Kaiman reports: "Ecuador plans to auction off more than three million hectares of pristine Amazonian rainforest to Chinese oil companies, angering indigenous groups and underlining the global environmental toll of China's insatiable thirst for energy."
Actress Daryl Hannah visits Ecuador's oil region in June, 2010, where locals say drilling by Chevron caused irreparable environmental damage. (photo: Dolores Ochoa/AP)
Ecuador Auctions Off Amazon to Chinese Oil Firms
28 March 13
�
cuador plans to auction off more than three million hectares of pristine Amazonian rainforest to Chinese oil companies, angering indigenous groups and underlining the global environmental toll of China's insatiable thirst for energy.
On Monday morning a group of Ecuadorean politicians pitched bidding contracts to representatives of Chinese oil companies at a Hilton hotel in central Beijing, on the fourth leg of a roadshow to publicise the bidding process. Previous meetings in Ecuador's capital, Quito, and in Houston and Paris were each confronted with protests by indigenous groups.
Attending the roadshow were black-suited representatives from oil companies including China Petrochemical and China National Offshore Oil. "Ecuador is willing to establish a relationship of mutual benefit - a win-win relationship," said Ecuador's ambassador to China in opening remarks.
According to the California-based NGO Amazon Watch, seven indigenous groups who inhabit the land claim that they have not consented to oil projects, which would devastate the area's environment and threaten their traditional way of life.
"We demand that public and private oil companies across the world not participate in the bidding process that systematically violates the rights of seven indigenous nationalities by imposing oil projects in their ancestral territories," a group of Ecuadorean organised indigenous associations wrote in an open letter last autumn.
In an interview, Ecuador's secretary of hydrocarbons, Andr�s Donoso Fabara, accused indigenous leaders of misrepresenting their communities to achieve political goals. "These guys with a political agenda, they are not thinking about development or about fighting against poverty," he said.
Fabara said the government had decided not to open certain blocks of land to bidding because it lacked support from local communities. "We are entitled by law, if we wanted, to go in by force and do some activities even if they are against them," he said. "But that's not our policy."
Amazon Watch said the deal would violate China's own new investment guidelines, issued jointly by the ministries of commerce and environmental protection last month. The third clause of the guidelines says Chinese enterprises should "promote harmonious development of local economy, environment and community" while operating abroad.
Fabara said he was not aware of the guidelines. "We're looking for global investors, not just investors from China," he said. "But of course Chinese companies are really aggressive. In a bidding process, they might present the winning bids."
Critics say national debt may be a large part of the Ecuadorean government's calculations. Ecuador owed China more than �4.6bn ($7bn) as of last summer, more than a tenth of its GDP. China began loaning billions of dollars to Ecuador in 2009 in exchange for oil shipments. More recently China helped fund two of its biggest hydroelectric infrastructure projects. Ecuador may soon build a $12.5bn oil refinery with Chinese financing.
"My understanding is that this is more of a debt issue - it's because the Ecuadoreans are so dependent on the Chinese to finance their development that they're willing to compromise in other areas such as social and environmental regulations," said Adam Zuckerman, environmental and human rights campaigner at Amazon Watch. "The message that they're trying to send to international investors is not in line with reality."
Last July the inter-American court on human rights ruled to prohibit oil developments in the Sarayaku, a tropical rainforest territory in southern Ecuador that is accessible only by plane and canoe, in order to preserve its rich cultural heritage and biodiversity. The court also mandated that governments obtain "free, prior and informed consent" from native groups before approving oil activities on their indigenous land.
A TV news report broadcast by the US Spanish-language network Telemundo showed members of Ecuadorean native groups - some wearing traditional facepaint and headdresses - waving protest banners and scuffling with security guards outside the Ecuadorean government's roadshow stop in Houston.
"What the government's been saying as they have been offering up our territory is not true; they have not consulted us, and we're here to tell the big investors that they don't have our permission to exploit our land," Narcisa Mashienta, a women's leader of Ecuador's Shuar people, said in the report.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
If he felt there was information that should be public, he should have left the Army and gone about his "expose" in the right manner instead of burning his fellow soldiers...whic h he did.
Puh-leez. Because the warrantless-wir etapping, information-shr edding, drone-assassina ting "government" of Obama would have responded well to his civilian requests, right? WHAT country did you think you still live in -- America, circa 1978?
Manning "burned" the fellow soldiers who perpetrate horrors in our name, for fun or lust -- "burned" the lying warlords who put our troops where they should not be -- "burned" the lying politicians who cravenly gave the cover... WHOM did he "burn" or "kill" as a result of these leaks? NO ONE -- let's be clear -- yet Bush-Cheney can "out" Valerie Plame (a REAL treasonous crime) -- people really DID die (the brave people who helped her in foreign countries) -- BUT WHERE IS THEIR TRIAL AND SURE SENTENCING?
Come on. Don't try and pretend it is other than what it is -- the most valiant and daring sacrifice for truth our country has seen.
TALK ABOUT THE CRIMES HE REVEALED, PLEASE -- or, don't they matter? What flexible morality you have...
Would you like to discuss that?
.....wait -- soldiers are to be held to higher standards than civilians? Then what Manning disclosed -- thousands of American soldiers committing atrocious humanitarian crimes -- should ALL then be tracked down, court-martialed , held in boxes and hung (like the prescription for Manning) -- because THEY are ALSO held to higher standards, right? Right?
Like Nuremberg, a standard to which none of his fellows or commanders rose.
I hope Bradley Manning is acquitted and can be released to carry on with his life.
This double-standard turns one's stomach...
FREE BRADLEY MANNING -- PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS HE UNCOVERED.
Think of so many from Jesus, Spartacus, William Wallace, victims of the inquisition and the Tudors, of Danton and Robespierre, Crazy Horse, Roland Freisler's hapless condemned, the Japanese WW11 prisoners, Leonard Peltier, Mumiya Abu Jamal, Troy Anthony Davis -the list is endless.
Anybody who think manning is a traitor is a fink and total cowardly conformist.
Exactly WHAT information put America at jeopardy? Please tell us specifically how we were hurt. I submit that you don't have a clue. Our government classified this info to HIDE war crimes, among other things; it may have been embarrising for us and made us look bad, which we were; killing unarmed Iraqis and capturing it on video IS embarrising. These leaks helped start the Arab Spring. Bradley Manning is a HERO and I am PROUD of him and his actions. He showed TRUE COURRAGE by doing what he did.
A traitor to what?
The world's most lumbering, polluting, destructive and resource-soakin g, threatening bully of a military-indust rial corporate state which seeks to devour all in it's path and relies on uber-conformist s like you to go along with it and even sing it's praises.
I'd call that traitorous to the world in general and blinkered in the extreme.
The US doesn't exist in a bubble y'know, in spite of it's claim to exceptionalism, and is far from being a "civilized" nation, which is reflected in this kind of case which is almost medievalist in it's intent, like they used to leave hanged thieves corpses rotting at cross roads and hang the chopped torsos and legs of the quartered executed hanging in different towns, their heads on spike mounted on London bridge. It's also reflected in the the way it treats all but the wealthiest of it's own citizens, their basic well-being sacrificed for the military death machine.
The message, "Conform and stay silent or we'll get you one way or another"!
This paragraph can be the entering wedge into a truly interesting conversation about moral neutrality. See, e.g., http://righteousmind.com.
According to Jonathan Haidt's thesis, loyalty is more likely to be treated by liberals than by conservatives as a "morally neutral" virtue. The same goes for three other "moral foundations" identified by Haidt as universal in human societies: sanctity, liberty and respect for authority. Two more, care for others and fairness, are also important to conservatives, but these two are overwhelmingly important to liberals, who tend to take the other four into account only to the extent that their implications for the debate do not diminish the importance of care and fairness. (Haidt says libertarians, meanwhile, are unimpressed by any of the moral foundations other than liberty.)
Haidt's short answer to the quoted paragraph would probably be: To a conservative, Bradley Manning's disloyalty to the U.S. could easily be a hanging offense; to a liberal, it would pale in comparison to the need for care and protection for the victims of U.S. behavior; for a libertarian, it would be an issue not of morality but of individual policy.
[more to follow]
Check out his book. It'll give you new insight into why there are so many intelligent, thoughtful, morally-engaged and sincere writers on the blogs whose opinions seem to us intelligent, thoughtful, morally-engaged and sincere onlookers like pure lunacy.
According to Jonathan Haidt's thesis, loyalty is more likely to be treated by liberals than by conservatives as a "morally neutral" virtue. The same goes for three other "moral foundations" identified by Haidt as universal in human societies: sanctity, liberty and respect for authority. Two more, care for others and fairness, are also important to conservatives, but these two are overwhelmingly important to liberals, who tend to take the other four into account only to the extent that their implications for the debate do not diminish the importance of care and fairness. (Haidt says libertarians, meanwhile, are unimpressed by any of the moral foundations other than liberty.)
Haidt's short answer to the quoted paragraph would probably be: To a conservative, Bradley Manning's disloyalty to the U.S. could easily be a hanging offense; to a liberal, it would pale in comparison to the need for care and protection for the victims of U.S. behavior; for a libertarian, it would be an issue not of morality but of individual policy.
Check out his book. It'll give you new insight into why there are so many intelligent, thoughtful, morally-engaged and sincere writers on the blogs whose opinions seem to us intelligent, thoughtful, morally-engaged and sincere onlookers like pure lunacy.
Bradley fulfilled his oath with courage and honor. Bales was a good soldier.
There is a lack of understanding by the general public that an American soldier is obligated, by American negotiated treaties from WWI and WWII, to report war crimes and atrocities. The Holocaust was allowed to happen and continue because "no one" blew the whistle.
Time to free Bradley Manning and award him the Medal of Freedom!