Guatemala: Hydroelectric Dam Conflicts Bring Back Past Horrors for Indigenous Communities

Por

23 February, 2017

Cahabón River

Guatemala’s indigenous communities have worked tirelessly to recuperate their communal lands in the 20 years since the end of the country’s 36-year-long internal armed conflict. But these communities have faced the constant threat of dispossession from mining companies, the large-scale agro-industry, and the construction of hydroelectric dams.

In February 2017, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court issued their final decision on one dam-related conflict along the Cahabón River. The court ordered immediate suspension of the Oxec and Oxec II dams along the river pending the fulfillment of the consultation of residents of the municipality of Santa María Cahabón, the region expected to be impacted by the dam.

The court’s decision upholds an earlier decision in 2016 where the Guatemalan Supreme Court suspended the license for dam construction, and ordered a consultation of the 29,000 residents along the river. The consultation was originally slated for July 31, 2016, but the company filed an appeal just days before the consultation was to be held, delaying it until an unknown date. Meanwhile, the dam projects moved forward.

“The entered without advising the communities,” said Bernardo Caal, a leader of the movement against the hydro projects along the Río Cahabón. “We issued this appeal so that the company would inform and consult the communities over the project. But the company issued an appeal and impeded the consultation from occurring.”

In response residents called for a consultation in “good faith”, but this was quelled just days later when the Guatemalan government of right-wing President Jimmy Morales deployed police and military forces to stop the community from holding the consultation.

The Guatemalan Ministry of Energy and Mining issued permits for the 25.5-megawatt Oxec dam, and the 45-megawatt Oxec II dam along the river in 2014. The company, Hidro Oxec S.A., which is owned by the Bosch Gutiérrez family, received a 50 years permit for the river. The Spanish company Cobra Group, owned by Florentino Pérez, the president of Spanish soccer team, Real Madrid, is constructing several of the projects along the river.

“Now no one can enter to swim, to fish, and to collect water where they are installing the project because they are installing security fences”, said Caal. “This is a psychological impact. Before, one could go down to the river to bathe, collect water, and wash clothing. But now there are well armed private security officers along the river”.

The communities are now waiting for the state sanctioned-consultation to be held to decide the fate of the hydro project.

Just weeks before the court made their 2017 announcement in favor of the residents of Cahabón, another community in resistance to the expansion of hydro energy received a major victory.

On December 23, 2016, Hidro Santa Cruz, the subsidiary of the Spanish firm Ecoener–Hidralia, issued a press release announcing their decision to abandon the construction of the Santa Cruz hydroelectric dam in the Santa Cruz Barillas region. The company stated their decision was based on the levels of social conflict that had plagued the project since it was first announced in 2009. The project was met with constant protests by residents, and was accompanied by the criminalization and repression of anti-dam activists.

Residents have celebrated the recent announcement, but they are still weary of the news. “It was only a publication [in a newspaper], and not a judicial document guaranteeing their leaving,” said Jorge Ramirez, a community leader from Barillas who, for questions of safety, chose not use his real name for this article. “We’ll be waiting to see if they leave”.

Whether or not the project leaves for good, the decision to abandon the project sets a precedence for the value of resistance to the expansion of projects. But as Guatemala Sociologist Gladys Tzul Tzul points out, the region is still impacted by other major social conflicts over hydro, such as the project in San Mateo Ixtatan.

“The abandonment of the project Hidro Santa Cruz is the result of the social forces,” said Tzul Tzul. “But we’ll have to see if this gives force and understanding to the communities in San Mateo Ixtatan in their struggle against the projects they want to impose there”.

Violence Against Activists and Communities

January 17 of this year was a day of peaceful protest against the construction of the hydro electrical facility in the Chuj Maya community of Yixquisis in the municipality of San Mateo Ixtatan. Concerned residents mobilized to demand that the company, Proyección de Desarrollo Hídrico S.A. (PDH), leave their community. But the day would come to a tragic end when paramilitary members associated with the hydro company opening fire on protesters, striking 72-year-old Sebastián Alonzo Juan in the head. He would eventually die from his injuries.

Members of the region’s indigenous authorities denounced the assassination, and called for an immediate investigation into the murder.

“(The Plural National government) expresses its deep indignation at the constant aggression of transnational corporations that do not do more than provoke death by imposing a state of war and killing peaceful and defenseless people who seek peace alone”, wrote leaders of the region’s ancestral authority, known as the Plural National government, in their statement to the press. The ancestral authority represents the Akateko, Chuj, Q’anjab’al, and Popti’ Mayan communities of the region.

“We demand the immediate thorough investigation of the murderers of Mr. Sebastian Alonzo Juan who was an advocate for the individual and collective human rights of the Chuj nation”, the leaders stated. They added their demands for the immediate withdrawal of the projects within the territory.

Following the assassination, leftwing members of the Guatemalan congress launched a campaign to investigate the murder. But as the investigation begins, the most recent death in the modern conflict over expansion of energy expansion brings back the tragic memories of the past.

The Tragic History of Energy Expansion in Guatemala

Guatemala is currently undergoing the massive expansion of energy generation. The Guatemalan Ministry of Energy and Mining and the Inter-American Development Bank have announced that Guatemala will double energy production by 2025. The plans for such an expansion have been in place since the 1970s, and extends previous development plans such as Plan Mesoamerica and regional free trade agreements such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement. At the heart of the plan is Washington’s long-term plan of the integration of energy systems across Central America and Mexico.

Today energy expansion is at the heart of the Alliance for Prosperity, which was proposed in early 2015 by US Vice President Joseph Biden. The plan was proposed as a means to combat the northern migration of undocumented migrants from the region following the crisis of unaccompanied minors from Central America in 2014.

According to the Obama administration, which developed these policies, the 750-million-dollar aid package for the Northern Triangle of Central America, as well as millions for Mexico and Nicaragua, is meant to generate foreign direct investment, and strengthen security. Energy expansion in Central America takes a central place within the plan presented for the Alliance for Prosperity.

The integration of the region’s energy networks were listed within the readouts of calls between the Obama White House and the Presidents of the northern triangle. It was also listed as a key part of the White House’s 2015 Strategy for Engagement in Central America.

“The Central American Electrical Interconnection System’s regional grid, a project first envisaged in the 1980s and launched in 2007, is complete and, subject to reform that promotes electricity trade, Central America would attract more investment, lower energy prices, and advance energy security”, the White House wrote in their Strategy for Engagement in Central America. “However, the full benefits will only accrue if countries adopt integrated regulatory regimes and governance policies that attract foreign investment, increase modernization and privatization, and encourage adoption of regional energy solutions and standards. We will provide technical assistance to help countries modernize their regulatory systems, diversify their energy matrixes, and facilitate increased financing for investment in energy-related projects. There are good opportunities for collaboration with Mexico and Canada in this area”.

The modern struggle along the Cahabón River takes place in the same area where the World Bank and Guatemalan State sought to build a mega-dam as part of the energy development plan during the country’s 36-year-long internal armed conflict. The plan included 3 hydro projects: the 360 megawatt Xalala dam on the Chixoy river in Quiche, the 300 megawatt Chixoy dam on the Chixoy River in Baja Verapaz, and the 440 megawatt Chulac dam on the Cahabón in Alta Verapaz. The Chixoy project was the only dam to be completed during this time.

A 1986 World Bank study highlights this expansion of energy generation in Guatemala. According to the report, “The proposed project would help improve the power sector’s efficiency and would enable minimum system expansion requirements to be met consistent with present load growth expectations”.

But due to the weak condition of the rock base along river, the Cahabón could not support a dam of this scale. The project was scrapped in 1993.

As the conflict raged in Guatemala in the 1980s, indigenous community members linked military violence to the dam construction attempts in the area.

Extreme levels of violence marked the projects in the 1980’s. The well-known case of this tragedy is the massacres along the Chixoy River during the construction of the dam. The Guatemalan military between 1981 and 1984 massacred over 600 indigenous Achí residents along the river. The military justified these massacres by claiming there was a guerilla presence within the communities.

In response to the massacres carried out by the Guatemalan military, the World Bank declared that they would never permit another project to advance that had such a high human cost. The United States government also denounced the massacres, and maintained a requirement for repatriations to the survivors as a basis for international aid to Guatemala.

But as the Guatemalan military was attacking the Achí communities along the Chixoy River, the military was also carrying out massacres in the 1980s along the Cahabón River. Between 1980-1982, the military massacred residents of 14 communities along the Cahabón River. According to Bernardo Caal, a leader in the movement to protect the Cahabón River, in one massacre the military used a natural bridge over the river to execute residents they accused of guerrilla activity. The massacre occurred near to where today the Oxec II project is being constructed.

“In the 1980’s, where they are installing Oxec II, there is a natural bridge where the military massacred residents”, said Caal. “[The operation also] utilized helicopters to bomb the area. The [military was] clearing the area for projects like these”. After shooting the community members, the military threw the victims’ bodies into the river.

In the minds of residents there is a link between the massacres and the construction of the mega-dam. “They were clearing the way for the dam”, said Caal.

“TODAY THEY HAVE COME IN ANOTHER FORM,” ADDED CAAL.“Now they no longer use rifles, but rather they are trying to break the company through gifts such as bags of food and roofs in the communities that were targeted during the war. As a result, there are 11 groups in communities that are supporting the company in the construction project.”

Jeff Abbott is an independent journalist currently based out of Guatemala. He has covered human rights and social moments in Central America and Mexico. His work has appeared at VICE News, Truthout, and the North American Congress on Latin America. Follow him on twitter @palabrasdeabajo

How TIAA Funds Environmental Disaster in Latin America

Por

Avispa

23 February, 2017

Pension giant TIAA is leading a global wave of deforestation and the destruction of small farmers’ livelihoods.

Source: NACLA Report on the Americas

If you work in US academic, research, medical, or cultural fields, your pension assets are likely managed by fund giant TIAA (formerly TIAA-CREF). The company touts itself as socially responsible but this carefully cultivated image is threatened by widespread evidence of environmental destruction and poor labor relations associated with TIAA global farmland investments. A campaign to call TIAA to task is underway, led by environmental and human rights groups from all over the world.

TIAA is among the one hundred largest corporations in the United States, serving over five million active and retired employees from more than sixteen thousand institutions. During the past decade, TIAA has become the largest global investor in farmland and agribusiness, accumulating over 1.6 million acres worldwide. In Brazil, TIAA is accused of evading national laws restricting foreign investments in farmland, a charge corroborated by both the New York Times and National Public Radio. In Guatemala, TIAA-linked investments are denounced as contributing to environmental destruction and human rights violations in palm oil operations according to a recent report in the New Yorker.

Investing in farmland has increasingly attracted pension fund managers who see land as a shrinking and often under-valued resource that is more dependable than volatile financial markets. TIAA manages farms for its own clients as well as for other pension fund managers, such as AP2 of Sweden, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDP), and the British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (bcIMC), both of Canada. TIAA set up second global farmland fund in 2015, called TIAA-CREF Global Agriculture II, and added the New Mexico State Investment Council, Cummins UK Pension Plan Trustee, the UK’s Environment Agency Pension Fund, and the Greater Manchester Pension Fund of the United Kingdom to its existing investor pool.

As TIAA expanded rapidly into farmland, it became a founding member of the UN-backed Principles of Responsible Investment in Farmland, one of several sets of guidelines developed for corporations to voluntarily self-monitor their holdings. The signatories are all institutional investors who endorse environmental sustainability, respect for labor and human rights, recognition of existing land and resource rights, and a commitment to report regularly on implementation of the principles.

However, Tristan Quinn-Thibodeau of ActionAid USA, a partner in the campaign against TIAA, questions whether “these principles, which are created by and for the companies, are anything more than a cover and PR tool to give the companies free license.” Quinn-Thibodeau explained that The Committee on World Food Security, the foremost and most inclusive platform for ensuring global food security, is a more appropriate UN body to address these issues.

Circumventing Brazilian Law

TIAA holdings in the vast northeastern Cerrado region of Brazil have more than doubled since 2012. Deemed one of the world’s twenty-five biodiversity hotspots and most threatened savannas, an estimated 40 to 50 percent of its vegetation is already destroyed while another 30 to 40 percent is degraded. Woodland is cleared at a rate local environmental groups call “alarming,” mostly for mechanized agricultural estates growing soy with large doses of pesticides.

Hiparidi Top’Tiro, a leader of the Mobilization of Indigenous Peoples of the Cerrado told Cultural Survival: “Our lands are completely surrounded by huge agroindustry. They are poisoning our rivers and our children. They fly over our lands when they dust crops, dropping chemicals down onto us from the air.”

TIAA began investing in Brazil in 2008 when it joined with sugar colossus Cosan to create Radar, a company 81 percent owned by TIAA. With the 2010 tightening of a Brazilian law limiting foreign ownership, other international investors backed out, but TIAA pushed ahead in acquiring land, sidestepping the law through minority partnerships with Brazilian-owned subsidiaries. TIAA and Cosan formed a new company, Tellus, with Cosan holding a 51 percent stake.

TIAA also bought land through local businessman Euclides De Carli, who has been accused by a state deputy in neighboring Maranhão, Manoel Ribeiro, of illegally seizing over a million hectares. De Carli allegedly hired armed men to force local people to leave the land, and is accused of arranging the murders of two farmers who resisted. Brazilian researchers have described how once people are forced off the land, grileiros (land grabbers) like De Carli obtain titles through forged documents and bribes. “Euclides de Carli is one of the principal grileiros of Brazil’s agricultural frontier,” Lindonjonson Gonçalves de Sousa, a local prosecutor, told the New York Times. Conflicts between grileiros and the poor posseiros (homesteaders) in the Cerrado date back to the 1950s.

In July 2016, the agrarian prosecutor in northeastern Piauí state voided 124,400 hectares of De Carli’s land titles, but TIAA has purchased other land from De Carli. “The significance of these canceled titles”, said Quinn-Thibodeau, “is that it increases the likelihood that the land that TIAA owns was bought illegally”.

This places TIAA front and center in Brazil’s land conflicts. TIAA refutes the charges, even though its 2015 report on complying with Principles of Responsible Farmland Investment acknowledges that it helps to “facilitate the growth of local agribusinesses” in Brazil. The financial services giant insists that it almost always buys existing agricultural land rather than uncleared land, and that 100 percent of its purchases are subject to a rigorous title search.

The difficulty with verifying these claims is that TIAA refuses to disclose the names and locations of the individual farms. Non-governmental critics insist that they must be made public to ensure adequate external evaluation. A 2015 report based on research by Brazilian campaign partner Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos argues that TIAA contributes to deforestation because it purchases already-cleared land that was obtained illegally by grileiros.

Ecocide in Guatemala

Most of TIAA’s Latin American investments in agriculture involve large scale agro-industries — soy in northeastern Brazil, sugarcane in Brazil’s southeast, and palm oil in Guatemala. Palm oil, found in everything from food to cosmetics to biodiesel, is expanding worldwide by approximately 10 percent each year. The oil’s astonishing productivity has rapidly transformed it into the world’s most-used vegetable oil, fueled by food manufacturers’ steady move away from trans fats. But it has also proven destructive: a 2012 article in Scientific American warns that land-clearing for palm oil significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. And the US Department of Labor considers palm oil one of the world’s worst industries for forced and child labor.

A 2016 report by Friends of the Earth calculates that TIAA invests just over $433.65 million in palm oil production worldwide. In Guatemala, TIAA is linked to both Wilmar International and Cargill, which source the oil from local producer, Reforestadora de Palma de Petén SA (REPSA). Malaysian conglomerate IOI then purchases the Guatemalan palm oil from Cargill for its European markets.

In March 2016, IOI was suspended from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), a multi-stakeholder, collaborative initiative that certifies industry sustainability and labor standards for 17 percent of the world’s palm oil. The ruling against IOI, over deforestation in Indonesia, led multinationals, including Kellogg’s and Cargill, to drop IOI. After agreeing to change its practices, IOI was reinstated into the RSPO in August.

However, York University’s Adrienne Johnson doubts that the industry-controlled RSPO can really make palm oil “greener.” The organization’s track record has been uneven at best: a RSPO representative admitted recently that the palm oil certification process is “not perfect.”

REPSA grows ninety-six square miles of African palm in Guatemala’s northern, sparsely populated Petén, a region that only a few decades ago, was almost completely rainforest. Land dedicated to palm exploded almost tenfold from 2000 to 2012, turning Guatemala into the region’s fourth largest producer. Growth is unlikely to slow as a 2010 Ministry of Agriculture study found that just 15.7 percent of the country’s land suitable for palm is currently in production.

Palm oil cultivation is centered around Sayaxché, one of Guatemala’s poorest municipalities. A 2013 Oxfam report found that a third of palm plantations were previously forested and a quarter were grassland, as palm has taken over huge swaths of land previously occupied by small family farms. The Oxfam report, as well as another 2016 report by labor rights organization Verité, implicate REPSA in land grabbing, forced labor, and human rights abuses.

In early 2015, thousands of dead fish showed up along one hundred miles of the banks of the once unspoiled Pasión River that runs through Sayaxché, convincing Guatemala’s Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources that the disaster was an “ecocide.” The suspected cause was a gigantic discharge into the river of organic matter from REPSA’s palm-oil mill effluent ponds. The spill destroyed the livelihoods of roughly twelve thousand local families. “People who lived off the river lost their houses because they couldn’t pay their bank loans,” fishing leader Evaristo Carmenate told the national press.

An environmental judge suspended REPSA’s operations for six months in September 2015 so that an investigation could proceed into the company’s alleged role in the catastrophe. The case against REPSA was brought by a Sayaxché organization, the Commission for the Defense of Life and Nature (CDVN). A day after the court ruling, thousands of REPSA employees angrily took to the streets because they saw in the ruling a threat to their livelihoods. They blocked roads, kidnapped and threatened to burn three activists alive, and occupied the local courthouse in an attempt to intimidate the judge. Later the same day, CDVN spokesman and local teacher Rigoberto Lima Choc was murdered outside the same courthouse. CDVN has received constant threats and intimidation ever since.

A year after the environmental tragedy on the Pasión River, the only government action has been two administrative orders against the company. REPSA was permitted to resume operations in November 2015 pending the case’s resolution. The Center for Environmental and Social Legal Action of Guatemala (CALAS), which represents CDVN, suspects that the company has bought off local judges so as to sabotage and stall the investigation.

In December 2016, US environmental and human rights groups demanded the Guatemalan government act to protect CDVN and other Petén land defenders. “CDVN has faced death threats, defamation campaigns, and attacks by REPSA employees,” says Saul Paau, CDVN spokesperson. “All we want is that those responsible be held accountable for the environmental contamination and attacks against our indigenous people”.

REPSA has come under pressure from its customers Cargill and Wilmar, who demanded in June 2016 that it adopt measures to prevent future violence. REPSA issued a Policy on Non-Violence and Intimidation the same day as the reprimand from the companies. Cargill pledged to terminate its contracts with REPSA if the issues remained unresolved by December 2016. But to date, Cargill has taken no action against REPSA.

Holding TIAA Accountable

TIAA’s investments in global farmland and agro-commodities have thrust it into a toxic brew of poverty, environmental degradation, and violence with a tragic history in both northeastern Brazil and Guatemala. The explosion of foreign-financed agribusiness has only intensified these dynamics, making any notion of sustainable and socially responsible investing appear a non-starter.

TIAA is massively invested in US land as well. ActionAid USA estimates that these holdings are at least half of TIAA’s total farmland assets, encompassing a quarter million acres. “Strong evidence exists that speculation has driven rising land prices putting incredible pressure on America’s small and midsize farmers, many of whom need to rent land or who are denied loans,” Tristan Quinn-Thibodeau explained. “Even if they do everything legally, TIAA is still participating in a process that forces more US farmers off the land, making what TIAA calls ‘responsible’ investing anything but.”

A barrier to increased transparency for TIAA’s individual account holders is that assets in Brazil and Guatemala are often held through index funds, mutual funds whose portfolio matches or tracks the market. This leads to the routine shifting of assets as markets fluctuate, obscuring where funds are. Friends of the Earth and As You Sow have launched an online “transparency tool,” called Deforestation Free Funds to provide information on which of some 6,500 funds have holdings in palm oil producers linked to deforestation. They plan to expand the tool to incorporate other products that contribute to rainforest destruction.

The groups at the heart of the TIAA campaign hope that the investment giant will rise to the challenge handed it. They are building on a successful 2013 campaign led by US organizations that compelled TIAA to drop American companies that supported Israel’s occupation of Palestine through pressure from over twenty thousand shareholders. “We’re giving TIAA an opportunity to take the lead in the field worldwide on land grabs and environmental destruction,” says Jeff Conant of Friends of the Earth. “Pressure from their pension fund holders is part of convincing them to step up.”

If you hold a TIAA account, you can sign to a letter that demands full disclosure of TIAA farm and agribusiness investments, divestment from acquisitions that contribute to the displacement of local farmers, a commitment to a deforestation and a land grab free investment policy, and investment in companies proven to protect the environment. For those without TIAA accounts, you can sign a general petition.

Linda Farthing is a journalist and independent scholar who mostly works in Bolivia. She has written for the Guardian, Ms. Magazine, Al Jazeera, and the Nation. Her latest book is Evo’s Bolivia: Continuity and Change, and her latest research report is Bolivia Prison Report: Marginal Progress and Unwieldly Challenge

México: Zapatistas and Indigenous Mexicans Create Parallel Government for Indigenous Autonomy

Por

Avispa

24 January, 2017

Photo: Janet Schwartz

By Ryan Mallett

at anniversary celebration

A coalition of indigenous Mexican communities has announced the creation its own, parallel government with the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). Dubbed the Indigenous Governing Council (CGI), the parallel government will aim to promote autonomy for indigenous Mexicans.

“This council proposes to govern this country”, the EZLN said in a communique.

The EZLN is an indigenous guerrilla movement that waged an armed insurgency against the Mexican government throughout the 1990s. Today, the EZLN retains a presence in the highlands of the southern state of Chiapas, where it has been experimenting with a form of direct democracy that draws from anarchist and socialist traditions blended with indigenous practices.

According to the Zapatistas, the CGI represents the next phase of the National Indigenous Congress (CNI). The CNI was founded in 1996 by the EZLN as a project aimed at uniting Mexico’s dozens of indigenous groups. Since then, the CNI has become one of Mexico’s largest indigenous organizations, and remains closely linked to the EZLN.

According to the EZLN’s communique, the CGI’s spokesperson will also double as a candidate in Mexico’s 2018 presidential elections.

The CNI/EZLN first announced plans to field a presidential candidate last October. The name of the candidate won’t be released until May 18, after the CGI holds a “constituent assembly”. This assembly will also officially inaugurate the CGI.

No other details of the candidate have been made public, though the CNI and EZLN have already said they have agreed it will be an indigenous woman.

The announcement of the CGI’s creation came following the conclusion of a CNI summit in Chiapas. According to representatives who spoke to the press, the decision to create the CGI was made after three months of consultations with indigenous communities. This was followed by two days of closed door talks between indigenous groups during the CNI summit. A total of 43 indigenous groups from 25 states were involved in the talks, the CNI said.

“Indignation, resistance and rebellion will feature on the 2018 electoral ballots”, one representative said in the EZLN’s de facto capital of Oventic, according to the Mexican magazine El Proceso.

The CGI’s Proposed Sructure

The representatives provided only limited details on how the CGI will actually function, though they expressed hope it will be a more comprehensive form of organization than the CNI. According to those who spoke to the press, the CGI will have a more permanent presence in indigenous communities than the CNI. El Proceso reported the CGI will have “commissions” on the community, regional, state and national level. The CGI will also reportedly have different administrative commissions, mirroring the Mexican government secretariats. Some of these are likely to include commissions of finance, environment, health, communication and security. According to El Proceso, there will also be a commission for “Mother Earth”, and an elders council.

Although the spokesperson will be the public face of the CGI, as an individual they will have no real power. Instead, all of the CGI’s decisions will be made by consensus among representatives of indigenous communities, who comprise the CNI’s assembly. These representatives will also be able to recall the spokesperson at any time if they feel they are not fulfilling their duties.

“Our resistances and rebellions constitute the power from below",
THE EZLN SAID.

They continued, “We do not offer empty promises or actions, but rather real processes for radical transformation where everyone participates and which are tangible in the diverse and enormous indigenous geographies of this nation”.

Remembering the EZLN Uprising

The CNI’s summit was timed to coincide with the 23rd anniversary of the EZLN’s uprising on January 1, 1994. On that day, thousands of EZLN guerrillas caught Mexican security forces off guard, and quickly occupied a handful of towns across Chiapas state. The uprising was prompted partly by the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which the EZLN argued would deepen Mexico’s wealth disparity, while doing little to help indigenous Mexicans in poor regions like Chiapas. In 1994, 75.1 percent of the population of Chiapas lived in poverty, according to official data. Today, that figure is 78.8 percent.

“Nowadays, the conditions of the Mexican people in the countryside and the city are worse than 23 years ago”, EZLN spokesperson Subcomandante Insurgente Moisés said.

Speaking from an undisclosed location in the highlands of Chiapas, Moisés said the plight of indigenous Mexicans remains ignored by the government.

“Governments come and go, of different colors and flags, and all they do is make things worse”, he said.

Although the EZLN has survived over two decades of struggle with the Mexican government, the movement has been criticized by some on Mexico’s left who have accused the group of being too insular.

The EZLN has always refused to engage in mainstream politics, and has long opposed all political parties. The 2018 election will be the first time the group has ever endorsed a presidential candidate, but not necessarily the first time they have played a role in a national election.

In 2006, the EZLN sparked controversy when it refused to endorse the campaign of presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Obrador was the favored candidate for much of the Mexican left.

Instead of backing Obrador, the EZLN led the Otra Campaña (Other Campaign) during the 2006 presidential race. This campaign sought to promote changes to Mexico’s constitution, including proposals to enshrine protections for indigenous autonomy. Although the campaign significantly broadened the EZLN’s support base beyond Chiapas, some on the left claimed the move drew attention away from Obrador’s election campaign. Obrabor lost to the right wing Felipe Calderón by less than 250,000 votes. Obrador is planning a comeback in 2018.

However, Moisés argued the EZLN’s struggle is more inclusive than ever before.

“We started our uprising 23 years ago, but our way was exclusive, and not everyone could participate”, he said.

“Now, the National Indigenous Congress calls us to a struggle we can all participate in, regardless of age, color, size, race, religion, language, salary, knowledge, physical strength, culture or sexual preference”, he said.

Moisés continued by stating the CNI has taken up the same fight as the EZLN, “and they have decided to do it by civil and peaceful means”.

“Its causes are just, [and] undeniable,” he said.

Ryan Mallett-Outtrim is an independent Australian journalist based out of Mexico. More of his work can be found at dissentsansfrontieres.com.

Published in upsidedownworld.org

3 millions protests against Trump

Por

Santiago Navarro F

24 January, 2017

New Yorkers' reaction — Protestors walk down 42nd Street near Grand Central Terminal during the Women's March in New York City at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. NYTMARCH NYTCREDIT: Nicole Craine for The New York Times

Trump was sworn, in january 20, and was greeted with the biggest wave of protests that have occurred in the US and around the world. About 3 million demonstrators took to the streets on a two-day protest march against the new boss of US imperialism. Although these figures may be slightly overestimated, the quality and quantity of the manifestations is undeniable. It is probable that in history no president has been received with such worldwide indignation.
In the United States, 2.9 million people took to the streets to protest against the new president, who lost the election, but was nevertheless chosen by an electoral college that demonstrated the anti-democratic character of American “democracy.” The anger was led by the women, already attacked earlier by the sexist statements made during the election campaign.
In the United States, demonstrations took place in a large number of locations, Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Honolulu, Guam and others, where mass demonstrations had not taken place for years, such as Oakland. In some locations, demonstrators were not intimidated by the snow that fell during the event, as in Fairbanks, Alaska; Boise, Idaho and Park City, Utah.
The protests, some of them violently repressed, led to the arrest of dozens of activists.

Protests in USA

There were protests in London, England; Paris and Marseille, France; Lisbon; Berlin; Amsterdam, Netherlands; Dublin, Ireland; Madrid and Barcelona, Spain; Geneva, in Switzerland; Tbilisi, Georgia; Florence and Rome, Italy; Prague, Czech Republic; Oslo, Norway; Stockholm, Sweden; Helsinki, Finland; Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax and Toronto, Canada; Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand; Sydney, Australia; Erbil, in Iraq; Tel Aviv, Israel; Mexico City and Ajijic, Mexico; Antarctica; Brasília, São Paulo and Imperatriz, in Brazil; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Bogotá, Colombia; San Jose, Costa Rica; Bangkok, Thailand; Tokyo; Accra, Ghana; Nairobi, Kenya; Cape Town, South Africa.
The protests occurred despite a significant part of the world left not summoning them. Hence the strong female presence on a protest day that should have taken all trade union and democratic organizations to the streets, but whose leaders simply watched what would happen without mobilizing their bases. After all, what Trump intends to do will affect the lives of the entire world population, and this, he made very clear in his election campaign.

Uncertainties for the press and for blind leaders

Although Trump made clear the whole series of attacks that he would make if he were elected. shamefully, the world press and even leftist organizations announced that the rise of the new president would be marked by uncertainties.
But contrary to what they claim, the very formation of his cabinet with men from Wall Street and Exxon Mobil certainly shows the war he organizes against workers, women, and ethnicities across the globe. One must be blind or stupid to believe that there will be uncertainty in this government that has just risen.

Climate hell

Although it is impossible to prove scientifically, the worst facet of the Trump government will not be to continue the attacks of its predecessors in all areas.
The main hallmark of the new Trump government is that it will transform the severe climate crisis we are already experiencing, with droughts, floods, extinctions and a whole range of problems, in a real climatic hell.
This hell will affect the most precarious social base of millions living below the poverty line. And millions more will join this layer in the coming years, with droughts, water shortages, floods and hurricanes continuing. It will irreparably affect the lives of the native peoples, who live more closely with nature and not in urban centers with fans and air conditioners.
If we do not stop trumpcide in the shortest possible time, the result will not be the end of the world, but the growing suffering of the impoverished masses. Thousands of deaths from heat waves that already occur and cause temperatures above 40 degrees or even above 50 degrees Celsius, as is the case today in the summers of India.
Several recent scientific studies point out that with regard to the climate crisis, which Trump denies to exist, the situation may already be out of control and we have entered an unknown area. This unknown zone may, or rather will most likely bring, the starvation and death of millions or many millions of human beings. Here we are arguing in the field of predictions, because there is no science that can prove or deny this probability.
But the marxists, and in particular the egosocialists, must be at the forefront of this indispensable denunciation.
More than ever we must extend the fight that began on January 20 and 21 in all the world.

Protests around the world

People take part in the Women's March in front of the USA embassy in Accra on January 21, 2017. Protest rallies were held in over 30 countries around the world in solidarity with the Washington Women's March in defense of press freedom, women's and human rights following the official inauguration of Donald J Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America. / AFP PHOTO / CRISTINA ALDEHUELACRISTINA ALDEHUELA/AFP/Getty Images NYTCREDIT: Cristina Aldehuela/Agence France-Presse -- Getty Images

By leftpage.net

Neoliberalism Creeps in: Nicaragua’s Slow Departure From Sandinista Ideals

Por

Aldo Santiago Renata Bessi y Santiago Navarro F

9 January, 2017

Leftists throughout Latin America have long regarded the red and black flag of Sandinismo -- the political ideology centered on anti-imperialist beliefs and social equality -- as a symbol of hope, struggle, equality and liberation. In Nicaragua, the birthplace of Sandinismo, however, a new hue is threatening to push aside the colors of the Sandinista flag: fuchsia, the intense magenta that Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has been using in his political billboards. The hue has also swept through Nicaraguan fashion shows organized by Camila Ortega, daughter of the president.

The aesthetic shift away from the Sandinista black and red is a symptom of a larger political shift. Ortega, recently reelected to his third term in office as president, has been incrementally moving away from Sandinista ideals and toward supporting neoliberal land grabs and megaprojects, while developing a politics of political and social repression on the ground. This repression is expressed through a military occupation of the countryside, suppression of protest and border control.

Older ex-guerillas in Nicaragua now speak about Sandinismo with nostalgia and rage. Rigo del Calvario López, a weathered man who was a Sandinista guerrilla in the 1970s, told that for him being Sandinista meant learning from Gen. Augusto César Sandino, who between 1926 and 1933, guided the resistance against the United States military occupation in Nicaragua. Sandino "didn't want to be a landowner or president", the ex-guerrilla said. "We, within the original program of the Sandinista National Liberation Front included that we didn't want to be either businessmen or millionaires and less, presidents. What happened was the opposite: They became landowners, presidents, businessmen and millionaires. They only used the red and black flag to cover them -- that is not being Sandinista".

Allegations of Meddling in the Election

This November, the Mexican embassy in Nicaragua issued a warning: "We do not advise going near or being part of activities, meetings and protests of a political character" in Nicaragua. In less than three weeks, five Mexicans had been detained and a researcher had to leave the country immediately.

Nevertheless, in early November 2016 our reporting team -- made up of two Mexicans and a South American -- tried to enter the country legally to cover the presidential election.

We were subject to prolonged interrogation and an unjustified wait of more than seven hours in the immigration office on the border of Honduras and Nicaragua. On the wall of the office, the red and black flag of the FSLN accompanied a reelection campaign poster of Daniel Ortega with a fuchsia background. In the end, we were not given permission to stay in the country; rather we were given 12 hours to cross Nicaragua and arrive in Costa Rica.

During the long wait in the office, we identified an official advisory from the immigration office management stating, "Sunday, November 6, 2016, after voting provide the following information: place of employment, voting location and hour the vote was cast". Another order stated that employees had to work that day after voting, making it possible for immigration office managers to review the fingers of each employee to ensure they bore the stains of fingerprinting ink (proof that the employees had voted, since all citizens are required to leave a fingerprint while voting).

"It's a way of obligating public employees to vote and being that they are requested to state when and where they voted, each vote is easily surveilled and they can conduct a witch hunt", an immigration office employee explained, asking to remain anonymous for fear of punishment.

In spite of the general abstentionism in the election (including some members of the FSLN), Ortega was proclaimed the winner with 72.1 percent of the vote on November 7. This is the fourth time he has won -- now with this wife, Rosario Murillo, as vice president.

"How is it possible that there were 70 percent of the votes?" said Fátima Duarte, who was removed from her post as consultant for the FSLN because she participated in protests against Ortega politics. She said the FSLN is suspected of modifying the election results and buying votes through the provision of gifts. "None of us voted -- neither people in the countryside nor any of us poor people", she said. "Some people went to vote because they were given a pig, a chicken or a roofing plan -- a basic income program to improve housing for the poorest families".

The Color of Blood

Less than a month after the election, streets and bridges in Nicaragua were destroyed, deep ditches were opened in the middle of highways, 100-year-old trees were felled to create obstacles in the principal streets, anti-protest police were mobilized and road checks were set up by the national police. The Ortega government took these measures in anticipation of protests in Managua on November 30 and December 1, 2016, seeking to impede the movement of campesinos and Indigenous peoples from different remote rural communities. During that span, social movements from across the country were meeting to protest the construction of the interoceanic canal, conceded to the Chinese company Hong Kong Nicaragua Development (HKND). Protesters also came together with the goal of rejecting the electoral results that elevated Daniel Ortega to his third successive mandate.

"It is estimated that the canal would directly displace 350,000 people from their lands -- the majority of the displaced being campesinos and Indigenous peoples", said Medardo Mairena, a campesino from the Punta Gorda region, Bluefields municipality on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua. HKND has, by law, a guarantee to expropriate the land considered necessary for the canal across the entirety of Nicaraguan territory. The Nicaraguan Canal is projected to be 278 kilometers long, 230 to 520 meters wide and up to 30 meters deep. It will be the largest infrastructure project in the world, three times longer than the Panama Canal.

The eastern region of the country has experienced the most intense repression. There, the route of the canal would cross Lake Cocibolca to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The repression of protesters is protected by the Supreme Security Law that establishes any activity a threat against the state as decided by the executive branch of the government.

"We were leaving our territories toward Managua, but the government sent the military to obstruct traffic", said Mairena. "They downed bridges so that our caravan of trucks could not pass. We couldn't travel on buses because soldiers threatened the drivers that they would take away their concessions, so what we did was leave with the trucks we use to transport livestock and grains that we produce".

Beginning the night of November 28, officials and anti-protest agents from the National Police kept the zone militarized, with road checks strategically placed in the region. There were at least five stops between Managua and Nueva Guinea, and three military bases in the more strategic communities. Even with the military presence, around 1,000 people from different communities protested on November 29, a half mile away from the urban center of Nueva Guinea in a place known as the El Zapote Bridge, from where they continued toward Managua.

"The soldiers acted with violence, using tear gas canisters and rubber bullets", said Francisca Ramírez, a member of the national Consultation in Defense of Our Territory, the Lake and Sovereignty, from the community La Fonseca, in Nueva Guinea. "They also used firearms, AK-47s. At least 10 people were injured, four gravely, one of them (Pedro Guzmán López) was shot with a bullet in his stomach".

Using the argument that repair work was being done on El Zapote Bridge, on November 28, the government had taken out of use the only bridge that connects the communities to the city of Nueva Guinea. The organizers of the march against the canal informed us that police entered Nueva Guinea to detain their members when they were returning to their homes on November 30.

The town of El Tule was attacked with tear gas canisters in the center of the community. The inhabitants denounced the use of firearms by the police. The communities of La Unión, La Fonseca, Puerto Príncipe, El Tule, San Miguelito and El Castillo -- all located on the edge of the canal route -- suffered the most intense repressions, though the police-military intervention was extended to at least 13 districts in the country beginning November 27. Organizers of the December 1 protest said at least 102 people traveling to Managua were detained at road checks on the highways, according to them, in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

The organization, Front Line Defenders, related in a report that on November 30, 2016, in Nueva Segovia, Ana Patricia Martínez, director of the Foundation for the Promotion and Development of Women and Childhood "Blanca Araúz," was detained for three hours by police. The authorities also impounded her vehicle, which is owned by her organization. Martínez returned to a rural community where she was giving a workshop with women survivors of gender violence. When she asked why she was detained, the police responded that it was because she was helping transport people so that they could participate in the march.

The National Consultation in Defense of Our Earth, the Lake and Sovereignty denounced that there were at least 20 people injured, four gravely, and that 20 people had disappeared, on top of the innumerable people detained in the entire country.

Under Scrutiny From the Organization of American States

The arrival of the protesters coincided with the arrival in Nicaragua of the general secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, who came with the mission to establish a dialogue with the diverse social sectors of the country over the controversial 2016 elections that made Ortega president for the third consecutive time.

Among the abuses that were attributed to the leader is the strangulation of what is called "democratic pluralism". In June, the Supreme Court removed the opposition leader Eduardo Montealegre from legal representation of the Independent Liberal Party, making Daniel Ortega the only important candidate in the running. The limiting of possible candidates through the courts was conducted on top of the elimination of both national and international elections observers.

On October 16, the OAS issued a communication about the electoral process in Nicaragua, claiming that the general secretary had sent a report to the Nicaraguan government regarding the events. The report is not public.

The government of Nicaragua "received the report with the disposition to work in a constructive table of conversation and exchange with the General Secretary of the OAS to collectively review the related topics", said the communication. Regarding the former, "The Secretary-General of the OAS and the Government of Nicaragua implemented a conversation mechanism and exchange about this", continues the communication. This was the first visit of the secretary after initiating the diplomatic call for "mechanism of conversation", but in reality, it puts Nicaragua under the lens of the OAS.

In this context, one of the objectives of the Caravana Campesina was to arrive in Managua and have an appointment with Secretary Almagro. But due to all the adversity, the Caravana did not arrive, but sent Francisca Ramírez to the capital, where she could denounce several issues with the general secretary of the OAS, who simply listened. "We explained all that we are going through", said Medardo Mairena. "The secretary still has not responded. We are still waiting a pronouncement in order to know if he took our situation seriously".

In the end, at a press conference, a reporter asked, "What are the political bodies that finance the campesinos?" Francisca Ramírez laughed and answered, "No one. We finance ourselves with the little we have. We are here because we want the world to know that this country isn't allowing us to express our discontent with the government that wants to displace us from our land".

A Colorless Politics

There is an effort within traditional political practices to attempt to reduce the experiences of social and mass movements to the logic of political parties. Many movements succumb to this logic, but one can see across Latin America that the anti-capitalist struggle grows for the most part in Indigenous and rural towns that are generally located far from urban centers. To defend their way of life is, in itself, anticapitalist. It is urgent for them to protect their territories, which means defending not only their way of life, but also the life of the Earth on which they live. This is not a romanticized vision.

In what is called the opposition is a liberal right fractured on various fronts, with a turbulent past due to its connections with the United States to develop a counterinsurgency against the Sandinista guerrillas. Regarding a struggle against the canal and against megaprojects that come coupled with the project, like tourist complexes and free-trade zones, they are bringing together campesinos across the country that claim they have no political affiliations with party politics. Medardo Mairena affirms that campesinos are organizing outside of party politics.

"We are autonomous", Mairena said. "The truth is that we are not accustomed to be in this kind of struggle. Our priority is [usually] to work the land -- that is our custom, our tradition. We see ourselves obligated to organize because no one was there to support us in this situation.... We are tired of so many lies, betrayal, people that say they represent us and they have left us alone. We don't believe anymore in those leaders, we believe in ourselves. We don't recognize the government".

The movement doesn't have external economic backing. Mairena said: "We campesinos mobilize with our own money. We've mobilized a number of people. A campesino sells a chicken, or a kilogram of beans, and in that way, we are fundraising money to be able to mobilize ourselves. That is our autonomy. In that way we move -- we don't have any economic backing from any national or international organization".

The National Consultation in Defense of Our Land, the Lake and Sovereignty has paid a high price for its critical position. Mairena said its members have been incarcerated and hospitalized, "just for protesting against the impacts that will be caused by this megaproject".

Hiding Behind Leftist Origins

Rigo del Calvario López, the former Sandinista guerrilla, told Truthout that the neoliberalist priorities of the FSLN and other self-identified progressive and leftist governments haven't been exposed because of their leftist origins. "This is a danger, because behind their political-economic programs are the same neoliberal politics, the continuation of the extractive projects that will keep capitalism on its feet", Lopez said.

Effectively, the progressive governments have adopted the same economic policies that have been dictated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, by the right and ultra-right parties.

After the armed conflict in Nicaragua in the 1990s, the IMF imposed drastic programs of stabilization and adjustment on the country. After losing the elections in 1990, the FSLN established its first agreement in September 1991 in the form of an 18-month "Stand By" program. After that, it implemented three other programs. The fifth triennial program was accorded with the IMF under Daniel Ortega's administration between 2006 and 2010.

Other conditions of these IMF programs included avoiding all recapitalization of state banks; creating privatization laws; finalizing the privatization of mining companies; applying measures of the "recuperation of costs" in secondary education; approving a law that would divide the Nicaraguan Electric Energy Company into separate entities that would execute the generation and distribution of energy and one that would permit the privatization of said services; approving the Law for the Hydrocarbons Sector to allow private companies to explore and exploit; and offering the private sector 38 remnant companies of the National Corporations of the Public Sector (CORNAP).

"We are going to continue working with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank",
ORTEGA SAID IN HIS PRE-ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN IN 2006.

Before Ortega's reelection in 2016, the US House of Representatives unanimously approved the legal initiative known as the Nicaraguan Investment Conditionality, or the NICA Act. The principal objective of the law is that US representatives would oppose requests for credit from the Ortega government in multilateral financial institutions, such as the IMF, World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank.

The law is still waiting approval with the Senate and President Obama. If it doesn't pass, the law would return to Congress and would have to be approved by President-elect Donald Trump. In the 120-day period after the approval of the NICA Act, the US Department of State and intelligence agencies in the country should present a report outlining how high-level Nicaraguan functionaries are involved in acts of corruption, including the Supreme Electoral Council and the Supreme Court of Justice.

"At the same time that the Ortega government is under the political lens of the OAS and the United States, especially for being internationally recognized as Sandinista, it is internally confronting a right that is allied with the United States in boycotting the government", said Lopez. "Meanwhile, the state maintains the development projects and economic policies, oriented by international institutions that injure and destroy the country and the life of the people, on top of using dictator policies".

A version of this report was published in Truthout.org

Mexico Moves Ahead With Controversial Pipeline Through Indigenous Land, Despite Moratorium

Por

Avispa

14 December, 2016

7-1-790x526 — Tribu Yaqui in meeting. Photo: Flickr user Malova Gobernador. Used under CC 2.0 license.

by Andrea Arzaba, GlobalVoices

Tribu Yaqui in meeting. Photo: Flickr user Malova Gobernador. Used under CC 2.0 license.

A new pipeline under construction in northern Mexico has become a major controversy involving the local Yaqui indigenous community that is less than pleased about the pipeline's route. The Agua Prieta pipeline would go straight through Yaqui territory.

Things went from bad to worse on Oct. 21, when the pipeline's supporters attacked a group of protesters, killing one, wounding eight, and causing no small amount of property damage.

The Yaqui tribe, which has endured a long history of repression, also has a history of mounting various resistance movements. Like other indigenous communities in Mexico, members of the Yaqui tribe have lost their lives fighting against invasive private companies and non-indigenous authorities. Just two years ago, before the conflict over the Agua Prieta pipeline, the Yaquis protested against a large-scale aqueduct that would have diverted what was left of their sacred river to the city of Hermosillo.

According to design specs, the Agua Prieta pipeline project would begin in Arizona, in the United States, and lead all the way to Sonora, Mexico. Along the way, the pipeline would cross 90 kilometers of Yaqui territory, which is protected by Mexican law.

Building the pipeline without consultations that are deemed to be fair, transparent, and inclusive for all of the Yaqui communities would be a violation of the sovereignty of Yaqui land, community leaders say.

Recently, members of the Yaqui tribe in Loma de Bácum won a moratorium against the construction of the pipeline. According to local media, however, Mexican authorities have announced that pipeline construction will continue because “one community” cannot stop “a project that will benefit future generations.”

According to Solidaridad Tribu Yaqui‘s Facebook page, construction is going ahead, even though fair and transparent consultations and negotiations never happened:

On one hand, the Yaquis of Loma de Bácum oppose the pipeline and have legally filed an appeal against the work. Thus far, the project has been carried out beneath a simulated consultation of SENER (Secretariat of Energy)Them, together with the company Sempra Energy, the government of Hermosillo, the local media, and the municipal governments (all of which have supported the work) have sought by any means necessary to debilitate the opposition of Loma Bácum.
The other visible actor in this conflict, backed by the supporters of the project, are Yaquis from 7 other towns, who in a rather surprising event, have become the cannon ball of violence and intimidation so that the construction of the gas pipeline penetrates the territory of Bácum.”

Solidaridad Tribu Yaqui also expressed concerns about discrimination and underrepresentation:

“These rich men don’t care about the life of one, two, or three people, much less if they are indigenous. They are those whom don’t care if an indigenous government falls. They are those that don’t care if the Yaqui culture is exterminated. What is important to these rich men is to conclude the work and pocket all the profits, solidifying the appropriation of the Yaqui Territory.”

Gema Villela Valenzuela, a Mexican journalist who has reported on the conflict with a gender perspective, wrote about the threats Yaqui women from Loma de Bacun have faced, since coming out against the Agua Prieta pipeline:

Women from the Yaqui community (who requested anonymity for security purposes) reported that the construction of the pipeline, run by Gasoducto Aguaprieta, has generated violence ranging from clashes between members of the community, to threats against Yaquis leaders and women from the same ethnic group, and human rights defenders of indigenous peoples and environmental activists. They explained that, as a result of the conflict, cars have been ignited, and there have been fights that even killed a man. Some women in the community have had to stay in places they consider safe, since that was what Yaquis authorities of the town of Bácum recommended. They have received threats because they opposed signing the collective permit for the construction of the pipeline.

According to journalist Al-Dabi Olvera, members of the Yaqui community in Loma de Bácum haved filed complaints with the Mexican Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Last month, Gema Villela Valenzuela reported that members of the Yaqui community are still receiving threats for opposing the pipeline.

This article was originally published at Global Voices. It has been edited and re-published at Avispa Midia under a Creative Commons License.

1...343536...42 Página 35 de 42