by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Mar 15, 2012 | Agriculture, Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy
By Survival International
Ethiopian authorities have inadvertently revealed the existence of highly ambitious plans to resettle Lower Omo Valley tribes who stand in the way of a massive plantations scheme.
The map was included in an internal report by the country’s Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA), into the environmental impact of planned sugarcane plantations in the Omo.
Leaked to Survival International, the map shows where Ethiopia intends to resettle tribes whose land and communities stand in the way of their ‘development’ plans.
It reveals the huge ambition of the project, which is already destroying the land of tribes such as the Mursi, Bodi and Kwegu.
Reliable sources have confirmed to Survival that construction has already begun on at least three resettlement camps on Bodi land in the north of the Lower Omo Valley.
Violent human rights abuses against all indigenous communities in the Omo Valley are becoming commonplace, as the rush to ‘develop’ gathers pace.
One Mursi man told Survival, ‘I am waiting to die because the government has taken my land…The government is collecting all the people in the Omo Valley to put in one place.’
Many tribespeople have been told that the government will take away their cattle (a vital part of their livelihood). They will then have little choice but to become workers on the plantations which will occupy their lands.
One Bodi told Survival, ‘The government is lying to us. It says to us, you have to move down the Omo Valley. We will give you everything to eat and drink.’
Survival’s Director Stephen Corry said today, ‘This leaked map reveals what the Ethiopian government has wanted to conceal – its intention to resettle indigenous tribes in the Lower Omo Valley. Taken together with the widespread reports of violent evictions and intimidation, it clearly shows Ethiopia’s end goal – and its refusal to respect the rights of anybody who stands in its way.’
Read more from Survival International: http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8174
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 22, 2012 | Agriculture, Biodiversity & Habitat Destruction, Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy
By Environmental Investigation Agency
MUARE TAE, Indonesia — The fate of a Dayak community deep in the interior of East Kalimantan demonstrates how Indonesia must safeguard the rights of indigenous people who practise a sustainable lifestyle if it is to meet ambitious targets to reduce emissions from deforestation, alleges an organisation that specialises in investigating environmental crimes.
The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) claim Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae, in West Kutai Kabupaten, today face a two-pronged assault from palm oil companies aggressively expanding into their ancestral forests. Together with Indonesian NGO Telapak, the community is manning a forest outpost around the clock in a last ditch attempt to save it from destruction.
The London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) has witnessed at first-hand the Dayak Benuaq’s struggle, and how their sustainable use of forests could help Indonesia deliver on its ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
EIA Forests Team Leader Faith Doherty said: “There are more than 800 families in Muara Tae relying on the forests for their food, water, medicine, culture and identity. Put simply, they have to keep this forest in order to survive.
“The rhetoric from the President of Indonesia on curbing emissions by reducing deforestation is strong but on the front line, where indigenous communities are putting their lives at risk to protect forests, action is sorely missing.”
President Yudhoyono has pledged to reduce carbon emissions across the archipelago by 26 per cent by 2020 against a business-as-usual baseline, alongside delivering substantial economic growth.
Plantation expansion will inevitably be a significant element of growth, but it has historically been a major driver of emissions and it is widely acknowledged that in order avoid them, expansion must now be directed to ‘degraded’ lands.
The EIA believe that as a result of weak spatial planning, however, the forests of Muara Tae are identified as ‘APL’, a designation meaning they are not part of the national forest area and are open to exploitation. The EIA claim the theft of indigenous forests also raises serious questions as to what form of ‘development’ these plantations offer.
In indigenous communities such as the Dayak Benuaq of Muara Tae, Indonesia has perhaps its most valuable forest resource. It is due to their sustainable methods, honed over generations, that the forest even remains.
The remaining forest is home to a large number of bird species including hornbills, the emblem of Borneo. There are about 20 species of reptiles and it is also a habitat for both proboscis monkeys and honey bears.
From Gáldu
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 21, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy
By Shadrack Kavilu, Gáldu
Despite years of outcry by international human rights institutions and local activists urging the government of Tanzania to recognize and respect indigenous rights, cases of systematic land alienation and forced evictions continue to be meted on indigenous people.
Indigenous peoples’ ancestral land is mostly perceived by government as idle or underutilized and whenever there is a competing land use such as photographic tourism, hunting, large scale cultivation or hunting, indigenous peoples land is easily grabbed or leased to multinational companies to give room to more ‘economically viable’ investments.
The wide spread cases of violation of indigenous peoples rights in Tanzania has been blamed on lack of specific national policy or legislation on indigenous peoples.
The few enactments of law and amendments done in recent past does not reflect the interest of these indigenous people in terms of recognizing their identity and protecting their rights such as land and natural resources.
Over the years indigenous hunter-gatherer Hadzabe and Akie, and the pastoralist Barabaig and Maasai people have lost huge chunk of land to state authorities who hence convert it to game reserves, cultivation and mine fields.
Though violations of indigenous peoples’ rights are wide spread in Africa, some countries such as Congo Brazzaville have made significant steps in protecting the rights of these people.
Despite international pressure mounted on Tanzania to safeguard the rights of indigenous people, the country is yet to recognize them by enacting laws that safeguard, protect and promote their rights.
The country does not have a clear cut definition of who are indigenous people and thus all ethnic Tanzanians are regarded as indigenous.
Human rights activists attribute the forceful evictions and violation of indigenous people’s rights in the country to lack of legal and administrative measures that address the intrinsic link between land, identity and traditional culture.
The government has defied calls by several civil society organizations such as Hakiardhi, Pingo’s Forum, Cords, Taphgo, Ngonet, Alapa, Paicodeo, TNRF and Ujamaa CRT who have been in the forefront advocating for the enactment of laws that conform to the constitution and other international human rights instruments and standards.
Elifuraha Isaya Laltaika, the executive director of Association for Law and Advocacy for Pastoralist (ALAPA) and a law lecturer at the Makumira campus, Tumaini University in Arusha says lack of recognition of indigenous people has largely contributed to violation of indigenous people’s rights.
Laltaika says the government should come up with specific constitutional, legislative and administrative measures to protect rights of indigenous Peoples and ensure that they enjoy human rights in equal footing as other members of the mainstream society.
“Recognition is therefore a step in that it can lay the grounds for demanding legislative reforms as a distinct population,” he noted, adding that the enactment of laws that are negative on the livelihood systems of the indigenous peoples further undermine their rights.
According to submissions presented by a group of NGO’s to the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mid last year, it was apparent that indigenous populations in Tanzania are subjected to serious human rights violations.
In the submissions the human rights groups accused the government of violating indigenous peoples’ rights that include systematic land alienations, forced evictions, intimidations, marginalization from social services and lack of legal recognition.
They argued that justifications for these evictions have been unsubstantiated allegations that pastoralists cause environmental degradation, and that the government or local authorities need the lands of pastoralists and hunter-gatherers for investment purposes regardless of the traditional land ownership and customary practices.
The human rights groups urged the Human Rights Council to compel the government of Tanzania to establish legal and administrative measures that address, among others, the issue of identity and existence of indigenous people in the country.
The civil society group claimed in the submission that State authorities have been increasingly and arbitrarily dispossessing these indigenous peoples of their lands and other properties in order to protect the interests of investors.
The State authorities blamed for participating in denying the indigenous peoples’ rights include the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA), Tanzania Investment Centre (TIC), Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA), Tanzania Peoples’ Defense Forces (TPDF) and District Commissioners.
The group further stated that in many eviction instances, the government had not intervened to safeguard the interests of the indigenous people while many evicted families were now landless, homeless and subjected to conflicts with other land users.
The human rights activists report noted that there was no legal framework in Tanzania for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and that the country had not ratified the ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent countries.
Article 26 of the ILO Convention Number 169 states that indigenous peoples’ have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired and States should give legal recognition and protection to the same.
Sub-article three elaborates further that, such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Though the government of Tanzania has been under intense pressure from both local and international civil organizations to recognise the rights of indigenous people, it has done very little to accord these people their rights.
On 27 March, 2007 the United Nations Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) required the government of Tanzania to adopt legislative measure to recognize the specific rights of indigenous population living in Tanzania.
And on 29 July, 2009 the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) also required the government to enact laws that would protect indigenous peoples’ rights.
From Intercontinental Cry: http://intercontinentalcry.org/indigenous-peoples-rights-ignored-as-tanzanian-govt-protects-foreign-investors/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 20, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy, Mining & Drilling, Toxification
By Sarah Rotz
In 2008, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI) Chief Donny Morris, along with five other community members, were criminalized and jailed for saying “No” to mining exploration on their land. Although the Ontario government ultimately settled the case with Platinex Inc. (by providing the company with a $5 million handout), the government was unwilling to assure KI that unwanted mining exploration would stop categorically. Moreover, the Ontario Mining Act continues to enable free entry for mining companies like God’s Lake Resources; the newest gold mining company to stake a claim on KI land.
KI First Nation—a remote fly-in Oji-Cree community located roughly 1,400km northwest of Toronto—has governed and cared for their land since time before memory. This immense and rich area of lakes, rivers, boreal forests, and wetlands provides KI (with a population of 1,300) with the essential elements of life, including a clean and consistent supply of fresh water. Indeed, one of the many reasons that KI has chosen to say no to mining exploration on its Homeland is that it would contaminate much of the local water system. As a result KI has created an official Watershed Declaration and Consultation Protocol, which declares that “all waters that flow into and out of Big Trout Lake, and all lands whose waters flow into those lakes, rivers, and wetlands, to be completely protected through our continued care under KI’s authority, laws and protocols. We look at protection as restoring our land and waters to their original condition and preserving them in that condition for future generations. No industrial uses, or other uses which disrupt, poison, or otherwise harm our relationship to these lands and waters will be permitted. This includes no mining exploration…”
Clearly, KI has a vision for their land and environment that benefits the KI people, and all life. If nothing else, this vision must be respected. However, the incompatibility of KI’s philosophy with that of unfettered capitalism and economic growth held dearly by our colonial government, makes any form of authentic, unconditional adherence to KI’s declaration unlikely.
Development as Environmental Injustice in Canada
In Canada, environmental and health advocates are often dismissed on grounds that they are unable to present clear causal links between the activities of industrial companies, and the effects experienced by the community. This strategic dismissal of causality—and indeed, dismissal of the people most affected by the injustice—is typical in cases of water, soil and air contamination. It is a common legal position deployed with unconscionable regularity by the Canadian government, as well as various federal and provincial Ministries including Environment Canada, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Energy Mines and Resources and Natural Resources.
While it may be true that the diffused and ambulant nature of ecological elements may make causal patterns of contamination difficult to identify, the Canadian government has done little to facilitate research or exploration into the impacts of corporate activities on people and environments. Indeed, there are many instances in which the government has actively concealed the demonstrable truth of these claims. They have suggested that claims of environmental injustices are simply untraceable and unprovable, all without any due diligence. This position of willful ignorance and plausible deniability is an effective green light for any and all environmentally destructive corporate activity, as well as a legal bulwark against those who would seek to hold them accountable for their actions.
Communities affected by corporate activities on their land, or attempting to prevent such activities, face a tireless search for scientific evidence to corroborate their lived experience. Such endeavors require a great deal of resources. Of course, most communities simply do not have access to the required time, money, knowledge or power. More importantly, they are often unable to prevent the perpetrator—likely a potent mix of public and private entities—from using aggression, violence, intimidation, coercion, or even extortion to destroy the community’s capacity for resistance. The kicker here is that most cases like this are occurring on unsurrendered First Nation lands, which are to be governed by the First Nation community, and off limits to unwanted development, period. No trial should be necessary, because as long as the land is being used against this Nation’s wishes, the community should have full right to say “NO!” This continuous disregard for such rights means that all communities—in Canada and elsewhere—must step up and support them in their resistance.
Indeed, cases like this are typical within geographically, politically and/or socio-economically isolated or oppressed communities. First Nation reserves such as Aamjinaang know these battles well, and bare the scars to prove it. Aamjinaang is a Chippewa (Ojibwe) community just south of Sarnia. As a result of various oppressive forces, Sarnia’s chemical valley and various other industrial areas have been built directly around the community, enclosing it in the chemical debris of some of the largest industrial corporations.
Consequently, Aamjinaang has been dangerously exposed to toxic levels of industrial chemicals. And the effects are devastating. Residents suffer physical ailments ranging from persistent and debilitating migraines to a multitude of cancers: lung, liver, colon etc. Still, the trifecta of legal, political, and corporate hand-washing insists, there is no causal evidence that proves these effects are directly related to the ongoing industrial activity. This fails to explain why the male-female birth ratio has been dramatically altered. Presently, twice as many girls are being born than boys—an effect often caused by chemicals that imitate endocrine hormones. The release of industrial chemicals has also affected the community’s cultural practices and livelihood activities including hunting, fishing, ceremonial activities and medicine gathering. Nevertheless, those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in Aamjinaang, have clung desperately to the claim of insufficient causal evidence. Most disturbingly, this claim is being laid to protect industrial producers, and allow them to continue operating on land that is not theirs in the first place, while drawing an immense profit.
Although this community has been fighting a battle with the government and industry for years, little has been done to protect the community from ongoing chemical contamination. The longstanding issue for Aamjinaang, as with many health and environment cases, is that the government continues to disregard cumulative effects of pollution, contamination and toxicity by preventing legislative regulations limiting these effects. In fact, Environment Canada issued an approval for increases in pollution by local industry. In November 2010, residents of Aamjinaang launched a full lawsuit challenging this development. That being said, Aamjinaang has been working on proving their case for years and they are now just shifting their efforts towards government. This change in tactics is a response to the industry’s statement that they abide by regulations that the government sets. What this statement ignores is the pressure the industry puts on governments to regulate in their favor. The tremendous power held by companies is used to coerce government action and/or inaction. According to Aamjinaang, the government follows a long-standing modus operandi when responding to community health and environment claims: “deny, divide, delay, discredit”.
In contrast to environmental contamination cases such as Aamjinaang, mining represents some of the most explicit and traceable forms of ecological and social destruction and injustice. The sources of the toxic burdens of mining are highly physically concentrated. Thus, the “deny, divide, delay, discredit” approach taken by powerful polluters, would seem to be much more difficult to seriously adopt. That said, the situation in KI demonstrates the importance that power itself plays within our colonial society. Of course, Platinex, De Beers and God’s Lake have certainly done their fair share of lobbying, and their unabashed government support should be proof enough.
Before proceeding, I want to preemptively consider a potentially dangerous, and indeed popular, counter argument to analyses like this one. The argument goes as follows: perhaps the practice of displacing a small indigenous population in order to secure massive amounts of raw resources that would service an entire nation, is not, at bottom, unethical. That is, perhaps, at least in theory, there is some way to justify, or balance the initial moral deficit of the endeavor. The Canadian government views itself as a representative of an entire nation—a nation they say, which is predominantly concerned with jobs and economic growth. The government is therefore obligated to demonstrate their competence in providing relevant resources and services to the nation we call Canada. Of course, if they could do this inexpensively without polluting indigenous territory, they would. If they could do this without forcing themselves into indigenous lands, they would. But, they say, they cannot. That being said, surely there must still be a win-win situation to be had? Somehow we can strike a deal that will make “both sides” happy. What would this look like? In it’s abridged version there seems to be two steps. 1. Carefully, and with foresight, the government would relocate the affected indigenous population. 2. As compensation, offer them a sizable funding package. The population will be better off because they do not have to bear the health and livelihood effects of mining, and Canada can continue its upward economic and consumptive trajectory. No harm, no foul.
The problem with this perspective is that it fails to recognize that indigenous people never overtly surrendered their lands to the colonial government at any point in the treaties. The government of Canada’s ongoing act of dispossessing First Nations is based on a flawed assumption that, through treaties, the colonial government acquired full ownership over what is now off-reserve indigenous land. The fact that these unsurrendered lands were unilaterally placed under federal and provincial management, and are now are being used for the purposes of lumber, mineral, water and oil extraction (among countless other forms of extraction and dispossession), patently illustrates the ingrained nature of this flawed assumption. To deeply reconsider this assumption means that a vastly different process of engagement would have to take place between the government—and the corporations it alleges to regulate—and First Nations. Under the traditional application of First Nation minority rights in Canada, when dispossession occurs, indigenous communities cannot simply decide, voluntarily, to leave or to accept whatever compensation the government is offering. Indeed, if the “deal” presented by the government is not accepted, the government can simply revoke it, along with many ‘rights’ that the government has granted the indigenous population. The indigenous community will ostensibly be labeled an enemy of the colonial state and forcefully relocated, and any contractual obligation for compensation is largely null and void. Although the government actively conceals this process, it has been physically, socially, environmentally and culturally destructive for indigenous peoples in Canada—indeed, one need to look no further then the Attawapiskat case to see the devastating consequences of dispossession, encroachment and dislocation. The issue here is that this traditional and ongoing mode of engagement between the government and First Nations is based on a profoundly flawed assumption of ownership (both of land and people) by the colonizer, and is being continuously reproduced in the interests of the state. From an indigenous perspective, the argument is one of sovereignty. Thus, to speak of land and natural resources in Canada as if they are all part of a unified, uncontested whole under the Canadian government is to erase a 400-year history of violent colonization, dispossession and indigenous resistance. In essence, this line of argument is missing an important consideration. At the same time, this kind of discourse necessarily frames a particular group of people and their land claims as simply something that can be bought and paid for, rather than a sovereign right. This objectifies and commodifies and entire group of people based on nothing more than a combination of their race and geography. Surely our collective memories are not so shortsighted that we need to be reminded of where this kind of ontology can lead? Ahem…. slavery?
Lastly, it should be noted that the resource in which Gods Lake Resources is pursuing in KI is not farm land to feed Canadian’s, it’s not even oil to keep us living the comfortable life we have grown accustom to. It is not lumber for houses, it’s not coal for power—that’s not to say that if it was oil, coal or lumber it would be acceptable. Indeed, the resource is gold: the penultimate expression of opulence, indulgence and extravagance. This is not about maintaining our industrialized living standards; it’s about making money for some of the wealthiest companies on the planet.
Read more from Intercontinental Cry: http://intercontinentalcry.org/environmental-injustice-resistance-why-we-need-to-support-ki/
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Feb 18, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy, Mining & Drilling, Obstruction & Occupation
By Edward Helmore / The Observer
As she stands among villagers in the highlands of western Panama, their chosen leader, Silvia Carrera, is an image of bucolic harmony. Then Carrera, elected chief or general cacique of the Ngäbe-Buglé community, gestures to a woman who hands her a bag of spent US riot-control equipment – rubber bullet casings, shotgun shells, sting-ball grenades, teargas canisters.
Panama national police, she explains, used these against her people only days earlier to break up a protest against government plans for a vast copper mine and hydroelectric schemes on their territory. Three young Ngäbe-Buglé men were killed, dozens were wounded and more than 100 detained.
What began with villagers at Ojo de Agua in Chiriquí province using trees and rocks to block the Pan-American highway earlier this month – trapping hundreds of lorries and busloads of tourists coming over the border from Costa Rica for six days – has now placed Panama at the forefront of the enduring and often violent clash between indigenous peoples and global demand for land, minerals and energy. Carrera is emerging as a pivotal figure in the conflict.
“Look how they treat us. What do we have to defend ourselves? We don’t have anything; we have only words,” Carrera protests. “We are defenceless. We don’t have weapons. We were attacked and it wasn’t just by land but by air too. Everything they do to us, to our land, to our companions who will not come back to life, hurts us.”
At the height of the protests, thousands of Ngäbe-Buglé came down from the hills to block the highway; in El Volcán and San Félix they briefly routed police and set fire to a police station. In Panama City, students and unions joined with indigenous protesters marching almost daily on the residence of President Ricardo Martinelli. Some daubed walls near the presidential palace with the words “Martinelli assassin”.
Carrera pulls from her satchel a hastily drawn-up agreement brokered by the Catholic church that obliges the Panamanian national assembly to discuss the issue. It did not guarantee that the projects would be halted. Neither she nor the Ngäbe-Buglé people expressed optimism that the government would keep its word on the mining issue.
“The village doesn’t believe it,” she says, “and it wouldn’t be the first time that the government threw around lies. They do not listen to the village. There was a similar massacre in 2010 and 2011, when there were deaths and injuries. Some were blinded, some of our companions lost limbs.” A cry goes up: “No to the miners! No to the hydroelectric!”
The Ngäbe-Buglé comarca, or territory, sits atop the huge Cerro Colorado copper deposit, the richest mineral deposit in Panama, possibly in all of central America. Pro-business Martinelli, a self-made supermarket tycoon, signed a deal with Canada’s Inmet Mining with a 20% Korean investment to extract as much as 270,000 tons of copper a year, along with gold and silver, over the 30-year lifespan of the proposed mine. Panama’s tribes form 10% of the population but, through a system of autonomous comarcas, they control 30% of the land, giving them greater leverage.
Martinelli could hardly have found a prouder adversary than Carrera who, at 42 and elected only in September, is the first woman to lead Panama’s largest indigenous tribe. “The land is our mother. It is because of her that we live,” she says simply. “The people will defend our mother.” Carrera holds Martinelli in scant regard. She accuses him of “mocking” indigenous people and considers his administration a government of businessmen who “use us to entertain themselves, saying one thing today and another tomorrow”.
Two days before the police cleared the roadblocks, the president invited her to the Palacio de las Garzas in Panamá City for a “good meal and a drink”. The Ngäbe-Buglé chief, who received education to secondary level, was unimpressed. The offer, she said, revealed “a lack of respect”.
In past mining disputes, the government blamed “foreign actors” and journalists for stirring up trouble. Last week it accused the Ngäbe-Buglé of “kidnapping” and “hostage-taking” when referring to the travellers delayed on the highway. By the time the smoke cleared, Panama’s foreign minister, Roberto Henríquez, conceded that his government was “only producing deeper wounds”.
Carrera gestures to women in the group she says have been injured. Over the previous 24 hours she had travelled between towns to ensure that all the protesters had been released, but some reports suggest that dozens are still missing. One woman holds up a bandaged hand, a wound that she says came from an army bullet.
With the dead – including Jerónimo Rodríguez Tugri, who had his jaw blown off, and Mauricio Méndez, a learning-disabled 16-year-old – still lying in the mortuary, Carrera’s anger is plain. “This is the struggle of the indigenous people. We are trying to make contact, asking our international brothers to join us in solidarity. We call for justice from the UN. The government doesn’t want other countries to know about this. That’s why they cut off our cellphone service. We couldn’t find each other. Nobody knew anything. They were trying to convince us to give up.”
Fearful of the environmental and political fallout, governments throughout central America are tightening mining controls. But Martinelli, who came to power with the campaign slogan “walking in the shoes of the people”, seems determined to find a way around legislation that protects indigenous mineral, water and environmental resources from exploitation.
The Martinelli government faces accusations of systematic cronyism in the allocation of more than $12bn in new construction projects, funded in part by increased revenue anticipated from a $5.25bn Panama canal expansion programme. Among the disputed projects is a $775m highway that will encircle Panama City’s old quarter of Casco Viejo, cutting it off from the sea and isolating a new Frank Gehry-designed museum celebrating Panama’s influence as a three-million-year-old land bridge between the Americas. Critics say the road is pointless and Unesco is threatening to withdraw its world heritage site designation if it proceeds.
Despite the region’s history of conflict and shady banking practices, Panama is aggressively positioning itself both as an economic haven (GDP growth is running at close to 7.5%) and a tourist and eco-tourist destination. New skyscrapers thrust up into the humidity like a mini-Dubai; chic restaurants and hotels are opening up .
Officials express concern that the Ngäbe-Buglé and other indigenous disputes may undo Panama’s carefully orchestrated PR push, spotlighting the disparity of wealth in a country where 40% of the population live in poverty. “The government says Good, Panama is growing its economy. Yet the economy is for a few bellaco [macho men],” Carrera says. “But progress should be for the majority and for this we will go into the street, and from frontier to frontier, to protest.”
The tourism Panama seeks is threatening their way of life, she says. Along the coast, private developments are beginning to restrict access to the sea. “We work and we own property, but the tourists take the land and the best property. Then we can’t go there.”
At the bottom of the hill the general cacique waits for a bus to take her and several dozen women to Panama City, 200km to the west, for another anti-government rally, where they will be joined by the Kuna and representatives of the Emberá and Wounaan peoples, who are opposing encroachment of farmers on their land in the eastern provinces. Carrera vows that the Ngäbe-Buglé campaign will continue. “We are not violent. We just want to reclaim our rights and justice. Above all, we want to live in peace and tranquility.”
From The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/panama-protest-silvia-carrera
