|
presided over one of the most stupendous periods of prosperity and pro-people government in the history of the world, in California in the 1960s. Lula da Silva is a lot like Brown--heart in the right place, a true progressive, a union-oriented leader who wants everyone to benefit from the state/nation's wealth and who in particular understands how important education is and "bootstrapping" of the poor, given the opportunity to do so--California's/Brazil's spectacular economic growth. Brown, for instance, built up California's fantastic educational system, then Reagan and the Pukes tore it down. (It's in tatters today.)
I grew up in Brown's California. Lucky me! However, when I got older and, many years later, moved to the redwood region (northern California), and saw the LAST of the redwood forest being voraciously logged, and looked into the matter, I found out that the period of the WORST redwood forest destruction--removal of the old growth trees--some 300 feet tall, 20 feet in diameter, 2,000 years old!--absolutely vital components of redwood forest ecology, upon which all other species depend (birds, fish, etc.)--had been the 1960s, presided over by none other than Edmund G. Brown, Sr. California's prosperity was built on many things. One of them was the destruction of the ancient redwood forest using modern technology/engineering, which could access every old growth tree, no matter how remote.
Lula da Silva is facing the same dilemma--a dilemma that many progressive/leftist leaders in Latin America are facing: How to feed, clothe, educate, house and employ so many people? How to create a society that benefits everyone? How to use resources so that they benefit everyone? Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, came right up against this recently, with Indigenous tribes objecting to oil exploitation in the Amazon forest. Correa is one of the most Indigenous-friendly presidents Latin America has ever seen. Under his guidance, the rights of "Pachamama" (Mother Nature) were included in the recently voted on and passed (by a huge majority) Ecuadoran Constitution. However, while he approved giving land back to the Indigenous, he did not approve giving them a veto over the use of natural resources such as oil (just the right to be part of the discussion). And he has said, in disputes with the Indigenous on this matter, that the resources belong to "all Ecuadorans." Venezuela has a similar legal construction--the Indigenous are entitled to apply for lands, but do not control the use of the mineral wealth on the lands, which belongs to "all Venezuelans." Bolivia is rather unique--with a 100% Indigenous, poor coca leaf farmer as president, in a country that is largely Indigenous. I will discuss Bolivia in a moment.
Edmund G. Brown lived and led California pre-environmental movement. The environmental movement in California really did not exist in the 1960s. It was a development of the 1970s--and in part developed BECAUSE OF the overlogging of the prior periods. (Interestingly, the 1950s/60s was an era when California Republicans were environmentalists--although this changed very quickly with Reagan.) ("You've seen one redwood, you've seen them all.") I wasn't aware of environmental concerns during the 1960s, though I was politically active at an early age. This is a different era--the era of the end of the Planet Earth, if we don't take dramatic, worldwide action to save it--most especially the curtailment of corporate power. The World Wildlife Fund--a big, corporate-connected NGO--gives us 50 years, at present levels of pollution and consumption. 50 years to the DEATH OF THE PLANET! We didn't know this in the 1960s. Edmund G. Brown was doing what he thought best for the PEOPLE.
Lula da Silva--whose government backs this dam project--as I said, is very similar in political outlook and circumstances to Brown, and Brazil is similar to California during that period. But what has changed is worldwide consciousness of the severe threat to our planet from our own activities. Da Silva has done some good things, for instance, he used presidential 'powers of decree' to preserve a swath of the Amazon which contains uncontacted tribes. And he's done some bad things, for instance, his biolfuels deal with the Bush Junta. The leaders of the Bolivarian countries--Venezuela, Ecuador and especially Bolivia--have done better on environmental issues than Da Silva has, thus far. They are closely allied with Da Silva on most matters, but I would say that they diverge on the environment, with the Bolivarian leaders "to the left" of Da Silva (more pro-environment, more sympathy with the Indigenous).
Bolivia is working on a communal approach to policies issues like this which affect "Pachamama" and all of her critters, including us. It's a very new approach and derives directly from tribal customs and ancient wisdom. Bolivia's president and majority government do not automatically consider any development to be "good"--even though most Bolivians are poor. They "chew things over" from all perspectives, rather like the Hopis, and desire, first of all, CONSENSUS. They also believe in decentralization--with respect to the customs and communal decision-making of Bolivia's different tribes, with the national government protecting everyone's rights and taking responsibility for the common welfare, for instance, use of Bolivia's gas revenues to provide small pensions for the elderly poor and other common decencies, including development of the educational system, etc., and providing land to displaced peasant farmers.
The movement that changed Bolivia forever--and turned it from a sort of "South Africa" during apartheid, with a tiny rich white minority basically enslaving the Indigenous majority, into one of the most progressive and promising countries in the world--was the COMMUNAL effort to take back public control of the water system in the city of Cochabamba, which had been "privatized" and taken over by Bechtel Corp (which then raised water rates to the poorest of the poor, even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater!). Persistent, brave, non-violent, mass protests drove Bechtel from Bolivia, and brought down the old elite/rightwing government that had invited Bechtel into the country. The character of this movement is significantly different from leftist movements in other countries. It is not led by intellectuals nor by members of an urban culture, nor by traditional industrial unions, but rather by PEASANTS, using their communal strength, communal decision-making and tribal custom, with their own unique methods of communication, networking and organization. Bolivia is mostly a rural country, yet it has this very advanced outlook, based on knowledge of the environment, agricultural knowledge and tribal custom that goes back a thousand years. Whereas Edmund G. Brown asked, "What is best for 'the people'?", Evo Morales asks, "What is best for the Earth AND her people?" and he is REALLY asking it--OF the people--not presuming to know and imposing his will or the will of self-appointed designers of society. He wants consensus achieved by true consultation with EVERYONE.
Lula da Silva appears to approve of the industrial model of development in Brazil--such as occurred here and in Europe. He thinks that this is for the betterment of 'the people,' and I think he is quite genuine in his efforts to ensure that development DOES benefit the majority. But WHO has made that decision? And WHO has been excluded from that decision? In the case of this dam, the excluded parties are the very people who are closest to the Earth and who possess ancient wisdom about the Earth.
IF, back in the 1960s, North American Indigenous tribes had still been in tact enough, and organized enough, to speak out, and IF the environmental movement had existed, and IF I had therefore known what a BAD POLICY it was to mow down one of the most unique forests on Earth--trees of such ancient lineage and size that they were vital to Earth's ecosystem, if nothing else as huge "carbon sinks" (cleaning the atmosphere) but so much else! --trees that host myriad species, trees that create their own weather, trees the size of skyscrapers that hold each other up with a vast underground, interconnected root system, and NO tap root!, trees that filter and CLEAN the water of vast river systems and their fisheries, and that prevent mudslides--I would have said, 'NO!' to such development. We didn't have the wisdom. Now we do--or at least Latin Americans potentially do. They still have in tact, well-organized, Indigenous tribes, to cry "Foul!" and half a century of the development of the environmental movement and its acquired wisdom, which says that plans like this are WRONG and do not REALLY serve the common good. Lula da Silva needs to seek CONSENSUS.
I know that Brazil is forever being asked to preserve its natural resources--often by "first world" powers oblivious to the needs of Brazil's vast poor population. The Amazon is one the few existing ancient forests--after a hundred years of corporate/industrial rapaciousness--vital to stabilization of the planet's ecosystem, and we are fast losing it. Da Silva has done a lot to protect it. But the tightrope that he has been walking between development and preservation has become an impossible act. He is smack up against THE dilemma. And he has fallen off the tightrope on this one. He is in the wrong--much like Edmund G. Brown, Sr. was, only with the Earth DYING before our very eyes, as the LAST natural areas are destroyed along with the livelihoods and cultures of the people whom we must need to LISTEN TO--the Indigenous.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(892 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
