

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Kai Huschke, Community Organizer, kai@celdf.org
Arguments on the assertion of local democracy over state-sanctioned corporate public health violations and a Rights of Nature law will be presented on June 1. For over two years, the Freedom from Aerially Sprayed Pesticides Ordinance of Lincoln County successfully banned corporate aerial spraying of pesticides as a violation of natural ecosystems' rights and people's rights to clean air, water and soil. The circuit court overturned the ban citing an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) model state law that protects corporate polluters from democratically adopted local law.
Oral arguments will be viewable on June 1 through the Oregon Judicial Department Catalogue (Rex Capri, Wakefield Farms, LLC v. Dana Jenkins, Lincoln County; Lincoln County Case No. 17CV23360): https://oregoncourts.mediasite.com/mediasite/Catalog/catalogs/default
Lincoln County voters adopted the ordinance in May 2017, the first of its kind in the nation. In September 2019, a county circuit court judge nullified the will of the people and overturned the ban, ruling in favor of the timber industry.
"Severely depleted salmon runs and worsening drought conditions in the West continue to expose the need for a paradigm shift in legal relations with ecosystems. In fact, movements to advance the legal rights of ecosystems are blossoming across the continent and globe because of how catastrophically conventional law has failed the planet," says Kai Huschke, Community Organizer for CELDF.
"Aerial spray of pesticides is illegitimately legalized violence against all life and must stop....Our rights must always override corporate profit," said Maria Sause, one of the founding members of Lincoln County Community Rights, the group behind the ordinance.
Ecosystems in court
In lower court oral arguments, the attorney representing the Siletz River ecosystem, which appeared through local resident Carol Van Strum, said "We have filed a declaration by a human person, who is a part of that ecosystem just as she would be a member of an organization or association."
"[Existing environmental laws] have done nothing, they've literally allowed the poisoning to go ahead," says Van Strum. "From the publication of Silent Spring people have been trying to correct the poisoning of the planet basically; of our air, our water, our soil, our food. There is a good reason she is called Mother Nature. She is the source of all life....We need to give nature the means to say no."
Van Strum's battle against the chemical industry was recently profiled in the forthcoming PBS documentary "The People vs. Agent Orange."
The judge did not allow the rights of the Siletz River watershed to be heard as a separate legal party to the lawsuit, but suggested her decision could be appealed. The judge said, "It absolutely is [an appealable order], and I'm inviting you to, and I said before, I think this is one that will be gaining more interest as opposed to less in the future for all the reasons that you just stated."
The appeal read, "The ability of ecosystems to participate in lawsuits is not limited by the term 'person,' but rather, that term may properly encompass an ecosystem, just as it has come to include corporations and other types of associations....There is no inherent or fundamental right to aerially spray pesticides. In contrast, the ecosystem has a fundamental right to exist and thrive."
June 1, 2021 oral arguments will present these issues to the Court of Appeals, which will issue an opinion on whether the state law does interfere with local democracy and whether the Siletz River ecosystem can protect its rights in court.
State and corporate interference with local democracy
In overturning the ordinance in 2019, the lower court ruled Oregon's 1995 Pesticide Control Act removes residents' control over the pesticide industry. "Corporate actors have engaged in a concerted national strategy to undermine people's power to protect the health of their communities through self-governance. This case is not only blatantly political, it is functionally state-sanctioned violence against people and nature itself," said Kai Huschke, Community Organizer for CELDF.
The law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP that is challenging Lincoln County's ordinance employs a top lobbyist for Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a group funded by chemical giants Monsanto and DuPont. Additionally, CropLife America, a national lobbyist group funded by Monsanto, DuPont and others, waged an ultimately unsuccessful multi-million dollar propaganda campaign against the Lincoln County ordinance, as revealed by The Intercept. These corporations have been found to be members of the corporate American Legislative Exchange Council, which wrote the model language for Oregon's 1995 Pesticide Control Act, now ORS 634.055 and ORS 634.057.
The extensive legal filings include arguments advancing a new theory of local-state relations to prevent state interference with local democracy. They can be found at: https://u.pc.cd/aJj and https://u.pc.cd/20RotalK
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) is helping build a decolonial movement for Community Rights and the Rights of Nature to advance democratic, economic, social, and environmental rights-building upward from the grassroots to the state, federal, and international levels.
(717) 498-0054"This is militarized authoritarianism," said one advocacy group. "We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict."
Protests broke out at US diplomatic outposts across the globe Saturday and Sunday following the Trump administration's deadly attack on Venezuela and abduction of the nation's president, brazen violations of international law that—according to the American president—were just the start of a sustained intervention in Venezuela's politics and oil industry.
Demonstrators took to the streets of Brussels, Madrid, Ankara, Mexico City, Los Angeles, and other major cities worldwide to voice opposition to the US assault on Venezuela and Trump administration officials' pledge to "run" the country's government for an unspecified period of time, a plan that Venezuelan leaders have publicly met with defiance.
The US Mission to Mexico—one of several Latin American countries Trump threatened in the aftermath of the attack on Venezuela—warned in an alert issued Saturday that "a protest denouncing US actions against Venezuela continues to take place in front of the US Embassy in the Polanco neighborhood of Mexico City."
"Protestors have thrown rocks and painted vandalism on exterior walls," the alert read. "Social media posts about the protest have included anti-American sentiment. Embassy personnel have been advised to avoid the area."





The global demonstrations came as some world leaders, including top European officials, faced backlash for failing to adequately condemn—or condemn at all—the US attack on Venezuela and continued menacing of a sovereign nation.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said she supports "a peaceful and democratic transition," without mentioning or denouncing the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and US bombings that reportedly killed at least 40 people, including civilians.
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis declared that "this is not the time to comment on the legality of the recent actions" as protesters gathered in Athens in opposition to the US assault.
"If you still believe that the European Union cares about international law, then look no further," wrote Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler, pointing to Mitsotakis' statement.
"We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Mass protests and demands for international action to halt US aggression proliferated amid ongoing questions about how the Trump administration intends to carry out its stated plan to control Venezuela and exploit its oil reserves—objectives that experts say would run afoul of domestic and international law.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who played a central role in planning the Venezuela attack and has been chosen by Trump to manage the aftermath, said Sunday that the administration intends to keep in place a military "quarantine" around the South American nation—including the massive naval force amassed in the Caribbean in recent months—to pressure the country's leadership to bow to US demands.
"That's a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes, not just to further the national interest of the United States, which is number one, but also that lead to a better future for the people of Venezuela," Rubio said in a television interview.
Rubio also suggested the president could deploy US troops to Venezuela and dodged questions about the legal authority the Trump administration has to intervene in the country. The administration has not sought congressional authorization for any of its attacks on vessels in the Caribbean or Venezuela directly.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that "in recent history, we've tried 'running' multiple countries in Latin America and the Middle East. It's been a disaster for us, and for them, every single time."
"Congress must pass a War Powers Resolution to get our military back to defending the US, instead of 'running' Venezuela," Casar added.
Progressive Democrats of America echoed that demand, saying in a statement that "this is militarized authoritarianism."
"We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to enflame the entire region, if not the entire globe, in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict," the group added. "We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America."
US President Donald Trump left no doubt on Saturday that a—or perhaps the—primary driver of his decision to illegally attack Venezuela, abduct its president, and pledge to indefinitely run its government was his desire to control and exploit the country's oil reserves, which are believed to be the largest in the world.
Over the course of Trump's lengthy press conference following Saturday's assault, the word "oil" was mentioned dozens of times as the president vowed to unleash powerful fossil fuel giants on the South American nation and begin "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground"—with a healthy cut of it going to the US "in the form of reimbursement" for the supposed "damages caused us" by Venezuela.
"We're going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country," Trump said, suggesting American troops could be deployed, without congressional authorization, to bolster such efforts.
"We're going to get the oil flowing the way it should be," he added.
Currently, Chevron is the only US-based oil giant operating in Venezuela, whose oil industry and broader economy have been badly hampered by US sanctions. In a statement on Saturday, a Chevron spokesperson said the company is "prepared to work constructively with the US government during this period, leveraging our experience and presence to strengthen US energy security."
Other oil behemoths, some of which helped bankroll Trump's presidential campaign, are likely licking their chops—even if they've been mostly quiet in the wake of the US attack, which was widely condemned as unlawful and potentially catastrophic for the region. Amnesty International said Saturday that "the stated US intention to run Venezuela and control its oil resources" likely "constitutes a violation of international law."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos."
Thomas O'Donnell, an energy and geopolitical strategist, told Reuters that "the company that probably will be very interested in going back [to Venezuela] is Conoco," noting that an international arbitration tribunal has ordered Caracas to pay the company around $10 billion for alleged "unlawful expropriation" of oil investments.
The Houston Chronicle reported that "Exxon, America’s largest oil company, which has for years grown its presence in South America, would be among the most likely US oil companies to tap Venezuela’s deep oil reserves. The company, along with fellow Houston giant ConocoPhillips, had a number of failed contract attempts with Venezuela under Maduro and former President Hugo Chavez."
Elizabeth Bast, executive director of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement Saturday that the Trump administration's escalation in Venezuela "follows a historic playbook: undermine leftist governments, create instability, and clear the path for extractive companies to profit."
"The most powerful multinational fossil fuel corporations stand to benefit from these aggressions, and US oil and gas companies are poised to exploit the chaos and carve up one of the world's most oil-rich territories," said Bast. "The US must stop treating Latin America as a resource colony. The Venezuelan people, not US oil executives, must shape their country’s future."
US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that the president's own words make plain that his attack on Venezuela and attempt to impose his will there are "about trying to grab Venezuela's oil for Trump's billionaire buddies."
In a statement, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) echoed that sentiment, calling Trump's assault on Venezuela "rank imperialism."
"They have spoken openly about controlling Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest in the world," said Sanders. "It recalls the darkest chapters of US interventions in Latin America, which have left a terrible legacy. It will and should be condemned by the democratic world."
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," said Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro, said in a televised address Saturday that "we will never again be a colony of any empire," defying the Trump administration's plan to indefinitely control Venezuela's government and exploit its vast oil reserves.
“We are determined to be free,” declared Rodríguez, who demanded that the US release Maduro from custody and said he is still Venezuela's president.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," she added.
Rodríguez's defiant remarks came after US President Donald Trump claimed he is "designating various people" to run Venezuela's government, suggested American troops could be deployed, and threatened a "second wave" of attacks on the country if its political officials don't bow to the Trump administration's demands.
Trump also threatened "all political and military figures in Venezuela," warning that "what happened to Maduro can happen to them." Maduro is currently detained in Brooklyn and facing fresh US charges.
Rodríguez's public remarks contradicted the US president's claim that she privately pledged compliance with the Trump administration's attempts to control Venezuela's political system and oil infrastructure. The interim president delivered her remarks alongside top Venezuelan officials, including legislative and judicial leaders, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a projection of unity in the face of US aggression.
"Doesn’t feel like a nation that is ready to let Donald Trump and Marco Rubio 'run it,'" said US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who condemned the Trump administration for "starting an illegal war with Venezuela that Americans didn’t ask for and has nothing to do with our security."