Security & Prosperity Partnership

NAFTA meets the "War on Terror"

Hardly reported on in the US media but much more so in Canada and Mexico, the most recent meetings of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) took place a little over a week ago in Canada...and, as I mentioned last week, they were met with protests, police provocateurs, and sabotage. The SPP is the agenda that the "Society of Power," as the Zapatistas say, has in store for us here in the North American Union. Oops! I meant to say "Canada, the USA, and Mexico"...or did someone say Turtle Island? Which one will it be?!

Here's a breakdown of the SPP from some allies to the south. Let's read up, cuz it ain't gonna go away just because it's too ugly to look at...

TEN EASY QUESTIONS AND TEN TOUGHER ONES REGARDING THE SPPNA
(Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America)
Miguel Pickard
August 17th, 2007
CIEPAC (Economic and Political Research Center of Communitarian Action)
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México

Summary: This bulletin is intended to be a first introduction to the topic of the SPPNA (hereinafter SPP), initials of a very undemocratic alliance between Canada, Mexico and the United States. On August 201, 2007, the presidents of Mexico and the US and the Canadian prime minister met in Montebello, Quebec, to discuss the SPP. Showing total indifference for democracy, the three governments are reaching crucially important decisions with no prior consultation or consent of civil society. The summit received almost no press coverage in the US, but got reasonably good exposure in Mexico and Canada. We present herein reasons why the citizens of all three countries need to follow SPP developments.

1. What does SPPNA mean?

The initials stand for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, a fairly new regional integration initiative that dates formally from March 23, 2005 when the presidents of Mexico and the United States, and the Canadian prime minister met in Waco, Texas.

2. Is the SPP related to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that Presidents Carlos Salinas and Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney signed in 1993?

Yes, it is related and some analysts even call the SPP "NAFTA plus". But there are important differences.

One crucial difference is that the SPP is not an "agreement" as is NAFTA. If it were, it would be subject to scrutiny by the federal legislative branches in the three countries. But under the SPP, the chief executives are signing so-called regulations, hundreds of them, according to some reports. These are similar to presidential decrees and are therefore exempt from legislative review. Civil society has been given very little information.

3. Why is it important that I know something about the SPP?

Citizens of all three countries are concerned because our democratic rights and sovereignty as nations are being ceded to the US government and large corporations. At the behest, or insistence, of the Bush administration, the governing elites of the other two countries have worked rapidly to "securitize" the region which, at least in Mexico, has translated into increased militarization. The SPP is also part of the growing corporate takeover of activities and functions that used to lie in the public sector. Changes are being made in laws, norms, standards, regulations, practices, to facilitate international trade and so increase the profitability of certain corporations, but which in some cases weaken labor, consumer protection and environmental standards. Finding out about the SPP is a necessary first step in detaining its corrosive effects on democracy and national sovereignty.

4. Doesn't the SPP have to do with trade between our three countries?

Yes, but it goes beyond trade issues. The Canadian citizens' organization Common Frontiers explains it as follows:

The SPP initiative is intended to harmonize many Canadian and Mexican domestic and foreign policies with those of the U.S. Under the guise of protecting citizens from the threat of terrorism and also facilitating trade, this initiative would involve drastic measures such as a deeper integration of North American energy markets, harmonized treatment of immigrants, refugees or tourists from abroad, and the creation of common security policies. (Press Bulletin, Common Frontiers, 27-Mar-06)

5. Why so much emphasis on security?

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the pretext for many changes is "security concerns" in the face of "world terrorism". In keeping with this mindset, US government strategists are quietly demanding that neighbors Mexico and Canada enact or reform laws and measures to increase security. The elites in both countries have happily and even eagerly acquiesced.

We believe that the SPP is also being implemented in anticipation of several phenomena.

One phenomenon is the global warming crisis and the increasing shortage of water that all Earth's inhabitants will soon face. In response to the planet's increasing thirst, the US is working to control and assure sufficient water from nearby sources, a fact that puts pressure on water supplies in southeast Mexico and throughout Canada. Canada's water in particular has been tabbed a US national security issue by the Bush administration.

A second phenomenon is the US's enormous appetite for energy resources. The access to abundant energy supplies and their control, preferably by US corporate giants, is perhaps the primary motive that explains US activities throughout the world, from wars of extermination to the negotiation of agreements and, now, the signing of regulations. The invasion of Iraq by US armed forces in 2003 is just the most recent example.

Still a third phenomenon has to do with the trade war already being waged between the world's three main economic blocs. One of them is the European Union, the other is the Asian bloc headed by Japan and China, and the third bloc is essentially the United States. Each bloc is closing ranks with neighboring countries in different ways. We believe the US is positioning itself to control the Americas and the Caribbean in its trade wars with the other economic forces. The US wishes to control the continent's strategic natural resources to help guarantee mainly energy supplies (oil, natural gas and electricity), but also access to other resources such as land, minerals and the region's enormous biodiversity (Brazil, Colombia, and Meso-America are extremely species rich).

Furthermore, the Americas are, or will soon be, a preferential market for US goods and services. The 34 countries of the Americas (all except Cuba) have a combined population of 800 million, 500 million of whom live outside the United States, and multinational corporations see the enormous potential of privileged access for their products in this region.

In addition to trade and natural-resource issues, Washington has since 2001 exercised greater control regarding the security and militarization of the Americas. When the military takes on a greater role in the internal affairs of any country, the result is a tendency towards the criminalization of social protest (a fact of life now in Mexico).

6. Who's behind the SPP?

Two main entities are pushing it forward. One is the US government which considers the SPP to be an ideal initial step in a strategy of integrating the American continent in key areas under the pretext of "trade facilitation". It is true that the SPP does have aspects related to trade, but there are others that many times go unreported in the mass media, i.e., the ones mentioned above--access to energy resources, security, militarization. When the mass media report on the SPP they often mention only the trade aspects and gloss over other important topics.

Even the center-left press in the US falls into this trap. The Nation magazine recently reported that the SPP is a "relatively mundane formal bureaucratic dialogue" and accepted at face value Assistant Secretary of Commerce David Bohigian's claim that the SPP has to do with "simple stuff like, for instance, in the US we sell baby food in several different sizes; in Canada, it's just two different sizes". (The Nation, Aug. 27, 2007)

The other actor pushing the SPP is the private sector, especially the large corporations that are eager to take advantage of the expansion of "free trade" and the access to natural resources that the SPP is promoting.

7. How is the control of natural resources to be assured?

One way is through privatization. When a country's strategic resources are sold, corporations have an opportunity to buy and control what was once in the public domain. The corporations best poised to profit are from the US, but Canadian and some Mexican corporations will be winners too. As a general policy, the US government, either directly or though institutions it controls, e.g., the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, has insisted for years in the privatization of state corporations. In Mexico these include the state oil company PEMEX and the Federal Electricity Commission, as well as water companies, health and educational institutions, etc. US "encouragement" led to the privatization during the 80s and 90s of other strategic state sectors (the telephone company, airlines, trains, mass media among others).

Another way is through treaties such as NAFTA and "partnerships" such as the SPP that severely restrict a country's sovereign in matters of natural resource exploitation. For example, as part of its free trade agreement with the United States, Canada lost the right to reduce unilaterally its exports of oil to the US. Although Mexico did not formally agree to similar terms when it signed onto NAFTA, the Salinas, Zedillo, Fox and Calderón administrations have increased exports of oil when the US has so requested, for example, in the run up to the Iraq invasion. Guaranteed access by the US to Mexico's oil at bargain prices may be a matter that has been agreed to in the SPP regulations. Meanwhile Mexico's oil supplies are quickly being depleted with some estimates putting reserves at no greater than 15 years at current rates of extraction.

A more recent example has to do with increased levels of pesticides that Canadians will soon have in their foods, when tolerances for residues are "harmonized" to US standards by SPP regulations.

8. What implications does the SPP have for indigenous or first-nation peoples?

The SPP weakens the rights of first nations to inhabit and work their lands. In the case of Mexico, the country's neoliberal governments (since the times of President Miguel de la Madrid, 1982 - 1988), have tried to weaken any "limitation" on private investment. The right of the indigenous people to establish autonomous areas and decide on the use of natural resources located on their lands, recognized by the ILO's 169 Convention (see Article 15), is an aspect that the corporations would like to curtail. The same goes for laws and norms that have been established to protect the environment. We suspect that corporations are reaching agreements with governments within the SPP framework that first weaken and then eliminate these protections and rights.

9. What is the most egregious aspect of this new Partnership?

Perhaps it is the total contempt that the forces behind the SPP have for ordinary citizens and their right to decide on how a country is run. The SPP is profoundly undemocratic. Citizens' control is being weakened and turned over to a minority, e.g., a few people and corporations who are using greater doses of violence to accumulate capital. Basic principles are under threat: a country's wealth should be used to address and solve problems related to education, health, housing, infrastructure etc. The tendency now, however, as expressed in agreements such as the SPP, is the opposite: wealth is being concentrated in a few hands and the people are experiencing ever-greater poverty and deteriorating services and infrastructure.

10. How does the SPP relate to the recent meeting held between the presidents of Mexico and the United States and the prime minister of Canada?

Since the SPP began in 2005, the three chief executives have gathered several times. The last summit occurred on August 201, 2007, and featured talks between illegitimate presidents Calderón and Bush and Prime Minister Harper (all neo-cons) in the small town of Montebello, province of Québec. Little information on the summit surfaced in the US press (the New York Times dismissed the significance of the summit, see "No Breakthrough at Canada Talks", 22 Aug 2007, and "Bush's Talks with Neighbors Overshadowed by Storm", 21 Aug 2007). In the Mexican and Canadian press, and in activist circles, it was widely expected that the chief executives would sign additional SPP regulations.

11. How are these regulations drafted and approved?

In most cases the enforcement of regulations requires just the chief executives' signatures. It is actually corporate lawyers who draft the language of the regulations, especially those having to do with trade, in consultation with selected government officials and academics. This procedure overturns the traditional roles played by governments and corporations and in essence constitutes the privatization of what had traditionally been considered a public prerogative.

12. Do we have access to the documents signed by the executive branch?

No, SPP documents have not been released for public scrutiny. Civil society is not consulted before the signing ceremony nor is full disclosure practiced once the summits end.

We believe that the executives opted for signing regulations because, almost 14 years after NAFTA began in 1994, civil society throughout the region is better organized, informed, networked and mobilized. Further, first-hand experience with NAFTA has exposed the lies that were touted to sell the "virtues" of the trade agreement. For example, job creation has actually slowed in Mexico and NAFTA-induced job creation in the US and Canada has been modest at best; peoples' living standards have not risen; the gap between Mexico and its more-developed neighbors in terms of salaries and per-capita income has actually widened. Within Mexico differences between the poorer states in the south and better-off states in the North have deepened.

If full disclosure existed, civil society would be ill disposed to accept a "deepening" of NAFTA such as the SPP. There might be large-scale mobilization and protests. Approval in the legislatures might not be forthcoming. The chief executives know this and in anticipation are signing decrees that circumvent watchdog functions by civil society and the legislatures.

13. The "security" aspect of the SPP is intriguing. Do our countries really have a security problem?

No, or at least not to the extent we've been told. We believe that any security concerns that may exist are the result of grossly misguided US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. In any event, the US and allied countries took advantage of the events that transpired on Sept. 11, 2001 and created an ambiance of fear in order to increase military budgets and repression.

Under the SPP, the three participating countries have agreed on a security apparatus that includes a greater control on flows of people and goods, response to threats such as terrorism, organized crime, the trafficking of people and the contraband of goods. All this implies greater coordination among intelligence services and greater repression to control "external and internal threats".

Evidently any social protest, for example, grassroots protests last year in Oaxaca or Atenco, Mexico, might be classified by the government as an "internal threat", or even "terrorism". In fact, the Attorney General of the state of Oaxaca declared that the APPO (Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca) is a "violent group" that has committed crimes "called terrorism" under the Federal Penal Code (see La Jornada, November 10, 2006, Political section). Independent observers, such as the International Civil Commission for Human Rights Observation, have said the opposite, by copiously documenting the brutality of state repression against community-based or non-partisan social movements (see here).

Again, is there a security threat? Probably so...for the region's elites, who fear a backlash (or a "blowback" to use Chalmer Johnson's expression) from increasingly disgruntled populations.

14. What does this new Partnership have to do with prosperity?

Nothing. The word has been included for publicity purposes given growing poverty among the majority. The SPP will bring prosperity to the multinational corporations, their major shareholders and those in power who are colluding with the former.

Formally, there is a "prosperity agenda" that covers diverse subjects, such as easing restrictions on business, health measures, phytosanitary measures, financial services, electronic business, complicated rules of origin and many others. Large corporations have detected measures that are missing from NAFTA which would facilitate cross-border business and increase profits. These aspects are now being approved with SPP regulations.

The SPP omits reference to any social measures that might lead to greater prosperity of the population of the three participating countries.

15. Why is Mexico included in this type of partnership with two other countries with much large economies?

The motives have never been strictly economic. Not even with NAFTA. And now the security of the US has become a required reference point. US military strategists have placed increased priority on protecting the US's land borders by including Canada and Mexico as "buffer zones" in the event of "terrorist attacks". Mexico and Canada will be required to take measures, dictated by the US, to become as "secure" as the US itself. In Canada the new orientation is well advanced. In Mexico it will take longer, but the objective is clear. Furthermore, under the SPP Mexico has become a "test-tube" nation, for experimentation in the context of future US plans for the region.

16. Mexico-an experiment? What for?

It seems likely that US plans go beyond integrating Mexico and Canada into its area of control and influence. We believe that the US wishes to control the Americas for the reasons mentioned in the response to question 5. As an example of US intentions, up to 2005 the US sought to extend "free trade" to the entire continent at a single go by means of the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). The initiative backfired and was dropped when grassroots protests erupted throughout the Americas and quasi-nationalist governments, opposed to US hegemonic tendencies, were elected in South America.

When the FTAA was derailed in 2005, the US took a slower approach in matters related to trade in the Americas. It continued making strides towards its goal of a "free trade Americas" by signing treaties with individual countries or with blocs of countries. Mexico is just the first step in a much wider project that the US will be pushing forward in the next few decades for the integration of the entire American continent in matters of trade and other important issues that the US would like to see "bundled". In this sense Mexico's participation in the SPP is an experiment in how to integrate an "underdeveloped" country in an alliance with "developed" countries such as the US and Canada.

Let's explain further. The asymmetries separating Mexico and its northern neighbors are many. Mexico's deep and widening poverty and the reduced size of its economy vis-a`-vis the US are obvious asymmetries, but there are other equally important, but less visible, differences that will undoubtedly be conflictive and will require resolution. For example, the difference in legal frameworks: Canada and the US operate under a legal system that derives from Anglo-Saxon common law, while Mexico works with a tradition of Roman law inherited from Spain.

As US strategists ponder how best to integrate the continent, it makes sense to grapple first with one country, and the obvious candidate is Mexico, in order to generate a series of experiences that will prove useful when the rest of the continent and the Caribbean are incorporated. Analyzing the SPP back in 2005, Professor John Saxe-Fernández of Mexico's National Autonomous University wrote, "The goal is to use Mexico as a battering ram to push forward 'vertical integration' of Latin America to the [United States] in trade, finance, monetary and geopolitical aspects" (La Jornada, 28-Mar-05).

In Europe, the better-off countries had to make certain adjustments when poorer countries were integrated into the European Union. A certain standardization of procedures occurred. The better-off countries also disbursed enormous sums of money in an effort to "level the playing field" in education, health, housing, etc., and to solve the inevitable problems that were sure to arise, for example, retraining workers laid off from their jobs.

In contrast, the US wants a different type of integration. It wishes to benefit in terms of control over important aspects, but without disbursements that would need to dwarf the Marshall Plan to have an impact on the major social problems throughout the Americas. There is absolutely no political support in the US for this type of foreign aid now, nor can we foresee a time when there will be. So integration will proceed by accords such as the SPP to be tested initially in Mexico. (Actually it is difficult to talk of "integration" per se, because the US will retain its hegemony in all crucial matters. Absorption might be a more appropriate term).

In a recent development, the US has drafted plans that call for transfers of up to a billion dollars into Mexico. The funds are not for social programs, but for a supposed "war against drugs", in a repeat of a rationale used to channel billions of dollars into Colombia, to increase that country's arsenal in its war against domestic insurgencies. (See "The Lost War", by Misha Glenny, The Washington Post, 19 August 2007).

This is a long-range task. We predict that the US will be pushing forward its corporate and security-led agenda through the SPP and its offshoots for the next several decades.

17. Does the SPP have anything to say about Mexican migration northward?

Except for references to "intelligent borders" that will make it easier and quicker for "low-risk persons" to cross border checkpoints, the SPP apparently overlooks migration issues. This mirrors the "NAFTA credo": goods, services, capital and high-level corporate executives can cross borders with increasing ease. Common folks, on the other hand, those that need to migrate to survive because they cannot find work or a decent salary, are "high-risk persons" for the US government. Therefore they will continue to face difficulties as undocumented migrants, risking their lives by crossing deserts or mountains in search of a livelihood.

The SPP contains no measures that recognize the importance of immigrant labor for the US and Canadian economies. Thus a large and vulnerable labor pool, subject to deportation, will continue to exist, malleable to accepting low wages and negligible labor rights.

18. Is the increased militarization of Mexico's southern border part of these accords?

Undoubtedly, but today there is no region that is exempt from creeping militarization. Currently the south-southeast of Mexico has become a seal, especially for Central Americans, but also for other foreigners and even a few Mexicans. Mexico's ability to control its southern border is a crucial element within the SPP, but crackdowns on foreigners entering from Guatemala or Belice have had a poor record. Gross violations of human rights occur daily. All security forces - the army, the National Migration Institute, the Federal Preventive Police, the Beta Force (established supposedly to "aid" immigrants in need), and the state police - have declared "open season" on Central Americas and treat them as spoils of war. With one hand they strip migrants of their belongings and receive bribes with the other hand from polleros (immigrant traffickers) so that their human cargo can continue their northward journey.

The SPP has, however, authorized a new type of border crossing. The United States now has permission to cross the Mexican or Canadian border with its armed forces virtually at will. Incursions could take place during "red alerts" declared due to "terrorism" or suspicion of terrorism anywhere in the three-country region.

These plans and accords are now quite well advanced between the US and Canada and we can reasonably suspect that similar agreements have been reached with Mexico.

The US and Canada have established a Binational Planning Group that has laid out "military contingency plans" to be enacted on both sides of the US-Canadian border and include "a coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [by civilian authorities we presume] in cases of a threat, attack or civil emergency in the US or Canada. Should a red alert be sounded, these so-called 'requests' could lead to the deployment of US troops or Special Forces in Canadian territory" [information taken from Global Research].

19. Has there been any opposition to the SPP?

Definitely. As people and organizations find out about the SPP, a common reaction is to ask how can we work together with others to expose and oppose it. Fortunately, there are organizations and networks that are undertaking diverse activities, such as information dissemination, mobilization and protest against the SPP. In Mexico, CIEPAC belongs to one such network, the RMALC (Mexican Action Network on Free Trade), which actively disseminates information on the SPP throughout Mexico.

In the United States, RMALC's counterpart is ART (Alliance for Responsible Trade). The Canadian counterparts are Common Frontiers and the RQIC (Quebec Network on Continental Integration).

Other allies in this struggle against the Empire throughout the Americas have created a region-wide network know as the HSA or Hemispheric Social Alliance.

Many organizations, such as the Anti-imperialist Coalition, Block the Empire, the Other Campaign in Canada and the Council of Canadians, mobilized in response to the "amigos' summit" in Canada on August 20-21.

20. What can we do to protest the SPP?

As always, the first step involves finding out what the SPP is about. All social organizations, trade unions, producers' cooperatives, etc. should undertake information dissemination campaigns on the SPP, in order to widen comprehension on what it means, how it will (and is) affecting us and how to work for better alternatives based on peoples' needs.

After finding out more, one option is to demand a binding consultation, referendum, or popular plebiscite on the SPP. Although in Mexico there is little faith in traditional party politics, if the legislative branches in all three counties were to exercise their established powers, at least there would be greater access to information and a possibility of stimulating debate.

Why should these important agreements be taken without complete transparency? Why is it that a small group of elites and large corporations find it necessary to hide SPP proceedings from public view? It is up to us to ensure that our countries represent our interests, the majority's interests.

For further reading, please see:

"Behind Closed Doors: What they're not telling us about the SPPNA" by the Council of Canadians

For a historic overview of the SPP, please see
"NAFTA-plus: the future according to the elites"

Deported Mexican Activist Could Return to U.S. as Envoy

A Mexican immigrant-rights activist deported earlier this month may be headed back to the United States as a Mexican government envoy. Elvira Arellano has asked Mexican President Felipe Calderon to appoint her ‘peace and justice ambassador’ so she may return to be with her U.S.-born, eight-year old son. Arellano was deported earlier this month following a year of refuge inside a Chicago church. She was arrested outside a Los Angeles church after arriving to take part in a rally for immigrant rights.

Oil Minister Calls on Exxon and Conoco to Leave Venezuela

By: Kiraz Janicke – Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas , August 30, 2007

Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela's Energy Minister and president of the state owned oil company PDVSA, called on US oil companies ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil to leave Venezuela. Ramirez issued the call as he submitted details of proposed contracts relating to the final transition of companies operating in the Orinoco oil belt into joint ventures with PDVSA during a session of the National Assembly’s Energy Commission yesterday.

“We are in negotiations with the companies that don't accept our laws, to finalize their exit from the country,” he said referring to Conoco and to Exxon.

While the US-owned Chevron Corp, the British-owned BP, the French oil company Total, and the Norwegian Statoil accepted the terms imposed by the Venezuelan government in May, which gave a 60% controlling share to PDVSA over all projects operating in the Orinoco oil belt, Conoco and Exxon pulled out.

The president of Venezuela Oil Corp (CVP) and member of the board of directors of PDVSA, Eulogio Del Pino said that compensation negotiations with Conoco and Exxon should be concluded in the next few weeks. However, there would be no compensation, Ramirez said, for Total and Statoil, which have since reduced their participation in Sincor, a joint project with the government.

“We were very clear last year, we are simply not interested in working with companies that don't accept our law, that don't accept our constitution.” he continued.

Ramirez also called for the new contracts, which could give PDVSA up to 80% share in some joint holdings, to be published once they are approved by the National Assembly so that the Venezuelan people could compare them with contracts signed by the previous governments of the Fourth Republic. “Never again will they sign contracts behind the back of our country,” he said.

State participation in the Orinoco oil belt, which produces some 500,000 barrels a day, has increased from 39% to 78% with the nationalizations in May. Total oil production in Venezuela is approximately 3.09 million barrels according to official figures from PDVSA, with nearly half being exported to the United States.

PDVSA has also moved to address a shortage of oil drills which sparked an “operational emergency” in July with the first of 13 oil drills from China arriving in October.

Ramirez confirmed that with the final transition of the companies into joint projects with PDVSA a total of 4,000 workers would be incorporated on the PDVSA. Uncertainty surrounding the incorporation of oil workers from a number of drilling rigs nationalized in May sparked an industrial dispute last month. Negotiations for the collective contract for oil workers are still continuing.

In relation to recent allegations of corruption in PDVSA, Ramirez said that “within a company as complex as PDVSA, that makes many types of transactions every day, there are cases that we are investigating, that we are processing,” and he continued, “it should be recalled that in our country PDVSA is subject to all the mechanisms of control of public administration.”

“We have an organization of General Comptrol within PDVSA, we have a structure and a commissioner within PDVSA and in that manner we are handling a number of cases of possible administrative deviations.

However, he said there were different levels of cases and that PDVSA was asking the National Assembly to investigate an incidence of corruption dating from 2005, which he said caused, “immense damage to the nation, and we have reliable proof of contracts harmful to the nation with massive discounts in the importation of oil through Citgo.”

Ramirez emphasized, “We have reiterated to the National Assembly our petition that the necessary procedures be opened to punish all these deviations.”

He added that the oil industry would collaborate for the clarification of these issues, precisely because PDVSA could not be a company of private interests, "There is no way that we either want to or can evade the mechanisms of public control.”

Zapatistas arise for North American Summit

By Brenda Norrell,
Posted on Wed Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:47:39 PM EST

RANCHO EL PENASCO, Sonora, Mexico – Indigenous Peoples from Canada, the United States and Northern Mexico are asked to bring their concerns and issues to the Zapatistas’ North American Summit, Oct. 8 – 9, 2007.

Zapatistas extend a warm welcome to Indigenous Peoples, delegates and commissions. Non-Indian supporters are asked to serve as volunteer workers at the summit.

O’odham in Mexico Lt. Gov. Jose Garcia explained the reasons for the summit, which is hosted by the O’odham in Mexico.

“This meeting is an opportunity for Indian tribes to learn why the Zapatistas rose up, and learn what has happened since that time to bring about the unity of the people,” Garcia said.

Garcia said the Zapatista movement is well-known in southern Mexico, but Indigenous in the north are still learning about the movement.

Still, the racism and bigotry towards Indigenous Peoples knows no boundaries, he said.

“We need to learn to survive in this modern world, as society progresses. Indigenous are affected by these changes in many ways.

“This is why we’re asking non-Indigenous to have courtesy and allow Indigenous this time to come together and voice opinions and concerns.”

Maria Garcia, organizing food for the Zapatistas' North American Summit, said hard-working kitchen helpers are needed for food preparation and cleaning duties. Helpers should arrive at the site on Sunday evening, Oct. 7, for assignments.

Also, large quantities of coffee, pinto beans, rice, cooking oil, heavy paper plates, heavy paper cups for coffee and napkins are needed. (Please contact Maria or Jose Garcia at oodhamj@yahoo.com or La Indita Restaurant in Tucson, to provide supplies before the conference.)

Lt. Gov. Garcia said all attendees must register, either by way of pre-registration or at the site. Media should bring press credentials for registration.

Indigenous organizations may also submit written statements of their concerns and issues to the summit.

The topics of discussion were established by the Intercontinental Indigenous Summit Commission (Comision Organizadora del Encuentro de Pueblos Indigenas de Americas.) The organizing commission includes the traditional authorities of Vicam Pueblo, National Indigenous Congress of Mexico and the Sixth Commission of the EZLN.

The primary topic will be the war of capitalist conquest and its effect on Indigenous Peoples. The second topic is the resistance of Indigenous Peoples to this war of conquest in defense of Mother Earth and Indigenous territories and cultures. The third topic will be a discussion of why Indigenous Peoples are struggling.

Indian tribes’ delegates, representatives or commissions are invited to bring the problems of their regions and discuss these topics at the regional and international summits.

Other attendees will be observers, without a voice or role in the decision-making process at the Indigenous summits.

The North American Continental Summit, Oct. 8 – 9, is one of four regional conferences. There are also Indigenous summits being held in Oaxaca, Oct. 4 --5, Atlapulco in central Mexico, Oct. 6 –7 and Michaocan, Oct. 6 – 7, 2007.

The Intercontinental Indigenous Summit/Encuentro de Pueblos Indígenas de América, Oct. 11 – 14, follows in Vicam Pueblo near Obregon. Attendees must register.

At the North American Summit in Rancho el Penasco, camping, with water on site, is available, beginning Sunday, Oct. 7 through the conclusion of the summit on Oct. 9. For those with cars, motels are within two miles. Rancho el Penasco eco-tourism and biodiversity ranch, is located south of Magdalena on the main highway to Hermosillo. It is less than a two-hour drive from the Nogales, Ariz., border.

Brenda Norrell
brendanorrell@gmail.com

O’odham in Mexico Lt. Gov. Jose Garcia
oodhamj@yahoo.com

Paraguay in a spin about Bush's alleged 100,000 acre hideaway

Tom Phillips in Cuiab
Monday October 23, 2006
The Guardian

Meeting the new couple next door can be an anxious business for even the most relaxed home owner. Will they be international drug traffickers? Have they got noisy kids with a penchant for electronic music? As worries go, however, having the US president move in next door must come fairly low on the list.

Unless of course you are a resident of northern Paraguay and believe reports in the South American press that he has bought up a 100,000 acre (40,500 hectare) ranch in your neck of the woods.

Article continues

---

---

The rumours, as yet unconfirmed but which began with the state-run Cuban news agency Prensa Latina, have triggered an outpouring of conspiracy theories, with speculation rife about what President Bush's supposed interest in the "chaco", a semi-arid lowland in the Paraguay's north, might be.

Some have speculated that he might be trying to wrestle control of the Guarani Aquifer, one of the largest underground water reserves, from the Paraguayans.

Rumours of Mr Bush's supposed forays into South American real estate surfaced during a recent 10-day visit to the country by his daughter Jenna Bush. Little is known about her trip to Paraguay, although officially she travelled with the UN children's agency Unicef to visit social projects. Photographers from the Paraguayan newspaper ABC Color tracked her down to one restaurant in Paraguay's capital Asunción, where she was seen flanked by 10 security guards, and was also reported to have met Paraguay's president, Nicanor Duarte, and the US ambassador to Paraguay, James Cason. Reports in sections of the Paraguayan media suggested she was sent on a family "mission" to tie up the land purchase in the "chaco".

Erasmo Rodríguez Acosta, the governor of the Alto Paraguay region where Mr Bush's new acquisition supposedly lies, told one Paraguayan news agency there were indications that Mr Bush had bought land in Paso de Patria, near the border with Brazil and Bolivia. He was, however, unable to prove this, he added.

Last week the Paraguayan news group Neike suggested that Ms Bush was in Paraguay to "visit the land acquired by her father - relatively close to the Brazilian Pantanal [wetlands] and the Bolivian gas reserves".

The US presence in Paraguay has been under scrutiny since May 2005 when the country's Congress agreed to allow 400 American marines to operate there for 18 months in exchange for financial aid.

At the time many viewed the arrival of troops as a sign that Washington was trying to monitor US business interests in neighbouring Bolivia, after the election of Evo Morales, a leftwing leader who promised to nationalise his country's natural gas industry.

Life in a FARC Camp

[by Garry Leech]

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia263.htm

We met two female members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) at the pre-established rendezvous point deep in the Colombian jungle. There we waited in a simple two-room wooden shack, which served as the home of a local peasant family. We sat there talking and drinking coffee while one of the guerrillas stood on the riverbank communicating through a hand-held radio. Finally, having received the all clear, which meant that there were no army patrols on the river, the four of us climbed into a canoe for the next stage of our journey. It had taken Terry Gibbs and myself more than two days to reach that point and we still had a short river trip and a hike through the jungle before we would finally arrive at the FARC camp that was our destination.

After an hour journeying deeper into the lush green rainforest we pulled over to the riverbank, climbed out of the canoe and walked down a narrow path through the jungle to a small clearing. We waited there while our two female guerrilla guides stashed the canoe and its outboard motor. When the two rebels returned to the clearing they were each carrying two planks of wood measuring six foot long, ten inches wide and two inches thick. They insisted on also carrying our backpacks for us. The sun was setting when we all set off along a trail through the jungle on a one-hour hike to the FARC camp.

We stumbled and slid along the muddy path, traversing streams on fallen logs with only the narrow beams of our small flashlights to illuminate the way. Miraculously, I managed to avoid falling into the quagmire that passed as a trail. Almost an hour into the hike I heard the female guerrilla up front mumble something to a shadowy figure in the darkness. A fully uniformed, AK-47-toting male guerrilla then greeted Terry and I as we passed him. I noticed a small white light through the trees up ahead and as we reached the perimeter of the camp saw a uniformed man with a gray beard working on a laptop computer. It was FARC commander Raúl Reyes; a member of the rebel group’s seven-person Central Command. According to many analysts, Reyes is the second-highest ranking member of the FARC.

Reyes greeted us both and after an introductory conversation invited us to join him and several other guerrillas for dinner. Afterwards, Terry and I were shown to our bivouac, which consisted of a bed with wooden planks for a mattress, a mosquito net and a plastic camouflaged canopy that hung above everything to provide protection from the frequent tropical rains. Our bivouac was identical to the ones used by the guerrillas in the camp. For the next three days, Terry and I lived as the guerrillas lived. We bathed with them in a nearby stream. We went to the bathroom in their rainforest latrines, which consisted of trenches dug in the ground. And we all ate ample servings of basic Colombian food.

Terry and I were at the remote FARC camp for different reasons. She was there to interview female guerrillas as part of her research on women engaged in social struggle in Colombia. I was there to interview Reyes. We were given free rein of the camp and access to all the guerrillas, about one third of whom were female. We were also allowed to take photos with the stipulation that we didn’t publish the faces of any of the rebels except Reyes. We also passed many hours engaged in informal conversations with Reyes and other guerrillas.

Living conditions for the guerrillas were austere to say the least. They consisted of the aforementioned bivouac, two uniforms, a pair of rubber boots, an AK-47 assault rifle, extra cartridges of ammunition, a machete and three meals a day. Despite the austerity, the camp’s infrastructure was impressive given its remote location. The bivouacs were interconnected with a network of wooden walkways constructed several inches above the wet, muddy ground. As few trees as possible had been felled to make space for the bivouacs and walkways in order to preserve the rainforest canopy, no doubt to limit the possibility of detection from the air.

In the center of the camp was a large wooden-framed, tent-like structure with sheets of black plastic that served as a roof. Inside were a dozen rows of benches constructed from wooden planks similar to the ones our guerrilla guides had carried to the camp. A television and chalkboard were situated at one end of the structure and each evening the guerrillas watched the news on Caracol and RCN—Colombia’s two major television networks—in order to keep informed about current issues. This activity was particularly interesting given that the country’s television networks generally presented a very negative portrayal of the FARC.

The wooden walkways extended beyond the center of the camp in several directions, becoming wooden steps whenever the path went up or down hills. One walkway disappeared into the rainforest only to terminate at the men’s latrine. The word latrine might be a bit elaborate given that it only consisted of two trenches dug into the ground. One was for urine and the other for feces. A different walkway led to the women’s latrine, which consisted of the same facilities. There were long sticks that were used to shovel the red, clay-like mud back into the trench to cover up the human waste.

A third walkway led to the camp’s kitchen, which was a large, open-sided structure that contained two fires and lots of large pots and pans. The cooks prepared three meals a day of basic Colombian fare such as beef, chicken, rice, potatoes, yucca, vegetables and lots of soup. One afternoon, while Terry was interviewing female guerrillas, I walked down to the kitchen and hung out with the two rebels, one male and the other female, who were on kitchen duty.

“You all seem to eat well here?” I said to them, half as a question and half as a statement.
“You’ve come at a good time,” explained the female guerrilla. “We have plenty of food right now. Sometimes we don’t have much to eat. How often we get supplies depends on the weather and the security situation.”
“Do you two cook everyday?” I asked them.
“No,” replied the male rebel. “Everybody takes a turn. We will cook dinner today and then breakfast and lunch tomorrow. After that someone else will take over and do the same.”
“So everybody cooks?” I inquire. “The men and the women?”
“Of course,” the female guerrilla answered. “Everybody does everything in the camp. It doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman. You cook, you wash your own clothes, you stand guard, and you go out on patrol. It is the same for men and women.”

I had heard that this sort of equality was part of the FARC’s philosophy, but wasn’t sure to what degree it had actually been implemented. I still wasn’t sure to what degree it applied in other FARC units throughout the country. However, there was little doubt that the guerrillas in that particular camp had achieved an impressive degree of gender equality. It was not just evident in their activities and words but, more importantly, in their way of being.

Surprisingly, for me at least, it was more evident in the behavior of the men than the women. The softness of the energy exhibited by the male rebels towards their female colleagues, their absolute lack of machismo, their acceptance of them as equals, was actually quite astounding. And for the women, they also exhibited many feminine qualities for a group of females living a traditionally male lifestyle. In fact, maintaining their femininity was important to the female guerrillas. During off-duty hours we often observed female rebels getting together to apply make-up or to braid each other’s hair. Evidently, equality in that FARC camp was not about women acting like men.

Everyday in the late afternoon the guerrillas went in groups to bathe. Terry and I would go with a bunch of rebels shortly before dinner each day. The wooden walkway wound its way through the rainforest and down a hill to a small stream. The rebels had built a dam across the stream that allowed the fresh, clear water to flow over the top of the twelve-inch high wooden structure, through the ten foot long bathing area and then over another dam before continuing its course through the rainforest. Wooden floorboards were placed in the bottom of the pool of water created between the two dams to ensure solid, mud-free footing.

The male and female guerrillas stripped down to their underwear and bathed together in the shin-deep pool of water. They also hand washed their clothes on a wooden table constructed along one side of the pool. The guerrillas each had two sets of camouflage uniforms and they washed one each day, which then dried over the following twenty-four hours while they wore the other one. In one of our bathing sessions I attempted to hand wash the pair of trousers that had gotten muddy on the hike to the camp. A female guerrilla who was bathing with us couldn’t help but smile at my ineptitude in the laundering department. A male rebel took pity on me and taught me his washing technique, which was surprisingly effective.

Everyday began at 4:50 am. Some rebels went out on patrol and others stood guard around the camp’s perimeter. Many of those who remained in the camp engaged in education programs that taught basic reading, writing and math. All the guerrillas were peasants, some illiterate. The better-educated rebels would be paired with the less literate ones in order to provide them with a basic education and to teach them the fundamental concepts of Marxism. The pairs would spend a couple of hours each afternoon engaging in lessons. Some days the guerrillas engaged in military training. After dinner, the rebels would watch the news, engage in group discussions about political and cultural issues, watch a movie and be in bed by 9:00 pm.

We were told that the rebel unit frequently moved camp for security reasons. Such an operation involved packing up everything, except the wooden infrastructure, for the journey to another part of the jungle where they would take out their machetes and begin constructing a new camp. Because they were all peasants, the rebels were very adept with that ubiquitous tool of the countryside, the machete. However, other skills that the group required were not always so easy to come by, such as medical care.

I asked one female rebel what happened when a guerrilla became ill, or was injured or wounded.
“There are always several guerrillas who can apply basic medical care,” she explained. “And these guerrillas pass this knowledge on to others so each unit always has medics.”
“But what if the sickness or injury is serious and requires extensive medical care, like surgery?” I inquired.
“Then the person is transported to one of the FARC’s hospitals, which are staffed by doctors. For security reasons, it is preferred that they don’t go on such a journey unless it is absolutely necessary.”
“Where are these hospitals located, in villages or in jungle camps like this?” I asked her.
“In camps like this,” she replied.

Several of the guerrillas referred to their cultural time on Sundays as an important part of guerrilla life. During these sessions they would engage in music, theatre and poetry readings, with most of the art being inspired by their revolutionary ideals. On our final afternoon in the camp the guerrillas put on a cultural show for Terry and I. We all gathered in the large structure for the performance, which consisted of songs and skits that were full of humor and political and social commentary. One skit that several rebels performed was a parody of beauty pageants, which are extremely popular in Colombia. A male and a female guerrilla held imitation microphones and acted as the hosts of the pageant, which sought to crown the new Señorita Colombia.

They first introduced the reigning champion, who was an attractive female rebel dressed in a halter-top and miniskirt with a cardboard crown perched atop her head. She took her place at the front of the room while the hosts introduced the contestants seeking to become her heir. One by one, the four contestants entered the room from behind a curtain. They each paraded around the inside perimeter of the structure in their skimpy outfits as the audience cheered wildly. The interesting and hilarious catch was that all four were male guerrillas dressed in drag and adorned with lipstick and make-up.

The hosts then asked the contestants questions about what they would do if they were to be crowned the new Señorita Colombia. When it was his turn to answer, a short stocky mestizo rebel who was Señorita Cauca replied, “I would bring about the New Colombia in which all Colombians would be equal.” His reference was to the socialist society that the FARC has envisioned and labeled the “New Colombia.” Clearly, in the FARC, culture and politics are integrated.

The funniest moment in the show occurred when Señorita Chocó, a tall thin black guerrilla with a moustache, paraded around the structure exhibiting exaggerated feminine mannerisms while wearing a wig, a red bikini top and a blue makeshift plastic mini-skirt. He had the entire audience of guerrillas, along with Terry and myself, laughing hysterically. The skit ended when the hosts asked Terry and I to select the new Señorita Colombia. We unanimously agreed on Señorita Chocó. The hosts then coaxed several male rebels and me into dancing with the guerrillas in drag. The entire skit was a fascinating parody on the sexist nature of beauty pageants and the objectification of the female body.

There were a few older guerrillas in the camp who had been members of the FARC for decades. Among them were Reyes, who had been in the rebel group for 26 years, and the oldest woman in the FARC, who had been living in the jungle for 32 years. Most of the guerrillas, however, were in their twenties. Some of them were couples whose bivouacs had been constructed with double beds. Any two guerrillas who want to enter into a relationship with each other have to obtain the permission of their commander. This protocol is similar to that in the US military where soldiers posted overseas must obtain the permission of their commanding officer before getting married. FARC guerrillas also need to obtain permission to end a relationship, although that is rarely denied.

The fact that the guerrillas are rotated in and out of field units makes it difficult to maintain long-term relationships. One morning I sat down with a guerrilla couple in their bivouac to discuss engaging in relationships under such conditions.
“It is difficult because you never know when one of you is going to be sent somewhere else,” explained an Afro-Colombian female guerrilla named Carmen.
“The FARC tries to keep couples together whenever it is possible,” added her partner Osvaldo.
“If you are separated is it possible to stay in touch with each other?” I asked.
“No, not really. It is difficult, but that’s just the way it is,” said Osvaldo, acknowledging that commitment to the FARC and their revolutionary cause is every guerrilla’s first priority.

Terry and I also engaged in many informal conversations with Reyes and I conducted one formal two-hour interview with the FARC commander. During the informal conversations we discussed a wide variety of topics related to Colombia and the world in general. Some of the conversations occurred during the meals that we ate with Reyes. Other conversations were held around the table in his bivouac, which was situated at one end of the camp. The only difference between Reyes’ living quarters and those of the other guerrillas was that it contained a table with wooden benches on each side and a laptop computer.

One topic of discussion was the possibility of a prisoner exchange between the FARC and the US government. More precisely, I asked about the possibility of the rebel group exchanging the three US military contractors that it was holding captive for Simón Trinidad and Soñia, the two FARC members imprisoned in the United States.
“We cannot agree to such an exchange because we are engaged in an internal conflict and so any exchange would have to be between us and the Colombian government,” explained Reyes. “We are not at war with the United States and we don’t want to internationalize the conflict. And besides, any humanitarian exchange would have to include the release of all the guerrillas being held in Colombian prisons.”

We also discussed the country’s new center-left political party, the Democratic Pole. At one point I asked Reyes if he thought there was any possibility of the FARC negotiating peace with the Democratic Pole should the party win the presidency in the 2010 elections.
“It would depend on their policies,” he replied.

Back in my bivouac I thought about the accusations made by many analysts that the guerrilla group is nothing more than a criminal organization. These critics often claim that the FARC was ideological many years ago but now is only interested in profiting from its criminal activities, which are primarily related to the coca trade. Colombia’s President Alvaro Uribe has repeatedly declared that there is not an armed conflict in Colombia and that the government is simply combating criminals who engage in terrorism. Clearly these are efforts to de-legitimize the FARC as a political entity.

The FARC’s involvement in the coca trade and its human rights abuses against civilians, including kidnapping and the use of landmines and notoriously inaccurate homemade mortars, have made it easy for critics to simply dismiss the rebels as criminals. However, the issue is not so black and white, as I discovered in the FARC camp. In fact, it is difficult to accept such claims given the difficult life that the guerrillas live. After all, unlike Colombian soldiers and paramilitary fighters, the rebels do not get paid and they receive no material benefits other than three meals a day.

And if guerrilla leaders like Reyes are little more than the heads of a criminal organization, then they must be considered miserable failures. After all, other Colombian criminals live in luxury. The leader of the former Medellín cocaine cartel, Pablo Escobar, lived lavishly in magnificent mansions, as have many other Colombian drug traffickers over the past thirty years. Paramilitary leaders have also lived well on their vast cattle ranches in northern Colombia, enjoying the riches wrought from their criminal activities. And now they are demobilizing so they can legally enjoy their ill-gotten wealth.

On the other hand, the FARC’s leaders live as Reyes lives. There appears to be no personal monetary gain despite the guerrilla group’s financial wealth. It is a hard life spent sleeping on wooden planks, bathing in rivers, fighting off tropical diseases, and constantly moving from camp to camp to avoid US intelligence gathering efforts and the Colombian army. Reyes has lived in the jungle in this manner for 26 years and the only comforts that he enjoys are a laptop computer and the camp’s television. It is hardly the lifestyle of a criminal whose principal objective is the attainment of wealth.

After spending three nights in the camp, and with our work completed, Terry and I awoke on our final morning, packed our things and bid farewell to the guerrillas. Along with our rebel guides, we made the return trek through the rainforest to the river and boarded a canoe. As we cruised along the jungle river I thought about Colombia’s future. After almost seven years of Plan Colombia, five years of President Uribe’s security policies and more than five billion dollars in US military aid, there is no evidence that the FARC has been significantly weakened militarily. Consequently, with the FARC being too strong to be defeated on the battlefield and not strong enough to take power by force, a negotiated settlement is the only possible route to achieving peace.

The FARC, however, is not about to simply negotiate its demobilization in return for reduced prison sentences as the paramilitaries have done. Nor is the FARC likely to demobilize in return for a full amnesty under a “peace” agreement that leaves the structures of neoliberalism intact, as did the M-19 in Colombia, the FMLN in El Salvador and the URNG in Guatemala. Any negotiated peace would require a restructuring of Colombia’s political, social and economic system to ensure a much more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth and land. But such a negotiated settlement would require the acquiescence of the country’s political and economic elites as well as of the US government. Consequently, at least for the near future, it appears that the conflict will continue to rage. And, tragically, it will be the civilian population that will continue to bear the brunt of the violence.

To read the entire interview with FARC Commander Raúl Reyes, click here

Armed conflict
30.08.2007

The War on Mexico's Tropical Forests

Dead Forest Defenders

By JOHN ROSS

Mexico City.

Mexico's 56.000.000 hectares of lush forestland covering a quarter of its national territory and comprising 1.3% of the world's forest resources, are increasingly littered with the corpses of dead forest defenders.

With the highest deforestation rate in Meso-America--272,000 hectares of tropical forest disappear a year--Mexican forests are a violent battleground between narco-gangs clearing land for illicit cultivation, guerilla groups encamped under the canopy, heavily-armed wood poachers who steal 2,000,000 board feet of timber each year, and those who seek to defend the trees.

In recent years, Mexico's forests have become a killing floor every bit as lethal as Brazil where such environmental martyrs as Chico Mendez, Sister Dorothy Stang, and young Dionicio Ribieras have been cut down by the pistoleros of ruthless landowners.

The list of the dead is horrific. In the state of Mexico, 30 forest inspectors, a third of the state force, have been murdered since 1991 according to a count kept by Hector Magallanes, Greenpeace Mexico forest action coordinator. Federal forest wardens are equally as vulnerable. With 300 inspectors to cover more than 50,000,000 hectares, each inspector oversees 180,000 hectares. Too often, they find themselves caught up in shoot-outs with organized gangs of wood poachers ("talamontes") who do their dirty work mostly in the dark with an army of gunsills standing watch.

When Wilfredo Alvarez, a Guerrero state forest inspector was ambushed in 2003 near the state capital of Chilpancingo, one of his killers was a fellow inspector who had been corrupted by the talamontes. Miguel Angel Maya, regional coordinator for the National Protected Land Commission, was gunned down in the Chimilapas, one of Mexico's last two great forests, in 2005--his predecessor had been murdered the previous summer.

Poor farmers who seek to defend their forests from the wood poachers are met with homicidal repression. 17 members of the Farmers Organization of the Southern Sierra (OCSS) were massacred at Aguas Blancas Guerrero in June 1995 after they blocked a crony of corrupt governor Ruben Figueroa from logging out their sierra. 28 Zapotec Indians were butchered in 2002 in the southern Oaxaca sierra in a feud over forest ownership.

The most recent killing to shame national attention was that of 21 year-old Aldo Zamora in Ocuitlan Mexico state this past May 15th--Aldo's brother Misael was critically wounded in the attack by wood poachers from the local Encarnacion clan. Aldo and Misael are the sons of legendary forest defender Ildefonso Zamora. "They go to where we hurt when they take our children" Ildefonso, a Tlahuica Indian leader, mourned, vowing to continue his peoples' struggle to defend their forests. Although President Felipe Calderon came to Ocuitlan and pledged that Aldo's killers would not enjoy impunity, arrests have been slow in coming.

When forest defenders are not murdered outright, they are persecuted and jailed on absurd charges on orders from the talamontes. This past June 6th, Jaime Gonzalez who campaigns to halt the wholesale devastation of fragile mountain forests in Motozintla Chiapas was jailed by local police for a traffic offense and disappeared for 15 days during which he says he was relentlessly tortured. Gonzalez remains in state prison.

The Campesino Ecologistas ("Ecological Farmers") of the Petatlan sierra above Guerrero's Costa Grande organized to combat uncontrolled clear-cutting by the U.S. timber giant Boise Cascade --Boise moved to Mexico after having timber permits to log in U.S. national forests cancelled as the result of environmentalist pressures. A Campesino Ecologista blockade of mountain roads eventually cut off Boise's access to its wood supply and the transnational moved its operations to greener pastures in southern Chile. But caciques (rural bosses) who had cut lucrative deals with the transnational to sell off the forests grew disgruntled and at least five villagers were killed by their gunmen.

Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera who had been prominent organizers of the blockade were taken prisoner by the 40th Motorized Infantry Brigade and tortured for days by the soldiers. Later, they were charged with possession of marijuana and automatic weapons and thrown into the Guerrero state prison in Iguala where they languished for two years. Both farmers were designated as prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International and in 2002, while still in prison; they were awarded the Goldman Prize, sometimes described as an environmental Nobel. Released by former president Vicente Fox because of their poor health as the result of the beatings by the military, Montiel and Cabrera, afraid to move their families back to the forests of Petatlan, took up residence at the other end of the country in Yucatan.

They had good reason to be fearful. Their lawyer Digna Ochoa died mysteriously in Mexico City in 2001. Fellow ecologist farmer Felipe Arriaga was framed for the murder of the son of a local cacique and served 10 months in prison in 2004 before justice was done. In 2005, Campesino Ecologista Albertino Penaloza and two of his children were assassinated in an ambush in the Sierra of Petatlan.

The persecution of forest defenders is not confined to southern Mexico. Isidro Baldanegro, a Raramuri Indian defender of the diminishing pine forests of Chihuahua state's Tarahumara sierra from "chabochi" (non-Indian) talamontes, and young Hermenigildo Rivas, were taken into custody on their ejido in 2003 after state police broke into their home without a warrant and charged them with the usual guns and marijuana violations, the same charges lodged against the Campesino Ecologistas.

The two were beaten unmercifully and locked up for 18 months before international environmental groups intervened. Once again, Amnesty International declared the forest defenders prisoners of conscience and they too were awarded the Goldman prize, a prerequisite of which seems to be torture and imprisonment by the Mexican police.

But those who defend Mexican forests from predatory wood poaching are not the only defenders of the environment to be killed or jailed for their efforts. In December 2003, Navy officer Andres Espino was murdered by turtle egg poachers while providing protection for endangered Pacific Coast sea turtles on a Michoacan beach--a second sailor was wounded. The Mexican Navy has been active in defense of these diminishing species. But when the Cucapa Indians in the Baja California desert try to fish the Sea of Cortez for their sacred corvina, they are removed at gunpoint by sailors assigned to this protected area.

Much of Mexico's forestland is titularly owned by 500 mostly-Indian ejidos but indigenous ownership does not guarantee that the forests will be defended and conserved. While many ejidos zealously protect their forests which are held in common and represent the communities' most valued resource, other Indians such as the Lacandon who occupy the forest of the same name lease out their timber rights to millions of meters of precious mahogany and cedar stands to corporate talamontes.

On the other side of the ledger, Zapatista Mayan Indian rebels who share the rain forest with the Lacandones, enforce timber cutting strictures in their communities and set up roadblocks at key chokepoints in the jungle and the surrounding canyons to keep the wood poachers from moving their loads to clandestine sawmills in the municipality of Ocosingo. Clashes at the roadblocks have resulted in casualties on both sides. "The earth is our mother," explained Omar, a Zapatista forest defender on the Ejido Morelia, at the recent Intergalactica forum in the Lacandon jungle, "we are prepared to die to defend her."

John Ross can be reached at: johnross@igc.org

COLOMBIA: New Videos Shed Light on Palace of Justice Massacre

By Constanza Vieira

BOGOTA, Aug 29 (IPS) - Judge Carlos Horacio Urán walked out of Colombia’s Palace of Justice alive after it was seized by guerrillas in 1985. But his body was found inside the building when the 27-hour siege came to an end.

The local TV news station Noticias Uno aired three videos Sunday showing Urán limping out of the courthouse and being met at the door by supposed rescue workers, who carried him away on a stretcher.

On Nov. 6, 1985, the Movimiento 19 de Abril (M-19) guerrillas occupied the Palace of Justice, taking around 300 hostages, including the members of the Supreme Court and the Council of State (the highest court of administrative law).

The army immediately launched an assault, ignoring the order from Supreme Court president Alfonso Reyes to hold their fire. The order was issued by radio from within the building when the insurgents were already giving up in the face of the heavy military response.

According to official figures, between 89 and 115 people were killed that day in the courthouse, including all of the rebels, 11 Supreme Court magistrates, three auxiliary magistrates, 19 judges and 11 people who were working in, or just happened to be passing through, the cafeteria at the time. Some 200 hostages were rescued.

A few hours into the siege, a fire broke out and burned numerous court records, including the files from key cases, as well as evidence of what occurred at that time.

One of the videos broadcast by Noticias Uno shows the exact time that auxiliary magistrate Urán stumbled out of the courthouse: 14:17 on Thursday Nov. 7, the second day of the siege.

But on Friday, Urán’s body showed up inside the Palace of Justice, and was turned over naked to his wife, Uruguayan researcher Ana María Bidegaín.

The forensic exam showed that Urán was shot point-blank in the head with a 9 mm gun.

In May, an Attorney General’s Office search of a records warehouse of the B-2 military intelligence service turned up a list of "M-19 guerrillas, gunned down in combat" that included the names of Urán and another magistrate killed in the courthouse, Manuel Gaona.

Also found in the warehouse was Urán’s billfold, containing his identity card, his driver’s licence and a photo of his family with a bullet hole through the middle, Noticias Uno reported.

Bidegaín said that for 22 years she had believed that her husband died in crossfire between the rebels and the armed forces.

At the time, Urán was investigating the torture case of Dr. Olga López, an M-19 guerrilla fighter. He had also been a member of the National Popular Alliance (ANAPO), a left-wing party, where he met Andrés Almarales, who later became an insurgent -- and years later led the M-19 occupation of the Palace of Justice.

Gaona, the other magistrate on the list, had ruled against a judicial reform implemented by the government of Julio César Turbay (1978-1982) which made it possible for civilians to be tried by military courts.

Both the Supreme Court and the Council of State had been handing down convictions of members of the armed forces in cases like that of López and hundreds of civilians and insurgents tortured and killed by the security forces.

The courts "had issued a sentence in June that year against former defence minister Luis Carlos Camacho Leyva, former president Turbay, and then defence minister Miguel Vega Uribe," Maureen Maya, director of the Fundación Cese al Fuego (Ceasefire Foundation), which is working to clarify the Palace of Justice massacre, pointed out on Monday.

Magistrate Nilson Pinilla, a member of the Truth Commission set up by the Supreme Court in 2005, announced that the videos would be included in the commission’s final report as "an extremely important point of reference."

Urán’s case "was not included" in the commission’s preliminary report last November "because we only had unconfirmed rumours," he told journalists.

Legal experts mentioned different reasons to argue that the statute of limitations had not run out on the case, such as the fact that the security forces had altered or concealed evidence.

René Guarín, whose sister Cristina disappeared after the siege and assault on the Palace of Justice, has received death threats in the last few weeks.

His sister, the cashier in the courthouse cafeteria, left the building uninjured, as seen in another tape seized in July from Colonel Alfonso Plazas, who led the military assault. However, she never reappeared.

Plazas is now under arrest in connection with the case.

For several years after the tragedy, threats were received regularly by the families of the 11 people who disappeared from the cafeteria, most of whom were employees there.

Although the threats stopped after five years, they started up again when Attorney General Mario Iguarán restarted the case, and the Supreme Court Truth Commission began to function in late 2005.

Relatives have received threatening phone calls, and report being followed by a white vehicle that has appeared with two different licence plates.

In addition, thick files were stolen from 87-year-old former judge Enrique Rodríguez, the father of Carlos, the cafeteria manager. In a video recording confiscated from Colonel Plazas, Carlos Rodríguez can be seen leaving the building unhurt. However, he was never heard from again.

Guarín told IPS that he discovered that "both of the licence plates used by the white car are from the DAS (Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad)" intelligence agency.

The security that the Attorney General’s Office’s Witness Protection Programme offers the 44-year-old computer engineer and father of two "consists of me quitting my job and my kids (ages nine and 11) dropping out of school, while they would bring us groceries once a week and pay our utility bills for eight months."

Later, "they would give us four million pesos (some 2,000 dollars) for a ‘productive enterprise’," he added, which, he said, was barely enough to "open a soft-drink stand" in a resort town.

Nine years ago, the prominent human rights lawyer who was assisting the families, Eduardo Umaña Mendoza, was murdered in his office.

Plazas’ arrest has raised some hopes among the families, whose efforts to recover the bodies of their loved ones have run up against "very powerful interests that seek to conceal evidence and testimony," the families say.

For that reason they set up their own Truth Commission in May, with the aim of shoring up the work of the Attorney General’s Office, which, they say, "has dragged on in total inertia for 20 years."

Among other goals, the families hope to get the courts to accept the testimony of former torturer Ricardo Gámez, who is living in exile in Europe, and whose version of events is -- they believe -- the most accurate heard so far.

The former police officer had already given a written deposition to the office of the inspector general (Procuraduría General de la Nación) in 1989. But the official who took it found no grounds for opening an investigation.

Gámez says he is a former member of what he describes as "the intelligence service’s pseudo-personnel" -- a group of 25 civilians working under military orders and paid out of secret expense funds.

Gámez has stated on camera, for example, that a non-commissioned officer kept a baby who was born in an army truck during the assault on the courthouse. The baby’s mother, Rosa Castiblanco, a cook at the cafeteria, was "disappeared."

The families are also demanding explanations from the Attorney General’s Office as to why no army generals have been charged or called on to testify in the case, or subjected to disciplinary or corrective actions.

Gámez said that just a few days before the siege, the Casa del Florero, a historical building in front of the courthouse, was set up as an army operations centre.

During the military assault, the building served as the base of operations used by Plazas, who at the time was the head of the Escuela de Caballería, an army training school.

It was Plazas who decided which of the hostages brought out of the Palace of Justice were to be tortured, and they were then sent to different military and intelligence facilities, said Gámez.

The torturers did not cover their faces or conceal their identities, he said, because it was clear from the very start of the operation that the tortured hostages were to be killed.

But Plazas was not in charge at 14:17 on Thursday, when Urán was taken out of the building.

His superior, General Jesús Armando Arias, commander at the time of the 13th army brigade, had replaced him there with two other officers, one of whom was Carlos Fracica, assistant commander at the Escuela de Artillería (artillery school), one of the places where hostages were tortured. Fracica, now a general, is military attaché in Chile.

In any case, according to Gámez, the Casa del Florero was just "an alternate centre of command, which was in direct contact with the Army Command."

That is why the hostages’ families have their sights set on the higher-ranking officers who planned and coordinated the operation.

Guarín told IPS that the families plan to testify before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which is studying the case of the 11 victims of forced disappearance, to disseminate the new evidence that has emerged.

Chileans take to streets in anger at regime

· Hundreds arrested in clashes with police
· Economic inequality at heart of protest in capital

Jonathan Franklin in Santiago and agencies
Thursday August 30, 2007
The Guardian

Thousands of Chileans took to the streets yesterday in a burgeoning middle class revolt against the 17 years of coalition government that has ruled since the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990.

Hundreds of Chileans were arrested as they approached the presidential palace. Squares in and around the palace became a chaotic mix of mounted police, riot troops and teargas. As water cannons blasted protesters, waves of students counterattacked with rocks. Burning barricades almost closed central Santiago.

Television images showed senator Alejandro Navarro, of President Michelle Bachelet's Socialist party, bleeding from the back of his head after apparently being clubbed by a police officer. The deputy interior minister, Felipe Harboe, said the incident would be investigated. Mr Navarro, who was treated in hospital, supported the protest.

"This protest will start to change things. There will be one after another," said Arturo Martinez, of United Workers Central, the trade union that organised the protest. The union is tapping into widespread anger at economic inequality in Chilean society. As riot police and ruling party politicians tried to play down the protests, the capital was filled by protesters demanding higher pensions, better public transport, subsidised housing and a halt to rising food and electricity prices.

President Bachelet initially defended her record as a progressive politician, then conceded and promised "subsidies to all" families in need and a "short-term solution" for economic inequality. "Nobody can say that my government's programmes are not fair and equitable. I will not accept questioning of my work on social justice," she said. "The solutions to these inequalities and the goal of a more equitable Chile are obtained with dialogue, maturity, work and agreements. Through this process there will be discord, but also common understanding."

While government officials tried to ignore the protests, union leaders such as Mr Martinez threatened to lay siege to Santiago by shutting down major avenues and roads leading into the city.

Throughout the day, protesters repeatedly attempted to approach the presidential palace, which late on Tuesday was briefly occupied by low-income housing residents who stormed the building. At least 30 members managed to scale the iron window grates, dangling from the palace screaming anti-government slogans.

Yesterday's protest comes after weeks of labour action, including strikes by poultry workers in southern Chile and copper miners in the north. Union leaders called the demonstrations to protest against the government's "neo-liberal" economic policies and to further the national debate about the country's minimum wage.

Salaries for workers have been at the forefront of public debate after recent statements by Bishop Alejandro Goic calling for "an ethical [minimum] wage" for Chilean workers.

Venezuelan National Oil Company to Create Diversified Branch Companies

By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, August 29, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) —The Venezuelan government's Central Planning Committee is proposing the creation of seven new companies as branches of the state oil company to promote growth and development in diverse sectors of the economy.

Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramírez presented the plan to President Chavez on Monday in a meeting with the other major government ministers that make up the committee.

With enormous proven oil reserves, Venezuela is using its oil sector as the catalyst for a wide variety of development programs. This project will create seven companies as branches to PDVSA, which are PDVSA Industry, PDVSA Naval, PDVSA Agriculture, PDVSA Services, PDVSA Popular Gas, PDVSA Urban Development, and PDVSA Engineering and Construction.

The Central Planning Committee, headed up by Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez, was created as a permanent structure of the government last June with the intention of coordinating national economic planning and government management in order to achieve economic development and sovereignty.

The objective of the committee is to carry out the economic policies of the government, coordinating the efforts of different ministries, and taking measures to follow up and evaluate the impact of the polices on the needs of the population, according to government sources.

With the creation of new branches of PDVSA, the state oil company would extend its influence beyond the oil industry and into other important sectors of the economy by contributing to agricultural production or the construction of housing, among other activities.

The recuperation of the state oil company by the Chavez government as well as preventing its privatization has allowed PDVSA to play a fundamental role in the government's plans for economic development. President Chavez's recent proposal for constitutional reform seeks to strengthen the state's role in the exploitation of the nation's resources.

At the meeting, President Chavez reflected on the national economy and emphasized the importance of building a new economic model based on socialist principles.

Venezuelan Minister of Agriculture Elías Jaua also presented to the Central Planning Committee the plan to increase national agricultural production. The plan, known as the Battle for Food Sovereignty, is the continuation of the Agricultural Ministry's efforts to build a new agricultural model in the country by the year 2015.

According to government sources, the objective of the plan is "to promote a new model of agricultural production based on the principles of agrarian socialism, to guarantee agricultural sovereignty and the conditions of decent living for the Venezuelan population."

The program is a continuation of the government's National Agricultural Project and seeks to battle against the food shortages that the Venezuelan government has been dealing with since early this year, as well as increasing national production. The Minister of Agriculture predicted a 16 percent increase in agricultural production for 2007.

Mercosur received 300 billion in foreign direct investment

Mercosur member countries received 300 billion US dollars in foreign direct investments between 1990 and 2004, reported the United Nationd Economic Commission for Latinamerica and the Caribbean, Cepal.

The strong influx of foreign capital had different macroeconomic impact in the regional economies with Brazil benefiting the most, in merit to its financial innovation policies.

In the second half of the nineties foreign investment was ten times higher than in the seventies in constant US dollars, revealed the paper titled: “Direct foreign investment and development: Mercosur experience”.

However it was mostly Argentina and Brazil that benefited at that time.

Actually while direct foreign investments in Paraguay and Uruguay never managed to cross the 450 million US dollars annually threshold, in 2000, Brazil was receiving 32 billion US dollars.

At macroeconomic level the strong influx of capital helped the establishment of transnational corporations affiliates in the region, boosting the average productivity index of the block, underlines Cepal.

Although the paper points out that this kind of investment does not necessarily guarantee more growth, it rejects the negative perception that is currently predominant in several countries of the region.

Foreign direct investment is also closely linked to the globalization process that the world has been undergoing since 1990, when the end of the Cold War.

In 1990 there were 37.000 transnational corporations with 170.000 affiliates, but by 2004 those numbers had jumped to 70.000 and 690.000, with almost half of them in the developing countries.

Bolivia accuses U.S. of funding Morales opponents

By Eduardo Garcia

LA PAZ, Aug 29 (Reuters) - Bolivia's leftist government accused the Bush administration on Wednesday of funneling U.S. aid to groups linked to opponents of President Evo Morales, a charge Washington denied.

Government Minister Juan Ramon Quintana claimed the United States was "meddling" in Bolivian politics by channeling millions of dollars in aid to conservative opposition leaders and think-tanks critical of Morales, a fierce U.S. critic.

It was the latest accusation against Washington by Bolivian officials in recent days.

"If aid from the United States does not comply with Bolivian policies, the door is open for it (to end). We are not going to allow this sort of aid ... to conspire against our country's right to freedom," Quintana told reporters.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey strongly rejected the charges.

"There is absolutely no truth to any allegation that the U.S. is using its aid funds to try and influence the political process, or in any way undermine the government there," Casey said.

Since taking office in January 2006, Morales, the country's first Indian leader, has aligned himself with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, two vocal critics of Washington.

Bolivian officials have accused the rightist opposition of orchestrating a campaign of protests to derail some of Morales' key reforms, including an assembly to rewrite the constitution to empower the Andean country's Indian majority.

Quintana said the government had discovered internal documents from the United States Agency for International Development, known as USAID, that referred to the need to fund programs to "reestablish a democratic government in the country."

American aid to Bolivia last year totaled $134 million, Quintana said. But more than 70 percent went to projects that are not administered by the Bolivian government, he said.

On Monday, Morales, in a veiled threat against the U.S. ambassador in La Paz, said his government will not hesitate at taking "radical actions" against ambassadors who interfere in the South American country's affairs.

Morales spoke days after U.S. Ambassador Philip Goldberg publicly criticized Bolivia's drug-fighting efforts.

"I regret that some ambassadors are getting involved in politics and criticizing the country," Morales said without directly naming the ambassador.

(Additional reporting by Sue Pleming in Washington)