 Salam from the People's Dispatch Studios here in New Delhi. I am Siddharth Ani and you're watching Daily Debrief. First up on the show today, the man to last serve as president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, died aged 91 in Moscow. The announcement came from Russia's Central Clinical Hospital, also known as the Kremlin Clinic, which is located in the Moscow suburb of Kuntsevo. The 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner leaves behind a complex legacy. He's celebrated in the West as the man who ended the Cold War without bloodshed. But Gorbachev's somewhat naive and incoherent policies of openness and reconstruction, glasnost and perestroika as perhaps the most famous Russian words in the world, led to the emergence of all powerful oligarchs under the regime of Boris Yeltsin soon after. A decade of massive trauma followed in Russia as well as other countries in the former Soviet Union. We saw wars, color revolutions and severe economic distress that led to Gorbachev, perhaps even more so than Yeltsin, being reviled at home and taking singularly much of the blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union. I spoke earlier to news click editor-in-chief Prabya Pukhaisa for a historical perspective as well as what impact Gorbachev's legacy has on modern day relations between Russia and the West. Good to have you on Daily Debrief, Prabya, even though we're talking about the death of someone who was a world figure, irrespective of how you look at his legacy. I happened to spend a few years in Russia, in Moscow specifically, in the early Yeltsin years from 92 to 96. So have some personal and also anecdotal accounts of who was responsible for really the misery that the Russian people had to go through in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. From a historical perspective, how do you view Gorbachev as a politician and a leader? Well, let's put it this way, Gorbachev's legacy at best is mixed, mixed because he started the process of what would be called reforms in Soviet Union. And to that extent, there was a belief that Soviet Union, the reforms he was doing were in fact, would lead to strengthening of socialism because it would give it a deeper democratic roots. This was the argument by a lot of the people who were, particularly in the West, who were leftist, but didn't really like the Soviet Union. Let's be very clear about it. And Gorbachev to them was somebody who could reform Soviet Union to something which would be acceptable to them. In this, of course, what the miss was, what Soviet Union was for the rest of the world is missing because for us, the Soviet Union was in fact the major force which led to decolonization of the world. Without the Soviet Union, we really do not think decolonization would have happened, at least in the pace with which it did. A lot of the people also in different parts of the world saw them as the ones who defeated Nazi Germany. So the reaction to rest of the world and to European or the Western world was really different. And for them, Gorbachev therefore represented, okay, now Soviet Union is going to become like, for instance, a Labour Party run UK or the Socialist in France, Socialist Party in Germany. So a kind of bourgeois liberal transformation of a communist party to what would have been otherwise for them a transformation which would not have been acceptable. For a large part of the West, this is the response for the rest of the world. We felt, okay, maybe he would be able to reform Russia, Soviet Union in a way that he could combine socialism with a certain degree of reform that he was talking about more people's participation. But at the same time, we had our fingers crossed because it also represented restoration of capitalist forces which are rising in Russia, Soviet Union, and which in fact is what we see emerge in the Yeltsin years very clearly, who said, okay, Soviet Union, Russia, because that time, Soviet Union had been dissolved in 1991, that's what Yeltsin did. We have a lot of wealth. Now, how we as the ones who control the state, how can we grab this wealth and privatize it? And there you had this whole set of people who helped them and it was really led by the United States. In fact, Jeffrey Sachs was one of the key figures at that and Gaidar in Russia who talked about within 100 days will transform the socialist economy to a capitalist economy by giving shares to the people. What was really a grab of the resources of all the enterprises that existed in Russia at the time and hand it over to what later on emerged as the oligarchs. So it was really handing over all the wealth of Russia, which will at that time in the hands of the companies, the state run economy and completely privatize it with under the leadership of the what is called the nomenklatura or the ones who are running these enterprises really, the bureaucratic leaders of these enterprises and they just pocketed the entire wealth of the country. And what you would have seen in 92 to 96 is that polarization of people, particularly those who had retired who therefore were entirely dependent on essentially what the state was going to give them, their pension. And that because the Russian ruble collapsed under Yeltsin, their money was the pension was worth nothing. And terrible scenes that we saw at that time what happened in Russia. But the other big tragedy was the dissolution of this opportunity itself. Now, all of these were not essential. And we saw the transformation, for instance, the China did that it opened itself to the market, but it did it under the control of the state and also kept the levers of political power in their hands. We saw the emergence of also the capital, big capitalist in China, but at the same time they were able to give control over the process and did a transformation economically, which maybe Gorbachev was also trying for it. We were trying to be kind to him. But that did not lead to the dissolution of the state and the destruction of the Chinese structure itself, which is what happened under Gorbachev. So I will say Gorbachev's intention, the best I can say, maybe had good intentions. By the end of it, it was very clear, which he in fact, he said in the Central Committee, that the intention finally was to become essentially a liberal socialist party of what you saw in Western Europe, the Labour Party, the French Socialist Party and the German Socialist Party. And given the transformation that themselves have undergone, you can see the trajectory was about gradual path to capitalist restoration rather than the brutal restoration that capitalism had in the Union, which led to the emergence of the oligarchs and large scale looting of the wealth of the country as well as of the people. So my reaction to Gorbachev is not going to be a very kind one. And the only thing we can credit him for is well, he and the other really divisive figure in the United States, Ronald Reagan, they reached some agreement on nuclear bombs and disarmament, which has held us in good stead till the Bush Jr. came into the scene and took a and the Trump later who took a really a crowbar to the entire structure of disarmament that both he and Ronald Reagan had set in place and also followed by George Bush, number one, Bush 41, US terminology. So yes, some credit must be given that there was some positive fallout in the direction didn't last too long but nevertheless, all such moves towards peace are welcome. So yes, these other attempts were bumbling at the best and really at worst, it was a blind seeking of something of a path which was essentially for capitalist restoration. I went at a slower pace, not at the pace which Yeltsin did. Thanks for I think we've taken more time than we had. But thank you anyway for taking us through the past as well as the sort of impacted side on what's happening in world politics today. Next up, Indonesia has detained six army personnel in connection with the brutal murders of four civilians in the troubled West Papua region. The military has claimed that the civilians were attempting to buy weapons from these six soldiers and were killed when the deal went sour. The West Papua region is highly militarized and is the site of a decades long low intensity conflict between several small armed groups and the Indonesian state. Anish has more on this story. Anish West Papua is a highly militarized part of the world. And the Indonesian military here investigating its own officers for wrongdoing and in this case probably amounting to murder as well. How significant is that as a first step? Well, in this case specifically, it is significant in that there are obviously, as we know contradicting claims being made by both sides, especially the Indonesian military. And but nevertheless, there is an attempt to at least investigate it. We're not very sure how transparent this investigation is going to be. We're not very sure how how likely justice is going to be in this case either, because we are also not very sure of the circumstances of this. If you remember that West Papua is still pretty much in a very closed off kind of firewall, where access to internet is often disrupted by the government, but not just that there are also it's very difficult to even report from that is because you have moments often going underground, even civil society movements have very big difficulty to talk to foreign news reporters. So this is not a place where certain facts just by claims can be possible at any point in time. So we have to wait and watch how how, you know, unravels how the military is going to conduct this investigation, but definitely considering the fact that such investigations are rarest of the rare, despite the fact that this insurgency has been going on, and the militarization has been going on for decades now. This is definitely something that is that is at least an attempt to pressure wall within to limit the kind of damage that it has caused to the military's image and also to Indonesia's image in the foreign, the international community. Perhaps a bit also in line with the reports of human rights violations on the part of the military there, but also another positive might be that they've announced a joint investigation between the military and the police. So maybe some element of transparency might come out there, but we'll see how that goes. But for the time being, what is the scenario that the there has been like you were mentioning decades long insurgency separatist freedom movement, several groups are active. And these have become deadlier in the recent past. So what is the latest from the region? So the current phase of violence is often dated back to 2018. It's been four years since the state of violence has been going on. The military claims that it began with separatist attacking military outposts and officers. The separatists, on the other hand, claim that it's the it's something that began with with attacks on their students, attacks, racist attacks on West Papuans in other parts of Indonesia. And so it is sort of like a complex situation right now. We saw the the outcome of not an outcome, but like the side effect of this massive insurgency, it's a low level insurgency. Remember that it's not really a massive sort of sort of civil war situation, but it's like sporadic set of violence across the land, spread across months and years. But it has its own impact. It creates tensions between communities. It creates issues that very consolation can be a problem in the future. Thousands of people have been displaced because of this insurgency. And this was a special evident after the protests and the crackdown that happened by the Indonesian government. The protest of 2019, it happened for a span of two months. And spread out in the span of two months, peaceful protest, mostly by students and civil society groups demanding for and laws or actions against racist attacks on students and West Papuans across Indonesia. But also certain also opposing the recent as we talked about the recent partition of the provinces into multiple smaller provinces without much autonomy. And so all of these were issues that that could have been peacefully resolved if there were attempts to talk to have talks to negotiate between by the government, but that did not happen. Instead, we got further militarization hundreds of hundreds of military troops have reached West Papua is still there. And they pretty much have dictated a lot of the manner in which this conflict has moved forward to and this is what you're seeing right now. The case as you talked about, is quite horrifying. It's not something it's not an open and shut case of the military trying to portray it to me. We do not have that sort of a trade deal or a non steel or a sting going on where bodies are mutilated in such a manner. But this happened. And this shows that the militarization, the corrosive effect that it has happening, it is having on civil society in West Papua. And it's, it can have lasting damage. But we do not know how far it is going to go. And how bigger an impact it is going to happen because it is because remember, it is a very overlooked part of the world for most of the fact. And because of the manner in which I don't need to try to open up mines and, you know, all sorts of project to the massive for foreign investors, the we are very unlikely to see this level of outrage that we see for some other manufactured or real instances of human rights abuses from in different parts of the world. Right. Any thanks for that. I'll ask you to stick it on because the next story is from the Caribbean, a part of the world that you are also covering. And that we want to get you to weigh in on and it's a good story. So we'll come back to you in a minute. So as I was saying, our final story for today, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, a regional court that decides on cases from nine nations in the region, six of them independent and the other three British overseas territories, has deemed St. Kitts and Nevis's law, laws rather criminalizing homosexual behavior, null and void. The court ruled that the colonial era anti-sodomy laws adopted by the two island nation way back in 1873 are unconstitutional and in violation of the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. The ruling came after repetition was brought to the court by Jamal Jeffers, a gay man from the Caribbean nation, along with a nonprofit organization called the St. Kitts and Nevis Alliance for Equality. Luisa Cabal, UN AIDS regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean, was among those who hailed the ruling saying, and I quote, this landmark ruling is an important step forward in ensuring equality and dignity for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in St. Kitts and Nevis and the whole Caribbean. Today, St. Kitts and Nevis joins a growing list of Caribbean nations that have overturned these colonial era laws that deny people's human rights and hold back the response to the HIV pandemic. Everyone benefits from decriminalization. I think that is pretty much something everyone will agree with. And we'll go back to Anish for more on that story. So we are seeing from the region at least a sort of trend of getting rid of these colonial era laws. It is, of course, a positive step. Contextualize it for us, please. Yes, so there is definitely a progressive wave happening in the Caribbean where last month we saw Antigua and Barbuda High Court strike down a similar set of what were often called as past anti-sodomy laws or anti-bundly laws. And this shows changing attitudes, not just from the political elites and the courts, but also the manner in which the public is perceiving this. It is not the most controversial thing right now in the Caribbean. And that is definitely a good step forward. You have to also remember that this is a colonial legacy, as you said, and that itself shows how a whole host of homophobic and anti-LGBT legal processes that exist in the third world and much of the past, formerly colonized world, is because of our colonial legacies in themselves. And that has its own history and baggage that really needs to be shared by a lot of countries. We have now something like seven more countries in the Caribbean still remaining to decriminalize same sex relationships. But there are definitely movements, there are court cases, lawsuits that are still ongoing and trying to do the same that St. Kirtan Nevis has done today. And that shows that it is not going to be a moment that is going to die down very soon. As I said, the progressive wave is also going to help impact the manner in which courts perceive these lawsuits and how they are going to rule in many of these cases. And in the wider context, if you look at it, the number of countries also, there are about 68 countries that are not wrong, that still criminalizes homosexuality and same sex relationships in different forms. And this includes some far more developed countries like Singapore, which only recently announced doing away with the colonial era laws that decriminalize same sex relationship, sorry, criminalize the same sex relationships. So it is still a massive work to be done. It's still just the first step towards marriage equality and all sorts of legal rights that are otherwise denied to sexual minorities around the world and also in the Caribbean. But definitely a positive step forward and obviously showing how time is progressing for people around the world. Right. Thanks. Thanks very much, Anish. Thank you very much for watching this episode of Daily Debrief. As always, for more on these stories, head to our website peoplesdispatch.org and give us a follow on the social media platform of your choice. Until tomorrow, goodbye.