Bolivia-USA: Morbid Relations Beyond Diplomacy

October 28, 2011

Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti

Who pays for this pollution?

It’s no secret that diplomatic relations between a poor country and a hegemonic world power are frequently a montage. They are a pantomime written and directed by the stronger, showing it as a hero, and the weaker as a victim rescued from poverty, chaos, or ungovernability. Above all, it’s a theatrical piece meant to hide a scandalous degree of interventionism and domination.

This was the case in the relations between Bolivia and the United States ever since the Rockefeller empire seized the oil industry and, in the 1930s, instigated the war against Paraguay, later selling to the latter the oil that it stole from Bolivia. Bolivia lost sixty-thousand men in that war, and fell into starvation, but from that pain was born the patriotic sentiment in favor of defending national dignity and natural resources.

Thus were born the revolutionary governments, and the first of them nationalized John Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company for fraud against the state. That set off an interminable cold war waged by the United States against Bolivia, which drove the small Andean country into a vicious cycle of fraudulent elections and dictatorships in order to impose puppet governments with orders to change the laws so as to impose anew the looting; and, later, the periods of merciless exploitation of the Bolivian people, of popular protests against the abuse, and of massacres in order to repress them.

That period of diplomatic relations of submission to the United States was legalized the year 1951, with the establishment of a framework agreement of relations between a donor country that provided “aid” and a petitioner and receiver of that aid, which was always conditioned upon an absolute subordination to Washington’s policies. Despite its disastrous results and humiliating nature, that type of relations was represented through the pantomime of “good diplomatic relations.”

The period of Evo Morales, on the contrary, is the period of decolonization of the form of government, initiated with the re-founding of the country, a new constitution that impedes the looting, and the implementation of a process of profound change toward a more just society. In it, the state assumes fully its social responsibility, something from which Washington’s neoliberalism exempts the governments that it controls. It’s the era, therefore, of the inevitable confrontation with the hegemonic policy of the United States, which led to the expulsion of DEA and of ambassador Philip Goldberg. From then on, the State Department continued covertly its aggressive low-intensity war unleashed against Morales’ government.

Declassified documents obtained by renowned American investigator Jeremy Bigwood (www.boliviamatters.wordpress.com) revealed that from the beginning of the 1990s, long before Evo became president, the United States already identified him as a “danger to its plans for the hemisphere”, and put into effect a campaign against him that implied an “alarming interventionism” in the internal affairs of Bolivia. Documents from 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006 revealed that the U.S.A. intervened not only openly, through its embassy, calling for a firm hand from the presidencies that it controlled, such as that of Tuto Quiroga, but also covertly, through programs financed by USAID to make contact with the indigenous people of the TIPNIS with the goal of making use of the conflict that they had with the coca growers of the Chapare due to an illegal settlement of those territories.

In this way, it exacerbated rivalry among sectors and articulated a coalition of forces opposed to Morales that included the power groups of Santa Cruz that came together in the CAINCO. The United States financed programs with political goals of that entrepreneurial organization through another of its agencies, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), by means of which it had established with CAINCO a historical political alliance. Finally, it directed the use of the media to systematically discredit Morales, promote discontent, and thus manufacture an adverse public opinion.

These cultivated anti-Evo forces finally converged on Saturday, October 22, 2011 in Plaza Murillo, historic setting of so many lynchings of presidents and the overthrow of popular governments. it was the march on behalf of the indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS demanding to negotiate directly with the President. It was time to clench the teeth, because nobody in Bolivia forgets the river of blood that has flowed in the past in similar circumstances. It was time for the perhaps tragic outcome awaited by the sectors opposed to Morales, stuck like leeches to the cause that they managed to manipulate. When the police denied entry to Plaza Murillo to all of them, the infiltrators in the March began to shout “Villarroel”, “Villarroel”, alluding to the hanging of the former president. Sunday was an important day, which will be studied for a long time at universities, because what happened then was as unexpected as it was surprising.

“We’re screwed,” said on Monday afternoon a bewildered member of the opposition, scratching his head while talking with an Indian, trying to understand in depth what they had done. His concern was understandable. Morales had not only survived the attempt to destabilize his government, but also dissolved in 48 hours the subversive plot, which, according to the aforementioned evidence, the United States had been organizing since the beginning of the 1990s. Evo granted the indigenous peoples of the TIPNIS literally everything they asked for. The indigenous, on the other hand, recognized that several of the points alluding to problems outside the TIPNIS were not their petitions, but those of their “affiliates”, which they had included in the original 16-point petition, in return for the support they received for the march.

Negotiations almost broke down when the Indians saw in writing what they had requested, and decided to back off. The protection of the natural reserve was so absolute that it meant the postponement of any aspiration of integration for its inhabitants. The territory was being declared indivisible, un-attachable, imprescriptible, inalienable, and irreversible, but, above all, untouchable. It was a victory for foreign “environmental” groups, financed from the United States and other developed countries that become rich by polluting the atmosphere of the planet with their deregulated industries; and that now, because the TIPNIS is the “lungs of the planet”, condemned its inhabitants to eternal isolation, and therefore, made them pay for the historical ecological debt that industrialized countries are still accumulating.

The Indigenous who negotiated with Morales were filled with doubts, perhaps for the first time, but they had their persuasive “ecological advisers,” including foreigners, breathing down their neck. The latter persuaded them once again, and the indigenous signed the agreement. Evo passed it to the Legislative Assembly, the Act was passed, and the president signed it in record time. The TIPNIS became, according to the law now in effect, forever cloistered and without roads, thus making very difficult the provision of schools, hospitals, electricity and water, while industrialized countries, led by the United States, still polluted the air of the planet while refusing to reduce their carbon emissions. With regard to the environment, it was once again the old formula of “the clever lives off the donkey, and the donkey eats straw.” The United States’ political objective of boycotting the pole of development of the Chapare, under the community production model that so frightens it, was achieved with the complicity, conscious or not, of some Bolivians. Intervention in internal affairs remains alarming, and that forces us to reflect.

We all want the re-establishment of diplomatic relations based on mutual respect and equality of rights and obligations, but, considering that Bolivia does not conspire against the government of the United States, demanding only mutual respect, it is the Department of State that has to make a conscious effort to change its pattern of interventionist conduct in Bolivia.

This type of asymmetric diplomacy is as unfair as it is unsustainable. It is therefore urgent to sign the new framework agreement for diplomatic relations based on mutual respect, so that the Bolivian ambassador in Washington may finally be a dignified defender of his or her fatherland, and not, as was the case before, a simple agent of Washington working to persuade his own country to submit. It is time for a new type of diplomacy, honest and without paternalism.

www.juancarloszambrana.com

http://juancarloszambrana.com/?page_id=431

NGOs plot against Evo Morales | Moscow News

INTERNATIONAL

© RIA Novosti. Mikhail Fomichev

NGOs plot against Evo Morales

by Vicky Pelaez at 13/10/2011 21:02

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Mahatma Gandhi

Bolivia seems to have entered a long-awaited period of calm, and many expect its indigenous president, Evo Morales, to follow through on his plan to rebuild the country on the principles of social justice and solidarity. But these expectations may never transpire, as Washington looks set to undermine the Bolivian leader’s authority using international NGOs – one of the most sophisticated and efficient tools for this purpose.

Bolivia, which still ranks among Latin America’s poorest nations, was for centuries exploited by the Spanish conquerors before it fell into the clutches of multinational companies and their local oligarch associates. This is why when Morales dared launch fundamental reforms in the country; he became one of the main targets for globalization champions.

In May 2008, Morales aborted an attempt of a military coup. In April 2009, he dismantled a mysterious terrorist group led by the mercenary Eduardo Rosza-Flores. A general strike in the mining province of Potosi in 2010 dealt a heavy blow to the Bolivian economy. Plus, four of the country’s nine regions, namely Tarija, Santa Cruz, Beni and Pardo, where major oil and natural gas deposits are located, have since 2006 been stepping up their struggle for autonomy.

Local indigenous groups, backed by the Movimiento Sin Miedo (Movement without Fear) and the Confederación Obrera Boliviana (the Bolivian Labor Confederation), have been holding anti-government protests for several weeks now. They took to the streets following Morales’ decision to build a highway between Villa Tunan and San Ignacio de Mojos with a view to stepping up the process of national integration. All this is unfolding against a backdrop of daily verbal attacks from international NGOs operating in the country.

The U.S. – Spain Council, an organization that aims to promote cooperation between Spain and the United States, sponsors conferences in Bolivia where American associates, such as Lindsay Robertson, Stephen Greetham and Amanda Cobb-Greetham, urge indigenous Bolivian communities to fight for their rights. They argue that in the United States, it is the Native Americans who are considered the only legitimate owners of the land’s natural wealth. Such statements are striking in their cynicism, as we all know only too well about the ongoing misery of North America’s Indian communities.

© RIA Novosti. / Fedotov

Historically, Bolivia was exploited

The NGOs were created as tools to promote globalization across the world, paving the way for transnationals. Accomplishing this “from above” seemed impossible because of the inefficiency of the governments then in power. So it was decided to act “from below” instead, creating new local grassroots organizations and infiltrating into those that already existed. Initially, NGOs were to be bankrolled by the State Department through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), with guidance from the CIA.

Other Western nations applauded the creation of these NGOs as vehicles through which they could promote their own interests, in addition to the common globalization agenda. Oil majors such as Shell and BP exploited these “vehicles” to expand their global reach. Many individuals also benefited.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, NGOs rushed to usher their new “children” in Russia and other ex-Soviet countries into the “brave new world.” According to U.S. professor Robert Bruce Ware, more than 450,000 non-governmental organizations had launched operations in Russia by 2005, all keen to proselytize their gospel of democratic governance and human rights. Indicatively, they were especially keen to reach out to the most distant of the country’s provinces, seen as the most promising, Libyan style, in terms of staging anti-government revolts.

Now U.S. Senator Richard Lugar has proposed adopting legislation to legalize the use of social media in Latin America to instigate revolutions, such as those that have recently swept across Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. This will be a new challenge for NGOs coming over to apply their African experience.

Over his five years in office, Morales has reduced the percentage of those living on just 2 dollars a day to 49%, down from 60%, and cut the proportion of people living in extreme poverty to 25%, from 37% previously.

But with Lugar’s motion in place, this and other achievements by the present Bolivian leader lose their relevance.

Morales stands in the way of transnationals, so the United States wants him overthrown.

Read other articles of the print issue "The Moscow News #79"

BOLIBYA? | Obama: Libya is the International Model [Including Recent Article by Author Juan Carlos Zambrana]

Obama: Libya is the International Model

The world is lucky that NATO cannot intervene for the use of tear gas … because if they could, they no doubt would in the case of Bolivia. Home of the world’s most vast reserves of lithium in a country rich with natural resources.

According to the article/report below written by author of Juan Carlos Zambrana (Secret of State), it looks like some in the U.S. are hoping for such an outcome.

Barack Obama speaking at the United Nations Assembly via Washington Times:

Almost six months to the day after he committed U.S. troops to aid Libya’s rebels, President Obama on Tuesday declared his policy a success and told the United Nations its strategy of collective sanctions, military protection and humanitarian assistance saved thousands of lives, ousted a bad regime and should serve as a model for future world hot spots.

“This is how the international community should work in the 21st century — more nations bearing the responsibility and costs of meeting global challenges,” Mr. Obama said. “Indeed, it is the very purpose of this United Nations. So every nation represented here today can take pride in the innocent lives we saved and in helping Libyans reclaim their country. It was the right thing to do.”

To read how Al-Jazeera was instrumental for the NATO war on Libya read the recent article “Al-Jazeera and the Triumph of Televised Propaganda” (“the height of duplicity was reached when a replica of the Green Square and Bab-el-Azizia was built in the studios of Al-Jazeera in Doha, where footage of false images was shot portraying pro-US “insurgents” entering Tripoli”).

On a side note, it is critical to note that only ALBA countries spoke out against the NATO war on Libya in which 50,000 people thus far have been killed.

Sector loyal to the opposition used the conflict of the Tipnis to protest in the U.S., insults Evo Morales and call to intervene the country

Cambio,  October 05, 2011

by Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti

According to a report by journalist Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti, Washington, United States, a small group of people staged a singular protest near the White House. “They called the invasion of Bolivia with signs and photos included, captioned” Mubarak, Gaddafi and the following is Morales” he said.

WASHINGTON, US

On Saturday, October 1, someone mentioned that there was on Internet a call for a protest of Bolivian residents the next day, in front of the White House, in defense of the Tipnis. It seemed curious to me, and I decided to find out what it was about. I found several announcements, but one of them especially caught my attention. It called not only to protest against the building of the road, but also to observe a minute of silence for the “dead” and “disappeared” among the indigenous people resulting from the repression of the government of president Evo Morales.

Discredit Bolivia and Evo

The next day, my wife and I decided to go by the place, and saw a pitiful spectacle. Approximately 16 people, rather distanced from one another, walked in a circle of about 15 yards in diameter, from the center of which a man with a megaphone defamed Bolivian president Evo Morales.

Rounding out the scene of the burial of the Tipnis, or of the dead at the Tipnis, was Death itself, dressed in green and white with a sign that said “Evo murderer.” “They believe blindly in the disinformation,” I thought, because maybe they did not know that there had been not a single shot in the breaking up of the march, far less any deaths.

The issue of the Tipnis seemed to go unnoticed by the protestors, who were more focused on insulting president Morales, calling him a drug trafficker for wanting to build what they called “the cocaine highway.” Also, a dictator, supposedly for wanting to destroy democracy by holding “political prisoners,” without mentioning the common crimes with which their leaders are charged in Bolivia, their economic crimes against the Bolivian state, the charges of terrorism and armed uprising due to which a large part of the old Cruzan elite turned themselves into refugees rather than runaways from justice.

They called for the invasion of Bolivia

They also asked for an invasion of Bolivia, with signs and photos included, captioned “Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Morales is next. No more dictators!” By means of such violence they demanded democracy in Bolivia, accusing the OAS and the UN of having sold out to Morales’ government by not having responded to their obviously unfounded complaints.

As a last resort, they protested in front of the White House in an effort to bolster, in the name of the Bolivian people, the interventionist pressures that the Republican extreme Right maintains against the Obama administration.

“This does not even remotely represent Bolivia,” I commented, seeing familiar faces among the protestors. “Nor the Bolivian community in Virginia,” added my wife, Elena Abolnik

Small group

The group of participants was reduced to political opponents of Evo Morales and to the Cruzans organized around the now-dissolved Pro-Santa Cruz Committee of Virginia and the present Cruzan Carnival and Day of Tradition.

Curiously, the Cruzans present there were not even a fair representation of Santa Cruz, far less of the Bolivian people. Elena and I knew that for sure, for, as we both are Cruzans and members of pro-Bolivia organizations, we knew other Cruzans and Bolivians who understand clearly the value of the process of change in our country.

It occurred to Elena that maybe they did not know, with the exception of the organizers, what they were doing in belittling Bolivia in that way. “Could be,” I answered, but we left, commenting that what was expressed in the protest followed the talking points that the Bolivian opposition uses when it comes to Washington to ask for intervention in Bolivia, based on the common interest to do so that is shared by their Republican peers.

The same thing was said to the Republican leadership at the Capitol, on November 17, 2010, by Luis Nuñez, speaking for the Cruzans, and by Victor Hugo Velasco, for the indigenous people.

These were two apocryphal representations that reflected the new political alliance of the opposition to Morales, which pretends a connection between the conservative ideology of the extreme Right and the indigenous people, who have become an influential electorate.

Still, the protest did not take place by chance. It represented something, and what I could recognize was the inconsistency of the cause of the Bolivian opposition, a few people saying outrageous things in the name of the Bolivian people. Yelling, or rather insulting, frustrated by becoming ever more isolated in their political-religious fundamentalism in the face of an overwhelming majority of Bolivians who understand perfectly the fairness of the process of change.

It behooves them to reflect on the consequences that similar attitudes had for the country in the past. The mining oligarchy, which asked for intervention against Busch and Villarroel, made possible the looting of the tin ore and the massacre of miners. The calls for interventionism against Torres led to the dictatorship of Banzer and the death of many Bolivians. The complaints against Lidia Geiler produced the bloody narco-state of Luis Garcia Meza, and the ones against Hernan Siles Suazo brought the neoliberalism that within two decades turned the country over to transnational corporations until only the leftovers remained.

Bolivian image damaged

It also behooves them to make an act of contrition for the damage that is being done to the image of the Bolivian community in Washington, DC by opposition politicians who, ever since they arrived in the United States, have gained a following among some people; protected behind organizations with cultural purposes, they have flooded community residents with political propaganda, constantly and systematically spreading disinformation generated from Bolivia.

Very often, our actions have unanticipated consequences, for which we are forever responsible, even if we do not understand this clearly for some time. We all have the right to dissent and to express ourselves, but it is extremely dangerous to promote political-military intervention against the land where we were born.

Filmed footage of the protest:

For more updates on Bolivia including a wealth of information not disclosed in mainstream media follow the website: www.juancarloszambrana.com

+++

Sector afín a la oposición usa el conflicto del Tipnis en EEUU, insulta a Evo y pide intervenir el país

Juan Carlos Zambrana Marchetti

WASHINGTON, EEUU

El sábado 1 octubre me comentaron que circulaba en Internet una convocatoria para el día siguiente a una protesta de residents bolivianos frente a la Casa Blanca en defensa del Tipnis. Me pareció curioso, por lo que decidí averiguar de qué se trataba. Encontré varias convocatorias, pero una de ellas me llamó la atención en particular. Convocaba no sólo a protestar contra la construcción de la carretera, sino también a guardar un minuto de silencio por los “muertos” y “desaparecidos” entre los indígenas a causa de la represión del gobierno del presidente Evo Morales.

Desprestigian a Bolivia y a Evo

Al día siguiente decidimos con mi esposa dar una vuelta por el lugar y el espectáculo que vimos fue lamentable.

Aproximadamente, 16 personas, bastante distanciadas unas de otras, caminaban formando un círculo de unos doce metros de diámetro, desde cuyo centro un hombre con un megáfono difamaba al presidente boliviano Evo Morales.

Completaba la escena del entierro del Tipnis, o de los muertos del Tipnis, la mismísima muerte, vestida de verde y blanco con un letrero

que decía Evo asesino.

Le creen ciegamente a la desinformación, pensé, porque quizá no sabían que no hubo un solo disparo en la disolución de la marcha y mucho

menos muertos.

La problemática del Tipnis parecía pasar desapercibida por los manifestantes, más concentrados en insultar al presidente Morales de narcotraficante por querer construir lo que llamaron “la carretera de la cocaína”.

También de dictador, supuestamente por destruir la democracia al tener “presos políticos”, sin mencionar los delitos comunes por los que sus

líderes están imputados en Bolivia, sus crímenes económicos contra el Estado boliviano, los cargos de terrorismo y alzamiento armado por los

cuales gran parte de la vieja élite cruceña se convirtió en refugiada antes que en prófuga de la justicia.

Pidieron la invasión a Bolivia

Pedían además la invasión a Bolivia con carteles y fotos incluidas que decían ‘Mubarak, Gadafi y el siguiente es Morales’ ¡No más dictadores!’. A través de esa violencia, exigían democracia en Bolivia acusando a la OEA y a las Naciones Unidas de vendidos al gobierno de

Morales por no haber atendido sus quejas, obviamente infundadas.

Como último recurso, protestaban ante la Casa Blanca en un intento de apuntalar, a nombre del pueblo boliviano, la presión intervencionista que realiza contra la administración Obama la extrema derecha republicana.

“Estos no representan ni remotamente a Bolivia”, comenté al ver caras conocidas entre los manifestantes. “Tampoco a la comunidad boliviana en Virginia”, añadió mi esposa Elena Abolnik.

Reducido grupo

El grupo de participantes se reducía a los opositores políticos de Evo Morales y a los cruceños que se aglutinaban en torno al disuelto Comité pro Santa Cruz de Virginia, y ahora al carnaval cruceño y el Día de la Tradición.

Curiosamente ni los cruceños allí presentes eran una justa representación de Santa Cruz, mucho menos del pueblo boliviano. Elena y yo lo sabíamos, a ciencia cierta, porque siendo ambos cruceños y miembros de organizaciones pro Bolivia conocíamos también a otros cruceños y bolivianos que entienden claramente el valor del proceso de cambio en nuestro país.

A Elena se le ocurrió pensar que quizá ellos no sabían, a excepción de los organizadores, lo que hacían al desprestigiar de ese modo a Bolivia. Puede ser, le respondí, pero nos retiramos comentando que lo expresado en la protesta seguía la línea del discurso de la oposición boliviana cuando viene a Washington a pedir intervención en Bolivia, apoyada en el interés común que tiene en hacerlo su similar republicana.

Lo mismo dijeron en el Capitolio el 17 de noviembre de 2010, ante la cúpula republicana, Luis Nuñez, hablando en nombre de los cruceños, y Víctor Hugo Velasco, en nombre de los indígenas.

Dos representaciones apócrifas que reflejaban la nueva alianza política de la oposición a Morales para fingir alguna conexión entre la ideología conservadora de extrema derecha y los indígenas ahora convertidos en influyente electorado.

Sin embargo, la protesta no estaba ahí por casualidad. Era representativa de algo y lo que logré admitir que reflejaba era la inconsistencia de la causa opositora en Bolivia, unos pocos hablando barbaridades en nombre del pueblo boliviano. Gritando, mejor dicho insultando ante la frustración de quedarse cada vez más aislados en su fundamentalismo político-religioso, ante una mayoría abrumadora de bolivianos que entiende perfectamente la justicia del proceso de cambio.

Quizá les convendría reflexionar sobre las consecuencias que tuvieron para el país similares actitudes en el pasado. La oligarquía minera, que pedía intervención contra Busch y Villarroel, hizo posible el saqueo del estaño y las masacres de mineros. Los pedidos de intervencionismo contra Torres ocasionaron la dictadura de Banzer y la muerte de muchos bolivianos. Las quejas contra Lidia Gueiler produjeron el sangriento narco-Estado de Luis García Meza, y aquellas contra Hernán Siles Suazo produjeron el neoliberalismo que en dos décadas entregó el país a las transnacionales hasta dejarlo en

despojos.

Imagen boliviana dañada

También les convendría hacer un acto de contrición con respecto al daño que se le está haciendo a la imagen de la comunidad Boliviana en Washington DC., de parte de los políticos de oposición que desde su llegada a Estados Unidos han logrado la adhesión de algunas personas, las cuales parapetadas detrás de organizaciones con fines culturales los han inundado con propaganda política en forma constante y sistemática, propagando la desinformación que generan desde Bolivia.

Muy frecuentemente, nuestros actos tienen efectos impensados, de los cuales somos por siempre responsables, aunque por algún tiempo no podamos entenderlo claramente. Todos tenemos derecho a disentir y a expresarnos, pero es extremadamente peligroso promover la intervención político-militar a la tierra que nos vio nacer.

Romero: Contraloría no observó contrato de la vía

+++

SANTA CRUZ

ABI

El Ministro de la Presidencia, Carlos Romero, informó ayer que el segundo informe de la Contraloría sobre el contrato de construcción de la carretera entre Villa Tunari y San Ignacio de Moxos, suscrito por el Gobierno y la empresa brasileña OAS, no tiene observaciones.

“Entregamos a los medios de comunicación este segundo informe de la Contraloría del Estado para despejar dudas sobre el contrato para la construcción de la carretera”, aclaró.

En relación al diálogo con la dirigencia de la Asamblea del Pueblo Guaraní (APG), Romero afirmó que las reuniones fueron solicitadas por su principal dirigente, Celso Padilla, con lo que desmintió que se haya producido una división en ese sector.

El ministro Romero también se refirió a la hospitalización del dirigente de la APG en la clínica Incor de esta ciudad.

“Sobre los sucesos que impulsaron la internación del señor Padilla, primero tenemos que conocer un informe médico, porque estaba en un hotel de Rurrenabaque y se internó un día antes de la reunión Gobierno-APG”, dijo.

A su vez, la Federación Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Santa Cruz (FUTCSCZ) pidió el lunes a los indígenas marchistas reflexionar sobre la importancia de la carretera que unirá a Villa Tunari y San Ignacio de Moxos y cumplir con los compromisos del Pacto de Unidad.

El máximo dirigente de la FUTCSCZ, José Luis Chungara, manifestó que “la pelea no es contra de los hermanos indígenas, es contra los derechistas que en este momento quieren aprovecharse de un movimiento”.

“Agregó que es necesario “articular el bloque de oriente y del occidente entre los campesinos y los hermanos indígenas para impedir ser utilizados por los grupos de derecha”.

“Los que antes agredían a los campesinos e indígenas, hoy pretenden acercarse y mostrarse como sus salvadores”, enfatizó.

EL DATO

Ministro de la Presidencia entregó a los medios de comunicación ayer en Santa Cruz una copia del informe de la Contraloría sobre el contrato para la construcción de la carretera San Ignacio de Moxos-Villa Tunari. La oposición, entre ellos el líder del MSM, Juan Del Granado, denunció supuestas irregularidades del contrato con la constructora brasileña OAS.

División: el ministro de la Presidencia, Carlos Romero, negó que en el interior de la Asamblea del Pueblo Guaraní exista división, como se especuló.

Unidad: el dirigente de la Federación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Santa Cruz, José Luis Chungara, pidió el lunes a los dirigentes de la Confederación de Indígenas del Oriente Boliviano (Cidob) que respeten el Pacto de Unidad.

Ver más temas relacionados

* Sector afín a la oposición usa el conflicto del Tipnis en EEUU, insulta a Evo y pide intervenir el país

El sábado 1 octubre me comentaron que circulaba en Internet una convocatoria para el día siguiente a una protesta de residentes bolivianos frente a la Casa Blanca en defensa del Tipnis. Me pareció

* El diálogo abrirá el proceso de la consulta

La viceministra de Medio Ambiente, Biodiversidad, Cambio Climático y Desarrollo Forestal, Cinthya

* Morales: Las comunidades del Tipnis quieren carretera

El presidente Evo Morales, en entrevista en la red ATB la noche del lunes, aseguró que los habitantes del Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Sécure (Tipnis) quieren que se construya la carretera

* Silva: La CPE no impone la consulta

El ex diputado y actual concejal paceño Jorge Silva explicó ayer que la construcción de una carretera

* García: El MSM está en campaña de desprestigio del Gobierno

El vicepresidente Álvaro García Linera denunció ayer que el jefe del Movimiento Sin Miedo (MSM), Juan Del Granado, encara una campaña de desinformación para dañar la imagen del Gobierno.

* Agresión e insultos a campesinos en La Paz son actos racistas, dice director

Los insultos y agresiones que se presentaron en la marcha campesina de La Paz responden a conductas racistas consolidadas desde la época colonial, manifestó el director de Lucha Contra el

* Vocal asegura que calendario electoral tuvo un avance del 90%

La vocal del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE) Dina Chuquimia informó ayer que el avance del trabajo

http://www.cambio.bo/noticia.php?fecha=2011-10-05&idn=55849

El TIPNIS: La otra guerra del golpe suave | The TIPNIS: The Other Soft War

We are in the process of having the Spanish commentary translated properly. In the meantime, the following article has been translated to English using Google translator. We apologize for the inconvenience. The original version in Spanish follows. -admin

The TIPNIS: The Other Soft War

La epoca

2011-10-04
by: Cynthia Cisneros

What is happening with the TIPNIS and media coverage that has the support and intellectual circles in opposition to the government now is creating a crisis whose background is similar to all those forms of soft coup was attempted in destabilize the government of Evo Morales.

If you look closely at the times of destabilizing the current government, we will see some similarities in tactics, for example in the Constituent Assembly. We have first a media war and feathering legitimate demands of the people who are manipulated and / or distorted in political discourse, as in the case of demands for autonomy, respect for private property, etc.. Second stage of mobilization of unions and guilds, well within the power local, regional, or co-opted, and finally the attack on the police through the formation of violent groups (youth Santa Cruz).

Of these elements the media terrorism plays an important role in both demand and oversized manipulation of fear through the empowerment of subjective reasoning based on half truths, oversized exacerbation of conflict and prejudice and fear among citizens .

Today, although the tactics and not concealed in the famous assault groups, now does behind Indian leaders openly co-opted by NGOs linked to USAID, and U.S. funding, as shown by the evidence presented by the government.

We repeat the script.

First the marchers protesting the TIPNIS based on a legitimate claim in this case the query to the people present in the art establishment. 30 subsection 15 and although not binding is the right of indigenous peoples. However, indigenous leaders Unlike previous marches want dialogue, threatening to further radicalize the protest if the president did not attend in person. Thus disguised behind a legitimate claim to citizenship, and under a legitimate form of protest as well as the peaceful, legitimate legitimize a little attitude: the protest per se and the rejection of dialogue.

Second all that boasts a dangerous myopia that fails to assess the needs of the country in social, political and economic context today, and that does not take into account the safety of children and women who accompany (When a motion has been formed mainly by pregnant women and children?) and believe in their leaders despite a proven co-optation.

Third, the abuse to government authorities and security forces, is manifest after being rejected seven committees of ministers who went to seek dialogue. After the government were to talk to the people of TIPNIS and would begin the consultation. After repeated invitations to do the government leaders to open up the dialogue, then the chancellor in person, go talk to the marchers. In response to these attempts at dialogue have the abduction and mistreatment of the Chancellor and the Deputy Minister of Governmental Coordination who were forced to head the march.

The marchers justify their actions indicate that they had not been invited to dialogue, break the police cordon guarding them, hurt with arrows to the police whose crime was to safeguard the fly to avoid clashes between the population and the marchers.

Fourth. The coup de grace comes with the media to hide the negative dialogue, the abuse of indigenous marchers from government authorities, provocation and aggression against the police force, the death of creatures which accompany the march as negligence who organized a march of pregnant women and children.

And oversized excessive police repression, gasification just as they would eat (fishing a cow, how money after 40 days of travel?) Speaks of dead creatures (data not been confirmed and drove cheerfully and do not give the names of the deaths), the people demand dialogue (as if the government failed to exhaust efforts to do so), speaking of dead and missing several contradictory figures, (with emphasis on character and premeditated massacre of wanting to harm the real indigenous) church dialogue and prayer requests, the federation’s press asks Potosí Freedom of expression, the demonstration in the Plaza de San Francisco in support of the marchers is felt TIPNIS disrupting normal traffic, coupled with the resignation of Defence Minister and finally the resignation of president requires comparing its actions with the government of Sanchez de Lozada.

Facts and contribute to increasing tensions and rejection in a citizenry that has subjectivized speech to the American Embassy. Unable dictatorial government that now shows its true face anti Indian government never wanted the people and that he should leave.

First victory for those behind an environmental discourse attempts to derail the Indian government, a government laboratory which was the construction of a state where all Bolivians Plurinational were recognized in their diversity and a government that ensured the economic welfare of his people amid a global crisis, which first tooth and nail defending a constituent assembly of the many. It does not matter to the media is a government that does not defend the mother land, a liar and a dictator government that is not really indigenous as their president does not speak a native language.

Plus for the war of the empire soft coup in Bolivia

The subjectivity and drama in the consciousness of viewers, exacerbates the shock, grief, compassion and rejection, nothing better to feathering an elite opposition, depose the process and justify the confrontation between Bolivians themselves under a government of Indians unable, even more so on the verge of an election of all judicial authorities in the best interest of the elite.

While we recognize that the government has shown a weakness this time very visible in the strategy of informing the public to prevent these sectors take center stage opponents distort a legitimate demand of the population. It is still questionable attitude of the leaders around the president by the lack of channels of communication with their bases, the lack of rotation of officers as well as the enclosure of the legislative assembly of the chamber of senators and deputies who do not maintain a close relationship with its constituents as misinformation abounds.

Govern by obeying means to meet the needs of the people.

Do not people remember that this voice is also unaware that the process will only be sustainable to the extent that the population is able to appropriate the same.

The ossified Left of the protagonists

But even more we care about what occurs in the national intellectual circle, we believe that in defending the motion without objection we are falling into the game from the opposition and doing a disservice to the state building process rather than the MAS Plurinational a devastating criticism it does not propose alternative solutions in the practical.

We need to read to Bolivia in the global context, in the midst of an economic scenario that predicts a new and dangerous phase for the more developed countries and not to mention our enclave economies[ 1].

We must look to Bolivia in a context where the balance of forces committed more violence, with a media discourse subverted through a complex ideological apparatus and ended with Libya, whose next target is South America. Faced with this, how we take on the challenge of building a state and not destructive criticism which suggests a set of players who are growing demand while it is legitimate, it is not the background around it, what we want to Bolivia? , we want to say that the Indian to the public if I was wrong and then ousted?, perhaps this was not the objective of the opposition since he took Evo Morales?

Bolivia must commit to developing a good time out of centuries of colonial backwardness and not demonize the word as if it were only neoliberal goods since there exists the world, seeking development and progress as well. What is necessary to do so in the context of respect and consultation itself, and because the government said a referendum to adjudicate these issues. As a circle of rebels demand a dialogue that the government asked all the time.

Finally, if this process is all Bolivians Defend the consciousness of this, with the conviction that the future belongs to us. We have the right to error, put the shoulder is not about supporting any party is a matter of survival of this great community we call Bolivia, have an obligation to go beyond our individual to understand that for the first time in history the Indians are capable of governing, to propose a model of collective development for all Bolivians, with our mistakes and we also have a right to it in this construction process.

For whom then all this paraphernalia media and all the dead who have to pay the people are the hidden interests behind the march of TIPNIS?.

[1]By CHRISTOPHER S. 1 RUGABER – Tuesday September 20 2011, 17:04. The IMF revised sharply downward its economic forecasts for the U.S. in 2011 and 2012 by the weak growth of the country and highlighted its concern at the inability of Europe to overcome its debt crisis.

El TIPNIS: La otra guerra del golpe suave

2011-10-04
by: Cynthia Cisneros

Lo que viene aconteciendo con el TIPNIS y la cobertura mediática que este ha logrado así como el apoyo de círculos intelectuales ahora en oposición al gobierno, está generando una situación de crisis cuyo trasfondo es similar a todas aquellas formas de golpe suave en los que se intentó desestabilizar al Gobierno de Evo Morales.

Si observamos detenidamente los momentos de desestabilización al gobierno actual, veremos ciertas similitudes en la táctica empleada, por ejemplo en la Asamblea Constituyente. Tenemos primero una guerra mediática y el embanderamiento de demandas legítimas del pueblo que son manipuladas y/o distorsionadas en los discursos políticos, como en el caso de las demandas por autonomía, respeto a la propiedad privada, etc. Segundo una etapa de movilización de sindicatos y gremios, bien sometidos al poder local, regional, o bien cooptados, y por último el ataque a las fuerzas del orden a través de la conformación de grupos de choque (juventud cruceñista).

De estos elementos el terrorismo mediático juega un papel muy importante, en tanto sobredimensión de la demanda y manipulación del miedo a través del empoderamiento de un razonamiento subjetivo que se basa en medias verdades, sobredimensión del conflicto y exacerbación del prejuicio y el temor en la ciudadanía.

Hoy en día si bien la táctica ya no se encubre en los famosos grupos de choque, ahora lo hace detrás de líderes indígenas abiertamente cooptados a través de ONG´s vinculadas a USAID, y al financiamiento de EEUU, como demuestran las pruebas presentadas por el gobierno.

Vemos repetir el libreto.

Primero los marchistas por el TIPNIS protestan sobre la base de una demanda legítima, en este caso la consulta a los pueblos está presente en la constitución art. 30 inciso 15 y a pesar que no es vinculante es un derecho de los pueblos indígenas. Sin embargo, los líderes indígenas a diferencia de las anteriores marchas no quieren diálogo, más aún amenazan con radicalizar la protesta si no los atiende el presidente en persona. Así encubiertos tras una demanda legítima ante la ciudadanía, y bajo una modalidad de protesta también legítima como es la marcha pacífica, legitiman una actitud poco legítima: la protesta per se y el rechazo al dialogo.

Segundo todo esto hace gala de una miopía peligrosa que no llega a evaluar las necesidades del país en el contexto social político y económico actual, y que tampoco toma en cuenta la seguridad de los niños y mujeres que los acompañan (¿cuando una marcha ha estado formada principalmente por mujeres embarazadas y niños?) y que creen en sus líderes a pesar de una demostrada cooptación.

Tercero el atropello a autoridades de gobierno y fuerzas del orden, se manifiesta luego de haber sido rechazadas siete comisiones de ministros que fueron a buscar el diálogo. Luego que el gobierno fuera a hablar con los pobladores del TIPNIS y diera inicio a la consulta. Luego de repetidas invitaciones que hiciera el gobierno a los líderes de la marcha para abrir el diálogo, y luego que el canciller en persona fuera a hablar con los marchistas. Como respuesta a estas tentativas de diálogo tenemos el secuestro y maltrato al canciller y al Viceministro de Coordinación Gubernamental quienes fueron obligados a encabezar la marcha.

Los marchistas justifican su accionar indicando que ellos no habían sido invitados al diálogo, rompen el cordón policial que los custodiaba, hieren con flechas a la policía cuyo delito era resguardar la marcha para evitar enfrentamientos entre la población y los marchistas.

Cuarto. El golpe de gracia viene con los medios de comunicación que ocultan la negativa al diálogo, el abuso de los marchistas indígenas contra las autoridades de gobierno, la provocación y agresión contra el cuerpo policial, la muerte de las criaturas que acompañan la marcha como negligencia de quienes organizaron una marcha de embarazadas y niños.

Y sobredimensionan la represión policial desmedida, la gasificación justo cuando iban a comer (faenando una vaca, con qué dinero luego de 40 días de marcha?) se habla de criaturas fallecidas (datos que no han sido confirmados y se manejaron alegremente y no se dan los nombres de los decesos ), el pueblo pide diálogo (como si el gobierno no hubiera agotado los esfuerzos para ello), se habla de varios muertos y desaparecidos en cifras contradictorias, (incidiendo en el carácter premeditado de querer masacrar y dañar a los verdaderos indígenas) la iglesia pide diálogo y oración, la federación de la prensa de Potosí pide Libertad de expresión, la manifestación en la Plaza de San francisco en apoyo a los marchistas del TIPNIS se hace sentir alterando el normal tráfico vehicular, sumado a la renuncia de la ministra de Defensa y por último se exige la renuncia del presidente comparando su accionar con gobierno de Sánchez de Lozada.

Datos y hechos que contribuyen a exacerbar los ánimos y el rechazo en una ciudadanía que ha subjetivado el discurso de la embajada americana. Gobierno dictatorial incapaz que ahora muestra su verdadera cara anti indígena, gobierno que nunca quiso al pueblo y que debe irse.

Primera victoria para quien detrás de un discurso ecologista intenta echar por tierra al gobierno de los indios, un gobierno que fue el laboratorio de construcción de un Estado Plurinacional donde todos los bolivianos fueron reconocidos en su diversidad y un gobierno que veló por el bienestar económico de su pueblo en medio de una crisis mundial, que por primera vez defendió a capa y espada una asamblea constituyente de los muchos. Pero eso no importa ante los medios queda un gobierno que no defiende a la madre tierra, un gobierno mentiroso y dictador que no es realmente indígena ya que su presidente no sabe hablar una lengua nativa.

Punto a favor para la guerra del Golpe Suave del imperio en Bolivia

La subjetivación y dramatización en la consciencia de los televidentes, exacerba el asombro, la pena, la compasión y el rechazo, nada mejor para embanderar a una élite de oposición, defenestrar el proceso y justificar la confrontación entre los propios bolivianos bajo un gobierno de indios incapaces, más aún ad portas de una elección de autoridades judiciales que en nada conviene a los intereses de dicha élite.

Si bien debemos reconocer que el gobierno ha mostrado todo este tiempo una debilidad muy visible en la estrategia de información a la ciudadanía para evitar que estos sectores opositores cobren protagonismo distorsionando una demanda legítima de la población. No deja de ser cuestionable la actitud de los dirigentes que rodean al presidente por la falta de canales de comunicación con sus bases, la falta de rotación de autoridades, así como el enclaustramiento de asambleístas legislativos de la cámara de senadores y diputados que tampoco mantienen una relación fluida con sus mandantes en tanto campea la desinformación.

Mandar obedeciendo significa gobernar para solucionar las necesidades del pueblo.

No tener presente que este pueblo también tiene voz es desconocer que el proceso solo tendrá sostenibilidad en la medida en que la población sea capaz de apropiarse del mismo

La Anquilosada Izquierda de los Protagonismos

Pero aún más nos preocupa lo que se produce en el círculo intelectual nacional, consideramos que al defender la marcha sin objeción estamos cayendo en el juego de la oposición y haciendo un flaco favor al proceso de construcción del Estado Plurinacional no al MAS en una crítica demoledora que no propone alternativas de solución en lo práctico.

Tenemos la necesidad de leer a Bolivia en el contexto mundial, en medio de un escenario económico que augura una nueva y peligrosa fase para los países más desarrollados y ni que decir de nuestras economías de enclave 1.

Debemos considerar a Bolivia en un contexto donde la correlación de fuerzas apuesta por una mayor violencia, con un discurso mediático subvertido a través de un complejo aparato ideológico que ya acabó con Libia y cuyo objetivo siguiente es América del Sur. Frente a esto ¿cómo asumimos el reto de un Estado en construcción y no la crítica destructiva que deja entrever un juego de protagonismos que hacen crecer una demanda que si bien es legítima, no lo es el trasfondo que la rodea, ¿que Bolivia queremos?, queremos hacer que el indio diga ante el público si me equivoqué y luego defenestrarlo?, acaso no fue este el objetivo de la oposición desde que subió Evo morales?

Bolivia debe apostar al desarrollo para salir de una buena vez de siglos de atraso colonial y no satanizar la palabra como si esta fuera solo neoliberal, la mercancía existe desde que existe el mundo, el desarrollo y la búsqueda de progreso también. Qué es necesario hacerlo en el marco del respeto y la consulta sí, y ya el gobierno se manifestó por un referéndum que dirima estas cuestiones. Mientras un círculo de revoltosos demanda un diálogo que el gobierno pidió en todo momento.

Finalmente si este proceso es de todos los bolivianos y bolivianas defendámoslo con la conciencia del presente, con la convicción de un futuro que nos pertenece. Tenemos derecho al error, poner el hombro no es cuestión de apoyo a ningún partido es cuestión de sobrevivencia de esta gran comunidad que llamamos Bolivia, tenemos la obligación de ir más allá de nuestras individualidades para entender que por primera vez en la historia los indios somos capaces de gobernarnos, de proponer un modelo de desarrollo colectivo para todos los bolivianos, con nuestros errores y que además tenemos derecho a ello en este proceso de construcción.

A quien le conviene entonces toda esta parafernalia mediática y todos los muertos que le toca pagar al pueblo, Cuales son los intereses ocultos detrás de la marcha del TIPNIS?

1 Por CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER – martes 20 de septiembre de 2011, 17:04. El FMI modificó drásticamente a la baja sus previsiones económicas para Estados Unidos en 2011 y 2012 por la debilidad del crecimiento del país y resaltó su preocupación ante la incapacidad de Europa para superar su crisis por la deuda.

http://www.la-epoca.com.bo/index.php?opt=front&mod=detalle&id=934

Who Really Leads on the Environment? The “Movement” Versus Evo Morales Who Really Leads on the Environment? The “Movement” Versus Evo Morales Who Really Leads on the Environment? The “Movement” Versus Evo Morales

The Environmental “Movement” Versus the Bolivian Morales Government

September 30^th, 2011

by Cory Morningstar

Evo Morales is Bolivia’s first-ever Indigenous president. In his January 2006 inaugural speech, Morales’s focus was the years of discrimination against Indians, and he compared Bolivia to apartheid-era South Africa. Morales hailed the election as the end of the Colonial and Neo-Liberal Era. In October 2009, Morales was named “World Hero of Mother Earth” by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

In December 2009, the Morales government proved the most progressive of all states (in alliance with ALBA and the G77 nations) at the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen. This union, led by Bolivia, aggressively pursued the scientific targets necessary in order for the world to avoid complete ecological collapse and a global genocide of unparalleled proportions. Ironically (and most revealing), these progressive states led leaps and bounds ahead of the environmental movement itself.

The institutionalized environmental “movement” was united under an umbrella organization/campaign titled TckTckTck, a social media giant, contrived by some of the world’s most powerful corporations and marketing executives. [1] One such TckTckTck partner (there are 280 partners made public) was the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change consisting of corporations such as Shell, RBF and Coca-Cola. (When this information was uncovered and made public, TckTckTck removed them from their website and scrambled to recover from the PR nightmare.) The Bolivian government’s leadership was so incredibly dignified and courageous that it even put the more legitimate Climate Justice movement to shame.

To get a sense of exactly who the corporate greens really represent (hint – it is not you), consider this: Bolivia, ALBA and the G77 demanded that states not exceed a 1ºC global temperature rise. In stark contrast, the NGOs “demanded” that temperatures not exceed a +2ºC and further “demanded” that world emissions peak by 2019 (meaning that emissions would continue to increase, business as usual, until 2019 at which point we would begin an effort to decrease). TckTckTck includes over 200 international partners including Avaaz, Conservation International, Greenpeace International, World Wildlife Fund (and many more pro-REDD advocates and profiteers) as well as Climate Action Network International [2] who represents (and speaks on behalf of) over 700 NGOs.

Regarding the issue of human rights, the hundreds of corporate NGOs – by campaigning to get the public to accept the global average temperature further rising up to a 2ºC limit – thereby sanctioned/sanctions most all species on this planet to an unprecedented annihilation within decades. [Note: Consider that at under +1ºC, we are already committed to a minimum +2.4ºC not including feedbacks: Ramanathan and Feng 2008 paper. Further, note climate scientist James Hansen’s warning that even 1ºC now looks like an unacceptably high risk.]

Considering that the corporate NGOs are leading us to certain species eradication, one must consider what constitutes criminal negligence. In the United States, the definition of criminal negligence is compelling: “Crimes Committed Negligently (Article 33.1) A crime shall be deemed to be committed with clear intent, if the man or woman was conscious of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, and willed such consequences to ensue.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed with indirect intent, if the man or woman realized the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but consciously allowed these consequences or treated them with indifference.” “A Crime Committed by Negligence (Article 33.1): A criminal deed committed thoughtlessly or due to negligence shall be recognized as a crime committed by negligence.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed thoughtlessly, if the man or woman has foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but expected without valid reasons that these consequences would be prevented.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed due to negligence if the man or woman has not foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although he or she could and should have foreseen these consequences with reasonable.”

After the massive failure/corruption of COP15 in 2009, in 2010 Bolivia organized and hosted the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which produced The Cochabamba Accord (April 2010), specifically rejecting REDD: “We condemn market mechanisms such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and its versions + and + +, which are violating the sovereignty of peoples and their right to prior, free and informed consent as well as the sovereignty of national States, the customs of Peoples, and the Rights of Nature.”

The ‘buen vivir‘ (“good life”) ideology, also enshrined into Bolivia’s constitution, was yet another visionary philosophy that secured Bolivia as the conscience of the world on climate change and moral principles. The buen vivir philosophy was presented by the Bolivia delegation at the United Nations in April 2010. In December 2010, the revolutionary “Law of the Rights of Mother Earth” (“Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra”) was passed by Bolivia’s Plurinational Legislative Assembly. Bolivia’s ideas, positions and beliefs under the leadership of Morales, were in fact, so advanced both intellectually and philosophically – that most often Bolivia stood alone in the International arena while those lacking courage, ethics, or both, were left behind within the flocks of sheep. In a world where compromise of human life has become status quo – Bolivia, under Morales,  has consistently refused to abandon their principled positions. This from a country that emits approximately one quarter of the CO2 emissions than that of green-house gas leading obstructionist states such as United States and Canada.

History repeated itself in 2010 when, at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16), which took place in Cancún, Mexico, Bolivia again stood alone in the International arena as the only one of the UN’s 192 member countries to vote against a deal which effectively sanctioned a global suicide pact. The suffering and devastation that will result from the greatest heist in history is unparalleled desperation, starvation and death on a massive scale.

Compare the Morales Leadership to NGO Avaaz, Which has Launched an International Campaign Against Morales

Avaaz is a member of The Climate Group.

The Climate Group is pushing REDD: http://www.theclimategroup.org/_assets/files/Reducing-Emissions-from-Deforestation.pdf

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund also acts as an incubator for in-house projects that later evolve into free-standing institutions – a case in point being The Climate Group, launched in London in 2004. The Climate Group coalition includes more than 50 of the world’s largest corporations and sub-national governments, including big polluters such as energy giants BP and Duke Energy, as well as several partner organizations, such as NGO Avaaz. The Climate Group are advocates of unproven carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), nuclear power and biomass as crucial technologies for a low-carbon economy. The Climate Group works closely with other business lobby groups, including the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), which works consistently to sabotage climate action. The Climate Group also works on other initiatives, such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, a new global standard for voluntary offset projects. One marketing strategist company labeled the Climate Group’s campaign “Together” as “the best inoculation against greenwash.” The Climate Group has operations in Australia, China, Europe, India, and North America. It was a partner to the Copenhagen Climate Council.

http://www.theclimategroup.org/about-us/our-partners/

The U.S. backed Avaaz NGO (Soros funding) has never endorsed the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba. Neither has any other corporate green group.

The Environmental movement? It’s a movement, alright. A movement to protect the world’s wealthiest families and corporations who fund the movement via tax-exempt foundations.

Morales Position on REDD

Morales produced a statement on REDD (September 2010) explaining in more detail his opposition to REDD (available here in Spanish, pdf file – 734.6 kB).

NATURE, FORESTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ARE NOT FOR SALE

Indigenous brothers of the world:

 

I am deeply concerned because some pretend to use leaders and indigenous groups to promote the commoditization of nature and in particular of forest through the establishment of the REDD mechanism (Reduction Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and its versions REDD+ REDD++.

 

Every day an extension of forests and rainforest equivalent to 36,000 football fields disappears in the world. Each year 13 million hectares of forest and rain forest are lost. At this rate, the forests will disappear by the end of the century.

 

The forests and rainforest are the largest source of biodiversity. If deforestation continues, thousands of species, animals and plants will be lost forever. More than three quarters of accessible fresh water zones come from uptake zones in forests, hence the worsening of water quality when the forest condition deteriorates. Forests provide protection from flooding, erosion and natural disasters. They provide non-timber goods as well as timber goods. Forests are a source of natural medicines and healing elements not yet discovered. Forests and the rainforest are the lungs of the atmosphere. 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gases occurring in the world are caused by deforestation.

 

It is essential to stop the destruction of our Mother Earth.

 

Currently, during climate change negotiations everyone recognizes that it is essential to avoid the deforestation and degradation of the forest. However, to achieve this, some propose to commoditize forests on the false argument that only what has a price and owner is worth taking care of.

 

Their proposal is to consider only one of the functions of forests, which is its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and issue “certificates”, “credits” or “Carbon rights” to be commercialized in a carbon market. This way, companies of the North have the choice of reducing their emissions or buy “REDD certificates” in the South according to their economic convenience. For example, if a company has to invest USD40 or USD50 to reduce the emission of one ton of C02 in a “developed country”, they would prefer to buy a “REDD certificate” for USD10 or USD20 in a “developing country”, so they can they say they have fulfilled to reduce the emissions of the mentioned ton of CO2.

 

Through this mechanism, developed countries will have handed their obligation to reduce their emissions to developing countries, and the South will once again fund the North and that same northern company will have saved a lot of money by buying “certified” carbon from the Southern forests. However, they will not only have cheated their commitments to reduce emissions, but they will have also begun the commoditization of nature, with the forests

 

The forests will start to be priced by the CO2 tonnage they are able to absorb. The “credit” or “carbon right” which certifies that absorptive capacity will be bought and sold like any commodity worldwide. To ensure that no one affects the ownership of “REDD certificates” buyers, a series of restrictions will be put into place, which will eventually affect the sovereign right of countries and indigenous peoples over their forests and rainforests. So begins a new stage of privatization of nature never seen before which will extend to water, biodiversity and what they call “environmental services”.

 

While we assert that capitalism is the cause of global warming and the destruction of forests, rainforests and Mother Earth, they seek to expand capitalism to the commoditization of nature with the word “green economy”.

 

To get support for this proposal of commoditization of nature, some financial institutions, governments, NGOs, foundations, “experts” and trading companies are offering a percentage of the “benefits” of this commoditization of nature to indigenous peoples and communities living in native forests and the rainforest.

 

Nature, forests and indigenous peoples are not for sale.

 

For centuries, Indigenous peoples have lived conserving and preserving natural forests and rainforest. For us the forest and rainforest are not objects, are not things you can price and privatize. We do not accept that native forests and rainforest be reduced to a simple measurable quantity of carbon. Nor do we accept that native forests be confused with simple plantations of a single or two tree species. The forest is our home, a big house where plants, animals, water, soil, pure air and human beings coexist.

 

It is essential that all countries of the world work together to prevent forest and rainforest deforestation and degradation. It is an obligation of developed countries, and it is part of its climate and environmental debt, to contribute financially to the preservation of forests, but NOT through its commoditization. There are many ways of supporting and financing developing countries, indigenous peoples and local communities that contribute to the preservation of forests.

 

Developed countries spend tens of times more public resources on defense, security and war than in climate change. Even during the financial crisis many have maintained and increased their military spending. It is inadmissible that by using the needs communities have and the ambitions of some leaders and indigenous “experts”, indigenous peoples are expected to be involved with the commoditization of nature.

 

All forests and rainforests protection mechanisms should guarantee indigenous rights and participation, but not because indigenous participation is achieved in REDD, we can accept that a price for forests and rainforests is set and negotiated in a global carbon market.

 

Indigenous brothers, let us not be confused. Some tell us that the carbon market mechanism in REDD will be voluntary. That is to say that whoever wants to sell and buy, will be able, and whoever does not want to, will be able to stand aside. We cannot accept that, with our consent, a mechanism is created where one voluntarily sells Mother Earth while others look crossed handed

 

Faced with the reductionist views of forests and rainforest commoditization, indigenous peoples with peasants and social movements of the world must fight for the proposals that emerged of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth:

 

1. Integrated management of native forests and rainforest not only considering its mitigation function as CO2 sink but all its functions and potentiality, whilst avoiding confusing them with simple plantations.

 

2. Respect the sovereignty of developing countries in their integral management of forests.

 

3. Full compliance with the Rights of Indigenous Peoples established by the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Convention No. 169 of the ILO and other international instruments; recognition and respect to their territories; revalorization and implementation of indigenous knowledge for the preservation of forests; indigenous peoples participation and indigenous management of forest and rainforest.

 

4. Funding of developed countries to developing countries and indigenous peoples for integral management of forest as part of their climate and environmental debt. No establishment of any mechanism of carbon markets or “incentives” that may lead to the commoditization of forests and rainforest.

 

5. Recognition of the rights of Mother Earth, which includes forests, rainforest and all its components. In order to restore harmony with Mother Earth, putting a price on nature is not the way but to recognize that not only human beings have the right to life and to reproduce, but nature also has a right to life and to regenerate, and that without Mother Earth Humans cannot live.

 

Indigenous brothers, together with our peasant brothers and social movements of the world, we must mobilize so that the conclusions of Cochabamba are assumed in Cancun and to impulse a mechanism of RELATED ACTIONS TO THE FORESTS based on these five principles, while always maintaining high the unity of indigenous peoples and the principles of respect for Mother Earth, which for centuries we have preserved and inherited from our ancestors.

 

EVO MORALES AYMA
President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia

 

+++

WHAT MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND NGOs ARE NOT REPORTING

VIDEO: Sept. 30th, 2011: TIPNIS: Indigenous of Western Bolivia support Government (english subs)

“… political opportunists who have infiltrated this mobilization … they took advantage of it in order to discriminate and criticize the changing process … we will tell these political rascals in their presence … here is the people! Here are the real ones who have struggled to defend the changing process! … 20 or 30 years from now … Bolivia will be truly independent … without the intrusion of neo-liberal parties …”

From the article: Bolivia: Amazon protest — development before environment? by Fred Fuentes:

US interference

As the uprising against neoliberalism grew in strength, overthrowing a neoliberal president in 2003, US imperialism sought to use money to increase divisions within the indigenous movements.

In late 2005, investigative journalist Reed Lindsay published an article in NACLA that used declassified US documents to expose how US government-funded agency USAID was used to this effect.

USAID was already planning by 2002 to “help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors”.

The downfall in 2003 of president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada triggered a step-up in this subversive activity.

A particular target was CIDOB.

The group was in a crisis after Fabricano was accused of profiting from illegal logging and he accepted the post of vice-minister of Indigenous Affairs under Sanchez de Lozada.

Through USAID funding to the Brecha Foundation, an NGO established by CIDOB leaders, the US hoped to further mould the organisation to its own ends.

Referring to comments made by Brecha director Victor Hugo Vela, Lindsay notes that during this time, “CIDOB leaders allied with Fabricano have condemned the cultivation of coca, helped the business elite in the department of Santa Cruz to push for region autonomy and opposed a proposal to require petroleum companies to consult with indigenous communities before drilling on their lands”.

The CSUTCB (divided between followers of Morales and radical Aymara leader Felipe Quispe), CSCB, FNMCB-BS and organisations such as the neighbourhood councils of El Alto (Fejuve), and to a less extent worker and miner organisations, were at the forefront of constant street battles and insurrections.

CIDOB, however, took an approach marked by negotiation and moderation.

It was not until July 2005 that CIDOB renewed its leadership, in turn breaking relations with Brecha.

CIDOB was not the only target for infiltration.

With close to $200,000 in US government funds, the Land and Liberty Movement (MTL) was set up in 2004 by Walter Reynaga.

As well as splitting the Movement of Landless Peasant’s (MST), one wing of which operated out of his La Paz office, Lindsay said Reynaga, like Vega, tried to win control of the “MAS-aligned” CONAMAQ.

Demands

And it is also true that the demands of the Sub Central of TIPNIS, and in particular CIDOB, are far removed from any notion of communitarianism.

Although initially focused on opposition to the highway, protesters presented the government with an original list of 13 demands, then extended to 16, on the day the march began.

Among those were calls for indigenous peoples to be able to directly receive compensation payment for offsetting carbon emissions.

This policy, know as REDD+, has been denounced as the privatisation of the forests by many environmental activists and the Peoples’ Summit of Climate Change organised in Bolivia in 2010.

It has also been promoted as a mechanism to allow developed countries to continue to pollute while undermining the right underdeveloped to develop their economies.

Another demand calls for the replacement of functionaries within the Authority for Control and Monitoring of Forests and Lands (ABT).

This demand dovetails with the allegations made by Morales against CIDOB leaders, and never refuted, that they want to control this state institution.

Much focus has been made of the potential environmental destruction caused by a highway that would open the path to future “coloniser” settlements.

But these arguments have only focused on one side of the equation.

Much has been made of a study by Bolivian Strategic Research Program that concluded that 64.5% of TIPNIS would be lost to deforestation by 2030 as a result of the highway.

Few, though, have noted that the same study found that even without the highway 43% of TIPNIS would be lost if the current rate of deforestation continues.

The biggest cause of this is the illegal logging that continues to occur, in some cases with the complicity of some local indigenous leaders and communities.

An environmental impact studies by the Bolivian Highway Authority have found the direct impact of the highway on TIPNIS to be 0.03%.

But this has to weighed up with the fact that the highway would provide the state with access to areas currently out of its reach.

This would enable not only access to services, but a greater ability to tackle illegal logging and potential narcotrafficking in the area.

At the same time, the government has asked the indigenous communities of TIPNIS to help in drafting legislation that would impose jail terms of 10 to 20 years on those found to be illegally settling, growing coca or logging in TIPNIS.

+++

The manipulation by NGOs and corporations is clear in this interview (below) with Pirakuma Yawalapiti, the Xingu spokesperson speaking on the issue of carbon trading. This dialogue was filmed by Rebecca Sommer of EARTHPEOPLES, a global network for and by Indigenous Peoples. The interview is just one of hundreds that give documented testament to the deliberate manipulation of the threatened people most vulnerable to climate change. To view more videos and further understand the exploitation of Indigenous Peoples in pursuit of the profits behind REDD, please visit  SommerFilms.

 

[In the interview, the NGOs/agencies who Yawalapiti speaks of (that are pressuring the Indigenous communities of Alto Xingu to agree to REDD projects they do not want) are FUNAI – National Indian Foundation Brazil / Fundação Nacional do Índio and IBAMA – Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Resources / Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis.]

 

 

[1] The following companies who have already come on board as partners includes Galeries Lafayette, Virgin Group, Yahoo! Music, iTunes, Google, Pernod Ricard, EDF, Microsoft, Zune, YouTube, USA Today, National Magazines, HSBC, M&S, Uniqlo, Lloyds Bank, MySpace, MTV, Bo Concept Japan K.K., Volvo, Kipa Turkey, Claro Argentina, Peugeot, NTV, Universal, Tesco, Sina.com, GDF Suez, Centrica, Oxfam, New Zealand Wine Company, 350.org, Handbag.com, Avaaz.org, Lesinrockuptibles, Harper’s Bazaar, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, EMap, Greenpeace, Commensal, The Atlantic, Fast Company, News Limited, Tesla, Wired Magazine, and RFM Radio.

 

[2] The founding of the Climate Action Network (CAN) in 1988 can be traced back to the early players in the ENGO community, including Michael Oppenheimer of the corporate NGO, Environmental Defense Fund. CAN is a global network of over 700 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The stated goal of CAN is to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. This goal is severely problematic in (at minimum) 2 fundamental ways: 1) There is no such thing as “ecologically sustainable levels” of climate change, and 2) as opposed to states having to respond to approximately 300 groups demanding action on climate change, states instead bask in the comfort of having to deal with only one (that of CAN), which essentially demands little to nothing. CAN has seven regional coordinating offices that coordinate these efforts in Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Europe, Latin America, North America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Members include organizations from around the globe, including the largest corporate greens such as World Wildlife Fund [WWF], Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

The Environmental “Movement” Versus the Bolivian Morales Government

September 30^th, 2011

by Cory Morningstar

Evo Morales is Bolivia’s first-ever Indigenous president. In his January 2006 inaugural speech, Morales’s focus was the years of discrimination against Indians, and he compared Bolivia to apartheid-era South Africa. Morales hailed the election as the end of the Colonial and Neo-Liberal Era. In October 2009, Morales was named “World Hero of Mother Earth” by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

In December 2009, the Morales government proved the most progressive of all states (in alliance with ALBA and the G77 nations) at the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen. This union, led by Bolivia, aggressively pursued the scientific targets necessary in order for the world to avoid complete ecological collapse and a global genocide of unparalleled proportions. Ironically (and most revealing), these progressive states led leaps and bounds ahead of the environmental movement itself.

The institutionalized environmental “movement” was united under an umbrella organization/campaign titled TckTckTck, a social media giant, contrived by some of the world’s most powerful corporations and marketing executives. [1] One such TckTckTck partner (there are 280 partners made public) was the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change consisting of corporations such as Shell, RBF and Coca-Cola. (When this information was uncovered and made public, TckTckTck removed them from their website and scrambled to recover from the PR nightmare.) The Bolivian government’s leadership was so incredibly dignified and courageous that it even put the more legitimate Climate Justice movement to shame.

To get a sense of exactly who the corporate greens really represent (hint – it is not you), consider this: Bolivia, ALBA and the G77 demanded that states not exceed a 1ºC global temperature rise. In stark contrast, the NGOs “demanded” that temperatures not exceed a +2ºC and further “demanded” that world emissions peak by 2019 (meaning that emissions would continue to increase, business as usual, until 2019 at which point we would begin an effort to decrease). TckTckTck includes over 200 international partners including Avaaz, Conservation International, Greenpeace International, World Wildlife Fund (and many more pro-REDD advocates and profiteers) as well as Climate Action Network International [2] who represents (and speaks on behalf of) over 700 NGOs.

Regarding the issue of human rights, the hundreds of corporate NGOs – by campaigning to get the public to accept the global average temperature further rising up to a 2ºC limit – thereby sanctioned/sanctions most all species on this planet to an unprecedented annihilation within decades. [Note: Consider that at under +1ºC, we are already committed to a minimum +2.4ºC not including feedbacks: Ramanathan and Feng 2008 paper. Further, note climate scientist James Hansen’s warning that even 1ºC now looks like an unacceptably high risk.]

Considering that the corporate NGOs are leading us to certain species eradication, one must consider what constitutes criminal negligence. In the United States, the definition of criminal negligence is compelling: “Crimes Committed Negligently (Article 33.1) A crime shall be deemed to be committed with clear intent, if the man or woman was conscious of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, and willed such consequences to ensue.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed with indirect intent, if the man or woman realized the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but consciously allowed these consequences or treated them with indifference.” “A Crime Committed by Negligence (Article 33.1): A criminal deed committed thoughtlessly or due to negligence shall be recognized as a crime committed by negligence.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed thoughtlessly, if the man or woman has foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but expected without valid reasons that these consequences would be prevented.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed due to negligence if the man or woman has not foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although he or she could and should have foreseen these consequences with reasonable.”

After the massive failure/corruption of COP15 in 2009, in 2010 Bolivia organized and hosted the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which produced The Cochabamba Accord (April 2010), specifically rejecting REDD: “We condemn market mechanisms such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and its versions + and + +, which are violating the sovereignty of peoples and their right to prior, free and informed consent as well as the sovereignty of national States, the customs of Peoples, and the Rights of Nature.”

The ‘buen vivir‘ (“good life”) ideology, also enshrined into Bolivia’s constitution, was yet another visionary philosophy that secured Bolivia as the conscience of the world on climate change and moral principles. The buen vivir philosophy was presented by the Bolivia delegation at the United Nations in April 2010. In December 2010, the revolutionary “Law of the Rights of Mother Earth” (“Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra”) was passed by Bolivia’s Plurinational Legislative Assembly. Bolivia’s ideas, positions and beliefs under the leadership of Morales, were in fact, so advanced both intellectually and philosophically – that most often Bolivia stood alone in the International arena while those lacking courage, ethics, or both, were left behind within the flocks of sheep. In a world where compromise of human life has become status quo – Bolivia, under Morales,  has consistently refused to abandon their principled positions. This from a country that emits approximately one quarter of the CO2 emissions than that of green-house gas leading obstructionist states such as United States and Canada.

History repeated itself in 2010 when, at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16), which took place in Cancún, Mexico, Bolivia again stood alone in the International arena as the only one of the UN’s 192 member countries to vote against a deal which effectively sanctioned a global suicide pact. The suffering and devastation that will result from the greatest heist in history is unparalleled desperation, starvation and death on a massive scale.

Compare the Morales Leadership to NGO Avaaz, Which has Launched an International Campaign Against Morales

Avaaz is a member of The Climate Group.

The Climate Group is pushing REDD: http://www.theclimategroup.org/_assets/files/Reducing-Emissions-from-Deforestation.pdf

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund also acts as an incubator for in-house projects that later evolve into free-standing institutions – a case in point being The Climate Group, launched in London in 2004. The Climate Group coalition includes more than 50 of the world’s largest corporations and sub-national governments, including big polluters such as energy giants BP and Duke Energy, as well as several partner organizations, such as NGO Avaaz. The Climate Group are advocates of unproven carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), nuclear power and biomass as crucial technologies for a low-carbon economy. The Climate Group works closely with other business lobby groups, including the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), which works consistently to sabotage climate action. The Climate Group also works on other initiatives, such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, a new global standard for voluntary offset projects. One marketing strategist company labeled the Climate Group’s campaign “Together” as “the best inoculation against greenwash.” The Climate Group has operations in Australia, China, Europe, India, and North America. It was a partner to the Copenhagen Climate Council.

http://www.theclimategroup.org/about-us/our-partners/

The U.S. backed Avaaz NGO (Soros funding) has never endorsed the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba. Neither has any other corporate green group.

The Environmental movement? It’s a movement, alright. A movement to protect the world’s wealthiest families and corporations who fund the movement via tax-exempt foundations.

Morales Position on REDD

Morales produced a statement on REDD (September 2010) explaining in more detail his opposition to REDD (available here in Spanish, pdf file – 734.6 kB).

NATURE, FORESTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ARE NOT FOR SALE

Indigenous brothers of the world:

I am deeply concerned because some pretend to use leaders and indigenous groups to promote the commoditization of nature and in particular of forest through the establishment of the REDD mechanism (Reduction Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and its versions REDD+ REDD++.

Every day an extension of forests and rainforest equivalent to 36,000 football fields disappears in the world. Each year 13 million hectares of forest and rain forest are lost. At this rate, the forests will disappear by the end of the century.

The forests and rainforest are the largest source of biodiversity. If deforestation continues, thousands of species, animals and plants will be lost forever. More than three quarters of accessible fresh water zones come from uptake zones in forests, hence the worsening of water quality when the forest condition deteriorates. Forests provide protection from flooding, erosion and natural disasters. They provide non-timber goods as well as timber goods. Forests are a source of natural medicines and healing elements not yet discovered. Forests and the rainforest are the lungs of the atmosphere. 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gases occurring in the world are caused by deforestation.

It is essential to stop the destruction of our Mother Earth.

Currently, during climate change negotiations everyone recognizes that it is essential to avoid the deforestation and degradation of the forest. However, to achieve this, some propose to commoditize forests on the false argument that only what has a price and owner is worth taking care of.

Their proposal is to consider only one of the functions of forests, which is its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and issue “certificates”, “credits” or “Carbon rights” to be commercialized in a carbon market. This way, companies of the North have the choice of reducing their emissions or buy “REDD certificates” in the South according to their economic convenience. For example, if a company has to invest USD40 or USD50 to reduce the emission of one ton of C02 in a “developed country”, they would prefer to buy a “REDD certificate” for USD10 or USD20 in a “developing country”, so they can they say they have fulfilled to reduce the emissions of the mentioned ton of CO2.

Through this mechanism, developed countries will have handed their obligation to reduce their emissions to developing countries, and the South will once again fund the North and that same northern company will have saved a lot of money by buying “certified” carbon from the Southern forests. However, they will not only have cheated their commitments to reduce emissions, but they will have also begun the commoditization of nature, with the forests

The forests will start to be priced by the CO2 tonnage they are able to absorb. The “credit” or “carbon right” which certifies that absorptive capacity will be bought and sold like any commodity worldwide. To ensure that no one affects the ownership of “REDD certificates” buyers, a series of restrictions will be put into place, which will eventually affect the sovereign right of countries and indigenous peoples over their forests and rainforests. So begins a new stage of privatization of nature never seen before which will extend to water, biodiversity and what they call “environmental services”.

While we assert that capitalism is the cause of global warming and the destruction of forests, rainforests and Mother Earth, they seek to expand capitalism to the commoditization of nature with the word “green economy”.

To get support for this proposal of commoditization of nature, some financial institutions, governments, NGOs, foundations, “experts” and trading companies are offering a percentage of the “benefits” of this commoditization of nature to indigenous peoples and communities living in native forests and the rainforest.

Nature, forests and indigenous peoples are not for sale.

For centuries, Indigenous peoples have lived conserving and preserving natural forests and rainforest. For us the forest and rainforest are not objects, are not things you can price and privatize. We do not accept that native forests and rainforest be reduced to a simple measurable quantity of carbon. Nor do we accept that native forests be confused with simple plantations of a single or two tree species. The forest is our home, a big house where plants, animals, water, soil, pure air and human beings coexist.

It is essential that all countries of the world work together to prevent forest and rainforest deforestation and degradation. It is an obligation of developed countries, and it is part of its climate and environmental debt, to contribute financially to the preservation of forests, but NOT through its commoditization. There are many ways of supporting and financing developing countries, indigenous peoples and local communities that contribute to the preservation of forests.

Developed countries spend tens of times more public resources on defense, security and war than in climate change. Even during the financial crisis many have maintained and increased their military spending. It is inadmissible that by using the needs communities have and the ambitions of some leaders and indigenous “experts”, indigenous peoples are expected to be involved with the commoditization of nature.

All forests and rainforests protection mechanisms should guarantee indigenous rights and participation, but not because indigenous participation is achieved in REDD, we can accept that a price for forests and rainforests is set and negotiated in a global carbon market.

Indigenous brothers, let us not be confused. Some tell us that the carbon market mechanism in REDD will be voluntary. That is to say that whoever wants to sell and buy, will be able, and whoever does not want to, will be able to stand aside. We cannot accept that, with our consent, a mechanism is created where one voluntarily sells Mother Earth while others look crossed handed

Faced with the reductionist views of forests and rainforest commoditization, indigenous peoples with peasants and social movements of the world must fight for the proposals that emerged of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth:

1. Integrated management of native forests and rainforest not only considering its mitigation function as CO2 sink but all its functions and potentiality, whilst avoiding confusing them with simple plantations.

2. Respect the sovereignty of developing countries in their integral management of forests.

3. Full compliance with the Rights of Indigenous Peoples established by the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Convention No. 169 of the ILO and other international instruments; recognition and respect to their territories; revalorization and implementation of indigenous knowledge for the preservation of forests; indigenous peoples participation and indigenous management of forest and rainforest.

4. Funding of developed countries to developing countries and indigenous peoples for integral management of forest as part of their climate and environmental debt. No establishment of any mechanism of carbon markets or “incentives” that may lead to the commoditization of forests and rainforest.

5. Recognition of the rights of Mother Earth, which includes forests, rainforest and all its components. In order to restore harmony with Mother Earth, putting a price on nature is not the way but to recognize that not only human beings have the right to life and to reproduce, but nature also has a right to life and to regenerate, and that without Mother Earth Humans cannot live.

Indigenous brothers, together with our peasant brothers and social movements of the world, we must mobilize so that the conclusions of Cochabamba are assumed in Cancun and to impulse a mechanism of RELATED ACTIONS TO THE FORESTS based on these five principles, while always maintaining high the unity of indigenous peoples and the principles of respect for Mother Earth, which for centuries we have preserved and inherited from our ancestors.

EVO MORALES AYMA
President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia

+++

WHAT MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND NGOs ARE NOT REPORTING

VIDEO: Sept. 30th, 2011: TIPNIS: Indigenous of Western Bolivia support Government (english subs)

“… political opportunists who have infiltrated this mobilization … they took advantage of it in order to discriminate and criticize the changing process … we will tell these political rascals in their presence … here is the people! Here are the real ones who have struggled to defend the changing process! … 20 or 30 years from now … Bolivia will be truly independent … without the intrusion of neo-liberal parties …”

From the article: Bolivia: Amazon protest — development before environment? by Fred Fuentes:

US interference

As the uprising against neoliberalism grew in strength, overthrowing a neoliberal president in 2003, US imperialism sought to use money to increase divisions within the indigenous movements.

In late 2005, investigative journalist Reed Lindsay published an article in NACLA that used declassified US documents to expose how US government-funded agency USAID was used to this effect.

USAID was already planning by 2002 to “help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors”.

The downfall in 2003 of president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada triggered a step-up in this subversive activity.

A particular target was CIDOB.

The group was in a crisis after Fabricano was accused of profiting from illegal logging and he accepted the post of vice-minister of Indigenous Affairs under Sanchez de Lozada.

Through USAID funding to the Brecha Foundation, an NGO established by CIDOB leaders, the US hoped to further mould the organisation to its own ends.

Referring to comments made by Brecha director Victor Hugo Vela, Lindsay notes that during this time, “CIDOB leaders allied with Fabricano have condemned the cultivation of coca, helped the business elite in the department of Santa Cruz to push for region autonomy and opposed a proposal to require petroleum companies to consult with indigenous communities before drilling on their lands”.

The CSUTCB (divided between followers of Morales and radical Aymara leader Felipe Quispe), CSCB, FNMCB-BS and organisations such as the neighbourhood councils of El Alto (Fejuve), and to a less extent worker and miner organisations, were at the forefront of constant street battles and insurrections.

CIDOB, however, took an approach marked by negotiation and moderation.

It was not until July 2005 that CIDOB renewed its leadership, in turn breaking relations with Brecha.

CIDOB was not the only target for infiltration.

With close to $200,000 in US government funds, the Land and Liberty Movement (MTL) was set up in 2004 by Walter Reynaga.

As well as splitting the Movement of Landless Peasant’s (MST), one wing of which operated out of his La Paz office, Lindsay said Reynaga, like Vega, tried to win control of the “MAS-aligned” CONAMAQ.

Demands

And it is also true that the demands of the Sub Central of TIPNIS, and in particular CIDOB, are far removed from any notion of communitarianism.

Although initially focused on opposition to the highway, protesters presented the government with an original list of 13 demands, then extended to 16, on the day the march began.

Among those were calls for indigenous peoples to be able to directly receive compensation payment for offsetting carbon emissions.

This policy, know as REDD+, has been denounced as the privatisation of the forests by many environmental activists and the Peoples’ Summit of Climate Change organised in Bolivia in 2010.

It has also been promoted as a mechanism to allow developed countries to continue to pollute while undermining the right underdeveloped to develop their economies.

Another demand calls for the replacement of functionaries within the Authority for Control and Monitoring of Forests and Lands (ABT).

This demand dovetails with the allegations made by Morales against CIDOB leaders, and never refuted, that they want to control this state institution.

Much focus has been made of the potential environmental destruction caused by a highway that would open the path to future “coloniser” settlements.

But these arguments have only focused on one side of the equation.

Much has been made of a study by Bolivian Strategic Research Program that concluded that 64.5% of TIPNIS would be lost to deforestation by 2030 as a result of the highway.

Few, though, have noted that the same study found that even without the highway 43% of TIPNIS would be lost if the current rate of deforestation continues.

The biggest cause of this is the illegal logging that continues to occur, in some cases with the complicity of some local indigenous leaders and communities.

An environmental impact studies by the Bolivian Highway Authority have found the direct impact of the highway on TIPNIS to be 0.03%.

But this has to weighed up with the fact that the highway would provide the state with access to areas currently out of its reach.

This would enable not only access to services, but a greater ability to tackle illegal logging and potential narcotrafficking in the area.

At the same time, the government has asked the indigenous communities of TIPNIS to help in drafting legislation that would impose jail terms of 10 to 20 years on those found to be illegally settling, growing coca or logging in TIPNIS.

+++

The manipulation by NGOs and corporations is clear in this interview (below) with Pirakuma Yawalapiti, the Xingu spokesperson speaking on the issue of carbon trading. This dialogue was filmed by Rebecca Sommer of EARTHPEOPLES, a global network for and by Indigenous Peoples. The interview is just one of hundreds that give documented testament to the deliberate manipulation of the threatened people most vulnerable to climate change. To view more videos and further understand the exploitation of Indigenous Peoples in pursuit of the profits behind REDD, please visit  SommerFilms.

[In the interview, the NGOs/agencies who Yawalapiti speaks of (that are pressuring the Indigenous communities of Alto Xingu to agree to REDD projects they do not want) are FUNAI – National Indian Foundation Brazil / Fundação Nacional do Índio and IBAMA – Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Resources / Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis.]

http://youtu.be/_JSM6gaM9CA

[1] The following companies who have already come on board as partners includes Galeries Lafayette, Virgin Group, Yahoo! Music, iTunes, Google, Pernod Ricard, EDF, Microsoft, Zune, YouTube, USA Today, National Magazines, HSBC, M&S, Uniqlo, Lloyds Bank, MySpace, MTV, Bo Concept Japan K.K., Volvo, Kipa Turkey, Claro Argentina, Peugeot, NTV, Universal, Tesco, Sina.com, GDF Suez, Centrica, Oxfam, New Zealand Wine Company, 350.org, Handbag.com, Avaaz.org, Lesinrockuptibles, Harper’s Bazaar, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, EMap, Greenpeace, Commensal, The Atlantic, Fast Company, News Limited, Tesla, Wired Magazine, and RFM Radio.

[2] The founding of the Climate Action Network (CAN) in 1988 can be traced back to the early players in the ENGO community, including Michael Oppenheimer of the corporate NGO, Environmental Defense Fund. CAN is a global network of over 700 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The stated goal of CAN is to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. This goal is severely problematic in (at minimum) 2 fundamental ways: 1) There is no such thing as “ecologically sustainable levels” of climate change, and 2) as opposed to states having to respond to approximately 300 groups demanding action on climate change, states instead bask in the comfort of having to deal with only one (that of CAN), which essentially demands little to nothing. CAN has seven regional coordinating offices that coordinate these efforts in Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Europe, Latin America, North America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Members include organizations from around the globe, including the largest corporate greens such as World Wildlife Fund [WWF], Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

The Environmental “Movement” Versus the Bolivian Morales Government

September 30^th, 2011

by Cory Morningstar

Evo Morales is Bolivia’s first-ever Indigenous president. In his January 2006 inaugural speech, Morales’s focus was the years of discrimination against Indians, and he compared Bolivia to apartheid-era South Africa. Morales hailed the election as the end of the Colonial and Neo-Liberal Era. In October 2009, Morales was named “World Hero of Mother Earth” by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

In December 2009, the Morales government proved the most progressive of all states (in alliance with ALBA and the G77 nations) at the COP15 climate conference in Copenhagen. This union, led by Bolivia, aggressively pursued the scientific targets necessary in order for the world to avoid complete ecological collapse and a global genocide of unparalleled proportions. Ironically (and most revealing), these progressive states led leaps and bounds ahead of the environmental movement itself.

The institutionalized environmental “movement” was united under an umbrella organization/campaign titled TckTckTck, a social media giant, contrived by some of the world’s most powerful corporations and marketing executives. [1] One such TckTckTck partner (there are 280 partners made public) was the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change consisting of corporations such as Shell, RBF and Coca-Cola. (When this information was uncovered and made public, TckTckTck removed them from their website and scrambled to recover from the PR nightmare.) The Bolivian government’s leadership was so incredibly dignified and courageous that it even put the more legitimate Climate Justice movement to shame.

To get a sense of exactly who the corporate greens really represent (hint – it is not you), consider this: Bolivia, ALBA and the G77 demanded that states not exceed a 1ºC global temperature rise. In stark contrast, the NGOs “demanded” that temperatures not exceed a +2ºC and further “demanded” that world emissions peak by 2019 (meaning that emissions would continue to increase, business as usual, until 2019 at which point we would begin an effort to decrease). TckTckTck includes over 200 international partners including Avaaz, Conservation International, Greenpeace International, World Wildlife Fund (and many more pro-REDD advocates and profiteers) as well as Climate Action Network International [2] who represents (and speaks on behalf of) over 700 NGOs.

Regarding the issue of human rights, the hundreds of corporate NGOs – by campaigning to get the public to accept the global average temperature further rising up to a 2ºC limit – thereby sanctioned/sanctions most all species on this planet to an unprecedented annihilation within decades. [Note: Consider that at under +1ºC, we are already committed to a minimum +2.4ºC not including feedbacks: Ramanathan and Feng 2008 paper. Further, note climate scientist James Hansen’s warning that even 1ºC now looks like an unacceptably high risk.]

Considering that the corporate NGOs are leading us to certain species eradication, one must consider what constitutes criminal negligence. In the United States, the definition of criminal negligence is compelling: “Crimes Committed Negligently (Article 33.1) A crime shall be deemed to be committed with clear intent, if the man or woman was conscious of the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility or the inevitability of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, and willed such consequences to ensue.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed with indirect intent, if the man or woman realized the social danger of his actions (inaction), foresaw the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences, did not wish, but consciously allowed these consequences or treated them with indifference.” “A Crime Committed by Negligence (Article 33.1): A criminal deed committed thoughtlessly or due to negligence shall be recognized as a crime committed by negligence.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed thoughtlessly, if the man or woman has foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), but expected without valid reasons that these consequences would be prevented.” “A crime shall be deemed to be committed due to negligence if the man or woman has not foreseen the possibility of the onset of socially dangerous consequences of his actions (inaction), although he or she could and should have foreseen these consequences with reasonable.”

After the massive failure/corruption of COP15 in 2009, in 2010 Bolivia organized and hosted the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which produced The Cochabamba Accord (April 2010), specifically rejecting REDD: “We condemn market mechanisms such as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and its versions + and + +, which are violating the sovereignty of peoples and their right to prior, free and informed consent as well as the sovereignty of national States, the customs of Peoples, and the Rights of Nature.”

The ‘buen vivir‘ (“good life”) ideology, also enshrined into Bolivia’s constitution, was yet another visionary philosophy that secured Bolivia as the conscience of the world on climate change and moral principles. The buen vivir philosophy was presented by the Bolivia delegation at the United Nations in April 2010. In December 2010, the revolutionary “Law of the Rights of Mother Earth” (“Ley de Derechos de la Madre Tierra”) was passed by Bolivia’s Plurinational Legislative Assembly. Bolivia’s ideas, positions and beliefs under the leadership of Morales, were in fact, so advanced both intellectually and philosophically – that most often Bolivia stood alone in the International arena while those lacking courage, ethics, or both, were left behind within the flocks of sheep. In a world where compromise of human life has become status quo – Bolivia, under Morales,  has consistently refused to abandon their principled positions. This from a country that emits approximately one quarter of the CO2 emissions than that of green-house gas leading obstructionist states such as United States and Canada.

History repeated itself in 2010 when, at the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16), which took place in Cancún, Mexico, Bolivia again stood alone in the International arena as the only one of the UN’s 192 member countries to vote against a deal which effectively sanctioned a global suicide pact. The suffering and devastation that will result from the greatest heist in history is unparalleled desperation, starvation and death on a massive scale.

Compare the Morales Leadership to NGO Avaaz, Which has Launched an International Campaign Against Morales

Avaaz is a member of The Climate Group.

The Climate Group is pushing REDD: http://www.theclimategroup.org/_assets/files/Reducing-Emissions-from-Deforestation.pdf

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund also acts as an incubator for in-house projects that later evolve into free-standing institutions – a case in point being The Climate Group, launched in London in 2004. The Climate Group coalition includes more than 50 of the world’s largest corporations and sub-national governments, including big polluters such as energy giants BP and Duke Energy, as well as several partner organizations, such as NGO Avaaz. The Climate Group are advocates of unproven carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), nuclear power and biomass as crucial technologies for a low-carbon economy. The Climate Group works closely with other business lobby groups, including the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), which works consistently to sabotage climate action. The Climate Group also works on other initiatives, such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard, a new global standard for voluntary offset projects. One marketing strategist company labeled the Climate Group’s campaign “Together” as “the best inoculation against greenwash.” The Climate Group has operations in Australia, China, Europe, India, and North America. It was a partner to the Copenhagen Climate Council.

http://www.theclimategroup.org/about-us/our-partners/

The U.S. backed Avaaz NGO (Soros funding) has never endorsed the People’s Agreement of Cochabamba. Neither has any other corporate green group.

The Environmental movement? It’s a movement, alright. A movement to protect the world’s wealthiest families and corporations who fund the movement via tax-exempt foundations.

Morales Position on REDD

Morales produced a statement on REDD (September 2010) explaining in more detail his opposition to REDD (available here in Spanish, pdf file – 734.6 kB).

NATURE, FORESTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ARE NOT FOR SALE

Indigenous brothers of the world:

 

I am deeply concerned because some pretend to use leaders and indigenous groups to promote the commoditization of nature and in particular of forest through the establishment of the REDD mechanism (Reduction Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and its versions REDD+ REDD++.

 

Every day an extension of forests and rainforest equivalent to 36,000 football fields disappears in the world. Each year 13 million hectares of forest and rain forest are lost. At this rate, the forests will disappear by the end of the century.

 

The forests and rainforest are the largest source of biodiversity. If deforestation continues, thousands of species, animals and plants will be lost forever. More than three quarters of accessible fresh water zones come from uptake zones in forests, hence the worsening of water quality when the forest condition deteriorates. Forests provide protection from flooding, erosion and natural disasters. They provide non-timber goods as well as timber goods. Forests are a source of natural medicines and healing elements not yet discovered. Forests and the rainforest are the lungs of the atmosphere. 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gases occurring in the world are caused by deforestation.

 

It is essential to stop the destruction of our Mother Earth.

 

Currently, during climate change negotiations everyone recognizes that it is essential to avoid the deforestation and degradation of the forest. However, to achieve this, some propose to commoditize forests on the false argument that only what has a price and owner is worth taking care of.

 

Their proposal is to consider only one of the functions of forests, which is its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and issue “certificates”, “credits” or “Carbon rights” to be commercialized in a carbon market. This way, companies of the North have the choice of reducing their emissions or buy “REDD certificates” in the South according to their economic convenience. For example, if a company has to invest USD40 or USD50 to reduce the emission of one ton of C02 in a “developed country”, they would prefer to buy a “REDD certificate” for USD10 or USD20 in a “developing country”, so they can they say they have fulfilled to reduce the emissions of the mentioned ton of CO2.

 

Through this mechanism, developed countries will have handed their obligation to reduce their emissions to developing countries, and the South will once again fund the North and that same northern company will have saved a lot of money by buying “certified” carbon from the Southern forests. However, they will not only have cheated their commitments to reduce emissions, but they will have also begun the commoditization of nature, with the forests

 

The forests will start to be priced by the CO2 tonnage they are able to absorb. The “credit” or “carbon right” which certifies that absorptive capacity will be bought and sold like any commodity worldwide. To ensure that no one affects the ownership of “REDD certificates” buyers, a series of restrictions will be put into place, which will eventually affect the sovereign right of countries and indigenous peoples over their forests and rainforests. So begins a new stage of privatization of nature never seen before which will extend to water, biodiversity and what they call “environmental services”.

 

While we assert that capitalism is the cause of global warming and the destruction of forests, rainforests and Mother Earth, they seek to expand capitalism to the commoditization of nature with the word “green economy”.

 

To get support for this proposal of commoditization of nature, some financial institutions, governments, NGOs, foundations, “experts” and trading companies are offering a percentage of the “benefits” of this commoditization of nature to indigenous peoples and communities living in native forests and the rainforest.

 

Nature, forests and indigenous peoples are not for sale.

 

For centuries, Indigenous peoples have lived conserving and preserving natural forests and rainforest. For us the forest and rainforest are not objects, are not things you can price and privatize. We do not accept that native forests and rainforest be reduced to a simple measurable quantity of carbon. Nor do we accept that native forests be confused with simple plantations of a single or two tree species. The forest is our home, a big house where plants, animals, water, soil, pure air and human beings coexist.

 

It is essential that all countries of the world work together to prevent forest and rainforest deforestation and degradation. It is an obligation of developed countries, and it is part of its climate and environmental debt, to contribute financially to the preservation of forests, but NOT through its commoditization. There are many ways of supporting and financing developing countries, indigenous peoples and local communities that contribute to the preservation of forests.

 

Developed countries spend tens of times more public resources on defense, security and war than in climate change. Even during the financial crisis many have maintained and increased their military spending. It is inadmissible that by using the needs communities have and the ambitions of some leaders and indigenous “experts”, indigenous peoples are expected to be involved with the commoditization of nature.

 

All forests and rainforests protection mechanisms should guarantee indigenous rights and participation, but not because indigenous participation is achieved in REDD, we can accept that a price for forests and rainforests is set and negotiated in a global carbon market.

 

Indigenous brothers, let us not be confused. Some tell us that the carbon market mechanism in REDD will be voluntary. That is to say that whoever wants to sell and buy, will be able, and whoever does not want to, will be able to stand aside. We cannot accept that, with our consent, a mechanism is created where one voluntarily sells Mother Earth while others look crossed handed

 

Faced with the reductionist views of forests and rainforest commoditization, indigenous peoples with peasants and social movements of the world must fight for the proposals that emerged of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth:

 

1. Integrated management of native forests and rainforest not only considering its mitigation function as CO2 sink but all its functions and potentiality, whilst avoiding confusing them with simple plantations.

 

2. Respect the sovereignty of developing countries in their integral management of forests.

 

3. Full compliance with the Rights of Indigenous Peoples established by the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Convention No. 169 of the ILO and other international instruments; recognition and respect to their territories; revalorization and implementation of indigenous knowledge for the preservation of forests; indigenous peoples participation and indigenous management of forest and rainforest.

 

4. Funding of developed countries to developing countries and indigenous peoples for integral management of forest as part of their climate and environmental debt. No establishment of any mechanism of carbon markets or “incentives” that may lead to the commoditization of forests and rainforest.

 

5. Recognition of the rights of Mother Earth, which includes forests, rainforest and all its components. In order to restore harmony with Mother Earth, putting a price on nature is not the way but to recognize that not only human beings have the right to life and to reproduce, but nature also has a right to life and to regenerate, and that without Mother Earth Humans cannot live.

 

Indigenous brothers, together with our peasant brothers and social movements of the world, we must mobilize so that the conclusions of Cochabamba are assumed in Cancun and to impulse a mechanism of RELATED ACTIONS TO THE FORESTS based on these five principles, while always maintaining high the unity of indigenous peoples and the principles of respect for Mother Earth, which for centuries we have preserved and inherited from our ancestors.

 

EVO MORALES AYMA
President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia

 

+++

WHAT MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND NGOs ARE NOT REPORTING

VIDEO: Sept. 30th, 2011: TIPNIS: Indigenous of Western Bolivia support Government (english subs)

“… political opportunists who have infiltrated this mobilization … they took advantage of it in order to discriminate and criticize the changing process … we will tell these political rascals in their presence … here is the people! Here are the real ones who have struggled to defend the changing process! … 20 or 30 years from now … Bolivia will be truly independent … without the intrusion of neo-liberal parties …”

From the article: Bolivia: Amazon protest — development before environment? by Fred Fuentes:

US interference

As the uprising against neoliberalism grew in strength, overthrowing a neoliberal president in 2003, US imperialism sought to use money to increase divisions within the indigenous movements.

In late 2005, investigative journalist Reed Lindsay published an article in NACLA that used declassified US documents to expose how US government-funded agency USAID was used to this effect.

USAID was already planning by 2002 to “help build moderate, pro-democracy political parties that can serve as a counterweight to the radical MAS or its successors”.

The downfall in 2003 of president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada triggered a step-up in this subversive activity.

A particular target was CIDOB.

The group was in a crisis after Fabricano was accused of profiting from illegal logging and he accepted the post of vice-minister of Indigenous Affairs under Sanchez de Lozada.

Through USAID funding to the Brecha Foundation, an NGO established by CIDOB leaders, the US hoped to further mould the organisation to its own ends.

Referring to comments made by Brecha director Victor Hugo Vela, Lindsay notes that during this time, “CIDOB leaders allied with Fabricano have condemned the cultivation of coca, helped the business elite in the department of Santa Cruz to push for region autonomy and opposed a proposal to require petroleum companies to consult with indigenous communities before drilling on their lands”.

The CSUTCB (divided between followers of Morales and radical Aymara leader Felipe Quispe), CSCB, FNMCB-BS and organisations such as the neighbourhood councils of El Alto (Fejuve), and to a less extent worker and miner organisations, were at the forefront of constant street battles and insurrections.

CIDOB, however, took an approach marked by negotiation and moderation.

It was not until July 2005 that CIDOB renewed its leadership, in turn breaking relations with Brecha.

CIDOB was not the only target for infiltration.

With close to $200,000 in US government funds, the Land and Liberty Movement (MTL) was set up in 2004 by Walter Reynaga.

As well as splitting the Movement of Landless Peasant’s (MST), one wing of which operated out of his La Paz office, Lindsay said Reynaga, like Vega, tried to win control of the “MAS-aligned” CONAMAQ.

Demands

And it is also true that the demands of the Sub Central of TIPNIS, and in particular CIDOB, are far removed from any notion of communitarianism.

Although initially focused on opposition to the highway, protesters presented the government with an original list of 13 demands, then extended to 16, on the day the march began.

Among those were calls for indigenous peoples to be able to directly receive compensation payment for offsetting carbon emissions.

This policy, know as REDD+, has been denounced as the privatisation of the forests by many environmental activists and the Peoples’ Summit of Climate Change organised in Bolivia in 2010.

It has also been promoted as a mechanism to allow developed countries to continue to pollute while undermining the right underdeveloped to develop their economies.

Another demand calls for the replacement of functionaries within the Authority for Control and Monitoring of Forests and Lands (ABT).

This demand dovetails with the allegations made by Morales against CIDOB leaders, and never refuted, that they want to control this state institution.

Much focus has been made of the potential environmental destruction caused by a highway that would open the path to future “coloniser” settlements.

But these arguments have only focused on one side of the equation.

Much has been made of a study by Bolivian Strategic Research Program that concluded that 64.5% of TIPNIS would be lost to deforestation by 2030 as a result of the highway.

Few, though, have noted that the same study found that even without the highway 43% of TIPNIS would be lost if the current rate of deforestation continues.

The biggest cause of this is the illegal logging that continues to occur, in some cases with the complicity of some local indigenous leaders and communities.

An environmental impact studies by the Bolivian Highway Authority have found the direct impact of the highway on TIPNIS to be 0.03%.

But this has to weighed up with the fact that the highway would provide the state with access to areas currently out of its reach.

This would enable not only access to services, but a greater ability to tackle illegal logging and potential narcotrafficking in the area.

At the same time, the government has asked the indigenous communities of TIPNIS to help in drafting legislation that would impose jail terms of 10 to 20 years on those found to be illegally settling, growing coca or logging in TIPNIS.

+++

The manipulation by NGOs and corporations is clear in this interview (below) with Pirakuma Yawalapiti, the Xingu spokesperson speaking on the issue of carbon trading. This dialogue was filmed by Rebecca Sommer of EARTHPEOPLES, a global network for and by Indigenous Peoples. The interview is just one of hundreds that give documented testament to the deliberate manipulation of the threatened people most vulnerable to climate change. To view more videos and further understand the exploitation of Indigenous Peoples in pursuit of the profits behind REDD, please visit  SommerFilms.

 

[In the interview, the NGOs/agencies who Yawalapiti speaks of (that are pressuring the Indigenous communities of Alto Xingu to agree to REDD projects they do not want) are FUNAI – National Indian Foundation Brazil / Fundação Nacional do Índio and IBAMA – Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Resources / Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis.]

 

 

[1] The following companies who have already come on board as partners includes Galeries Lafayette, Virgin Group, Yahoo! Music, iTunes, Google, Pernod Ricard, EDF, Microsoft, Zune, YouTube, USA Today, National Magazines, HSBC, M&S, Uniqlo, Lloyds Bank, MySpace, MTV, Bo Concept Japan K.K., Volvo, Kipa Turkey, Claro Argentina, Peugeot, NTV, Universal, Tesco, Sina.com, GDF Suez, Centrica, Oxfam, New Zealand Wine Company, 350.org, Handbag.com, Avaaz.org, Lesinrockuptibles, Harper’s Bazaar, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, EMap, Greenpeace, Commensal, The Atlantic, Fast Company, News Limited, Tesla, Wired Magazine, and RFM Radio.

 

[2] The founding of the Climate Action Network (CAN) in 1988 can be traced back to the early players in the ENGO community, including Michael Oppenheimer of the corporate NGO, Environmental Defense Fund. CAN is a global network of over 700 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The stated goal of CAN is to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels. This goal is severely problematic in (at minimum) 2 fundamental ways: 1) There is no such thing as “ecologically sustainable levels” of climate change, and 2) as opposed to states having to respond to approximately 300 groups demanding action on climate change, states instead bask in the comfort of having to deal with only one (that of CAN), which essentially demands little to nothing. CAN has seven regional coordinating offices that coordinate these efforts in Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Europe, Latin America, North America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Members include organizations from around the globe, including the largest corporate greens such as World Wildlife Fund [WWF], Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.

International Communiqué Wednesday September 28th, 2011 Regarding letter to Morales on TIPNIS dispute

The following communiqué was issued on Wednesday September 28th, 2011 in response to a post sent to an International Climate Justice list on Sunday, September 24th, 2011 and another (below) on Tuesday September 27th, 2011. Where no authorization by contributors has been approved, names and list identities have been removed. Where contributors have authorized their views be made public, names are identified. -admin

From: Cory Morningstar
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:31 AM
To: (removed)
Cc: (removed); (removed)

Subject: RE: FW: [removed] FW: Regarding letter to Morales on TIPNIS dispute

This will be my last response to this communication.

You stated previously:

"To not hold him to the same standard we hold elected officials to everywhere is to do him and our climate justice movement a disservice."

Of course. Yet there are observations to be made in regards to this statement. Questions that arise include: where was the Avaaz campaign/petition against Harper after the massive violence/mass arrests against the G20 protesters in Toronto by the state police – under the Harper regime? This state violence represented the greatest violation of civil rights in recent Canadian history. Where is the Avaaz petition against the Obama regime for the violence by state police happening right now on Wall Street? The cops are gassing the shit out of them too. The list goes on & on & on. If Avaaz campaigned on these – I did not see it being circulated.

You stated:

"However, it appears that, as a result of the letters–those signed by groups inside and outside of Bolivia, who knew that violence by the police against the marchers was pending–Morales has suspended his support for the project. I wish the letters had had this affect before the violence played itself out, but one of the reasons for the letters was to try to prevent this from escalating the way it did, which only Morales could do"

Was Morales’ about-face on the project a result of the Avaaz and Amazon Watch petitions? Was it a result of media coverage of the violence that ensued? Was it a result of his own government officials protesting and resigning? Was it a result of letters like the attached, clearly demarcating appropriate places to build roads, couching their criticism in cautious frames?

We may never know. But it seems all of these voices in support of the protesters are having an effect."

Yet, before this violence on the protesters occurred, it was reported that the issue was going to the Bolivian people to decide by way of a referendum. (I wish we had these in Canada)

Also:

"As protesters began to make their way to La Paz, at least nine attempts at dialogue were made by the government to try and resolve the demands of the marchers." (http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/48959)

Morales has been painted as an evil villain to the world, along with most other leaders who ever attempted / attempt to keep their resources for their own people such as Chavez, Castro, – and many more who have been toppled or assassinated by the US.

Much damage has been done in many ways. Divisions have been created which will no doubt be preyed upon and capitalized upon by US interests/influences. Perhaps it stopped escalating not because of letters, but only because Morales is completely familiar with how liberating countries are successfully toppled by US power/interference. Perhaps he stopped everything in its tracks because he recognized what was happening and recognized that his people – and outside people – were successfully being manipulated. I’m not saying this is what happened – I’m saying we cannot underestimate US interference.

Let us not fall into a trap that will only serve to further hurt and destroy the very people we wish to support.

How many times do we see this happening: The crazy dictator is carrying out violence on his own people! The people must be saved from the tyrant! Don’t worry good citizens – the west will save you! Democracy and liberation are coming your way! The colonizers will save you! (only if you have resources we can steal). It’s the same story over and over again. And why not? The world seems to fall for it over & over again. Weeks or months later the truth will slowly begin to reveal itself. Who was involved. When it was planned, how people were coerced or manipulated, etc. etc. And of course this information is rarely/never put out by corporate media – an integral part of the Imperialist death machine. Of course by then it is too late, while the bombs are being dropped on the civilians, everyone goes back to catching up on facebook and drinking their lattes.

(removed)’s message this morning, confirms once again, – we must be so incredibly cautious with countries the Imperialist powers have set their sights on.

Important questions arise regarding the Bolivian Indigenous groups demanding REDD. Who/what organizations specifically, are teaching/convincing these Indigenous groups that REDD would be good for them? This is a critical question that needs an answer. http://climate-connections.org/2011/09/23/blog-post-from-the-belly-of-the-beast-in-the-bowels-of-the-world-bank/

You state:

"Destabilization by US AID or other foreign actors is, in my mind, a separate and equally important issue. We all must hold our own governments to account for efforts to destabilize other governments.

But silence is, in my mind, unacceptable in the face of violence. And if destabilization is a concern, as it should be, then violence against one’s own citizens should be condemned."

I strongly disagree that destabilization by US AID, etc. is a separate issue. It is very possible – if not likely – that this was the very root of what has just transpired. To believe that funding of NGOs and institutions are separate to such crises is, in my opinion, both naive and very dangerous. History shows us clearly that the forces we seek to resist constantly absorb opposition, through compromised NGOs and other means. All means. Every means. If we are not understanding by now how Imperialism and Colonialism conquer, we are not doing our homework. To simply dismiss the funding ties and the partnerships with powerful foreign interests, REDD advocates, etc. is dangerous denial.

The author is suggesting that destabilization (by US powers) must be considered a likely possibility in what just happened. No one was suggesting silence on the issue. Rather – urgent mediation. People were urging dialogue with all groups involved and the government rather than infusing the crisis which could have easily resulted in aiding and abetting an internal war, which, as we see repeatedly, gives Imperialist states the excuse to go in and overthrow countries rich in resources. Surely silence in this respect, on this very possibility, must be considered offensive and insulting to all Indigenous Peoples.

Regarding the need to necessity to condemn violence. Ultimately, the individuals and organizations on this list (& those who signed the petitions) need to come to recognize, once and for all, that the violence is all around us.

Ironically, we condemn violence as we participate in it daily.

The violence everyone claims to be against is inherently built into the global industrialized economic system. Until we dismantle this system, the violence upon our Earth and against those most vulnerable will never stop. We all have blood on our hands. If you support the industrialized capitalist system / or ‘green’ capitalism, then you actually do support such violence. The global economic system is violence that must be condemned rather than celebrated and worshipped. The imperative to dismantle the unjust violent economic system should be the key element within the platform/mandate of [removed].

Instead we talk about ‘green’ capitalism, fair-trade diamonds, electric cars, etc. ignoring the massive inequalities we no longer even seem to see. The wealthy 15% creating 85% of the emissions expects to live this way – while everyone else is expected to clamour for the scraps. Does anyone really believe there is anyone on this planet who actually wants to mine or the other horrible jobs that kill you by the time you are 40 – all to supply the wealthy with their wants?

And now, upon reflection over the past few days, I would like to point out some major hypocrisies that I find very unsettling. Is it right that privileged people feel they can tell people with no road – that they should not have a road (or anything else for that matter) when they themselves drive & fly anywhere they want, anytime they want with full access to anything they need or want.

We have approximately 12 of the 64 groups opposed to the road – 52 in favour (from what I have read). Many Indigenous people in support of the road were quoted as saying they wished for access to basic essential services like medicine/hospitals and that the road would provide this.

It feels like this: "Don’t touch any of that rainforest because I have a reality tour booked there for my next annual vacation!" or "Since we’ve destroyed that majority of the world’s forests through our own insatiable consumption and an economic model that destroys most everything (while exploiting your people and our shared planet) don’t touch the forests that we cannot personally access – especially if it is for your gain and not ours."

Then the Avaaz signers & all the others who are outraged run out to Home Depot and buy a new FSC (scam) picnic table on sale for 99.00 because last year’s doesn’t really look that good anymore.

Question: Why have all the organizations that have never had anything to do with the People’s Agreement, all of a sudden become so interested in the rights of the Indigenous of Bolivia? If they are so interested – would they not endorse the People’s agreement and work like mad promoting it? Will they do this now?

And let’s not forget – it’s ok to cut down your Amazon in order to provide meat to the rich countries – but don’t worry – we won’t bring that up. And even if we do bring it up, we still won’t work towards ending the industrial livestock industry. (because we are not prepared to educate nor campaign on the necessity to slow down meat consumption in wealthy countries – we polled on this question and the public did not like it! – bad for the brand! Bad for funding!)

Who does everyone think is eating all the soybeans grown in Bolivia? Of course it all for the wealthy countries. But the soybeans are not enough. We are taking all the quinoa too. (Tough luck if the Bolivian people no longer have their staple food.)

So, wealthy countries won’t slow down on our own consumption/growth but we expect/demand struggling countries like Bolivia to stop production/export – when they are made purposely poor at the hands of the industrialized global capitalist system.

A final note – Sandy states (message inserted below): "As an indigenous man who was in Cochabamba I have to say I did not that there was accusations that some indigenous voices were excluded and noted it with concern but then I also noted that all the big NGOs were there were more concerned with getting their own advocates (usually non indigenos0 to the meeting than in funding any indigenous voices from around the world to attend. The Pacific in particular fdared really badly in this respect."

This has been brought up many times on the list. Why is there never any response? Why is it always the same people (usually those who have access to funding) that attend these meetings?

Lastly – yes – it was absolutely shitty and unjust that the group in Cochabamba was excluded.

Bolivia: Against “Green Imperialism”

25.09.11

by Federico Fuentes

Bolivia Rising

 

Statements, articles, letters, and petitions have been circulating on the Internet for the past month calling for an end to the “destruction of the Amazon.”  The target of these initiatives has not been transnational corporations or the powerful governments that back them, but the government of Bolivia’s first indigenous president, Evo Morales.

At the centre of the debate is the Bolivian government’s controversial proposal to build a highway through the Isiboro Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS).  TIPNIS, which covers more than 1 million hectares of forest, was granted indigenous territory status by the Morales government in 2009.  About 12,000 people from three different indigenous groups live in 64 communities within TIPNIS.

On August 15, representatives from the TIPNIS Subcentral that unites these communities, as well as other indigenous groups, began a march to the capital city, La Paz, to protest against the highway plan.  International petitions have been initiated, declaring support for this march and condemning the Morales government for undermining indigenous rights.

The people of TIPNIS have legitimate concerns about the highway’s impact.  There is also no doubt the government has made errors in its handling of the issue.

Unfortunately, petitions such as the one initiated by international lobby group Avaaz and a September 21 letter to Morales signed by over 60 environmental groups mostly outside Bolivia misrepresent the facts and misdirect their fire.  They could inadvertently aid the opponents of the global struggle for climate justice.

Avaaz warns that the highway “could enable foreign companies to pillage the world’s most important forest.”  But it fails to mention the destruction that is already happening in the area, in some cases with the complicity of local indigenous communities.  In contrast, the Morales government has promised to introduce a new law, in consultation with communities within TIPNIS, to add new protections for the national park.  The proposed law would set jail terms of between 10 to 20 years for illegal settlements, growing coca, or logging in the national park.

Also, Avaaz claims that “huge economic interests” are motivating Morales’ support for the highway.  But Avaaz omits the benefits that such a highway (whether it ultimately goes through TIPNIS or not) will bring Bolivia and its peoples.  For example, this 306-kilometer highway linking the departments of Beni and Cochabamba (with only a part of it going through TIPNIS) would expand access to health care and other basic services to isolated local communities who now travel for days to receive medical care.  The highway would also give local agricultural producers greater access to markets to sell their goods.  At the moment, these must go via Santa Cruz to the east before they can be transported westward.  Given Beni’s status as the largest meat-producing department, this would break the hold that Santa Cruz-based slaughterhouses have on imposing meat prices.  The highway would also allow the state to assert sovereignty over remote areas, including the areas where illegal logging takes place.

It is facts such as these that have convinced more than 350 Bolivian organizations, including many of the social organizations that have led the country’s inspiring struggles against neoliberalism, to support the proposed highway.

Many indigenous organizations and communities (including within TIPNIS), moreover, support the highway.  It is therefore false to describe this as a dispute between the government and indigenous people.  Nor is it a simple conflict between supporters of development and defenders of the environment.

All sides in the dispute want greater development and improved access to basic services.  The issue at stake is how the second poorest country in the Americas, facing intense pressure from more powerful governments and corporate forces, can meet the needs of its people while protecting the environment.  Given this, surely it makes more sense for those who wish to defend Bolivia’s process of change to support steps towards dialogue, rather that deepening the divisions. →