NEW YORK, NY.: The Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) announced today that it will be partnering with the Christian group Family Policy Alliance (FPA) in submitting a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court challenging President Obama’s Title IX “bathroom mandate.”
The joint brief argues that allowing males who self-identify as women access to female-only spaces threatens the safety of women and girls and results in the effective erasure of women under Title IX – a civil rights law enacted specifically to benefit women, who have been excluded from formal education, or discriminated against within it, for centuries.
What prompted WoLF to forge such an unlikely partnership?
Kara Dansky, Chair of the WoLF Board, says the alliance with FPA just makes sense.
“WoLF fights to protect all women and girls, regardless of political affiliation,” said Dansky. “WoLF is the only feminist organization standing up for the right of women and girls to maintain female-only spaces. We are happy to work with other organizations that agree with us on this point.”
“How wrong does something have to be for a Christian family group, and a radical feminist group, to take their argument together to the Supreme Court?” said Autumn Leva, director of policy for Family Policy Alliance.
The brief will be submitted in the Gloucester School Board v. G.G. case before the high court. A female who identifies as male is seeking the “right” to use the boys’ facilities.
The court will hear the case this spring with a decision likely in the summer.
WoLF board member Kara Dansky sat down with Family Policy Alliance as unlikely allies for privacy and the safety of women and girls. Watch their conversation below.
On November 1, 2016, the Constitutional Chamber of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court provided some good news to a Terraba (Teribe) Indigenous territory when it stopped the state-run Costa Rica Electricity Institute (ICE by its Spanish acronym) from going forward with the Diquis hydroelectric project for failing to consult Indigenous communities who would see part of their lands flooded.
The permit, issued in 2007 under former President Oscar Arias, had declared the dam to be located at the mouth of the General River Valley in the southern Pacific and part of the country of “national interest.”
The court ruling did not question the “national interest” part of the permit, but said ICE had failed to comply with a previous high court order to adequately consult the Indigenous communities. The project has been stalled since 2011 over the Indigenous consultation issue.
The 650 megawatt hydroelectric project was to be the largest such project in Central America. The project’s reservoir would occupy 7363 hectares of land, 830 hectares of which are Indigenous territories, and displace over 1547 people.
The project would also flood 10 percent of the Terraba (also known as Teribe) China Kichá Indigenous territory (104 hectares) and 8 percent of another Terraba communities of Curré and Boruca (726 hectares). Officials estimate that 200 sacred Indigenous sites would be destroyed by the reservoir.
Some see the development as very positive. The $2.5 billion project would provide employment in the region to 3,500 people. The Diquis project would increase that renewable energy capacity and also allow Costa Rica to sell energy to neighboring Central American countries. Costa Ricans are proud of their electrical energy system which provides energy mostly from renewable resources. In 2016, the country went most of the year without resorting to using oil-fired thermal generators. But sometimes even renewable energy has high cost, especially when it comes to hydro-electric dams.
The high court ruling referred to Article 8 of the Arias Administration decree which would have allowed ICE to gather materials for the dam, power station, and connected works in locales in the areas of El General, Buenos Aires, Changuena and Cabagra, despite the fact that Indigenous people live in the areas.
According to the Constitutional Chamber’s press office, the annulled article was challenged previously in September of 2011, when the court determined that the decree was constitutional just as long as the Indigenous communities were consulted within a period of six months from the notification of the ruling.
However, early the next year, the court ruled that the six months established by the Court had passed and the consultation had not been made. “The Constitutional Chamber has demonstrated that, in fact, in the space of time established in the 2011-12975 ruling, the referred to consultation was not made nor did any party come to this Chamber request an extension of the time limit granted. Therefore, since the condition dictated in ruling 2011-12975 have not been met, the Article 8 of the No. 34312-MP-MINAE executive decree is unconstitutional because the consultation failed to occur,” said the press office.
The Terraba say they are not interested in the offers made so far to relocate their communities to other lands and provide them with well-paid jobs. “We don’t believe in the promises of employment for Indigenous Peoples, as up until today it had been demonstrated that all the qualified and best paid personnel have been brought from outside, Indigenous workers are used only to break rocks,” said community leader Jehry Rivera.
For Indigenous people, ICE offers are only opportunism. Indigenous Peoples want better lands and compensation in order to agree for the project to go forward.
The Court said that the consultation of Indigenous communities under Costa Rican law was necessary since the project is located in areas declared as an Indigenous reserve, “In fact, Costa Rica could be in violation of not complying with international conventions in relation to the autonomy of Indigenous Peoples over their territory. Costa Rica is a signatory of the International Labor Organization’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal People.”
Indigenous Peoples are not the only ones opposed to the project. Environmentalists say that the dam’s reservoir would dry up the intensely green Térraba River Valley and would destroy irreplaceable habitats such as the Ramsar wetland and the river delta that drains into the Pacific. The wetlands and delta are the nesting grounds for many species including the endangered hump-back whale.
–John McPhaul is a Costa Rican-American freelance writer based in San Juan, Puerto Rico. During his many years in Costa Rica, the land of his birth, he wrote for the Miami Herald, Time Magazine and Costa Rica’s The Tico Times among other publications.
Featured image: Cofan Indigenous leader Emergildo Criollo looks over an oil contaminated river hear his home in northern Ecuador. Photo by Caroline Bennett / Rainforest Action Network (flickr). Some rights reserved.
Indigenous battles to defend nature have taken to the streets, leading to powerful mobilizations like the gathering at Standing Rock. They have also taken to the courts, through the development of innovative legal ways of protecting nature. In Ecuador, Bolivia and New Zealand, indigenous activism has helped spur the creation of a novel legal phenomenon—the idea that nature itself can have rights.
Rights are typically given to actors who can claim them—humans—but they have expanded especially in recent years to non-human entities such as corporations, animals and the natural environment.
The notion that nature has rights is a huge conceptual advance in protecting the Earth. Prior to this framework, an environmental lawsuit could only be filed if a personal human injury was proven in connection to the environment. This can be quite difficult. Under Ecuadorian law, people can now sue on the ecosystem’s behalf, without it being connected to a direct human injury.
The Kichwa notion of “Sumak Kawsay” or “buen vivir” in Spanish translates roughly to good living in English. It expresses the idea of harmonious, balanced living among people and nature. The idea centers on living “well” rather than “better” and thus rejects the capitalist logic of increasing accumulation and material improvement. In that sense, this model provides an alternative to the model of development, by instead prioritizing living sustainably with Pachamama, the Andean goddess of mother earth. Nature is conceived as part of the social fabric of life, rather than a resource to be exploited or as a tool of production.
The Preamble of the Ecuadorian Constitution reads:
“We women and men, the sovereign people of Ecuador recognizing our age-old roots, wrought by women and men from various peoples, Celebrating nature, the Pacha Mama (Mother Earth), of which we are a part and which is vital to our existence…. Hereby decide to build a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumac kawsay.”
The traditional Quechua relation to the natural world is firmly rooted in the Constitution. The interchangeable use of nature and Pacha Mama testifies to the indigenous influence on the Constitution.
The concept and the praxis
In the 1970s, Christopher Stone, an American environmental legal scholar, articulated the legal notion of the rights of nature in his widely read essay Should Trees Have Standing? Stone envisioned a new way of conceptualizing nature through law that broke with the existing paradigm of the commodification of nature, often established through law.
Property rights are a primary example of commodifying the natural world. When treated as property, nature incurs damages that often go unrecognized. Stone writes that an argument for “personifying” nature can best be considered from a welfare economics perspective. Under capitalist economic logic, many externalities that negatively impact the environment are not registered when calculating the cost of an action. Transforming nature legally from mere property to a rights-holding entity would force byproduct environmental effects of production to factor into cost calculations. Under this framework, nature would be better protected.
Incorporating rights of nature into a national constitution is a powerful paradigm shift, but may seem hypocritical and idealistic given states’ continuing dependence on extractive industries. In Ecuador, 14.8 percent of the GDP comes from profits from natural resources as of 2014.
Moreover, under Ecuadorian law, the rights of nature are subject to principles of so-called national development. Article 408 of the constitution stipulates that all natural resources are the property of the state, and that the state can decide to exploit them if deemed to be of national importance, as long as it “consults” the affected communities. However, there is no state obligation to abide to the result of the consultation to these communities– a gaping hole in full protection of these environments and the people living within them.
Nonetheless, Ecuador’s Constitution was a significant step in changing the legal paradigm of rights to one that is inclusive of nature.
Bolivia follows
Bolivia followed in Ecuador’s footsteps. Evo Morales, the first indigenous head of state in Latin America, was elected in 2005 and called for a constitutional reform that ultimately established rights to nature in 2009.
Again, indigenous philosophies were instrumental in the formulation of Bolivia’s new Constitution. The constitution’s preamble states that Bolivia is founded anew “with the strength of our Pachamama,” placing the indigenous understanding of nature as central to the very creation of the revised political state. Like in Ecuador, the Bolivian Constitution allows anyone to legally defend environmental rights.
Bolivia’s government soon instituted the Law of Mother Earth in 2010, later re-coining it as the Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development to Live Well. The law lays out a number of rights for nature, such as the right to life and to exist, to pure water, clean air, to be free from toxic and radioactive pollution, a ban on genetic modification, and freedom from interference by mega-infrastructure and development projects that disturb the balance of ecosystems and local communities.
Part of the rationale behind the law is the hope of helping the environment through reducing causes of climate change, which is directly in Bolivia’s interests. Increasing temperatures in Bolivia pose problems to the nation’s farming sector and water supply.
Again, however, this legal concept does not match economic realities. The rights of nature are directly at odds with extractive industries that are intimately tied to Bolivia’s model of economic development. Despite legal frameworks defending the rights of nature, Bolivia’s profits from natural resources comprise 12.6 percent of the GDP as of 2014.
But there are alternatives to the Andean experience. Across the Pacific, New Zealand has also granted a legal status of personhood to specific rivers and forest, thus enabling the environment itself to have rights.
The New Zealand Take on Rights of Nature
Unlike Ecuador and Bolivia, New Zealand’s rights of nature are not embedded in its constitutional law, but rather protect specific natural entities. Native communities in New Zealand were instrumental in creating new legal frameworks that give legal personhood, and thus rights, to land and rivers.
New Zealand has bestowed legal personhood on the 821-square mile Te Urewara Park, and the Whanganui River, the nation’s third-largest river. This was part of the government’s reparation efforts for the historical injustice at the foundation of New Zealand’s state: colonial conquest of land from native peoples.
The Tuhoe tribe’s ancestral homeland is currently the Te Urewara Park. With the imposition of colonial governance, most of their land was taken from them without consultation, resulting in great spiritual and socio-economic losses. The land was designated a national park in 1954.
The Tuhoe tribe never signed the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi with the British Crown, which stripped the tribe of their sovereign right over their land. They have since contested the British assertion of sovereignty that undergirds the formation of the modern New Zealand state.
Their centuries-long struggle finally yielded results. As part of New Zealand’s reparation process towards Indigenous Peoples, the national government negotiated with the Tuhoe tribe regarding their historic land. In 2012 the Tuhoe tribe accepted the Crown’s offer of financial reparations, a historical account and apology and co-governance of Te Urewera lands. The national government renounced ownership of the land, giving the land its own personhood.
Under this framework, the land is now a legal entity in itself, owned neither by the government nor the Tuhoe tribe. The land is no longer property. It is its own untamed natural presence in and of itself, with, as per native understanding, its own life force and identity.
The land is now co-governed by the Tuhoe people and the New Zealand government.
The 2014 Te Urewara Act declares the park “a place of spiritual value.” The Act acknowledges that it is the sacred home of the Tuhoe people, integral to their “culture, language, customs and identity,” while also being of intrinsic value to all New Zealanders.
In a similar process of granting legal personhood, the local Maori tribe, the Iwi, helped the Whanganui River earn legal personhood status in 2014 after winning a long-fought court case.
This was part of a centuries-long struggle that the Whanganui tribes undertook to protect the river. Since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the river has been subject to gravel extraction, water diversion for hydro-electric plans, and river bed works to better navigability, under protest from local tribes.
The Maori fought to protect the river through a series of court cases beginning in 1938, defending their claim to the management of the river as its rightful guardian. Throughout the court cases, negotiations were undergirded by the native saying “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au,” which translates to “I am the river and the river is me.” This reflects native philsophies of reciprocal and equal relations between people and nature.
New Zealand’s attorney general Chris Finlayson was quoted in the New York Times as acknowledging the Maori perspective as formative in the granting of rights to these natural entities, saying “In their worldview, ‘I am the river and the river is me,’” he said. “Their geographic region is part and parcel of who they are.”
Expanding Legal Horizons?
The legal concept of rights of nature signal the influence of Indigenous Peoples as political actors in state-making, fundamentally reimagining law and how the natural world is conceived. These ideas present a revolutionary rupture in the conventional anthropocentric understanding of sovereignty, and a realignment of how the natural world is valued. In fact, they could chart the path forward for a new understanding of mankind’s relation to the natural world, even if they operate within the legal structures that are not conducive to indigenous philosophies.
It is true that the rights of nature as they currently stand have deep limitations, particularly given the ongoing extraction of non-renewable natural resources in Ecuador and Bolivia. Problems of corruption, environmental inequality and economic dependence on extractive industries are major challenges to the full realization of the rights of nature.
Yet small acts can lead to lasting change. This shift in the way we relate to and legally protect nature, however small and plagued by obstacles, could be an incremental step toward a more sustainable relation to the planet that could allow us to preserve the earth for future generations.
Cortlandt, NY — On Friday morning – in front of a packed courtroom of over 100 New York residents, activists, sympathizers and supporters opposed to Spectra’s “AIM” Pipeline – Cortlandt Town Court Judge Daniel McCarthy issued sentences for nine New York residents (known as the “Montrose 9”) that were arrested for blocking access to a Spectra Energy construction yard in November 2015. Each of the nine of the defendants were fined and sentenced to community service. The defendants had pled the “Necessity Defense,” arguing that their activity was justified because it was done to stop a danger more harmful than the violation of the law, and only after all other legal and regulatory options had been exhausted. The danger they oppose is Spectra’s “AIM” Pipeline, a high-pressure 42-inch gas pipeline that runs within 105 feet of critical Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant safety facilities. Even though Judge Daniel Murphy ultimately rejected this argument, it is groundbreaking for the necessity defense to be considered, and the community stands with the “Montrose 9.” The defendants’ lawyer, Martin Stolar, has filed an appeal with the appellate division of Westchester’s Supreme Court.
Despite their sentencing, the activists vowed that the fight is not over and that the resistance movement will continue. As “Montrose 9” defendant Linda Snider stated, “It‘s difficult for me to think of myself as ‘guilty’ when I was trying to stop a possible catastrophe. The first part of the Spectra pipeline is now in place and running under the Hudson, right next to a proposed oil barge anchorage site and Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in Tompkins Cove. What could go wrong? The huge outcry against this and other pipelines lead me to believe that the entire Spectra pipeline will, in the end, never get completed.” Defendant Susan Rutman agreed, stating: “Our communities need champions to protect the citizens, not punish those of us who are taking action and standing up to try to prevent a Fukushima-on-the-Hudson catastrophe. It is with a very sad heart that I stand before you to be sentenced.” Defendant Melissa Friedman stressed, “As an attorney, mother of two and with an ailing partner, I have limited time but I had to do something,” citing a long list of problems related to fracking and climate change. She added, “We’re doomed and it’s time to start acting like it.”
By completing the AIM Pipeline, Spectra Energy has only completed one-third of their overall pipeline expansion project – the “Algonquin” Pipeline Expansion. This is really one pipeline project disguised as three pipelines in order to illegally circumvent Spectra Energy’s obligation to identify cumulative impacts of the project as a whole. So while the AIM battle is over, the Montrose 9 voiced their commitment to winning the overall war in court on Friday.
Defendant Monica Hunken stated to the Judge, “Although we have been found guilty, it will not deter us from continuing to peacefully fight the next two segments of the Spectra pipeline every inch of the way. Whatever punishment we receive is a small price to pay for defending the land, air, water and our precious communities…We are here doing our job, being shepherds of the land. If we do not stand up to corporations, they will mow us down. We cannot allow them to treat us like we are sacrifice zones. I am doing this for you and your family too.”
The “AIM” pipeline has been opposed by local residents, countless local officials, Governor Cuomo, Senator Schumer and Senator Gillibrand, as well as riddled with corruption exposés and conflicts of interest. On February 29, 2016, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo called for an immediate halt to construction while the state conducts an independent risk assessment; the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) denied the Governor’s request. On August 3, 2016, both New York Senators Schumer and Gillibrand wrote to FERC, calling for an immediate halt to construction of the pipeline; FERC also denied the Senators’ request. In November 2016, it was revealed publicly that Phil Suter, the spouse of high-ranking FERC official Maggie Suter – who led the review for two gas pipeline projects by Spectra Energy – is a paid consultant for Spectra on a related pipeline project. Without further regulatory action or support from elected officials, residents and advocates have taken matters into their own hands to directly stop construction. Defendant Mike Bucci questioned the Judge, asking “All of the pieces of government have failed us, and now the judicial system has failed us. Where do we go for protection?”
Although FERC granted Spectra’s request to place the Stony Point to Yorktown portion of the AIM Pipeline into service in 2017, Spectra Energy still needs to complete its Atlantic Bridge and Access Northeast projects for the project to be financially viable. Resist Spectra and its allies across the northeast will oppose Spectra Energy’s reckless plans, rampant greed and toxic proposals at every stage. Factually, these pipelines and their supporting infrastructures are destructive and put tens-of-millions of lives, communities, and the ecosystems on which we depend at risk of imminent danger. As defendant Kathleen Thomas stated in court to Judge McCarthy today, “The response to our plea has to do with the word ‘imminent’. When the real danger is imminent, it will be too late. Once this becomes imminent, we are all gone. There will be no chance to say ‘I told you so’.” By working in solidarity with similar fights across the nation, we will stop Spectra once and for all.
In The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp does not classify the sabotage of property as violent, but states that sabotage could become violent if it causes injury or death. He considers that certain actions (including removal of key components, vehicle fuel, records or files) can fall somewhere between sabotage and nonviolent action. He describes that when nonviolent action has not been successful, sabotage has sometimes followed. Sharp does not describe any instances of sabotage being used by a disciplined nonviolent movement. In his view, sabotage is more closely related to violence than nonviolence, in terms of principles, strategy, and mechanisms of operation. [1]
Sharp also lists nine reasons why sabotage will seriously weaken a nonviolent movement:
it risks unintentional physical injury;
it may result in the use of “violence” or the use of force against those who discover plans of sabotage;
it requires secrecy in planning and carrying out missions, which also may result in “violence” or the use of force if discovered;
it only requires a few resisters, which reduces large scale participation;
it demonstrates a lack of confidence in nonviolent actions;
it relies on physical destruction rather than people challenging each other directly;
sabotage and nonviolence are rooted in very different strategies—nonviolence in withdrawal of consent, sabotage in destroying property;
if any physical injury or death happens, even if by accident, it will result in a loss of support for the nonviolent cause;
sabotage may cause increased repression. [2]
Ackerman and Kruegler agree with Sharp and recommend avoiding sabotage and demolition, but they do identify “nonviolent sabotage” as a form of economic subversion that renders resources for repression inoperative by removing components, overloading systems and jamming electronics. [3]
Branagan differentiates nonviolent property damage and sabotage. Property damage that occurs during a nonviolent action may involve, for example, a hole in the road that has minimum impact, especially compared to ecological, structural, cultural or physical violence. In his model, sabotage is defined by conducting sustained systematic attacks on property, and then getting away with it. [4]
Bill Meyers describes that sabotage was the primary tactics used by Earth First! in the US in 1989. However, during this period nonviolence activists joined the group, arguing that sabotage is a form of violence that feeds a cycle by giving those sabotaged the excuse for their own violence. They also conflated property destruction with violence against persons. Meyers explains that by 1990, this shift in participants’ ideological stances regarding violence resulted in the transition of Earth First! from a revolutionary group that was a genuine threat to the corporations destroying the earth into a much less physically threatening group.
To conclude this run of articles, over the last seven posts I’ve attempted to: define nonviolence and pacifism; explain what nonviolent resistance is; describe its advantages; signpost you to where you can learn more about struggles and who is advocating for nonviolent resistance; and finally how nonviolence and sabotage fit together.
Pacifism is clearly based on good intentions and an understandable desire for a world at peace. Nonviolent resistance is a very important tactic in our struggle. But crucially, it can not be the only tactic if the movement for environmental and social justice ever hopes to be effective. If the planet is to remain livable in the medium term then the movement needs to determine which tactics are most likely to succeed. Regardless of the differences of opinion and focus within the movement, the movement as well as the planet are losing. Being wedded to mostly nonviolent tactics is a major cause of this failure.
Strategic nonviolence has an important part to play in our resistance but the need for some nonviolent advocates to only advocate pacifism or nonviolent resistance in any circumstances and try to mandate it across whole movements, is counterproductive and causing the movement to be less effective.
An act of sabotage or property destruction is violent or nonviolent depending on the intentions and the way they are carried out (see post 4). I don’t think that sabotage or property destruction of nonliving things such as buildings, vehicles, and infrastructure in the defence of life can ever be considered violent.
In the next run of posts I will explore the problems with nonviolence and pacifism.
This is the eleventh installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
Endnotes
Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 608/9
Politics of Nonviolent Action, page 609/10
Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, Peter Ackerman and Chris Kruegler, 1993, page 39
Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 124
After eight years of struggle, communities in Santa Cruz Barillas, Guatemala, are celebrating a decision by Spanish company Ecoener-Hidralia to leave Guatemala and start the “process of extinction of Hidro Santa Cruz S.A.”
The Dec. 29 announcement signals the end to a tragic legacy of political persecution and imprisonment, criminalization of resistance, threats and the murder of social leaders.
The aggressiveness of the hydro dam’s proponents reached its highest point with the murder of community leader Andrés Pedro Miguel, attributed to security officers hired by the multinational company. Legal authorities, even in light of undisputed evidence, decided to keep this crime unpunished.
The outrage of communities was used as an excuse by the Guatemalan government, led by Otto Pérez Molina, to declare a state of emergency in the area and imprison several people.
“As the people of Barillas we see this as a great victory. This is an important achievement towards the defense of the territory and the natural resources of the people, and it is a message for other companies in the country and the world,” said Basilio Tzoy, member of the Departmental Assembly of Huehuetenango and CEIBA – Friends of the Earth Guatemala, in an interview with Real World Radio.
Tzoy believes that the “key factor” for this victory was the struggle of “the people through community consultations since 2007, and then with the support of different organizations and individuals who opposed the state of emergency in 2012 and advocated for the freedom of the political prisoners.”
Tzoy also highlighted the importance of the solidarity shown by regional and international organizations that acted to stop the advance of the project, for instance through the International Mission on Human Rights carried out in 2013 in the framework of the 5th Latin American Meeting of the “Network of People Affected by Dams and in Defense of Rivers, Communities and Water” (REDLAR).
Another important action, according to him, was the delivery of over 23 thousand signatures gathered by Friends of the Earth Spain and the Alianza por la Solidaridad to the Guatemalan Ambassador in Spain, demanding the definitive withdrawal of the multinational company from the country.
The struggle continues
In addition to celebrating this victory, the communities have identified as next steps to strengthen the solidarity with the q’anjob’al and chuj peoples of San Mateo Ixtatán municipality, who are facing the advance of hydroelectric projects owned by company Promoción y Desarrollo Hídricos (PDHSA). According to Tzoy, the leaders of these communities, who live in a heavily militarized territory, have “over 17 arrest warrants against them and over 50 legal complaints,” for defending their territories.
With reference to the territories occupied by Hidro Santa Cruz, the activist said that starting next year, the local organizations will meet to define how they will be recovered.
In the framework of the 20th anniversary of the peace agreements today, December 29th, Tzoy said that Guatemalan social movements have been meeting for over two months now, carrying out actions to demand the State the right of Indigenous Peoples to their territories and to denounce the attacks and criminalization of the struggles of the communities.
As a conclusion, Basilio Tzoy addressed “the people of Latin America and the world resisting neoliberalism: the struggles take long and are hard, but the fruits can be reaped as long as they persevere,” said the Guatemalan leader.
This article was originally posted at RadioMundoReal.fm and edited and re-published at Intercontinental Cry under a Creative Commons License. Featured image by www.papelrevolucion.com.
