Wednesday, April 06, 2022

At key Geneva meet, US and allies to be pushed on urban warfare restrictions

PUBLISHED April 5, 2022
WRITTEN BY Sanjana Varghese
Web link



Crucial UN-brokered talks begin on restricting heavy explosive weapon use in populated areas


State delegates from around the world will meet this week in Geneva for UN-backed crunch talks, working towards a political declaration on restricting the use of wide area effect explosive weapons in urban conflict. If successful, the move could help save thousands of civilian lives.

Representatives from more than 60 countries will meet from April 6th-8th in the Swiss city of Geneva to try and hammer out the wording of a protocol, or political declaration, on restricting the use of wide area effect explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA).

As wars have increasingly moved from open battlefields to urban environments, weapons designed for the former are being deployed in heavily populated areas – sharply increasing the risks of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

UN and civil society reports have repeatedly found that civilians and civilian infrastructure are at most risk when heavy explosive weapons are used in populated areas. This has been clearly demonstrated in recent weeks in Ukraine as Russian forces have pounded civilian neighbourhoods with devastating results, but has also been documented in other recent conflicts across the globe.

Research by Action On Armed Violence indicates for example that around 90 percent of those killed and injured by explosive weapons in populated areas are civilians.

“Ukraine puts a spotlight on the devastating consequences civilians face when towns and cities are bombed. But this is a pattern of harm that we see elsewhere too: Ethiopia, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria are all recent examples,” said Laura Boillot, coordinator for the International Network on Explosive Weapons, which is leading civil society efforts to restrict EWIPA use.

To highlight the EWIPA talks, the campaigning group Humanity & Inclusion has installed a tank made of balloons outside the United Nations in Geneva
(Credit: Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen/Airwars)

“This week, states have an opportunity to reduce civilian harm and agree a new international declaration that commits states to avoid the use in populated areas of explosive weapons with wide area effects.”

In 2019, Ireland convened the first EWIPA negotiations, inviting delegates from every country to join and shape a resolution to change how explosive weapons are used in populated areas.

In the years since, delegates have continued to gather to discuss the text of the declaration – which will be finalised and ratified by states this summer.

While not a United Nations process, the EWIPA proceedings are backed heavily by the UN; and Secretary General Antonio Guterres has repeatedly called for countries to adopt a strong protocol.


US, UK, France in focus


During three days of talks in Geneva, representatives from attending countries will pore over the draft resolution and try to agree on key sections of text.

Much of the focus will likely be on winning the support of those states which have previously attempted to water down the declaration’s language, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France. While some states argue that abiding by international humanitarian law (IHL) is enough, others like Britain also claim that limiting explosive weapon use in cities “would reduce the UK’s ability to operate legitimately and responsibly.”

Critics say that adherence to IHL alone is not sufficient to protect civilians during attacks on cities – a point recently supported by a major Pentagon-published study into the ferocious 2017 Battle of Raqqa, which noted that the US-led Coalition caused “significant civilian harm despite a deeply ingrained commitment to the law of war.”

Efforts by the US, UK and others to water down the political declaration would make it effectively useless critics warn – and crucially, would not lead to changes in the way that states actually approach the use of explosive weapons in cities.


Detailed negotiations


The draft resolution being discussed at Geneva consists of two parts – a preamble, which lays out the framework and overall considerations; and the operative section, which effectively compels states to act. For example, the value of tracking civilian casualties in real-time are currently mentioned in the preamble, but aren’t in the operative section – though some states are pushing for it to be moved there.

Broadly speaking, those attending the political declaration talks can be split into two camps: those states that argue the resolution should use weaker language; and those nations – backed by the UN – arguing that the declaration should be as strong as possible.

Other key states, including Russia and China, are not expected to attend this round of talks.

Among the strongest advocates for an effective political declaration is Ireland, which has led the process. UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres has also called for “strong” wording. “The Secretary-General supports the development of a political declaration, as well as appropriate limitations, common standards and operational policies in conformity with, and further to existing requirements under, international humanitarian law relating to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas,” he said in a recent statement.

Some countries, such as Belgium, have already passed their own parliamentary resolutions indicating that they will be signing the declaration, although it is still unclear how this would be implemented in practice.

While these negotiations were originally planned to be the final in a series of discussions, there may still be a further round ahead of final ratification in the summer. In the meantime, supporters of controls on explosive weapon use in cities believe that Russia’s extensive use of indiscriminate large weapons on Ukrainian cities – and the horrific civilian toll associated with such attacks – may help sway wavering countries.



FACT FILE

What is carbon capture and storage?

The technology could help ‘neutralise’ emissions from power plants, according to UN report on climate change

THE WEEK STAFF
5 APR 2022

A carbon capture facility in Longanet, Scotland
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Carbon dioxide should be removed from the air and stored underground as part of a raft of urgently needed measures to tackle global warming, a landmark report by UN scientists has advised.

The latest review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that technologies including carbon capture and storage (CCS) were “likely to be necessary” to ensure that any “temperature overshoot” beyond the maximum 1.5C above pre-industrial levels required to limit climate change was “temporary”, The Guardian’s environment correspondent Fiona Harvey reported.

However, the UN body “was also clear that they cannot substitute for ending our dependence on fossil fuels now”, she added.
Capturing carbon

Countries worldwide are “planning far too many new coal-fired power plants, gas installations and other fossil fuel infrastructure to stay within the carbon budgets needed to meet the 1.5C goal”, said The Guardian’s Harvey.

But the UN’s climate change panel said that while the only long-term solution was to phase out coal use, CCS could help to “neutralise emissions from new power plants”.

CCS is the process in which harmful carbon is caught from “concentrated industrial emissions at their source, preventing them from entering the atmosphere at all”, explained The Independent’s environment correspondent Harry Cockburn. The gas is then “liquified” and pumped underground for long-term storage at sites such as depleted oil or gas fields.

CSS has been “discussed for two decades”, said The Guardian’s Harvey, but is “currently only used at a small scale”.

Another similar technology is also being developed. Known as greenhouse gas removal (GGR) or carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the process “involves removing carbon from the atmosphere by chemical means”, wrote Harvey.

According to The Independent’s Cockburn, “there is a consensus that investing and utilising these technologies needs to be rapidly scaled up to have the impact required to keep the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement in sight”.

But critics have suggested “that industries and processes which already emit greenhouse gases could, or already are, using the burgeoning technology as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card”, he added. Sceptics reportedly fear that businesses and political leaders may “​​pin their future carbon reduction targets on installing or investing in GGR or CCS technology”.
Fix for the future?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported last November that the strengthening of climate goals and new investment incentives was “delivering unprecedented momentum for CCS, with plans for more than 100 new facilities announced in 2021”.

These new technologies “will play an important role in meeting net zero targets, including as one of few solutions to tackle emissions from heavy industry and to remove carbon from the atmosphere”, the Paris-based intergovernmental organisation said.

CSS has also been backed by Robert Gross, professor of energy policy at Imperial College London and director of the UK Energy Research Centre. “We will need not just net zero but to start to remove CO2 from the air,” he told The Guardian.

“We cannot do one instead of the other, but we have reached the point where it is likely that humanity will need to do both to avoid dangerous climate change.”
False dawn

While interest in CCS is growing, some critics have claimed that “most schemes to capture and reuse carbon actually increase emissions”, New Scientist reported.

Research has found that carbon capture technologies typically “emit more carbon than they remove”, said the magazine, which suggested that such “projects, which have attracted billions of dollars in investment, won’t do much to achieve the Paris Agreement’s emission targets”.

Current efforts to roll out CCS are also “dwarfed by the size of the challenge” of combating emissions, said Sky News’ economics and data editor Ed Conway. The UK “is littered with pilot projects that fell by the wayside”, reported Conway, who questioned whether the technology can “fulfil its promise”.

The Independent’s Cockburn pointed out that even the world’s largest “direct air-capture” machine, at Iceland’s Orca plant, “is capable of sucking up just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 a year – a tiny fraction of global emissions, which totalled 31.5 billion tonnes in 2020”.

All the same, many governments “plan to rely heavily on still-developing carbon capture technologies, or tree-planting over massive areas of land, in order to offset emissions”, Time reported.

But the IPCC has repeatedly warned that “​​they should not be considered a substitute for cutting fossil fuel use”, the magazine added.


THE REALITY IS THAT CCS IS NOT GREEN NOR CLEAN IT IS GOING TO BE USED TO FRACK OLD DRY WELLS SUCH AS IN THE BAKAN SHIELD IN SASKATCHEWAN
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-myth-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.html

ALSO SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CCS

Ukrainian-Americans hold protest outside Tucker Carlson event over his pro-Putin comments

‘He needs to show the world he has empathy’

Gino Spocchia

Tucker Carlson calls support for Ukraine ‘largest political flashmob in American history’

Demonstrators assembled outside a venue in California at the weekend in protest against Tucker Carlson and his views on Russia.

The group took a stand outside the Awaken Church in San Marcos, near San Diego, where Carlson was holding a live event on Sunday evening.


Demonstrators held Ukrainian and American flags as well as placards with statements attacking Carlson for his comments on Russia and Ukraine in recent months. Children and adults were at the protest.

The conservative talk show host has long been accused of sympathising with Russian president Vladimir Putin and his war against Ukraine, after alleging that Ukraine is “not even a democracy”.

“Why would we take Ukraine’s side and not Russia’s side? It’s a sincere question,” Carlson asked in November amid the Russian build-up of troops on the border with Ukraine. “Why would we take Ukraine’s side? Why wouldn’t we be on Russia’s side? I’m totally confused.”

Recommended
Russia state TV calls Gabbard ‘our friend Tulsi’ as Tucker Carlson interview aired

Carlson, who said in 2019 that he was “rooting” for Russia, has also attacked Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky and described support for the country as “the largest political flash mob in American history” after war began on 24 February.

“He needs to change, he needs to show to the public and to the world and to himself that he is for life, for humans, for people, and [that] he has empathy and decency to take a right side,” one protester told reporters outside the Awaken Church.

“Your heartless message to [the] American people, who are the cradle of democracy, home of the brave, land of the free, is completely unacceptable, is completely unacceptable to anyone,” another argued.

Children’s shoes and baby strollers were displayed outside the San Marcos venue to represent the more than 150 children confirmed killed in the war by Russia, although analysts suggest that toll could be higher.

One sign read “Stop defending Putin’s lies”, while another said: “Zelensky is not a dictator”.

“A lot of the victims of this war are actually children,” another protester said, arguing: “Just last week we had more than 300 children that perished in this war and lost their lives, but this week is much more, we cannot even quantify.”

Of the four million or more Ukrainians who have fled their homes since war began on 24 February, more than half are children. Many have made their way to Poland.


A protester with a Ukrainian flag and shoes repressing those confirmed killed by Russia

(CBS 8 San Diego)

“I’ve been watching Tucker quite a while now and I just feel his viewpoints are, you know, spot on”, said a woman attending the Awaken Church event in defence of the Fox News host.

Carlson has been forced to roll back some criticism of Ukraine and last month described Mr Putin as somebody who “seems to be evil”.

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has meanwhile praised Fox News for its coverage of the conflict and said: “If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative points of view”.

The Independent has approached Fox News for comment.
ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Piracy, sea robberies in the Singapore Strait on the rise: Anti-piracy group


The Singapore Strait recorded 17 cases of sea robberies between January and March this year. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG

Osmond Chia
PUBLISHED
3 HOURS AGO

SINGAPORE - Cases of piracy and sea robberies among trading ships and oil tankers have been on the rise in major shipping lanes near Singapore, which have been flagged as areas of concern by sea crime watch group Recaap.

The Singapore Strait, which is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, recorded 17 cases of sea robberies between January and March this year - more than double that of the same period in 2021.

The increase was likely due to the economic impact of Covid-19, which may have led people to resort to crime on the high seas, said Recaap Information Sharing Centre (ISC) assistant director of research Lee Yin Mui on Tuesday (April 5).

Piracy and armed robbery cases in the Singapore Strait hit a six-year high in 2021 when 49 incidents were reported.

Ms Lee was speaking at the Piracy and Sea Robbery Conference conducted by Recaap, which is the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia.

These incidents were relatively low between 2016 and 2019, but reports of sea robberies and piracy started to climb in 2020.

According to the official definition, piracy refers to attacks in international waters, while armed robbery refers to attacks within a state's territorial waters.

She said to some 150 audience members who attended online: "The pandemic has also made enforcement more challenging, which is why there must be greater cooperation during this time."

Ms Lee said perpetrators were armed with knives in six of the cases in the Singapore Strait. She added that no crew were harmed in any of the incidents, which involved mainly tankers and carriers.

Items stolen included engine parts and welding equipment, though some left empty-handed.

There were no serious incidents, such as cases that involved guns or resulted in serious injuries, among the 17 incidents reported, Ms Lee added.

She urged nearby states to increase patrols and share surveillance findings with their neighbours as part of a collective effort to fight sea crimes.

The Malacca Strait was also flagged as an area of concern by the secretary-general of the International Maritime Organisation, Mr Kitack Lim, in his keynote address, with 69 cases of piracy and robbery reported last year, compared with 48 in 2020.

In his presentation on safety measures against piracy and sea robberies, general manager of the tanker management team of HMM Ocean Service Joo Sung-kuk urged shipping companies to have a security plan before their ships enter areas prone to sea crimes.

He advised shipping companies to monitor piracy-related websites and to report incidents and findings to Recaap and other databases promptly.

Ship masters should also brief the crew and conduct drills to prepare for emergencies, he said.

Vessels should be designed with multiple layers of defence, including hardened doors, gates and comprehensive surveillance camera coverage and communications, said Mr Joo.

He recommended that Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia strengthen cooperation over maritime security to tackle the problem.

Recaap ISC executive director Krishnaswamy Natarajan said the fight against sea crimes against ships is a shared responsibility and that cooperation among countries surrounding the Singapore Strait is key to reducing piracy and sea robbery.

When asked about the possibility that sea robberies were being over-reported, Ms Lee said Recaap does its part to verify with sources such as the ship master.

Although many cases were considered "petty thefts", the situation could get worse if it is not dealt with, she added.

Said Ms Lee: "If it is unreported, perpetrators could become bolder over time. Even if nothing is stolen, it is one incident too many."

CIA & CHINA=UNITA VS CUBA & MPLA
20 years after Angola peace treaty, Unita not happy with state of country
NEVER WERE 

Lenin Ndebele

Joao Lourenco (File: AFP)

Former rebel force turned political party, Unita, accused the MPLA government of being corrupt.

Unita is challenging government to ratify peace agreements, especially the social inclusion of ex-rebels.

Angola is set for general elections in August 2022, and is expected to test João Lourenço's presidency.

On 4 April, the Day of Peace and National Reconciliation, Angola celebrated two decades of peace.


However, some former National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (Unita) rebels, who fought under the late Jonas Savimbi, complained that the socio-political and economic status of the country had declined.

In a statement, Unita's Standing Committee of the Political Commission said it was concerned about "the vertiginous rise in the prices of basic food products, endemic corruption and the systemic and degradation of moral and civic value and the abuse and violation of human rights".

Unita also added that "after 20 years, the balance is mitigated as Angolans are experiencing a serious economic, financial and social crisis".

Angola, like most African countries, is resource rich. Its economy hinges on diamonds, natural gas and oil.

READ | Angola opposition protests 'unfair' poll law reforms

However, opposition parties as well as political analysts said corruption in these sectors had risen under President João Lourenço.

Rajen Harshe, from the Observer Research Foundation, said the poverty gap had widened in Angola.

He said:
Unsurprisingly, the gap between the rich and the poor, amongst [the] 33 million Angolan population, has been growing and an overwhelming majority of the people in Angola live with an average income of less than $2 per day.

On 1 March, Unita leader Adalberto Costa Júnior met with Lourenço to encourage him to "persist in this path that is absolutely salutary and exemplary for the citizens and institutions of the country".

With Angola set for the polls in August, the rebel veterans said the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) government had been in power since independence from Portugal in 1975, and was failing to uphold all peace treaties agreed upon at the ceasefire after 20 years of civil war.

Costa took with him the grievances of Unita's civil war veterans who said peace was their leader Jonas Savimbi's wish.

Unita said in a statement:
To this end, Dr Savimbi took several diplomatic initiatives and spared no physical and other sacrifices, to the point of donating his own life.

As Angola marked 20 years of peace, Unita said it would press ahead with seeing all peace treaties ratified mainly for the social inclusion of ex-combatants and the return of their material heritage.

Savimbi, Unita's founder and revolutionary politician cum rebel military leader, died in battle on 22 February 2002 against government forces. He was 67.

His storied life became an enigma, having been reported dead at least 15 times and having survived numerous assassinations. His eventual death signalled a new chapter in the history of Angola as a peace agreement between Unita and MPLA was signed eight weeks after.

Kurdish infighting could undermine a sovereign Iraqi government

Associated Press/Anmar Khalil
Populist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, speaks during a press conference in Najaf, Iraq, Nov. 18, 2021.

For Washington and other supporters of a sovereign and prosperous Iraq, the October 2021 Iraqi parliamentary elections were a success. Contrary to expectations, Iranian-backed Shiite Islamist parties and their militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or Hashd, were defeated at the ballot box. The Hashd lost not to Western-oriented candidates but to another credible local Shiite party whose leader’s hashtag, #NeitherEastnorWest, was an unambiguous call for an Iraq dominated by neither Tehran nor Washington. The election results mitigated toward the establishment of a new, majoritarian government — the first since the 2003 U.S. invasion — capable of pursuing better governance and an independent Iraq.

It’s cruel irony that this potential outcome, a longstanding U.S. aspiration for Iraq, appears to have been undermined in part by Washington’s best friends in Iraq: the Kurds.

The big winner in the electoral contest was Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric whose Sairoun political party won a plurality of the seats in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, Sadr’s “Mahdi army” emerged as a leading adversary of the U.S., and the firebrand was nearly targeted by U.S. forces. More recently, however, Sadr, an unabashed populist who tapped into the electorate’s resentment of Iranian overreach in Iraq, has developed into a somewhat more responsible politician. 

Sadr is no panacea, but he has advocated — at least rhetorically — for fighting endemic corruption in the state, criticized Iranian missile attacks on Iraq, and called for an end of “the military actions of the [Hashd] resistance” against the U.S. presence in Iraq. Along these lines, unlike other Iraqi politicians, Sadr doesn’t treat Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Ismail Qaani, a frequent visitor to Iraq, with obeisance. While he remains a vocal critic of Washington, Sadr appeared in the aftermath of his election to want to chart a different course.

Sadr moved to establish a majoritarian government composed of a coalition of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Theoretically, this so-called tripartite alliance — which excluded the Iranian-backed militias and promised to return pro-West premier Mustafa al Kadhimi to office — would have been able to make the kind of difficult decisions on corruption and reform required to change Iraq for the better.

Not surprisingly, Iran’s allies in Iraq considered Sadr’s initiative as a threat and acted quickly to undermine the effort and resume a consensus-based, gridlocked government in Baghdad. The Hashd has engaged in a campaign of violence to intimidate members of the alliance. Iran’s allies also weaponized an increasingly Iranian-aligned judiciary to mire the alliance in court proceedings, further delaying government formation.

While these tactics were effective, the biggest impediment by far to formatting a majoritarian Iraqi government has been the Kurds. The Kurdish Regional Government KRG autonomous region long has been beset by divisions between the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) Barzanis based in the capital Erbil and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) Talibanis in Sulaymaniyah. These clans, which fought a civil war in the 1990s, remain determined political and economic rivals.  

Had the Kurds voted en bloc with Sadr, the alliance would have attained a quorum in the Council of Representatives sufficient to elect the Kurdish president, who in turn would designate a prime minister to form a majoritarian government. At least initially, it appeared that Sadr and the Sunni contingent supported the reelection of President Barham Salih and Prime Minister al Kadhimi — a slate backed by Washington. Instead of throwing their support behind the alliance, however, the Kurds squabbled over PUK affiliated Salih, and after his nomination was scuttled, fought about his proposed replacement, KRG Minister of Interior and KDP stalwart Rebar Ahmed. A Kurdish boycott of the March 29 parliamentary session — the third to date — prevented a quorum.

Should Kurdish intransigence persist and a president is not selected by April 6, Iraq may move to new elections. This time, however, having learned from their mistakes campaigning under a novel electoral system, the Hashd likely will perform better. Sadr appears to understand the enormity of the moment. On March 30 he tweeted, “Consensus [government] means the end of the country.” However, rather than putting aside parochial internecine differences and becoming part of a majority government in Baghdad that could better serve KRG interests, Kurdish leaders apparently remain unapologetically obstinate.                

Absent a last-minute Kurdish about-face, Iraq’s best opportunity to date to push back on Iranian meddling and exert sovereignty likely will be lost. Washington’s ambassador to Iraq, Matthew Tueller, no doubt conveyed the urgency to his Kurdish interlocutors when he delivered a letter from President Biden to KDP President Masoud Barzani reportedly encouraging greater Kurdish unity vis-à-vis government formation. It may be too little, too late.

For years, the Kurds have been a reliable partner for Washington and the U.S. has been a consistent supporter of the KRG, paying $240 million per year in salaries to the federal region’s Peshmerga forces and pressing the region’s interests with Baghdad. The KRG correctly complains that its close relationship with Washington makes it a target of Iran, but the ties clearly have helped to make the region Iraq’s most prosperous. It’s now time for the Kurds to do their part to ensure that Iraq succeeds. It would be a shame if they helped to perpetuate Iran’s domination of Iraq.   

David Schenker is a senior fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute and a former assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs during the Trump administration.

VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION
‘Often a Russian mother has a TV for a brain’: Ukraine YouTuber films PoWs calling home

Volodymyr Zolkin says interviews cut though Putins lies and denies they violate Geneva conventions
Volodymyr Zolkin interviewing a captured Russian on his YouTube channel – ‘80% are actually children’. Photograph: YouTube


Daniel Boffey in Kyiv
Tue 5 Apr 2022 

For some he is exposing Russians to the truth of Vladimir Putin’s war, while to others he is traipsing over the Geneva conventions by parading prisoners of war on the internet.

Volodymyr Zolkin, 40, an amateur video blogger before the war, has become a YouTube hit in Ukraine and elsewhere for his 50-plus interviews with captured soldiers and pilots, which he says are an attempt to cut through the censorship to inform Russian families about the fate of relatives.

“You [only] have to believe the facts,” Zolkin told the Guardian in an interview via Skype from an undisclosed location. “Russia does not give or show anything. We immediately created an honest YouTube channel. We show everything here – photos, videos, all data. We show real people calling their parents. You don’t need to trust anyone, believe the facts.”

There is little doubt about the reach of the videos. The most popular ones have been viewed more than a million times, and the average is 400,000-500,000 views.

An hour-long conversation with a Russian pilot, major Alexander Krasnoyartsev, who was involved in the bombing of civilians in the besieged city of Chernihiv has even been given English subtitles.

Lawyers have suggested, however, that making and sharing such recordings is likely to be in violation of the third Geneva convention, designed to protect prisoners from humiliation and risks to their safety.


“These people are crying and thanking us for what we are doing,” Zolkin said in response. “Sometimes I am asked if we are violating the Geneva conventions. It says – you can not mock the prisoners. Please tell me where the Geneva convention says that you can not do a humanitarian and peacekeeping mission.”

It all started, he said, with frustration at the lack of information reaching people in the Russian federation. With the help of a friend, Victor Andrusiv, an adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs, he started calling the relatives and friends of Russian soldiers who had sought information through a Ukrainian government Telegram channel set up to tell them of the fate of their loved ones.
Volodymyr Zolkin’s interviews get on average 400,000-500,000 views – but lawyers have expressed concerns. Photograph: YouTube

Zolkin called the relatives live on camera and challenged them about the Russian government’s behaviour.

“But the Russian special services (FSB) began to send fake phone numbers and fake data of soldiers and spam,” Zolkin claimed. “I would call the mothers but after three days I started listening to standard answers – we are not interested in politics, we know nothing and everything. I realised that mothers were being pressured by Russian special services.”

He added: “I said [to the government], give me the opportunity to communicate with the prisoners and let them call their mothers.”

His first such interview was on 18 March with 20-year-old soldier, Pavel Kravchenko, who said he had gone to war without any understanding of Putin’s reasons.

“We were in a convoy,” he told Zolkin. “When we crossed the border, we asked the commander: ‘What is it for?’ He said: ‘Don’t ask unnecessary questions’. We were surrounded, we didn’t even fight back, we surrendered immediately. The convoy got destroyed immediately. I didn’t want to die. I wanted to live.”

Zolkin now interviews around 10 Russian prisoners of war a day in locations across the country, only some of which have been broadcast.

The pale, evidently nervous, prisoners are asked to confirm that they have agreed to the interview and its broadcast, before being asked to give an account of their military background and the events that led to their capture, along with their thoughts on the war. YouTube has blocked interviews where evidence is lacking that the interviews are voluntary.

The prisoners are then asked to call their family and friends at home. The reasoning is that the mothers of captured soldiers would truly listen to what their sons were saying about the truth about the war, Zolkin said.

The majority, he says, are like the first interview he did with Kravchenko. “To be honest, I didn’t know how to prepare for these interviews,” he said. “I came and saw a child in front of me. Among all the people I talked to, 80% are actually children. Some of them left unarmed. Some of them have never shot or been shot at in their lives. No combat training.”

He added: “Often a Russian mother does not ask her son about his health, but immediately tells us the propaganda she was told on Russian television. They have a TV instead of a brain.”

Zolkin is not aggressive with the prisoners, although he says that he personally believes that Krasnoyartsev, who shot dead a farmer who had tried to take him captive after he was shot down over Chernihiv, is a “mass murderer”.

But he added: “I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I saw that these Russians were in fact children. But on the other hand, I saw Ukrainian civilian children who did not attack anyone. And they are killed. [The Russians] destroy whole houses. You have to understand.”

 SOUTH AFRICA

Anti-migrant sentiment is a national emergency


article comment count is:

26 March 2022: Members and supporters of a coalition of organisations under the banner of Kopanang Africa march against xenophobia in Johannesburg. (Photograph by Gopolang Ledwaba)

Hounding people born elsewhere is a form of bigotry, no less than racism or sexism. Those who believe in equal treatment for everyone should campaign against this prejudice.

A new national disgrace has begun – and no one seems eager to stop it.

Its source is a problem that is not new but which has worsened of late – blaming migrants for this country’s problems. For decades, politicians have found mileage in portraying migrants as a problem. They have found willing allies in sections of the media and other voices in the public debate who are happy to decry the presence in our midst of people whose sin is that they were born elsewhere. In a country wracked by poverty and inequality, politicians have created a climate in which people are encouraged to blame migrants for their frustrations and, if violence erupts, are denounced as uncivilised by precisely the opinion formers who created the problem.

RELATED ARTICLE:

The issue has now worsened as political parties and citizens’ organisations proclaim their intention to seek out migrants and to make them pay a price – they never threaten violence but they do create a climate in which migrants are likely to be targeted. Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema threatens to root out migrants who are working without the required documents. And the country now has a movement, Operation Dudula, whose sole goal is to “tidy up the road of South Africa” from “illegal immigrants” who it portrays not as people but as a polluting substance. Inevitably, violence has broken out in Alexandra township and in the Western Cape as a result of the war against migrants.

Political parties weigh in

Politicians and political parties have, as ever, made the problem worse while decrying it. Government politicians have reacted as they always do when migrants are attacked – they have condemned Dudula but continue to talk and act as if migrants threaten South Africans. Lest anyone suspect the government of being soft on migrants, it has tabled a law that will impose a ceiling on the number of migrants who can work in specified economic sectors.

Deputy president David Mabuza blames anti-migrant sentiment on the fact that “our immigration system is grappling with the implementation of stringent measures to deal with the influx of undocumented foreign nationals into our country, who ultimately compete with our citizens for limited resources to survive”. For him, the problem is not that migrants are targeted, it is that this task should be left to the government. Home Affairs minister Aaron Motsoaledi sees keeping migrants out as his core function. When pressed, he claims he is merely applying laws that restrict migrants – and so assumes that no one notices that his ministry drafts and ensures the passage of these laws.

RELATED ARTICLE:

The Democratic Alliance has condemned the targeting of migrants – a shift from its 2019 election manifesto that stressed the need for tighter borders and more control on migrants. But its “solution” is a points-based system ranking migrants on “skills and education”. This sounds reasonable but is precisely the “remedy” proposed by British anti-immigration campaigner Nigel Farage. Points-based systems are usually used to favour people with resources and formal qualifications and to keep out hard-working, enterprising people who are impoverished and did not make it through school.

Herman Mashaba, leader of ActionSA, has been hounding migrants ever since his days as Johannesburg mayor when he claimed that FNB Stadium was in danger of collapsing because of the illegal mining activities of migrants (no one in the other parties or the media asked him to justify this claim). So, the ANC and opposition parties denounce attacks on migrants while portraying them as a threat, contributing to what they condemn.

People’s right to fairness

Among social justice campaigners, a march in support of migrants was organised by Kopanang Africa, a coalition of organisations that insist migrants are being blamed for the country’s problems. But that hardly amounts to a concerted campaign to protect people born elsewhere from discrimination and threats of violence. The lack of a campaign suggests that the social justice movements that influence the debate do not see threats to migrants as a priority – they will oppose them but not with the same urgency with which they pursue other issues.

But the threats against migrants are a national emergency. South African society, despite nearly three decades of democracy, remains divided between insiders and outsiders – and the most “outside” of the outsiders are migrants. The organisations migrants form have very little influence and there is no strong mainstream campaign committed to protecting their lives and livelihoods. Migrants are virtually friendless and unheard, at the mercy of any political entrepreneur who decides that, because they are the ultimate outsiders, they can be targeted almost at will.

There is a mountain of evidence that migrants are not a threat to South Africans – they are an asset. There is no evidence to support the usual claims that migrants take houses or jobs that belong to South Africans or that they are any more responsible for crime than locals. One example of inventing a threat to locals is the Western Cape anti-migrant violence, which was prompted by claims that residents of a shack settlement were renting out parts of their shacks to migrants: it is not clear how this disadvantages South Africans.

RELATED ARTICLE:

Perhaps the claim most often heard about migrants – that they take jobs from South Africans – is particularly absurd. Yes, some employers hire migrants rather than locals because they can underpay them. But why can they exploit them? Because the law makes them rightless and subject to deportation if they are caught without documentation. Remove this “protection” for locals and migrants would no longer have their claimed advantage.

So, demanding immigration control and hounding people who happen to be born elsewhere is not a measure to protect the interests of South Africans – it is a form of bigotry. There is no difference between discriminating against someone because of their race or gender and doing this because they were born in another country. Targeting migrants is the new racism – it pretties up a prejudice against people as a patriotic act. We can also be sure that the migrants who bear the brunt of this assault are not the well-off people with qualifications who work for formal employers but those who have fled poverty or persecution. The anti-migrant campaign is a war against the impoverished as well as against people who are being bullied because of where they were born.

Given this, the fact that people are being hounded here should be a national scandal that prompts loud protest from anyone who believes all human beings are entitled to equal treatment. The campaign should target the real culprits – not the people in townships and shack settlements who blame migrants for their poverty but the well-heeled politicians, commentators and other opinion-formers who continually encourage them to blame migrants and, when they do, claim public opinion demands anti-migrant measures. And it should be led by everyone who claims to believe in people’s right to be treated with fairness and respect, wherever they were born.

The new racism is no different from the older variety. People who believe in a free and equal society should be as vocal in campaigning against anti-migrant bigotry as they are at calling out other prejudices.


article comment count is:

A street art mural in Zimbabwe exposes a divided society

The unity between Zimbabwe’s two main ethnic groups is so fragile that even an inspirational street mural can expose it.

The Shona and the Ndebele are Zimbabwe’s two most dominant ethnic groups. Explaining the ever-present tension between them, historian Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni points to the abuse of the post-colonial state by the ruling Shona-dominated government “in its drive to destroy Ndebele particularism”. He explains, “This sets in motion the current Matabeleland politics of alienation, resentment and grievance.”

This continued marginalisation of Matabeleland (a region in southwestern Zimbabwe inhabited mainly by the Ndebele people) by the ZANU-PF-led government has rendered Zimbabwe so fragile a nation that even a street mural can expose its disunity.

The mural in question borrows two historical figures – King Lobengula and Mbuya Nehanda – to express the possibility of unity between the two dominant groups. How the mural was dealt with is the subject of this analysis.

The mural that caused the trouble

Over the weekend of 22 January 2022 a mural appeared at the Corner of Fife Street and 8th Avenue in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest city and the main city of Matabeleland. The mural was by Leeroy Spinx Brittain, popularly known as Bow (black or white). By the afternoon of the 24th, the city’s municipality had erased it.

King Lobengula is portrayed with an arm around the shoulders of Mbuya Nehanda, in life-sized images resembling popular archival reproductions of them. In his other hand Lobengula is holding a heart-shaped balloon instead of his usual spear. It’s derivative of UK-based street artist Banksy’s mural Girl With Balloon.

Bulawayo deputy mayor Mlandu Ncube is reported to say that the artist had not applied for permission and creating a mural without the city’s licence could attract a hefty fine or jail time.

The artist was calling on Ndebeles and Shonas to begin a dialogue and unite. But judging from the divisive comments on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, few embraced his message.

According to online comments and news articles some found the mural disrespectful and offensive – because of the contentious matter of the Gukurahundi massacres.

Echoes of Gukurahundi

Gukurahundi refers to an ethnic cleansing atrocity which claimed up to 20,000 lives in Matebeleland and parts of Midlands in the 1980s. It’s described by feminist academic and activist Shereen Essof as the Robert Mugabe regime’s “first, and still unpunished genocide”. British author Hazel Cameron claimed that the massacres were committed under the watchful eye of the British government eager to safeguard its significant economic and strategic interests in Southern Africa.

To this day, Zimbabwe’s leadership refuses to publicly acknowledge and address the massacres, with Mugabe once referring to them as a moment of madeness. I would argue that the unaddressed atrocities have left Zimbabweans failing to collectively embrace and appreciate even a harmless but constructive expression of art. As long as Gukurahundi continues to be ignored by the state, Zimbabweans will not find common ground.

Who were Nehanda and Lobengula?

Mbuya Nehanda is a Zezuru (Shona) ancestral spirit (mhondoro) said to possess different women at different times in history. The Nehanda in the mural is Charwe Nyakasikana. She led the Shona resistance against Cecil John Rhodes’ colonising forces. For her role in the 1896-7 First Chimurenga Uprisings, she was hanged. To emphasise her importance, the ruling regime erected her statue in Harare last year.

A son and successor of King Mzilikazi, founder of the Ndebele Kingdom, King Lobengula ruled the nation from 1868 to the 1890s when his kingdom succumbed to the British. He was never captured. In polarised Zimbabwe, some Shona people blame him for signing the Rudd Concession. This paved the way for the colonisation of the country.

To this day Shonas and Ndebeles identify with these figures, who never met in the flesh.

Public art in Zimbabwe

This is the first major controversy around murals and graffiti in the country in years. Sometimes municipal authorities don’t erase work at all, despite it being created without permission. This is the case with Basil Matsika’s murals in Mbare.

It is the state-sanctioned public art, mostly statues, that tend to attract controversy. Issues of patronage and who commissioned the work are crucial in determining whether it survives a critical and public onslaught. In 2010 people were generally unhappy when the government commissioned the North Koreans for a pair of statues of Joshua Nkomo for Bulawayo and Harare.

A crowd with banners gathers around a statue of a man standing proudly on a plinth.
Protesters at the Joshua Nkomo statue in Bulawayo.
ZINYANGE AUNTONY/AFP via Getty Images

Nkomo was a nationalist and revolutionary leader of the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), which fought alongside (now ruling) ZANU in the country’s liberation struggle. Ndebele people in particular were incensed that Pyongyang had a hand in training the Fifth Brigade, a section of the Zimbabwe National Army responsible for unleashing Gukurahundi. Zimbabweans were also unhappy that no local sculptor was assigned to do the work.

Last year, the government withdrew the first statue of Nehanda after a public outcry. The youthful, large-bottomed depiction of Nehanda went viral on the internet. The artist, David Guy Mutasa, was given a chance to amend his mistakes. The Nkomo and Nehanda statues went ahead because they were political posturing from the government, disguised as cultural revival initiatives.

The same cannot be said of Bow’s mural as an independent initiative. The artist has worked with advertising company CaliGraph to create murals of other figures like musician Sandra Ndebele and socialite Mbo Mahocs and these have not been removed. This would indicate that the authorities embrace his work as long as it is about aesthetics and not politics.

Alongside the likes of Black Phar-I, Aero5olKombo Chapfika, the Bulawayo-based Bow is part of a new breed of street artists. He is reported saying he was raised by a Ndebele grandmother and a Shona grandfather, which makes it difficult to assign him an ethnic group unless he identifies with one.

This makes him a neutral observer in the socio-political divide. Driven by his desire to see a more united Zimbabwe, Bow promises to do more poster art and murals that call for unity between the Shona and the Ndebele. This will continue challenging the status quo and initiating dialogue around the country’s history.

Freedom of expression

Instead of the mural brewing a fresh tribal storm or creating a bitter debate – as highlighted in articles in The Standard and Okay Africa – I argue that Bow’s piece reminded the nation how polarised it has always been.

And the jail threats of the deputy mayor would certainly deter graffiti artists who desire to address contentious political matters that rattle the state. As long as the government continues to stifle freedom of expression, artists who do street art and graffiti are in danger of limiting their expression to commissions for social campaigns.

Barnabas Ticha Muvhuti, Ph.D. in Art History candidate, Rhodes University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.