eyes on the U.S.

Where Native Americans May Decide U.S. Midterm Elections

While elsewhere the 'Obama factor' may hurt Democrats, in South Dakota the Sioux tribe may tip the scales in the president's favor as control of the U.S. Senate hangs in the balance.

On the campaign trail
On the campaign trail
Paolo Mastrolilli

WOUNDED KNEE — Instead of calling in the cavalry, South Dakota Democrats will be depending on the Sioux to avoid an electoral massacre in the midterms. Of all places, the battleground is here on the Indian reserve around Wounded Knee, where many tribes were victims of slaughter in the futile war against the U.S. Army.

Yet now, the Sioux and their forgotten frontier are the last hope for President Barack Obama's shaky majority in the Senate.

The Nov. 4 midterm elections will determine who controls the House of Representatives, and it's possible the GOP could win majorities in both houses of Congress. It now controls only the House. To win the Senate, the Republicans would have to take six seats from the Democrats and not lose any they have already.

And in South Dakota, a key Senate seat is up for grabs, after Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson decided to retire following a stroke. Running to replace Johnson are three candidates: Republican Mike Rounds, who is leading the polls, former Republican Larry Pressler, who is trying to take away Republican votes as an independent, and Democrat Rick Weiland.

The Native Americans account for just 1% of the total U.S. population and, in general, political parties ignore them. But in South Dakota, they make up 9% of the population and could wind up being the deciding factor — as they had been a loyal voting bloc for Johnson and Democrats generally.

Obama himself forged a relationship with the tribes, proposing to end their disputes with a total compensation of about $3 billion, and he's now hoping the votes will swing his party's way.

It's a historical irony that this is all taking place in the badlands, a place where legendary Sioux chiefs such as Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Red Cloud reigned. In 1862, war broke out after the government delayed payments due under a signed agreement. When the Indians were left without money to buy food, trader Andrew Myrick teased them saying, "If you are hungry, eat the grass."

The American Indian wars began in 1876, during which time the bloody defeat of General Custer at Little Bighorn took place. But by 1890, the Sioux were in retreat, and the Dec. 29 massacre in Wounded Knee that killed as many as 300 tribe members, including many women and children, is still a source of bitterness.

Historic lands

Today there's just a metal sign in the grassy basin of Wounded Knee to remember the massacre, with a few Indians nearby selling dreamcatchers for a couple of dollars. The field where the massacre took place is part of the Pine Ridge Reservation, where more than 50% of the population lives below the poverty line.

Bryan Brewer, president of the Oglala Sioux tribe, welcomed me into his office, sharing both a smile and a complaint. "It's been more than a century, but the United States still continues to discriminate against us," he says. "They don't honor the treaties signed with us, so we have decided to turn to arbitration now."

But Brewer doesn't mind Obama. "If it were up to him, he would respect the agreements. But the power of this matter is in the hands of Congress, which has not respected us," he says. "For example, the money owed to the Indians under the treaties are considered discretionary spending in the budget, and every year we have to re-examine them."

The local tribe leader criticizes Republicans for not only blocking funding, but also trying to suppress the vote of the Native American tribes. "In many Indian communities, polling stations are located 20 or 30 miles away, so many people don't end up going. We would like to be able to vote by mail, or have satellite seats, but they are opposed to that," Brewer says. "Doesn't the law say that all citizens are created equal? What happened to the principle of one person, one vote? This calls the legitimacy of democracy into question."

Stop the pipeline

But there is another reason now that the Sioux are angry, and it has to do with their traditions of protecting the environment, and in particular the land they see as something inherited from their ancestors. It is the proposed construction of the Keystone pipeline, which would transport oil from western Canada down to Texas.

Brewer explains that the Sioux's opposition is not just to protect the spirits of their ancestors. "We receive water from Missouri through an aqueduct that the pipeline would cross at three different points," Brewer says. "These pipes will have leaks that would contaminate our water supply, and we need to protect it."

Obama has not yet decided whether to authorize construction of the final section of Keystone that the Native American tribes are opposed to. "He doesn't want to say no because it would block certain interests, but he doesn't want to say yes either because it would destroy his legacy as an environmental president," says Brewer. "So the choice will pass down to the next administration."

Democratic candidate Rick Weiland has already declared his opposition to the pipeline, and this has earned him support from the Sioux. "We have been campaigning door-to-door for him," Brewer says. "In Pine Ridge, there are 11,000 voters, so we really could make a difference. Seven years ago Johnson won by just 500 votes."

If it doesn't go the way they want and the Republicans do end up taking the majority in the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, the Sioux have already prepared a strategy in response. "Resistance. Peaceful but absolute. I'll put my moccasins on the ground to stop the pipeline, and the rest of the tribe will follow me."

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

How Thailand's Lèse-Majesté Law Is Used To Stifle All Protest

Once meant to protect the royal family, the century-old law has become a tool for the military-led government in Bangkok to stamp out all dissent. A new report outlines the abuses.

Pro-Democracy protest at The Criminal Court in Bangkok, Thailand

Laura Valentina Cortés Sierra

"We need to reform the institution of the monarchy in Thailand. It is the root of the problem." Those words, from Thai student activist Juthatip Sirikan, are a clear expression of the growing youth-led movement that is challenging the legitimacy of the government and demanding deep political changes in the Southeast Asian nation. Yet those very same words could also send Sirikan to jail.

Thailand's Criminal Code 'Lèse-Majesté' Article 112 imposes jail terms for defaming, insulting, or threatening the monarchy, with sentences of three to 15 years. This law has been present in Thai politics since 1908, though applied sparingly, only when direct verbal or written attacks against members of the royal family.


But after the May 2014 military coup d'état, Thailand experienced the first wave of lèse-majesté arrests, prosecutions, and detentions of at least 127 individuals arrested in a much wider interpretation of the law.

The recent report 'Second Wave: The Return of Lèse-Majesté in Thailand', documents how the Thai government has "used and abused Article 112 of the Criminal Code to target pro-democracy activists and protesters in relation to their online political expression and participation in peaceful pro-democracy demonstrations."

Criticism of any 'royal project'

The investigation shows 124 individuals, including at least eight minors, have been charged with lèse-majesté between November 2020 and August 2021. Nineteen of them served jail time. The new wave of charges is cited as a response to the rising pro-democracy protests across Thailand over the past year.

Juthatip Sirikan explains that the law is now being applied in such a broad way that people are not allowed to question government budgets and expenditure if they have any relationship with the royal family, which stifles criticism of the most basic government decision-making since there are an estimated 5,000 ongoing "royal" projects. "Article 112 of lèse-majesté could be the key (factor) in Thailand's political problems" the young activist argues.

In 2020 the Move Forward opposition party questioned royal spending paid by government departments, including nearly 3 billion baht (89,874,174 USD) from the Defense Ministry and Thai police for royal security, and 7 billion baht budgeted for royal development projects, as well as 38 planes and helicopters for the monarchy. Previously, on June 16, 2018, it was revealed that Thailand's Crown Property Bureau transferred its entire portfolio to the new King Maha Vajiralongkorn.

photo of graffiti of 112 crossed out on sidewalk

Protestors In Bangkok Call For Political Prisoner Release

Peerapon Boonyakiat/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire

Freedom of speech at stake

"Article 112 shuts down all freedom of speech in this country", says Sirikan. "Even the political parties fear to touch the subject, so it blocks most things. This country cannot move anywhere if we still have this law."

The student activist herself was charged with lèse-majesté in September 2020, after simply citing a list of public documents that refer to royal family expenditure. Sirikan comes from a family that has faced the consequences of decades of political repression. Her grandfather, Tiang Sirikhan was a journalist and politician who openly protested against Thailand's involvement in World War II. He was accused of being a Communist and abducted in 1952. According to Sirikhan's family, he was killed by the state.

The new report was conducted by The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Thai Lawyer for Human Rights (TLHR), and Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw). It accuses Thai authorities of an increasingly broad interpretation of Article 112, to the point of "absurdity," including charges against people for criticizing the government's COVID-19 vaccine management, wearing crop tops, insulting the previous monarch, or quoting a United Nations statement about Article 112.

Juthatip Sirikan speaks in front of democracy monument.

Shift to social media

While in the past the Article was only used against people who spoke about the royals, it's now being used as an alibi for more general political repression — which has also spurred more open campaigning to abolish it. Sirikan recounts recent cases of police charging people for spreading paint near the picture of the king during a protest, or even just for having a picture of the king as phone wallpaper.

The more than a century-old law is now largely playing out online, where much of today's protest takes place in Thailand. Sirikan says people are willing to go further on social media to expose information such as how the king intervenes in politics and the monarchy's accumulation of wealth, information the mainstream media rarely reports on them.

Not surprisingly, however, social media is heavily monitored and the military is involved in Intelligence operations and cyber attacks against human rights defenders and critics of any kind. In October 2020, Twitter took down 926 accounts, linked to the army and the government, which promoted themselves and attacked political opposition, and this June, Google removed two Maps with pictures, names, and addresses, of more than 400 people who were accused of insulting the Thai monarchy. "They are trying to control the internet as well," Sirikan says. "They are trying to censor every content that they find a threat".

Keep up with the world. Break out of the bubble.
Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS
MOST READ