In a Confrontation Between Putin and the West, Belarus May Get Caught in the Middle

By Igor Zevelev on August 5, 2020

KENNAN INSTITUTE

GOVERNANCESECURITY AND DEFENSEBELARUSRUSSIAUNITED STATES

BY IGOR ZEVELEV

Starting with the coup against Gorbachev in August 1991, the last month of the summer has become a time when the eyes of the world perforce turn to Russia. Financial crises (1998), the start of two major wars (the second Chechen war in 1999 and the Russo-Georgian war in 2008), deadly accidents (the Kursk submarine disaster in 2000 and the major hydroelectric power station episode in 2009), terrorist attacks (in 2004 and 2009), and wildfires (in 2010 and 2019) all happened in August. Will there be a new shock in August 2020?

The biggest danger in the post-Soviet space and in Europe this August is the unfurling of a “Ukraine scenario” in and around Belarus. President Aleksandr Lukashenko, who has ruled the country for twenty-six years, will face the biggest challenge of his political career on August 9, when yet another sham presidential election takes place in Belarus.This time, though, growing discontent fueled by the economic crisis makes the upcoming electoral ritual in Belarus different from all previous ones. The disarray resulting from COVID-19 denial has increased insecurity in the country. Lukashenko initially alleged that there was no virus, just “psychosis,” then suggested that drinking vodka could treat the disease, and then said he himself had recovered from COVID-19.

The Lukashenko regime may lose legitimacy in the aftermath of a rigged vote and following its crackdown on the opposition. Moscow’s mounting pressure on Minsk to effectively give up its sovereignty and reengage the dormant 1999 Union Treaty that called for the unification of Belarus with Russia is exacerbating the potential turmoil. The Kremlin, driven by the same security concerns that shaped its reaction to the revolution in Ukraine in 2014, may intervene amid the political crisis and violence in Belarus.

Russian-Ukrainian relations imploded in 2014 when the revolution in Ukraine was perceived in Moscow as a coup d’état organized by the West on a territory seen by Moscow as its exclusive zone of interest and responsibility—a zone that is central to Russia’s national identity. That is what Putin meant when he proclaimed in 2014, “With Ukraine, our Western partners have crossed the line.”

There is a seemingly irrational amalgamation of national identity narratives and national security concerns in Russia’s perception of both Ukraine and Belarus. The Kremlin sees threats to Russian identity, East Slavic “brotherly unity,” and regional security coming from the West. Ukraine and Belarus are the most important countries among the Soviet successor states for Russia. Despite this, or possibly because of it, relations between Russia and these two countries have been challenging since the Soviet Union’s collapse. Russians have had a difficult time recognizing Belarus and Ukraine as separate nation-states. Overlaps between the cultures, languages, and histories of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have led to a confused vision of the boundary between Russians and other Eastern Slavs. In the minds of most Russian intellectuals of the nineteenth century, the “Little Russians” (Ukrainians), “White Russians” (Belarusians), and “Great Russians” (ethnic Russians) were all part of one Russian people. This intellectual tradition outlived the empire and continued to drive both Soviet and post-Soviet Russian narratives. 

The leaders of Western countries should keep their eye on one simple task when it comes to Russia: preventing deadly conflict. This task is extremely localized: a clash between the West and Russia could arise in a single specific area, the post-Soviet space. Disagreements over Syria or Libya, the collapsing arms control regimes, Moscow’s meddling in elections in the West, cyber incidents—none of these is likely to lead to open armed conflict, no matter how tense the situation may become. By contrast, a crisis in the post-Soviet space and subsequent misunderstandings and miscalculations in Moscow or in Western capitals regarding the other side’s intentions can escalate in no time. The two major sites of possible conflict have always been Ukraine and Belarus. While violence has already erupted in Ukraine, there is still time for Belarus to avoid the same scenario.

The post–Cold War Euro-Atlantic security order directly affects Moscow’s thinking about Belarus. The US military force posture changes in Europe announced last week are a hodgepodge from the Russian perspective. The removal of American troops from Germany, starting with the return of the Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment from Vilseck to the United States, is of course welcomed in Moscow. But the Pentagon is also exploring a significant US military presence in Poland, where it has already rotated troops in recent years. President Trump’s plans to move a forward element of the Army's V Corps’ headquarters to Poland has raised concern among Russian military planners because such a move is viewed as a step toward an eventual permanent deployment of combat units. Any US military presence in Poland, next to the border with Belarus, fuels the Kremlin’s suspicions regarding Western intentions.

In August 2020, however, Moscow’s, not the West’s, policies are a matter of concern in Minsk. We probably will never know the truth about a Russian mercenary group arrested in Belarus last week. The Kremlin has insisted that Russia has no intention of interfering in the Belarusian presidential election, but Lukashenko has accused thirty-three Russians of plotting terrorism and attempting to organize a massacre in the center of Minsk. At the same time, he said that "Russia is afraid of losing us, because, besides us, it has no truly close allies left,” quickly adding, “and the West has recently begun to show an ever more substantive interest in us.”

Belarus has the potential to become a new hotspot in Europe. What starts as a political battle between Russia and the West can easily turn into open armed conflict, if and when it concerns Belarus. To prevent an outbreak of deadly violence in Belarus with the participation of Russian forces, Belarus must not become a new site for Russian-Western geopolitical contestation. Russia does not want Belarus to follow in the footsteps of Ukraine, and neither does the West. Despite all outward appearances, even in the context of mounting paranoia on both sides, this is something both Russia and the West can agree on. Such an agreement can make this August run its course peacefully.

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IGOR ZEVELEV

Global Fellow;
Former Professor at George Marshall European Center for Security Studies; Former Director, MacArthur Foundation, Moscow Office

READ MORE

---

KENNAN INSTITUTE

The Kennan Institute is the premier U.S. center for advanced research on Russia and Eurasia and the oldest and largest regional program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Kennan Institute is committed to improving American understanding of Russia, Ukraine, and the region though research and exchange.  Read more

Why Vladimir Putin is unlikely to invade Belarus

UkraineAlert by Anders Åslund


Huge crowds in central Minsk demand the resignation of Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka. August 16, 2020. REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko

Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka seems to be on his way out. One week after his allegedly successful re-election, he could only gather a few thousand press-ganged “supporters” for a regime rally in Minsk on Sunday, while colossal crowds gathered in the Belarusian capital hours later to demand his departure.

Lukashenka’s blatant theft of the country’s August 9 presidential election has united the Belarusian people against him. Presumably, the only support he can now count on is the loyalist core within the country’s security apparatus. It is time for him to leave the country while he still can.

The obvious question is whether Russia will intervene militarily as it did in Ukraine after a similar popular uprising ousted the country’s Kremlin-friendly president in February 2014. Some authoritative voices in Moscow have called for such an intervention, notably Margarita Simonyan, the chief editor of prominent Kremlin media outlet RT.

However, most Moscow media commentaries have been critical of Lukashenka. They are also strikingly and uncharacteristically uncoordinated, suggesting no clear Kremlin policy on Lukashenka. While it is impossible to rule out a Russian military intervention, there are numerous good reasons to presume that it will not take place.

On a personal level, Putin cannot stand Lukashenka, and Putin is a very emotional man. Throughout the past few years, Putin has reduced the previously large Russian subsidies to Belarus and clearly no longer wants to subsidize an obsolete Soviet-type economy. Meanwhile, Lukashenka never tires of playing tricks on Putin. During the last New Year holidays, he visited the Russian leader and left three big bags of Belarusian potatoes in his elegant halls.

Domestically, Lukashenka does not appear to have any remaining popular support. This stands in sharp contrast with the situation in Ukraine in 2014. At the time of Russia’s military intervention, there was still significant Ukrainian support for the pro-Russian policies pursued by the ousted president Viktor Yanukovych.

Given that the Belarusian Deputy Interior Minister has apologized for violence against protesters and many individual members of the security services have demonstratively thrown away their uniforms, it is doubtful whether Lukashenka controls a significant number of security forces any longer. Even if his regime is popped up by Russian bayonets, the Kremlin cannot believe that Lukashenka is able to guarantee stability in Belarus.

Belarus is an orderly and disciplined society with a highly educated population that is currently in the grip of what appears to be a national awakening. Any Russian military intervention in today’s Belarus would probably encounter stiff opposition and would certainly cost Russia too much in both blood and treasure. In hindsight, the Kremlin would probably be happy if it had not invaded eastern Ukraine. Why repeat the same mistake in far less advantageous circumstances?

Nor is there any anti-Russian sentiment to help justify an invasion. The Belarusian opposition has three demands: Lukashenka has to go, all political prisoners must be released, and new free and fair elections must be held. So far, no slogans against Putin or Russia have emerged. The Kremlin should be able to live with that.


TUE, AUG 11, 2020
Breakthrough in Belarus: A democratic opening?


Rather than looking to Russia’s policy toward Ukraine in 2014, I think we should turn to its policy on Armenia since 2018. This was the most recent post-Soviet color revolution. Initially, Putin’s position seemed to be hesitant, but now he appears to be quite happy with Armenia’s very popular democratic Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Armenia has stayed in the Eurasian Economic Union and in Moscow’s Collective Security Treaty Organization along with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. In addition, large Russian state companies completely dominate the Armenian economy.

Putin has had two phone calls with Lukashenka since the August 9 election. On August 10, Putin called and congratulated Lukashenka, but without much apparent enthusiasm. On the contrary, he presented a thinly-veiled list of demands to Lukashenka: “I hope that your governance will facilitate further development of mutually beneficial Russian-Belarusian relations in all areas, closer cooperation within the Union State, extensive integration within the Eurasian Economic Union and the CIS, and military and political links within the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. Without doubt, these efforts serve the core interests of the brotherly nations of Russia and Belarus.”

With the situation looking increasingly bleak, Lukashenka called Putin on August 15, but he did so only after having made a television appeal to Putin to take his call. Putin’s published statement does not contain a word of support for Lukashenka. Nor does he mention the elections or recognize Lukashenka as president, while he favors good bilateral relations. Instead, they “agreed on further regular contacts at various levels, and reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening allied relations, which fully meets the core interests of the fraternal nations of Russia and Belarus.” In light of those words, Lukashenka’s later statement about Putin’s support for him appears dubious at best.

So far, nothing that has happened in Belarus poses a direct threat to the Kremlin, apart from its dislike of popular movements and democracy in general. No significant Belarusians have called for the country’s exit from the Eurasian Economic Union or Moscow’s Collective Security Treaty Organization, which is what Putin has emphasized.

The Kremlin can probably work with any new Belarusian leaders as it successfully works with Pashinyan in Armenia. Putin’s regime has a comparative advantage in its skill to infiltrate and manipulate, which costs much less than military intervention. Why be too blatant?

Anders Åslund is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington. His latest book is “Russia’s Crony Capitalism: The Path from Market Economy to Kleptocracy.”

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

OPINION
Putin Doesn’t Want to Intervene in Belarus. That’s an Opportunity for the West.
It’s certainly not too soon for Moscow and Brussels to learn from past mistakes.

By Anna Arutunyan

Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin Kremlin.ru


In the spring of 2006, I was dispatched as a reporter for The Moscow News to cover the presidential elections in Belarus — and the mounting protests against the incumbent Alexander Lukashenko.

The demonstrations came on the heels of two pro-Western color revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia the previous year, and there was a great deal of naive hope, particularly in the West, that popular demonstrations could easily and bloodlessly topple a dictator.

I was pessimistic, and after I filed my dispatch, titled “Belarus: Too Soon for ‘Blue’ Revolution,” my skepticism was vindicated.

The protests were brutally suppressed, there was global and domestic condemnation, but Lukashenko’s regime survived.

Now, the time has come, largely through Lukashenko’s own undoing, but also, in part, thanks to a perfect storm of the pandemic, a stagnating economy, and Moscow’s growing weariness with subsidizing Belarus and playing cat and mouse with an ally turned frenemy.

Lukashenko may well succeed in suppressing these protests through demonstrative terror, but even if he wins this gamble, he will at best buy a couple of years of hollow, illegitimate rule before his administration finally implodes.

These elections weren’t just rigged — all autocrats do that. The results appear to have been flipped in his favor to mask an irredeemable defeat.

And the spectacular, punitive mass torture that his OMON forces instigated to cow not just protesters but ordinary people into submission wipes away the last traces of legitimate power in the eyes of the very people who once obeyed him. One does not just walk away from such abuses.

But far from the wide-eyed optimism and hope that accompanied protests in 2006, the prospect of Lukashenko’s demise poses a headache both for the Kremlin and for Minsk’s Western neighbors.

Doing nothing feels uncomfortable, but doing something is rife with consequences. In the last decade, “constructive intervention” and even moral support to help send a dictator who has outstayed his welcome on his way have devolved into bloody proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. Western and EU support of the Euromaidan protests to topple Viktor Yanukovich triggered a military intervention from Moscow and a war that simmers to this day.
NEWS
Belarus Leader Vows to Hold Fast as Tens of Thousands March for New VoteREAD MORE


This is not a likely scenario for Belarus, but there is some risk of escalation.

Initially, Moscow was careful about overtly backing Lukashenko in word or deed. Russian media reported openly on police abuses, and prominent statesmen publicly called on Russia to abandon Lukashenko. But over the weekend, thanks to a request from Lukashenko, Moscow appears to have caved and promised, “if necessary,” to support its frenemy under the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the collective defense pact for former Soviet countries.

This is still a far cry from the rhetoric and action that preceded Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine, when Russian officials and pundits called Maidan protesters anti-Russian “fascists” and their new government a “junta” and threatened to send thousands of “volunteers.” But it raises the risk of competitive intervention.

Until now, the protests were geopolitically neutral and thus posed no threat to Russia. There were no calls to join the EU or NATO and thus no real pretext for Moscow to care.

But now, Moscow’s pledge of support for Lukashenko and its growing accusations of Western intervention risk turning the demonstrators against Russia and triggering increasing support from European states — and, especially, Washington. This sort of competition could polarize the demonstrations — further endangering Belarusian protesters.

But Moscow’s pledge to support the regime also smacks of reluctance. Initially, words to the effect that Moscow would provide security came from Lukashenko, not from the Kremlin, whose initial statement, however conciliatory, mentioned nothing of aid or support.
NEWS
Russian Media Responds to Belarus Protest CrackdownREAD MORE


It took a second conversation on Sunday for Moscow to explicitly mention its obligations under the CSTO. And even so, technically, mentioning CSTO is merely reminding the world of Russia’s obligations under an existing treaty, not pledging new ones.

There are a lot of reasons for Moscow’s hesitation.

Lukashenko was once a useful and reliable ally to Moscow because of his commitment to the Union State — a shared space with Moscow that would eventually integrate not just customs, but the government institutions of the two Slavic countries.

But the last year — and the last month in particular — have demonstrated that he is no longer a figure Moscow can trust.

After Russia started reducing discounts on crude oil it sold to Belarus in 2018, relations began to sour. Moscow, tired of giving something for nothing, proposed that Lukashenko move faster on Union State integration if he wanted oil discounts. Lukashenko, understandably, painted this as interference in Belarusian sovereignty, expelled a Russian diplomat, and flirted with the West.

Then last month, Belarus arrested mercenaries it alleged Moscow had sent to destabilize the country ahead of the elections — a snub the Kremlin is unlikely to forget, given that it mentioned the incident in its recent statement on Lukashenko’s cry for help to Putin. It is a dangerous business, offering security and support to a regime that has repeatedly accused you of violating its sovereignty.

So, what are Putin’s options? They are limited.

The first is throwing his force behind Lukashenko. But Moscow doesn’t want to stage another aggressive intervention. Contrary to some Western takes about Moscow’s appetite for annexation, it is smarting from the debacle of Donbass, where it is still “cleaning up the mess,” as a former Kremlin official once told me, created by its own separatist proxies that it armed and financed.

But it would feel itself forced to in the event of real or perceived Western “meddling.”

Remember, Russian security culture holds a very paranoid view of geopolitics. A short statement of solidarity for protesters from a European government can easily transform, in the eyes of Russia’s Security Council, into a coordinated campaign with political, financial and military support. There were already grumblings last week among Russia’s pro-Kremlin experts that Polish and Lithuanian NGOs are “interfering” in Belarus’ domestic affairs.

In the last few days, these accusations have become official. Moscow is still highly unlikely to intervene militarily on Lukashenko’s side, but if it were to do so, it would be in response to a perceived existential threat, not out of a desire to annex a country or back an autocrat.

The second option is scoping out and politically backing alternatives to Lukashenko, whether among opposition candidates like Viktor Babariko, the former head of a Belarusian bank partly owned by Russia’s gas monopoly Gazprom, or within the elites. Russian and Belarusian experts have said Moscow is wary of intervening too robustly in Belarusian affairs, but if the regime collapses it will happily start working with the new one.

Cornered into equally unappealing choices, Moscow seems to be, reluctantly, leaving room for both. This presents an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and avoid turning Belarus into another platform of political war between Moscow and the West.

The truth is, neither Moscow nor Brussels are invested in Lukashenko, and neither want another Euromaidan.

This may be a chance for the EU to reach out to Russia to help broker dialogue in Belarus — together. This would, of course, have to happen behind the scenes — Moscow prefers negotiations out of the public eye and trusts them more than empty statements that don’t deliver on substance.

The explicit goal of such mediation should not be forced regime change. But the implicit goal could be a gradual, peaceful transition towards a Belarus without Lukashenko.

Cooperation between Moscow and Brussels could accomplish several things. First, it would signal to Moscow that the EU has no desire to turn Belarus against Russia, and thus assuage paranoias that, however unrealistic, could have disastrous results.

Second, a coordinated mediation would make it harder for Lukashenko to crack down on his people or play Moscow and Brussels against each other. Third, it would place both Moscow and Brussels in a position to establish ties with Minsk, avoiding a zero-sum scenario in which a potential new government is torn between polar opposites.

Successful EU-Russian cooperation is still a stretch — there is too much mistrust to overcome. But some tentative cooperation on Belarus could be a start. It’s too late for Lukashenko. It’s certainly not too soon for Moscow and Brussels to learn from past mistakes.
The views expressed in opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the position of The Moscow Times.


Anna ArutunyanAnna Arutunyan is a Russian American writer and analyst and the author of The Putin Mystique. @Scrawnya

 The Moscow Times

Read more about: Belarus

MOST READ

ESCALATED TACTICS
Hundreds Detained, Firearms Used in Third Night of Belarus Unrest

READ MORE

CONFIRMED DEATH
One Killed in Second Night of Protests Against 'Rigged' Belarus Election
Several thousand protesters took to the streets of Minsk for a second night of rallies as police fired tear gas and rubber bullets.

RENEWED RESISTANCE
Belarus Police Fire Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas on Protesters
Riot police fired the tear gas and rubber bullets on peaceful protesters to break up the second night of protests against the presidential election.

PICKET LINE
Belarus Plant Workers Go on Strike After Contested Vote – Reports
Workers at Belarusian Steel Works said last month that they would go on strike “in the event of unfair elections.”

'CHERNOBYL REPUBLIC'
Belarus Fuels First Nuclear Plant Ahead of Presidential Poll
Lukashenko hailed the power station as a "breakthrough into the future" but it has drawn controversy from Europe.

Toronto: strip club employee may have exposed about 550 people to Covid-19

Potential exposure took place just days after the Brass Rail Tavern, one of the city’s best-known strip clubs, was allowed to re-open

AND THEY DID NOT LEARN FROM VANCOUVER WHICH SHUT DOWN THEIR STRIP CLUB TWO WEEKS AGO
Ashifa Kassam@ashifa_k

Sun 16 Aug 2020 
 

The Brass Rail strip club in Toronto. Health officials reached out to the clients that had left their details in the establishment’s contact tracing log, urging them to get tested and self-isolate. Photograph: Nathan Denette/AP

Health officials in the Canadian city of Toronto have warned that as many as 550 people may have been exposed to the coronavirus at a downtown strip club after an employee tested positive for the virus.

The potential exposure took place just days after the Brass Rail Tavern, one of the city’s best-known strip clubs, was allowed to re-open. The employee worked four shifts in early August, the city said in a statement, without detailing the capacity in which the employee worked.

Health officials said they had reached out to the clients that had left their details in the establishment’s contact tracing log, urging them to monitor for any symptoms of Covid-19. Public health experts, however, questioned how many patrons would have handed over legitimate contact information.

“You know how long it’s going to take them to chase down 550 guys, half of which probably gave fake ID or information,” Andrew Morris, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Toronto told the Associated Press.

Toronto health officials suggested their initial investigation found the club to be lacking when it came to following the required protocols, which include distancing between staff and customers and the use of a plexiglass shield when this is not possible.

Ontario’s premier weighed in on Friday. “There are 500 people – you’ve got to practice social distancing, you’ve got to put on a mask – I know it sounds ironic talking about that – you have to,” Doug Ford told reporters.

His thoughts soon turned to the strain the news could take on relationships. “I feel sorry for people when they go to their house and tell them that they were at the Brass Rail,” he quipped. “That’s who I feel sorry for. Sorry for the spouse, seriously. Man, I wouldn’t want to be on the end of that one.”

Others questioned the decision to allow such establishments to open as the province grapples with a pandemic that has seen more than 40,000 people test positive to-date. “Why are strip clubs open before schools can safely open? Are these the right priorities?” Ontario doctor Jennifer Kwan wrote on Twitter.

The city said the club was cooperating with orders to put in place measures to prevent the spread of infections, such as ensuring staff and patrons wear masks and practice physical distancing.

The Brass Rail did not respond to a request for comment. But the Toronto Star noted that the club had posted a message on its front door. “During this time, we are continuing operations while upholding the highest possible hygiene standards with our staff,” it read. “This is our main priority while we provide our guests with the hospitality and customer service that they have become accustomed to.”

'The Amazon is the entry door of the world': why Brazil's biodiversity crisis affects us all
Indigenous leader Célia Xakriabá and Vagina Monologues author V discuss the destruction of Brazil’s forests and why this is the century of the indigenous woman

V (formerly Eve Ensler)

Mon 10 Aug 2020

Play Video
2:41 'The Brazilian government is committing genocide', says indigenous leader Célia Xakriabá – video


Célia Xakriabá is the voice of a new generation of female indigenous leaders who are leading the fight against the destruction of Brazil’s forests both in the Amazon and the lesser known Cerrado, a savannah that covers a fifth of the country. V, formerly Eve Ensler, is the award-winning author of the Vagina Monologues, an activist and founder of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against all women and girls and the Earth. The two recently held a conversation in which V asked Xakriabá about what is happening to Brazil’s biodiversity and indigenous peoples, and why women are the key to change.

V: Many people, especially in the west, don’t really understand what’s happening to the Cerrado in Brazil. Can you tell us what’s happening to the forests?
C: It’s very tough at this moment. Every minute one person dies of Covid-19, but also every minute one tree is cut. And whenever a tree is cut, a part of us is cut, a part of us also dies, because the territory dies and with no territory there is no air, no good air for everyone in the world. People can’t breathe. So all this Covid contamination, it gets to the territory through the miners, the gold miners, the loggers and the rangers. And now that we are getting to August, we get even more worried about the fires, all the fires that burned the Amazon last year. It’s going to come back.Q&A
What is Brazil's Cerrado and why is it in crisis?Show

And what happens to all the animals, and to the birds and to every living thing in the forest? What happens to them?

When the forest is burned, the birds and the animals, they are either burned or they go away. And this doesn’t affect only the animals, but it also affects us. We rely on them to eat. So with no animals, we have to rely on food from the outside, and this ends up making our children and our women sick, here with the Xakriabá people. I can hear the song of the birds now, but it’s also a song of misery, of sadness, because most of them, they are alone. They have lost their partners. The birds, they usually sing as a couple. And many of them are now singing alone. And we, the indigenous are becoming more alone, because they’re taking people from us
.
The Brazilian tribe leader Célia Xakriabá, November 2019.
 Photograph: Thomas Samson/AFP via Getty Images

When I first met you, we laughed because we were talking about vaginas and you told me that the Amazon was the vagina of the world. So can you talk a little bit about that?
The Amazon’s like the vagina of the world because it’s where people come from. It’s like the entry door of the world. When this opening is sick, the future generations, they will be sick also. People lost this connection to the Earth because they don’t see Earth and land as a relative. For me, the Earth is like a grandmother, because it’s Earth who gave birth to all of the mothers of the world. Earth is like the first independent woman that created humanity and Earth needed rivers and water to create humanity. But now people just see Earth as a thing. They can design big cities, but they can’t see this connection to Earth. They go to the supermarket, to the grocery store, and they don’t know where that food comes from.


It’s so powerful to see how many indigenous women are leading the struggle to defend the forests and the land. Why do you think this is important?
I’ve been saying that this 21st century, it’s the century of the indigenous woman, because you can’t cure with the same evil that first caused the sickness. You have to overcome this colonising power that is mainly male. I like to say about the matrix of destruction that it’s not matrix, it’s the patrix because it’s based on patriarchy, not matriarchy. And the women, they are the ones who are in this century regaining power over the land, because they know how to cure the Earth. Women have this knowledge and that’s why we are on the frontline right now. I am fighting to not only strengthen the role of women in the territory and in the fight, but also in politics, with indigenous women running for positions in parliament, in the Brazilian Congress. Who can take better care of humanity, if not women?


People just see Earth as a thing. They can design big cities, but they can’t see this connection to Earth

Can you talk a little bit about how patriarchy has disconnected us from the land and the connection of patriarchy and capitalism?
When Pedro Álvares Cabral first invaded Brazil in the 1500s, the first thing that got his attention was the wood from the pau-brasil, which is where the name Brazil comes from. In 1511, this guy named Fernando de Noronha exported 5,000 pau-brasil to Europe. So that’s when it all began. Since then, they don’t respect the relation of the indigenous peoples with time. That’s why capitalism sees indigenous peoples as a threat. You have to take everything you can in as little time as possible, but that’s not how indigenous people relate to time and to labour. Yeah, the indigenous people weren’t keeping up with the “progress” of humanity but it’s not that we are late, it’s because they’re killing us. In the last year there was more than a million hectares of destruction in all the six biomes of Brazil. Since the 1500s, until now, no Earth, no land, no mother, no woman can support this kind of destruction

A fire in the Cerrado, October 2018. The area is one of the world’s oldest and most diverse tropical ecosystems. Photograph: David Bebber/WWF-UK/PA

Can you tell me what is the lived experience of the struggle for life and the struggle of the indigenous peoples in this phase of the onslaught of the extractive industries, and now with Covid exacerbating the situation? What is happening?
During this pandemic we are making this effort to remain in our territories, in our houses, in our homes, but also at the same time, we have to challenge, to fight, because very far away in Brazil, in the Congress, they are negotiating our territories, our homes and our houses. During the pandemic, hundreds of indigenous people have died. But we have to think about how many people would die if we don’t fight. You have to think about the pandemic that is killing us, about the racism that is killing us, about the macro politics, about the colonisation, the absence of the state. It’s hard to tell which weapon is more dangerous, because we are getting killed by many different weapons.

'Like a bomb going off': why Brazil's largest reserve is facing destruction


It appears very clear that President Jair Bolsonaro has weaponised Covid against indigenous peoples. Can you talk a little bit about this?

Indigenous peoples in Brazil, they are 1% of the general population, but they’re almost 9% of the victims of Covid-19. When people say that Covid-19 doesn’t choose class or race or gender, it’s kind of a lie, because the state, they choose who will die. The government, it can justify all of this, saying that it’s just a disease, it’s a fatality. When an elder, when an important leader of indigenous peoples dies, a part of us also dies with them. It’s like the ancestors and the elders, they’re the hands that hold the rattles when you’re singing. It doesn’t matter if I stay alive, a part of me, or some parts of me have died in this pandemic.
Brazilian indigenous women march in Brasilia on 13 August 2019, to denounce the ‘genocidal’ policies of President Jair Bolsonaro. Photograph: Evaristo Sa/AFP/Getty Images

I love the campaign #CuraDaTerra [Cure of the Earth], because it expresses this idea of indigenous peoples as the cure, the antidote, the growth space past capitalism through living in symbiosis with nature, indigenous stewardship of land, traditional indigenous environmental knowledge. How is this being received in Brazil?
One thing that is very important is we pay attention to these things like reconnection, retaking, re-enchantment, because that’s one thing that indigenous people do to hope for a better world. It’s not the chemicals or the active principles generated in laboratories around the world that are going to cure the Earth. What is going to cure the Earth is our capacity, our ability to reactivate our connection to the Earth, to reactivate our culture and to reactivate the power of our ancestors. We have this culture deep inside us, and you can’t change that. We can’t cure evil without curing the Earth, because the Earth is bleeding. It’s full of scars because of its children. And if you don’t listen to the Earth, we will all die. Some people may not die directly in territory conflicts, but they will die, because they won’t have anything left to breathe. All they will have left is poison.


Like in the US, Brazil is going through a kind of dark night of the soul with Bolsonaro in power.
Bolsonaro likes to say that indigenous peoples are becoming more human, but the indigenous peoples don’t like the kind of humanity that doesn’t respect the Earth, doesn’t respect the animals, because you can only know how to be a human if you know how to be a plant, how to be a seed, how to be food. And so actually this project, it’s an anti-humanitarian project of the government. It represents a sick lung, a sick organ of the body of the Earth.

An indigenous woman looks at dead fish near the Paraopeba river in the Cerrado. Photograph: Adriano Machado/Reuters

And why do you think at this moment that we have so many leaders in the world like Trump or Duterte or Modi or Putin or Bolsonaro?
All of this is because we are living in a moment of disputes, disputes of values. They are not part of this project of regaining and retaking the values of life. They are like boils on your skin, and they emerge with all the fury, these boils, like a cancer to these values of life. They emerge with this fury because they appear to have the desire to extinguish all diversity – the diversity of life, the diversity of culture, the diversity of seeds, the diversity of territory.


[Leaders like Bolsonaro] emerge with this fury because they appear to have the desire to extinguish all ... the diversity of life

What is the mood and the feeling in Brazil right now?
Some people who thought we were invisible, they didn’t look, didn’t pay attention to the indigenous populations, now they’re starting to pay attention to us. And the indigenous people, they have within themselves the sense of solidarity and of connection that other peoples don’t have. And that’s something that can help heal the Earth and heal our world because humanity, without love, it’s a dead humanity.


And how do you stay grounded in the midst of all these changes happening in the Cerrado and then the planet at large?
The fight is what feeds me. So every time I think about taking a step away from the fight, I can’t. And as an indigenous person, you fight to survive. You don’t really have another choice. I think about the fight as the children that I haven’t generated yet, the children that I and the indigenous peoples will give birth to in the future. I remember that some time ago in another genocidal process that was going on, the leaders and the indigenous peoples weren’t allowed to paint themselves. So the women would keep these painting pots in their houses. It was a way of not forgetting the paintings and the patterns. And now when I think about that, I think about my body as a pot. I like to paint myself because it’s a way of getting all this memory eternalised, and not forgetting, because more than fighting, painting myself is a way of continuing what my ancestors were doing. Some feel pretty when they put on their best dress. I feel pretty when I paint myself. And it’s not only that. When I paint myself, I feed my spirit and I keep my mind strong. And my headdress gives power to my thoughts and to my fight. So, when I paint myself, when I put my headdress on, I’m not only doing that to show others, I’m doing that to keep myself, my mind and my spirit strong and fed, to keep singing.

A Kayapo indigenous woman paints her daughter with a traditional drawing. Photograph: Amanda Perobelli/Reuters

What can allies in the global north do to be in solidarity with you, your community, and the affected communities of Brazil?
People can fight along with the Indigenous peoples as if they were fighting for their own children. Because when you fight together with indigenous peoples, it’s not just a matter of solidarity. It’s like you’re fighting for your own family, your own children, your own grandchildren, because the indigenous populations, they protect around 82% of the world’s biodiversity.


What’s your vision of the future?
My hope for the future is being alive. And by that I don’t mean just my body being alive. But our voice has to be alive. Our memory, our chants, our singing, and our womb, because you can’t be alive in your body if the womb of the Earth is sick, because when the Earth is sick, we can’t get food. And what’s the point of keeping your body alive if all around you is dead?

And lastly: please describe your vision of what the “re-enchantment” means.
Re-enchantment is within us. People are very worried about this Covid emergency, about being able to touch other people and to feel an effect, a love of affection for other people. But what really is this re-enchantment? It’s the love that we feel for the rivers, for the forest, for food. We have to think that the real borders of the world, it’s not the borders between Brazil and the United States, or between the Amazon and the Cerrado. The real borders of the world are the borders between racism and biodiversity. We can’t drop this fight. We have to keep fighting for the biodiversity, for this cure of the Earth, and for our territories, because one who has territory has a place to return, and one who has a place to return has refuge, has warmth. And that’s why we need to keep fighting.

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

Plan to fence off Nairobi national park angers Maasai and conservationists


Ten-year management strategy aims to combat habitat loss and dwindling wildlife in Kenya’s oldest national park

Peter Muiruri Sun 16 Aug 2020

 

Zebras graze under a bridge of the Mombasa–Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway inside Nairobi national park. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters


Kenya’s oldest national park, which is facing threats from habitat loss, a decline in wildlife species and government infrastructure developments, is at the centre of a fresh row over its future.

Created through a colonial proclamation in December 1946, the 45-square mile Nairobi national park is the only sanctuary in the world where wild animals roam freely next to a bustling metropolis. Its ecological health is indicative of the country’s efforts to preserve Africa’s vanishing wildlife.

Conservationists, however, fear the park is fast losing its place as a critical habitat for wildlife, with some species recording a 70% decline within the past 40 years, according to the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), which manages the country’s national parks. A 30,000-strong wildebeest migration that used to happen during the 60s has collapsed, with only about 200 left in the park, while the population of Burchell’s zebra dropped from 1,400 to under 800 between 2010 and 2019. The park is also home to about 100 Masai giraffes, currently on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list of threatened species

A lion and a lioness inside Nairobi national park. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters

Pressure to expand the country’s infrastructure has created a conflict between conservation and socioeconomic interests. In the past eight years, KWS has bowed to pressure from other government departments and allowed Chinese firms to construct a new highway and a railway line through the park.

A report in 2015 described the park’s deterioration in the face of human activities as “hazardous to the preservation of wildlife in the area” and outlined the threats posed by alien and invasive species that stifle the regenerative capacity of indigenous species and reduce forage resources for wild animals. Last year, the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International reported that invasive species were “a serious and growing problem” across Kenya.

However, loss of wildlife dispersal area is perhaps the greatest threat to the park’s survival. Communities living on the park’s southern edge are tempted by high prices to sell of parts of their once large and open tracts of land for housebuilding.

“It is true the park is under immense pressure,” said Dr Patrick Omondi, director of biodiversity, research and planning at KWS. “Land prices around the park’s dispersal area continue to skyrocket. Unfortunately, the land is being sold to outsiders who have little interest in conservation.”

A southern white rhino and her calf in the park, with the city skyline in the background. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters

Faced with dwindling wildlife and visitor numbers, and increasing industry and human settlements on all sides, KWS has drawn up a 10-year management plan it hopes will save the park from total collapse. But the plan has opened up a new battleground between wildlife authorities and conservation groups, with the latter accusing the government of failing to adequately consult with communities living on land adjacent to the park.

The plan includes a proposal to build fences around huge tracts of land on the southern edge of the park. Currently, the park is fenced only to the east, north and west – where it directly borders densely populated city suburbs. The government hopes the extended fencing will keep dangerous animals out of such areas, reduce escalating human-wildlife conflict and cut down on compensation claims

.
 Maasai tribesmen look at a cow killed during an elephant attack on the outskirts of Nairobi. Photograph: Alamy


In June, however,the largely Maasai community residing to the south of the park met with representatives from several wildlife conservation agencies, to call for the fencing option to be shelved. They argue the new fences will block the last migration route for animals in the park.

'My land is now owned by lions': Maasai farmers offer Kenya's wildlife a lifeline
Read more

William Ole Kompe, a 60-year-old Maasai elder whose land is within the conservancy that borders the park, told the meeting he opposed any move that would separate his community from the animals within the Nairobi ecosystem.

“There will be no fencing on our side,” he told the small gathering through an interpreter. “If that happens, I will lead a street demonstration to oppose the move. We have lived together with wild animals forever. Why separate us now?”

 Nkamunu Patita, programme coordinator at the Wildlife Foundation. Photograph: Peter Muiruri

Nkamunu Patita, programme coordinator at the Wildlife Foundation, argues that the dispersal area could still be saved with proper incentives to landowners.

“The government has known about the problem with the dispersal area for the past 40 years,” she said. “They could have bought the land adjacent to the park when it was cheap and kept it open. If that was not possible, they could have shared the proceeds from the park with the community so that they do not sell the land to outsiders.”

Patita was born and brought up in the area when wildlife was abundant. Before 1946, the land where the park lies was grazing ground for the local Maasai community. The name Nairobi is Maasai for a “place of cool waters”, while many other spots within the park have retained their Maasai names.

A herder watches his flock of animals just outside the perimeter of Nairobi national park. Photograph: Courtesy of MEAACT Kenya


“Our way of life has always been in tandem with wildlife conservation. If they [KWS] fence in or out part of this community, who will look after the wild animals outside the core conservation area? The Mbagathi River forms the boundary between the community and the park. If the river is fenced in, the community will be unable to make use of the water, while fencing it out means the water will not be accessible to animals within the park. We need more consultations before the final implementation of the plan,” she said.
Dr Paula Kahumbu, chief executive officer of Wildlife Direct. Photograph: Khalil Senosi/AP

Dr Paula Kahumbu, chief executive officer at Wildlife Direct, said the reason why Kenya still has free-roaming wildlife is due to the retention of migratory corridors. In Botswana, where fences were put up to keep wild animals from spreading diseases to livestock reared for beef production, wild animals trying to migrate in search of water have died, some after becoming entangled in the fence.

“Wild animals follow the rain patterns. When there are rains in the dispersal areas, they will move out of the park and return during the dry season,” she said. “Kenya needs a diverse habitat since research shows some species like rhinos cannot breed properly in a concentrated place. If we close animals in, only a few species will flourish while others, such as the eastern bearded wildebeests that move in and out of the park, may become extinct.”

Omondi has sought to reassure conservationists, arguing that the management plan is a “living” document and a guide during the implementation phase of the final proposals.

“The draft says fencing will be gradual and, in any case, that will not be done until an ecological study is done to show that the remaining parcels of land are compatible with long-term wildlife conservation,” he said. “In fact, it is only through the community that we can win a place for wildlife in Kenya and it is in our interest that community land be compatible with wildlife conservation.”

Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield on Twitter for all the latest news and features

Israel-UAE deal 'a killer' for two-state solution: Palestinians
Issued on: 16/08/2020 -

Israeli and United Arab Emirates flags line a road in the Israeli coastal city of Netanya after the two countries agreed to normalise ties JACK GUEZ AFP

Jerusalem (AFP)

The agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates to normalise ties would kill the two-state solution, strengthen "extremists" and undermine the "possibility of peace", chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Sunday.

The fractured Palestinian leadership -- from the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmud Abbas in the occupied West Bank to Hamas Islamists in the Gaza Strip -- was united in its opposition to the UAE-Israel deal announced Thursday by US President Donald Trump.

"I really believe that this step is a killer to the two-state solution," Erekat said.

He argued that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will have less incentive to compromise on a viable Palestinian state "if he believes that Arab countries will line up to make peace with him".

In a conference call with foreign reporters, Erekat said that "people like Netanyahu and extremists in Israel believe that the two-state solution is off the table".

Meanwhile, "extremists on my side are (saying), 'we told you so from the beginning: the two state solution is off the table'," he added.

Erekat condemned the agreement as a "desperate attempt" by Trump to notch a foreign policy success.

He further dismissed senior White House advisor and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, an architect of the UAE-Israel pact, as displaying "a combination of arrogance and ignorance".

Netanyahu said Sunday that the agreement upended the notion that "no Arab state would agree to open peace with Israel, before the conflict with the Palestinians would be resolved".

"That mistaken notion gave the Palestinians de-facto veto power over peacemaking between Israel and Arab states and held Israel and the Arab world hostage to the most extreme Palestinian demands," Netanyahu said during his Sunday cabinet meeting.

According to a joint US, Israel, UAE statement, the Jewish state has agreed to "suspend" its plans to annex settlements and other territory in the occupied West Bank.

Those annexations plans were outlined in Trump's Middle East peace proposal, unveiled in January.

Netanyahu has said he remains committed to West Bank annexations, but agreed to hold for now, as part of his pledge to Trump.

The Palestinians have called for emergency meetings of the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation to reject the Israel-UAE deal, but have not received replies from either body, Erekat said.

The top Palestinian negotiator also said he had written to Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to ask them to pressure the UAE to cancel the agreement.

"I have received an answer from the Saudi foreign minister reassuring me that Saudi Arabia's position is for a comprehensive peace agreement based on a two-state solution," Erekat said, noting Bahrain "did not answer me yet".

Regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia has been conspicuously silent on the deal with no official reaction emerging from Riyadh.

Can Kamala Harris sway Indian American voters?

Many Indian Americans see the choice of Kamala Harris as the Democratic running mate as a symbol of progress. However, most of them were likely already planning to vote for Joe Biden in November's presidential election.



In the most recent US presidential election in 2016, Indian Americans presented a mostly united front. Around 85% voted for the Democratic Party, according to AAPI Data, which publishes demographic data and policy research on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Then-candidate Donald Trump, who had targeted Indian Americans with an ad that featured him speaking Hindi, was only able to convince a small number of voters to back the Republicans.

In the 2020 election cycle, both presidential candidates are paying attention to Indian Americans. They currently make up just over 1% of the US population, but they have become increasingly active as a constituency and donors in recent years. Plus, they're one of the fastest-growing immigrant groups in the country.

In a statement aimed at Muslim American communities, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has criticized Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his poor treatment of the Muslim minority in his country. Trump, on the other hand, has launched an online advertising campaign with pictures of his February visit to India. He has promised to work closely with India and build on the friendship with Modi. Last September, Trump invited Modi to Texas where a political rally under the slogan "Howdy, Modi!" attracted tens of thousands of participants.
Harris is 'an impressive and powerful speaker'

But now the Democrats have Kamala Harris, whose mother was born in Chennai, India. "It's exciting that a woman of color is on a major party ticket for the first time," said Sangita Gopal, who grew up in Kolkata and came to the US as a PhD student about 30 years ago. Gopal has followed Harris' career for a long time, ever since her brother, who works as a lawyer in Washington, told her about the rising politician from California.


As senator, Harris questioned Brett Kavanaugh during his late 2018 confirmation hearing

"She's an impressive and powerful speaker," Gopal told DW, recalling Harris' questioning of Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing for the US Supreme Court in late 2018.

A friend, Gopal said, has been so impressed with Harris that she is now volunteering for the Biden campaign. Gopal also plans to vote for the Democrats in November, but her support has nothing to do with Harris' politics — for her, Trump is out of the question. The professor of cinema studies, wife and mother of an 11-year-old daughter would have preferred to vote for the progressive candidate Bernie Sanders.

Read more: Generation Z joins George Floyd demonstrations

ew politicians could inspire new voters

Will the choice of Kamala Harris convince any die-hard Indian American Trump fans to vote for the Democrats? It's unlikely, said Rishi Bhutada, one of the founders of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) advocacy group, which count some 3,000 subscribers to its mailing list. Trump supporters, he said, are motivated by economic factors.

Kamala Harris (left, with her sister, Maya, and mother, Shyamala) was born in Oakland, California

But the fact that Biden has chosen Harris as his running mate could change who will come out and vote in the first place, Bhutada told DW. "I do think the biggest effect of Harris being on the ticket is that those who generally don't vote might be more engaged now," he said.

The HAF has not yet decided which candidate to support in the upcoming vote; it still wants to hear back from both parties regarding its policy questionnaire. Bhutada wants to know, for example, how the candidates intend to tackle hate crime or how they will support the Indian government in the fight against terrorism. The HAF, which the Texan leads on a voluntary basis with five other fellow campaigners, hasn't made any donations to Harris campaign. In the past, the advocacy group has supported politicians from both parties, focusing on each candidate's policies.

A milestone, regardless of policies

Harris is seen as a solid candidate for the Democratic Party — she neither stands for a radically new agenda, nor appears too conservative.

But her identity as the child of immigrants from Jamaica and India, and her identity as a black woman, is a rare case in the American political landscape, and unprecedented for a position as powerful as that of vice president.

So it's hardly surprising that the US Indian community is celebrating this moment. Mindy Kaling, a prominent producer and actor, filmed a cooking video with Harris in November 2019 in which she expressed her enthusiasm for the politician.

Comedian Hari Kondabolu feels "lukewarm" about Harris, but admits her candidacy is still "an important moment for many people." The comedian is known, among other things, for a critical documentary about the Indian character Apu in the long-running TV series "The Simpsons."

Political scientist Anita Chari, of the University of Oregon, also sees the symbolism in Harris' success. She argues it's important that someone like Harris, who has ties to both the black population and those of Indian origin, is part of the party leadership.

"What I love about her and her candidacy is that there's this way in which Indian Americans, South Asians, can show solidarity around her while also using that as a necessary point of conversation to really tackle and combat against racism in the Indian and South Asian community," she said.

Chari, who grew up in Chicago as a child of Indian immigrants in the 1980s, has also observed a slow, gratifying change. "There's been a lot of invisibility around Indian American culture within the United States for a very long time and that's been changing in the last five years," she told DW. Harris' immigrant background, she added, could help her fight the hostility the immigrant community has seen from the Trump administration.

"I think she's been a very perceptive and intense critic of Trump, and a voice that has stood out."

BUT CAN SHE COOK ALOO GOBI
(THE CLASSIC INDIAN MOTHER IN LAW CHALLENGE)




LIKE IN BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM