The uncontacted tribes of Brazil face genocide under Jair Bolsonaro

[Judi Lynn]

Fiona Watson
Brazil’s indigenous peoples, already targeted by loggers, face a powerful foe in the new president. We must protect them

Mon 31 Dec 2018 07.00 EST

On 1 January, Jair Bolsonaro will be sworn in as Brazil’s 38th president. He has expressed open disdain for the indigenous peoples of Brazil, and it is no exaggeration to say that some of the world’s most unique and diverse tribes are facing annihilation. Genocide is defined by the UN as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Large-scale mass genocides rightly receive global attention, yet countless others go unreported and unpunished because the victims number only a few hundred, or even a few dozen.

Right now, deep in the Amazon rainforest, a small tribe of survivors is on the run. They are the Kawahiva, an uncontacted tribe of just a few dozen people, the victims of waves of horrific attacks which have pushed them to the brink of extinction. We know almost nothing about them, except that they are fleeing chainsaws in a region with the highest rate of deforestation in the Amazon. Brazil’s first ever investigation into the genocide of an uncontacted tribe was launched in 2005, and 29 people suspected of involvement in killing Kawahiva were detained but later released, including a former state governor and a senior policeman. The case stalled for lack of evidence.

The Kawahiva’s territory lies near the town of Colniza, one of the most violent areas in Brazil, where 90% of income is from illegal logging. Survival International, the global movement fighting for the rights of tribal people, has recently called for increased police protection for the team responsible for protecting the Kawahiva’s land. FUNAI, Brazil’s Indian Affairs Department, has been prevented from properly carrying out its work in the area due to violence from illegal loggers and ranchers, leaving the tribe exposed.

Preventing a genocide of uncontacted people is not a priority for Bolsonaro. He once said: “There is no indigenous territory where there aren’t minerals. Gold, tin and magnesium are in these lands, especially in the Amazon, the richest area in the world. I’m not getting into this nonsense of defending land for Indians.”

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/31/tribes-brazil-genocide-jair-bolsonaro

[dalton99a]

1. Bolsonaro is a Trump wannabe POS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/making-brazil-great-again-how-jair-bolsonaro-mirrors-and-courts-trump/2018/12/29/df8bf7fa-f1d9-11e8-99c2-cfca6fcf610c_story.html
Making Brazil great again: How Jair Bolsonaro mirrors and courts Trump
By Marina Lopes
December 31 at 6:00 AM

SAO PAULO, Brazil — So far, his foreign policy to-do list includes moving the country’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, pulling out of the Paris climate accords and continuing the political battle with Venezuela’s leftist president.

Sound familiar?

No, it’s not Donald Trump, but Jair Bolsonaro, whose inauguration as Brazil’s president is set for Jan. 1.

“Trump is an example to me,” Bolsonaro said on a campaign trip to the United States last year. “I know there is a distance between me and Trump, but I hope to become closer to him, for the good of Brazil and of the United States. I want to bring lessons from here to Brazil.”

[Igel]

2. It starts by getting the definition wrong.

Genocide is defined by the UN as “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

No, it is not.

What it cites says,

genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a.Killing members of the group;
b.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e.Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

The "in part" phrase is a problem, because it makes it indistinguishable from a simple murder out of hate. But it's there anyway, and presumably meant something reasonable at the time.

Not protecting a group isn't genocide, unless the actions taken on the ground are intended to destroy the group--and then the protection still isn't genocide, it's the actions + intent that matter. "Non-protection" is what most people groups have routinely. And non-protection when you're not the threat is still just non-protection. However, in Brazil much of the ethnic destruction that results in the loss of a tribe still isn't genocide. If you're destroying a tribe because you want the timber on their land by simply taking the timber, it's no genocide: The intent was wrong.

Which makes missing the definition ironic--it's mis-narrows the definition just to intent, which is exactly what's likely to be lacking in the event.