Brazilian Supreme Court Warns Of Civil War In Part Of Amazon Region

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

AP   |  Michael Astor   |   August 5, 2008 09:44 AM



RIO DE JANEIRO — Deep in the northernmost reaches of the Amazon jungle, a land conflict between rice farmers and a handful of Indian tribes has turned so violent that the country's Supreme Court warns it could escalate into civil war.

The court is expected to decide in August if the government can keep evicting rice farmers from a 4.2 million acre (1.7 million hectare) Indian reservation decreed by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in 2005. The evictions were stopped in April when rice farmers started burning bridges and blockading roads, and justices said they feared a "veritable civil war."

The court's decision could help determine the future of the Amazon, whose remaining jungles provide a critical cushion against global warming. It could also redefine Brazil's policy toward its Indians at a time of frequent confrontations, as the country spends billions of dollars opening roads, building dams and promoting agribusiness across the world's largest remaining tropical wilderness.

Unlike in most other Latin American countries, where indigenous people are fighting for rights in mainstream society, most of Brazil's Indians continue to live in the jungle and maintain their languages and traditions. These Indians have fought for decades to keep or regain their ancestral lands.

Brazil's 1988 constitution declared that all Indian ancestral lands must be demarcated and turned over to tribes within five years. While that process has yet to be completed, today about 11 percent of Brazilian territory and nearly 22 percent of the Amazon is in Indian hands.

But as logging, ranching and farming expand into the Amazon, there has been increasing conflict with the Indians and pressure on the government to limit the size of reservations. Earlier this summer, government anthropologists revealed photos of one of the world's last uncontacted tribes fleeing logging near the Peruvian border. In May, Indians protesting a proposed hydroelectric dam on the Xingu River in Para state machete-slashed a government official who came to speak to the group.

Top military generals warn that too much land in Indian hands, especially along Brazil's borders, threatens national security and could lead to tribes unilaterally declaring themselves independent nations. They compare the situation to Kosovo, which broke away from Serbia in February.

At a raucous seminar on national sovereignty at Rio de Janeiro's Military Club, the head of Army's Amazon command, Gen. Augusto Heleno Pereira, attacked the federal government's indigenous policy as "regretful and chaotic." He even suggested that the army would refuse to remove the settlers.

Story continues below
advertisement

"The Brazilian army does not serve the government but rather the Brazilian state," Pereira said.

Pereira's comments were characterized in the Brazilian media as possibly treasonous and he was called in to discuss them with country's Defense Minister Nelson Jobim. Both the Army and Defense Ministry later said the issue was resolved, without further comment.

The conflict is clear in Roraima, a sparsely populated northeastern state that borders Guyana and Venezuela, where the government in 2005 officially recognized the Raposa Serra do Sol Indian Reservation after long delays. The reservation was created to protect about 18,000 Indians from the Macuxi, Ingarico, Patamona, Wapixana and Taurpeng tribes who live in the area.

Some 3,500 people gathered to celebrate the new reservation three years ago, and were briefly stranded in the jungle when vandals set fire to a bridge. The violence has continued with each attempt to remove settlers.

"The question here is much bigger than the state of Roraima. It's a question of national integration," said rice farmer Paulo Cesar Quartiero, who has been jailed twice for resisting eviction -- once for blocking a federal highway and again on weapons charges after his ranch hands shot and wounded 10 Indians.

Roraima state Gov. Jose de Ancieta has sued to stop the evictions, arguing that the reservation is strangling economic development in a state where 46 percent of the land is already in Indian hands. And many Brazilians -- including some military leaders -- are beginning to criticize the nation's indigenous policy as isolationist and even a threat to national sovereignty.

But Paulo Santilli of Brazil's National Indian Foundation says a court ruling in favor of the rice farmers would spell havoc in the Amazon, "not just on the part of Indians, but from land grabbers, prospectors and loggers who would take it as a signal that reservations could be invaded." Indians and their allies fear such a ruling would also allow judges to reduce the size of other already-established reservations.

"If they decide against us, it would be the worst thing that can happen to indigenous people across Brazil," said Macuxi chief Pedro Raposa da Silva. He added that angry Indians could carry out the evictions themselves if the court decides against them.

Officially, the government sides with the Indians.

"Those people (the settlers) think their contribution to the economy, and their control of the local institutions make them right," said Justice Minister Tarso Genro, who also oversees indigenous affairs. "They are mistaken."

But some Supreme Court justices already are indicating they don't agree.

"If we take the concept of prior occupation too far," said Supreme Court Justice Marco Aurelio Mello, "we will have to hand my marvelous city of Rio de Janeiro over to the Indians."

RIO DE JANEIRO — Deep in the northernmost reaches of the Amazon jungle, a land conflict between rice farmers and a handful of Indian tribes has turned so violent that the country's Supreme Court...
RIO DE JANEIRO — Deep in the northernmost reaches of the Amazon jungle, a land conflict between rice farmers and a handful of Indian tribes has turned so violent that the country's Supreme Court...
 
Comments
16
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Just a word on the uncontacted tribes mentioned in the 6th paragraph: the photos were taken by members of the Brazilian government's Indian Affairs department, FUNAI, and then distributed to the world's media by NGO Survival International.

The tribe that was photographed is actually from Brazil and has been there as long as anyone familiar with the region knows - i.e. many, many years. The uncontacted tribe that has fled from Peru to Brazil in order to escape illegal logging was not photographed - but its houses were.

The logging in Peru is rampant, destroying the rainforest and bringing armed loggers onto uncontacted tribes' land. This has led to violent conflict, killings, and, on one occasion, forced contact with members of one uncontacted tribe that led to more than half of them dying because of their lack of immunity to outsiders' diseases.

For more information on uncontacted tribes - for photos, video footage, stories, articles and an explanation of what is meant by the term - have a look at http://www.survival-international.org/campaigns/uncontactedtribes

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:49 PM on 08/06/2008
photo

If I remember right, a great movie in the eighties "Emerald Forest" with Powers Booth highlights the forest indians and thier beautiful feathers and tatoos. It did not portray them as dirty or dumb, just trying to keep thier culture, and as humans. Loved the feathers, and everytime I see the Yanomano they look interesting.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:37 PM on 08/05/2008

Arm the Indians. Even if the stupid supreme court rules in their favor, they live in a lawless, wild area.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 08/05/2008
photo

HuffPo Censors: Thanks for deleting my comment. Nice to know that someone is there, watching, waiting to block anything they disagree with regardless of whether or not it breaks the posting rules. Just gives me that warm, totalitarian tingle every time. You guys are doing a GREAT job <snark>

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 08/05/2008

After the history the American government has with regard to the native Americans here, we are the last ones to be pointing fingers.
Let the Indians have their land, it has been their for centuries(in some cases) and it should continue to be theirs. Brazil is a huge country, I am sure there are other places to grow the rice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:21 PM on 08/05/2008

I am sure that European Brazilians would have a very different attitude about that. At one time a few European Americans had the attitude that the surviving Native Americans should be allowed to keep their lands. However, the vast majority of European Americans greedily wanted all of the Indian lands, and their will was carried out in the form of government policies which ultimately drove almost all of the Indians onto reservations, opening former Indian lands for white settlement. I can envision the same naked aggressive scenario playing itself out in Brazil, to the detriment of the Native Brazilians.

It's easy to say that the Indians should be allowed to keep their lands -- when you are talking about Indians in another country. If this were happening in America today, however, I am sure that many non-Indians in America would want to take all of the Indian lands, to enrich their own personal coffers in our capitalist society. I don't see too many Americans offering either to give land back to the Native Americans today, or to pay (in the form of reparations) their posterity an equitable amount of money for the land that was stolen from their ancestors.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 08/05/2008

"It's easy to say that the Indians should be allowed to keep their lands -- when you are talking about Indians in another country."

No, what's "easy" about this is that the incursion by modern society into this area is so recent that it CAN be reversed relatively easily, that is to say, relatively inexpensively.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 08/05/2008

Seems that the issue is: Should a technologically backward society be preserved, and why?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 08/05/2008

THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK, WE ARE WAY WORSE THEN THEM.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 08/05/2008
- GE I'm a Fan of GE permalink

Shouldn't the issue be rather: Should a technologically backward society be forced to change against the peoples will, and why?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 PM on 08/05/2008
photo

The word "backward" is so laden with your own bias, there is no reason to answer this question.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 08/05/2008
photo

Neolithic societies have always tried to whip out the Paleolithic tribes, ( thats the story of Cain and Abel, if you read it you will notice Cain raised crops while Abel followed the herds) even on the pre-columbian plains of America with the farmers like the Mandan and Sauk indians had it in for the paleolithic tribes like the Dakota and Ogalala. But then Spain lost some horses in the southwest and the plains indian got a head start on the horse culture and fought back.
The Yanomano indians of Brazil need to find thier "horse".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:31 PM on 08/05/2008

U.S. North Americans can't smugly point fingers at Brazil. Billions in "native American" assets, held in trust by the Federal Government, have been lost, illegally sold, squandered, and poorly managed in general. On this issue, the sanctimonious LEFT (pseudo-liberals) have been completely silent; "natives Americans" are no longer a mascot, ethnic group; Hispanics (mostly illegal) have largely displaced them.

The AMERINDIANS of Brazil MUST be armed and trained in order to defend what is theirs; unfortunately, this will catch the jealous eye of the Brazilian military. Still, without the enforcement of LAW, these AMERINDIANS are on their own to keep THEIR lands and culture!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 08/05/2008

The Brazilians should examine the history of the United States and America's treatment of its own indigenous people. The European Americans stole all of the Native Americans' land, forced them into concentration camps -- er, "reservations" -- and greedily exploited the resulting booty of land and natural resources for their own benefit. Americans were not concerned about diminishing global virgin forests when they subsequently logged over 90% of the stolen forestland. The were certainly not concerned about the rights of the Indians, treating them like criminals and foreigners in their own land and even refusing to allow them to vote until 1925. Their conception and design of an extensive system of reservations inspired Hitler and his Nazi henchmen to design a similar system of European holding camps, which they called concentration camps. In modern times, America has made "reparations" to the Indians by throwing them a proverbial bone, allowing some of them to build casinos on their reservations -- even though only a small fraction of the total Indian population in America financially benefits from casinos.

Who do those Brazilian Indians think they are -- people who actually have rights? Whatever happened to good old-fashioned genocide when dealing with restless natives? America set a precedent with their naked aggression against the Indians, and others could learn by our example.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 PM on 08/05/2008

Shhhhhh!! Check for "O I L". Thank goodness----not possible. Bush/Cheney/McCain would be planning an "occupation" there.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:55 AM on 08/05/2008

Shhhh! Check for sugar cane ... the Brazilian gov't has been decimating these lands for ethanol.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 PM on 08/05/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect