In These Times: Resource Wars in Ecuador

[marmar]

Resource Wars in Ecuador
Indigenous people accuse President Rafael Correa of selling out to mining interests.

By Daniel Denvir


QUITO, Ecuador—In January, this country was shaken by mass protests against large-scale mining.

Indigenous people and campesinos—or peasant farmers—in Ecuador have long called for nationalization of natural resources. These days, many are demanding that they not be exploited at all and are blockading highways to make their point.

President Rafael Correa responded by calling the protesters “nobodies” and “extremists.” The government detained a number of protest leaders, charging some of them with terrorism. One leader in the Amazon was briefly disappeared only to show up in a hospital in the Amazonian city of Macas with a gunshot wound to the head. Police officers were also injured in attempting to clear blockades.

In September, Ecuadorian voters approved a new constitution backed by Correa’s political movement, Alianza Pa’s. Among other gains, the document awards rights to the natural environment and declares access to water to be a human right.

But Correa is now pushing for the expansion of large-scale metal mining in Ecuador, winning congressional approval in January for a law that would open the country to mineral exploitation by Canadian companies, including Kinross, Iamgold Inc., and Corriente Resources Inc. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4252/resource_wars_in_ecuador

[Peace Patriot]

1. Well, this seems to be all bad news...

Rafael Correa--the Sir Lancelot of the leftist sweep of South America--calling the indigenous protectors of Mother Earth "nobodies" and "extremists." Yikes.

If it was written by the Associated Pukes and that lot, I would dismiss it out of hand--as lies aimed at "divide and conquer." There is nothing that our corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies would like more, in South America, than to destroy Rafael Correa. Only Hugo Chavez's assassination would please them more.

But this is "In These Times," a publication that--unlike the Christian Science Monitor, for instance--is not fake leftist in service to corpo/fascism. Nor does it have that metallic taste, that true leftist publications sometimes get--Counterpoint comes to mind--of such relentless negativism, with no solutions suggested, that you simply get tired reading it, and end up feeling hopeless, powerless and doomed. ITT is more in the vein of the Catholic Agitator (out of Los Angeles): There are solutions but you may not like them ("Give everything you own to the poor and come follow me!").

ITT is non-profit, and was founded in the 1970s by the likes of Daniel Ellsberg and Noam Chomsky. But its highest recommendation is this: “If it weren’t for In These Times, I’d be a man without a country.” —Kurt Vonnegut.

I mean, if you can't trust Kurt Vonnegut, who can you trust? (ITT's "About" page: http://www.inthesetimes.com/about/ )

The article is written by Daniel Denvir, "a freelance journalist who recently moved from Quito to Philadelphia. He is writing a book on poor people’s environmentalism in Ecuador." He has no other credits at the ITT author credit page. Far be it from me to dis an unknown writer, but he has no creds and I have no idea who he is or where he's coming from. The only thing to recommend him is that ITT is publishing him.

However, I will say this: I have certainly heard of this indigenous criticism of Rafael Correa before. It is not coming out of nowhere. And if it's true that, a) Correa dismissed these indigenous protesters so contemptuously, and b) he is going for big corporate mining, instead of small scale, highly regulated mining (or no mining in sensitive areas)--then it is, at the least, questionable, and probably reprehensible.

Dismissing poor, indigenous protesters as "nobodies" and "extremists" could be described as tantamount to giving them a death sentence. If the leftist government considers them to be inconsequential, how are mining interests going to regard them? Denvir reports that, "One leader in the Amazon was briefly disappeared only to show up in a hospital in the Amazonian city of Macas with a gunshot wound to the head. Police officers were also injured in attempting to clear blockades."

However--caveat--Denvir does not say anything more about this. He doesn't quote the family or friends of the shot man, nor give any hint of what locals believe happened to him. Could be a private dispute. We don't really know. The article is broadstroke in this way. It is not good reporting.

Ecuador's Amazon has taken a truly severe hit of pollution by Chevron-Texaco--in what has been described as the "Rainforest Chernobyl," a spill of oil and toxic sludge far worse than the Exxon-Valdez. That horror certainly spurs the indigenous to try to prevent such a thing ever happening again. Denvir mentions this, but it is not the full context. The full context is regional, and, indeed, global, involves other sectors and interests besides the indigenous tribes, and is a very, very, very, very difficult problem, which can be summed up this way: vast poverty.

Great leftist leaders like Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia--leaders who have had Bushwhack bull's eye targets on their backs from the day they were elected--are in one hell of a bind, to solve the chief problem they were elected to solve--vast poverty--while trying to do so sustainably, as to the environment, and fairly, as to all sectors (for instance, the displaced urban poor, with no jobs), and trying to stay alive, and protect and promote democracy, at the same time.

Denvir does give Correa's side of it: "In his Jan. 24 weekly radio address just days after major protests, Correa pledged to press on with large-scale mining. 'It is absurd that some want to force us to remain like beggars sitting atop a bag of gold,' he said."

So there you are. And "beggars" is not a metaphor in Ecuador or most anywhere in South America. Correa is literally speaking for the "beggars"--thousands, millions of human beings, whom he is expected to provide for--directly, in some cases (those who are extremely poor and lack very basic necessities), or indirectly, by opening up opportunities for employment and the achievement of decent, prosperous, happy lives, in a decent society.

It is no small problem. It is nearly insoluble. It is especially difficult with global warming and the corporate predators' ravaging of planet earth. It is just not possible, any more, for most of the human race to live like indigenous tribes, on tiny, traditional, organic farms, in harmony with nature. Possibly we will be forced to, if our planet's biosphere begins to seriously unravel. Indicators are that "begin" is not the right word. "End" is what is happening. The planet's biosphere is approaching the end. We humans, in our industrial frenzy of the last hundred years--abetted by corporate greed--are well on our way to destroying our only home. So maybe this conflict will soon be moot--in a few decades not centuries. The urban rich and the masses of displaced urban poor will simply die, and all that will be left are tiny sustainably living indigenous tribes in remote corners of the globe that still have viable soils and some kind of ecosystem.

This puts the people who rise to the top positions in our best political structure--democracy--the governmental system which provides the best chance for indigenous wisdom and environmental caution to prevail--into a tragic position. Well, maybe tragic. Certainly extremely difficult.

Rafael Correa has a 70% approval rating in Ecuador. The other leftist leaders have similar, very high approval ratings. And they have been elected in systems that are far, far more transparent and honest than our own. So they truly represent most people--including most of the indigenous, who have rallied to their cause, as to political support and voting. The 30% who don't approve of them are mostly rightwing assholes, who would do far worse to the environment, with no chance whatever of decent wages and working conditions or environmental regulation and cleanup. This was part of the problem with the Chevron-Texaco spill--a rightwing government let them get away with horrendous practices--and all of the profit went elsewhere. Correa will certainly not let that happen. A good percentage of the profit from mining will stay in Ecuador and be used for social programs. And very likely--given the Constitution that Correa helped write and get passed by the voters (around 60%), which enshrines Mother Nature's (Pachamama's) independent right to exist and to function properly--Correa will insist on environmental regulation and cleanup, and labor protections. He won't make a bad deal for Ecuador and its portion of the Amazon. But what these indigenous are saying is that should be no deal--for corporate-scale mining.

Without Correa, and the leftist tide in Ecuador and South America--with leftist leaders like Correa, Chavez, Morales, the Kirchners in Argentina, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Lula da Silva in Brazil, having each others backs and creating region-wide protection for democracy, against all of the Bushwhack plots of the last eight years, and on-going corporate looting and warfare--there would be no hope of even decent, basic environmental regulation in Ecuador, and workers would be mere slave labor to the multinationals.

So there you are, again. That is the dilemma. I remember reading of CONAIE's objections to Correa when he first ran for president in 2006, and their reluctant decision to back him, because the alternative was the richest man in Ecuador, a rightwing banana magnate (the kind of rightwing politician who conspired with the Bushwhacks on plots to stage fascist coups). Now CONAIE is considering running a candidate against Correa in the April elections (according to Denvir). They won't win, of course--but it might help get more attention for their very important issues. But if it were to result in the election of a rightwinger, that would be terrible. Here, we have the fear of Nader-spoilers--a fake fear in a non-transparent election system, with the Supreme Court or Diebold crowning the emperor. But in Ecuador--and other true voting systems--it is a genuine fear that such a division on the left will bring disaster--to labor, to the environment, to the indigenous, to everybody.

Is there some system of government, that we haven't thought of yet, that would insure the survival of planet earth and the human race--and still be progressive, humane and fair? We better get on it then.