The AP paints a picture of division in a village split between Belarus and Lithuania called Pyatskuny/Norviliskes. The division is measured by security controls:

To travel there, she would have to journey 90 miles to the nearest Lithuanian consulate, wait in line for several days, pay about $90 for a visa (almost her entire monthly pension), travel 60 miles north to a border checkpoint and another 60 miles south before finally arriving in Norviliskes.

That sounds inefficient and bureaucratic, but not terribly harmful. The story is supposed to be shocking, it seems, and thus emphasizes how unique and strange things are for the village:

This is the only border village that is cut in two. As under Soviet rule, border guards and secret service agents keep tabs on everyone in the border region, and those traveling here from elsewhere in Belarus need permission.

A quick search on the Internet finds a village called Bil’in where land was cut 60/40 between Israelis and Palestinians with a fence in-between. I would guess there are dozens if not hundreds of villages that have faced similar border issues.

Anyway, back to the spotlight on Belarus a “plain clothes police” escort description is surely meant to give you chills too:

Three men in leather jackets who introduced themselves as border guards accompanied two journalists throughout a recent visit. Some villagers said they were afraid to speak in the men’s presence

Beware men in leather jackets, eh? I think you are supposed to be afraid to speak in the presence of law enforcement. That is probably a universal issue, even if they read you Miranda rights and explain to you how to be careful.

The article about Israel’s village says agents mingled with protesters to the point where they actually threw stones at uniformed police too, which Israel claimed was necessary for the agents to “fit-in”. I find that more disturbing than leather jacketed men who introduce themselves as border guards.

Oh wait, did I mention the village of Szelmenc? Ukraine and Slovakia split that village into two parts. Pictures show relatives yelling across the border to communicate with each other. Anyway, back to the AP’s story of the “only border village that is cut in two”:

Elderly villagers joke that they have lived in three countries without ever leaving home. Once part of Poland, the village was taken over by the Soviet Union in 1939, which gave one half to Belarus and the other to Lithuania.

After the Soviet collapse in 1991, the border with Lithuania became an international one, but travel rules remained relatively lax and Belarusian villagers were able to cross over to the Lithuanian side on religious holidays.

Then, in 2004, Lithuania joined the EU and NATO, and required visiting Belarusians to have visas, since it had become part of the EU’s border-free zone.

This goes back to my post on Catherine II’s Tolerance Edict of 1773 that was meant to make her look “tolerant” to her supporters, although she actually divided families and accelerated high tensions in Europe through careless and forced emigration policies.

Not to diminish the problems, but the history and perspective of villages divided is sorely lacking from the AP story. I wish they had been more descriptive and less sensationalistic.

I often hear people making fun of Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” publicity stunt.

Today I was reminded that this certainly was not the first time a leader has made a great stroke of irony.

The self-proclaimed reformist of Russia, Catherine II, put forward an edict of “tolerance” that actually did a great deal to incite and build intolerance. DW World explains the situation back then:

Catherine’s reign was full of contradictions. The tolerance edict of June 17, 1773 expressly forbade all forms of religious persecution and serves as proof of her modern and liberal attitude. This law was of great benefit to the Old Believers, the branch of the Russian Orthodox Church which had been excommunicated following the Schism of 1666. In diametric contrast to this were the restrictions placed on the Jewish population. They were limited to designated areas of the western Czardom, which covered large parts of annexed Poland. From 1791 onwards, Jews there were ghettoized. Their social and religious activities could only be carried out in the designated zones.

The 1773 timing is important because the annexation of Poland by Russia began in 1772. Thus, her “tolerance” policies were apparently a means to push those who were not considered for tolerance into a less noticeable place.

You might say this is similar to removing signs of failure when reporting on a mission accomplished story. The space Catherine II was using for those she could not tolerate just so happened to be already full of forces motivated to fight and expand the influence of Catholicism. Twenty years later, or about 1791, those behind this Catholic movement had been subdued (despite assistance from France) and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned into foreign control zones (Russian as well as Austrian and Prussian).

The organization of ghettos and restrictions on social and religious freedom was thus the result of the Tolerance Edict for many Europeans. This set the stage for increased tension and ongoing intolerance.

The Whitehouse later tried to explain Bush’s “mission accomplished” speech really was in reference to the one ship he was standing on; it had accomplished its particular mission of hanging a large banner that said mission accomplished.

Perhaps if we could speak with Catherine II today she might argue something similar; that her idea of forbidding all forms of religious intolerance really meant only religions she approved of at the time, or even the few she thought tolerable, would be tolerated.