Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Turkey Fuels Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Drones, Mercenaries and Dreams of Imperial Resurgence






[Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of articles on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Stay tuned for further installments.]

It’s been four years since the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Ertsakh in Armenian) was reignited in 2016. In September of this year, fighting over the disputed territory resumed with a vengeance.

Both sides share the blame for the long-term conflict in a region that has changed hands many times in history. Occupied by the Russians in the early 19th century, it was allotted to the Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan by Stalin in the 1920s, even though most of its inhabitants were Armenian. After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the late 1980s, full-scale war erupted between Azerbaijan and Armenia, in which some 30,000 were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. A ceasefire was declared in 1994, but since then the conflict flared up a number of times. In several of these bouts of fighting, Armenians were cited for attempts at ethnic cleansing.

In 2016, Azeri forces renewed their attack, this time with Turkey’s clear encouragement, and the two armies have since been locked in sporadic warfare that recently became much more intense. Several countries in the region have sided with Azerbaijan, including, weirdly, Iran and Israel, which (reportedly) supplied arms and materiel, but Turkey’s involvement in the fighting is on a much bigger scale.

Turkey’s wide-ranging political and military support for the Azeri attack reflects President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s bellicose approach to solving problems in the region. In recent years, Turkey invaded Syria, ostensibly to fight against anti-Turkish Kurdish militias there; has conducted frequent bombing strikes against Kurds in Northern Iraq; has actively supported one side in the Libyan civil war; and is on the verge of war with Greece and Cyprus over oil- and gas-drilling prospects in the Mediterranean and over islands in the Aegean.

Erdoğan has expressed anger at Greek sovereignty over the Aegean islands that were once governed from Istanbul; at Bashar al-Assad’s disastrous control of Syria; at Egypt’s struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood; and at Israel’s illegal occupation of Jerusalem. This, he claimed numerous times, stems from the downward spiral that the region has experienced since the great days of the Ottoman Empire. Despite runaway inflation, a rapidly tanking economy, and Erdoğan’s growing authoritarianism, this kind of talk has garnered mass support for him and his government among the more conservative and even secular nationalist groups in Turkey.

Turkish warfare in Nagorno-Karabakh is a weird mixture of tactics. On the one hand, Turkey sent in thousands of Syrian mercenaries whose salaries it pays. Most of them participated in the Syrian uprising against Assad’s regime over the previous decade under Islamic, mostly jihadi, organizations. Some may still hold on to their Salafi beliefs but have since become soldiers of fortune, fighting for the highest bidder. Some of them are fighting for Turkey in Syria; others were sent to Libya, and the rest are doing Turkey’s work in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Alongside these mercenaries, Turkey uses state-of-the-art drone formations. The long years of fighting in the region have led to the deployment of advanced air-defense systems against rockets, but in recent years Turkey has joined the widening club of states who discovered the great potential of drone warfare.

Drone swarms are used for intelligence gathering, pinpointing targets, shooting, and blowing up assets. Nagorno-Karabakh has become a testing site for this new technology. The weapons wreak havoc on Armenian civilian and military sites. The combination of drones and mercenaries, with some back-office military planning, allows Erdogan to conduct operations on three fronts simultaneously, with very limited involvement of Turkish forces.

Under this Turkish aegis, Azerbaijan seeks to scare away its Armenian inhabitants and annex parts of the region. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians and soldiers have already died in this war. The actions of Israel, Iran, and other countries involved in supplying war materials to both sides should be condemned and stopped, but Turkey’s actions require a more serious response.

In recent years, Turkey has stepped up its military actions in the region, bullying its neighbors, betraying its commitment to NATO and its allies in the West, and killing civilians with impunity. If Turkey does not stop its violent actions, the United States and the European Union should impose sanctions, as punishment and as a deterrence to further escalation. This would not be entirely unprecedented, despite Turkey’s status as a member of NATO. The U.S. effectively penalized Turkey last year by suspending it from the multi-nation F-35 fighter jet program and threatening additional sanctions, after Turkey ignored U.S. pressure and opted to buy the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.

[Readers may also be interested in this Oct. 15, 2019 article by Aurel Sari: “Can Turkey be Expelled from NATO? It’s Legally Possible, Whether or Not Politically Prudent.”]

IMAGE: An armed villager arrives at a neighbor’s home destroyed by shelling following an overnight attack during the ongoing fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, in the Martakert region, on October 15, 2020, -The origins of a flareup in fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh that has now killed hundreds and threatens to involve regional powers Turkey and Russia are hotly contested and difficult to independently verify. Both sides accuse the other of striking first on Sept. 27 over the ethnic Armenian region of Azerbaijan.  (Photo by ARIS MESSINIS/AFP via Getty Images)

 





The President’s Private Army



by Elizabeth Goitein

July 24, 2020


It doesn’t take a legal expert to know that what’s happening in Portland, Oregon is an abuse of power. When unidentified federal forces dressed as soldiers pull people off the streets into unmarked vans, something is gravely wrong. What’s less apparent is that this abuse is part of an ongoing effort by the administration to get around “posse comitatus”: the principle that the president cannot use the military as a domestic police force. The implications for the rule of law — and potentially for the 2020 election — are staggering.

The Department of Homeland Security personnel deployed in Portland are federal law enforcement agents, not members of the armed forces. But the evidence is mounting that they are not there to enforce the law. Instead, they are acting as a paramilitary wing to assist the president in his longstanding goal to (in his words) “take over” U.S. cities run by Democrats.

This goal dates back to the beginning of Trump’s presidency. Five days after his inauguration, he tweeted: “If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible ‘carnage’ going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 216), I will send in the Feds!” (Three and a half years later, he’s about to get closer to carrying out his threat: He announced on Wednesday that he will send 200 federal agents to the city, plus 35 additional agents to Albuquerque.) He has issued similar threats periodically throughout his time in office.

But it was the protests that erupted across the country in response to the brutal police killing of George Floyd that finally gave the president his chance. At the president’s direction, the governors of 11 states (10 of them Republicans) sent their National Guard units into Washington, DC, where largely peaceful protests had been marred by isolated incidents of violence and looting. The deployment was over the objections of the city’s mayor, Muriel Bowser.

Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prevent exactly this type of action. The 1878 law bars federal troops from participating in domestic law enforcement activities absent an express authorization by Congress. But the Act applies to the National Guard only when its units are federalized. Even though Guard troops were clearly acting at the direction of the president and secretary of defense, the president did not officially federalize them, leaving them free to conduct law enforcement activities.

That gambit served the president’s purposes in DC. But pulling the same trick in a state might be more difficult. Although the administration’s legal theory would permit it, the optics of sending one state’s National Guard forces into another state would likely be more disturbing than sending them to the nation’s capital. Moreover, governors might be more reluctant to cooperate if another state’s sovereignty were at stake.

So the administration is trying out a new end run around the Posse Comitatus Act. The Department of Homeland Security has sent dozens of agents to Portland to “restore order,” against the will of Portland’s mayor and the governor of Oregon. The official justification for the deployment is to protect federal property, which federal law enforcement agencies may do with or without local authorities’ consent. But in less scripted moments, the president has blown this cover, repeatedly declaring that he’s sending the feds to do the job of local Democratic officials because those officials are doing it so badly. “You’re supposed to wait for them to call, but they don’t call,” he complained.

In any case, it’s fairly obvious that DHS agents aren’t in Portland simply to protect federal property or personnel. They’ve been recorded driving in areas far from any federal building and apprehending people who are not visibly engaged in any crime, let alone a federal one. In these cases, no charges are brought, no laws “enforced.” After holding the person for a short but terrifying period of time, the agents release them, leaving no record of the event. What they leave instead is a message of intimidation.

This isn’t the behavior of a law enforcement agency, state or federal. It’s the behavior of a lawless paramilitary force — and it’s no accident that President Trump chose DHS for the job. The department was conceived and structured as a quasi-military agency in the wake of 9/11. This origin story is reflected in its mission (which includes anti-terrorism, border security, and cybersecurity), the military-style weapons and gear it acquires directly from the defense industry, and even its inclusion of one branch of the armed forces (the Coast Guard).

The military mindset is particularly strong in Customs and Border Protection. In 2014, the former head of internal affairs at CBP warned that the agency considered itself a “paramilitary border security force” that operates outside “constitutional restraints regarding use of force.” CBP has repeatedly demonstrated that its loyalty to President Trump outweighs fidelity to the rule of law. Not coincidentally, the federal agents in Portland were drawn primarily from CBP.

As a legal matter, Trump’s misuse of federal law enforcement in Portland doesn’t violate the Posse Comitatus Act, because the agents are not members of the armed forces. But with DHS acting as a paramilitary force, the deployment nonetheless violates the fundamental principle behind the law. And it highlights the reason that principle exists in the first place: so that the president will not have a personal army at his disposal to “take over” local governments or to suppress domestic dissent.

Congress and the courts must step in. Otherwise, having found his army, Trump is sure to use it again in coming months. Bullying Democratic mayors and governors plays well with his base, whose support was beginning to waver due to Trump’s disastrous mishandling of Covid-19. More chilling, he could deploy his paramilitary forces in Democratic strongholds on Election Day as a means of suppressing voter turnout.


With DHS acting as a paramilitary force, the deployment violates the fundamental principle behind the law.

President Trump has already used federal forces to undermine local sovereignty and the rights of protesters. This practice must be stopped, lest he use these same tactics to undermine our democracy come November.


Photo credit: Outside the Multnomah County Justice Center on July 17, 2020 in Portland, Oregon (Mason Trinca/Getty Images)




EWTN News/RealClear poll shows more 'likely Catholic voters' behind Biden

BIDEN WOULD BE ONLY THE SECOND CATHOLIC POTUS

This article appears in the Election 2020 feature series. View the full series.

20201019T0800-NEW-ORLEANS-ELECTION-1007323.JPG

A poll worker in New Orleans walks past people casting their early votes Oct. 16, 2020, for the upcoming presidential election. Released the afternoon of Oct. 19, the results of a poll conducted by EWTN News and RealClear Opinion Research showed that 52% of "likely Catholic voters" support former Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, while 40% support Trump. (CNS/Reuters/Kathleen Flynn)

WASHINGTON — Less than two weeks before the presidential election, a new poll indicated President Donald Trump has lost the so-called "Catholic vote" and that his nomination of a Catholic to the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, did nothing to change that equation.

Released the afternoon of Oct. 19, the results of a poll conducted by EWTN News and RealClear Opinion Research showed that 52% of "likely Catholic voters" support former Vice President Joe Biden, a Catholic, while 40% support Trump.

The results match a Pew Research Center poll issued Oct. 15, which showed Biden with a 52%-42% advantage nationally. A Yahoo News/YouGov poll also released Oct. 19 had the same result.

In the EWTN/RealClear poll, Barrett's nomination was popular with Catholics overall, with 46% supporting it and 28% opposing it. Her strongest approval percentage, 54%, came from those who identified as weekly Massgoers.

In 2016, a Pew poll taken after the election indicated that Trump, running against Hillary Clinton, received 52% of the Catholic vote, while Clinton got 45%. In 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the last Catholic presidential candidate before Biden, also lost the identified Catholic vote to George W. Bush.

If Trump's reversal is "true on Election Day, there's no way the president can win," said Carl Cannon, Washington bureau chief of RealClearPolitics, at a news conference.

Trump's position among Catholic voters has been steadily falling. The Pew poll taken in July and August gave him a huge lead, 59%-40%, among white Catholics. But the last one from Pew showed that Trump's advantage there had dropped to just eight points, 51%-43%. Among Hispanic Catholics, Biden's numbers more than double Trump's at 67%-26%.

The gap between Biden and Trump narrows, cautioned the EWTN/RealClear poll report, "to within the margin of error" in the swing states of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The gap, they added, "also tends to narrow or flip to support for President Trump among Catholics who go to Mass more often, while support for Biden increases among those who attend church less frequently."

20201021T0845-USA-ELECTION-1007578.JPG

A person in Orlando, Fla., waits in line to cast a ballot Oct. 19, 2020, as early voting begins ahead of the November election. Trump's position among Catholic voters has been steadily falling, according to Pew polls. (CNS/Reuters/Octavio Jones)

Sixty-four percent of likely Catholic voters said a nominee's religion should not be considered when confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court, while 23% said it should be a consideration.

On abortion, 52% said they'd be less likely to support a political candidate who is in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion, and 60% said they'd be less likely to support a political candidate who supports abortion at any time during pregnancy.

Forty-three percent of likely Catholic voters say practicing Catholic politicians should follow the teachings of the Catholic Church and oppose abortion, while 29% disagree.

Biden has said he'd like to see the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion on demand, codified into law. He also says that as a Catholic, he is personally opposed but doesn't want to impose his view on the electorate.

Trump would like to see Roe overturned and the Hyde Amendment codified; each year it is a rider on an appropriations bill and bars the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman or in case of rape or incest. Until 2019, Biden supported Hyde, but now says the amendment would obstruct his health care proposal from covering low-income women.

The EWTN/RealClear Opinion Research poll of 1,490 likely Catholic voters was conducted online in English and Spanish from Oct. 5 to Oct. 11. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.79 percentage points.

It was the fourth in a series of four polls by the two outlets looking at American Catholics' voting habits and practices.

USA Today in reporting midday Oct. 20 on just-released results from other polls show it is "an overwhelmingly tight race" between Biden and Trump in a number of key battleground states, including Iowa, Georgia, Ohio and North Carolina.

LONDONERS PROTEST POLICE BRUTALITY IN NIGERIAProtest held in London against police brutality in Nigeria.

WORLD
Media reported earlier that Nigerian security forces opened fire on protesters in the south-western city of Lagos on Tuesday, killing several people and leaving many others injured.

A live broadcast from London shows demonstrators holding a rally against police brutality in Nigeria after reports emerged from Lagos of protesters having been shot by Nigerian soldiers.

The police reportedly started shooting protesters on Tuesday night after the authorities in south-western Lagos State, of which Lagos is the capital, imposed a 24-hour curfew to try to curb criminal activities under the umbrella of ongoing protests against police violence.

The End Special Anti-Robbery Squad (End SARS) or #EndSARS rallies across Nigeria kicked off after a number of allegations were made that the country's SARS police unit was responsible for acts of killing, torture and blackmail. The department was disbanded by the authorities and replaced with the Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) squad. Nevertheless, the rallies went ahead protesting against other forms of police violence.

  

Lagos locked down, army under scrutiny after civilians fired on


By Angela UkomaduAlexis AkwagyiramLibby George

LAGOS (Reuters) - Police enforced a round-the-clock curfew in Nigeria’s biggest city on Wednesday a day after soldiers reportedly opened fire on civilians protesting against alleged police brutality.

Fires burned across Lagos and residents of Ebute Mette, Lagos Island and Okota districts reported hearing gunfire on Wednesday as President Muhammadu Buhari appealed for “understanding and calm”.

Police - some armed, some wearing body armour and many in plain clothes - set up roadblocks in Lagos, witnesses said.

Tuesday night’s incident at a toll gate in Lekki district was the most serious yet in nearly two weeks of nationwide protests fueled by anger at alleged systematic abuses by police, although details of what happened and the number of casualties remained unclear.

The Lagos state governor said 30 people were hurt in the shooting at the gate, a focal point of the protests. One man had died in hospital from a blow to the head, he said, but it was not known if he was a protester.

The United Nations secretary-general said there had been “multiple deaths” and he urged authorities to de-escalate the situation. Amnesty International said it was investigating “credible but disturbing evidence” of excessive use of force in which protesters had been killed.

Four witnesses said soldiers had fired bullets and at least two people had been shot. Three witnesses said the gate’s lights were turned off before the shooting began. One said he saw soldiers remove bodies. [L8N2HB6WI]

The Nigerian Army said no soldiers were at the scene

Nigeria's Lagos governor says one dead after shooting

Nigerian president appeals for calm after soldiers fire at protesters


POVERTY, PANDEMIC, POLICE

Thousands of Nigerians, many driven closer to poverty by economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic that has infected killed 1,125 and triggered lockdowns, have demonstrated since early October in protests that initially focused on a police unit, the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS)

The unit - which rights groups have long accused of extortion, harassment, torture and murder - was disbanded on Oct. 11 but the protests have persisted with calls for law enforcement reforms.

Authorities imposed the curfew on Lagos - Africa’s largest metropolis and the commercial capital of OPEC-member Nigeria - on Tuesday after Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu said the protests had turned violent.

Witnesses described being shot at by soldiers at the Lekki toll gate, where people had gathered on Tuesday evening in defiance of the curfew

Inyene Akpan, 26, a photographer, said more than 20 soldiers arrived and opened fire as they approached the protesters.

Witness Akinbosola Ogunsanya said the lights suddenly went out around 6:45 P.M. (1745 GMT), plunging the gathering into darkness and causing confusion.

Minutes later soldiers in uniform walked towards the crowd, shooting as they walked, he said. He saw about 10 people being shot and soldiers removing bodies, he said.

Another witness, Chika Dibia, said soldiers hemmed in people as they shot at them.

Henry Kufre, a television producer, said the atmosphere was peaceful and people were singing the national anthem before the site was plunged into darkness and the shooting began.

He said some people chose to kneel and wave flags while others ran. “I had to run for my life,” he said.

A Nigerian army spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

COMMITTED TO JUSTICE

President Buhari said on Wednesday he was committed to providing justice for victims of brutality, and that the police reforms demanded by the demonstrators were gathering pace. He did not refer to the shooting at the toll gate.

Sanwo-Olu posted pictures of a hospital visit to victims of what he referred to as the “unfortunate shooting incident” in Lekki. He said 25 people were being treated for injuries and two were in intensive care.

“I recognise the buck stops at my table and I will work with the FG (federal government) to get to the root of this unfortunate incident and stabilise all security operations to protect the lives of our residents,” Sanwo-Olu said.

On Wednesday, witnesses saw youths trying to get through some checkpoints and reported protesters gathering in some areas. Local broadcaster Arise TV showed dozens of charred buses on the Lagos mainland.T

In South Africa, hundreds of Nigerians carrying placards demanding “a new and better Nigeria” marched to the Nigerian High Commission (embassy) in Pretoria. Protesters also rallied outside the Nigerian embassy in London.

Nigeria sovereign Eurobonds fell more than 2 cents on the dollar on Wednesday. One analyst said the protests might trigger a resumption of attacks on the country’s oil facilities, potentially hitting its main source of foreign earnings.

“The Niger Delta militants...have reportedly shown support for the (protest) movement. Should the protests escalate, we could see attacks resume on the oil and gas facilities,” said Janet Ogunkoya, senior research analyst at Tellimer Research.

Reporting by Angela Ukomadu, Alexis Akwagyiram and Libby George in Lagos; additional reporting by Olivia Kumwenda in Johannesburg, Nneka Chile in Lagos and Karin Strohecker in London; writing by John Stonestreet; editing by Libby George




SARS: Why are tens of thousands of Nigerians protesting?

Tens of thousands of Nigerians have been taking to the streets for more than two weeks to protest against police brutality.

The hashtag #EndSARS has been trending not just in Nigeria but across the world for several days [Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP]

21 Oct 2020

For two weeks Nigeria has been rocked by protests that erupted against police violence and evolved into broader anti-government demonstrations led by the country’s youth, leading to a deadly crackdown.

Young people mobilising through social media began staging demonstrations calling for the abolition of the federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), which has long been accused of unlawful arrests, torture and extrajudicial killings.
KEEP READINGSARS: Lagos protesters break curfew amid gunfire, chaos
The Nigerian protests are about much more than police violence

The hashtag #EndSARS has been trending not just in Nigeria but across the world for several days.

What is SARS?

SARS was a special police unit set up in 1984 as Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, battled rising levels of crime and kidnappings.

Initially, it was successful in reducing cases of violent crime but more recently the unit had been “turned into banditry”, according to Fulani Kwajafa, the man who set up SARS.


In June 2020, Amnesty International released a report that documented at least 82 cases of torture, ill-treatment and extrajudicial execution by SARS between January 2017 and May 2020.

What triggered the protests?

The protests were sparked by a viral video allegedly showing SARS officers killing a young man in the southern Delta state. Authorities denied the video was real.

The man who filmed the video was arrested, provoking even more anger.

What are the demands?

Tens of thousands of Nigerians have been taking to the streets for more than two weeks to protest against police brutality. The demonstrations, headed by the country’s youth, evolved into broader anti-government protests that were met with a deadly crackdown.


Their demands include structural police reforms and better pay for officers so they can be compensated for protecting lives, accountable government, respect for human rights, end of corruption release of all arrested protesters and justice for all victims of brutality and compensation for their families.

Many demonstrators are also calling for more wide-sweeping change in Nigeria, which has the largest number of people living in extreme poverty in the world and a massive youth unemployment rate.

People protest against alleged police brutality near to the Lekki toll gate [Sunday Alamba/AP]

“It became very clear very quickly that the protest cannot just be about SARS, because the kind of abuses that are documented with SARS squad are also something that has become part of everyday life of Nigerians in their contact with figures of authority across the board,” Annie Olaloku-Teriba, Nigerian affairs analyst, told Al Jazeera.

“The gross inequality which we’ve seen has meant that the young people going out on streets feel like it is a fight for survival for young people who’ve been given very little opportunity. The government’s response has just been open fire on protesters and they are experiencing that brutality is just making their demands of the protests broaden.”

Despite massive oil wealth and one of Africa’s largest economies, Nigeria’s people have high levels of poverty and lack of basic services, as a result of rampant corruption, charge rights groups.

How did the government respond?

With no signs of protesters backing down, President Muhammadu Buhari stepped in and disbanded the unit.

“The disbanding of SARS is only the first step in our commitment to extensive police reform in order to ensure that the primary duty of the police and other law enforcement agencies remains the protection of lives and livelihood of our people,” Buhari said.

Last week, Muhammed Adamu, inspector general of police, said all SARS officers would be redeployed to other police commands, formations and units.

On October 13, thousands of people take to the streets in a string of cities, bringing traffic to a standstill in economic hub and largest city Lagos.

Two days later in a statement, the military issues a warning to “troublemakers” and says it “remains highly committed to defend the country and her democracy at all cost”.

How many people have died in protests?

In recent days, the protests have turned violent with shots fired at demonstrators.

On Tuesday, Amnesty International said there was “credible but disturbing evidence” that security forces in Lagos, the country’s commercial capital, had shot at protesters, killing them.

Amnesty estimates at least 15 people have died since demonstrations started, including two police officers.

Authorities have imposed a 24-hour curfew in Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city, as moves are made to stop growing violence [AP/Sunday Alamba]On October 20, protests turned violent in a string of cities including Lagos and Abuja.

A round-the-clock curfew was imposed in Lagos and anti-riot police units were deployed nationwide.

That evening more than 1,000 people defied the curfew and gather at Lekki tollgate in Lagos, the epicentre of the demonstrations.

The Lagos governor initially said 25 people were wounded but that there were not fatalities. He later said the authorities were investigating the death of one person who suffered “blunt trauma” to the head.

Have the protests spread across the world?

The #EndSARS protests have taken place in several cities across the world including, London, Berlin, New York and Toronto.

Several celebrities like Kanye West, John Boyega, Diddy and Rihanna and Manchester United footballer Odion Ighalo have voiced their support for the protesters online.


On Tuesday, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on President Buhari and the Nigerian army “to stop killing” protesters.

SOURCE : AL JAZEERA
Europe’s hidden biodiversity crisis

A damning new report reveals the grim decline of nature in the European Union. The member states have the opportunity this week to begin to repair the damage.


This week the European Environmental Agency (EEA) released its State of Nature in the EU report. The grim news should alarm us all: four-fifths of habitats are in poor condition and the trends are mostly downwards. Species and habitats are increasingly under threat, from unsustainable farming and forestry, urban sprawl, pollution and climate change.

The EEA concludes that only 15 per cent of habitats are in good shape. More than half of dune, bog, mire and fen habitats, which have the capacity to store a lot of carbon, are in poor condition. Moreover, the situation for about 35 per cent of species and habitats is deteriorating, while less than a tenth of habitats with poor or bad conservation status show improvements. 

Laura Hildt
Patrick ten Brink

There are, though, a few success stories. The Agile Frog in Sweden and the Bearded Vulture across Europe are showing improvements and the Natura 2000 network of protected areas is generally having a positive effect on species and habitats.

Caught as we are in a pincer movement between multiple crises—the Covid-19 pandemic, the associated economic downturn and the climate emergency—many are likely to miss or dismiss the bad tidings contained in the report from the EU agency. This is grim news, many will think, for those who like bugs and birds but nothing for the rest of us to worry about as we go about our daily business.

Yet we are part of the natural world, not apart from it. Our economies depend on natural ecosystems, as do our food and farming, health, wellbeing and medicine. Healthy natural systems also play a vital role in regulating the climate and providing humanity with a cushion against future pandemics. And there is the intangible value of nature—the ‘wow’ moment of seeing an otter in the wild—which future generations are in danger of forfeiting.

If 80 per cent of habitats are in poor condition, that means four-fifths of humanity’s life-support system is itself in need of life support.

While it is tempting to despair, the first step to repairing the damage is to understand what is causing the crisis. The State of Nature report concludes that industrial farming, which destroys biodiversity and pollutes habitats, is the most common pressure on nature across the EU. Urbanisation, forestry activities and pollution of air, water and soil are other major drivers.

This makes the EU’s failure radically to rethink the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)—which is worth €358 billion over seven years and subsidises many of the destructive farming practices erasing biodiversity—a costly and expensive folly neither we nor nature can afford.
Fundamental changes

Although the situation is dire, it is not hopeless. The EU report highlights that ecosystems can be restored and species can come back from the brink of extinction.


We need your help! Please support our cause.

As you may know, Social Europe is an independent publisher. We aren't backed by a large publishing house, big advertising partners or a multi-million euro enterprise. For the longevity of Social Europe we depend on our loyal readers - we depend on you.Become a Social Europe Member


Safeguarding the health and resilience of Europe’s nature however requires fundamental changes to the way we produce and consume food, use forests and manage water. These efforts need to be coupled with better implementation and enforcement of environmental policies and a focus on nature restoration—as well as increasingly ambitious climate action.

In May, the commission published the new EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Farm to Fork Strategy, core elements of the European Green Deal. The Biodiversity Strategy aims to strengthen and enlarge the network of protected areas. It envisages a new law to restore nature and ensure that ecosystems are healthy, resilient to climate change, rich in biodiversity and able to deliver the range of services essential for citizens’ wellbeing.

EU environment ministers, meeting this Friday, need to give full support to the EU’s plan and get on board with its implementation. The first step would be to hammer out the details of key actions, such as strictly to protect 10 per cent of the EU’s land and sea area, including remaining old-growth forests. Given that one of the lessons learnt from the failure to meet the 2020 biodiversity targets at global level was that delays in implementation hinder progress, these processes must be carried out swiftly to make the most of the coming decade, vital to the future of the natural world.
Ambitious restoration

Endorsement of the Biodiversity Strategy and the steps to follow must be supported by environmental legislation being enacted and compliance secured. As with the Climate Law, there is an urgent need for member states to welcome, and co-operate in drafting, an ambitious restoration law as anticipated under the Biodiversity Strategy. This law should set targets to restore at least 15 per cent of the EU’s land and sea areas, as well as to make 15 per cent of rivers free-flowing again, by 2030.

The EU and national governments must find the funding to implement the strategy by harnessing all the financial instruments at their disposal. These currently do not earmark funding for biodiversity—this is worrying and a missed opportunity. For example, at least 10 per cent of the EU budget should be allocated to boosting biodiversity and nature should be placed at the core of Europe’s post-pandemic recovery fund: investing in the resilience of nature is investing in the resilience of society.

Reflecting the fact that intensive farming is the main driver of biodiversity loss and degradation, the Green Deal must be fully integrated into the new CAP, which otherwise will continue to destroy biodiversity, even though more sustainable farming practices exist and are feasible.
Not too late

Again, it is not too late to fix this, if political representatives and leaders will it. Sadly, the EU’s agriculture ministers and the European Parliament missed the opportunity to make the broken CAP compatible with the Green Deal. Member states have the chance this week to repair some of the damage by fully endorsing the Biodiversity Strategy. Moreover, in keeping with the ‘do no harm’ principle, the European Commission must withdraw the current CAP proposal and come up with a better blueprint to put to member states and the European Parliament.

Almost all heads of governments, and the EU as a whole, have already signed the Leaders Pledge for Nature. Biodiversity is now recognised politically as an existential crisis, on a par with climate change. But lofty words are not enough. The Biodiversity Strategy must now be translated into solid commitments and actions. Failure to do so would not only be inconsistent but would threaten the very survival of our societies.

Ultimately, biodiversity is not just about random birds and bugs but the very future of life—including our own.

Laura Hildt is associate policy officer for biodiversity and EU affairs at the European Environmental Bureau. Patrick ten Brink is director of the EU policy unit of the EEB.
Bangkok protests continue apace — is Thailand the next Hong Kong?

By James Massola October 21, 2020 SMH

Thousands of people have been protesting on the streets of Bangkok, Thailand's capital, for months now demanding a new constitution, the dissolution of parliament, reforms to the monarchy and more.

Though the actions have organisers and figureheads, much like the rolling protests in Hong Kong, these are protests driven from the ground up and inspired by ideas.

In tactics reminiscent of the "be water" strategy adopted by Hongkongers, Thai youth are using social media such as Twitter and Facebook and encrypted apps such as Telegram to organise quickly, decide next steps, converge on a site, then melt away.


Pro-democracy activists gather in Central Pinklao, suburbs of Bangkok, Thailand, on Tuesday.
CREDIT:AP

Instead of occupying prominent locations in the capital and making themselves easy targets for security forces, this allows protesters to stay one step ahead of authorities.
Advertisement

"Social media is a critical tool for rapid mobilisation, allowing a rapid shift of plans and location of protests. This fluid style of protests is in stark contrast to the 2010 protests when the Red Shirts occupied a major intersection for months," the Australian National University's Thailand expert Greg Raymond says.

Protests and coups in Thailand are not uncommon. Depending on how you count them, there have been at least 13 coups or coup attempts since the 1930s, including coups in 2006 and 2014, as well as political unrest in the intervening period.


Protesters are hit with water canons as police try to clear an area in Bangkok on Friday, October 16.
CREDIT:AP

Not alone: Pro-democracy activists in Bangkok on Monday.
CREDIT:AP

The country has had something like 20 constitutions put in place (including temporary documents) in the same time frame.

But the demonstrations playing out now are different to the Red Shirt protests that flared up between 2006 and 2014, which supported former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and then his sister, former Yingluck Shinawatra, both of whom were removed from power.

Rather than rallying to a leader, people take to the streets now to rally behind a set of ideas and principles and demanding systemic change.

The singling out of the King and demand that his vast wealth and power be brought to heel is unprecedented in a country with strict lese majeste laws and a deep respect for the monarchy.

Riot police face off against pro-democracy protesters during an anti-government rally in Bangkok, Thailand, last week.
CREDIT:GETTY IMAGES

Raymond says the drivers of discontent include anger that military junta leader Prayut Chan-o-cha remained Prime Minster after a questionable election in 2019; anger at the current constitution which heavily favours the ruling elite; poor economic conditions — exacerbated by COVID-19 which has hit the tourism-dependent economy hard — and the dissolution of the Future Forward party after the 2019 poll, which had attracted huge support from young Thais.

Bloomberg reported that on Monday protest organisers used Facebook to ask supporters if they should hold rallies that evening. Supporters replied with the "Care" emoticon to signal "rest for one day," or the "Wow" emoticon to "keep going!"

The majority of supporters on Facebook chose to continue the protests. A similar poll was also done on Twitter, using the like and retweet buttons for the vote.

Pro-democracy protesters check their phones for a 6pm "big announcement" from protest leaders on October 20 in Bangkok
.CREDIT:GETTY IMAGES

These tactics have kept the police off balance. Rallies have been held each day since Prayut issued an emergency decree to ban large gatherings and left the government scrambling.

Human Rights Watch in Thailand accuses the government of misusing its emergency powers to target Voice TV and three online news sites with shutdown notices for reporting on the protests.

Raymond says there are range of scenarios that could play out in the weeks and months ahead, including Prayut being removed (a move that would likely not go far enough for the protesters), constitutional reform (which would satisfy some but not all of those on the streets), and an eventual violent crackdown to bring protests to an end.

RELATED ARTICLE

ANALYSIS
PROTEST No magic trick as monarchy grievances aired in rare Thai protest 

Reforms to the monarchy appear less likely, at least for now.

"This is not about a particular dynasty [the Shinawatras], this is about principles — and that is significant," he says.

The protests in Thailand are making history

For the first time in decades, people are openly defying the authority of the monarchy.



Claudio Sopranzetti
21 Oct 2020
Thai pro-democracy activists flash the three-fingered salute during a demonstration at Victory Monument in Bangkok on October 21, 2020 [AP/Sakchai Lalit]

For days now, tens of thousands have taken to the streets of Bangkok to demand the resignation of General Prayuth Chan-ocha’s government, a new constitution and the legal, political, and economic reform of the Thai monarchy.

At the beginning of the summer, when this mobilisation started, the protest was mostly a student affair, organised through social media, with a focus on memes and political performances, and a harsh critique of the government’s performance.

The anger of this young generation, which grew up under the stranglehold of a military government, was initially directed against Prayuth. His government came to power through a coup d’état in 2014, won an election of questionable legitimacy in 2019, and failed to respond to an economic crisis that only worsened when the coronavirus pandemic hit.

Largely ignored by the authorities, the movement evolved and its demands began to change in August, when Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, a 21-year-old student, read in front of a crowded square a document destined to make history.

“There was fear lurking inside me, deep fear of the consequences,” Panusaya told BBC News Thai, thinking back to the moments before going on stage. “I knew my life would never be the same again.”

Panusaya read a series of unprecedented demands: to take away the monarch’s legal immunity, to eliminate the lese-majeste law (which punishes any criticism of the monarchy with imprisonment), to cut the monarchy’s funds, to make its investments transparent and taxable, to prohibit members of the royal family from expressing political opinions, to suspend all forms of monarchic propaganda, to investigate the disappearance in recent years of various critics of the monarchy and to make it illegal for the monarch to support a coup d’état.

A public statement of this magnitude questioning the monarchy had not been heard in Thailand since the 1930s, when a group of young bureaucrats, who the young protesters today see as an inspiration, put an end to the absolute monarchy, with the support of large portions of the military forces. Today, instead, the military leadership are perched around the monarchy and see the preservation of its power as indispensable for the maintenance of their own. Based on this transformation and the legal consequences of any criticism of the monarchy, Panusaya’s fear was more than legitimate. Yet, it proved to be unfounded.

The 10 demands, instead of alienating supporters from the movement, galvanised it and broadened its base far beyond the students, attracting blue-collar workers, white-collar workers, people of various generations and social classes, including some former activists in the red shirts, a popular movement that had filled the streets of Bangkok in 2010 but remained largely dormant after the coup in 2014.

As a sign of this expansion, on October 14, tens of thousands of people stood in front of the government building asking for Prayuth’s resignation. The general, determined to let the protesters run out of steam without accepting their demands, responded the next day by declaring a state of emergency prohibiting any gathering of more than five people, arresting the leaders of the protest, including Panusaya, and threatening violent repression.

Today the protests continue, both in Bangkok and around the county, despite the emergency decree, the arrests, and the authorities’ intimidation techniques, which include reminding the protesters that anybody can die at any moment, discouraging them from trifling with Matjurat, the local deity of death, and attacking them with water cannon and tear gas.

Day by day, the protests are becoming more radical and direct in attacks against the monarch, who has now become, together with Prayuth, the main target of the mobilisation. Seen from abroad, this could seem like an obvious, and almost natural, conclusion of the last two decades of political struggle in Thailand in which the Thai monarchy has always taken the military’s side in the struggle between democratic and authoritarian forces. Yet, in the Thai context, this is an epochal change, a sudden and profound transformation that many people find hard to grasp.

During the demonstrations on October 14, seemingly as a provocation, the royal family drove through the protest and, for the first time in Thai history, their yellow Rolls-Royce was surrounded not by a cheering crowd but by hundreds of people shouting, insulting and reminding the royals that their car is paid for with people’s taxes.

The next day, during another protest in violation of the state of emergency imposed by Prayuth, thousands of people shouted insults out loud against the king, words that embarrassed local journalists who were forced to interrupt their live broadcast, record the same segments multiple times, or mute the background audio, in an awkward attempt not to broadcast them, due to the risk of being accused themselves of sedition or inciting unrest.

After a week of daily protests springing up across Bangkok and the rest of the country, what happens next is uncertain. Regardless of what the short-term consequences of these mobilisations will be, those verbal attacks against the monarch, which have become the new normal, represent an epochal shift for the country. It entails the surprising and sudden disintegration of monarchic hegemony, a political ideology that has dominated Thailand since the Cold War.

Now, much like the Berlin wall which once symbolised that cold conflict, the whole edifice of monarchical authority is coming down, reminding us that even a seemingly stable political structure can collapse at any moment.


The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Claudio Sopranzetti
Claudio Sopranzetti is an Assistant Professor in Anthropology at the Central European University.
Thailand shuts down online TV channel, as protests continue

Voice TV has broadcast anti-government protests live on social media and was one of four outlets under investigation

Pro-democracy protesters give the three-finger salute outside a station in Bangkok as rallies continued [Lillian Suwanrumpha/ AFP]

21 Oct 2020

Thai protesters raised three-finger salutes to the national anthem at public places across Bangkok on Tuesday as anti-government rallies continued and the government ordered an online TV channel to close over its coverage of the demonstrations.

The authorities imposed emergency measures banning gatherings of more than four people last Thursday amid growing protests against the government and monarchy.

But protests have only grown despite a crackdown in which dozens have been detained.

Two protest leaders – Parit “Penguin” Chiwarak and Panusaya “Rung” Sithijirawattanakul – were arrested on Tuesday on new charges as soon as a court freed them bail in relation to a previous set of charges.

“This is not a leaderless protest, but everybody is a leader,” Tattep “Ford” Ruangprapaikitseree told reporters at the Siam Paragon mall, where dozens of people gave the salute borrowed from The Hunger Games.

“It’s not anarchy. Everybody has judgement and will do what is reasonable,” said Ford, who has already been arrested twice since the protests began.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha’s cabinet agreed to an emergency session of parliament next week because of the crisis, but he has said he will not quit – as the protesters have demanded. Prayuth’s supporters have a majority in parliament.

Protesters also want changes to the constitution and a reduction in the powers of the monarchy under King Maha Vajiralongkorn.

The emergency measures only appear to have stoked public anger, but Tuesday turned out to be the quietest day on the streets since the decree was imposed with only a few hundred gathering.


Thai Lawyers for Human Rights said they would be filing a suit with six students and other human rights groups on Wednesday to revoke the declaration and seek an injunction to prevent government crackdowns.

Voice TV silenced

Earlier, a court ordered the suspension of Voice TV, an online broadcaster critical of the government.

Voice TV had been found to have breached the Computer Crime Act by uploading “false information,” digital ministry spokesman Putchapong Nodthaisong said.

Editor-in-Chief of Voice TV Rittikorn Mahakhachabhorn said it would continue broadcasting until the court order arrived.

“We insist that we have been operating based on journalistic principles and we will continue our work presently,” he said.

Voice TV was one of four media organisations under investigation for their coverage of the continuing protest movement. Many have been reporting the protests live on Facebook and other social media platforms.

The channel is part-owned by the Shinawatra family of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck, who was overthrown by Prayuth in a 2014 coup. Both fled Thailand to escape corruption cases they branded political.

The demonstrations have been largely led by students and young people in contrast with 10 years of street violence between supporters of Thaksin and conservative royalists before Prayuth seized power.

The prime minister on Tuesday accused media outlets of spreading false news.

“Media freedom is important but in some cases there are some media outlets disseminating distorted information that is inciting unrest,” he said after a court order following a complaint from the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.

The court ruling comes a day after the same ministry said it had flagged more than 325,000 messages on social media platforms that violated the Computer Crimes Act, which critics say is used to muzzle dissent.

Amnesty International accused the authorities of “scare tactics” by ordering the closure of Voice TV.

“The harassment of media outlets is just one facet of the Thai authorities current assault on communications channels, alongside threats to block the messaging platform Telegram and use of the Computer Crimes Act, among other laws, against people for what they post and share online,” Amnesty’s Deputy Regional Director for Campaigns Ming Yu Hah said in a statement.

Human Rights Watch said the closure of Voice TV was a misuse of the emergency decree and noted that the channel had been a target of censorship more than any other TV station in the country.

“The crackdown is part of a bigger effort to bully and control the media into becoming a government mouthpiece,” the group’s Asia Director, Brad Adams, said in a statement.

The Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand expressed deep concern that the Royal Thai Police was investigating Voice TV, along with online media outlets Prachatai, The Reporters and The Standard.

“A free media is an essential element in any democratic society and bona fide journalists should be allowed to report important developments without the threats of bans, suspensions, censorships or prosecution hanging over them,” the club said.

The court has yet to announce its decision on the other three media organisations.

VIDEO

SOURCE : AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES
Thai PM backs down on protest ban, protesters say he must go


By Patpicha Tanakasempipat, Panarat Thepgumpanat

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thai Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha backed down on Wednesday over emergency measures he imposed last week to stop three months of protests, but demonstrators said it was not enough and demanded he resign within three days.


Pro-democracy protesters march towards the Government House during an anti-government protest as they march in Bangkok, Thailand October 21, 2020. REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha

Tens of thousands of people marched to his offices at Government House. The protesters have been demonstrating for months against Prayuth and to demand curbs to King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s powers.

In a televised address, Prayuth said he was ready to lift measures banning political gatherings of five or more people and publication of information deemed to threaten security.

“I will make the first move to de-escalate this situation. I am currently preparing to lift the state of severe emergency in Bangkok and will do so promptly if there are no violent incidents,” Prayuth said.

“We must now step back from the edge of the slippery slope that can easily slide to chaos,” he added, saying talks should go to parliament - where his supporters have a majority.

At his office, demonstrators handed over a mock resignation letter. They claimed success after an official took it inside.

“But our fight isn’t over as long as he doesn’t resign. If within three days he doesn’t resign, he will face the people again,” protest leader Patsaravalee “Mind” Tanakitvibulpon told the crowd.

The protests have become the biggest challenge to Thailand’s establishment in years and have drawn the most open opposition to the monarchy in decades despite lese majeste laws setting jail terms of up to 15 years for insulting royalty.

WATER CANNON

Most demonstrations have been peaceful so far, but police used water cannon against protesters last Friday, further fuelling the anger of government critics.

In his speech, Prayuth said “terrible crimes had been committed against the police using metal rods and huge cutting implements” on that day, although witnesses reported no such thing the time. But he also said Thailand would not “get to a better society through the use of water cannon”.

Riot police only briefly held up Wednesday’s march at one point before letting the crowds through.

Protesters say Prayuth rigged an election last year to keep hold of power he seized in a 2014 coup. He says the election was fair. Protesters accuse the monarchy of enabling years of military domination.

The palace has a policy of making no comment to media.

Prayuth said protesters should wait for next week’s emergency session of parliament, whose entire upper house was appointed by his former junta.

“The protesters have made their voices and views heard,” Prayuth said. “It is now time for them to let their views be reconciled with the views of other segments of Thai society.”

Scores of Thai royalists and anti-government protesters earlier confronted each other at Ramkhamhaeng University.

The yellow-shirted royalists advanced on student protesters and the two sides shouted abuse at each other. Some threw water bottles and other objects before the students pulled back and police stepped in to separate the sides.

“I beg you, do what you will, but do not touch the monarchy,” one of the royalists, Sirimongkol Ruampan, 24, told Reuters. “I don’t believe in violence. I beg again, don’t bring the monarchy into politics.”


Additional reporting by Patpicha Tanakasempipat; Writing by Matthew Tostevin; Editing by Clarence Fernandez, Angus MacSwan, Andrew Cawthorne and Peter Graff