling Fox News: You know, Im, like, a smart person I dont have to be told the same thing and the same words every single day for the next eight years.

Read more: Donald Trump's fight with his own intelligence services will only get worse

But President Obamas boost to Kremlinology has endured beyond the Trump presidency, and now looks fortuitous in light of current circumstances. Experts on the Kremlin need informers-in-place, and they are scarce assets.

We know, for example, that the CIA had to exfiltrate a key Kremlin mole in 2016, in case they were identified as the source of the agencys information on Russian smear tactics against Hillary Clinton. The mole had alerted the agency that in June 2016, Russian cyberwarfare personnel had released thousands of hacked emails from Clintons Democratic campaign and from the computers of the Democratic National Committee. Time will tell what else this mole was telling the CIA about Kremlin tactics and intentions, up until their hasty departure from Russia.

In 2021, newly elected US president Joe Biden nominated his longstanding friend William J Burns as the CIAs new director. Unlike some of his recent predecessors, Burns was no pushover.

When Biden declared his intention of continuing the Trump policy of withdrawing US forces from Afghanistan, Burns made it known he was unhappy with the intelligence implications. The Taliban who took over in the wake of American withdrawal had a history of shielding terrorists. So when the CIA pinpointed the location in Kabul of Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, leading to his assassination by a drone-dispatched Stinger missile on July 31 2022, the event satisfied both men even if it smacked of gunslinger diplomacy.

But the new CIA director also brings more subtle skills to the role. Crucially, Burns has many years experience of Russo-American relations, making him exceptionally well qualified to help shape Americas response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Certainly, he is a very different character from Casey, his predecessor from the Reagan era. Burns is a formidable Kremlinologist with an impressive negotiating pedigree. His father, Major-General William F Burns, engaged in arms control negotiations and, in the final year of the Reagan administration, was director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

The younger William Burns served in the Moscow embassy in the 1990s and as US ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2008, describing it as his dream job. During that period of engagement with Moscow, he repeatedly warned that Nato expansion was anathema to Putin, a leader who back then appeared potentially open to an accommodation with the US.

Burns was capable of empathising with Moscow while appreciating its threat to mankind. He was a devotee of behind-the-scenes diplomacy well before he became CIA director (the title of his 2021 autobiographical study of modern US diplomacy is The Back Channel). According to the Hoar Amendment adopted by the US Senate in 1893, secret agents are not supposed to engage in official diplomacy, but it is a rule that has been much honoured in the breach. As ambassador to Russia, Burns reached agreement with the Kremlin on how to inhibit nuclear-weapon proliferation but he was under no illusions about Putin.

Burns had accompanied Biden, then the US vice-president, on a mission to Moscow to discuss instability in Libya at the time of the Arab Spring in 2011. In his memoir, Burns wrote that Russias then-president, Dmitri Medvedev, was a reasonable man who cared about humanitarian issues and admired President Obama. In contrast, Putin was dyspeptic about American policy in the Middle East especially when it aimed at toppling autocrats.

Read more: Ukraine war: what are Russia's strategic aims and how effectively are they achieving them?

In November 2021, Burns led a discreet delegation to Moscow that signalled, according to the New York Times, heightened engagement between two global adversaries. On this occasion he met Putins adviser Nikolai Patrushev. Their conversation ranged over nuclear disarmament, cyberspace rivalry, Russians hacking activities and climate policy, as well as problems of mutual interest affecting Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan.

Burns efforts did not, however, signify CIA complacency over Russian intentions regarding Ukraine. Together with British intelligence (but meeting with incredulity elsewhere in Europe, except for Scandinavia), the agencys Kremlinologists were convinced that Putin intended to invade Russias neighbour.

Burns is under no illusion about the threat posed by the Russian leader. Having previously likened him to the Romanov czars, he has warned that Putin may resort to using nuclear weapons. When Russias president retaliated against western sanctions by issuing travel bans on selected individuals, Burns was on his list.

From Putins perspective, the US and its CIA preach civilised values but do not observe them. He wrote in 2012 that they had spent decades upholding dictatorships in Latin America, regimes that routinely tortured to death thousands of their own citizens. To Putin, it was all part of a pattern:

The development of the American continent began with large-scale ethnic cleansing that has no equal in the history of mankind. The indigenous people were destroyed. After that [came] slavery That remains until now in the souls and hearts of the people.

The CIA is doubtless operating within Russia, but autocracies are difficult to penetrate and the agency does not have a great record of success in this regard. The extent of its covert actions will likely also be limited because the US remains reluctant to risk being seen as directly involved in the conflict.

While US armed forces are responsible for passing on military intelligence such as that which enabled the sinking of Russias flagship the Moskva, the New York Times reported in June 2022 that CIA personnel were directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the US is sharing with Ukrainian forces. Though few other concrete details have emerged, the report stated that the CIAs presence hints at the scale of the secretive effort to assist Ukraine.

If precedents are a guide, the CIA will be engaged in intelligence gathering and dissemination as well as black propaganda psychological warfare aimed at Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians and the wider world. Through undeclared strategies including the secret funding of both Ukrainian and international front organisations, it will attempt to bend world opinion to favour the Ukrainian cause and isolate the Russians.

But there is also no reason why Burns cannot revive back channel diplomacy, should the opportunity arise. Whether or not undertaken by the CIA, diplomatic engagement with Russia depends on good intelligence on both sides. It is reliant on Putin getting reliable analysis from his own people, and being prepared to act in light of that analysis.

In early February 2022, Russias Federal Security Service (FSB) collected opinion data in Ukraine which found that 40% of those polled would not fight to defend their country. Peter Clement, who worked for the CIA until 2017, observed to me that Putin and his advisers should have noted this meant that 60% were either willing to fight or undecided. The Russian leadership paid insufficient heed to such analysis.

How strong is the CIAs team of Russian analysts today? Hundreds of analysts were recruited after 9/11, largely in response to Muslim radicalism Hulnicks threat du jour. Yet the agencys Russian affairs division suffered a relative setback.

It was obliged to ask for volunteers among its analysts to quit Kremlinology and work instead on counterterrorism. According to a senior official who oversaw these sensitive changes, an effort was made to hang on to linguistic and area specialists, but the division had to give up gifted individuals who had transferable skills.

A reorganisation of the CIA in 2015 led to the formation of a Directorate for Digital Innovation, which gave the agency potentially greater capability of assessing Moscows disinformation via social media. This was on the initiative of John Brennan, President Obamas admired pick to lead the CIA from 2013 to 2017. But for civil liberties reasons, the 1947 National Security Act which established the CIA also banned the agency from operating domestically. So it is still not capable of tracking Moscows use of US-based, but Russian-controlled, digital media sources in stirring up divisions in American society.

Read more: Revealed: untold story of the CIA/Stasi double agent abandoned after 22 years of service

Nonetheless, the standing of the agencys Kremlinologists received a boost under Obama and have again under Biden. Meanwhile the distractions of recent decades such as the debate over torture are receding. We still get periodic reminders of CIA ruthlessness, such as the recent assassination without trial of al-Qaedas al-Zawahri. But the leadership of CIA directors Brennan and Burns has set the agency on a path that bodes well for its role in seeking a resolution to the current Ukraine crisis.

The CIA, being the instrument of a democracy, is a broad church and there will always be conflicting voices. One senior source tells me the agency opposed the expansion of Nato that Moscow finds so abhorrent. Another, a veteran of Reagans Office of Soviet Analysis, insists its Kremlinologists are too apolitical for that kind of judgement to be upheld and does not believe todays analysts will be able to contribute to intelligence successes such as those achieved during the 1980s cold war era.

But these competing views reflect a healthy struggle within the CIA to get at the truth. While the agency still has vocal critics and always will do, no one is calling for its dissolution today.

Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones new book, A Question of Standing: The History of the CIA, is published by Oxford University Press.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversations evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

See the original post here:

The inside story of the CIA v Russia from cold war conspiracy to 'black' propaganda in Ukraine - The Conversation Indonesia