RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

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)
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

By Jonathan Kaiman, Guardian UK

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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

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

 
-41 # arquebus 2013-06-05 09:11
Manning is a traitor. He proved himself untrustworthy and willing to endanger his fellow soldiers. Unlike Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Manning is a soldier and held to a higher standard.

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.
 
 
+20 # blizmo1 2013-06-05 10:26
Quoting arquebus:
Manning is a traitor. He proved himself untrustworthy and willing to endanger his fellow soldiers. Unlike Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Manning is a soldier and held to a higher standard.

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...which 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...
 
 
+16 # tedrey 2013-06-05 10:26
To be loyal to the Nazi Party, the Japanese Army, or the Mafia, and never to snitch, also felt noble to those who could stomach it. Your only way out is to say that what Manning revealed were NOT war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors, and generalized atrocities. If they were the above, others than Manning, including those orchestrating his court-martial, should be on trial.

Would you like to discuss that?
 
 
+14 # blizmo1 2013-06-05 11:05
Quoting arquebus:
Manning is a traitor. He proved himself untrustworthy and willing to endanger his fellow soldiers. Unlike Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Manning is a soldier and held to a higher standard.

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...which he did.


.....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?
 
 
+6 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-06-05 12:07
Your points are emotional like "motherhood and apple pie." You fail to state your reasons why Manning is "untrusteorthy. " Suppose a gang wants to rob a bank. One "member" of the gang says "this is wrong," decides not to a gang member and informs the police. Is this 'memeber' untrustworthy? The war was a big lie to starta with. Manning was exposing a big lie. Why would a person who exposes a big lie be considered as "aiding and abetting the enemy?" Gerald Ford:"all wars are fought over natural resources." Iraqis did nothing to us but was an "enemy" to Bush and the oil industry. So, why are the Iraqis the "enemy?' Oh, excuse me. Iraqis are the enemy. Their former leader, now hanged leader, was selling too much oil, didn't follow his OPEC quota and was pushing oil prices down. This made Iraq the "enemy?"
 
 
0 # Kootenay Coyote 2013-06-06 13:53
"Manning is a soldier and held to a higher standard."

Like Nuremberg, a standard to which none of his fellows or commanders rose.
 
 
+13 # ladypyrates 2013-06-05 10:10
Mature judgement isn't something that happens overnight...and expecting a 21 year old kid to have it all figured out is unduly harsh. It also smacks of 20/20 hindsight when someone makes lofty sounding pronouncements about logical procedure after the fact...classic "arm-chair-quar terback" syndrome. Bradley Manning,by being gay, unfortunately was already in the "crosshairs" of some elements of our society. Knowing that and still doing what he thought was right for the country, took courage. To the finite minds at the Pentagon who are part of the problem, courage is what they say it is...and it often times comes in some very un-American wrappings. The genius founders of this great country, however, took a much longer view of humanity when they gave us our constitution and are no doubt smiling on one of their own...a lowly army private standing out there on the battlefield of history defending American principles. God bless you Bradley..
 
 
+18 # djnova50 2013-06-05 10:17
Are people afraid of the truth? Are they embarrassed to be from the same country as Bradley Manning? I think what Bradley did was courageous, if nothing else? Honestly, what did he do that was so harmful to the US. There are still soldiers fighting in the illegal wars. There are still soldiers dying, for no reason. The Middle East has always been a place of political or religious unrest. It will continue to be so even if the US pulls out all of its military men and women by the end of the week.

I hope Bradley Manning is acquitted and can be released to carry on with his life.
 
 
+7 # blizmo1 2013-06-05 10:31
.....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?
 
 
+12 # blizmo1 2013-06-05 11:07
Does anyone remember bush/Cheney "outing" Valerie Plame? That was by-the-book treason, yet it won him an invasion...

This double-standard turns one's stomach...

FREE BRADLEY MANNING -- PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS HE UNCOVERED.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2013-06-05 11:41
Manning is just the latest victim of a ruthless ruling class making a vengeance-based public example of one who was standing up for his beliefs and humanity.
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.
 
 
-15 # jack406 2013-06-05 11:50
Bradley Manning is a Traitor. He can be hung for Treason. He will probably only get 20 years in jail or so, but he gave classified information to the enemy and put Americans in jeopardy.
 
 
+10 # bobmiller101 2013-06-05 13:28
Quoting jack406:
but he gave classified information to the enemy and put Americans in jeopardy.

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.
 
 
+10 # reiverpacific 2013-06-05 13:52
Quoting jack406:
Bradley Manning is a Traitor. He can be hung for Treason. He will probably only get 20 years in jail or so, but he gave classified information to the enemy and put Americans in jeopardy.

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"!
 
 
+11 # Archie1954 2013-06-05 12:06
Let us all continue pushing for Manning to be nominated for the Nobel. That would show the world's appreciation of his sacrifice and it would also be a slap at the US government for its gross hypocrisy.
 
 
0 # tingletlc 2013-06-05 12:35
"Loyalty is life and death for soldiers. But like courage, it's a morally neutral virtue. Its morality depends on how you view the cause it serves. Like any whistleblower, Manning may have betrayed his institution, but he did so out of loyalty to humanity."

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]
 
 
0 # tingletlc 2013-06-05 12:38
[more]

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.
 
 
0 # tingletlc 2013-06-05 12:45
[more; and I may be repeating myself. If so, sorry . . . ]

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.
 
 
+5 # angelfish 2013-06-05 13:58
I'd dearly LOVE to know why some members of our Congress, as well as members of the former Administration, have not been called to account for THEIR Treasonous behavior in the face of perilous times for our Country? They have done NOTHING to help this President OR the Country and, by their OWN admission have been intent on making Mr. Obama a "one term President". Having FAILED in their attempt, they now work diligently to discredit him and his Administration in any and every way they can find, devise and manufacture. Bradley Manning's alleged "offenses" pale in comparison, in my opinion. Justice has DIED in America. So sad.
 
 
+4 # PABLO DIABLO 2013-06-05 17:21
Elizabeth Warren for President 2016. Take back our government. Vote the leeches out, repeal Citizens United, boycott the corporations that are killing us, cut the military machine down to size. Wake up America.
 
 
+3 # photonracer 2013-06-05 18:48
Robert Bales and Bradley Manning both swore to defend the Constitution of the United States.
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!
 
 
+3 # tbcrawford8 2013-06-05 21:02
How ironic...Yester day's media coverage of the Congressional hearings of big brass, all in a row, evidencing their impotence to do anything about sexual harassment and worse in the US military! Contrast that to a young and very brave young man who, despite everything he's suffered had and still has the presence and conviction to stand tall and exhibit for us all the very best of honorable character and patriotism. My God, his courage blows me away!
 
 
+3 # sharag 2013-06-06 06:54
As I understand it, there are two kinds of courage. That physical courage shown on the battle field in the face of certain peril and moral courage to do what is right in the face of all odds. I believe General George Patton said that moral courage to do what is right is certainly the more difficult to muster and carry through. Bradly Manning stood up for what is morally right for his country and humanity and will be sacrificed for this. Not to diminish physical courage in any way, it is certainly needed at certain times, but moral courage is needed all the time. Bradly Manning is unwavering in his courage. He is a true American hero.
 

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.

RSNRSN