

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.
When we think of Ecuador, the first thing that may come to mind are the Galapagos Islands--a place out of history, where Charles Darwin thought big thoughts amidst giant tortoises, iguanas, and finches.
For others, Ecuador may conjure images of the Amazon or the Andes, mangroves or rainforest. All of these ecosystems and species are wonderous, and yet they remain under threat.
In 2008, Ecuador took the extraordinary step of enshrining the legal rights of nature--or Pachamama--in its national constitution. It was the first country to do so.
It may not seem surprising that Ecuador, with these extraordinary ecosystems and biodiversity, would be a world leader in protecting them.
In 2008, Ecuador took the extraordinary step of enshrining the legal rights of nature--or Pachamama--in its national constitution. It was the first country to do so. And in so doing, it established the highest legal protections for nature that exist in Western law.
As a person privileged to have participated in that process, I continue to marvel that the nation took that step. It's never easy to go first.
Over a decade later, as we work in a range of countries to advance the rights of nature, we are witnessing a significant shift in how people, civil society, governments, and even courts think about nature and humankind's relationship to her.
We have now seen national laws securing rights of the natural world enacted in Uganda, New Zealand, and Bolivia. In Colombia, courts have recognized legal rights to "protection, preservation, maintenance and restoration" for the Amazon region, the Atrato River, paramos, and other ecosystems. Courts in India and Bangladesh have similarly recognized rights of river and other threatened ecosystems. In the United States and Brazil, dozens of local municipalities have enacted rights of nature laws. Tribal nations have adopted laws and resolutions recognizing rights of rivers, species, and nature. And, rights of nature legislation has been introduced into parliaments in Sweden, Philippines, and Australia.
This is a growing movement, focused on transforming how nature is treated by legal systems - from an object whose use and exploitation is codified and legitimized by human laws - to nature being recognized as a subject of rights, including rights to exist, flourish, regenerate, evolve, and be restored.
This transformation in how we treat nature under the law is ever more important as we witness overlapping environmental crises around the world. This includes the dying off of coral reefs, species extinction rates that are far beyond natural background rates, and of course, climate change.
In the face of this, there is a growing chorus of people, institutions, and governments shouting "Enough is enough, bastante es bastante!" Courts are joining their voices, as did Colombia's Constitutional Court, which declared that it's time for humankind to take a new path forward before "it's too late."
Rights of Nature Court Cases
Since the ratification of Ecuador's new constitution in September 2008, there have been numerous cases that have been brought in court to enforce and defend the constitutional rights of nature. Importantly, Article 71 of the constitution provides the people of Ecuador with the legal authority to go to court to enforce the rights of nature. This means that if, for example, a river is being harmed by human activity, an individual can file an action in court to attempt to stop the harm and restore the river. This is exactly what happened with the Vilcabamba River, the first rights of nature case decided in Ecuador, in which the river was being harmed by road construction.
The 2015 Marmeza case involved the revocation of a permit to conduct shrimp farming in a fragile mangrove ecosystem within the Ecological Reserve of Cayapas-Mataje. The Constitutional Court reversed the provincial court's ruling, citing its failure to consider the impacts on the rights of nature, and sending the case back down to the lower court for reconsideration. In perhaps a foreshadowing of how the Court may rule going forward, in the Marmeza, case the Court wrote:
"...all the State's actions, as well as those of individuals, must be done in observance and adherence with the rights of nature."
Over the past year, and in particular over the past several months, the Constitutional Court - the highest court in the land - has selected several rights of nature cases for review. The Court has indicated that it seeks to provide "content" and standards for the rights of nature.
In May, the Court selected a case involving mining within a protected forest called Los Cedros. Impacts on the area's extraordinary biodiversity, including at-risk species such as the spider monkey and the Andean bear, are of great concern. As the Court explained in its selection of the case, "(T)he case is novel because it would allow the Constitutional Court to rule on the content of the rights of nature."
In March, the Court selected a separate case involving mining. The case involves mining concessions being issued in the Podocarpus-El Condor Biosphere Reserve and Cerro Plateado Biological Reserve - protected areas in the southern part of Ecuador.
In choosing to review this case, the Court explained that it would provide an opportunity to consider the rights of nature involving extraction activities near protected areas, as well as "the responsibilities of the entities in charge to monitor and follow up on these activities."
In addition, in 2019, the Constitutional Court selected a rights of nature case involving the Dulcepamba River. This involves a hydroelectric energy project on the river which caused flooding and death of residents of the community of San Pablo de Amali community. In choosing this case, the Court explained that it would consider the impacts on the rights of nature from the exploitation of natural resources.
Implementing the Rights of Nature
As we await the rulings of the Court, we continue to work in Ecuador on ways to implement the rights of nature. This includes providing inputs to the Court and the National Assembly on developing content and standards for enforcement and practical ways to shift environmental governance to uphold the constitutional rights of nature.
Constitutional rights are the highest form of legal protection. Protecting those rights is foremost. This means that government actions are to be consistent with and uphold constitutional rights. To achieve this requires making meaningful changes in law and policy.
Thus far, Ecuador has included some mention of the rights of nature within the country's Organic Code of the Environment (CODA). Article 6 of the Code states, "Nature's rights are those recognized in the Constitution which include the integral respect of their existence and the maintenance and regeneration of their life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes, as well as restoration."
By comparison, Article 5 of the CODA describes numerous elements that comprise the human right to a healthy environment (which is secured in Article 14 of the 2008 Ecuador Constitution). For the rights of nature, the CODA leaves this to the environmental ministry.
The result is that there has not yet been a strong step in the direction of implementation of the rights of nature. Meaning, that environmental decision making in Ecuador - including how the central government reviews and considers activities and practices that will impact nature - is not yet consistent with the rights recognized at the constitutional level.
What might this look like in practice? Consider the idea of a "Rights of Nature EIS" (environmental impact statement) in which the first step in a government decision making process is to determine if a proposed activity (a mine, a forestry project, etc.) is consistent with and upholding of the constitutional rights. If it is found to be so, then the proposed project could move onto the next phase of review.
It is more important than ever to meaningfully implement and enforce the rights of nature. In selecting the recent cases, the Constitutional Court has taken a significant step in making real the promise of these rights.
To learn more about Ecuador's constitutional rights of nature and the recent selection of cases by the Constitutional Court, watch this June webinar with our Ecuador attorney, Hugo Echeverria.
Between the forest fires, plagues, and locusts, it's beginning to look like humanity has finally breached the "seventh seal," initiating a showdown of biblical proportions. Unlike the holy version, however, this time humankind has only itself to blame.
In a statement released in June, leaders at the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Wildlife Federation International declared that "pandemics such as coronavirus are the result of humanity's destruction of nature. . . the illegal and unsustainable wildlife trade as well as the devastation of forests and other wild places are the driving force behind the increasing number of diseases leaping from wildlife to humans."
Will the virus known as SARS-Cov-2 be the tipping point for humanity - the point at which we realize that our incessant bulldozing of the natural environment must end because we are destroying ourselves along with it?
Probably not. If a vaccine comes along, it's likely that the "2020 Coronavirus Pandemic" will recede in our memories just like the "1918 Flu Pandemic." The phrase "returning to normal" can already be heard on the lips of governors across the U.S., from Oregon to Florida, and elected leaders in-between.
Returning to normal, of course, means returning to an economy fueled by the belief that endless growth is possible, that the planet exists solely to fuel our iPhones, our data centers, our new "Space Force," and our seemingly endless fascination with the Kardashians.
Returning to normal, of course, means returning to an economy fueled by the belief that endless growth is possible, that the planet exists solely to fuel our iPhones, our data centers, our new "Space Force," and our seemingly endless fascination with the Kardashians. It means returning to a way of life in which our core beliefs rest comfortably uncontested - including the notion that our needs and wants should rightfully supplant all others, in the name of economic expansion, population growth, and human "exceptionalism."
It's a "normal" in which the best that humanity can offer in the name of "protecting the environment" is a system in which the biggest corporations - from manufacturing, to agribusiness, to oil and gas extraction - have the biggest voice in writing environmental regulations. Regulations which, ostensibly, are supposed to regulate their own industries. It's a normal in which those industries have more power and standing than the people or natural environment affected by their decisions.
It's a normal in which oceans continue to acidify, the forever extinction of plants and animals accelerates, forests are clear-cut and razed, mountaintops are blown off, microplastics are consumed by the smallest creatures at the ocean's deepest depths, over three hundred synthetic chemicals are now found in every child, and Siberia boils.
It's a normal in which those in power stay in power by diverting our gaze from the dominos that are falling, to reinforce our belief that everything is just fine. They know that by the time enough people worry about these "existential" threats, it will be too late to make the difficult decisions necessary to turn it around.
Turning it around means changing almost everything we know. It doesn't mean no fracking for oil and gas, it means eliminating their extraction. It doesn't mean expanding production of power by leveling mountains for industrial wind farms, it means actually reducing the amount of power that we use.
It means consuming less and using less. And when have you heard any politician running on a platform of anything but promises of "more!"?
If we're not capable of controlling ourselves, then we need rules that empower those who care to restrain those who don't.
Rights of Nature
Taking steps to recognize that nature, and yes, the planet itself, has certain rights; and empowering those who care about nature to step into the shoes of rivers, oceans, forests, and mountains to legally defend those rights in front of courts and environmental agencies, would be one big step for nature, one small step for humankind.
Using laws to limit our ability to harm basic environmental functions - the ability of waterways to provide clean water, the ability of forests to provide clean air and absorb carbon - provides a way in which people can stop others from interfering with those basic functions upon which all life relies.
Our environmental regulatory system, it seems, has merely regulated the rate at which the natural environment will disappear.
Why legal rights? Rights provide the highest form of protection for certain values. Since we value free speech, we protect that speech through the creation of a protected right to speak (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). Because we value the privacy of our homes, we protect that privacy by recognizing a right against certain searches of our homes by police (Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).
In addition to the argument that the essentialness of natural systems - for our survival, as well as the survival of other life on the planet - requires the highest level of protection that the law can provide, rights of nature also makes sense for another reason: because nothing else has worked.
Nearly two generations after landmark environmental laws for clean water and clean air were enacted in the U.S., with similar laws adopted around the globe, the state of the environment is worse now by almost every major statistic. While rivers don't (routinely) catch on fire anymore, it should be apparent to anyone paying attention that we are on a long, steady march to nowhere.
Our environmental regulatory system, it seems, has merely regulated the rate at which the natural environment will disappear.
Frustration with this status quo has led many to embrace a new frontier of environmental law. Beginning in 2006, cities, towns, and counties across the U.S. began passing local laws recognizing the legally-protected rights of ecosystems to "exist, flourish, regenerate, and be restored." They were driven by specific threats of siting toxic waste dumps, fracking for shale gas, corporate water withdrawals, new high voltage power lines, and aerial pesticide spraying.
In 2008, the people of Ecuador created a new precedent, overwhelmingly ratifying a new national constitution recognizing legal rights of nature, or Pachamama.
Over the last five years, courts in India, Colombia, and Bangladesh have declared that rivers and other ecosystems have rights, and political parties across the globe - including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in the United States - have declared their support for rights of nature laws.
Tribal nations have also led the way. The White Earth Nation of Ojibwe has adopted a law recognizing the rights of manoomin (wild rice), and the Menominee, Yurok, Nez Perce, and Ponca Nations have adopted laws and resolutions recognizing the rights of rivers and other ecosystems. As they have expressed, this represents both an issue of sovereignty, as well as an alignment of tribal laws with long-held indigenous respect for nature.
Since it is beyond thinkable in the U.S. that the federal and state governments - which rely on largesse provided by the largest industries of our day - will suddenly find themselves in favor of a system of law that threatens that, a grassroots movement must emerge which becomes powerful enough to force them to do so. Part of that movement must also force these changes at the local level, by continuing to recognize the rights of nature through local, municipal governments.
In the end, this is the beginning of a long journey to rediscover our place on this planet. As Derrick Jensen, an environmental author, writes, "If we wish to stop the atrocities, we need merely to step away from our isolation. There is a whole world waiting for us, ready to welcome us home."
Two years after spilling 407,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota, the Keystone Pipeline erupted again. In November, a North Dakota portion of the pipeline leaked another 380,000 gallons - adding to the millions of gallons of crude oil that have spilled from pipelines over the last decade, as Undark has reported.
As the climate crisis worsens, the fossil fuel industry has clearly messaged its apathy by continuing to pollute the planet. But these horrific leaks aren't simply one-off "incidents." They reveal a long history of oppression on communities of color and the planet.
Colonial economies have depended on the extraction of natural resources and the oppression of people of color as early as the 16th century. This process took many forms - mining for gold and silver in the Global South, the creation of plantations, and the enslavement of Black and Brown people.
Dina Gilio-Whitaker, the author of As Long As Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice From Colonization to Standing Rock, notes how the 19th-century codification of racist ideologies, like Manifest Destiny and the Christian Doctrine of Discovery, allowed the U.S. to assume "ultimate dominion over the lands of America."
These ideologies became the backbone of false moral and legal justifications of genocide and slavery, which provided the land and labor for massive extractive operations like the Gold Rush. As historian Howard Zinn states, the removal of Indigenous communities was "necessary for the opening of the vast American lands to agriculture, to commerce, to markets, to money, to the development of modern capitalistic economy."
As long the foundation of racism, and genocide is not addressed, corporations will continue to benefit from ecological destruction. Nothing has changed today. The legacy of genocide and ecological destruction continues to live and thrive in the present-day global economy, thanks to the greed of extractive industries and the state power that protects them from community resistance.
In Honduras, water defenders in the community of Tocoa have been killed and imprisoned for organizing against mining companies. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro's right-wing neoliberal government is helping corporations with their deforestation and land grabs, which are displacing Indigenous communities in the Amazon. In the United States, water defenders organizing against the Dakota Access Pipeline were arrested and violently repressed by a militarized police presence protecting the pipelines. Meanwhile Indigenous protesters opposing the expansion of the leaking Keystone Pipeline are criminalized.
Unfortunately, this is only a minuscule list of examples. But as long the foundation of racism, and genocide is not addressed, corporations will continue to benefit from ecological destruction.
Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have managed to become the top three companies responsible for the climate crisis we live today, thanks to neoliberal policies that have allowed them to displace Indigenous communities. And they don't act alone. They have plenty of accomplices in the financial sector.
According to a recent report from the Indigenous Environmental Network, 33 of the world's largest banks have financed fossil fuel industries to the tune of $1.9 trillion since the 2016 Paris Agreement. JPMorgan Chase alone - the largest fossil fuel financier by a wide margin - poured $196 billion into these extractive projects, including fossil fuel expansion.
According to The Guardian, Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street manage a combined $300 billion in fossil fuel funding. Put together, all three managers are responsible for the management of nearly 10 billion barrels of crude oil alone, responsible for up to 900 million tons of CO2 emissions.
The fight against the climate crisis has been going on for more than 500 years. After all, colonialism, slavery, and extraction are three faces of the same ogre - capitalism - that continues to devour our planet today. And recognizing these intersections is crucial. As researcher Adriana Gomez Bonilla writes in El Cambio Climatico: Alternativas Desde La Autonomia Zapatista, any climate action that doesn't connect the historic links between the carbon economy, colonialism, capitalism and ecological destruction would be oppressive to Indigenous communities.
Indigenous communities have always considered the relationship between humans, living organisms and Earth to be sacred. From the mexica Tlaltecuhtli, the Lakota Unci Maka, and the Inca Pachamama to the Vedic Prithvi Mata and the Akan Aasase Yaa, virtually all Indigenous communities have always had a concept of Mother Earth as a living organism we must respect - a harmonious relationship disrupted by capitalism and the greed for profit.
Even after centuries of oppression, Indigenous communities have protected, and cared for ecosystems, showing the path forward for treating the climate crisis we are facing today. "Community approaches...informed by indigenous knowledge and local knowledge" the UN's IPCC 2018 landmark report notes "can accelerate the wide-scale behavior changes consistent with adapting to and limiting global warming."
But using Indigenous knowledge to tackle the climate crisis isn't enough. Any climate solution must be centered on Indigenous liberation.
As we continue to address the climate crisis systematically, we can't turn a blind eye to the draconian legacy of genocide and slavery caused by the state and by extractive corporations. Any climate action must hold them accountable and prioritize the decolonization, land restoration and environmental self-determination of Indigenous communities.
Climate change is a symptom of a malevolent virus borne out of capitalism and colonialism. And to heal the planet, Indigenous liberation provides a cure.
More than 800 academics, activists, and public figures published an open letter Sunday demanding that the United States and the international community end its support for the right-wing, anti-Indigenous regime in Bolivia that seized power following the military's ouster of former President Evo Morales.
"What is happening in Bolivia is highly undemocratic and we are witnessing some of the worst human rights violations at the hands of the military and the police since the transition to civilian government in the early 1980s," reads the open letter, which was signed by renowned linguist Noam Chomsky, activist and academic Angela Davis, journalist John Pilger, and other prominent human rights advocates.
"We are outraged by the Anez regime's violations of Bolivians' political, civil, and human rights, and by the deplorable use of deadly violence that has led to a mounting death toll."
See the full list of signatories and read the letter here.
"We condemn the violence in the strongest terms, and call on the U.S. and other foreign governments to immediately cease to recognize and provide any support to this regime," the letter continued. "We urge the media to do more to document the mounting human rights abuses being committed by the Bolivian state."
The open letter, first published in The Guardian, came hours after the Bolivian legislature passed a bill to annul the results of the October 20 presidential election--which Morales won in the first round--and set the stage for new elections.
The academics and activists raised alarm at the authoritarian and racist behavior of Jeanine Anez, who declared herself president just days after Morales--Bolivia's first indigenous president--was ousted by the military on November 10.
In an interview with The Guardian Sunday, Anez's interior minister Arturo Murillo threatened to jail Morales for the rest of his life. Morales is currently in Mexico, where he was granted asylum amid fears for his safety.
"Anez represents the radical-right sector of the Bolivian opposition, which has taken advantage of the power vacuum created by Morales' ouster to consolidate control over the state. Anez appears to have full support of Bolivia's military and police," the letter states. "Equally disturbing has been a resurgence of public anti-Indigenous racism over the course of the last week."
As Common Dreams reported last week, observers on the ground in Bolivia have voiced fears that the military's ongoing repression of Indigenous anti-coup protesters could spark a full-blown civil war. More than 30 people have been killed and hundreds more injured since Morales was overthrown earlier this month.
"The military has guns and a license to kill; we have nothing," cried a mother whose son was shot during a massacre in El Alto last week. "Please, tell the international community to come here and stop this."
Read the full open letter:
Evo Morales--President of Bolivia from the MAS party (Movimiento al Socialismo, Movement Towards Socialism)--was forced to resign on November 10, in what many observers view as a coup. In the wake of Morales' resignation, there has been mounting chaos and violence. What is happening in Bolivia is highly undemocratic and we are witnessing some of the worst human rights violations at the hands of the military and the police since the transition to civilian government in the early 1980s. We condemn the violence in the strongest terms, and call on the U.S. and other foreign governments to immediately cease to recognize and provide any support to this regime. We urge the media to do more to document the mounting human rights abuses being committed by the Bolivian state.
On November 10, Morales' vice president and the heads of both chambers of Congress also resigned in the face of threats of violence against top MAS officials unless they left office. The pressure campaign included the burning of MAS officials' houses and kidnapping of relatives. This paved the way for the ascension to the presidency of Jeanine Anez (a conservative Roman Catholic opposition leader from northeastern Bolivia, widely accused of holding racist views) on Tuesday November 12.
The circumstances surrounding the rapid-fire resignations makes Anez's assumption of power highly questionable. There are serious doubts about the constitutional legitimacy of her succession. Without the forced resignations by MAS officials, Anez would not have had even a minimally plausible constitutional path to the presidency, as she was serving as Vice-President of the Senate, a position that is not in the line of presidential succession within the constitution. Additionally, Anez, whose party received only 4% of the vote in the most recent October 20 election, declared herself President in a Senate session lacking quorum, with MAS senators who make up the legislature's majority boycotting partly due to fears for their physical safety.
Anez represents the radical-right sector of the Bolivian opposition, which has taken advantage of the power vacuum created by Morales' ouster to consolidate control over the state. Anez appears to have full support of Bolivia's military and police. Over the course of the last week the military and police have engaged in significant and increasing repression against protests, which have been largely, though not entirely, peaceful. By the night of November 13, La Paz and Cochabamba city center streets were empty of anyone but the police, military, and self-appointed neighborhood militias. There has been ongoing looting, burning of buildings, and violence on the streets and protesters have been met with much repression. In a highly disturbing move, Anez issued an executive order on November 15 exempting the military from criminal responsibilities related to the use of force. Anez has said Morales will face prosecution if he returns to Bolivia. And she has also floated the idea of banning the MAS party--which is undoubtedly still Bolivia's largest and most popular political force--from participation in future elections.
Equally disturbing has been a resurgence of public anti-Indigenous racism over the course of the last week. Shortly after Anez was declared President, she thrust a massive Bible into the air and proclaimed "The Bible has returned to the palace!" Three days earlier on the day of Morales' ouster, Luis Fernando Camacho, a far-right Santa Cruz businessman and ally of Anez, went to the presidential palace and knelt before a Bible placed on top of the Bolivian flag. A pastor accompanying him announced to the press, "The Pachamama will never return to the palace." Opposition activists burned the wiphala flag (an important symbol of Indigenous identity) on various occasions. These are extremist views that threaten to reverse decades of gains in ethnic and cultural inclusion in Bolivia.
Despite increasing violence and repression, diverse social forces have been demonstrating around the country to condemn the government of Anez. It is important to note that they include not only MAS supporters but also a broad swath of popular sectors that repudiate the rightwing seizure of the state. Thousands of largely unarmed protesters, mostly coca-leaf growers, gathered peacefully in Sacaba, a town in the department of Cochabamba, on the morning of November 15. After unsuccessful negotiations to march to the town square, protesters tried to cross a bridge into the city of Cochabamba, heavily guarded by police and military troops. Soldiers and police fired tear gas canisters and live bullets into the crowd. During the two-hour confrontation, nine protesters were shot dead, and at least 122 were wounded. Most of the dead and injured in Sacaba suffered bullet wounds. Guadalberto Lara, the director of the town's Mexico Hospital, told the Associated Press it is the worst violence he has seen in his 30-year career. Families of the victims held a candlelight vigil late Friday in Sacaba. A tearful woman put her hand on a casket and asked, "Is this what you call democracy? Killing us as if we counted for nothing?"
We denounce the repressive state violence unfolding in Bolivia. We also voice our concern that the international media have not been able to effectively cover the human rights violations in Bolivia as they too have been met by the violence of the military. On November 15, an Al Jazeera journalist covering protests in La Paz was gassed by the police in the streets and could no longer hold her microphone or camera. Although she later backed down, Anez's new minister of communications told the press that the government will not tolerate "seditious" media. This environment, in which freedom of the press is not only not guaranteed, but threatened by the government, has resulted in an alarming lack of coverage of the gross human rights violations being committed by the armed forces against civilian unarmed protesters.
We are outraged by the Anez regime's violations of Bolivians' political, civil, and human rights, and by the deplorable use of deadly violence that has led to a mounting death toll of protesters and countless serious injuries. We call upon the international community to immediately and publicly condemn these acts of violence. We ask international human rights bodies and organizations to impartially investigate and document the acts of violence committed by government agents. We demand that the international community ensure that this de facto regime, which is at best highly dubious and viewed by many as lacking any legitimacy, protect the lives of peaceful protesters, respect the rights of all to freedom of assembly and speech, and strictly abide by international norms on the use of force in situations of civilian violence. We demand that the U.S. and other foreign governments cease all support to this regime and withhold international recognition until free and fair elections--including all political parties--are held, repressive violence ceases, and the fundamental human rights of all Bolivians are respected.
After President Evo Morales' resignation on Sunday, November 10, violence has been spreading around Bolivia. Following the "shock doctrine" formula, the neoliberal, racist and revanchist Right is quickly taking advantage of the political chaos. Bolivia urgently needs international solidarity to protect basic human rights. However, we must also challenge the simplistic myths spread by many people on the international Left, which deny any of Evo Morales' responsibility for the crisis. In the following, I share four observations about Bolivia that I believe are important for us all.
1) It's not as simple as just being a "coup"
As we're speaking, right-wing elites, religious fundamentalists and foreign imperialistic forces are seizing power in Bolivia. On Tuesday, November 12, before right-wing senator Jeanine Anez proclaimed herself as the state's president, she entered the government building carrying a bible, screaming, "Now, the bible returns to the presidential palace!" Directly following Morales' resignation, other right-wing leaders had intruded the same building on Sunday, tearing down the Indigenous wiphala flag, claiming: "Pachamama will never return to the palace. Bolivia belongs to Christ!" In 2013, Anez herself had tweeted, "I dream of a Bolivia without satanic Indigenous rituals. The cities aren't for the Indios, they should go to the high plains!"
After Morales' resignation on Sunday, both right-wing squads and Morales supporters have looted and vandalized. Police and military have repressed marches of mostly Indigenous people protesting the right-wing takeover, some of them in brutal ways. On Friday, police opened fire at a march in Sacaba near Cochabamba, killing five and injuring dozens.
On the other hand, Morales is not as innocent as many on the Left try to portray him. His stubborn attachment to power, increasingly autocratic tendencies and arrogance towards criticism, displayed over the past years, intensified a climate of polarization which right-wing forces could now readily exploit. His unwillingness to respect the results of the referendum on February 21 2018--in which a majority of Bolivians rejected his request to run for a fourth presidential term--pushed the country into crisis. Morales' former UN ambassador Pablo Solon writes, "Evo Morales could have finished his third electoral mandate on January 22 2020 as a very popular president and the possibility of running for--and even winning--the 2024 elections, if he had not forced through his re-election for a fourth term."
The mass protests engulfing the entire country following the October 20 election have been a broad popular movement, driven mainly by young people in the cities, rising in anger against the arrogance and growing autocratic tendencies of the Morales administration. Far from being ideologically coherent, this popular resistance has been an eruption of different types of anger that were hiding under the surface of society: To some extent, the class hatred and racist revanchism of the traditional white elites, but to a larger extent the general anger of disappointed hope.
When Morales got into power in 2005, he was a historic icon of hope for the majority of marginalized and Indigenous Bolivians that have been brutally oppressed since the times of Spanish colonization. His "process of change" started out as an auspicious world-leading project of progressive societal transformation, but got stuck in internal contradictions, gradual adaptation to capitalist economics, corruption and abuse of power.
Morales' condemnation of the entire post-election protest movement as a reactionary, right-wing coup, acting on behalf of US imperialism, and his calls for violence against protesters (which some of his followers acted on) further worsened an already heated climate of societal division. This polarizing discourse actually provided the misogynist, racist, religiously fundamentalist right--increasingly embodied by Luis Fernando Camacho--with the necessary ammunition of hatred to instrumentalize and use this movement for their own ends. When you go down the path of hatred, the most hateful will always win.
For years, Morales had discredited much of the criticism and resistance against his policies--many times coming from progressive parts of society, like the Indigenous resistance against the TIPNIS highway crossing into Brazil through pristine rainforest--as reactionary, right-wing sabotage of his allegedly progressive, anti-imperialist government. Thereby, he gradually alienated and immobilized the progressive social movements that once were his base of power--the very groups that could now stand up united against this horrific right-wing takeover.
2) Morales championed "Mother Earth" rhetoric abroad while pushing extractivism at home
Despite all legitimate criticism, Morales continues to enjoy popular support, as his achievements have been remarkable. In his 14 years in power, he radically improved the lives of millions of Bolivia's poor and Indigenous people. During his government, poverty rates came down from 59.9% in 2006 to 34.6% in 2018 and extreme poverty rates fell from 37.7% to 15.2% in the same time. Indigenous people regained political participation and autonomy after 500 years of oppression. Natural resources were renationalized and revenues spent on social, educational and health programs for the benefit of the people--not just a small wealthy elite.
At the same time, his government was unable to overcome fundamental contradictions. While becoming internationally known for his radical anti-capitalist rhetoric and for promoting the "rights of Mother Earth," Morales not only operated within a capitalist framework, he actually boosted GDP-focused development to finance social programs. He opened up Bolivia for a large expansion of new mining projects and hydroelectric dams and allowed the Amazon rainforest to be burned and slashed for the expansion of soy fields and cattle pastures. As the world exploded in indignation over the Amazon fires in Bolsonaro's Brazil this summer, hardly anyone recognized that the same ecocide was committed in Bolivia too--under the reins of an Indigenous president.
When authentic hope for radical transformation is disappointed, indifference, disbelief, frustration and anger ensue--and this is the breeding ground for totalitarianism.
3) The uncritical solidarity of the international Left is of no use to the people of Bolivia
The way in which many of the international Left glorify Morales and ignore his government's contradictions reflects a dangerous unwillingness to learn from mistakes made in actually building a socialist society.
By repeating the simplistic narratives of Morales and his party, portraying themselves as the heroic innocent victims of imperialist and right-wing aggression, many on the international Left not only perpetuate a dreadful polarization, but maintain a deceptive myth: that any truly emancipatory government or movement will sooner or later be destroyed by the overpowering system of globalized capitalism. But the truth is, Morales' demise was also the result of the contradictions in his own government, his conflicts with his own progressive base and ultimately, the inability to live up to his radical promise for system change.
4) Moving beyond the projection on governments, we must ask ourselves: How can system change actually come about?
The fall of the last surviving leader of the "pink tide" is a true moment of reckoning for the international Left.
For the countless millions they mobilized, it is sobering that none of these progressive governments has actually been able to leave the system of extractive capitalism behind. However, I believe Morales didn't fail because of lacking intention, ambition and intelligence, because of bad character--but because he couldn't. It turned out to be an impossible path; his hands were tied.
I think it's time to move beyond the obsession with single political leaders (whether positive or negative) which is driving much of the divisive polarization of our time. Both their glorification and condemnation is distracting us from the real question we need to ask: How can systemic change actually succeed? We have to answer this question if we want to still prevent the fascist takeover at the end of late-stage capitalism, which threatens to turn the energy of global rebellion into a dystopian force.
This entire system of dominance and nation-states is constructed in a way that it adapts you to its principles the higher you rise and the longer you stay in it, tending to corrupt those rising to more powerful positions to follow patriarchal patterns of top-down leadership.
At this crucial time of social and ecological disintegration, we do need progressive governments. But we must no longer pretend that they could get anywhere left to their own devices, surrounded by a system hostile to their intentions. We need strong alliances between progressive governments, social movements and grassroots projects building the infrastructure for the inevitable transition to a regenerative post-capitalist world. If those three act in concert and sustain relations of mutual support and critical solidarity, they together can become a powerful motor of change.
Regaining autonomy is key to system change. We need grassroots projects establishing alternative social, ecological and economic structures from the bottom up, which restore power to decentralized communities. This is, in large part, a path of reversing the damage and trauma inflicted by colonization and modern-day capitalism; in other words, of learning from the Indigenous wisdom of Earth-based cultures that have never broken their relationship with the Earth and the community of all Life.
To break out of the exploitative logic of capitalism, communities and regions will need to tap into the regenerative logic of nature, establishing ways of cooperating with the principles of living systems. By restoring ecosystems and water cycles and using the abundant energy of the sun, local communities and regional networks can make water, energy and food freely available to all its members.
By building social structures of trust and mutual support, by opposing globalized pseudo-culture with the creativity of authentic cultural expression, by reviving ancient tribal traditions, communities can restore their natural function to be the fundamental building blocks of social life.
As long as we don't address patriarchal structures and abusive power relations between the sexes, both politically and in our interpersonal relationships, the fundamental structures of domination will continue to perpetuate themselves on the political stage and violence will continue to be the way of resolving conflict. Many Indigenous cultures have honored the balance of masculine and feminine powers as essential to maintaining the healthy balance of human community. To leave the system of domination behind, we cannot escape addressing the psychological, social and spiritual structures, which make domination, exploitation and violence so appealing to people, independent of their political ideology.
The long-term success of any progressive movement relies on transforming the fundamental structures of society, from power over to power with, from centralization to autonomy, from domination to cooperation, from patriarchy to partnership. If that is ignored, they run at risk of suffering the same destiny as the "process of change" in Bolivia. Yet if that is embraced and such cooperation between governments, social movements and grassroots projects does indeed succeed, the "divide and conquer" strategies of imperialistic powers can no longer stop the social revolution.
The United States and the Organization of American States can add another coup to their scorecards, even if U.S. media refuses to recognize it as such.
This time it was in Bolivia, where President Evo Morales was forced to step down on November 10, following weeks of pressure and extremist violence. Morales resigned under duress in order to avoid bloodshed, and emphasized that his "responsibility as an indigenous president of all Bolivians is to prevent the coup-mongers from persecuting my trade unionist brothers and sisters, abusing and kidnapping their families, burning the homes of governors, of legislators, of city councilors... to prevent them from continuing to harass and persecute my indigenous brothers and sisters and the leaders and authorities" of the MAS (Movement towards Socialism, Morales' political party).
His resignation has yet to take effect, as it must be approved by the legislature. This did not stop opposition party member Jeanine Anez, the Senate's second vice president, from declaring herself interim president, further proving that what's happened is a coup. MAS legislators, who have a majority in both chambers, have been unable to attend parliamentary sessions as security forces have not guaranteed their safety.
Currently, indigenous and labor movements are on the streets in several Bolivian cities, demanding that President Morales be reinstated. Meanwhile, police forces are ripping the Wiphala flag (a flag that represents the indigenous peoples of the Andes) from their uniforms and from government buildings. Coup leader Luis Camacho entered the government palace with a Bolivian flag and a bible; upon leaving, one of his supporters, a Christian pastor, declared that "Pachamama will never return to the palace... Bolivia belongs to Christ." (Pachamama is an Andean goddess representing Mother Earth.) The coup and its aftermath are not just a rejection of President Morales, but of Bolivia's indigenous majority and the social gains of the last 13 years.
Morales' resignation came hours after the head of the armed forces and the chief of Bolivia's police "suggested" that he resign. The head of the army, General Williams Kaliman Romero, was Bolivia's military attache in Washington from 2013 to 2016. The chief of police, General Vladimir Calderon, was Bolivia's police attache in Washington until December 2018. As attaches they would have been in constant communication with the Pentagon and other agencies; it is no stretch of the imagination to wonder if they were still in contact with their U.S. counterparts as the overthrow of the Morales government unfolded.
The coup was carried out over three weeks after the October 20 elections, but it was months, if not years in the making. The United States first began targeting Evo Morales in 2001--five years before being elected president--when the US Embassy in La Paz warned that his political base needed to be weakened. Afterwards, USAID began funding right-wing political parties and "civil society" organizations that would feature heavily in attempts to overthrow President Morales.
The first such attempt came in 2008, two years after Morales was first elected president and days after he survived a recall referendum with 67.4% of the vote. On that occasion, coup plotters in eastern Bolivia, a region rich in minerals where the white minority population is concentrated, attempted to secede from the country. According to the International Federation for Human Rights, the opposition in eastern Bolivia "promoted separatism and ethnically and socially based hatred through the Civic Committees (Comites Civicos), in particular the Pro-Santa Cruz Civic Committee." Luis Camacho, the millionaire coup leader with ties to paramilitaries, is the current president of this committee, which has received U.S. funding in the past.
The desire to overthrow Morales has existed for years, but more immediate plans were finalized in the weeks before the election. Bolivian media outlet Erbol published leaked audio of conversations held from October 8 and 10 between civic leaders, former military officials and opposition politicians who discussed "a plan for social unrest, before and after the general elections, with the aim of preventing President Evo Morales from remaining" in office. One opposition politician mentioned being in close contact with Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Bob Menendez.
The OAS also played an important role in stoking protests and ensuring that the coup was successful. On October 21, a day after the election, it issued a statement casting doubt on the process due to an "inexplicable" change in the trend of the vote count. This statement was thoroughly debunked by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which found that trend did not change and that Morales widened the gap over his rivals due to late reporting rural precincts, where he enjoys a tremendous advantage. A later statistical analysis by CEPR found that there was "no evidence that the election results were affected by irregularities or fraud." However, the damage was done: protestors took to the streets decrying electoral fraud. These claims were echoed by the State Department and Senator Rubio on Twitter.
After being invited by President Morales to conduct an audit, the results of which he promised to respect, the OAS instead opted to destabilize the country. The full electoral audit was initially due by November 12, but on November 10, a day after Morales announced that a coup was taking place and amid political violence throughout the country, the OAS decided to issue a preliminary audit. This report, which did not include data that could be independently verified, repeated the false claims of the October 21 statement and called for new elections. In response, Morales agreed to new elections and to replacing the board of the electoral body, yet this offer was rebuffed by coup leaders.
Rather than denounce the coup and insist that Morales be allowed to finish out his term (which ends in January), the OAS held a vote that refused to call it a coup, although several countries dissented. Mexico criticized the OAS for being "surprisingly quiet" given the violation of constitutional order, while Uruguay condemned the body's "double standard depending on antipathy or sympathy" for the government in question. Earlier in the day, Argentinian president-elect Alberto Fernandez said "what happened in Bolivia is a shame, the behavior of the OAS is shameful because the audit the OAS held is significant in its flimsiness and has conclusions that are absolutely manipulated."
It should be noted that the 2008 coup was neutralized in part because of the role played by UNASUR, the Union of South American Nations. This regional bloc has been severely debilitated in recent years as a direct result of State Department pressure and the willingness of right-wing Southern American presidents to give up on long-term regional integration plans for short-term political benefits. The decline of UNASUR and CELAC (the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States--another target of the State Department), coupled with the OAS's bias, leaves the region with no credible multilateral organization.
This is important, because the only way forward for Bolivia is to hold new elections, which will require independent electoral observation. Given that the OAS is unfit for such a role, the region should insist that the United Nations send an electoral mission. It is the only body that can carry this role out in an impartial manner.
Bolivia is at a flash point and measures have to be taken to reduce tensions. Its legislature must be allowed to function normally, which in practical terms means that the safety of MAS legislators and their families must be ensured. A gesture for MAS supporters would be to reinstate the president and vice president of the Senate and the president of the Chamber of Deputies (should they desire to be reinstated); all three resigned under duress during the weekend of the coup. Only then can the legislature decide whether to accept Morales' resignation. Finally, the MAS presidential candidate, whoever that ends up being, needs to receive guarantees for their safety and assurances from the international community that a MAS victory will be respected.
"We are all related; us, plants, animals, water, air, and soil. We are all related."
Driven by an endless hunger for power and control, colonial empires used violence to appropriate Indigenous land for mining and labor--a process that continues up to this day.
Asheninka Mino, a medicine man from the Indigenous community of Asheninka in Peru, repeated these words as we walked through the mountains of Mora, New Mexico. "To achieve peace is to achieve harmony with Pachamama (Mother Earth)--to respect it and nourish our relationship with her," he continued.
He was teaching undocumented youth the importance of being rooted as we organize for our immigrant communities.
Every year, I have the privilege to attend the New Mexico Dream Team's UndocuHealing Retreat--a weekend-long retreat focused on creating space for undocumented youth to process trauma and stress through Indigenous medicine and ceremonies.
Throughout these ceremonies, the concept of treating Mother Earth and others with respect is encapsulated in two philosophical terms: Mitakuye Oyasin and In Lack'ech. These phrases, respectively from the Lakota and Mayan traditions, encapsulate ancestral wisdom. They highlight the sacred relationship we hold with Mother Earth and others.
Nick Estes, in his book Our History Is The Future, notes that "these Indigenous ways of relating to human and other-than-human life exist in opposition to capitalism." Instead, capitalism sees humans and the sacred as "labor and commodities to be bought and sold."
And it is exactly this ideology that has displaced Indigenous communities for over 500 years.
Driven by an endless hunger for power and control, colonial empires used violence to appropriate Indigenous land for mining and labor--a process that continues up to this day. "Extractive projects materially dispossess Indigenous peoples of their lands to secure the future of the settler colonial nation," as Philip Son wrote recently for Society and Space.
In Brazil, for example, Indigenous leader Sonia Guajajara reports that aggression by predatory agricultural companies against indigenous people there "has been getting much worse under the anti-Indigenous government of Jair Bolsonaro, who normalizes, incites, and empowers violence against the environment and against us."
It is this same extractive economics that's causing climate change today, leaving the Global South most vulnerable to the climate crisis. Left unchecked, the phantom dream of never-ending development will mean genocide for natural ecosystems and Indigenous nations alike.
There was an old Lakota prophecy (pdf) that "a black snake will slither across the land, destroying sacred sites and poisoning the water before destroying the earth itself." According to Dallas Goldtooth, director of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), the black snake could represent not only the pipelines constructed across Indigenous lands, but also "the sickness of capitalism" itself, which casts a "shadow upon our heart and spirit of negativity, of dysfunction, of unhealthiness."
Global climate action is, thankfully, reaching a fever pitch. But climate policies that aren't rooted in Indigenous communities can end up causing many of the same oppressive outcomes as extraction.
Global climate action is, thankfully, reaching a fever pitch. But climate policies that aren't rooted in Indigenous communities can end up causing many of the same oppressive outcomes as extraction.
A great example is the United Nations REDD+ project, aimed at providing incentives to slow deforestation and to restore and conserve forests. Unfortunately, the project's reliance on privatization has undermined these goals.
According to an informative report (pdf) by IEN, projects that privatize forests in the name of mitigating climate change, like REDD+, "have resulted in militarization, evictions, fraud, disputes, conflicts, corruption, coercion, con men, crime, plantations and 30-100 year contracts, [and] deals with oil companies and other climate criminals."
For Indigenous groups like the autonomous Zapatista resistance movement in Mexico, Adriana Gomez Bonilla explains, the fear of climate change is not just what happens to the climate itself. It's that climate action will become another pretext for governments to displace them from their lands in the name of conservation.
For all its other virtues, this is a weak point of the Green New Deal framework. While the plan is "anti-capitalistic in spirit" and pays "lip service to decolonization, it must go further" to ensure indigenous liberation, Nick Estes writes in a piece for Jacobin.
Earlier last month, The Red Nation published "The Red Deal"--a political framework developed by young Indigenous activists, which pushes the Green New Deal to go further.
"The Red Deal is not a counter program of the GND," they write. "It's a call for action beyond the scope of the U.S. colonial state. It's a program for Indigenous liberation, life, and land." It pushes current climate policy work to expand, to include the demilitarization of the U.S. border, the abolishment of ICE, and decolonization of stolen land.
It also brings hope and a galvanizing energy to aim for Indigenous liberation.
As we look forward to a cleaner economy, the Indigenous resistance throughout the world brings hope that any climate action will include Indigenous liberation--an action that would re-establish our relationship with Mother Earth. It brings to light that Indigenous liberation is climate justice.
"When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, women, indigenous peoples, and slaves were treated as property, without rights."
This isn't over yet. In the same vein of exploitative ignorance, we're still treating a living, life-sustaining, crucial being as property: the ecosystem. And in the process, we're choking our own habitat--that is to say, ourselves--to death.
But as Mari Margil, who is quoted above, points out: ". . . that is beginning to change, thanks to the Rights of Nature movement."
It's happening, literally, all around the world. It began more than a decade ago, in South America, when Ecuador and then Bolivia gave constitutional recognition to Pachamama--Mother Earth--declaring that she has the right to live. And the movement continues to bubble, at levels both national and local.
The Rights of Nature movement, as it tinkers with governmental bureaucracies on every continent, is about ushering humanity back onto a living planet. This is where we used to live. This is where the indigenous people of the world still live.
Sweden, for instance, has recently proposed a constitutional amendment giving nature the right to "exist, flourish, regenerate and evolve." And tribespeople and municipalities all across the planet are demanding that legal personhood be recognized for imperiled natural resources: the Klamath River in California; the River Frome in England; the Whanganui River in New Zealand; even Lake Erie (the Great Lake whose waves caressed my childhood), long poisoned by toxic agricultural runoff, which has spurred voters in Toledo, Ohio, to pass a Lake Erie Bill of Rights.
This is just a sampling of the demands being made for governmental acknowledgement of the need for environmental sanity, which, of course, is only part of the global climate movement. Indeed, it's more than just clenched fists and protests in the streets. These actions create specific and immediate changes, forcing the world's legal systems to broaden the contexts in which they function. Yet the movement is also paradoxical almost to the point of absurdity: giving rivers, lakes, Mother Nature herself, the same sort of legal status that . . . corporations have?
This thrusts nature, as Margil writes, "into the murky realm of legal personhood." The prime strangeness about all this is the implicit assumption that "the law" in some way has conceptual dominion over Lake Erie or the Klamath River or Pachamama and can choose (or choose not) to give a particular ecosystem, which sustains life itself, the right to exist.
In no way do I mean this observation as a criticism of the movement itself. There is no simple course of action when you are trying to open a cage while you're locked inside of it. Demanding legal protection--legal credibility--for an ecosystem is both pragmatic in the short term and ingeniously subversive in the long term, because it yanks open both judicial and public awareness of the fact that maintaining a well-balanced, functioning global environment is a human responsibility, not to mention the only way we have a hope of surviving.
Matthew Green, writing at Reuters about the residents of the town of Frome, a hundred miles west of London, whose residents are petitioning the British government to grant "legal personhood" to the river that flows through it, put it this way:
"In throwing down this gauntlet, the town has joined a global 'rights of nature' movement linking river basins in New Zealand to rainforests in South America and towns in the U.S. Midwest. In each case, communities are reimagining ways to harness the law to defend the Earth's living tissues, and the places they call home. Some have dubbed it Mother Earth's MeToo moment."
This is the essence of our perilous new times: the need to harness not nature but the law! We need to harness, in short, ourselves.
"This is much bigger than just wanting to punish people for doing something wrong," said Peter Macfadyen, a leader in the struggle to gain legal recognition for the River Frome, as quoted by Reuters. "It's about trying to change a mindset about the environment in which we live."
Amen. The Rights of Nature movement, as it tinkers with governmental bureaucracies on every continent, is about ushering humanity back onto a living planet. This is where we used to live. This is where the indigenous people of the world still live.
A living planet! What does that even mean? Perhaps we can relearn.
"One way to rediscover the practices that helped Homo sapiens survive for over 200,000 years is to pay more attention to indigenous wisdom and traditional place-based knowledge (where it has not already been completely lost)," wrote Daniel Christian Wahl at Medium.com. "Indigenous human cultures are an expression of generations of co-evolution of humans within the ecosystems they inhabited.
". . . Indigenous worldviews around the planet share a common perspective: the world is alive and meaningful and our relationship with the rest of life is one of participation, communion and co-creation."
Can the "civilized"--non-indigenous--branch of humanity step beyond its arrogance and learn from its own past, which it has been trying for several millennia to dismiss? Wahl believes it's possible for the world to "re-indigenize."
"Even in the so-called 'developed world' much of the traditional knowledge of how to meet needs within the limits of biologically regenerative resources of the region was still predominant only 150 years ago," he writes. "That is only a few generations! If we re-value what that knowledge and indigenous wisdom holds for us, we can recover much of it and blend indigenous wisdom in creative ways with the best of modern technology and science."
When we begin consciously and systematically doing this, we can, indeed we will have to, let go of the concept the Rights of Nature, because it implies that nature is something separate from human beings. This seems true only when we are caged in our ignorance. In reality, we're all in this together, co-evolving.
On Sunday morning, August 25th, urban residents of Santa Cruz de la Sierra awoke surprised to sight of wild falcons and toucans perched on their apartment balconies and garden plants. The parched tropical birds had travelled over 300 km to seek refuge from raging forest fires in the Bolivian Amazon, a region known as the Chiquitania, the world's largest tropical dry forest. In recent weeks, forest fires have extended across the length of eastern Bolivia to the now ravaged Nembi Guasa park, a refuge for "uncontacted" Ayoreo people on the Paraguayan border.
While international attention and ire has focused on the burning of the Brazilian Amazon and responsibility of the ultra-rightwing government of Jair Bolsonaro, across the border in eastern Bolivia, equally devastating wild fires in the past three weeks have destroyed nearly 1 million hectares. Response by the ideologically leftwing government of Evo Morales has been forced, instead, largely due to domestic pressure by Bolivians that increasingly view the response as not only as too little too late, but also directly blame Morales' pro-development policies for ongoing destruction of the Amazon.
The fires threaten at least four protected reserves as well as the Noel Kempff National Park, home to over 3500 species of flora, 1500 species of fauna, including jaguars, tapir, and 35 endangered species that now can be seen escaping along the dirt roads used by local volunteer fire fighters braving fire storms with limited equipment. The historic Jesuit mission town of San Jose de Chiquitos has become a shelter for rescued wildlife while the popular vacation town of Robore, now surrounded by burnt vegetation, is the makeshift headquarters of government response operations, established late last week.
Public Anger and Election Uncertainty
Despite the arrival of a "SuperTanker" Boeing 737 from California and recent high profile visits from the president and government ministers, locals are upset by what they see as authorities' slow response, refusal to officially declare a state of emergency and reluctance to ask for international aid. The fires have already reaped a heavy toll, currently affecting 1,817 families, according to the Ministry of Defense, from the Chiquitania's largely rural and indigenous communities whose well-being and livelihood depends on the land. Biologists estimate that it will take 300 years for the tropical forests to regenerate.
Across Bolivia, reaction to distressing images and reports of the ongoing disaster has boiled over into public anger. For many, the government's overdue response is a cynical attempt to keep public anger from growing to the point of disrupting Evo Morales' upcoming reelection bid for a fourth term in October. Polling remains narrow with his closest rival, former president Carlos Mesa, and Morales' intended fourth term would violate explicit constitutional term limits.
Morales' waited until Sunday morning, only hours before national protests were held in cities across the country, to announce that Bolivia would accept international aid, reversing his previous position, and suspended election campaigning in light of the forest fires. Presidential Minister Ramon Quintana made the electoral paranoia explicit, accusing the political opposition of starting "deliberate fires" in order to create a "banquet of lies, defamation, slander". At a public rally Monday, Morales ridiculed the protests of environmentalists as the "electoral nuisance of small groups", who hypocritically pollute at the supermarket.
Culpable Government Policy
A conference in Santa Cruz on the Chuquitana forest, organized by Foundation TIERRA, opened with tense words Friday as a community leader from the Chiquitana Indigenous Organization (OICH) denounced the absence of representatives from the state forestry and national land institute, "they were invited, where are the guilty for the fires?". Indigenous leaders and civil society organizations point to government policies for encouraging deforestation and forest fires.
In July, one month before the start of the forest fires, Evo Morales issued a presidential order (Supreme Decree 3973) further loosing restrictions for land clearing fires in the Bolivian Amazon from 5 to 20 hectares, modification to a 2015 law permitting land clearance. Pablo Solon, former Bolivian ambassador to the UN and director of the Foundation Solon, points out that deforestations rates have spiked in recent years, more than tripling this year from 295 thousand hectares in 2016, while 420 thousand hectares were lost last year. Under current regulations, the fine for illegal land clearing is as little as $6.60 per hectare, while the estimated cost for seeding the reforestation of one hectare is $1,000.
Forest fires in the Chiquitania follow years of detrimental environmental policy from the Morales government, designed to open the Bolivian Amazon to mega-development projects and commercial interests. In 2011, the state deployed police to violently repress the national march of indigenous organizations opposed to the construction of an international highway through the Indigenous Territory and National Park Isiboro Secure (TIPNIS). Plans to construct hydroelectric dams throughout the Amazonian basin, including in the world famous Madidi National Park, are moving ahead despite indigenous and local protest. In the past decade, Morales' ruling party has nurtured an alliance with the elite soya and cattle agribusiness sector of Bolivia's tropical lowlands, centered in Santa Cruz, South America's fastest growing city.
Commercial Interests Behind Forest Fires
Evo Morales has carefully cultivated his image on the world stage as an indigenous defender of the "Pachamama (Mother Earth)", but his domestic policies belie another reality. In a recent interview, Marina Silva, former Brazilian environment minister during Lula da Silva's first presidential term, stated "at the moment we have two poles of deforestation: Brazil and Bolivia, at behests of the soya project under Morales or the politics of Bolsonaro. Deforestation in the rest of the Amazonian countries, like Colombia or Peru, is serious but remains overshadowed. The lack of commitment is as much as a question for the left as for the right." In the same manner as Bolsonaro, Bolivia's Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linera accuses detractors of Amazonian development as engaging in paternalist "ecological imperialism".
On the day of national protests Sunday, Morales demonstrated where his interests lie by attending the annual meeting of the regional ranchers' federation of Beni in the Amazonian city of Trinidad. At the meeting, federation president Abdon Nacif denounced calls to repeal the controversial Decree 3973, stating that prohibiting forest clearing would harm regional development. Earlier this year, the Morales announced alongside private business leaders in Santa Cruz the expansion of the agricultural frontier in the Bolivian Amazon by an additional 250 thousand hectares, largely destined for the cultivation of transgenic soya. Starting this month, Bolivia will export as much as 200 thousand tons of beef to China's growing consumer market. Only last week Morales' boasted that businessmen tell him they earn more now with his leftist party than during previous neoliberal governments.
Evo Morales has defended land clearance permits by justifying the importance of using fires (chaqueos) for rural subsistence, "small families that don't use chaqueo, what are they going to live on?". However, members of indigenous communities see this condonation as an affront to their livelihood and methods of cultivation. "For us, this is something disastrous. We have planted mahogany, chestnut, many trees and are repopulating the forest. Now as consequence, everything we have worked to create is going to be stripped down and burned. Practically, this decree is sweeping away everything we have created", said Lidia Anti from the Communal Organization of Amazonian Women of the Beni.
The forest fires ravaging the Chiquitania are closely tied to a recent surge in land grabbing and irregular titling in the region, condoned and aided by government agencies. According to the director of Foundation TIERRA, Gonzalo Colque, the fire zones in the Chiquitania directly correspond with expansion areas of the agricultural frontier and colonization. The government has accelerated land donations in the region, waving the requirements of regulatory process. Between 2011 and 2018, 7 million hectares have been titled in the region. According to official figures, the majority (57 percent) of new land titles in the Chiquitania have gone to medium and large property holders, while only 28 percent have benefited small property holders.
"Those that have received land are not agricultural workers. They don't live there, and many have deforested without management practices. This is dangerous. The beneficiaries are members [of the ruling party] who do not live from agriculture but instead have fattened up to later sell the land to industrial agriculture", maintains Colque.
In the past two years, communities and civic organizations in the Chiquitania have engaged in road blockades to protest the lack of transparency in land donations by the national land institute. Irregular titling of public land includes donations within the limits of five protected forest reserves. Government complicity with land grabbing in Bolivia recently even included the titling of 60 hectares within the UNESCO protected site of pre-Incan ruins in Samaipata.
Justice for Indigenous Peoples and the Environment
Since the outbreak of forest fires in the Chiquitania, eighty civil society organizations, including the Catholic Church, have called for the repeal of legislation and presidential decrees permitting fires and land clearance. Evo Morales has responded with a temporary "ecological pause" for new land titling. While Carlos Mesa, Morales' principal opponent in the upcoming presidential election, has denounced the "anarchy" of land donations and deforestation under Morales, Amazonian indigenous peoples can expect little from possible political change. Mesa also recently endorsed the "Santa Cruz model", and its export-oriented industrial agriculture, as the development path forward for Bolivia.
Not content to wait for change from the political system, indigenous organizations have called for direct action to halt the destruction of the Amazon. In a strongly worded statement, the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin (COICA) declared both Evo Morales and Jair Bolsonaro "personas non gratas": "We, indigenous peoples, hold the governments of Jair Bolsonaro and Evo Morales responsible for the disappearance and physical, environmental, and cultural genocide currently present in the Amazon." Further, the statement condemns the policies of both governments, which "only aims to benefit the interests of powerful economic groups that seek to convert the Amazon into land plots for agricultural megaprojects, mines, dams, and energy projects."
Bolivian indigenous activist Alex Villca has called for a trail of responsibility to be held against Morales for crimes of ethnocide and biocide, a call that has been reiterated by indigenous congressman Rafael Quispe and the former state ombudsman Rolando Villena. Outside of public opinion it remains to be seen if anyone will be held responsible for the destruction taking place in the Chiquitania. Sunday's rally for international aid in Santa Cruz transformed into an impressive and large protest as thousands flooded the city's central plaza into the evening. Demands for the repeal of Decree 3973 were ubiquitous and chants for justice reverberated across the crowd. "Evo, Muderer!, Evo, Murderer!"
As we face the daunting reality of the climate crisis unraveling all around us, including the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which warns that we only have a dozen years remaining to radically change our current trajectory to prevent disastrous ecological and social harms, there is a shimmer of light and hope radiating out from the heart of the Ecuadorian Amazon sparked by the Kichwa People of Sarayaku.
Sarayaku leaders launched their historic Kawsak Sacha or Living Forest Declaration in July this year during four days of public events, educational activities and ceremonies in the capital city Quito, Ecuador. The inauguration included a formal presentation to the Ecuadorian government and to international organizations and dignitaries.
"The Amazon Rainforest ecosystems are vital lungs of the Earth. Thus, the justice and well-being for the people of Sarayaku is inseparably tied to the fate of all people worldwide."
The goal of the Kawsak Sacha Declaration is to attain national and international recognition of a new legal category for the permanent protection of Indigenous lands. Rather than a worldview that only sees nature as a resource, the Declaration recognizes the intrinsic physical and spiritual relationship between the Peoples of the Living Forest, and all the beings that inhabit and compose it. Kawsak Sacha is a vision, worldview, and strategy, which presents all at once an ecological, political, cultural, spiritual and economic analysis, together with an ancient but new way forward to address living in a healthy and just world beyond capitalistic views of progress, development and conservation.
Studies by the United Nations as well as many institutions have determined that the most effective way to protect forests and biodiversity, and thus help mitigate climate catastrophe, is by supporting Indigenous Peoples rights, lands and Traditional Ecological Knowledge. And yet, no international designation for conservation currently exists that recognizes the unique relationship between Indigenous peoples and the forest.
The Living Forest Declaration represents many years of work and advocacy, and proposes the protection of the Kichwa way of life, including emphasis on uncontaminated rivers, sovereign communities, and a mandate that their territory be permanently free of any type of extractive activity such as oil exploitation, mining, logging or biopiracy.
The Declaration also contends that Sarayaku's territory is subject to legal rights and demands that these rights be upheld. In 2008, Ecuador adopted Rights of Nature into their constitution to recognize and thereby award legal rights to nature, consequently, the Declaration is legally aligned with the Ecuadorian constitution.
Kawsak Sacha embodies countless generations of ancestral knowledge and vision of the people of Sarayaku, including the Jatun Kausak Sisa Nampi or the
Living Way of Flowers project, now underway. With this project, Sarayaku is planting native flowering trees and plant species along the boundary of their 333,000-acre territory to symbolically and geographically demarcate their lands, and to convey the delicate nature of life and the fertility of the Living Forest.
As the Sarayaku have made clear, the systems of natural protected areas created thus far by the Ecuadorian state and international organizations do not result in full consultation, participation or consent of Indigenous Peoples. These systems are not a solution, and in fact degrade and violate basic indigenous rights to autonomy and sovereignty.
The Declaration's inauguration was coordinated to coincide with the sixth anniversary of the historic ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In 2012 the Court found that the Ecuadorian Government violated the rights of the Sarayaku people in allowing an oil company into their territory without consultation or consent. This ruling has been an important victory for the community, but one that requires tireless vigilance to uphold.
And vigilant they are--Sarayaku's powerful efforts against oil extraction over recent years have already kept an estimated 100 million barrels of oil in the ground and protected primary rainforest in their territories.
With all this in mind, their bold leadership clearly demonstrates why the Kichwa people of Sarayaku are also known as the "Pueblo del Medio Dia," or people of the Zenith. This acknowledgement originates from an ancestral prophecy stating that during a time of difficulty, Sarayaku would be a center of strength for territorial, cultural, and spiritual defense, a beacon of light as powerful as the noonday sun at its zenith.
The Amazon Rainforest ecosystems are vital lungs of the Earth. Thus, the justice and well-being for the people of Sarayaku is inseparably tied to the fate of all people worldwide. Furthermore, in the context of the global struggle for climate solutions, Indigenous rights, forest and biodiversity protection, and keeping fossil fuels in the ground, the Living Forest Declaration could not be more necessary. Kawsak Sacha is indeed part of a pillar of light as strong as the midday sun--a brilliant multifaceted vision--that needs to be respected by the Ecuadorian government, made-known around the world, and replicated to protect other Indigenous territories globally.
The Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International was thankful to be present at the launch in Quito along with other International allies including Amazon Watch, Indigenous Environmental Network and Pachamama Alliance, as part of an important demonstration of international support for the vision and demands set forth by Kawsak Sacha leaders. During the proceedings, along with Amazon Watch, WECAN was also honored to participate in a panel with Indigenous women of the Ecuadorian Amazon to emphasize the connection between extractivism and exploitation of women and the land that is inherent in patriarchal and colonial systems of oppression.
In solidarity with this crucial initiative, WECAN interviewed women of Sarayaku to learn firsthand about the Living Forest Declaration. These frontline leaders explained that only through women uniting together will the Amazon be protected. To that end, a collective of Amazonian Women has organized over the past years to defend their ancient rainforests. Inspiring and effective as their work is, it needs to be highlighted that their bold stand is also perilous--throughout the launch events, women conveyed tragic and heart-rending stories of how they are increasingly being attacked for their resistance efforts to defend their territories--including through criminalization, death threats, property harms, and sexual violence.
Nevertheless, in the face of egregious violations, the women made it clear that they stand strong--determined and courageous in their ceaseless efforts to protect and defend their territories and future generations.
We offer here a collection of photos and statements from some of the Sarayaku women leaders who participated in and helped to organize the Kawsak Sacha launch.
Statements collected by Osprey Orielle Lake and Sophie Pinchetti in Quito, Ecuador, July 2018. Photo credits and translations by Sophie Pinchetti.

Sarayaku has fought off oil companies for 35 years. We have expelled companies from our territory, taken our legal case to the Inter-American Court and won. So this experience has well positioned us to present our Living Forest Proposal to the world. We, indigenous peoples, fight for our existence, not our extermination. We want our rights to be respected! Our proposal is a collective and unified effort of our people- men, women, children and elders- responding to the voice of the forest. Our proposal is not only for Sarayaku, but also for all humanity and all life on the planet. We've had to travel long distances from our territory, leaving our children and way of life, to bring forth a message and proposal for life to the world. We are all responsible for creating and sharing consciousness with our children and future generations. This is what we must do to survive. But we don't just want to survive and exist; we want to thrive.
(from Press Release - Visionary ‘Living Forest’ Proposal To Be Launched by Kichwa People of Sarayaku in Ecuador)

Kawsak Sacha is a proposal for life. The jungle is a living being with consciousness; it is made up of all the beings of the jungle. It is where our kallari rukuguna (ancestors) have always lived, it is where we live today and where all future generations will live, and where the protective beings of the jungle and all indigenous peoples will remain. In Sarayaku, the empowerment of women’s leadership has already been very important, we have raised our voice to say that we women have the same possibilities to lead a people. I feel very proud to be at the head of the youth of Sarayaku and to take on this challenge as part of a people recognized for defending life, nature and the Pachamama (Mother Earth).

The Living Forest proposal goes far beyond the demand of rights, it’s about trying to reach the deepest consciousness of human beings, trying to see life in a different way and to see the integrity of conservation. Kawsak Sacha is about the essence of our existence as human beings and this planet Earth, and the beings that regenerate ecosystems and give life to the planet. The decision of the women of Sarayaku was a definite "no" to extractivist activities. We do not want destruction, we want to protect life. I think Sarayaku is one of the first instances in which women have participated so much in the processes and contexts of struggle, resistance and innovative proposals.
Earlier this year, I received a death threat and denounced this to the authorities. I’m glad this process has encouraged many women leaders to denounce the threats they have also been receiving for taking a stand against the extractive industries. They are demanding respect for their rights, respect for nature, respect for women, this is a new articulation with very strong leaders of all nationalities. It is good that we are not afraid, because we are united. We have united to protect each other. We are going to continue fighting according to our own vision, because this strengthens the organizational processes of indigenous peoples, our processes of resistance and struggle, with grassroots actors coming with their own voice to say “this is what we want”.

Kawsak Sacha is for our well being, so that we can live healthily and protect the Amazon from harm. But when the oil company comes in, it will contaminate us. We women of Sarayaku are very brave, we are strong warriors. We will always keep our territory free from oil exploitation, because we live well in our communities, and we do not want the companies. We know how to cultivate all kinds of food and animals, we live according to our customs and we make our chacras [food gardens].

This is about an alternative proposal from the indigenous world, against the “development” that brings about the destruction of our Mother Earth. Our Mother must not be sold nor destroyed. Our Mother gives us life, and within it there are many lives and beings that cannot speak with a voice, this is what we are defending. We are presenting this proposal so that the government no longer destroys our jungle, so that we are respected as first peoples with own languages, customs and cosmo-visions. The government must accept our proposal. We don’t want to suffer more abuses, more divisions. I call for unity among women of the world, indigenous and non-indigenous, we must unite in order to strengthen this fight to defend the lungs of the world. Global warming is making us suffer, the sun is getting hotter, our harvests are not the same as they were. So now we are raising our voices for the world to listen.

The jungle is very important for everyone, not only for us. It gives us oxygen, and the rivers give us life. With a lot of strength, we women of Sarayaku are defending the jungle, Mother Nature and the river that we call Yacumama. We are protecting the beings that live inside the jungle, they also have the right to live in peace. There is no need to exploit the land for the world’s vanity. The jungle is rich, it is not poor. The land is feminine, it gives us everything, it is our life and mother, Mother Earth. We don’t need the company. Despite everything the company says, they contaminate. They contaminate peoples’ minds and the value of the forest.

Oil companies, mining companies and loggers want to exploit indigenous territories. We are presenting this proposal to the Ecuadorian government so that the territories of indigenous peoples are respected. For us, the Earth is a woman, our Mother Earth, Pachamama. As women, we identify ourselves with the land, because we are the ones who cultivate it. If we didn’t have our territory, we wouldn’t have a space to live, we would be totally dead. Having a clean environment to live in, free from contamination, means a lot to us women because we know that it is the legacy that we will leave for our children and the future generations.

Kawsak Sacha is so important for our children and for our community. We don’t want the oil and mining companies to come into our territories. We want the world to see how important Kawsak Sacha is because it is a living being with many spirits, animals, trees, and plants. We women have fought a lot to protect our territories. When the companies tried to enter our territory, we were defending our land with the children and youth. If the companies come, they will pollute our land and damage our culture, our fish, our rivers, the air – we will have nowhere to live, everything will end.

Kawsak Sacha is our life, the living jungle is where we live and where our ancestors lived. Those in the city do not know how we live. Now there is a lot of contamination, our life is going to die. Sumak Kawsay (“Good Living”) is going to disappear. We’ve been organizing for over thirty years and what we want is respect. We are being threatened. We have our territory, we live in our Pachamama, we have clean air and healthy land. We respect nature because we live with nature. We are connected to the spirit of the jungle through dreams. But when there is contamination, this connection is lost and the spirits die. Without them, we cannot be well, our children and future generations will no longer have this life. This was taught to us by our ancestors and we have passed this on to our children, who are now taking on this work through this proposal. As elders we feel happy to see this and we hope the government accepts our proposal.

Through the Living Forest proposal, we are giving a voice to the forest. We are the ones telling the governments that we don’t want oil companies in our territories. We are the voice of the forest. Women have so much strength in them. Women have always been on the frontline fighting for their territories because we have such a deep connection to the Pachamama and the forest.

Kawsak Sacha is important because it is something we have always lived with despite the Western world not recognizing it. We want others to understand, recognize and feel that the jungle is not just a jungle, it is full of life, and humans and nature can share and exchange together. Without this life in the jungle, indigenous peoples cannot exist. From generation to generation, our ancestors have passed onto us the knowledge that the lagoons, mountains and big trees have protective beings. Few people can see these beings, the shamans are the ones who have had contact with them and who have transmitted this knowledge to our peoples. Now it is the time for us to transmit what our wisdom-keepers knew, and what we also know and recognize since we live in the Living Forest.
It may seem like the power and leadership of women has been invisible. But it has been around for many years. The woman is the one who decides many things - how to educate the children, how to keep the gardens, and she is the one who decides the most for the care and protection of nature. Lately, women are the ones who have been fighting on the frontlines but without leaving our partners the men behind. I think the persecution of woman leaders has become an objective of the companies. The oil companies want to find a way to enter our territories, but since they haven’t been able to so far, they’re starting to target the women, trying to scare and terrorize them. And this is the case for many different nationalities, Waorani, Kichwa, Sapara and Achuar. It is a psychological persecution. I hope they don’t go further. We are uniting more and more to show that we are not alone.