Johann Hari: A fight for the Amazon that should inspire the world
The uprising In the Amazon is more urgent than Iran's - it will determine the future of the planet
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
While the world nervously watches the uprising in Iran, an even more important uprising has been passing unnoticed – yet its outcome will shape your fate, and mine.
In the depths of the Amazon rainforest, the poorest people in the world have taken on the richest people in the world to defend a part of the ecosystem none of us can live without. They had nothing but wooden spears and moral force to defeat the oil companies – and, for today, they have won.
Here's the story of how it happened – and how we all need to pick up this fight. Earlier this year, Peru's right-wing President, Alan Garcia, sold the rights to explore, log and drill 70 per cent of his country's swathe of the Amazon to a slew of international oil companies. Garcia seems to see rainforest as a waste of good resources, saying of the Amazon's trees: "There are millions of hectares of timber there lying idle."
There was only one pesky flaw in Garcia's plan: the indigenous people who live in the Amazon. They are the first people of the Americas, subject to wave after wave of genocide since the arrival of the Conquistadors. They are weak. They have no guns. They barely have electricity. The government didn't bother to consult them: what are a bunch of Indians going to do anyway?
But the indigenous people have seen what has happened elsewhere in the Amazon when the oil companies arrive. Occidental Petroleum are facing charges in US courts of dumping an estimated nine billion barrels of toxic waste in the regions of the Amazon where they operated from 1972 to 2000. Andres Sandi Mucushua, the spiritual leader of the area known to the oil companies as Block (12A)B, said in 2007: "My people are sick and dying because of Oxy. The water in our streams is not fit to drink and we can no longer eat the fish in our rivers or the animals in our forests." The company denies liability, saying they are "aware of no credible data of negative community health impacts".
In the Ecuadorian Amazon, according to an independent report, toxic waste allegedly dumped after Chevron-Texaco's drilling has been blamed by an independent scientific investigation for 1,401 deaths, mostly of children from cancer. When the BBC investigator Greg Palast put these charges to Chevron's lawyer, he replied: "And it's the only case of cancer in the world? How many cases of children with cancer do you have in the States?... They have to prove it's our crude, [which] is absolutely impossible."
The people of the Amazon do not want to see their forests felled and their lands poisoned. And here, the need of the indigenous peoples to preserve their habitat has collided with your need to preserve your habitat. The rainforests inhale massive amounts of warming gases and keep them stored away from the atmosphere. Already, we are chopping them down so fast that it is causing 25 per cent of man-made carbon emissions every year – more than planes, trains and automobiles combined. But it is doubly destructive to cut them down to get to fossil fuels, which then cook the planet yet more. Garcia's plan was to turn the Amazon from the planet's air con into its fireplace.
Why is he doing this? He was responding to intense pressure from the US, whose new Free Trade Pact requires this "opening up", and from the International Monetary Fund, paid for by our taxes. In Peru, it has also been alleged that the ruling party, APRA, is motivated by oil bribes. Some of Garcia's associates have been caught on tape talking about how to sell off the Amazon to their cronies. The head of the parliamentary committee investigating the affair, Rep. Daniel Abugattas, says: "The government has been giving away our natural resources to the lowest bidders. This has not benefited Peru, but the administration's friends."
So the indigenous peoples acted in their own self-defence, and ours. Using their own bodies and weapons made from wood, they blockaded the rivers and roads to stop the oil companies getting anything in or out. They captured two valves of Peru's sole pipeline between the country's gas field and the coast, which could have led to fuel-rationing. Their leaders issued a statement explaining: "We will fight together with our parents and children to take care of the forest, to save the life of the equator and the entire world."
Garcia responded by sending in the military. He declared a "state of emergency" in the Amazon, suspending almost all constitutional rights. Army helicopters opened fire on the protesters with live ammunition and stun-grenades. More than a dozen were killed. But the indigenous peoples did not run away. Even though they were risking their lives, they stood their ground. One of their leaders, Davi Yanomami, said simply: "The earth has no price. It cannot be bought, or sold or exchanged. It is very important that white people, black people and indigenous peoples fight together to save the life of the forest and the earth. If we don't fight together, what will our future be?"
And then something extraordinary happened. The indigenous peoples won. The Peruvian Congress repealed the laws that allowed oil company drilling, by a margin of 82 votes to 12. Garcia was forced to apologise for his "serious errors and exaggerations". The protesters have celebrated and returned to their homes deep in the Amazon.
Of course, the oil companies will regroup and return – but this is an inspirational victory for the forces of sanity that will be hard to reverse.
Human beings need to make far more decisions like this: to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and to leave rainforests standing. In microcosm, this rumble in the jungle is the fight we all face now. Will we allow a small number of rich people to make a short-term profit from seizing and burning resources, at the expense of our collective ability to survive?
If this sounds like hyperbole, listen to Professor Jim Hansen, the world's leading climatologist, whose predictions have consistently turned out to be correct. He says: "Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with a sea level 75 metres higher. Coastal disasters would occur continually. The only uncertainty is the time it would take for complete ice sheet disintegration."
Of course, fossil fools will argue that the only alternative to burning up our remaining oil and gas supplies is for us all to live like the indigenous peoples in the Amazon. But next door to Peru, you can see a very different, environmentally sane model to lift up the poor emerging – if only we will grasp it.
Ecuador is a poor country with large oil resources underneath its rainforests – but its president, Rafael Correa, is offering us the opposite of Garcia's plan. He has announced that he is willing to leave his country's largest oil reserve under the soil, if the rest of the world will match the $9.2bn in revenues it would provide.
If we don't start reaching for these alternatives, we will render this month's victory in the Amazon meaningless. The Hadley Centre in Exeter, one of the most sophisticated scientific centres for studying the impacts of global warming, has warned that if we carry on belching out greenhouse gases at the current rate, the humid Amazon will dry up and burn down – and soon.
Their study earlier this year explained" target="_blank">Their study earlier this year explained: "The Amazonian rainforest is likely to suffer catastrophic damage even with the lowest temperature rises forecast under climate change. Up to 40 per cent of the rainforest will be lost if temperature rises are restricted to C, which most climatologists regard as the least that can be expected by 2050. A 3C rise is likely to result in 75 per cent of the forest disappearing while a 4C rise, regarded as the most likely increase this century unless greenhouse gas emissions are slashed, will kill off 85 per cent of the forest." That would send gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere – making the world even more inhabitable.
There is something thrilling about the fight in the Amazon, yet also something shaming. These people had nothing, but they stood up to the oil companies. We have everything, yet too many of us sit limp and passive, filling up our tanks with stolen oil without a thought for tomorrow. The people of the Amazon have shown they are up for the fight to save our ecosystem. Are we?
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
The indigenous people are not "weak", in fact they are supremely strong. Strong in spirit and most certainly strong in purpose as they have a morally just cause.
We should all be encouraged to stand up for our natural heritage...money cannot be eaten.
Vinko, Australia
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
www.millarcrime.com
It is clear that such poor countries cannot be left to sit on valuable natural resources without some alternative investment from rich countries.
Unfortunately some of our most valuable forests lie within the boundaries of some of the poorest countries on earth and so naturally they see the potential for revenue.
Therefore it is up to the rich countries to make these resources valuable to the host nations, by rewarding them for not cutting the forest down. In a way which will lead to sustainable habitat management and eco friendly revenue streams.
Up to now, the so called developed countries have only emitted loads of hot air with very little action. whilst trying to steal as much natural resources as possible, in the guise of multi-national business deals.
Both the story in iran and Peru are stories about the West's ravenous hunger for natural resources and how corporations that profit mightily from capitalizing those resources organize the public's awareness of the unrest and outright massacre that surrounds the issues of who controls those resources and profits from that control.
In Iran the people fought against a corporately controlled politic when the Ayatollahs successfully overthrew the shah and they,and the world, have been paying ever since... with western companies still salivating at the thought that another shah could be imposed on the people there if the current regime was deposed They have been fomenting rebellion there (which may or may not benefit the people in Iran in the long run depending upon what forces fall into control and how they fall into control should the current regime stand down) directly and indirectly ever since.
In Peru the story is more directly related to how the desire for resource profit by the richest of the rich has influenced international trade and forced poor countries into servitude to the Western resource plunder capitalists... a story as old as Columbus and the other conquistadors and explorers.
Thank you Thank you Thank you. Excelllent work!
Its about time all indigenous people were listened too, the Native American Indians, Aboriginals, Maori, Inuits and many many more should now stand up and be counted and the white man, will have to understand the damage to these peoples way of life and culture they have caused, these people are wise in so many ways that should be learnt by all peoples on Earth.
The Americans stole the Native Americans land, didn't allow them to carry on their cultural practices, thank goodness some of the are still keeping these things alive and still teaching it to the young people. In some places these people still live in reservations in near poverty and are still shunned by the white people.
Seems to me the thinking of the whole world will need to change and soon.
Can you write an article on what we can actually DO about such injustice / stupidity. The feeling here is powerlessness - we cannot even control our own government, never mind a far right regime 3,000 miles away.
I think everyone can see this is all wrong, but what can we actually do to help the Amazon and its brave protectors from greed and well armed governments backed by ultra-rich oil companies? It's easy to speculate, "If I were there I would join the protests" and I sincerely hope I would have the balls to do exactly that, but I am not there, I am thousands of miles away on an island.
I try to do my bit, am veggie, I minimise my energy usage and work in the green energy industry, but my efforts seem utterly insignificant. I need a bigger voice. You have that voice. How do we effect real and sensible change when faced with the might of the oil industry?
HOKAY WAHT IS THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE OIL AND TREES AND THE SMALL BABIES THE SMALL BABIED POOR LITLE BABIES PETIT LE OR LA INFAN
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
No.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor
OIL OR TREES?
Germany Takes Lead in Saving Ecuador's Rainforest
By Jess Smee
Oil companies are salivating over the supply of black gold beneath Ecuador's rainforest. The South American country is pledging to keep the oil in the ground -- if the international community provides compensation. Now Germany has taken a leading role in raising the necessary cash.
There are many attributes which make the Yasuni National Park special: It is one of the most bio-diverse places on the planet, it is home to indigenous tribes which hunt and gather in its remote interior, and there's a unique breed of small bat. But the national park also has a geographic curse: It sits atop Ecuador's largest known oil reserve, thought to contain hundreds of millions of barrels......
Johann Hari and perhaps the Independent should know and do better.
Cyrus Ptolemon
I arrived in Lima two days before the June 5th clashes, having previously lived here for 7 years working in the Amazon on indigenous rights issues. What happened on the 5th, the deaths of so many police, indigenous people and locals (important to remember the part played by the non indigenous locals in all of this - they were fully supportive of the indigenous protests) left me and most of my colleagues here in Peru in shock. What has been equally shocking was the subsequent suppression of the truth by the Peruvian press and Government. Slowly however the truth began to leak out and reached international audiences, and the Peruvian press has turned about and is now very supportive of the indigenous protesters too. However now that the media interest is beginning to die down Alan Garcia's government is persecuting indigenous leaders and human rights activists and NGOs, and given his history of human rights violations, from his previous government, the situation could get even more serious. This is not over yet. There has been a victory, but at such a high cost it doesn't really feel like one.
I think the article is great, but there are a few factual mistakes or misleading phrases I wanted to make clear: Davi Yanomami is not a Peruvian Indigenous Leader, but a Brazilian indigenous activist. His words against the violence in Peru were very strong and greatly appreciated.
You say "The Peruvian Congress repealed laws that allowed oil company drilling". Not so simple. The Congress repealed legislative decrees 1090 and 1064 that were the worst in terms of undermining indigenous land rights and opening up indigenous territories to companies, but the companies are still there. 72% of the Amazon is covered by oil/gas concessions, none of which were consulted with indigenous peoples before being created. As you say, the precedents in terms of impacts in the Amazon are horrific, yet the companies, with full government support, are going ahead and trying to enter areas, even where communities are united against them, trying to bribe leaders or divide communities to gain access. How long before the Peruvian Government, like the Ecuadorian Government before them, uses the military to force communities to accept petrol activities...
Thank you for writing.
best.
A.
NO.........NO.......NO.......You're not.
Your argument is similar to me going back in time to the 18th and 19th centuries and asking Britons to give up the benefits of moving to the cities and increased welfares from industrialization so that the world may be better off from your averted future emissions.
US$9.2 bn is what oil revenues would provide right now to Ecuador. But that does not factor in ALL OF THE INCOME LOSSES FROM LEAVING THE AMAZON UNSCATHED. For that you would need to take into account what it would actually cost to provide the populations living in these areas with a decent lifestyle FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES and having their governments foot the bill with no incomes from natural resources.
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND IMPOVERISHED AMAZONIAN POPULATIONS DO NOT WANT TO LIVE LIKE PRIMITIVE PEOPLE. THEY ASPIRE TO THE COMFORTS OF MODERNITY. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF I TOLD YOU TO GIVE UP YOUR PC, YOUR HEALTH CLUB, YOUR PINT AT A PUB, RUNNING HOT WATER, YOUR COOKED DAILY MEAL?
I bet Britons would be unwilling to take as little as a 1% tax increase so that the UK could pay all the wages of all the people living in the Amazon. Why? Because EVERYONE WANTS TO SAVE THE RAINFOREST, BUT FEW PEOPLE WANT TO LACK THEIR OWN COMFORTS. Its like all those reds preaching about the benefits of communism while enjoying capitalist lifestyles.
YOU'RE ALL HYPOCRITES.
See: http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21
for more info