​

Renowned for its stunning biodiversity, the Amazon rainforest region is also home to a vast array of people and cultures.

“People usually think that the environment doesn’t contain and include people, but it does,” said soil scientist Judson Ferreira Valentim, who lives in Brazil’s Acre state. “There are many different Amazonias and many different Amazonians.”

From small villages of thatched homes to the skyline of Belem rising above mist on the river – a view sometimes called “Manhattan of the Amazon” – Brazil’s slice of the Amazon is home to 28 million people.

Many communities are linked by water. Along the Tocantins River, a tributary of the Amazon, yellow school boats pick up children from wooden homes on stilts, and fishers throw scraps of the day’s catch to river dolphins that frequent the docks. Families linger beside river beaches at sunset, the water a relief from the heat of the day.

Other communities are linked by rural roads, which often wash out during heavy rains, or newly paved highways – which bring better access to schools and hospitals, but also, often, deforestation.

In the forest itself, there is often no path. Acai picker Edson Polinario spends his days under dappled sunlight that filters through the canopy of virgin rainforest, often with just the company of his large black dog.

One evening in the small Tembe village of Tekohaw, Maria Ilba, a woman of mixed Indigenous and African heritage, watches as a wild green parrot feeds on salt on her windowsill.

“There is an evolution – in the past, the village culture was more traditional. Now it is more mixed,” she said. “There is a school, a little hospital, and a car that can take you somewhere else if you’re very sick.”

She said she is grateful for such additions, but also worries that “in the future, the young people could forget the language, the culture, the foods and the tattoos”.

Changes are inevitable. She only hopes that the future will preserve what’s most essential – for the people and the forest itself.

​

​

Islamabad, Pakistan — Pakistan has formally sought membership in BRICS, the grouping of five emerging economies that includes rival India alongside Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa, at a time the body is fast gaining the status as the leading bloc of the Global South.

Calling BRICS an “important group of developing countries”, Mumtaz Zahra Baloch, spokesperson for Pakistan’s foreign ministry, disclosed that the country has made a “formal request” to join the group.

“We believe that by joining BRICS, Pakistan can play an important role in furthering international cooperation and revitalising inclusive multilateralism. We also hope that BRICS will move forward on Pakistan’s request in line with its commitment to inclusive multilateralism,” Baloch said, while addressing a news briefing in Islamabad on Thursday.

The spokesperson added that Pakistan had warm ties with “most” BRICS members.

The confirmation comes two days after Muhammad Khalid Jamali, Pakistan’s designated envoy to Russia, disclosed that the country has applied to join the group in an interview with TASS, the Russian state-owned news agency.

“Pakistan would like to be part of this important organisation and we are in process of contacting member countries for extending support to Pakistan’s membership in general and Russian Federation, in particular,” the ambassador told TASS.

Many analysts view BRICS as challenging a world order dominated by the United States and its Western allies in important policy decisions.

During the last BRICS summit which took place in South Africa in August, the group’s popularity was evident with at least 40 countries showing interest in joining.

At the end of the three-day summit, the grouping announced that six countries – Egypt, Ethiopia, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran – would join it next year.

Mushahid Hussain Sayed, chairperson for the Pakistani Senate’s Foreign Affairs Committee, was in South Africa earlier this year to attend events which took place on the sidelines of the leadership summit.

“The world is moving towards regionalism, and now countries are cooperating for connectivity with each other,” Sayed told Al Jazeera, applauding the government’s move to join the body.

Salma Malik, associate professor at Qauid-e-Azam University in Islamabad and an expert in strategic affairs, also agreed with Sayed, and said that such “regional, economic and cultural unions” would be beneficial for Pakistan.

“This is a time of multilateralism. You are heard better in small blocs, and you can voice larger concerns. You can build common consensus on various issues of concerns,” the academic told Al Jazeera.

Earlier this week BRICS nations — including the six that will join in 2024 — joined a virtual meeting where they near-unanimously called for a ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza.

However, Muhammad Faisal, a foreign policy analyst, did not share their enthusiasm.

“Realistically speaking, aside from reiterating political statements, such as Pakistan is dissatisfied with West-led global order, there wouldn’t be significant benefits,” he told Al Jazeera.

Faisal further said that while the country has requested to join the group, its membership was far from certain.

“The path forward for Pakistan now is quite challenging and a long one. It involves a significant degree of politics among the founding members on induction of new members. Pakistan’s case is particularly beset by Indian opposition, which could depend on the health of the India-China relationship,” he added.

The concerns are not unfounded. Last year in June, the Pakistani foreign office said that its participation in a major policy dialogue event, which took place on the sidelines of the BRICS leadership summit in China, was blocked by “one member”.

While Pakistan did not name India as the country, it expressed hope that future engagement of the bloc would be based on the principles of “inclusivity” and in the interests of the developing world.

If India plays “spoiler” over Pakistan’s membership request, Sayed said, it would only be adding to a string of such incidents.

“Be it a matter of cricket, diplomacy or politics, India will always cause hurdles. But they are not the only game in town,” he said.

“The current Middle East crisis has shown India to be more on the American or Israeli camp than being part of the larger global south. If you look at the big picture, India is on the wrong side of history.”

​

Buenos Aires, Argentina – The upscale neighbourhood of Recoleta was pulsing with the sound of drums and chanting last month, as protesters gathered outside the Palestinian embassy in Buenos Aires to call for an end to Israel’s war in Gaza.

But amid the sea of Palestinian flags, Silvia Ferreyra gripped a different symbol of solidarity. Above her head, she held a banner depicting a blue ribbon of water trapped behind a lock and chain. Printed above the picture in large red type was the phrase, “Fuera Mekorot”.

Ferreyra, 52, had a simple message. She wanted Mekorot, Israel’s state-run water company, out of Argentina.

Since September 2022, seven Argentinian provinces have signed wide-ranging agreements granting Mekorot significant influence over how they allocate water resources.

Yet, with Israel drawing outcry for its deadly military campaign in Gaza, Argentinian activists are looking to leverage the public attention to pressure the government into cutting ties with the company.

“We are trying to [spread] the information that this is not only something completely foreign to our country, but that in our country there is a business … causing conflict in Palestine,” said Ferreyra, a longtime organiser who works in the Argentinian Chamber of Deputies’s environmental commission.

Mekorot’s future in Argentina cannot be evaluated “without taking into account the current situation and the context of the conflict there in the Gaza Strip”, she added.

“We have to discuss the origins of this conflict more deeply.”

Protester Silvia Ferreyra is part of a backlash to the Israeli national water company Mekorot and its work in Argentina [Victor Swezey/Al Jazeera]

Controlling Palestinian water resources

Though widely seen as a world leader in water management technology, Mekorot has drawn international condemnation for its policies in Gaza and the West Bank. It has controlled water supplies in the two Palestinian territories since Israel occupied them in 1967.

Though not directly named, the company’s activities were referenced in a 2022 report by United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Michael Lynk, which accused Israel of implementing a system of “apartheid” against Palestinians.

The report identified access to water as a major source of inequality.

“The utilities and services which the [Israeli] settlements enjoy — water, power, housing, access to well-paid jobs, roads and industrial investment — are far superior to those available to the Palestinians,” it explained.

The Israeli nonprofit B’Tselem also blamed “Israel’s deliberately discriminatory” policies for water shortages in the West Bank.

In an April report, B’Tselem found that only 36 percent of Palestinians in the area had running water throughout the year. There were also wide discrepancies in water usage.

Israeli settlers in the West Bank consumed an average of 247 litres (65 gallons) of water per capita each day, while Palestinians used just 82.4 (21 gallons) — limiting their ability to meet their basic needs for hydration, hygiene, sanitation and everyday chores.

“To make up for the shortage, the Palestinian Authority is forced to purchase water from Israel’s national water company, Mekorot, at a much higher cost,” the report explained.

When Israel began its military campaign last month, it used Mekorot to cut the water supply to Gaza completely, forcing residents to drink polluted water. Hospitals, meanwhile, were left without proper sanitation.

“Israel is using its strategic control over water resources on the one hand, and water distribution on the other, as a geopolitical tool and does so in highly unequal ways,” said Erik Swyngedouw, a geographer at the University of Manchester who researches the intersection of water and politics.

Mekorot did not respond to a request for comment about its humanitarian record in Gaza and the West Bank, nor about concerns over its expansion in Argentina.

A metal barrier in Buenos Aires displays photographs of protesters opposing Mekorot’s presence in Argentina [Victor Swezey/Al Jazeera]

International backlash

The accusations that Mekorot has contributed to the oppression of Palestinians have prompted some groups to sever ties with the Israeli water company over the past decade.

In the Netherlands, the water company Vitens announced in 2013 that it would end relations with Mekorot after consulting with the Dutch foreign ministry. The next year, in Portugal, EPAL — the company that provides water to the city of Lisbon — likewise ended a technology exchange deal over Mekorot’s actions in the Palestinian territories.

And in 2014, the Argentinian province of Buenos Aires scrapped a deal with the company to build a desalination plant after public protests.

However, Mekorot continues to enjoy partnerships around the world. Its projects range from a water system in Mexico to a desalination plant in Morocco.

Further support comes from Argentinian governmental institutions, including the Ministry of the Interior. In February, Interior Minister Eduardo de Pedro led the country’s national water authority and a public-private investment body in signing agreements to transfer control over water administration in multiple provinces to Mekorot.

With the world’s sixth-largest Jewish population, Argentina has traditionally been an ally of Israel, and the countries maintain strong bilateral relations through institutions like the Argentine-Israeli Chamber of Commerce.

As Argentina faces a historic drought, government officials have praised Mekorot for its efficiency and technological prowess, with Interior Minister de Pedro saying that Israel offers an “example” for “managing a resource as scarce as water”.

Silvia Muñoz, a food kitchen worker in Buenos Aires, heard about Mekorot’s involvement in Argentina through a panel discussion held by the ‘Fuera Mekorot’ campaign [Victor Swezey/Al Jazeera]

Water as a commodity

Yet organisers of “Fuera Mekorot” — the movement to expel Mekorot from Argentina — are concerned about the impact the company might have on the country.

Marta Maffei, a former deputy in the National Congress, is among those who oppose Mekorot’s expansion in Argentina. She has advocated for a law to protect water access as a basic human right.

“Why should a state enterprise that manages water as a form of social control come to Argentina?” Maffei said. “In our territories, there are also Indigenous peoples, there are poor peasant communities, who demand their water.”

Maffei’s home province of Rio Negro signed an agreement with Mekorot in February to transfer a number of responsibilities to the company, including calculating the “economic value” of water and drafting a proposal for an authority to regulate drinking water and sanitation services.

The area is already a hotspot for fracking, an industry that uses large amounts of water to extract oil and natural gas, and clashes have erupted between local groups and police over water access.

Mekorot’s representatives have indicated they would approach water as a commodity to finance future growth, a prospect that has alarmed some advocates.

“The water bill has to cover all costs plus the costs of future investment,” Diego Berger, Mekorot’s international coordinator for special projects, said in a March interview with the YouTube channel Alterrados.

The commodification of water resources, however, comes with risks, according to Swyngedouw, the Manchester University geographer.

It could have “profound negative social [and] ecological consequences for small peasants, Indigenous people and others who depend on water access for their livelihoods”, he said.

A business-based approach to water access also threatens to conflict with traditional Indigenous views.

“From the Western perspective, [water] is called a ‘resource’,” said Miriam Liempe, the Indigenous relations secretary for the Argentine Workers’ Central Union and a member of the Fuera Mekorot coalition.

“However, [Indigenous] peoples call it a brother, like something that has life — like the trees, like the birds.”

A member of the Mapuche people, Liempe said what worries her most about Mekorot is what she calls the company’s failure to consult Indigenous groups when planning water management projects.

If projects like diverting rivers lead to the displacement of Indigenous groups, Liempe said they could violate international law.

According to the International Labor Organization’s 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, Indigenous peoples “shall not be removed from the lands which they occupy”, and any attempt at relocation requires “free and informed consent” from the groups involved.

Activists in the ‘Fuera Mekorot’ movement, including Silvia Ferreyra, right, hold a panel discussion in Buenos Aires, Argentina Victor Swezey/Al Jazeera]

Organising against Mekorot

As Mekorot continues to make advances in Argentina, Ferreyra said her organisation’s biggest obstacle has been a general lack of awareness among Argentinian people. After the war in Gaza broke out, she and other activists held a series of events about Mekorot’s activities in Argentina.

“We have been in a process of trying to establish an awareness of what Mekorot is,” Ferreyra said. “It’s not a very well-known company.”

Hasan Najjar, an Argentinian who was born in Gaza, said he only found out about Mekorot’s presence in Argentina when he attended a protest where Fuera Mekorot organisers were present. But the company’s actions did not surprise him.

“They have experience against Indigenous people, in killing us slowly, like with food and water or with bombs,” Najjar said.

Silvia Muñoz, who works at a food kitchen in the suburbs of Buenos Aires, said she heard about Mekorot for the first time at a panel discussion in the city’s historic San Telmo neighbourhood.

“It’s a business for them, but a mafia business,” Muñoz said. “It makes me concerned.”

Ferreyra believes she has made progress in raising awareness of Mekorot’s presence in Argentina. But she has no illusions that blocking the company’s business ambitions will be easy.

“We know that this is not something simple, because we understand the involvement and weight that Israel has in a lot of aspects that make up the economic life of our country,” Ferreyra said. “We still have a lot to do.”

​

​

Guatemala City, Guatemala – Blockades were set up around campus. Banners were unfurled. And key buildings at the University of San Carlos (USAC), Guatemala’s sole public university, came under student occupation.

It was 2022, and the campus was in uproar over the election of a new rector, Walter Mazariegos, to lead the school.

Critics, including the United States State Department, had denounced the selection process as “fraudulent”. Among those raising their voices in outrage was a member of Guatemala’s Congress, little known outside his country at the time.

But now, the dark-horse progressive Bernardo Arevalo has rocketed into the international spotlight as Guatemala’s president-elect — and his statements about the protests are at the centre of a new controversy erupting in the country.

On November 17, prosecutors filed a request to strip Arevalo and his running mate Karin Herrera of their political immunity for supporting the student protests on social media.

Human rights advocates and observers have warned that the request is the latest attempt to derail Arevalo’s presidency, as the political establishment reels from his surprise victory in August’s election.

“It is really a veiled threat to the transition,” Luis Mack, a Guatemalan independent political analyst and political science professor at USAC, told Al Jazeera.

“The case has no legal basis. But any excuse can serve to criminalise you and intimidate you.”

Arevalo, an anticorruption candidate, has faced a series of legal actions since emerging as a frontrunner in the June 25 general elections.

As he advanced to the run-off race, prosecutors sought to suspend his political party, the Seed Movement. Police also raided the party’s offices, and his opponents have publicly questioned the vote tally, even filing complaints of fraud.

But the latest move against Arevalo heightens the legal jeopardy he and his political party face, leaving him vulnerable to criminal investigation — and potentially prosecution.

Guatemala’s President-elect Bernardo Arevalo, centre, and Vice President-elect Karin Herrera, right, arrive for a press conference in the Plaza of Human Rights in Guatemala City on November 16 [Santiago Billy/AP Photo]

A wide-ranging investigation

The request to remove Arevalo’s political immunity comes as part of a larger investigation into the occupation at USAC, which lasted over 380 days. It ended in June.

Cultural Heritage prosecutor Angel Saul Sanchez has accused participants of aggravated usurpation, destruction of cultural property, illicit association and sedition.

But he cast a wide net as well, using legal means to pursue supporters of the protest movement as well as active participants.

Already, the Guatemalan national police have carried out 31 raids as part of the case. Sanchez has also obtained arrest warrants for 27 people, including members of the Seed Movement.

When outlining his case in a press conference on November 16, Sanchez alleged that Arevalo and Herrera were part of the protesters’ political backing, helping to manage the university takeover from the sidelines.

“We clearly establish that there is a timeline in which the university is a political looting,” Sanchez said, projecting images onscreen of Herrera attending a protest and Arevalo speaking on the video platform, TikTok.

Their actions, Sanchez warned, could lead to charges of illicit association and influence peddling.

But before that happens, Sanchez’s request to revoke Arevalo’s immunity would have to overcome several hurdles, according to political analyst Marielos Chang.

“Right now, the Supreme Court of Justice has to authorise the stripping of his immunity,” Chang said. “And after, Congress has to vote.”

If both steps are successful, a court case against Arevalo can move forward, but Gabriela Carrera, a professor at Rafael Landivar University, said a trial could stretch on for years.

In the meantime, stripping Arevalo’s and Herrera’s immunity could still disrupt the transition of power. “This would be the consolidation of the current coup,” Carrera said.

Pro-Arevalo graffiti on a Guatemala City street reads, ‘No to the coup, yes to democracy’, on November 21 [Moises Castillo/AP Photo]

Free speech implications

Critics, however, have denounced the whole investigation into the protests as an attempt to suppress free speech and political dissent in Guatemala. The rector whose election sparked the protests is seen as an ally of the ruling conservative party, Vamos.

“This, after many years, is the first case of massive criminalisation of protest,” Claudia Samayoa, a Guatemalan human rights activist, told Al Jazeera.

Guatemala began its transition to democracy in 1985. In the years prior, however, dissent had been censored and suppressed under a series of violent dictatorships.

But even after democracy was established, activists, journalists and public figures continued to face intimidation, despite free-speech protections enshrined in the constitution.

For Samayoa, the case against the university protesters is particularly jarring because of its wide scope.

“Not only those who protest are being criminalised, but also those who support the protesters,” Samayoa said. “This case is completely against freedom of speech.”

Arevalo was indeed a vocal supporter of the university protests, using his online platforms to denounce what he considered evidence of “corruption and authoritarianism”.

“[President Alejandro] Giammattei has captured USAC. Mazariegos is an illegitimate rector,” Arevalo said in one social media post. “I am with the students.”

But he has denied committing any criminal actions, calling the latest accusations “spurious and unacceptable”.

A banner on October 6 denounces Attorney General Maria Consuelo Porras, the head of Guatemala’s Public Ministry, as a ‘terrorist’ [Josue Decavele/Reuters]

The limits of immunity

However, Attorney General Maria Consuelo Porras — Sanchez’s boss — and Giammattei have rejected criticism that the legal actions against Arevalo are politically motivated.

In Guatemala, elected officials and political candidates generally receive immunity from prosecution, in order to stop their rivals from using the legal system against them.

But in recent years, a number of politicians have faced attempts to strip them of immunity.

One of the most high-profile cases was that of former President Otto Perez Molina. During his presidency, in 2015, Guatemala’s congress voted to remove his political immunity after allegations emerged that he helped lead a corruption ring within the government.

Facing a criminal investigation, Perez Molina resigned from office the very next day. He was convicted and sentenced to 16 years in prison in 2022.

Mack, the political analyst, believes the legal immunity Guatemalan politicians receive has contributed to the country’s larger problems with corruption. It allows politicians who face legitimate accusations to avoid investigation.

“The right to immunity is a reasonable protection in a democratic system,” Mack said. “However, in the last few years, it went from being a protection against spurious trials to something that promotes impunity.”

But Mack draws a distinction between legitimate corruption charges and the allegations Arevalo faces.

The recent arrest warrants, raids and public accusations indicate that the Public Ministry — helmed by Attorney General Porras — is willing to forge ahead regardless of Guatemala’s immunity law, he explained.

“The fact that the Public Ministry has advanced with an investigation without having removed [the right to immunity] demonstrates once again with which the Public Ministry is acting on bad faith,” he said.

Supporters attend Bernardo Arevalo’s press conference at Guatemala City’s Plaza of Human Rights on November 16 [Santiago Billy/AP Photo]

An international crisis

The question of whether the Public Ministry will succeed in lifting Arevalo’s immunity is one that could have massive implications for Guatemala’s democracy — and stability across Central America.

Critics question whether the legal proceedings will ultimately prevent Arevalo from taking office on January 14.

“There is a lot of concern,” said Ana Maria Mendez Dardon, the Central America director for the Washington Office on Latin America, a US-based advocacy organisation.

“Obviously the democratic deterioration that Guatemala is experiencing affects the population but also the interests of the international community.”

She explained that Guatemala has become a “priority” for foreign policy, particularly in the US, which is grappling with a crisis at its southern border, driven by migration through Central America.

The US government also collaborates with Guatemala to combat transnational crime organisations linked to drug trafficking and other illegal enterprises.

“To address organised crime and irregular migration, you need to have a strengthened state, a strong state,” Mendez Dardon said.

Already, members of the US State Department have slammed Guatemala’s Public Ministry, calling its attempt to strip Arevalo of his immunity a “malign request”.

“The US rejects continued egregious attempts to undermine democracy in Guatemala. These actions threaten the stability of not only Guatemala but the region as a whole,” Brian Nichols, the assistant secretary for the Western hemisphere, posted on social media.

According to Mendez Dardon, the US sees its ideals reflected in Arevalo — and that gives it a strong incentive to back Guatemala’s president-elect.

“I think that the United States identifies Bernardo Arevalo as an anticorruption candidate and more democratic promise, and he will be a perfect interlocutor to move forward.”

​