The Dominion - Jennifer Moore

Ecuador's Fickle Friend

Martin Lukacs — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 05:25:52 +0000

Canada waffles in its support for Latin American democracies

CUENCA, ECUADOR—Ecuador awoke on September 30, 2010 to police protests. Across several highland and coastal cities, police burned tires, shut down access routes and neglected their posts. They said they were protesting the Public Service Law passed the night before, which would affect economic bonuses based on promotion.

By midday, however, efforts to destabilize the Ecuadorian administration became evident. The security detail at the National Assembly closed various entries to the legislature, while a small contingent from the air force shut down the Quito airport.

The focal point of international attention, however, was on President Rafael Correa, holed up for more than twelve hours in a police hospital after personally confronting police in the capital city of Quito. Police shot tear gas at and roughed up the President who, recovering from recent knee surgery, was escorted to the nearby hospital. Rebel police surrounded the building, at which point the president reported that he was under threat and sounded the alarm on an attempted coup.

With memories of the 2009 Honduran coup fresh in collective memory, Spain, France, more than 10 Latin American countries and several regional organizations were quick to issue declarations of support for the small Andean nation's democratically-elected president, and its constitutional order. Spain, a key investor in Ecuador and home to hundreds of thousands of Ecuadorian immigrants, gave further assurance through its foreign affairs minister that it “would mobilize all of its diplomatic arsenal...so that this revolt stops.”

Canada—another top investor in Ecuador, frequently having high level meetings with the Correa government—responded differently. Canada co-sponsored a mid-afternoon resolution at the Organization of American States (OAS). But it was only after the Ecuadorian military joint command declared its loyalty to Correa, the US State Department issued its own statement of support for the President, and just over an hour before a special military and police operation rescued Correa, that Canadian Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas Peter Kent circulated an independent statement.

“Canada is concerned about the growing unrest in Ecuador and is monitoring the situation closely,” the statement read. “We call on all parties to refrain from violence and any other actions that could imperil the rule of law and the country’s democratic institutions.”

Critics of Canadian foreign policy see Canada's delayed response as a sign of uneasy relations. Despite Correa's public support for Canadian economic interests in recent years, they suggest Canada's backing is by no means guaranteed. They pinpoint geopolitical and economic concerns as potential culprits.

As Latin America has become a foreign policy priority, Canada has shown conditional support for constitutional democracy and national sovereignty in left-leaning countries aspiring to even moderate change. The Canadian government's hand in facilitating a coup against the popularly elected government of President Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti in 2004, and its failure to push for the return of President Manuel Zelaya to Honduras in 2009, are notable examples.

Todd Gordon, Associate Professor in Political Science at York University and author of the forthcoming book Imperial Canada, sees parallels between Canada's response to the coup d'etat in Honduras and the statement regarding Ecuador. Canada's statement on the Honduran coup came fairly late the same day, after other countries and bodies had responded, he notes. Despite largely peaceful protests by the coup opposition, Canada in effect laid some blame on Zelaya and his supporters.

“From the time that [then Honduran President] Zelaya [was] deposed until Lobo [was] elected, Canada consistently [called] on all parties, not just the government and the coup plotters [that were the principle source of aggression and human rights violations], to avoid violence and remain peaceful,” Gordon said.

Gordon points to similar language in Canada's statement on Ecuador when it called “on all parties” to show restraint, not specifying that police were the main aggressors.

“They don't want to come out and say we're pro-coup, but Canada's response is a diplomatic way, I think, to say they're not actually that excited about the government that's being threatened,” he said.

Gordon questions if Ecuador's participation in efforts for more independent regional integration, such as the Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA), unsettles Canada.

Department of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Priya Sinha, however, says Canada's statement should be interpreted as unequivocal support for Correa and says its position at the OAS backs this up.

“  Canada reacted swiftly and strongly in support of the legitimate government of the Republic of Ecuador when it co-sponsored a resolution at the OAS on the afternoon of September 30th,” stated Sinha by email to The Dominion.

The OAS resolution “repudiated” any attempt to oust the Correa administration and called on governments and multilateral institutions in the region to "stop the coup d'etat from becoming a reality.”

On the national front in Ecuador, Canada wields economic clout. But despite the headway that Canada's corporate and diplomatic lobby appeared to be making to secure investments in mining, oil and infrastructure during Correa's administration, Jeffrey Webber, a researcher and lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, believes Correa has never been Canada's ideal option.

“Correa was not the preferred candidate of the Canadian state,” Webber said. “Canada has been happy to see Correa's trajectory to the right, but is nonetheless concerned about his vulnerability to the bases that put him into office.”

Correa was elected on his promise to bring an end to Ecuador's “long neoliberal night.” With regard to mining, a key sector for Canadian investment, pre-existing disputes with affected communities gave rise to a national movement urging Correa's administration to look at alternatives to gold and copper extraction. At the time, no large-scale project had reached production.

After 40 years of oil production that left in its wake environmental destruction and social upheaval, Indigenous and non-Indigenous organizations demanded their country be off-limits to mostly Canadian companies dominating the nascent sector—companies that arrived in Ecuador under favourable conditions created by earlier World Bank-sponsored reforms.

In April 2008, Ecuador's National Constituent Assembly, which was rewriting the country's constitution, decreed that all large-scale mining be suspended and that most mineral concessions be revoked without compensation, because they overlapped with water supplies and protected areas, and because companies failed to consult with affected communities.

The decision represented an important—albeit short-lived—victory for the anti-mining social movement.

Canadian companies fought back with a well-financed public relations campaign in which they promised Ecuadorians “a fair deal.”

According to one company executive, companies also received “tireless” support from the Canadian Embassy to arrange high-level meetings and influence the new mining law. As large scale mining was suspended, President Correa granted Canadian businessmen a privileged seat during mining law negotiations. The mining mandate was not applied to key holdings of many Canadian companies.

Correa, who has made it clear that he intends to make metal mining a source of future state revenue through bolstered state participation, also abruptly distanced himself from Indigenous, campesino (peasant) and environmental groups critical of such policies. He called them infantile, foolish and the greatest threat to his political project, and helped foment rumours about links between such organizations and imperial interests.

This delegitimization campaign, however, did not quash local resistance. Important mobilizations against mining have taken place over the last year in areas where companies such as Toronto-based Iamgold and Kinross Gold are exploring.

But Priya Sinha says Canada looks favourably upon recent mining reforms and makes no mention of social tensions.

“Canada is encouraged by improvements in the environment for mining investments in Ecuador,” the Foreign Affairs representative stated.

Sinha did add that companies want to know how the government will apply new tax rules.

“Clarity in the tax regime with regard to future investments would allow companies to assess the tax implications for their projects and determine whether they remain economically viable,” he stated.

The new mining law restored royalty payments on mining to a minimum of five percent and established a windfall tax of seventy percent on profits made above a base price.

Canadian diplomats have also indicated concern regarding the future of Canada's bilateral investment agreement with Ecuador.

Reforms passed in Ecuador's 2008 constitution mandate that the government will not enter into agreements that defer to international arbitration, unless the arbitration body is in Latin America. In 2009, Canada's bilateral agreement came up for review.

Canada's Ambassador to Ecuador, Andrew Shisko, indicated that this did not sit well with Ottawa. Revision of Canada's bilateral investment agreement “is causing profound concern in Canada. A stable and transparent investment environment is fundamental for the success of Canadian investment in Ecuador,” he stated in a written message to the Ecuadorian-Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Guayaquil.

This could still be a concern. During an in-person meeting in Quito in August, Ecuadorian Foreign Affairs Minister Ricardo Patino told Foreign Affairs Minister for the Americas Peter Kent that “Ecuador will not maintain bilateral investment treaties.”

The National Assembly voted in September to denounce similar pacts with the UK and Germany for not being in line with the new constitution.

Challenges for Canadian interests on the domestic front, together with Ecuador's commitment to more independent regional integration efforts, lead Webber to believe that Canada would not be upset to see different leadership in Ecuador.

“Correa has aligned himself with very fickle friends, who are going to abandon him at the first turn because he's not the preferred candidate of transnational capital,” said Webber.

Any potential destabilization on September 30th was averted. But as political tensions persist in Ecuador, it remains to be seen how the uncertain relations will unfold.

From 2007 to 2010, Jennifer Moore reported from Ecuador as a freelance print and broadcast journalist.

Correa and Harper

How Good is Canada’s Word?

dawn — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:41:13 +0000

Vancouver's Corriente Resources is in deep in Ecuador

QUITO, ECUADOR–“Companies should respect society and the environment,” said former Canadian International Trade Minister Michael Fortier during a recent visit to Ecuador. “And if they don’t, we will not approve of their continued operations.”

The Ecuadorian capital was the final stop on Fortier’s Latin American tour in mid-August, which also included Mexico and Panama.

Canadian capital makes up over 90 per cent of the money being invested in Ecuador’s nascent metal mining sector. The industry has been in development for about 15 years but has yet to see any large-scale mineral projects go into production despite dozens planned.

Widespread local opposition during a period of policy change has led companies to lobby hard for political support from the Canadian government.

And since the Ecuadorian National Constituent Assembly passed a decree on April 18 toughening up mining regulations, Canadian government officials have stepped up their support for the over 25 Canadian-financed companies exploring in Ecuador.

The decree ordered most mineral concessions revoked for various reasons, including proximity to headwaters, overlap with protected natural areas, concessions obtained through government officials with insider knowledge and failure to consult with local communities.

Both Fortier and Canadian ambassador to Ecuador Christian Lapointe have expressed concern to the Ecuadorian government over the decision.

But it is likely that a combination of political pressure from Canada and a lack of political will from President Rafael Correa’s government (which favours mining to bolster state revenue) will leave most criteria for revoking mineral concessions unapplied. Large-scale metallic mining activities, however, have been suspended until a new mining law is approved.

The law, anticipated to replace the government decree, has had extensive industry input and will likely be approved by an interim congress now that Ecuador's new Constitution has been approved by a referendum.

Despite these developments, Canada is keeping the pressure on. Before Canadian elections were called on September 7, Fortier announced that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would travel to Ecuador to meet with Correa. It would be surprising if mining is not on his agenda.

Collective rights disregarded

Despite Fortier’s assurances, Canada’s help for mining companies does not ensure respect for communities acting in defence of their rights and their environment.

Shortly after President Correa’s January 2007 inauguration, a nationwide movement against mining began to coalesce.

The rural, environmental, and indigenous organizations in the coalition have emphasized the lack of respect for communities' right to consultation guaranteed in the current constitution. Many of these groups have been lobbying for a provision that would require local consent for mining activities to be included in the new constitution, although this has ultimately been opposed by the government.

Alberto Acosta, the former Minister of Energy and Mines and past President of the National Constituent Assembly, said that in lieu of community consultation, "Companies have specialized in how to divide communities," leading to "near civil war" in parts of the country.

Familiar strategies to divide communities include fabricating charges against mining opponents, allegations often made by third parties with a known connection to mining companies. Threats and the use of force have also been employed. And corporate-community relations programs that are often aimed at particular individuals or groups within a community fostering or aggravating strong differences over mining are widely seen as buying the 'social license' that companies need.

The April mining decree included the failure to consult with communities as one of the criteria for revoking mineral concessions. However, protecting companies appears to be Canada’s priority.

Ian Harris, Senior VP of EcuaCorriente, a subsidiary of Vancouver-based Corriente Resources Inc., recently wrote that, “The Canadian Embassy in Ecuador has worked tirelessly to affect change in the mining policy – including facilitating high-level meetings between Canadian mining companies and President Rafael Correa.”

Another industry leader commented that the embassy has reminded the President and his ministers to respect Canada’s Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with Ecuador.

Amongst other things, the FIPA says that Canadian investments cannot be expropriated “without prompt and adequate compensation.”

Compensation is not ensured in the mining decree, which orders revocation of mineral concessions without compensation.

Under the investment agreement, companies also have “access to binding international arbitration for disputes arising from a breach of the treaty,” notes Michael O’Shaughnessy from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

So far, the partial application of the mining decree has meant that the companies have apparently not felt the need to seek recourse under the treaty. However, the question remains as to whether the treaty is also playing a role in limiting the application of the decree.

Indiscriminate support

Further challenging Fortier’s claim is Canadian government support for companies with a questionable human rights record.

In one strange twist of events, the Ottawa-based research and advocacy organization MiningWatch Canada received “malicious” letters from two indigenous representatives, including Shuar leader Ruben Naichap.

The letter included “bizarre accusations of genocide and that we were somehow paying people to blockade the road,” says Communications and Outreach Coordinator Jamie Kneen.

What MiningWatch had done was post information on its website about heavy military repression against anti-mining resistance in the area pertaining to Corriente Resources’ Mirador Project.

A report submitted by several Quito-based human rights organizations to the Inter American Commission of Human Rights describes human rights violations resulting from this incident.

It was later verified that the correspondence from Naichap was written on a computer owned by Corriente Resources.

Corriente is one of a handful of companies banking on an extensive gold and copper mining district in Ecuador’s Southern Amazon. Their mineral concessions include a 20km by 80km band across five counties in two provinces.

Company representatives have also enjoyed regular discussions with the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum, have had input into the country's mining law, and have attended a meeting with top Ecuadorian officials along with seven other companies that was facilitated by the Canadian embassy shortly after the mining decree was announced.

MiningWatch, on the other hand, is still waiting for a response to a letter to the embassy sent over a year ago about why the Canadian government supports Corriente.

Kneen wants to know why “one of the companies at the centre of one of the hottest conflicts where people have been shot at, tear gassed, a congressman has been taken hostage for about three days... and that has had a stop work order, [is] being treated as a respectable corporate citizen.”

A Fair Deal?

Despite this conflict – or perhaps because of it – Corriente has also run the highest profile pro-mining publicity campaign of any company in Ecuador.

Using the slogan “A Fair Deal,” the campaign focuses on the promise of jobs and development. But its questionable choice of local collaborators is suspected to have undermined indigenous organizations and aggravated tensions in the Amazon region.

Don Clarke, vice president of sustainable development for Ecuacorriente, promotes himself as a specialist in facilitating company relations with indigenous communities.

Writing for the Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL), Clarke says, “Companies that lack the corporate capacity to understand indigenous issues quickly encounter issues that can dramatically impact their bottom line and render the business environment hostile.”

This may be true, given that areas desired by extractive industry increasingly include indigenous territories.

Clarke’s approach in Ecuador has been challenged by indigenous organizations, especially given the support he has provided to such controversial representatives as Ruben Naichap, who signed one of the letters that MiningWatch received last year.

As early as 1998, two regional Shuar federations from the Southern Amazon publicly denounced Naichap for “conflictual, divisionist and individualistic behaviour that has caused serious problems within their communities.”

In 2007, a Shuar Association that groups together indigenous communities near one of Corriente’s main projects also expelled Naichap for aggression and corruption.

Naichap has worked closely with Don Clarke over the last year and a half, becoming a sort of national and international emissary on behalf of Corriente and the large scale mining industry in general.

Clarke indicates that Corriente has a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Ruben Naichap’s Shuar Federation, one of two in the Province of Zamora Chinchipe.

The agreement includes regular financial support that, Clarke says, he believes the "communities manage appropriately.” In addition, it includes stipulations about labour and services and is viewed as a step toward an eventual Impact Benefit Agreement.

María Belen Páez, from Quito-based Pachamama Foundation, says that money provided by companies in such cases “provokes tension, aggravates conflicts and without doubt arrives at extremes of violence.”

Angel Awak is President of the nationally-recognized Shuar Federation of Zamora Chinchipe, which works with Amazonian and nationwide indigenous organizations that are highly critical of mining.

Awak attributes the 'grave conflict' that they are experiencing to mining and other extractive industries.

He says money causes problems, particularly at the level of the community where “it is used to buy people’s conscience and begins to divide families.” He is also worried about a group that is said to be forming to confront mining opponents. Naichap is believed to be involved with this new organization.

Clarke responds by saying, “Our company has always been open to work with anyone that wants to be worked with... It’s not the role of the company to decide who’s legitimate or not, our role is to work with stakeholders.”

But given his stated expertise in community relations, his easy dismissal of the tension his company generates begs the question about how “corporate capacity to understand indigenous issues” is being used. And whether “a hostile environment” might actually work in the company’s interest to mask and weaken opposition to their particular projects.

A little respect

“To enter, one should have permission,” considers Awak, “Just like going into someone’s house.”

“This small group of people [referring to Naichap] is speaking out because they have the resources to do so. For those of us who are on the defense, we just don’t have resources for the world to hear us" he continued, adding, "Our people need quality education and healthcare, but without destruction."

With state forces aligned on the side of industry, and coalitions of indigenous organizations and environmental groups fighting to prevent mining from taking place without local consent, the struggle in Ecuador is far from over. As a result of President Correa’s support for the mining industry, however, the fight might move from national politics to tough battles at the local level.

MiningWatch Canada's Kneen suggests that Fortier needs to keep his word. “We’re not saying that Canadian businesses don’t deserve some level of support,” he explained.

But, he said, “Historically, Canada’s objectives internationally have included democratic development and protection of human rights... If those are still being respected we need to see how these decisions are being made.”

Jennifer Moore is an independent print and broadcast journalist currently based in Ecuador.

Mestizo_farmers

Intag Valley

Endorsing Death Squad Economics

Stuart Neatby — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:36:37 +0000

Canada's Lightning Speed Trade Negotiations with Colombia

“Why is it ridiculous to ask that human rights be respected in order to do free trade with Colombia?” asked award-winning Colombian journalist Hollman Morris during an interview on national public radio in Canada a couple of weeks ago.

Morris was reflecting on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s comments made in Bogotá this past July where he announced the launch of three-way free trade negotiations with Colombia and Peru.

During a press conference with President Alvaro Uribe, Harper said that Canada is prepared to negotiate with Colombia despite being facing the worst humanitarian disaster in the hemisphere according to the UN. Alluding to US Democrats currently blocking approval of the US-Colombia free trade agreement, he stated, “We are not going to say, 'Fix all your social, political and human-rights problems and only then will we engage in trade relations with you.'” His negotiating team has proved its determination to sign a deal and may have wrapped up fast track talks in Lima this week. The negotiations between Colombia and the US took 21 months.

“Prime Minister Harper’s statement is quite offensive,” said Morris, pointing out that “Colombia is the country in which trade unionists are the most endangered in the world [and] in the last couple of years there has been a phenomenon of the dismantlement of trade unions. I’m wondering, is it ridiculous to protect them?”

In 2006, there were 72 reported killings of trade unionists. Over the course of the Uribe administration, four hundred union officers and rank-and-file members have been murdered and of these crimes there have been only seven convictions, says a statement released this month by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).

Morris added that Uribe also continues attacks on the press. He says that he has recently “delegitimized journalists [such that] a number have left the country within the last month.” Morris himself has previously been accused by Uribe of having ties to left-wing guerrillas, comments later revoked, but which still put Morris’ life in jeopardy.

Harper’s comments are a strong endorsement for Uribe at a time when his administration faces a grave crisis of legitimacy. The “para-politics scandal” has shaken even his key alliance with the US as a substantial block of US Congress holds up approval of the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Forty congress people, including senators, governors and mayors representing the President’s political coalition, are under investigation for alleged relationships with paramilitary chiefs and collusion in elections fraud. Seventeen are already in jail including the former head of secret services under Uribe. As well, marked failures in Uribe’s paramilitary demobilization program have been demonstrated as paramilitaries are observed to be reorganizing, also sustaining their political influence following recent local elections.

Considering what might be motivating the Canadian Government’s lack of concern for the deep rooted corruption, human rights abuses and impunity in Colombia, Morris proposed, “I think what Canada is trying to do is to put pressure on the democrats in the US to support the FTA with Colombia, which fortunately won’t be signed during the Bush administration and we are very happy for this.”

In fact, the Harper Index reported in late November that President Bush has indeed been taking advantage of Harper’s policy toward Colombia. Speaking with the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce in October, the Harper Index quotes Bush as having stated, “As Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada said, if the United States turns its back on its friends in Colombia, this will set back our cause far more than any Latin American dictator could hope to achieve. By its bold actions, Colombia has proved itself worthy of America's support – and I urge Congress to pass this vital agreement as soon as possible.”

As to why Harper can get away with such offensive statements despite Canada’s image of itself as a human rights champion, Manuel Rozental says a key reason is that the Canadian public hasn’t really responded. Rozental recently completed a CLC-sponsored, cross-country speaking tour about the trade negotiations, urging Canadians to demand that the deal be stopped until a full debate take place in the Canadian Parliament. In July he commented that “Harper wouldn’t even dare to behave the way that he’s behaving and go to [visit] this regime if there was any political reaction from the majority of Canadian people, but there isn’t.”

Harper’s trip to Bogotá sparked minimal critique within the Canadian press and failed to trigger any response in the streets. However, this is not an indication that Canadians do not mobilize. When the crisis in Burma erupted, the Canadian public was infuriated. Canadian media coverage of the situation was extensive and numerous protests took place.

However, resistance to Canada’s overdrive free trade talks with Colombia and Peru is evident, as several labour and human rights organizations released statements opposed to a Canada-Colombia FTA in late November. The CLC, in addition to their statement, held a march of several hundred in Toronto on November 29th and called for public support of delegates participating in labour conventions across the country at which they will “consider this issue and demand an end to trade negotiations.” The CLC rejects that such negotiations could be remedied by “ineffective labour and environmental side agreements with no teeth on rights or standards will do nothing to improve the situation.”

In defiance of Canadian labour demands, and despite the general secrecy that usually surrounds bilateral free trade negotiations, it appears that the current Canadian negotiating team has been taking special efforts this time to ensure that labour organizations have no say in the process. Rick Arnold, Coordinator of Common Frontiers Canada, reported this month that “A Colombian trade negotiator recently let slip that the Canadian government told Colombian negotiators to keep the draft labour text secret, well away from Canadian unions and non-governmental organizations.”

According to the Harper Index, in order “to inoculate itself against criticism, earlier this month Federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn announced $1 million being given to Colombia under the International Program for Professional Labour Administration (IPPLA).” The Index quoted the Minister as saying that “this funding will help the Colombian Government to strengthen and enforce labour laws on behalf of workers here, and will support good governance by building capacity for the effective administration of labour legislation.”

However, a joint statement released in July by the CLC and a national Colombian labour organization, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia (CUT), says that addressing the potential threats of a free trade agreement to workers needs to start before any negotiations take place. They call for a thorough and prior assessment of risks to workers noting in particular the great asymmetry between the Colombian and Canadian economies. They outline additional concrete measures that would help address the systematic dismantlement of Colombian labour. During 2006, just over 60,000 workers, of an economically active population of twenty million, were able to benefit from collective bargaining.

RECALCA, the Colombian Action Network Against Free Trade and the Free Trade Area of the Americas, also points out that Colombia’s negative trade balance with Canada amounted to $225 million dollars in 2006. According to RECALCA, this agreement is likely to reinforce Colombia’s orientation as a producer of tropical and mineral products in exchange for manufactured goods and machinery. They note that the themes being addressed by these trade negotiations are the same as those covered by US-Colombia talks and conclude that an FTA with Canada would “lock Colombia into free trade, paralyzing the state’s capacity to promote development, leading to abandonment basic food staple production in the country, and leaving aside industrialization while integrating Colombia into the global economy through over-exploitation of cheap labour.” Rural livelihoods are already seriously compromised in Colombia with internal displacement at around 3.8 million.

However, much remains to be seen from the Canadian public. If the CLC campaign catches on, their demands for real change in the situation in Colombia also implicate serious changes to the current Canadian model; “An international business deal with Colombia or any other country,” according to the CLC, should “foster “fair-trade”, and not only benefit international investors while worsening widespread conditions of poverty and social exclusion.”

The Harper government, in its rush to complete this free trade deal, is unlikely to do this on its own. A serious and vigorous public debate in Canada is urgently required.

A previous version of this article was published at ALAI.

No Colombia FTA Rally

Defending "Life and Sovereignty"

hillarybain — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 18:55:01 +0000

Ecuador’s mining prospects, Canadian companies, and the conflict with affected communities

“…what has happened to all of the oil extracted since March 22, 1967? Ecuador has produced 4.035 million barrels of oil since that time which valued at nominal historic international prices represents a sum total of $82 billion. Where is this money? And I’m not speaking about riches, because the true riches are what have been destroyed, that weren’t in the ground, but rather in the biodiversity, in the life and in the cultures that have been lost.”

– Former Minister of Energy & Mines, Alberto Acosta, speaking on the 40th anniversary of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon

Following attempts in recent months to obtain concrete responses from the government of President Rafael Correa regarding its plans for large-scale mining in Ecuador, the National Co-ordinating Committee in Defence of Life and Sovereignty -- an inter-provincial coalition of organizations and communities -- called for a national uprising, which is ongoing. Highway blockades taking place across South and Central Ecuador between June 26 and 29 faced stern repression from police and armed forces under direct orders from the government. Recent statements by the government are also worrying to those involved.

While 2007 marks 40 years for Ecuador as an oil producing nation, it has never been a major mineral producer and current large-scale mining projects have yet to enter into production. In some situations, this is largely due to tenacious community resistance, such as in the case of Intag in the northern province of Imbabura, where struggles have been ongoing for 10 years. Legal reforms by past governments favouring private investment and internationally funded studies revealing rich mineral deposits throughout the central Andes and the southern Amazonian region of Ecuador are making the country’s mining sector attractive to foreign investors. A recent industry report by Madison Avenue Research entitled “Ecuador, Number One in Potential for Pipeline Ounces of Gold,” highlights Ecuador’s appeal to Canadian corporations in particular. To date, the Ministry of Energy and Mines has granted licenses for over 4,000 mining concessions that cover roughly 20 per cent of the surface of Ecuador, including many ecologically and culturally diverse areas, according to Acción Ecológica, an environmental organization based in Quito.

In opposition to efforts to make Ecuador a major mineral producer, the National Co-ordinating Committee in Defence of Life and Sovereignty and the thousands mobilized by its call are convinced that there are better alternatives for the future of their communities and the country. Considering that communities are already experiencing tremendous “social contamination,” even before mining begins in Ecuador, and considering the health and environmental deterioration faced in other countries where large-scale mineral mining is already happening, the National Co-ordinating Committee wants Ecuador to cut its losses before production gets underway and for Ecuador to declare itself “a country free of large-scale mining.”

The National Co-ordinating Committee in Defence of Life and Sovereignty

The National Co-ordinating Committee in Defence of Life and Sovereignty was established on January 26, 2007. It brings communities in resistance from more than eight provinces across Ecuador together and includes numerous environmental and human rights organizations, urban associations and student groups. Lina Solano from the National Co-ordinating Committee says that the “social and environmental impacts of large-scale mining are too great to justify this as a major source of income for the country.”

From Ecuador’s experience as an oil producer, “we already know where the profits will be spent,” she says. “A large percentage will be used to pay off the external debt, that is to say it will also leave the country, while another large percentage will go toward the bureaucracy and the armed forces, with a minimum percentage remaining for education and healthcare, likely not even fulfilling the 30 per cent established in our constitution,” she adds. Even such minor gains are unlikely unless the government amends the Mining Law, which requires foreign investors to pay a minimum per-hectare conservation patent and zero per cent in royalties.

Subsecretary of Mining, Jorge Jurado, indicated in an interview with Reuters on June 22 that the government plans to present reforms to Ecuador’s Mining Law to congress this month. These would reintroduce royalties, limit exploration concessions currently good for 30 years, and strengthen environmental regulations, amongst other things. The government has also said it will create an independent Ministry of Mines and a state-owned mining company.

In contrast, the National Co-ordinating Committee would like the government to suspend current projects and place a moratorium on new concessions. Following investigations, they ultimately demand that current concessions be annulled. Their demands are premised on Ecuador’s constitution which guarantees communities the right to fair and informed consultation with regard to state decisions that might affect the environment. Both the President and the former minister of energy and mines -- who stepped down on June 14 in order to announce his candidacy for upcoming elections of a new National Constituent Assembly -- have previously agreed that these demands are just and that the overwhelming majority of current concessions are unconstitutional.

As several mining projects near production, the National Co-ordinating Committee has been urgently seeking government support. However, after numerous delays following four months of marches, meetings and correspondence, the Committee declared an indefinite national uprising on June 5. Demonstrations at the end of June elicited a definitive response, but not one that protesters had been hoping for.

Police Repression

Blockades that began on June 26 shut down three major arteries around Cuenca, the third largest city in the country and capital of the province of Azuay. Other main routes were also closed in the Southern Amazonian provinces of Morona Santiago and Zamora Chinchipe, with additional demonstrations taking place in the central province of Chimborazo.

On June 27, the president ordered the police to bring an end to the blockades and stated to the press that the “elimination of mining concessions is inconceivable” given the costs that the state would incur. He refused to speak with protesters and police enforcement of his orders resulted in brutal repression against demonstrators, particularly in the vicinity of Cuenca.

Lina Solano describes how, blockade by blockade, hundreds of police used overwhelming amounts of tear gas and anti-riot vehicles to dislodge protesters of all ages from the highways violently. Dozens of people were taken into detention and injuries were sustained by a number of demonstrators, as well as several police officers. In the area of Tarqui, southwest of Cuenca, police exhausted their supply of tear gas while taking control of the demonstration and reportedly sprayed tear gas inside of several homes, nearly asphyxiating several children.

Others on site were also threatened by police, including attempts to confiscate the camera of one Indymedia journalist.

Late on June 29, in the area of Molleturo where campesinos were maintaining the last remaining blockage of the main highway connecting Cuenca with the port city of Guayaquil, protesters reported the arrival of over 400 soldiers and 150 police officers, at which point they decided to retreat from the roadway.

Detentions Target National Co-ordinating Committee Leadership

Roughly 30 people were taken into detention between June 27 and 28, many even after road blocks had been cleared. Solano and two other organizers from the National Co-ordinating Committee were amongst those held overnight on June 27.

Solano says that five police officers aggressively detained her and Nidia Soliz, also from the Committee, late in the afternoon. For roughly three hours, they were held together in a locked car without windows and driven around the countryside before being taken to provincial police headquarters. Solano says the officers were driving “at top speed, braking abruptly, presumably so that we would bang ourselves against the inside walls of the car.” Earlier in the day, Fernando Mejia of the National Co-ordinating Committee was also detained.

Solano believes that their leadership was clearly targeted. Other demonstrators also reported being interrogated by police about the homes and whereabouts of leaders from the National Co-ordinating Committee. Early on June 28, student supporters, in particular from the University of Cuenca, along with many others, held demonstrations in front of government and judicial offices and the three were granted Habeas Corpus by midday. Others held in detention were also freed, although at least 11 still have charges filed against them.

“We are incredibly surprised,” says Solano, “because we didn’t think that a government based upon the defence of our country and our sovereignty [would allow such repression to take place.]” She quotes former Minister of Energy and Mines Alberto Acosta as having said that “not one drop of blood will be shed, no matter how profitable a project might be.”

“There’s an effort to minimize participation in our movement, to say that there are only a few hundred people in opposition and that in reality the rest of the population is in favour of these mining projects.” However, says Solano, the reality is otherwise. “In all this time that [the Co-ordinating Committee] has been organizing since the 26th of January of this year, there are thousands of people mobilizing, as much women, men, elderly, children and youth -- whole families in fact -- that are demonstrating in defence of our water more than anything, since this is the resource that is most put at risk by large-scale metal extraction.”

Communities from the provinces of Imbabura, Pichincha, Bolivar and Cotopaxi have participated in previous demonstrations and the two largest indigenous organizations in Ecuador, the CONAIE and ECUARUNARI, have also released public statements expressing solidarity with the struggle.

Government Priorities Conflict with Community Interests

President Correa’s statements last week are also “incredibly worrying,” says Solano. “To give a completely negative response and to say that the government is not going to support the communities’ petitions is a marked change.”

“In the beginning,” she recalls, “the government maintained that communities’ interests would be put first, before those of private corporations, and that what the communities are asking for is just and that the government would see how to deal with the issues. But now the government seems to be planning to make mining a main source of sustenance for the country, following the depletion of oil, and to be arranging for the state to earn a percentage of mining profits to put toward areas such as education and health.”

“This is horrible from our perspective because it’s like negotiating with our lives, and in particular with the lives of thousands of rural families who are most directly affected by these mining projects,” says Solano.

The subsecretary of mining, Jorge Jurado, made a further announcement last week stating that a High Level Commission would be commissioned to produce a report within 30 days concerning Project Quimsacocha. Project Quimsacocha is a large gold mining initiative led by Canadian company IAMGOLD in the high plateau (páramos) surrounding the communities of Tarqui and Victoria del Portete, where local resistance has been vehement.

Solano says that this announcement is a “step backward” from what the government previously promised. “When we spoke with the president on March 26, he gave the green light for then-minister of energy and mines, Alberto Acosta, to initiate a series of exhaustive audits concerning current projects. However, time has passed and they had to wait for people to protest so that they can now talk about striking this high level commission. We don’t know what it will mean, who will participate and if it will entail the suspension of this project.” Above all, Solano is concerned that people will put their hope in this commission and that it will be another waste of time while mining projects proceed toward production.

The Ongoing Struggle

Solano says that looking back over the last five months, the National Co-ordinating Committee has been successful in generating national debate on the issues. However, she says, “unless other organized sectors and the rest of Ecuador respond to what is happening, regrettably we will not be able to put up a sufficient front.”

She notes that Ecuador is unique in Latin America for not having an industrial mining sector and emphasizes the country’s right to make its own decisions. “We ask everyone who understands what is taking place here to support this struggle. This is really about our national sovereignty and our right to say 'no'.”

She adds, “Within the system that we are living in, decisions are being made not even by a small group of countries anymore, but rather by a small group of transnational corporations. And these decisions are being imposed all around the world, often by blood and fire. In this regard, all international solidarity is important to us in order to reclaim our right to self-determination.

This article was originally published in America Latino Em Movimento and a shorter version is available in Spanish

Ecuador Blockade

Ecuador Blockade 2