H. Rahman is a Jadetimes news reporter covering the USA
Image Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., announced Wednesday that he and four other Democratic senators have formally invoked a century old statute known as the Rule of Five to compel the Department of Justice and the FBI to release all files related to the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Schumer explained that the statute grants five members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee the authority to demand executive branch disclosures. According to Schumer, the request demands access to “all documents, files, evidence and other materials” relating to the U.S. v. Jeffrey Epstein case.
“While protecting the victims’ identities must remain a top priority, the public has a right to know who enabled, knew of, or participated in one of the most heinous sex trafficking operations in modern history,” Schumer stated.
The demand targets what Schumer described as a pattern of “stonewalling and evasion” from the Trump administration, despite past public assurances of transparency from Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
Schumer accused former President Donald Trump of breaking a campaign promise to release the Epstein files and said the move by Senate Democrats represents a legal, non symbolic use of congressional authority. “This is not a stunt. It’s a formal exercise of congressional power under federal law,” Schumer said. “And we expect an answer from the DOJ by August 15th. That’s what accountability looks like.”
He also called upon Senate Republicans to join the initiative, appealing to bipartisan values of oversight and transparency.
In addition to the demand for file disclosure, Schumer urged the FBI to conduct a counterintelligence threat assessment, citing concerns that foreign intelligence services could exploit classified or unreleased Epstein related information. He warned that failure to secure these files could result in national security vulnerabilities and potential leverage over high ranking officials, including Trump and his inner circle. “We need to assess whether foreign entities can use cyber intrusion or other methods to access what this administration refuses to release,” he said during a floor speech earlier in the day.
The Rule of Five is a rarely used provision within federal law that allows five senators on the Homeland Security Committee to request information from the executive branch. If valid, the executive is legally obligated to respond. Schumer’s announcement marks one of the most high profile invocations of the statute in recent memory.
The renewed push to unseal the Epstein files comes amid ongoing public scrutiny of Epstein's connections to powerful global figures and new legal battles surrounding his former associate, Ghislaine Maxwell.
If the DOJ fails to comply by the August 15 deadline, it could set off a legal and political showdown between Congress and the Trump administration. Schumer insists that Senate Democrats are prepared to escalate the matter if needed. “We are done with secrecy and silence,” Schumer declared. “It’s time the American people got the full truth.”
K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering politics.
Image Source: Kevin Lamarque
After nearly four decades of war, displacement, and diplomatic stalemate, Armenia and Azerbaijan unveiled a U.S.-brokered peace deal at the White House on August 8, 2025, pledging mutual recognition of territorial integrity, renouncing force, and launching a strategic transit corridor through southern Armenia that Washington will develop under exclusive rights. The text—initialed by both sides and published days later—frames a blueprint for normalization and a new economic geography across the South Caucasus.
The news: What was agreed in Washington
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stood alongside the U.S. president to announce a joint declaration that ends claims to each other’s territory, pledges non-use of force, and signals the dissolution of a legacy mediation format, the OSCE Minsk Group. The parties also agreed to bar third-party military deployments along their shared border, reflecting a marked turn from traditional external security arrangements in the region.
The agreement includes a high-stakes infrastructure component: the United States obtained exclusive development rights to a transit corridor in southern Armenia connecting mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan, framed as the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). The corridor is designed to unlock regional trade and energy flows while respecting Armenian sovereignty—a balance that resolved earlier deadlocks over control and legal jurisdiction.
Soon after the summit, both governments released the text of the initialed agreement, underscoring core obligations, political intent, and next steps for ratification and implementation. Azerbaijan reiterated that final signature would follow constitutional changes in Armenia to remove language Baku views as territorial claims, while Yerevan called the text a “solid foundation” for a reliable peace.
What the peace deal includes
Core commitments
Mutual recognition: Both states recognize each other’s territorial integrity and relinquish claims to each other’s territory.
Non-use of force: They pledge to refrain from threats or use of force and to respect international law in their relations.
No third-party forces on the border: The text bans deployment of foreign troops along the shared border, a clause widely read as limiting future Russian or other external military roles there.
Minsk Group dissolution: A joint request to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group, the defunct framework that mediated the conflict for decades.
The TRIPP corridor and connectivity
Exclusive U.S. development rights: The U.S. secured sole development rights for a transit corridor through southern Armenia linking Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave, in service of wider Europe–Turkey–Caucasus–Central Asia connectivity. The corridor’s governance adheres to Armenian law, addressing sovereignty concerns that previously stalled progress.
Duration and scope (as reported): Reporting indicates a 99-year arrangement under which the U.S. may sublease to a consortium to build rail, road, pipelines, fiber optics, and potentially power transmission along roughly 27 miles of corridor—positioning the route as a multipurpose artery for trade and energy.
Regional sensitivities: Iran has voiced sharp concerns about any arrangement resembling an extraterritorial “Zangezur Corridor,” warning against geopolitical shifts that cut across its transit interests, even as Tehran publicly welcomed de-escalation between its northern neighbors.
Legal and political steps
Constitutional issue: Azerbaijan conditions final signature on Armenian constitutional amendments to remove language it interprets as claims on Azerbaijani territory; Armenia has signaled intent to pursue reform while stressing domestic process and timing.
Text publication and ratification path: The initialed text was published after the White House announcement; both sides acknowledged further actions are required to finalize and ratify the treaty in their respective systems.
Security and monitoring
Evolving roles: The deal’s border clause intersects with the EU civilian monitoring mission in Armenia and the drawdown of Russian roles post-2020—contexts that Baku has contested and Yerevan has relied on at different times during the crisis cycle.
Why this moment matters
The deal crystallizes a power shift since 2020–2023: Azerbaijan’s battlefield gains changed the strategic map; Russian influence receded amid its own wars and sanctions; and the U.S. stepped into a role that pairs diplomacy with infrastructure statecraft. Turkey stands to see enhanced overland connectivity to the Caspian, while the EU and energy markets gain a corridor that bypasses Russia and Iran. Iran, watching its transit leverage narrow, has warned against regional reconfiguration that sidelines its routes.
At the same time, the agreement’s strength lies in trade-offs: U.S. development rights to a corridor; legal constraints on foreign troops; and a mutual renunciation of claims. Its fragility lies in politics at home—Armenia’s constitutional reform debate, Azerbaijan’s expectations on pace and tone of normalization, and societal grievances on both sides after mass displacement in 2023.
The conflict’s long arc: From late Soviet tensions to a U.S.-brokered deal
The roots run deep. In the late 1980s, as the USSR loosened, Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian majority sought unification with Armenia, igniting pogroms, retaliation, and, after 1991 independence, full-scale war. By 1994, Armenian forces held Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding districts; a Russia-brokered ceasefire froze lines but not grievances. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, and a decades-long cold conflict set in.
Azerbaijan’s 2020 offensive reshaped the map, restoring control over the surrounding districts and parts of Nagorno-Karabakh under a Russia-brokered armistice. In September 2023, Baku’s lightning operation brought all of Nagorno-Karabakh under its control; over 100,000 ethnic Armenians fled to Armenia within days. The self-proclaimed Artsakh entity dissolved on January 1, 2024, marking a historic pivot away from the decades-old status quo.
By spring 2025, after EU monitoring deployments, sharper Russia–Armenia frictions, and reciprocal border moves (including Armenia’s return of four villages in May 2024), the governments said they were prepared to end the conflict. The White House summit on August 8, 2025, crowned months of tentative steps with a public peace announcement and a connectivity package to anchor it.
Timeline: Key moments in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict and diplomacy
1988–1994: From late Soviet unrest to first war and ceasefire
Nagorno-Karabakh seeks unification with Armenia; war follows independence. A 1994 Russia-brokered ceasefire freezes the front; Armenian forces control Karabakh and adjacent districts.
2016: Four-day war
A sharp escalation causes hundreds of casualties and foreshadows a more volatile decade ahead.
2020: The second Karabakh war
A 44-day conflict yields major Azerbaijani gains; a Russia-brokered armistice leads to Russian peacekeepers’ deployment and reopened transit discussions.
2022–2023: Blockade and collapse of the status quo
EU monitoring arrives on Armenia’s border; access via Lachin corridor is choked and then checkpointed. On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan seizes full control of Karabakh; mass flight to Armenia ensues.
January 1, 2024: Artsakh dissolves
The de facto entity ceases to exist; the conflict’s core territorial dispute ends in Azerbaijan’s favor, but state-to-state normalization remains undone.
May 24, 2024: Border adjustments
Armenia returns four villages captured in the 1990s to Azerbaijan, signaling movement on delimitation principles.
March 2025: Text agreed in principle
Officials say the terms of a peace treaty are finalized, pending signature and domestic processes.
August 8, 2025: White House announcement
Leaders announce a peace deal and unveil the U.S.-developed TRIPP corridor; days later, the initialed text is published.
Stakeholders, reactions, and domestic politics
Washington framed the agreement as a historic de-escalation with economic upside; Baku and Yerevan cast it as a path to a “reliable and lasting peace,” even as both acknowledged remaining hurdles. Azerbaijan linked final signature to Armenian constitutional amendments; Armenia emphasized that sovereignty over the corridor remains intact under Armenian law. Russia welcomed peace but warned against crowding out regional players; Iran stressed sovereignty, connectivity, and transit concerns with the U.S.-led corridor.
Political pressure runs both ways. Armenian opposition groups and diaspora voices criticize the deal’s asymmetries and the trauma of 2023’s exodus; critical op-eds argue peace requires accountability for detainees and cultural heritage protections. Azerbaijani narratives highlight victory consolidation and strategic connectivity to Turkey, casting TRIPP as the linchpin of a new regional order.
How this deal compares to other peace settlements
Agreement
Context
Core provisions
Third-party role
Implementation risks
Azerbaijan–Armenia (2025, initialed)
Post-2023 Azerbaijani control of Karabakh; need for state-to-state normalization
Mutual recognition, non-use of force, no foreign troops on border, dissolve Minsk Group; U.S.-developed TRIPP corridor under Armenian law
U.S. as convener-developer; EU monitors present in Armenia; Russia sidelined
Constitutional reforms in Armenia; border demarcation; Iran’s objections; societal grievances
Dayton Accords (Bosnia, 1995)
Ethno-territorial war in Balkans
Single state with two entities; annexes on military, elections, refugees
NATO-led IFOR/SFOR; heavy international governance
Long-term dependency on external guarantors; slow reconciliation
Egypt–Israel (1979)
Interstate war and Sinai occupation
Peace, demilitarization, normalization
U.S. mediation and aid; MFO monitoring
Spoilers; regional shocks testing durability
Good Friday Agreement (N. Ireland, 1998)
Sectarian conflict within UK
Power-sharing, consent principle, decommissioning
UK–Ireland guarantors; international verification
Political crises; community trust-building
Ethiopia–Eritrea (2018)
Frozen border war
Peace declaration, reopened ties
Minimal external enforcement; Gulf states’ support
Border demarcation delays; relapse risks without verification
Sources: Deal text and background as reported by Reuters (US News) and CFR.
Expert takeaway: Unlike Dayton’s heavy external enforcement or Good Friday’s deep power-sharing, the Azerbaijan–Armenia framework bets on state-to-state normalization and economic interdependence anchored by TRIPP—strong on sovereignty and connectivity, lighter on built-in reconciliation and accountability mechanisms. That puts more weight on domestic reforms, monitoring transparency, and corridor governance to deliver dividends that outpace spoilers.
Risks, verification, and scenarios
Implementation risk: Constitutional reform in Armenia can stall amid polarizing politics; border delimitation could trigger local protests; any incident along the frontier risks unraveling momentum.
Geopolitical friction: Iran’s objections to a U.S.-led corridor and Russia’s discomfort with diminished leverage could manifest as diplomatic or hybrid pressure, especially around transit and energy nodes.
Societal wounds: The 2023 exodus, detainee issues, and cultural heritage disputes feed mistrust. Without parallel humanitarian steps and confidence-building, “cold peace” could harden.
Monitoring opacity: The ban on foreign troops along the border puts a premium on civilian monitoring, satellite transparency, and crisis hotlines; absent trusted verification, narratives can escalate quickly.
Economic and strategic implications
Euro-Caspian connectivity: TRIPP complements East–West energy and trade corridors, enabling flows between Europe, Turkey, the Caucasus, and Central Asia without transiting Russia or Iran—an explicit geopolitical objective cited by U.S. officials and reflected in post-2022 diversification logic. Armenia gains a chance to reinsert itself into regional logistics and renewables value chains if it leverages corridor governance and adjacent projects wisely.
Armenia’s reorientation: A shift from isolation to integration—if paired with legal reform and investor protections—could attract capital for logistics, energy, and manufacturing. Sequencing matters: visible benefits can build domestic support for difficult compromises.
Azerbaijan’s hub strategy: A direct land bridge to Nakhchivan bolsters ties with Turkey and consolidates Baku’s role as a pivotal energy and transit hub in the wider Caspian–Black Sea space. Corridor performance will be the litmus test of sustainable normalization.
What to watch next
Ratification clock: Whether Yerevan tables constitutional amendments and how Baku sequences signature with those steps.
Corridor governance: Detailed statute for TRIPP under Armenian law—customs, transit guarantees, dispute resolution, and public–private financing structure.
Border delimitation: Technical demarcation milestones and local security arrangements; interaction with EU monitoring.
Humanitarian measures: Detainee releases, property and archival access, cultural heritage safeguards, and targeted confidence-building in border communities.
Regional signaling: Iran’s posture toward construction, Russia’s diplomatic countermoves, and Turkey–EU–U.S. coordination on trade and energy through the corridor.
Conclusion
The Azerbaijan–Armenia peace deal is more than a ceasefire document. It is a strategic wager: that sovereignty clarity, demilitarized borders, and a U.S.-developed corridor can convert hard-won battlefield realities into a durable peace dividend. Its success will depend less on ceremony than on law, logistics, and lived experience along the border—whether trucks and trains move on time, whether people feel safer, and whether politics can bend toward the future faster than history pulls them back.
K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering culture.
Image Source: Matesu Dube
1. Introduction: A Landmark Partnership
In January 2025, Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Sport, Recreation, Arts and Culture and UNESCO formally inaugurated a two-year programme to safeguard the country’s intangible cultural heritage (ICH). This joint initiative will:
Raise public awareness of living traditions
Strengthen legal and institutional frameworks
Empower communities and traditional leaders as custodians
The launch ceremony in Harare drew government officials, tribal elders, heritage experts, and UNESCO representatives—underscoring a shared determination to shield Zimbabwe’s ancestral wisdom from the twin pressures of globalization and urban migration.
2. Understanding Intangible Cultural Heritage
According to the 2003 UNESCO Convention, intangible cultural heritage encompasses:
Oral traditions and expressions, including storytelling, proverbs, and rituals
Performing arts, such as music, dance, and theatre
Social practices, rituals, and festive events, like rain-making ceremonies
Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe, for example medicinal plant lore
Traditional craftsmanship, from basketry to textile weaving
Unlike monuments or historic sites, ICH is living heritage—transmitted across generations, constantly evolving, and deeply woven into community identity.
3. A History of Zimbabwe’s ICH Preservation Efforts
Zimbabwe’s journey toward safeguarding intangible heritage spans nearly four decades:
1985: Enactment of the National Museums and Monuments Act, which laid groundwork for cultural protection beyond archaeology and architecture.
2003: Adoption of UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
2006: Ratification of the Convention by Zimbabwe, enabling formal alignment of national policies with UNESCO standards.
2008: Inscription of the Mbende Jerusarema dance on UNESCO’s Representative List of ICH, the first Zimbabwean element recognized globally.
2010: Listing of the art of crafting and playing the Mbira/Sansi lamellophone, highlighting the central role of music in Shona and Tonga cultures.
2013: Submission of Zimbabwe’s first periodic report on ICH implementation, marking an institutional commitment to ongoing monitoring.
2022: Revision of the National Cultural Policy to integrate ICH mapping, community audits, and youth engagement programmes.
2025: Launch of the Awareness-Raising Project (2025–2026) in partnership with UNESCO, targeting traditional leaders, educators, and local councils.
These milestones trace Zimbabwe’s evolution from protecting built heritage to recognizing the urgent need to preserve living traditions before they fade.
4. Zimbabwe’s Intangible Cultural Heritage: A Comprehensive Overview
Zimbabwe’s ICH reflects its ethnic diversity, ecological variety, and historical depth:
1. Music & Instruments
o Mbira/Sansi: “Thumb pianos” used in spiritual ceremonies and storytelling.
o Drum traditions: From the Ndebele ingoma drum ensembles to Tonga rain-calling rhythms.
2. Dance Forms
o Mbende Jerusarema: High-energy pelvic dance of the Zezuru people, symbolizing communal resilience.
o Isitshikitsha: Ndebele foot-stamping dances at weddings and harvest festivals.
3. Oral Traditions & Storytelling
o Mbudzi narratives: Folktales featuring the clever ram (“mbudzi”) impart moral lessons.
o Praise poetry (izibongo & madanangawo): Recitations extolling chiefs, heroes, and lineage.
4. Social Practices & Rituals
o Rain-making ceremonies: Pilgrimages to Matobo Hills, led by spirit mediums invoking ancestral rains.
o Rites of passage: Shona initiation (“graveside rituals”) and Ndebele “gudo” puberty rites.
5. Traditional Knowledge Systems
o Ethnobotany: Use of indigenous flora—msasa, mukura—for medicine and cosmic harmony.
o Totemic kinship: Animal- and plant-based clan identities guiding dietary taboos and conservation.
6. Craftsmanship & Material Culture
o Basket weaving: Makwe baskets of Masvingo, famed for geometric patterns and resilience.
o Textile arts: Shweshwe cloth adaptations and hand-woven mbira covers.
Each element is sustained by Knowledge Bearers—elders, spirit mediums, artisans—whose mentorship and apprenticeship programmes form the backbone of intergenerational transmission.
5. Community Engagement & Education
A core tenet of the 2025–2026 initiative is integrating ICH into daily life:
Heritage-Based Curriculum: Pilot modules in primary and secondary schools teaching local dances, songs, and crafts.
Community Archives: Support for village-level audio-visual documentation, preserving dialects and oral histories.
Cultural Festivals: District-wide events featuring Mbira jamborees, Jerusarema showcases, and storytelling marathons.
Traditional Leadership Forums: Workshops for chiefs and headmen on legal protections and rights under the 2003 Convention.
By embedding heritage into classrooms and community centres, Zimbabwe aims to combat rural-urban drift and kindle youth pride in ancestral roots.
6. Comparative Perspective: Regional and Global Initiatives
Zimbabwe’s strategy aligns with—and often leads—similar programmes across Southern Africa:
Country
UNESCO ICH Inscriptions
Key Initiatives
Zambia
Makishi masquerade (2021)
Province-led festivals; school outreach in Luapula
Mozambique
Timbila music (2019), Nyau dance (2008)
Mobile ICH units; radio programmes in Makua languages
South Africa
Isicathamiya music (2008)
National Heritage Council grants; community-run academies
Botswana
Tsutsube dance (pending)
Draft national ICH policy; heritage mapping pilot
Namibia
Oshituthi/Shikatembwa dance (2014)
Cross-border ICH in education; UNESCO-funded surveys
Zimbabwe’s two inscriptions, combined with a nationwide preservation drive, position it as a model for mid-sized heritage agencies balancing limited budgets with expansive cultural landscapes.
7. Threats and Challenges
Despite progress, Zimbabwe’s ICH faces multiple pressures:
Globalization & Media: Western pop culture eclipsing local music and dance.
Urbanization: Rural exodus dilutes community-based practices, especially in peri-urban Harare.
Economic Hardship: Artisans and performers often juggle survival work, limiting time for heritage transmission.
Language Loss: Decline in smaller dialects (Tonga, Shangaan) reduces oral tradition diversity.
Climate Change: Erratic rainfall and drought disrupt agricultural rituals and harvest festivals.
Addressing these requires multisectoral collaboration, from tourism boards to telecom operators, ensuring ICH remains both viable and visible.
8. Digital Safeguarding & Innovation
Harnessing technology amplifies heritage reach:
Virtual Heritage Atlas: An interactive map of ICH sites, events, and repositories.
Mobile Story Apps: Audio-narrated folktales in Shona, Ndebele, and minority languages.
Digital Dance Archives: High-definition recordings of Jerusarema troupes, annotated by culture bearers.
Online Craft Marketplaces: E-commerce platforms selling baskets, mbira, and beadwork directly from artisans.
These digital tools not only preserve practices but also create revenue streams, incentivizing custodianship among younger generations.
9. Timeline: Pillars of Zimbabwe’s ICH Safeguarding
Year
Milestone
1985
National Museums and Monuments Act establishes heritage protection framework
2003
UNESCO Convention for ICH adopted by Member States
2006
Zimbabwe ratifies ICH Convention
2008
Mbende Jerusarema dance inscribed on UNESCO ICH List
2010
Mbira/Sansi craftsmanship and playing inscribed
2013
Submission of first periodic ICH report
2022
National Cultural Policy updated to mainstream ICH mapping
2025
Launch of Joint Zimbabwe-UNESCO ICH Safeguarding Initiative
2026
Completion of community audits and heritage-education rollout
10. Charting a Sustainable Future
Zimbabwe’s 2025–2026 initiative represents a watershed moment—transforming policy into practice, and reactive conservation into proactive celebration. By weaving ICH into education, leveraging digital innovation, and forging regional partnerships, the country is crafting a blueprint for living heritage resilience. The success of this programme will not only safeguard Mbira tunes and Jerusarema beats but will affirm Zimbabwe’s cultural sovereignty and inspire emerging stewards of its ancestral legacy.
