Failure of Peruvian Government to Recognize Indigenous Rights to Ancestral Lands at Heart of Recent Massacre

SOUTH AMERICA: Calls for Justice for Peru's Native Peoples
By Franz Chávez*

LA PAZ, Jun 12 (IPS) - Social organisations in South America are backing the struggle against opening up Peru’s Amazon jungle to mining and oil companies, which resulted in clashes in which at least nine indigenous people and 25 police officers died.

The recent violence near the town of Bagua, in the northern Peruvian province of Amazonas, is seen by indigenous organisations in Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador as an attack on people who are defending life, nature, human rights and the rational use of natural resources.

Native communities in the Peruvian rainforest are demanding the repeal of a series of decrees issued by the García administration to promote foreign investment on indigenous lands, in the framework of the free trade agreement signed with the United States.

A two-month protest by indigenous people outside the northern Peruvian town of Bagua ended in bloodshed on Jun. 5, when the police violently broke up a roadblock there.

A multi-party parliamentary committee declared in December that the decrees in question are unconstitutional, as the native groups argue.

In an open letter to the region's presidents, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) called on them to defend native peoples and confirm their commitment to peace and justice in South America.

A congress of the Indigenous Confederation of Indigenous People of Bolivia (CIDOB) urged the United Nations and the Organisation of American States to send a team of investigators to Bagua to verify what happened there on Jun. 5.

While official accounts say that nine indigenous people and 25 members of the police were killed, eyewitnesses who have spoken to the press say the bodies of indigenous protesters were thrown into the river from a helicopter.

"We consider this violent action by the Peruvian government to be a massacre and a flagrant violation of the life, integrity and fundamental rights of indigenous communities," said the Colombian National Authority of Indigenous Government (ONIC) in a letter to President García.

"We join our voices to the Amazonian indigenous communities who are demanding an end to the violation of their rights and the repeal of the free trade agreement decrees that open the doors to the invasion and plundering of their territories.

"We condemn the violent actions of the Peruvian government against our peoples," says the letter, which also calls for medical attention for the injured and policies to prevent a repeat of the incident.

García's response to the violence was to allege that "foreign meddling" was behind the protests in the Amazon. He later specifically mentioned Bolivia’s left-wing president, the first indigenous leader of that country.

In the midst of the political crisis triggered by the violent incident, García accused Morales of inciting the protests by means of an "inflammatory" letter sent to the Fourth Continental Summit of Indigenous Peoples, held May 29 in the Peruvian city of Puno, on the border with Bolivia.

Although he was the most important guest invited to the summit, Morales merely sent a letter by the hand of Senator Leonilda Zurita of his governing Movement to Socialism (MAS), who is an activist for women's rights and political and trade union freedoms.

The meeting, held on Peruvian soil but only 200 km west of La Paz, brought together native leaders of the Americas, called Abya Yala in precolonial times.

"That meeting discussed uprisings and insurgency," García maintained. "A president of a neighbouring country sent messages about our countries being governed by indigenous peoples, who are victims of exploitation and utterly neglected, which is not true, because the statistics on employment and welfare have improved in the jungle areas."

In La Paz, Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera, a recognised champion of indigenous rights, said in reply that "letters do not kill," referring to the violence unleashed in the Peruvian Amazon.

"We confirm the contents (of the letter) and we are proud of every word and every letter in it," said the deputy minister for coordination with social movements, Sacha Llorenti, one of Morales’ closest associates.

"From resistance we have gone on to rebellion, and then to revolution. This is the second independence," said Llorenti, in support of Morales' policy of nationalising Bolivia’s abundant natural gas reserves, which were handed over by previous governments to foreign companies.

"It is difficult to rebuild what has been destroyed over 25 years of neoliberal, free market policies," Llorenti said.

Morales' letter to the indigenous leaders' summit also says "free trade agreements break up harmonious human relationships with nature; they commodify natural resources and national cultures; they privatise basic services; they try to patent life itself."

"Some people think globalisation means they have a right to interfere in the politics of neighbouring countries, "said García. "That is regrettable. If they wish, I can interfere too (in Bolivian affairs) and I know how to do so. I don't think it's democratic or legal or positive for international relations."

Sociologist Carlos Laruta, the head of the Centre for Research and Advancement of Peasant Farmers (CIPCA) in the impoverished city of El Alto, Bolivia, said that it is up to Morales to explain the intention of his letter, because he is the representative of a state and therefore subject to the rule of international law.

"A president cannot do things that run counter to international law," Laruta said.

Anthropologist Martín von Hildebrand, winner of the 1999 Alternative Nobel Prize, said the root problem is that the rights of Peruvian indigenous peoples to their ancestral territories have not been recognised in practice, as they have in other countries that share the Amazon basin: Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador.

"When you look at a big map of the Amazon basin, you can see that Brazil has given indigenous peoples a territory as large as Colombia itself (1.1 million square kilometres)," he said, while Colombia has given them 27 million hectares, and Bolivia and Ecuador have also made progress.

"If you look at a government map of Peru, marking potential lumber, oil, gas and mineral extraction, the country's Amazon area is completely covered with marks," said von Hildebrand, who is also head of the Gaia Amazonas Foundation, which works to strengthen indigenous culture and autonomy as a strategy for preserving the rainforest.

* With additional reporting by Constanza Vieira (Bogotá) and Ángel Páez (Lima).

__________________________________________________________

Copyright 2009: IPS-Inter Press Service

Native Rights News is making this material from [name of news source] available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.

Social Justice and Food Security at Heart of Bolivian and Venezuelan Land Reform Measures

Chávez and Morales Force Sweeping Land Reform Measures

Analysis by Adam Kott and David Rosenblum Felson

The Cutting Edge News
May 5, 2009

Latin America’s battalion of left-leaning leaders has been in full voice as they turn to achieve the land reform goals of the Bolivarian Revolution. This oft-quoted but somewhat vague social ideal is loosely centered on populist measures such as the equitable distribution of private land and the abatement of poverty. The tenets of this revolution are best seen today at work in Venezuela and Bolivia, where Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales attempt to achieve their objectives through vigorously promoted land reform initiatives.

Historically, much of the land parcels in these Andean nations has been under the tight control of a relatively select few multinational corporations, as well as elite European-descended land-holding families. Many of the latter were for decades, often sanctioned by corrupt officials to use coercion or other unscrupulous practices, including counterfeit land titles, to wrest land with murky legitimacy from the indigenous population. Today, leaders like Chávez and Morales are striving to rectify history’s injustices by returning the property back to its original owners. These grassroots initiatives on the part of the indigenous have been controversial, to say the least, and have repeatedly brought both nations to the brink of class warfare.

Repercussions of the January 25th Referendum

Since the enactment of the January 25, 2009 constitutional referendum, in which 61 percent of Bolivians voted in favor of ratifying, President Evo Morales has initiated a series of measures aimed at improving the rights of the 4 million indigenous peoples who make up nearly two-thirds of his country’s total population.

In addition to increasing the autonomy of provincial governments, as well as granting designated indigenous representation in congress, the referendum results also will limit individual private landholdings. This stand-off undoubtedly will perpetuate an already existing tense situation between the wealthy landowners of the eastern lowlands and the pro-indigenous Morales administration. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) stated that in the eastern region of Bolivia, 25 million hectares (62 million acres) of top-quality agricultural land is managed by a mere 100 select families. The remaining 5 million hectares (12 million acres) of arable land in the country are shared among 2 million campesinos.

Now coming off a big win, Morales will have the theoretical ability to remain in power until 2014, which is not likely to diminish the opposition’s hostility towards him, but rather intensify it. In this milieu, social harmony is bound to be more difficult to obtain. This is due to the deeply rooted social conflict which for years has been besieging Bolivia and the growing political and economic influence being sought after by the indigenous majority. Whereas a triumphant Morales and his indigenous supporters may view the new constitution as an egalitarian and empowering document, the white Europeanized opposition understandably perceive it as discriminatory and insensitive to their special needs. One thing is for certain, land distribution in this Andean nation has long been a source of strained relations between the indigenous majority and the elite minority.

Morales, of the Aymara ethnic group, appears determined to drastically restructure and democratize Bolivia’s historically unequal agrarian land holding patterns. "The concentration of land in Bolivia appears to be among the worst in the entire world," contend Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "The largest farms, although only 0.63 percent of the total, encompasses more than 66 percent of all agricultural land. At the other end of the spectrum, 86 percent of farms account for just 2.4 percent of agricultural land, and many other rural farmers own no land at all."

Bolivian Land Reform

In the first of what would be a number of attempts at reorganizing land usage patterns, former president, Victor Paz Estenssoro, led the fight to enact the 1953 Agrarian Reform Law. The measure, which is largely seen as an underlying cause for the present tension over land ownership, granted indigenous peoples modest plots of land while massive landholdings were bestowed upon the non-indigenous fraction of the population in an attempt to develop the country’s fading agricultural sector. According to a 2007 COHA report by research associate Laura Starr, "the Bolivian reform being promoted at that time affected 32 million hectares (79 million acres) of land, which were distributed to 40,000 medium and small-sized family farmers. At the same time, more than half a million indigenous and peasant families divided up only about 4 million hectares (10 million acres), almost exclusively in the less favorable western highlands of the country." In 1996, former president, Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, initiated a would-be land reform measure that defined itself as seeking to boost national productivity levels. As a result of the law, land had to serve a social or economic purpose.

Douglas Hertzler, a highly-regarded anthropologist working in Bolivia, asserts that, "the law made large speculative landholdings subject to redistribution to the landless, but it failed to establish adequate criteria to regulate this process, so that land redistribution did not move forward." Initially paying little attention to the strong opposition movement emanating from the eastern provinces, Morales now appears eager to make lasting changes to Bolivia’s traditionally preferential and asymmetrical land distribution policies.

According to the World Bank, the richest 10 percent of Bolivians consume 22 times more than the poorest 10 percent. Morales observed this during a speech he gave in March to a group of Guaraní Indians, "Private property will always be respected but we want people who are not interested in equality to change their thinking and focus more on country than currency." He continued, "Today, from here, we are beginning to put an end to the giant landholdings of Bolivia." That same day, Morales granted over 38,000 hectares (94,000 acres) of land to indigenous communities. But lowland elites, like Ronald Larsen, have vehemently opposed such measures. Larsen, an ardent opponent of Morales’ policies, purchased vast land holdings in the southeastern region of the country. Although he has spent the last 40 years working the land, recent Morales-inspired measures may well lead to the expropriation of the majority of it. "They’re taking it away over my dead body," said Larsen.

The January constitutional referendum curbs landholdings to 5,000 hectares (12,400 acres) as well as requires land to serve at all times a social or economic function. While Morales’ latest initiatives certainly have provoked uproar as well as praise, the efficacy of such reforms remains a serious question. Meanwhile, Bolivia is not the only country in the region attempting to overhaul its land tenure system.

A Look at Recent Venezuelan Land Reform Attempts

It was soon after Chávez took office in 1999 that he began to reorganize Venezuela’s agricultural land use policy under the label "Vuelta al Campo" (Return to the Countryside). This should come as no surprise, as Venezuela has had a long history of unbalanced land ownership. For example, in 1937, large haciendas of 1,000 hectares or more were owned by only 4.8 percent of landowners, but comprised 88.8 percent of all cultivatable land. In 2001, Chávez initiated progressive legislation entitled the "Law on Land and Agrarian Development." This measure allowed for the Chávez government to seize large tracts of land and redistribute them as it deemed appropriate. The measure was enacted by the government in an attempt to bridge the vast inequality gap in Venezuela, a nation where much of the wealth traditionally remained in the hands of a select few.

According to the CIPE Development Institute, prior to the 2001 reforms, 5 percent of the Venezuelan population owned 80 percent of the land. What is more shocking is that 60 percent of agricultural laborers have no ownership over the land they work. As a result, since the passing of the law eight years ago, Venezuelans have witnessed tensions rise between the landed elites and the landless working-class population.

President Chávez worked quickly to redistribute land holdings once land reforms had been passed. In 2003, he assigned his older brother, Adán Chávez, to head the process. Adán enacted the "Plan Ezequiel Zamora," which, over a one year period, redistributed nearly 1.5 million hectares of land to 130,000 families. Over the next year, the Chávez government distributed another 500,000 hectares to poor farmers throughout the nation.

While there has been a degree of success in the implementation of land redistribution programs, it has come at no small cost. Campesino leaders who have been trying to enforce the new land reform measures for years, have had to face violent oppression at the hands of the land owners and their private forces. According to Venezuela Analysis, more than 200 rural leaders have been murdered since the reforms passed, and the true number may be twice that figure. The murders are thought to have been carried out by thugs hired by the elite, whose land is now under threat of seizure by the government. These forces are often unorganized, but nonetheless, have been able to bring terror to Venezuela’s countryside much like the paramilitary vigilante forces that were formed to protect threatened land barons in Colombia.

Chávez’s Recent Initiatives

In the past several months, Caracas has been unusually active in putting its mind to accumulating land for redistribution and for public infrastructural purposes. In an unusually forceful manner, the government’s National Land Institute (INTI) recently expropriated one parcel of over 2,800 hectares (7000 acres) with the help of National Guard troops for fear that recent clashes between the entrenched landowners and the landless peasants would spiral out of control. In some cases, such land holdings have been largely idle despite their rich soil and great potential for agriculture. Despite ample arable land, Venezuela has historically imported the majority of its food supplies. With the advent of its growing wealth from oil drilling royalties, Venezuela shifted away from using its landholdings for subsistence agriculture in favor of growing cash crops. This meant that while the middle class could readily pay for imported produce, the same could not be said about the poor. Thus, characteristically, land has been held by affluent Venezuelans as a symbol of prestige rather than a source of food production.

A 2005 BBC report made the point that the Chávez administration, "insists it is impossible for Venezuela to grow enough food for the poor, as long as so much land is in the hands of so few." This is a principal force behind Venezuela’s current land redistribution initiative. The government is now in the process of taking over some of Venezuela’s largest and most profitable farms as well as estates that have been either ignored or underused. Venezuela’s president undoubtedly has the best of intentions in carrying out these actions, most notably the creation of sustainable development. This effort is in stark contrast to the current agricultural situation in much of the nation, where international companies, such as Ireland’s Smurfit Kappa have grown crops on Venezuelan acreage that didn’t offer long term sustainability, but drained the soil of precious minerals. After taking control of 1,500 hectares (3,700 acres) that belonged to the Dublin based group, Chávez explained, "We are going to use all the eucalyptus wood sensibly and harvest other things there, beans, corn, sorghum, cassava and yam."

Despite his push for land reform, Chávez has not found universal solidarity behind it within his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV). Governor of the state of Portuguesa, Wilmar Castro, a member of PSUV, has publicly criticized recent expropriations of land for use by landless peasants, blaming the government for its failure to redistribute land through proper legal channels. Governor Castro’s policy is strongly at odds with federal law that allows peasants to utilize unoccupied private land. Another incident that shows the increasingly fractured nature of Venezuelan society occurred on April 17. Authorities in the state of Portuguesa evicted more than sixty landless farmers and three INTI workers from privately owned land that state officials had marked for appropriation and redistribution. With local authorities completely disregarding the policies emanating from Caracas, it is unclear how Chávez will be able to enforce his policies at the provincial level.

If the state achieves its goal, land that has been expropriated will be turned over to what, in many cases, are newly formed agrarian communes that will specialize in cultivating crops native to the region. Such measures will ensure the long-term viability of the land, encourage the employment of local campesinos, and supply food to subsidized markets all over the country. According to a 2006 report entitled "Land Reform in Venezuela," Chávez also hopes to build a food processing plant and research center on some of the expropriated government land to ensure that Venezuela’s facilities remain on par with other agricultural nations in the region.

Food security has been a recent hot-button issue in Venezuela. Under Article 305 of the constitution, the president has the authority to seize any land he sees fit if it is in the interest of food security. This was most recently reflected when Chávez ordered the expropriation of U.S. food giant Cargill on claims that the company was selling rice at prices that exceeded the legal limit for the country. Chávez has good reason to be worried about his nation’s food supply, as it currently imports 70 percent of Venezuelan food that is consumed from abroad. With rising import costs, it has been wise of him to bolster Venezuela’s self-sufficiency by allocating unused land to farmers who have a demonstrated zeal for producing crops. A 2005 land reform law decreased the amount of idle land one could hold. As a result of this, one could allow high quality land to be idle only if it was 50 hectares or less in size, which cut the original figure that one had to meet in half. The limits on unused, low quality holdings were also lowered, decreasing from 5000 hectares to 3000 hectares. Any idle lands above these two limits were subject to peasant invasion and eventual redistribution by the National Land Institute.

According to Minister of Agriculture and Lands, Elias Jaua, land reform already has allowed for a massive increase in national food production. Almost 1 million hectares (2.47 million acres) of the redistributed land are now producing food for domestic consumption, including meat, grain, and vegetables. This staggering amount accounts for nearly 90 percent of the total land appropriated for redistribution.

If those whose lands were expropriated by the government wish to legally challenge the authorities, they will face a long and arduous process. According to Cort Greene, a Latin American political analyst, in 2005 the government legalized preemptive occupation by giving the peasants who storm large estates cartas agrarias. Such documents dictate nothing in terms of formal ownership rights, but nonetheless grant peasants the right to use the land and profit from it until all legal disputes are finalized. The distribution of these cartas essentially ignores prior legal contracts and land deeds and grants the property to whoever professedly will make the best use of it.

The Future of Land Ownership

Having never fully recovered from the declination brought about by the Spanish conquest, the indigenous of South America have, to a large degree, experienced systematic inequality, often being viewed as little better than chattel. The issue of land reform is not peripheral to this process. In Bolivia, two-thirds of the land is owned by one percent of the population. Prior to Morales’ recent reforms, indigenous peoples, who represent the country’s clear ethnic majority, controlled under 10 percent of the land.

In contrast to Bolivia, the indigenous population of Venezuela only accounts for a mere 2 percent of the total population. While Chávez has not made land reform an entirely indigenous-focused issue, he certainly has done his part in trying to ensure that Venezuela’s first people get their due compensation. However, many of Venezuela’s indigenous do not think of land as a top priority, and disagree with policies emanating from Caracas. In a January 15 article in the Economist titled "Venezuela’s Indigenous People: A Promise Unkept," Rosario Romero, an indigenous Yukpa, explains, "Invasions are very bad. The ranchers worked for what they have." She adds that, contrary to what radical Yukpa leaders say, her parents never suggested these lands were theirs. Romero’s perspective offers an interesting look into the dichotomy that helps explain Venezuela’s land reform. Although she may have a minority opinion, it is important to note that there is more to this issue than meets the eye.

Yet Chávez and Morales are not the only Latin American governments reworking land titles. The Movimiento Sem Terra, or Landless Peasants Movement, established in 1980, has attempted to dramatically alter Brazil’s historically unjust system of land distribution. At times, however, the movement’s supporters have had to pressure an occasionally reluctant Lula administration. Moreover, in 2008, Raul Castro initiated a land reform program that sought to redistribute unutilized state-owned land to cooperatives.

Land reform historically has been one of the fundamental activities on any "must" list of progressive governments. In an attempt to secure a guaranteed food supply, former Chilean president, Salvador Allende, initiated a sweeping land reform. This came at a time when only 8 percent of Chile’s gross national product (GNP) came from the countryside. From 1971 to 1972, 3,282 farms were expropriated by the Allende administration. While the reform initiatives were largely popular, they did polarize the electorate into two bitterly divided sides. Harvard research fellow, Thomas John Bossert argues that, "the revolutionary effect of such [agrarian] reforms is usually seen as coming not from beneficiaries of the reform, but rather from those frustrated by the failure of the reform to grant them land."

Both Chávez and Morales have taken worthy first steps towards a less discriminatory distribution of land, but both leaders still have much work yet to be done with those who they have since agitated. Nevertheless, a wave of optimism has swept across the affected region, where steps have been taken to grant more equitable land rights to a rural population which historically has been discriminated against. While Chávez and Morales are gaining political capital by distributing land to the masses, they also risk alienating some of the most productive sectors of society. In the end, and with the best of intentions, they may be doing harm to both of the countries’ long-term political and economic stability. But the concern of an equitable reform of the land remains an issue calling out for redress.

Adam Kott and David Rosenblum Felson are Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
__________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2007-2009 The Cutting Edge News

Native Rights News is making this material from The Cutting Edge News available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.

Indigenous Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change

Indigenous Peoples Demand Greater Role in Climate Debate

By Stephen Leahy*


ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Apr 20 (Tierramérica) - While indigenous peoples from around the world are meeting in this Alaskan city to seek a greater role in global climate negotiations, the rapidly warming Arctic is forcing some Inuit villages to be relocated.

"We have centuries of experience in adapting to the climate and our traditional lifestyles have very low carbon footprints," Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, an indigenous leader from the Philippines and chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, told Tierramérica.

Carbon-based gases are the principal cause of the greenhouse effect, which leads to climate change. The excessive release of these gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, comes from human activities: the combustion of fossil fuels in industry and transportation, and emissions from livestock production and deforestation.

Some 400 indigenous people, including Bolivian President Evo Morales and observers from 80 nations, are gathered in Anchorage, Alaska for the Apr. 20-24 U.N.-affiliated Indigenous Peoples' Global Summit on Climate Change.

They will discuss and synthesise ways that traditional knowledge can be used to both mitigate and adapt to climate change.

"Indigenous peoples have contributed the least to the global problem of climate change, but will almost certainly bear the greatest brunt of its impact," said Patricia Cochran, chair of both the Inuit Circumpolar Council and the April Summit.

In her opinion, indigenous peoples are leaders and experts when it comes to the climate debate. Any dialogue or negotiations will be far richer and productive with their participation, she said.

But indigenous peoples are also on the front lines when it comes to climate change impacts, Cochran told Tierramérica.

The village of Newtok, about 800 kilometres east of Anchorage, is the first of several villages in need of relocation due to climate change. Because of higher average temperatures, intensifying river flow and melting permafrost are destroying homes and infrastructure, forcing 320 residents to relocate to a higher site 15 km west, at an expected cost in the tens of millions of dollars.

Five other Alaskan Inuit settlements are in urgent need of relocation, including Shishmaref (population 560) and Kivalina (377), where autumn storm waves are no longer contained by shore-fast ice, leading to severe coastal erosion. Dozens of similar settlements are considered threatened.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the regions most affected - such as the Arctic, Caribbean and Amazon - are where most of the indigenous people live, says Sam Johnston of the Tokyo-based United Nations University, a co-sponsor of the Summit.

Around the world, at least 5,000 distinct groups of indigenous peoples have been identified in more than 70 countries, with a combined global population estimated at 300 to 350 million, representing about six percent of humanity.

Because of their long cultural and spiritual connection to the land, oceans and wildlife, indigenous peoples have a lot to offer, Johnston said in an interview.

"The world owes it to both the indigenous peoples and itself to pay greater heed to the opinions of these communities and to the wisdom of ages-old traditional knowledge," he said.

The major goal of the Summit is to help strengthen the indigenous communities' participation in and articulate messages and recommendations to the December conference of parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in Copenhagen.

There, the world's governments will negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol (which expires in 2012) to reduce carbon emissions and to create an adaptation fund to help poor countries.

The indigenous Summit will conclude in Anchorage on Friday with a declaration and action plan, and a call for world governments to fully include indigenous peoples in any post-Kyoto climate change regime adopted in Copenhagen.

Indigenous peoples currently have no formal role at the climate talks, although native representatives were part of Bolivia's delegation to a series of preparatory meetings earlier this month in Bonn, Germany.

Ideally, indigenous peoples would have a formal advisory role, as they currently do under the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity, said Tauli-Corpuz.

"Unfortunately, no government has been willing to push for this under the UNFCCC," she said.

The "Anchorage Declaration" will be signed by President Evo Morales, who is of Aymara origin; Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, president of the U.N. General Assembly; and Danish Parliamentarian Juliane Henningsen, representing Greenland, says Cochrane.

Issues like reducing deforestation and boosting massive re-forestation efforts can have major impacts on indigenous peoples, and it is vital that indigenous rights are acknowledged and respected in any final climate agreement, said Tauli-Corpuz.

But, warned the UNU's Johnston, bilateral discussions, especially between China and the United States, are heating up ahead of the Copenhagen meet, and may push indigenous peoples' involvement to the sidelines.

(*This story was originally published by Latin American newspapers that are part of the Tierramérica network. Tierramérica is a specialised news service produced by IPS with the backing of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme and the World Bank.) __________________________________________________________
Copyright © 2009 IPS-Inter Press Service

Native Rights News is making this material from IPS-Inter Press Service available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.
____________
Native Rights News (NRN) is published by the Alliance for Indigenous Rights, a nonprofit corporation owned and operated by Temple Beit Shem Tov as part of its Peace and Justice Ministry.

Bolivians Ratify New Constitution Giving More Rights to Indigenous Peoples

27 January 2009

Press Conference
___________________________________________
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

PRESS CONFERENCE BY BOLIVIA ON NEW CONSTITUTION

With early returns showing that 60 per cent of the people of Bolivia had voted in favour of Sunday's historic referendum, the country's Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations said today that Bolivians had endorsed a new Constitution that gave greater voice to long-marginalized indigenous groups and "expanded, extended and deepened" democracy to everyone in the county.

Speaking to reporters at United Nations Headquarters this morning, Pablo Solón-Romero said that, for the first time in Bolivia's history, a political Constitution had been put before all the people, who had been able to not only vote on the text, but participate in its drafting. That exercise had reversed centuries of exclusion, as there had been very little public participation –- and no input from the country's indigenous majority -- in Bolivia's 18 constitutional processes since 1825.

"The new Constitution expands, extends and deepens the rights of all Bolivians, especially indigenous people and other groups", that had been historically discriminated against, said Mr. Solón-Romero, noting that the new charter drew on the language of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted two years ago by the General Assembly.

Among other things, Bolivia's new Constitution guaranteed ownership of natural resources, as well as ownership of State enterprises by the Bolivian people "to prevent the recurrence of any processes of privatization of State corporations and natural resources that we saw over the past 25 years", he said.

Further, the new Constitution brought together the concept of departmental, municipal and indigenous autonomy with a vision of integration and unity, he continued. The Constitution also placed limits on the extent of land ownership and set up what he called a "pluralistic property regime" that included private, State and communally held property.

Overall, the positive outcome reflected the will of the people to strengthen the rule of law, democracy, unity and justice on an increasingly inclusive basis. "We seek to have the will of the majority recognized and want to move towards the implementation of this new constitutional text in a wide-ranging manner with the participation and initiative of all," he said, stressing that such implementation would be based on respect for Bolivia's traditional legal standards.

He welcomed the participation of the team of international observes who had monitored the vote, and appealed to the international community to continue to work with his Government to strengthen the rule of law and democracy in Bolivia, Latin America and throughout the world.

Responding to questions about criticism of the new Constitution, including that there were provisions which decreed that all people "opposing national unity" were guilty of treason, Mr. Solón-Romero said such accusations were false. Nothing in the Constitution stipulated anything like that. At the same time, the Bolivian State was working to ensure unity, so no actions could be taken that undermined State unity or the spirit of the Constitution.

He also dismissed charges that the Constitution gave President Evo Morales the power to "dissolve Congress at will". The current text maintained the country's political and legislative structure, as well as the methods by which representatives and senators were elected. One key change was that the Constitution now guaranteed indigenous seats in the legislature to ensure the participation of such stakeholders in the country's decision-making processes. "Many lies have been told regarding double participation by indigenous representatives," he said, stressing that each citizen would have one vote.

He said that political interest groups might have been fomenting such accusations, largely because of upcoming elections in the country. Indeed, the political opposition to the new Constitution and the changes it would set in motion remained "ferocious", even though several key concerns -– including departmental autonomy -– had been included in the referendum. The opposition was aiming to destabilize the electoral landscape to gain political clout against the current Bolivian Government ahead of the December 2009 ballot, he said.

To questions about Government officials' comments regarding the behaviour of journalists and press freedom in Bolivia, he said President Morales had expressed his opinion that, often, the actions of the press appeared to be guided more by the interests of the owners of media corporations than the interests of journalism.

"This is a serious problem," he continued, noting that even a quick survey of the past few years would reveal that statements from the opposition were amplified and featured more often by the press corps, so that it appeared to be much greater than the opposition actually seated in Parliament. Bolivia, nevertheless, believed the media played an essential role, but journalists must tell the truth and must be fair and independent.

* *** *

___________________________________________________
For information media • not an official record

__________________________________________________________
Public Domain Material

Native Rights News is making this material from the UN Department of Public Information available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/28/2009 07:17:00 AM

Historic Vote on New Bolivian Constitution to Occur This Sunday

Spilling Ink Instead of Blood: Bolivia Poised to Vote on New Constitution

Written by Benjamin Dangl
Editor, Upside Down World
Thursday, 22 January 2009

Dozens of marches and rallies in support of Bolivia's new constitution, to be voted on this Sunday, have filled the streets of La Paz in recent days. On Tuesday, at a rally for the constitution and to celebrate Venezuela's donation of 300 tons of asphalt to the city of La Paz, President Evo Morales took the stage, covered in confetti and with a coca leaf wreath around his neck. The crowd cheered and waved signs, one of them saying, "Thanks for the asphalt and the progress."

The new constitution, written in a diverse assembly which first convened in 2006, is expected to pass in the January 25th national referendum. Other governments led by left-leaning leaders in the region have also passed new constitutions in recent years, including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 1999, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador in 2008. In varying degrees, Bolivia's new constitution is expected to play an important role in the implementation of progressive policies developed by the Morales administration and his party, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS).

At the Tuesday rally in La Paz, the sun was strong as drums and roman candles pounded at the air. The screech of packing tape shot out as one bearded participant secured his indigenous wiphala flag to a plastic pole. A group of women blocked off the expanse of one street with a banner that said, "The right wing will not pass – Yes to Evo."

A giant blown-up balloon statue of Evo Morales – present in nearly every La Paz rally in the days leading up the referendum – stood over the crowd. On his chest was the ballot voters were to face this Sunday: the "Si" box was checked, and, on two boxes regarding what hectare amounts to limit new land purchases at, the 5,000 hectare box was checked, the 10,000 hectare box left blank.

During his speech, Morales sounded a bit tired, no doubt from the nearly endless campaigning he's been involved in for the new constitution. After the applause died down, he thanked various groups for arriving and urged people to vote for the new constitution. "Brothers and sisters we believe in you, we believe in the people of Bolivia, so that democratically we can transform Bolivia for all Bolivians," Morales said. He listed off some of the highlights of his three years in office so far, which he said included the nationalization of Bolivia's gas and the fight against corruption. "But we need to constitutionalize these changes," he continued.

Morales pointed out that in the new constitution, basic services – such as water, sewage, gas and electricity – would be a human right, as would education and healthcare. Morales also reflected on the recent history of US intervention in the country and pointed out that the new constitution prohibits the creation of US bases in Bolivia. He clarified that, in spite of the right wing's claims, the new constitution does not (unfortunately) legalize abortion and gay marriage. Above all, he explained, indigenous rights and indigenous representation in government would be empowered. (For more on what changes the new constitution might bring, see this previous article, Bolivians Mobilize for National Vote on New Constitution, 1/18/09)

At this point in Morales' speech, one security guard was already starting to yawn. A light rain began to fall, women pulled plastic bags over their bowler hats, and the "Viva La Nueva Constitución" cheers became weaker as people returned to work from their lunch breaks.

History and Division

Bolivian social movements have for decades been demanding that a constituent assembly be organized to rewrite the constitution. According to the book Impasse in Bolivia, by Benjamin Kohl and Linda Farthing, from 1826 to 2004, Bolivia has had 16 constitutions and six reforms. The first constitution, drafted by Simón Bolívar himself in 1826, promised to create the "world's most liberal constitution." However, even the most liberal of constitutions is ineffective if its dictates are not enforced, which has been the case throughout Bolivian history. Kohl and Farthing also point out that, "Until 1945, all constitutions made a distinction between being a Bolivian – a person born in the country or married to a Bolivian – and being a citizen: a status restricted to literate, propertied men that specifically excluded domestic servants, regardless of income."

Calls for a new constitution as a tool to create a more egalitarian society re-emerged most recently in the 1990s when indigenous groups in the east of Bolivia demanded a constituent assembly to open new space for their political participation in decision-making at the government level. According to the Andean Information Network, indigenous organizations advocating a constituyente "sought greater participation in the political decisions regarding the use and distribution of land and natural resources, the allocation of state resources, and national development policies." In fact, these demands correspond to many of the un-applied rights and guarantees made by previous constitutions.

It's this sense of overdue justice that is leading many people to support the new constitution. As university student Leidy Castro told Prensa Latina, "We will be in favor of a Constitution that for the first time includes all Bolivians, no matter how much money people have. In addition, it protects sectors that have been marginalized for a long time."

None the less, right wing opponents to the constitution have been active in recent weeks as well, organizing marches and campaigns across the country parallel to the activities of those supporting the constitution. Recently, when these groups collide, there have been some violent confrontations, or at least some strong words exchanged.

Around noon on Wednesday, January 21st, a march against the constitution went down the central Prado street in La Paz. Participants were waving the pink flags of the right wing Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR) party with the message "Vamos por el No" written on them. They arrived in the Plaza de Estudiantes where the ever-present Evo Morales balloon was situated along with a giant "Sí" balloon. A crowd of supporters of the new constitution had already gathered there; one of them had a microphone through which he broadcasted his attacks on the right wing with comments such as "You traitors don't have a real plan! We have a real plan with our new constitution!"

The tension escalated, and the two groups began tossing their ample literature and pamphlets at each other, yelling opposing chants. On one side were the blue flags of the MAS, and the multi-colored wiphala flag, and on the other were the pink flags of the MNR. After some spirited verbal battles, and a few scuffles and pushing matches, the MNR contingent marched back up the street, while the MAS supporters remained in the plaza, giving speeches and firing off roman candles into the evening. At a nearby university, revolutionary folk music blasted throughout the day from a speaker next to Palestinian flags and literature about Israel's attacks on Gaza. (Morales recently expelled Israel's ambassador to Bolivia in protest of the bombings in Gaza.) The university's students have been hosting almost nightly marches and torch-filled, bonfire rallies in support of the new constitution.

Media and Change

There have been numerous street battles throughout the process of re-writing and approving the new constitution. But another battle has been waged in the country's media. Major newspapers in Bolivia seem almost unanimously critical of the constitution and the MAS, spreading regular misinformation about both. For example, a recent headline in El Diario newspaper said, "Bolivia Will Return To Barbarism With Community Justice." (Community justice, practiced by many indigenous groups across the country, is officially recognized in the new constitution.) In numerous papers, opinion articles and pieces that draw exclusively from right wing politicians and civic leaders are regularly passed off as straight news, with headlines full of outright lies about the new constitution's contents.

Edwin, a La Paz taxi driver who used to work hauling furniture and goods on his back at local markets, agreed that most media in Bolivia are against Morales and the new constitution. "But who cares what they say? The journalists are few, but we, the Bolivian people, are many."

In response to the media's attacks against the government, Morales has announced the launch of new state newspaper, called "Cambio" (Change), which was released today, January 22. "We are organizing ourselves, we are preparing ourselves with media to broadcast the truth to the Bolivian people," Morales said in a recent speech. "This new newspaper will be launched, that won't humiliate anyone, but will inform and educate us."

Regardless of the extent to which the changes in the new constitution are applied, the document is significant in that it has been a central part of the political battleground for the bulk of Morales' time in office. The constitution is also a kind of mirror held up to Bolivian politics, representing the hopes, contradictions and shortcomings of various sides of the political divide.

There are many valid criticisms of the constitution from the left – that the document won't allow for the break up of existing large land holdings, that it won't legalize abortion, that it doesn't go far enough in combating neoliberalism, that there exists a lot of vague language about how these changes will be implemented, and more. But of the many people who will cast their ballot for the constitution this Sunday, a significant number won't be voting specifically for the new document, or even the MAS government, but against the right wing, and the racism, poverty and conflicts the right has exacerbated in recent years.

In any case, the passage of the constitution will open up a new phase for the Morales government, as well as a new period of electoral campaigning: if the constitution passes, general elections will be held on December 6th of this year. As Alfredo Rada, the Minister of the Government, said in an interview with Telesur, "The government is optimistic and believes that this Sunday we will win a majority triumph with the "Yes" vote, and with this open a new chapter in Bolivian history."

***

Stay tuned for more reports and analysis on the upcoming vote and new constitution.

Benjamin Dangl is currently based in Bolivia, and is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia (AK Press). He is the editor of TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events, and UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America. Email Bendangl@gmail.com

__________________________________________________________
© 2009 Upside Down World

Native Rights News is making this material from Upside Down World available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/23/2009 05:17:00 PM

Corporate Interests Will Pressure Obama to Shun Morale's Bolivian Democracy

Is the US about to treat the rest of the world better? Maybe...

American foreign policy is subject to structural pressure that has not dissolved

By Johann Hari, Commentator
The Independent, Friday, 23 January 2009

The tears are finally drying – the tears of the Bush years, and the tears of awe at the sight of a black President of the United States. So what now? The cliché of the day is that Barack Obama will inevitably disappoint the hopes of a watching world, but the truth is more subtle than that. If we want to see how Obama will affect us all – for good or bad – we need to trace the deep structural factors that underlie United States foreign policy. A useful case study of these pressures is about to flicker on to our news pages for a moment – from the top of the world.

Bolivia is the poorest country in Latin America, and its lofty slums 13,000 feet above sea level seem a world away from the high theatre of the inauguration. But if we look at this country closely, we can explain one of the great paradoxes of the United States – that it has incubated a triumphant civil rights movement at home, yet thwarted civil rights movements abroad. Bolivia shows us in stark detail the contradictions facing a black President of the American empire.

The President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, has a story strikingly similar to Obama's. In 2006, he became the first indigenous president of his country – and a symbol of the potential of democracy. When the Spanish arrived in Bolivia in the 16th century, they enslaved the indigenous people and worked millions to death. As recently as the 1950s, an indigenous person wasn't even allowed to walk through the centre of La Paz, where the presidential palace and city cathedral stand. They were (and are) routinely compared to monkeys and apes.

Morales was born to a poor potato-farmer in the mountains, and grew up scavenging for discarded orange peel or banana skins to eat. Of his seven siblings, four died in infancy. Throughout his adult life, it was taken for granted that the country would be ruled by the white minority; the "Indians" were too "child-like" to manage a country.

Given that the US is constitutionally a democracy and its presidents say they are committed to spreading democracy across the world, you would expect them to welcome the democratic rise of Morales. But wait. Bolivia has massive reserves of natural gas – a geo-strategic asset, and one that rakes in billions for American corporations. Here is where the complications set in.

Before Morales, the white elite was happy to allow American companies to simply take the gas and leave the Bolivian people with short change: just 18 per cent of the royalties. Indeed, they handed almost the entire country to US interests, while skimming a small percentage for themselves. In 1999, an American company, Bechtel, was handed the water supply – and water rates for the poor majority doubled.

Morales ran for election against this agenda. He said that Bolivia's resources should be used for the benefit of millions of bitterly poor Bolivians, not a tiny number of super-rich Americans. He kept his promise. Now Bolivia keeps 82 per cent of the vast gas royalties – and he has used the money to increase health spending by 300 per cent, and to build the country's first pension system. He is one of the most popular leaders in the democratic world. I have seen this pink tide rising through the barrios and favelas across South America. Millions of people are seeing doctors and schools for the first time in their lives.

I suspect that a majority of the American people – who are good and decent – would be pleased and support this process if they were told about it honestly. But how did the US government (and much of the media) react? George Bush fulminated that "democracy is being eroded in Bolivia", and a recent US ambassador to the country compared Morales to Osama bin Laden. Why? To them, you are a democrat if you give your resources to US corporations, and you are a dictator if you give them to your own people. The will of the Bolivian people is irrelevant.

For these reasons, the US has been moving to trash Morales. By an odd quirk of fate, almost all of Bolivia's gas supplies are in the east of the country – where the richest, whitest part of the population lives. So the US government has been funding and fuelling the hard-right separatist movements that want these regions to break away. Then the whites would happily hand the gas to US companies like in the good ol' days – and Morales would be left without resources. The interference became so severe that last September Morales had to expel the US ambassador for "conspiring against democracy". This weekend, Morales is holding a referendum on a new constitution for the country which will entrench the rights of indigenous people.

Enter Obama – and his paradoxes. He is obviously a person of good will and good sense, but he is operating in a system subject to many undemocratic pressures. Bolivia illustrates the tension. The rise of Morales reminds us of the America the world loves: its yes-we-can openness and civil rights movements. Yet the presence of gas reminds us of the America the world hates: the desire to establish "full spectrum dominance" over the world's resources, whatever the pesky natives think.

Which America will Obama embody? The answer is both – at first. Morales has welcomed him as "a brother", and Obama has made it clear he wants a dialogue, rather than the abuse of the Bush years. Yet who is Obama's Bolivia adviser? A lawyer called Greg Craig, who represents Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada – the hard-right former president of Bolivia who imposed some of the most extreme privatisations of the 1980s, and is now wanted on charges of genocide. Craig's legal team says Morales is (yes) leading "an offensive against democracy".

The structural pressures within the US system that drove hostility to a democratic civil rights leader like Morales have not dissolved in the cold Washington air. The US is still dependent on foreign fossil fuels to keep its lights on, and US corporations still buy senators from both parties. Obama will still be swayed by those factors.

But while this is a reason to be frustrated, it isn't a reason to be cynical. Why? Because while he will be swayed by those factors, he will also subtly erode them over time. Obama has made energy independence – a massive transition away from foreign oil and gas, and towards the wind, sun and waves – the centre of his governing programme. If the US is no longer addicted to Bolivian gas, then its governments will be much less inclined to topple anybody else who wants to control it. (If they're off oil, they'll be much less invested in the Saudi tyranny and petro-wars in the Middle East too.)

Obama also says he wants to peel back the distorting effect of corporate money on the US political system. He is already less slathered in corporate cash than any president since the 1920s. The further he pushes it back, the more breathing space democratic movements like Morales's have to control their own resources.

But we will see. If you want to know if Obama is really altering the tectonic forces that drive American power, keep an eye on the rooftop of the world.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

__________________________________________________________
©independent.co.uk

Native Rights News is making this material from The Independent available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/23/2009 04:17:00 PM

Ecuador Ratifies World's First Constitution to Give Rights to Nature

In Ecuador, Trees Now Have Rights

By Gar Smith Earth Island Journal, Winter 2009

On September 29, the Associated Press reported that Ecuador's new constitution would "significantly expand leftist President Rafael Correa's powers." It wasn't until the end of a 15-paragraph article that the AP mentioned the new constitution – approved by 65 percent of voters – "guarantees free education through university and social security benefits for stay-at-home mothers." Also missing from the AP's report: any mention that Ecuador's voters had just ratified the world's first "eco-constitution," a pioneering document that, for the first time in human history, extends "inalienable rights to nature."

Not too long ago, Ecuador would have seemed an unlikely nation to become the birthplace of Earth's first green constitution. To service its massive debt to US creditors, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund forced Ecuador to open its pristine Amazon forests to foreign oil companies. Nearly 30 years of drilling enriched ChevronTexaco, desecrated the northern Amazon, and utterly failed to improve the lives of millions of poor Ecuadoreans. Amazon Watch estimates that Texaco damaged 2.5 million acres of rainforest, left the landscape pitted with 600 toxic waste pits, and polluted the rivers and streams that some 30,000 people rely on. Cancer rates in the area where Texaco operated are 130 percent of the national norm, and childhood leukemia occurs at a rate four times higher than in other parts of Ecuador.

In 1990, the Siona, Secoya, Achuar, Huaorani, and other Indigenous forest-dwellers won title to three million acres of traditional forestland, but the government retained rights to the minerals and oil. In November 1993, Indigenous communities filed a $1 billion environmental lawsuit against Texaco, and Indigenous groups subsequently demanded a 15-year moratorium on drilling, environmental reparations, corporate indemnification, and a share of oil profits.

In 1997, when Ecuador's pro-US government announced plans to rev up oil exploitation by a third, all eyes turned to the Yasuni Rainforest, home to the country's largest oil reserve – estimated at 1 billion barrels. The Yasuni is also home to rare jaguars, endangered white-bellied spider monkeys, spectacled bears, and Indigenous tribes protected by international treaty.

In 2007, the new government of President Rafael Correa announced plans to halt oil exploration in the Yasuni, an action Amazon Watch called "a giant first step toward breaking Ecuador's dependence on oil." Correa's proposal marked a shift to making renewable energy the new path for Ecuador's economic future. The language in the new constitution takes the new policy several steps further.

_____________________________________________

Ecuador's radical new constitution features a chapter on the "Rights for Nature" that begins by invoking the Indigenous concept of sumak kawsay (good living) and the Andean Earth Goddess: "Nature, or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution." The constitution contains a Nature's Bill of Rights that includes "the right to an integral restoration" and the right to be free from "exploitation" and "harmful environmental consequences."

_____________________________________________

Surprisingly, there is a US connection to this story. The Pennsylvania-based Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), along with the San Francisco-based Pachamama Alliance, spent a year working with Ecuador's 130-member Constituent Assembly to craft the language that installed ecosystem rights in the heart of the new constitution.

"Today's environmental laws are failing," CELDF observes in a section on its Web site. "By most every measure, the environment today is in worse shape than when the major US environmental laws were adopted over 30 years ago." CELDF notes that US regulations "treat nature as property under law. These laws legalize environmental harm by regulating how much pollution or destruction of nature can occur." They don't forbid pollution, they merely "codify it." By contrast, Right of Nature laws challenge property law by "eliminating the authority of a property owner to interfere with the functioning of ecosystems that exist and depend upon that property for their existence and flourishing." The idea is gaining momentum. Municipalities in Pennsylvania, California, New Hampshire, and Virginia have adopted Right to Nature laws in recent years.

Shannon Biggs of Global Exchange notes "slaves were once also considered property under the law" until Americans understood "we needed to write new laws in order to change … the cultural climate."

With parrot-flecked jungles containing more than 300 different tree species per hectare, cloud forests of amazing biodiversity, and a border that extends to the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador is the perfect spot for the world's first eco-constitution. Ecuador has swung a hammer against the chains designed to keep nature in thrall to commerce. It's time for other nations to pick up the same hammer.
__________________________________________________________

Copyright Earth Island Journal 2009

Native Rights News is making this material from Earth Island Journal available in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine codified at Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information. Distribution of this material is for research and educational purposes that will promote social and economic justice and benefit society.

--
Posted By Alliance for Indigenous Rights to Native Rights News at 1/20/2009 07:45:00 AM