====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On 10/4/2010 2:35 PM, Greg McDonald wrote: > ====================================================================== > Anyone who thinks the CONAIE is being manipulated by Washington has > certainly never spent any time at all in Ecuador. My mind is not made up on any of this. I forward information to the list that comrades might find useful. The only thing that my mind is made up about is that Bordigism is a crock of shit. I also posted this on Oct. 2 2009: > https://nacla.org/node/6094 > Correa vs. Social Movements: Showdown in Ecuador > by Paul Dosh and Nicole Kligerman > > Report > > On September 28, 2008, 64% of voters in Ecuador approved a progressive > new constitution, launching a new political era in the country.1 For > more than a year leading up to the vote, Ecuador had been gripped with > “constitution fever,” as thousands of people lobbied the Constituent > Assembly’s 130 delegates, who were organized into 10 thematic > roundtables. The resulting document consisted of 444 articles centered > on reforming Ecuador’s institutions, including several groundbreaking > environmental measures touted as among the most progressive in Latin > America. > > Yet, although the passing of the new constitution represented a moment > of unity between Ecuador’s popular movements and the electoral left, > these two entities have clashed recently over the question of > environmental protection—showing that they are hardly synonymous and > sometimes not even allies. After the Constitution was ratified, > Ecuadoran president Rafael Correa, who was instrumental in establishing > the Constitutional Assembly, began a public campaign to pass legislation > that would expand the operations of gold-, silver-, and copper-mining > corporations in the Amazon and the southern highlands around Cuenca, as > well as initiate new mining sites in the northern highlands. Moving away > from the firm anti-neoliberal rhetoric he used on the 2006 campaign > trail, Correa described his vision of a socially responsible mining > sector whose profits would be harnessed to break the country’s > dependence on extractive industry. > > “[Passing the proposed Mining Law] is urgent, because this industry > represents the country’s future,” Correa said in an October 2008 press > conference. “But obviously, I’m talking about mining companies that pay > taxes, respect the workers, and develop social and environmental > responsibility projects.” > > He added: “Unfortunately, some people are ‘childish’—in quotations—like > the ones opposed to mining. But what country in the world has rejected > mining? The dilemma is not ‘no’ or ‘yes’ to mining. It is well-developed > mining. There is simply no dilemma. . . . [The childish > environmentalists] believe that bringing an end to an extractive economy > is to shut down the oil wells and close the mines. That is absurd. > Getting out of that economy means using this sector surplus to revive > other sectors of the economy: services, agriculture, industries, etc.”2 > > While other Latin American countries, like Argentina, Peru, and > Guatemala, have long been at the epicenter of the international mining > industry, Ecuador was until recently more known for its (often > disastrous) oil industry. Large-scale Ecuadoran mining did not begin > until the early 1990s, after a mining law was passed in 1985 that > encouraged foreign corporations to explore for minerals. Since then, > Ecuador has increasingly attracted the attention of foreign mining > corporations, sometimes provoking headline-making conflicts with > affected communities.3 > > In January, the Ecuadoran congress approved Correa’s plan, passing the > Mining Law to allow Canadian mining corporations, including Kinross > Gold, Iamgold, and Corriente Resources, to begin operations.4 Specific > articles in the Mining Law have come under intense scrutiny by the > anti-mining opposition; for example, Article 2 (“Applications”) mandates > the participation of both private and public figures in policy > discussions but does not include community members who will be affected > by mining. Moreover, Article 15 (“Public Utility”) declares mining a > public activity, which some members of the opposition argue can be used > to expropriate indigenous land for a supposed collective good. Article > 16 (“State Dominion Over Mines and Oil Fields”) allows the government > alone to define “national interest,” which critics believe will focus > solely on income. And Article 28 (“Prospecting Freedoms”) allows any > business to “liberally prospect for mineral substances” on community and > indigenous land.5 > > After the Mining Law passed, social movements, led primarily by > indigenous nationalities throughout the country, mobilized in response, > claiming that the law violates the new Constitution’s environmental > provisions—especially those that declare access to clean drinking water > and access to a healthy environment to be inviolable human rights, as > well as those that ascribe to the environment itself the right to be > respected, sustainably maintained, and regenerated. Critics further > argue that the track record of Ecuadoran mining demonstrates that the > industry’s practices fundamentally conflict with these constitutionally > protected rights. > > While many Ecuadoran groups have worked for years at the local level > either to oppose particular mining projects or to lobby for > environmental improvements or cleanup of specific mining sites, a > national opposition movement—including indigenous, urban, environmental, > Afro-Ecuadoran, and humanitarian groups—with the more ambitious goal of > banning large-scale metal mining was first built after Correa’s > election. The Mining Law thus provided a focal point around which this > movement’s nationwide efforts have coalesced.6 > > Several protests have demonstrated the cross-national and > cross-organizational unity against the Mining Law and the Canada-based > transnational mining corporations. On November 10, 2008, about 200 > activists from throughout the country, including executive members of > the Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), marched on the > Canadian Embassy in Quito, where they declared Canadian miners > “unwelcome” in Ecuador. A week later, thousands throughout Ecuador > protested the Mining Law, then still pending, in marches led by the > Unified Community Water Systems of Azuay (UNAGUAS) and the Federation of > Campesino Organizations.7 > > It was not until the passage of the Mining Law, however, that protests > and debate became widespread. January 12, the day the law was passed by > Congress, was designated by the anti-mining movement as the Day of > Mobilization for Life; thousands mobilized that day throughout Ecuador. > About 4,000 indigenous people blockaded the Latacunga-Ambato highway in > the south, and tens of thousands mobilized in Quito, Cuenca, the Amazon, > and on the coast.8 Some protest leaders were detained and charged with > terrorism; one Amazonian leader disappeared only to reappear later with > a gunshot wound in his head. Police officers were also wounded.9 > > In response, Correa again called those who oppose his mining law > “childish,” “nobodies,” and “allies of the right.”10 “It is absurd that > some want to force us to remain like beggars sitting atop a bag of > gold,” he said in a January 24 radio address, promising to move forward > with the mining plan.11 > > These accusations deepened the rift between Correa and the social > movements that supported the Ecuadoran constitution and are now > increasingly disillusioned with the possibility that Correa represents a > continuation of neoliberal policy. Humberto Cholango, the president of > Ecuarunari, an indigenous organization representing the Ecuadoran > sierra, contended in a recent statement: “The president needs only to > look to either side to see the right.”12 > > * > > Already in 2008, before the Constitution was approved, the leaders of > Women for Life, the Coalition in Defense of Water, and other popular > movements in Quito made clear in interviews that their support for the > Constitution should not be mistaken as support for Correa. Said Gonzalo > Guzmán, secretary for natural resources for Ecuarunari: “[Our > organization] will vote yes for the new Constitution, but we are voting > for the Constitution, not for Correa.” Luis Esparza, executive council > member of the Urban Forum coalition of popular groups, echoed this > feeling: “We are not a Correa fan club. We are social organizations.” > > Such tensions were already evident in the deliberations that took place > on the Constituent Assembly’s Roundtable 5, which focused on natural > resources and biodiversity. Composed of eight assembly members from > Correa’s party, Alianza País, along with two from the right-wing, > militaristic Sociedad Patriótica, one from the right-wing Partido > Renovador Institucional Acción Nacional, and one from the socialist > Movimiento Popular Democrático, Roundtable 5 began by mapping out the > use of natural resources and protection of Ecuador’s biodiversity in an > international, national, and local context. National meetings were held > to garner public opinion on the issues involved, granting civilian > groups the opportunity to submit proposals. Roundtable 5 ultimately > approved 23 articles. Together with its comprehensive prohibition of > water privatization, it also included a remarkable declaration that > nature itself is entitled to legally enforceable rights. > > Yet the issue of privatization divided the roundtable’s Alianza País > delegates, with some favoring leeway for privatization under certain > circumstances. Although privatizing natural resources and water was > ultimately prohibited, an exception was added to allow the president to > ask Congress for permission to extract resources. Mónica Chuji, the > chair of Roundtable 5 and former communications secretary for the Correa > government, describes this as “one of biggest deceptions of the > Constitution.” > > Another contested proposal, which was ultimately defeated, stated that > the government must be given consent from indigenous people residing on > land where natural resources are to be extracted. The final article > states that indigenous groups must only be “consulted”; they do not give > permission. > > Although the Constitutional Assembly members drafted and approved the > articles pertaining to natural resources, a long process of > social-movement engagement led to their implementation. Since the 1980s, > indigenous organizations like CONAIE and Ecuarunari, as well as > nonprofit organizations like Acción Ecológica, have fought the > exploitation of oil, water, and precious metals, and they have protested > pollution, deforestation, and the use of genetically modified organisms > (GMOs). Moreover, fierce fights against the privatization of oil, > electricity, and telecommunications have taken place, largely generated > by popular mobilization in rural areas. > > According to Ecuarunari’s Cholango, the result has been a shift in the > culture toward respect for indigenous ancestral knowledge and the rights > of land, and this is now reflected in the constitution: Chapter 2, > Article 12, states that access to water is a fundamental human right. > Article 13 asserts that the population has the right to live in a > healthy and sustainable ecological environment—abiding by sumak kawsay, > a key indigenous principle meaning “living well,” representing the need > for people and the environment to coexist harmoniously. Article 15 > declares that the state will promote clean technology and alternative, > nonpolluting energy, and that energy sovereignty should not affect the > population’s right to water. > > Chapter 7 outlines the specific rights of the environment. Article 71 > states that the environment, or Pachamama, has the right to be respected > and that its cycle structure, functions, and evolutionary processes > should be maintained and regenerated. Every person, community, and > nationality should enforce the rights of nature, the article maintains, > while the state is to provide incentives to protect nature and promote > its rights. Article 73 states that introducing organisms, i.e., GMOs, or > organic and inorganic material that will change Ecuador’s national > genetic patrimony is prohibited. Article 74 describes the right of > people, communities, and nationalities to benefit from the environment > and natural riches that allow them to live well. > > Yet the environmental movement is divided over whether the Constitution > really does provide a sound legal basis for opposing Correa’s mining > plans. Ivonne Ramos, president of Acción Ecológica, argues that the > Constitution does not fundamentally question the state’s reliance on > natural resources as its primary source of income. She adds that this is > a particularly challenging reality when coupled with the ambitious > social programs called for in the Constitution: How will Ecuador’s > government finance these programs without exploiting natural resources? > Ramos argues that Correa, as a capitalista popular (people’s > capitalist), will be unable to deliver on the progressive promises of > fully protecting natural resources. > > “Correa has stated that his principal enemy are ecologists and thus > politicized these problems,” she says. > > * > > After the January protests, the Correa administration moved to close > down several organizations that helped lead the protests against the > mining plan, including the Development Council of the Indigenous > Nationalities and Peoples of Ecuador (CODENPE). Correa argued that > CODENPE’s executive secretary was misusing the organization’s funds to > favor her home province. In February, Correa placed the National > Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education (DINEIB), which had > supported the anti-mining movement, under control of the Ministry of > Education, thus undermining its autonomy.- > > Then, in March, the government withdrew the legal status of Acción > Ecológica via the Ministry of Health, through which Acción Ecológica had > obtained its NGO charter. Health Minister Caroline Chang said the > organization did not fulfill the objectives it was registered for, while > the organization countered that the imposed legal complications were a > form of censorship due to the group’s activist opposition to the Mining > Law.13 Acción Ecológica received support both nationally and > internationally, with author-activist Naomi Klein writing an open letter > to Correa denouncing “something all too familiar: a state seemingly > using its power to weaken dissent.”14 > > In response to widespread criticism, the health minister released a > statement claiming that the revocation was not politically motivated, > but was rather an administrative decision—Acción Ecológica, Chang said, > should be registered under the Ministry of the Environment, which did > not exist when the group formed in 1986. Acción Ecológica’s legal status > was then temporarily reinstated, though a final legal decision was still > pending in early August. Ramos, however, remains concerned about > Correa’s attempt to reorganize grassroots organizations and NGOs by > placing them under the National Secretariat for Planning and > Development, thereby co-opting their organizational objectives and work.15 > > Despite the growing animosity between social movements and the Correa > government, Correa was re-elected to a second term as president on April > 26, winning 52% of the vote and becoming the first Ecuadoran > presidential candidate to win an election without a runoff in 30 years. > Yet in interviews, social movement leaders continued their refrain: > Support for the new Constitution is not necessarily support for Correa. > > * > > The official narrative of the new Constitution centers on Correa’s > efforts to chart an alternative trajectory for Ecuador. But this > narrative obscures the decades-long struggle of the country’s social > movements for radical change. Indigenous organizations like CONAIE and > its partner political organization, Pachakutik, have worked since the > early 1980s to fight for an Ecuador that, among other things, respects > the plurinationality of the populace and opposes the privatization and > exploitation of natural resources. > > These decades of organizing have resulted in at least a partial shift > toward reorganizing the state apparatus to show greater respect for > natural resources. Correa has not been at the forefront of these > movements, however, and natural resource protections granted in the > Constitution stem more from the grassroots than from the National > Palace. This tension is likely to foster continued conflict in the > months and years ahead. > > Paul Dosh teaches political science at Macalester College, where Nicole > Kligerman is majoring in Latin American studies. > > 1. Jesús Valencia and César Flores helped interview members of Ecuador’s > Constitutional Assembly and leaders of popular movements in Quito. This > research was supported by a Wallace International Research Grant, a > Student-Faculty Summer Research Grant from Macalester College, and a > grant from the Associated Colleges of the Midwest in support of > innovative faculty-student collaboration. We are also grateful to Emily > Hedin, Glen Kuecker, and David Seitz for their feedback on earlier drafts. > > 2. Silvia Santacruz, “Correa Confirms WFT, Condemns Eco-Extremists,” > Ecuador Mining News, October 14, 2008, > ecuadorminingnews.com/archives.php?id=105. > > 3. Glen Kuecker, “Fighting for the Forests: Grassroots Resistance to > Mining in Northern Ecuador,” Latin American Perspectives 34, no. 2 > (March 2007): 95–97. > > 4. Daniel Denvir, “Resource Wars in Ecuador: Indigenous People Accuse > President Rafael Correa of Selling Out to Mining Interests,” In These > Times, February 28, 2009. > > 5. Raúl Zibechi, “Ecuador: The Logic of Development Clashes With > Movements,” Americas Program Report, March 17, 2009, > americas.irc-online.org/am/5965. > > 6. Jennifer Moore, “Ecuador: Mining Protests Marginalized, but Growing,” > Upside Down World, January 21, 2009, > upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1673/1. > > 7. Daniel Denvir, Jennifer Moore, and Teresa Velasquez, “In Ecuador, > Mass Mobilizations Against Mining Confront President Correa,” Upside > Down World, November 19, 2008, > upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1588/49. > > 8. Zibechi, “Ecuador: The Logic of Development.” > > 9. Denvir, “Resource Wars in Ecuador.” > > 10. Zibechi, “Ecuador: The Logic of Development.” > > 11. Denvir, “Resource Wars in Ecuador.” > > 12. Zibechi, “Ecuador: The Logic of Development.” > > 13. Jennifer Moore, “Swinging From the Right: Correa and Social > Movements in Ecuador,” Upside Down World, May 13, 2009, > upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1856/49. > > 14. Naomi Klein, “Open Letter to President Rafael Correa Regarding > Closure of Acción Ecológica,” March 12, 2009. > > 15. Moore, “Swinging From the Right.” > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
