Oil drilling bans lifted in Ecuador's Yasuni forest.

It's almost too sad and too shocking to write.

Six years ago, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador offered the world what he considered an enticing deal: donate $3.6 billion to a trust fund intended to protect nearly 4,000 square miles of the Amazon jungle and his country would refrain from oil drilling in the rain forest. The plan won applause from environmentalists, and international luminaries like Bo Derek and Leonardo DiCaprio opened their wallets. The plan was backed by the United Nations, but governments generally balked at contributing, and only $13 million was collected. “The world has failed us,” President Correa said as he withdrew the offer in a nationally televised news conference on Thursday night. “With deep sadness but also with absolute responsibility to our people and history, I have had to take one of the hardest decisions of my government.” The pioneering effort was administered by the United Nations Development Program. It was originally set up after potential reserves of nearly 800 million barrels of oil were found in the Yasuni national park, which is inhabited by two isolated Indian tribes. Its goal was not only to protect a pristine rain forest with a rich mix of wildlife and plant life but also to ease future climate change by preventing more than 400 million tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. The park was designated a world biosphere reserve by Unesco in the late 1980s. Local and international environmentalists expressed disappointment with President Correa’s decision, and hundreds of protesters gathered outside the presidential palace in Quito, the nation’s capital. “It could have been used as a model for other sensitive areas,” said Matt Finer, a scientist with the Center for International Environmental Law, referring to the fund. “But now that it has failed, there is really no alternative model that is attractive to governments unable or unwilling to forgo drilling solely on ecological grounds.”

www.nytimes.com...

I suppose that closes my thread on the topic that I started in 2011.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now a new struggle begins.

Other ATS members have also made fantastic threads on the Yasuni and its unique ecosystem:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, my thread mentioned amounts of $52 million that were pledged in 2011 (just over half of what President Rafael Correa wanted that year), while now they say they only got $13 million.
They wanted wanted 3.6 billion by 2024, and arguably donations began in a global economic crisis, but they might have gotten it eventually.
I wonder if the figures of what they've received add up?

If they're really going to start drilling, the Ecuadorian President and government better start paying some of that cash back.
Alternatively, their property and bank accounts in other countries should be seized and auctioned for environmental causes to the exact amount they received.

It's shocking enough that politicians can hold their own national heritage to ransom (patriotism should triumph over even "real politics"), but those people who opened their wallets should then be paid back from the trust fund.

Otherwise individual charges should be pursued to get the cash back.

It should be made clear that no government can extort money for environmental causes and then keep that cash, while still benefiting from the environmental destruction.

The result will be that nobody will trust giving funds ever again, and that governments can profit from environmentally minded people, while their real plan was to allow destruction and a "double profit" all along.

This is cool, I need to find out if my company has a branch in Ecuador, ive wanted to move there for a while now.

It tragic. President Correa had up until this point taken a firm stand against Imperialism, especially the fossil fuel cartels.

reply to post by Kali74

The whole language around "Imperialism" can be deceptive.
In South Africa it also often used.

Unfortunately, raging against Imperialism doesn't mean "environmentally friendly", or even human-rights friendly.
Often it simply means they prefer to do business with China (who care even less about internal ethical questions in countries they do business with, to put it mildly) rather than the Western-based companies.

China, which has become the largest source of financing for the Ecuadorean government as it seeks to secure more oil supplies from Latin America, is a likely beneficiary of any increased Ecuadorean production. In July, Ecuador obtained a $2 billion loan from the China Development Bank in exchange for nearly 40,000 barrels a day of oil from Ecuador to PetroChina over two years.

www.nytimes.com...

It's just totally two-faced to appeal to Western environmental funding, and then still to intend to profit from Chinese companies.
Nevertheless, former "third and second world" countries rich in resources have that leverage to play both fields.
Although, I think in this case it has gone into extortion, unless they pay back every dime.

This article is more sympathetic to the President of Ecuador.
It suggests that this kind of plan was not conceived by Ecuador, and it blames the Western nations for not contributing to the fund.
What Ecuador wanted was not charity, but co-responsibility on climate change (although until now I thought the main impetus was to save the unique environment).
www.policymic.com...

Another article mentions skepticism about the plan from the start.
Who would the money actually benefit and go to?
What guarantees were there that the oil would stay in the ground?
www.washingtonpost.com...

Perhaps it should never have been taken seriously.
I just wonder where the $13 million are now, and whether they will be returned?

Ecuador says new drilling will only affect one percent of the Yasuni.
I wonder however if the impact can be contained?
Perhaps the performance can be repeated every year until it's all gone.

reply to post by halfoldman


You lost me in this phrase...

Often it simply means they prefer to do business with China (who care even less about internal ethical questions in countries they do business with, to put it mildly) rather than the Western-based companies.

China is not a business (even if lately it is Economically focused it has more on its plate). China stance of not meddling in internal businesses of other nations has been unwavering and a constant, all they ask is reciprocity. Note also that China has historically suffered deeply (before the "Cultural revolution") from other nations meddling in "their businesses", they have not only learned the from that bug have huge traumas.

Now I think you are a bit out of your mind when you refer to ethical considerations in the same line you use Western-based companies. Note that even the US government (and we are talking the about a criminal government) has been forced to pass laws to curb corruption, especially as they attempt to clean their act to face China in Africa. International corporations have no ethical constrains beyond public opinion if it affects the consumption of their products or attracts the eye of the legislator and they can't pay them off...

As for the rise of China it is not only China but all BRIC nations, why ? Because they have money and the rest of the world has crashed the US and the UK are economic zombies today, the rest of Europe is in the hole due to the friends it kept and letting London and NY be the center of the Western Economic System.

reply to post by Panic2k11

Speaking from South Africa (which is a member of the BRICS nations since 2010) I don't think there's much to choose between Western companies and the Chinese whatsoever, or much difference between Chinese neo-colonialism and Western neo-colonialism.

You actually pointed out one significant difference very effectively yourself: "International corporations have no ethical constrains beyond public opinion if it affects the consumption of their products or attracts the eye of the legislator and they can't pay them off..."

The Chinese certainly do exert pressure when it comes to their interests, ranging from how they dump their cheap goods (having none of the labor rights and protests frequent in South Africa their labor is cheaper and more efficient, and in fact they import their own migrant labor from China to construct their industries in countries like Zambia or Angola). They also exerted pressure on the ANC not allow a visa for the Dalai Lama, for example.

Although some Chinese business is reputable (and there's a respectable historic Chinese community of some 20 000), but many run a huge black market that is clearly built on corruption, often peddling inferior and cheap goods they import illegally, which has lost SA customs tax of R2 billion, and much more in other taxes.

Since 2006 they have also started to migrate to SA, mainly from Fujian Province.
They've opened 6000 stores selling everything from cheap textiles to illegal cigarettes.
Most hope to earn enough here while sending the cash home, until they've earned enough to set themselves up back in China.
Although neither the Chinese embassy nor SA home affairs claim to know how many Chinese are now in SA, and how many are legal, they've increased to about 200 000.
Clearly this is done with much corruption of local officials and greasing political palms.

They don't often follow local labor laws, and can sometimes be seen abusing and even beating local workers.
They've avoided xenophobic attacks so far by staying out of the black townships, but foreseeably there may be some reaction.
Malalwi and Zambia have already had reactions against their practices.
More concerning is the involvement of triad gangs in stripping our endangered abalone resources and other crime.
Nobody can come and say they are good simply because of some "anti-Imperialist" rhetoric.
Yes, they have also opened some industries and created some jobs (but so has Western industry), and there's a demand for their cheaper goods (although to the detriment of local textile industries).
And please play the ball and not the person, and don't call me "out of my mind".
www.noseweek.co.za...

What exactly is the Chinese connection to the Ecuador saga?
This article from Vice is quite interesting: Is Chines Big Oil Going to Destroy Ecuador's Amazon?
www.vice.com...

The 11th bidding by Ecuador to sell oil concessions is likely to be awarded to the Chinese (since Ecuador is indebted to them).
Apparently the 2011 sales were stopped by indigenous activism.
I hope they can do so again, although it might be unlikely.

I hope they weren't bidding the Yasuni area while asking for cash to save it - that would be scandalous.

Ecuador is one of the four main countries in South America that China has its sights set on. China has been spooning out loans primarily to Ecuador, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil, with repayments guaranteed by "long-term commodity sales". Which essentially means, "destroying the rainforest, dredging it of its natural resources, making the money back and leaving everything to fester and die". Ecuador is now in debt to China for around £5.7 billion. And yes, the Ecuadorian government maintains that this won't affect the future of oil sales in the region, but either they're lying or they're somehow planning on selling nine times more bananas annually than they already do. Despite the fact that China's involvement in these new oil investments would directly violate their new guidelines for Environmental Protection in Foreign Investment, they're still allowed a bid. So unless China suddenly puts on a philanthropic face – which, let's be honest, is kind of unlikely – Ecuador is set to become China's pawn until the debt is cleared.

edit on 18-8-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

reply to post by halfoldman


Gave you a star since we aren't really in discordance. But you failed to look into a major difference, most Chinese investment has been in infrastructure that also benefits the local population while previous colonialism was mostly interested in grabbing the low hanging resources and especially keeping those regions under developed.

Most of the problems in Africa were directly result of external interference and corruption, I'm not racist but I also can see a large difference from North to South (this even exists in Europe). When we look to South Africa we see a clear difference in the degree of development mostly due to the Afrikaners and they efforts in self interest (a direct comparison could be done with India). That to me contrasts extremely with other nations like Liberia. The same occurs in other regions like if we dismiss all other issues Israel in comparison to its neighbors, yes things are more complicated than then but consider that humans seem to have at least had a longer presence in Africa than everywhere else and how underdeveloped it is as a civilization (even with Egypt's history) there are many reasons but I can't disagree that some human traits have been less successful there.

The same can't be said about Asia in civilizational considerations (I'm not talking about technological advances only, but mostly social) it had supplanted Europe in most aspect just until the Renascence (again there are many factors involved but I'm focusing on human mentality and social advances). To me the impact of Confucius is clearly distinct...

Has for after the industrial revolution Africa was kept underdeveloped intentionally, something that is mostly replicated in the way the US treats South America. As for corruption, all nations act in self interest there are no good guys but the especially the US has no insight in the preservation of national identity and reputation. China, even Russia has and most European nations attempt to preserve some decorum, national pride (for better or worst).

reply to post by Panic2k11

A lot of interesting points one could discuss at more length.

Although there was spectacular exploitation under colonialism in Africa, one could dispute that there was no development, especially of infrastructure, universities, schools and hospitals (and in SA infrastructure built under the Afrikaners before 1994 is still running, like the railways).

Unfortunately the Cold War in Africa followed independence in many countries, and it destabilized others.
In South Africa the ANC was aligned to the socialist countries, which made it ideological close to The People's Republic of China (the former Nationalist government had ties with Taiwan, one of the few countries to invest in the black independent homelands).

Nowadays only the more radical groups (like the Youth League) of the ANC use the rhetoric of anti-imperialism. Implicit in this seems to be the land redistribution to "indigenous" people, nationalized industries like the mines and the wealth going to the people.
Added to this is a strong anti-US sentiment, and a support of China and even North Korea.

There's a great deal of cynicism on whether anti-imperialism really means something good, or whether it just promotes one form of foreign exploitation instead of another.
The environmental practices of socialist countries have often been disastrous, and they didn't look kindly on environmentalists (thinking especially of the GDR).
At least in the case of Ecuador it seems that people would have expected better from "anti-imperialism", at least in a simplistic dichotomy of good vs. evil.

Not to single out China (other countries are also corrupt), but they were mentioned in this case, and it seems it won't be an evil "imperialist" US firm that will impact the Yasuni - as I initially assumed when I started the thread.
I guess that reflects the shifting global power positions, and perhaps it will require a rethink of environmental activism and radical discourse.

reply to post by halfoldman


I have only two objections to what you wrote.

First socialism is not the same as communism it can be best described in something in between capitalism and communism. For this to be clear there has never been a fully capitalist society (not even the US) and also not a fully Communist one (the best match would be probably Cuba in its initial stages and core policies and values, note also that Fidel only described himself as a Communist as to have protection from the USSR). The best example of socialist nations would be Sweden or Denmark.

Second anti-Imperialism has only one meaning, even if Imperialism does not really exist today in our globalized world we shouldn't redefine it to create exceptions. Imperialism is today defined by the forcibly impose policies and dictates in other nations, in this regard I see less fault in China (even if it has some Taiwan and Tibet) but consider that International Policies has been under the thumb of the Anglo-American interests from the get go, in the first Society of Nations (check out why and what failed there if you do not know already) and look up the creation of the UN.

This is one of the things that gets me aggravated by the US propaganda spin and indoctrination, having a clear political discussion is almost impossible since the words and definitions are often so twisted that they do not translate in discourse and inside the US some have no clear meaning anymore. One just needs to look on some discussion on ATS about the UN and the NWO to see how they fail to understand that the UN is an Anglo-American project to protect their interests. Look no further as to understand who benefits the most from the primacy rule it imposes and the lock down on changes, especially to any newcomer or those without any might.

In the aspect of imposing policies and forcing compliance with their own wishes there has been no bigger bully than the US after WW2, they had the cake and they ate it.... With power comes responsibility.

reply to post by Panic2k11

Well, I'm not going to argue or impose how people should define "socialism" and "communism".
Suffice to say that the Nordic Model of Socialism is one kind that's often mentioned by Western left-wingers, probably because it has been more or less successful.
It has its critics, also from socialist organizations.
internationalsocialist.org.uk...
However, it has very little relevance to how socialism is discussed in SA.
Of course, one could attempt to give strict definitions for a number of terms, but ultimately how they are used could make for pages of discourse analysis.
What defines the "real" socialism, communism, Marxism, Bolshevism, Stalinism etc., could become as uncertain as trying to define the "real" Christianity or Islam, for example.
The terms can be disputed, and they can be either deliberately inclusive or exclusive.
It can mean different things to different people.
We learnt in school that socialism was a temporary way towards the ideal of communism, under which the state should disappear, and the workers own both the means of production and the produce.
The opposite happened and communist parties in power actually strengthened the state.
Socialism however already existed before communism or the Comintern, and influenced welfare policies in many countries.
More right-wing clips argue that under communism the state owns both the means of production, as well as the produce, and chooses how to distribute what the workers produce.
Ultimately it pretends to pay the workers, while they pretend to work.
That is, it tells the workers where to work and collects the results (a generally poor model for productivity).
Under socialism the workers can own the means of production, however the state takes a considerable chunk of what is produced through taxation and distributes it.
But that's all very wishy-washy to what individual theorists actually mean.
Exact definitions can run across pages.
Especially for dissertations, Marxist terms should be clearly defined on exactly what is meant, and what is not meant.
Die-hard conservative capitalists would obviously harden the discourse by using terms like "Stalinist" and "communist", even for the most humanitarian socialist policies.
Even left-wing social democrats would find the term "Stalinist" alienating.

For an example on mixed discourse: we had the World Festival of Youth and Students in South Africa in 2010 (which cost R69 billion, partly funded by the taxpayer and the lottery, supposedly set aside for charities).
www.iol.co.za...
In one Wikipedia article one can read three definitions of the festival: "left-wing", "socialist (countries)" and "communist" (propaganda according to the US government).
en.wikipedia.org...
Some of these countries also defined themselves as "democratic", although they are totalitarian.
It's partly organized by the supposed "World Federation of Democratic Youth" (recognized by the UN since 1945 as an anti-fascist, anti-Imperialist non-governmental organization)

The 2010 slogan for the pricey socialist extravaganza (in a country with masses of poor people) was: "Let's defeat Imperialism!"

Incidentally, the next festival is in Quito, Ecuador in December 2013.
I guess another loan from China is in order just for that event.

"Imperialism" is similarly open for debate.

For what it's worth, the Dictionary of Twentieth Century History: 1914-1920 (Peter Teed, Oxford University Press, 1992) writes that Imperialism was the extension of one country's influence over another. On the eve of World War I that included the global colonial powers of Britain, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal and Germany. With increasing decolonization the meanings changed somewhat, but significantly the term can be applicable whether a socialist/communist or capitalist/neo-conservative country exerts its influence over another:

Since 1923, however, the story has been one of steady attrition and dismantlement of these empires through decolonization, so that by 1970 the term imperialism was being used, mostly by Marxists, to describe the activities of international capitalism. This was how Lenin had already defined it in his book Imperialism (1916) and in 1965 Kwame Nkrumah attacked the multinational corporations in his book Neo-colonialism: The last stages of Imperialism. Within the Soviet Union critics of the regime attacked the extent to which Russians had imposed imperialist policies upon non-Russian republics.

(Teed 1992, p. 213.)

So, not to fault any other position, but these terms do have multiple meanings and the Nordic Model of Socialism is by no means the only or definitive form.
With global companies it may be becoming even more obscure who benefits from exploitation, and it could be a whole network of people from various countries.
The situation is more complex than ever.
In that sense it's probably all just rhetoric, except for the indigenous peoples who are indeed feeling the effects of very real Imperialism.

As a retort, perhaps one could expect the argument that indigenous peoples and the poor masses also want modernity, housing, electricity, education, jobs and running water.

As such, is it realistic to protect minority groups when "development" could benefit millions?
That argument is much harder to counter.
Especially when the critique comes from Western environmentalists who enjoy lifestyles and modernity resulting from their own current or historic exploitation of resources, and either absorbing tribal groups or shifting them to reservations.

reply to post by halfoldman

We learnt in school that socialism was a way to the ideal of communism, under which the state should disappear.

No we didn't. As I said it all depends on the definitions. Modern socialism as I said was "created" as a middle path after the concept of Communism (that in turn evolved the crystallization of Marxist socialism, Marxism) and none included the disappearance of the state, at times just the contrary (you even contradict yourself in your post in this regard). This is even one reason of the accusations against more socialist nations, that the state takes too much control of production and liberties.

One needs to understand that definitions evolved and in making comparisons one needs to use contemporaneous definitions or it just makes no sense. Socialism after the refinement of the concept of Communism was conceptual different in fact both are radicalizations of the same basic concept, in this case Socialism to the right and Communism to the left.

Now Leninism to me is not even Communism (it is based upon it but to promote its creator objectives), the main objectives of Leninism is the usurpation of power and the promotion of social revolution. Lenin himself was in my book a plant from Germany.

During the February Revolution, Vladimir Lenin had been living in exile in Switzerland. Though historians disagree about specifics, they concur that the government of Germany deliberately facilitated Lenin’s return to his homeland in the spring of 1917. Without question, the German leadership did so with the intent of destabilizing Russia. The Germans provided Lenin with a guarded train that took him as far as the Baltic coast, from which he traveled by boat to Sweden, then on to Russia by train. There is also evidence that Germany funded the Bolshevik Party, though historians disagree over how much money they actually contributed.

From The Russian Revolution (1917–1918) History SparkNotes

Leninism did not survive beyond the fall of the USSR, people that refer to Communism refer to it as defined before. With the exception of the prevailing version in Cuba, that still has to a point a revolutionary purpose, but it could also be a simple collage of Leninist ideals to the sentiment of anti-imperialism directed against the US

As for anti-Imperialism or imperialism we seem in accord. The bit

, so that by 1970 the term imperialism was being used, mostly by Marxists, to describe the activities of international capitalism

Is in itself propagandistic since it was created from a Capitalistic view point in a world that Capitalism was itself oppressing other nations in a struggle against the USSR. Note that the USSR "Imperialism" was restricted to the buffer zone of satellite states a creation of Stalin, to a large degree in response to the duplicity of the US and England after WW2 (but was also partly the nature of the beast).

So Communism in the general dialog should refer only before Leninism, as defined by Marx (never implemented), Socialism should be referred to as the proposed by IIRC Friedrich Engels (in collaboration with Marx) that is best represented today by what you defined as the Nordic Model of Socialism and Capitalism was defined by Friedrich Engels.based on the a anti-thesis of Communism as defined my Marx (Marxism), it also was never implemented the best approach would be the US.

With global companies it may be becoming even more obscure who benefits from exploitation, and it could be a whole network of people from various countries.

I do not see such issues, it is clear by the fall of the USSR that capitalists (those that manage capital) are the ones that benefit, not the common people and not in any specific nation interest (as seen by the way they escape taxation). Again as I stated corporations are by default psychopathic in nature, they only have a single objective to survive and grow (control and profit).

As such, is it realistic to protect minority groups when "development" could benefit millions? That argument is much harder to counter. Especially when the critique comes from Western environmentalists who enjoy lifestyles and modernity resulting from their own current or historic exploitation of resources, and either absorbing tribal groups or shifting them to reservations.

My view is that minorities should always be protected because they provide diversity and we all benefit from that. I see no way that discarding the interests of minorities benefits the commons, it always seem to only benefit another vocal minority. Now as for the hypocrisy I agree, but again time and know how enables to think deeply about problems and they also have the benefit from experience...

reply to post by Panic2k11

Well, we certainly learnt that in the end effect of ideal communism, the state should disappear.

But there is another problem: the problem of the State, the problem of what type of political, economic and social Organisation we'll have. Certainly the Marxist Leninist schools envisage the disappearance of the State in the higher stage of communism but they consider the State a necessity in its lower stage.

flag.blackened.net...

Of course that's an interpretation of Marxism that goes along a trajectory from Feudalism to Equality (ultimately no more classes, and hence no more state, and perhaps even no more genders).

But yeah, the fact that government is ultimately supposed to disappear in communism, and the fact that it led to totalitarian governments in reality always baffled me.

But then again, I suppose, nobody really tried it, just like "real" Christianity.
In that sense Marxism is also a bit pie-in-the-sky and utopian.
Another view could be that others come and sabotage any communist project from the outside, and almost force a kind of defensive totalitarianism.

I'd agree on the rest (perhaps just to add that socialism already existed in the 19th century, before parties called themselves Communist), and especially on the rights of minorities.

reply to post by halfoldman

Just a correction on the title of Peter Teed's book above (I've exceeded the time limits to edit my post).
It should be: A Dictionary of Twentieth Century History: 1914-1990.

reply to post by halfoldman


I still do not understand how you connect the appearance of the state to a political ideology, especially to Communism (in any of its possibilities, except anarcho-communism that has few points of connection to Communism itself, and to me the optimal system).

I defend that there is no distinction between state and government since government is a function of state (law) and law is first definition is of the society it should be applied (the state, from estate in turn from Roman law, and the land ownership of the concept of Roman Villa). Without law there is no governance. I also defend that land should not be individually owned at all but that is another discussion completely.

The state can only disappear in a globalized and decentralized society, the state is defined by the social institution that manages the law (creation, enforcement and all social bureaucracy). Since most political ideologies were created before any real possibility of a globalized unique society the disappearance of the state if ever mentioned was an utopic goal that even in the most libertarian view will never materialize, even in anarcho-communism we still have organs that perform state functions, therefore they are the state even if in a very broken structure.

I also defend that any "ism" from the left (power of the commons) can never survive in competition with nations aligned in the right (despotism and capitalism), because the first has more concerns to take care of (like social welfare, environment and even a goal of perpetual improvement that forces contains along large time frames as to maintain sustainability) or the extreme right we have fewer considerations, it can mostly be resumed to a single one that is the perpetuation of control over the society without much care for anything else. So the costs of maintaining a predatory right aligned ideology is not only cheaper to practically run but will aggressively try to usurp the resources of any competitor. We can point to our reality and see that this seems to be so....

reply to post by Panic2k11

The ultimate abolition of the state was a clear part of Marxist teaching, and that's just a fact.
www.marxists.org...

How various Marxist movements coped with the paradox of having highly authoritarian states and liberation movements is really not for me to defend or criticize.
Some postulated that they were just going through an initial phase, while others mixed Marxism with local forms of nationalism - ironically drawing on past ideas of emperors (Stalin as a Tsar, for example).
Right-wing fascism was initially one form of socialism, like the Nationalist Socialist German Worker's Party (the Nazis).
Strangely, Communists were banned in SA in my youth, yet the National Party was actually very socialist in having nationalized industries providing basic services (like electricity).

I think the most productive farming is still performed by highly skilled and mechanized farmers, and in Africa they are the goose that lays the golden egg.
I'd encourage giving workers shares in the farms (as some farmers have already done), or leasing the land long-term, while also encouraging more communal land use.
So far land redistribution has mostly been a massive failure (with a few exceptions).
The Zimbabweans could flee to us or Botswana, but if our food security breaks it will mean starvation.
And we can't run anywhere but the sea.