Ecuador: Controversy Over Drilling For Petroleum in the Amazon

[Derechos]

When Ecuador's commission arrived in Copenhagen this fall, it had an audacious environmental proposal for the "developed world": make the conservation of the Amazon as profitable as its exploitation. Ecuador's second term President, Rafael Correa, offered to keep the 900 million barrels of oil that lay deep under the country's Yasuní National Park underground if the developed world would pay 350 million dollars for 10 years, a price comparable to the expected returns for the oil's extraction. The plan offered a model solution: protecting the environment would not be an economic burden for the poorest nations alone. Biological wealth could perhaps become economically profitable. It was idealistic and to many, a long shot. However, to some surprise, it also received abundant international support. By mid-January however, Ecuadorians were left doubting Correa's environmentalism and wondering, what happened? The Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) section of Yasuní Park, its ecosystem, and perhaps most importantly, its volunatarily isolated indigenous people, are again in danger of confronting irreversible change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-ubelaker-andrade/ecuador-controversy-over_b_478645.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. I think we need to understand how important the issue of sovereignty is in Latin America,

especially to Rafael Correa who has fought several tough battles for Ecuador's sovereignty. The first was the U.S./Colombian bombing/raid on Ecuador's territory in March 2008, with the U.S./Colombia using the excuse of taking out a FARC guerrilla camp. The trouble was that, a) it was a temporary hostage release and peace negotiation camp, just inside Ecuador's border, and everybody was asleep when the U.S./Colombia dropped a load of U.S. "smart bombs" on it, killing 25 people, including several Mexican students who traveled to the camp as witnesses to the humanitarian mission (the release of Ingrid Betancourt and other hostages was the purpose of the camp) and an Ecuadoran citizen, without benefit of trial--it was not a "hot pursuit" situation; and b) Colombia did not warn Ecuador or ask its permission.

All hell broke loose. Ecuador and Venezuela rushed military battalions to their borders, not knowing what was coming next. Colombia was raked over the coals at the Rio Group (all Latin American dispute resolution institution) and was obliged to apologize and promise never to do such a thing again. Even the U.S-dominated OAS declared it an unwarranted violation of Ecuador's sovereignty.

The second event was Correa--fulfilling a campaign promise--kicking the U.S. military out of its base at Manta, Ecuador. When reporters asked him about it, he replied that he would agree to a U.S. military base in Ecuador when the U.S. agreed to an Ecuadoran military base in Miami. About 80% of Ecuadorans opposed the U.S. military on their soil as a violation of their sovereignty. (And, indeed, the plane that dropped the U.S. "smart bombs" on the FARC camp was likely a U.S. plane and pilot out of Manta.)

Correa is criticized in this article for reversing course on this arrangement (to spare the Amazon rainforest oil exploitation) on several grounds--one, that surely he knew beforehand that the commission implementing the agreement was multinational (giving reps of foreign governments control over Ecuadoran territory and over several in lieu projects on Ecuadoran territory), and a rougher one--that he has been influenced by oil corporations. I think there is something missing from the article--and that is what triggered Correa's statement, below, that "We will not give away our sovereignty." Clearly, he didn't know the extent of foreign control--or something was added to the agreement that crossed the line of what was acceptable as to Ecuador's sovereignty. Correa is no friend of the oil corps. He supports the lawsuit of 30,000 Indigenous for $30 billion in damages and cleanup and health costs against Chevron-Texaco. He is a leftist and, like Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia, he has strongly fought for the rights of the poor as well as for the rights of Mother Nature ("Pachamama," in the Indigenous language). He strongly fought for and won the new Ecuadoran Constitution which enshrines the right of Mother Nature to survive and prosper apart from human desires and needs. So something is going on here that we don't understand, and that the article does not reveal. Correa's side of it has not reached us.

From the OP:

--

Before the group could remark on their own success however, Correa, on January 9, called the terms of the agreement "embarrassing." He rejected the donations and further negotiation, unless the northern countries declined any voice in overseeing the use of the funds. Namely, Correa opposed the creation of a joint committee made up of representatives from Ecuador and the donating countries to oversee the donated money's investment. Correa retorted to the donors, "keep your money and in June we will begin to exploit the ITT. We will not give away our sovereignty."

To the Ecuadorian ITT commission the response came as a shock. Kakbadse defended the plan to El Comercio, citing that the concept of a joint committee was created long before because "we wanted to guarantee to the contributors that we were speaking seriously" and that the funds would be used as planned. The commission members restated that the joint committee would enforce the four priorities stated by Ecuador all along: to construct a new energy grid, to conserve and maintain the Amazon environment and the properties and well-being of indigenous and afro-Ecuadorian communities, to free Ecuador from fossil fuels by 2020 and finally, to invest in eco-tourism and agro-forestry projects.

Speculation abounded and rumors circulated, each attempting to explain the 180 degree turn of the government. Was this a move against imperialism, or did Correa simply never foresee the plan working? Were the exploits of oil companies not, too, part of Ecuador's history of imperialism? Hadn't Correa been aware of the ITT plan's for a joint international committee all along? And finally, what of the Amazon's inhabitants, would they have no say in the government's decision?

Head of the commission, environmentalist Roque Silva, announced that "the only failure was its success." The suggestion reflected a growing doubt: Correa's change in temperament was simply his realization that the idealistic dream might come true. The ITT commission's leaders quit their posts.

Ecuador's foreign minister who had been with Correa since the inception of his political campaign resigned after Correa's comments. He pointed to the oil interests as being at the center of the government's turn-around. "Evidently there are oil interests waiting to drill," he said following resignation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-ubelaker-andrade/ecuador-controversy-over_b_478645.html

------------------------------------

What I suspect is happening is something similar to a World Bank/IMF loan, whereby loan sharks from the "first world" (representing rich "first world" investors) loan money to a "third world" country on usurious terms, and require decimation of social programs, privatization of public services, sweatshop labor, resource extraction and other corporate rapine as conditions for the loan. This agreement is not a loan, but it may be structured in such a way as to give this international commission untoward power over both the Amazon region in question and potential future decisions about use of the land--including profitable use of its resources--in which Ecuador could be outvoted. Another precedent that comes to mind is the Bushwhack plan to sell U.S. ports to the Arab sheiks of the UAE. This is just not acceptable on any terms. It is too dangerous for a country to yield control of such a resource as its port facilities, or the Amazon forest, to foreign parties or governments, who can make policies and decisions that the government of the country opposes, and that are not in the public interest.

That is what "We will not give away our sovereignty" feels like to me, but I don't know specifically why President Correa said this.

[protocol rv]

2. Sovereignity? You are confused

European nations have the right to decide how the money they give Ecuador is spent. After all, it's their money. Correa's tantrum is similar to child's, who is told by his parents they'll pay for his vacation trip, but refuses to go on vacation unless it's where he wants it, when he wants it, how he wants it. To the Europeans it's very simple, if he doesn't want the donations on THEIR terms, he can develop the oil fields, and deal with the oil companies.

The companies lobbying for the jungle oil fields to be exploited are Petroecuador, Petrobras and Sinopec.

Quote:

"Naturally, there is opposition. Some of the strongest is coming from the state oil company, Petroecuador, which currently administers the ITT field. There is also powerful lobbying from the Brazilian state oil company Petrobras and the Chinese state company Sinopec, both of which have strong interests in the Amazon region. And there are those within the Government who oppose the plan, arguing that the country’s dependence on hydrocarbons is an unavoidable fact of life. Oil currently accounts for 60 per cent of exports."

http://www.newint.org/features/2008/07/01/yasuni-keynote/

Since Correa is allie with Chavez, and Chavez is keenly interested (for some reason) in doing business with Brazilian and Chinese multionationals, it's not surprising Correa changed his mind.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Protocol rv, your racism against the Indigenous has discredited you. Other DUers should know...

...in Comment #36, here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x30994

Your comments about the "rainforest Chernobly" in Ecuador--the Chevron-Texaco toxic oil spill the size of Rhode Island, which has destroyed fisheries, rivers and streams and the living of 30,000 Indigenous people in the Amazon forest--and your racist remark, that the charges against Chevron should be disregarded because they were "presented by an Indian," taint all your other comments on Latin American issues. You are an oil corporation apologist. And your remarks are so ignorant, uninformed and so like the crap put out by Chevron's 12 P.R. firms--which they hired to discredit the Indigenous who filed suit against them for damages and cleanup--that your views have no credibility whatsoever.

In fact, I advise other DUers to use my Rule No. 1 from the Bush Junta as a guide to determining the truth of your statements: To wit, whatever you assert, the opposite is the truth.

Thus, we can surmise that the oppose of your views on Rafael Correa is the truth. And, indeed, the plain facts indicate a sovereignty problem: The profit from oil and any projects associated with oil production would be in the control of the people of Ecuador and their elected government; the money not to produce oil would NOT be in their control--it would be controlled by this international commission. The way I heard this deal originally described, the Ecuadoran people would be paid not to develop the oil reserves in the Amazon, by governments and other groups that want to help mitigate global warming. Why would the Ecuadoran people do this, and why would their government agree, if it is not dollar for dollar replacement of the profit from the oil? Ecuador is very poor. That is the point. They cannot afford not to produce oil without great sacrifice of badly needed social programs.

Foreign governments, especially "first world" governments and large environmental and philanthropic organizations, DO give money into the control of the recipient upon signing of agreements on how the money will be used. They do not retain control of grants. All they require is reporting. That is the general rule. This agreement has a bad odor. It puts a large swath of Ecuador out of the control of the Ecuadoran people, with a commission on which their government can be outvoted on use of the money and on future uses, including profit-making uses, of their Amazon forest. This could even include future oil development out of the control of the Ecuadoran people if the commission itself does not fulfill its mandate. What power is there to stop it? And there is plenty of precedent for corporations taking over such institutions. The World Wildlife Fund is a good example. It is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the World Bank.

As usual with your rightwing comments, you project. It is rightwingers who "throw tantrums" because they have so little to say, because what they have to say is generally so stupid and because they generally represent the interests of the rich, and thus are a minority and can't get their way without tantrums, skulduggery, stolen elections and war. Leftists, as a general rule, are thoughtful, well informed and give prime consideration the common good. That is my judgement of Rafael Correa, so when he says that there is a sovereignty issue, I believe him. And it doesn't hurt that he has a 70% approval rating!

Furthermore, racists, as a subset of the rightwing, have even more indefensible views and are even more prone to tantrums and worse. You are projecting. Correa is the president of Ecuador, elected by an overwhelming majority , with a particular mandate to assert Ecuador's sovereignty--for instance, kicking the U.S. military out of Ecuador was one of Correa's major campaign promises (fulfilled last year). He is a trained economist--U.S. educated, as a matter of fact. He has always shown intellect, wit and heart. When reporters asked him, during his campaign, what he thought of Chavez's remark that Bush is "the devil," Correa replied that "it was an insult to the devil." When reporters asked him about throwing the U.S. military out, he said that he would agree to a U.S. military base in Ecuador when the U.S. agrees to an Ecuadoran military base in Miami!

Who should we believe on this matter? Him or you? The popular, intelligent president of Ecuador, or you, a defender of Chevron-Texaco, prone to racist remarks?

He wins, hands down. If he says there is a sovereignty issue, there is a sovereignty issue! And your clumsy effort to smear him is absurd. That's your Chevron apologist coming out.

[protocol rv]

4. There's no Chernobyl in the jungle caused by Chevron

There's no such thing as a Chernobyl in the jungle caused by Chevron. Correa is just trying to squeeze money out of the man - and providing cover for the state oil company and the Ecuadoran environmental regulatory authorities, which are the real guilty parties for conditions as they exist today.

As for Correa being intelligent, why is Ecuador's GDP dropping this year? Ecuador and Venezuela are the only nations in this hemisphere predicted to have lower GDP's in 2010.