Paraguay’s major newspaper is reporting today that the government of Paraguay–which came to power after a coup on June 22–has agreed to resume negotiations with Montreal-based Rio Tinto Alcan for a $4 billion aluminum plant.
The announcement follows a coup that led to the deposition of President Fernando Lugo, who was replaced by Federico Franco, head of the right-wing Paraguayan Liberal Party. Corporate media have called the coup a “lightning-quick impeachment,” but Lugo himself has said his removal constitutes an “institutional coup.” He was deposed after a rapid political trial which took place over a total of 32 hours.
According to Lugo, the coup was the work of a handful of economic elites and members of the political old guard. It appears there are Canadians among those preparing to make good off of the political upheaval in Paraguay.
Prior to the coup, Montreal based Rio Tinto Alcan was in negotiations with the Lugo government regarding the company’s plans to build an aluminum smelter in Paraguay. Talks, however, had stalled because of a disagreement on the price Rio Tinto Alcan would pay for energy.
“Evidently there were negotiations between Lugo’s government and Rio Tinto [Alcan], not negotiations as to whether we would permit the arrival or Rio Tinto [Alcan] or not,” Abel Enrique Irala, a researcher with the Paraguay Peace and Justice Service (Serapaj) told the Media Co-op this morning from the capital, Asunción. “The arrival of the company was a given. The negotiations were about the use of energy and the price or subsidy that the company would be granted to the transnational.”
Irala noted that the negotiations were advancing slowly, and were becoming increasingly part of a national public debate. “Now, with Franco in power, the negotiations are closed, taking place behind four walls as we say here, and will certainly happen more quickly,” said Irala. “The government will certainly be more charitable towards Rio Tinto Alcan and their work in the country.”
Reuters reported last week that since the swearing in of the new finance minister following the coup, the government planned to sign a decree shortly to allow the resumption of negotiations regarding the smelter. That decree passed today, authorizing the coup government to negotiate with Rio Tinto Alcan.
Rio Tinto Alcan doesn’t appear to be the only corporation taking advantage of Lugo’s ouster. “One can deduce that [Franco] has already met with regional, national and international business people, who represent transnational power,” said Irala.
We are in the middle of the largest mass extinction in 65 million years—an extinction that many scientists have argued is the fault of human activity over the last 10,000 years. Around 200 species go extinct each day. 90% of the world’s large fish populations have been decimated by industrial fishing and other industrial activity (This includes cod, halibut, tuna, swordfish, marlin, and others). According to a report issued by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (An association consisting of around 1,000 organizations and “thousands of participating scientists”), “One in four mammal species, one in eight bird species and one in three amphibian species” are currently threatened with extinction. The majority of coral reefs are dying. The International Energy Agency has said that if fossil fuel infrastructure is not changed, that is, reduced, within 5 years, the earth will be “locked in” to irreversible climate change. Every major life system on this planet is in decline—there is not a single academic peer-reviewed article that says otherwise.
These are serious facts that demand serious responses. However, instead of serious responses, the majority of the left (and I say “left” here because although these issues are relevant to anyone who cares about the continuation of life on the planet, the left is where the bulk of environmental discourse is coming from) has offered up solutions and responses that in no way match the size or the scope of the problem we’re facing. We’ve been told that in order to mitigate environmental damage we must change our diet, our cars, our minds, and of course, our light bulbs. Though, it has occurred to a number of us that these solutions (and similar others) are not only ineffective; they’re downright irresponsible as “ends” meant to address the destruction of the planet. To place the blame squarely on the individual and then expect the individual to be the source and ends of social transformation is to completely ignore the role of power and particular unjust and brutal arrangements of power (Not only that, but the sum of these actions if—and this is a big “if”—everyone undertakes them, is still nowhere near the kind of reduction needed to halt the destruction of the earth). Critique aside, what would the grounds, philosophically, look like of a movement that could take into account the workings of power and hold as its ends a livable planet and just social relations?
By the sheer magnitude of the problem—that is, overcoming the structures and institutions who seem hell-bent on destroying the planet—an acceptance of predetermined or a priori boundaries, whether moral, legal, ethical, religious, etc., is undeniably a privileging of the dead over the living, of the ideal over the real. Predetermined principles and boundaries for action as well as the structure that they’re situated in and emit from, assume that we take their being and continuance as primary and given, and that we take what is to be changed (or the object of change) as a kind of dependent variable. In this case, the dependent variable treated by the proponents of civilization as well as mainstream environmentalists is the biosphere. This is implicit in action and stated ideological aims. Author Derrick Jensen has pointed this out and notes that this sort of thinking—that which, at any cost, seeks to save civilization—is “entirely backwards.” Instead, he argues, “We need to do whatever it takes to save life on the planet.”
Submitting action to, say, a moral or ethical category—a purely metaphysical category to be sure—betrays the material thing that gave rise and meaning to the ethic or moral. What we ought to be doing is an entire reconfiguring—consulting the meaningful thing in the world (humans, nonhumans, a landbase, etc.) and then tailoring an ethos, i.e., action, to fit. It is the material grounds that make possible (and impart meaning), in the first and last instance, any ideal, metaphysical principle.
But what we see on the left (and the right for that matter) is an obsession over one’s own personal moral purity—of “action” that, in every way possible, fits into a moral/ethical framework, magically relieving the individual of any moral burden and, more importantly, guilt. The tendency of activists to focus almost solely on the individual as the basic unit of social change is, traditionally, within political theory, the hallmark of liberalism (this is not, to note, meant to name the political Left or Right). At its fundamental level, the liberal understands change as emitting from the individual “where the idea,” activist Cameron Murphey explains, “is that social change happens step by step, person by person…and in this way society is seen as some fluid collection of individuals where the sum of these individuals still equals its parts.” Essentially, this thinking, from its subjectivist (and ultimately narcissistic) roots, leads to conceiving of the means of change, in total, Murphey explains, as “an idealistic process—meaning that it happens in the mind.” The problem here is what instigated the Marxist critical tradition—the “tyranny of ideas,” the neglect of material circumstance in favor of the more gentle fantasy of ideas. Granted, there certainly does need to be a change regarding individual consciousness, moving away from the dominant ideology and so forth, but it is not to be taken as a primary end.
Yet it is taken as a primary end in the liberal tradition. Theodore Adorno’s insight regarding constitutive, i.e., bourgeois, subjectivity is relevant here: The liberal, supposing that simply and solely changing one’s mind or attitude constitutes, correlatively, the necessary (and only necessary) change in the world, forgets the objective circumstances that constituted the problem (as well as the subject) in the first place. As Marx had argued that the point of philosophy is to change reality, the liberal argues that we must change ourselves. Thus, goes the liberal argument, that if enough people can make this inner change, then it will inevitably change external circumstances.
Internal/external philosophical problems aside; I think it’s much more useful to consider if such a tactic, solely considered, has ever worked in struggles for liberation. The answer, historically, is a resounding “No.” To illustrate, author and activist Lierre Keith parallels the history of colonialism and indigenous people with the ideals of the contemporary “alternativist” environmental ideology (The idea that by living differently, i.e., “green,” people will naturally be attracted to adopt a different way of life.). She explains that if this liberal model of “personal example-as-political strategy,” was indeed an effective method at creating change (and not just a feel-good, religious-like purism), then those who encounter communities that seem to embody the ideal most, i.e., those living sustainably and in ostensible harmony with the earth, will likely want to adopt such a way of living. The go-to example, indeed the often-cited inspiration for such an ideal, is, for the most part, indigenous cultures. But, as Keith explains, in the history of colonizers and invaders into indigenous lands “the face-to-face example of an egalitarian sustainable culture has never once changed the invaders. It has never once brought on an epiphany amongst the invaders.” She adds, “The dominant culture will not change because it sees the non-violent values that we embody and it will not change because it beholds our beautiful free-range compost pile.” When it has been employed, moral example and persuasion has worked in converting a few, but it has never been enough to convince those in power to renounce the privileges and benefits that come with such power. The difference is between liberal ideal and material reality. Again, to stress: changing oneself is necessary, but it is not the ends of change.
The focus, considering what’s at stake, must extend beyond the illusion of the isolated subject, beyond the notion of a singular self and an identity that is based on what one consumes. We are reminded of Gandhi’s famous line—the dogma of contemporary liberals—to “Be the change that you want to see in the world.” This notion becomes problematic if one does change one’s consciousness, yet the objective material reality still stays the same. That is, if I have resolved to approach the world with a kind of responsible, ecological consciousness yet, en masse, the world continues to be destroyed, my response betrays the purpose of my resolve in the first place. On the other hand, we could argue that a truly “responsible, ecological consciousness” is, indeed, one that looks beyond personal change and into the shared material world.
The internal logic of current political and economic structures requires that they cede nothing that would invite their own collapse; in plain terms, the State and major economic entities will not, voluntarily, stop destroying the planet. They must, instead, be stopped. This means creating and implementing a formidable revolutionary praxis with strategies and tactics that are faithful to the end goal of a living planet. It means asking what kinds of responses are appropriate given our situation. A philosophy of resistance to the dominant ideology, if its guiding principle is the ensuring of a livable planet (livable for both humans and non-humans), isn’t concerned, necessarily, with moralism, idealist ethics or the like, but is, instead, pragmatically concerned with the creation or bringing about of conditions such that the planet’s destruction by those who could otherwise not engage in such destruction is rendered impossible. The agency of those destroying is the primary difference from other more “natural” mass extinctions. And it is the fact of agency in all of this that affords the possibility of active resistance—of naming power and overcoming that power.
Each time a new measure that the city of Chicago is preparing for the coming NATO and G8 summits is unveiled, the tension in the city ratchets up a notch. The latest news comes in the form of reports that Chicago has purchased face shields, and may be considering the implementation of airborne surveillance technology.
As part of the expanded powers given to Mayor Rahm Emanuel for the May summits, the city has authority to accept contracts for goods or services without approval of the City Council or the expected competitive bidding process. The face shields and aerial surveillance technology are the first use of this allowance.
Chicago police officers, and any law enforcement the city chooses to deputize under the measures put in place for NATO/G8, will be equipped with 3,000 new face shields that “will fit easily over gas masks,” according to The Chicago Sun-Times.
The nearly $200,000 contract with Super Seer, a Colorado-based company, was made as an “emergency purchase for the G8 summit,” according to Super Seer President Steve Smith.
Chicagoist also reported that Chicago will get the latest in aerial surveillance equipment, according to the press release from a company called Vislink:
The airborne units will transmit to four strategically located ground-based receiver sites providing city-wide coverage and the ability to simultaneously receive real-time images from two aircraft for viewing at the Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) operations center. An additional three receive systems will be installed in the city’s mobile command vehicles to facilitate field operations.
These measures will be in addition to “snipers that will stand guard from above,” reported ABC. Overarching security jurisdiction for the summits, which have been designated a national security event, has already been handed over to the Secret Service.
ESMAD (riot police) in Huila, Colombia began the forced removal of the fisher-people, campesinos, miners, day laborers and others who have been blocking the diverting of the Magdalena River for the Quimbo Dam early Tuesday morning. The diverting of the river was being blocked by a peaceful occupation of the area known as Domingo Arias. The ESMAD used tear gas, pepper spray and brutal force to corral the people protecting the Yuma/Guacahayo/Magdalena River. At least six people have been injured, including Asoquimbo member Luis Carlos Trujillo who lost an eye.
Since noon Monday, ESMAD blocked the entrance to the Paso del Colegio Bridge to all traffic except the Quimbo´s constant traffic of workers, engineers and machinery. The President of Asoquimbo, Elsa Ardila, members of regional organizations, Local, National, International Press as well as Observers from the International Observatory for Peace were not permitted to enter, effectively creating a black out of what the State was doing in the area. Only after some journalists did an interview on the air stating they were being kept out and blasting the message from a car, media with documentation from the Ministry of Communication were allowed to enter. Meanwhile, independent journalist and human rights observers were denied entry.
During the ordeal elders, children and expecting mothers were not spared from the baton strikes, punches, kicks and shoves with shields of the ESMAD. One child was removed from their parents and later was returned only after. The people, who were forcibly removed, were taken out in six Chivas (local rural buses) that rushed past those outside and the groups of people were not permitted to interact Those removed were taken back to the towns closest to their community. In the last two Chivas, the fisherman of Hobo forced the drivers to stop and jumped out to unite with those who had been blocked out.The people occupying the banks of the river were within 30 meters of the shore, which is an area that is legally permitted to the inhabitants of the country as a public area to inhabit freely. When the ESMAD came at everyone with violence, the Defenders of the River held hands and stood in the water. Tear gas and violence were then used to force people out. The Mayor of the Municipality of Paicol, Norberto Palomino Ríos, supporting the National Government and Emgesa, issued the order for the forced removal of about 200 affected people in the area.
While the local autonomous environmental organization CAM pronounced in a meeting with the Minister of Interior last week they would be present for the forced removal, no one ever showed. Both the Vice Ministers of Environmental and the Interior refused to give any statements to Miller Dussan of Asoquimbo, during the removal while being blocked from entering the site. Meanwhile the Ombudsman from the Paicol Mayor’s Office road in the boats used by Emgesa workers and watched the removal from the construction site across the river.
Currently the affected people of the Quimbo Dam are healing themselves to move forward with the necessary actions to Defend the Yuma-Guacahayo-Magdalena River.
A feature-length, multi-award winning documentary by Native American filmmaker Alanis Obomsawin set in the thick of the armed confrontation between Native American Mohawks and Canadian government forces during the 1990 standoff in the Mohawk village of Kanehsatake near the village of Oka in Quebec. The two-and-a-half month ordeal received brief national attention when the Mohawk warriors of Kahnawake, in support of their brothers from nearby Kanehsatake, temporarily held the busy Mercier Bridge leading to Montreal, in an effort to bring world attention to the situation. Starting with plans to construct a luxury housing development and expand a private golf course into the Pines, part of Mohawk Nation’s land, tensions rose quickly and tempers flared as Mohawks were once again fighting for their sovereignty.
After a police officer was killed in a raid to expel the Mohawks from the Pines, the situation spiraled out of control. In scene after startling scene the drama escalates as the Quebec police are replaced by units from the Canadian army. With few exceptions journalists covering the crisis either evacuated or were forcibly removed. Alanis Obomsawin spent the final weeks of the standoff without a crew, shooting on video and using the slow speed on her sound recorder to stretch out her limited supply of audio tape. Obomsawin’s detailed portrayal of the Mohawk community places the Oka crisis within the larger context of Mohawk land rights dating back to 1535 when France claimed the site of present-day Montreal which had been the Mohawk village of Hochelaga. Her evocative dimension of the conflict, exploring the fierce conviction of the Mohawks and the communal spirit that enabled them to stand firm.
