construction vehicles torched at deforestation site

anony­mous report, from From Rus­sia With Love:

“10/02/2013 mem­bers of ALF-Kuban torched con­struc­tion vehi­cles used for destroy­ing a grove – one of the few left – in Krasnodar.

anony­mous report, from From Rus­sia With Love:

“10/02/2013 mem­bers of ALF-Kuban torched con­struc­tion vehi­cles used for destroy­ing a grove – one of the few left – in Krasnodar.

‘All of the riv­er basin is in dan­ger, because these woods act as lungs for three dis­tricts: Kom­so­mol­sky, Pashkovky and Hydrostroy. In their lust for prof­it devel­op­ment com­pa­nies won’t lis­ten to locals, eco­log­i­cal sur­veys or peti­tions. So we chose to sab­o­tage their efforts.

We are mak­ing them pay,’ – ALF-Kuban

Tar Sands Blockade Activists Forced to Settle Lawsuit But Will Continue to Fight

TransCanada Claimed $5 Million in Damages

On Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 25th, a group of activists agreed to a se

TransCanada Claimed $5 Million in Damages

On Fri­day, Jan­u­ary 25th, a group of activists agreed to a set­tle­ment in TransCanada’s law­suit against Tar Sands Block­ade, Ris­ing Tide North Texas, Ris­ing Tide North Amer­i­ca, and nine­teen indi­vid­u­als. The SLAPP suit (Strate­gic Law­suit Against Pub­lic Par­tic­i­pa­tion) alleged that direct action against Key­stone XL has cost Tran­sCana­da $5 mil­lion. This con­tra­dicts fre­quent pub­lic state­ments by TransCanada’s spokes­peo­ple that block­aders were not imped­ing con­struc­tion in any mean­ing­ful way.

The eight Tex­ans who came to court to defend them­selves on Fri­day, some of whom had not been active­ly involved with Tar Sands Block­ade since protests in August, were threat­ened with los­ing their homes and life’s sav­ings if the law­suit went for­ward. In order to pro­tect the liveli­hoods and depen­dents of brave activists like Tam­mie Car­son, who locked her­self to a truck car­ry­ing Key­stone XL pipe, the activists agreed to set­tle the law­suit. The cor­po­ra­tion will not seek the $5 mil­lion in finan­cial dam­ages, and the named defen­dants and orga­ni­za­tions agreed to not tres­pass on Key­stone XL prop­er­ty in Texas and Okla­homa or face addi­tion­al charges.

Despite this legal set­back, mem­bers of Tar Sands Block­ade are as deter­mined as ever to stop Key­stone XL. The sus­tained direct action cam­paign will con­tin­ue. Here’s a chronol­o­gy of all the direct actions tak­en since August 2012.

Defen­dants made the fol­low­ing state­ments in response to the set­tle­ment:

Tam­mie Car­son, a life­long Tex­an, grand­moth­er, and defen­dant from Arling­ton, TX, said:

“I took action for my grand­kids’ future. I couldn’t sit idly by and watch as a multi­na­tion­al cor­po­rate bul­ly abused emi­nent domain to build a dirty and dan­ger­ous tar sands pipeline right through Tex­ans’ back­yards. I had no choice but to set­tle or lose my home and every­thing I’ve worked for my entire life.”

 

Ram­sey Sprague, Tar Sands Block­ade spokesper­son, and defen­dant from Fort Worth, TX, said:

“Tran­sCana­da is dead wrong if they think a civ­il law­suit against a hand­ful of Tex­ans is going to stop a grass­roots civ­il dis­obe­di­ence move­ment. This is noth­ing more than anoth­er exam­ple of Tran­sCana­da repress­ing dis­sent and bul­ly­ing Tex­ans who are defend­ing their homes and futures from tox­ic tar sands.”

Lau­ren Regan, an attor­ney with the Civ­il Lib­er­ties Defense Cen­ter and one of the legal coor­di­na­tors for the Tar Sands Block­ade made the fol­low­ing state­ment:

“The SLAPP suit (Strate­gic Law­suit Against Pub­lic Par­tic­i­pa­tion) filed against the peo­ple and orga­ni­za­tions that are fight­ing against TransCanada’s uneth­i­cal and envi­ron­men­tal­ly destruc­tive pipeline will nev­er stop the people’s resis­tance to the XL Pipeline. Tran­sCana­da has repeat­ed­ly attempt­ed to vio­late the law and bul­ly the peo­ple of Texas: through cor­po­rate cor­rup­tion and lies, they obtained “com­mon car­ri­er” sta­tus in Texas in order to steal pri­vate prop­er­ty from low income and hard work­ing Tex­ans; they have attempt­ed to bring the full weight of the police state upon non­vi­o­lent activists in an attempt to crush their peace­ful resistance–using mace, tasers, and phys­i­cal bru­tal­i­ty.

Despite phys­i­cal harm, lengthy incar­cer­a­tions, felony charges, and now civ­il law­suits to restrict their right to protest, the peo­ple have not been deterred and have only been embold­ened in the face of Transcanada’s attempt at repres­sion and bul­ly­ing. At each attempt by Tran­sCana­da to chill the cit­i­zens’ rights to protest the XL Pipeline, the people’s lawyers will stand up to defend them in the Court’s. For every pro­tes­tor that is jailed or beat­en, ten more arrive to take that person’s place. For every home­own­er who has had their land stolen, and dan­ger­ous tar sands oil now threat­ens their health and envi­ron­ment, peo­ple from around the coun­try will band togeth­er to pro­tect the next threat­ened com­mu­ni­ty through a vari­ety of non­vi­o­lent tools. Resis­tance is Fer­tile. The sur­vival of the plan­et in the face of glob­al cli­mate change deserves noth­ing less.”

Treesit in California Against CalTrans Bypass

A coali­tion of envi­ron­men­tal groups staged a protest Mon­day morn­ing along High­way 101 to protest the con­struc­tion of the high­way bypass around Willits.

Dozens of pro­tes­tors from Earth First! joined with a new­ly formed Willits group called Save our Lit­tle Lake Val­ley in an effort to stop the planned tree cut­ting along the bypass foot­print. In addi­tion to pick­et signs, a local woman is now liv­ing on a plat­form nes­tled in top of one of the trees slat­ed for removal. Pick­eters on the ground vowed to sup­port her tree sit­ting protest for as long as it takes.

“Cal­Trans did not cut today, it was def­i­nite­ly a vic­to­ry,” says orga­niz­er Sarah Grusky of Save our Lit­tle Lake Val­ley. “We plan to hold vig­ils as often as pos­si­ble to keep a look­out.”

Cal­Trans has been work­ing for the past few weeks, plac­ing mark­ers along the project right of way prepar­ing for the con­trac­tor to begin work. The first sig­nif­i­cant work sched­uled for the con­trac­tor is to cut the trees along the bypass route to pre­vent migra­to­ry birds from nest­ing in them. Tree cut­ting is expect­ed to start with­in two to three weeks accord­ing to Cal­Trans spokesman Phil Fris­bie.

Cal­Trans award­ed the $108 mil­lion con­struc­tion project to the part­ner­ship of DeSil­va Gates Con­struc­tion and Flat­iron West Incor­po­rat­ed late last year with the expec­ta­tion most of the heavy con­struc­tion work would not start until 2013 after the sea­son­al rains sub­sided.

A law­suit filed by The Cen­ter for Bio­log­i­cal Diver­si­ty, Sier­ra Club, Willits Envi­ron­men­tal Cen­ter and the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter in May 2012 is seek­ing to delay the project until a more thor­ough exam­i­na­tion of alter­na­tives is con­duct­ed. The Cal­i­for­nia Farm Bureau joined the law­suit in August 2012. In Novem­ber a fed­er­al judge denied the groups’ request for an injunc­tion aimed at stop­ping con­struc­tion until the law­suit issues were set­tled. The tri­al date is sched­uled for June 7.

While the courts set­tle the over­all legal­i­ty of Cal­Trans bypass design, some area activists are con­cerned about the dam­age being done in the mean­time. Pro­tes­tors brought infor­ma­tion­al signs and held them up to wave at trav­el­ers along the east side of High­way 101 south of Walk­er Road aimed at stop­ping any con­struc­tion through peace­ful protest.

“Cal­trans has not con­sid­ered the many oth­er viable and sen­si­ble solu­tions to Will­lits’ traf­fic prob­lems devel­oped by the peo­ple,” said War­bler, a Lit­tle Lake Val­ley farmer occu­py­ing the tree. “This Bypass will not improve local traf­fic and will cre­ate no per­ma­nent jobs, but it will per­ma­nent­ly scar the Lit­tle Lake Val­ley. The Army Corp of Engi­neers is man­dat­ed to choose the least harm­ful alter­na­tive and the Bypass as planned isn’t it.”

War­bler is 24-years-old and has been liv­ing and work­ing in the Willits val­ley for the past four years. This is her first tree sit. She vol­un­teered for this role when plan­ning for the protests began last year. She received tree climb­ing instruc­tions from Cas­ca­dia For­est Defend­ers who also helped her get set­tled into the tree locat­ed at the south end of the new planned bypass not far from the cur­rent High­way 101. She has tarps to pro­tect her­self from rain and two sleep­ing bags to keep warm.

When asked how long she planned to stay in the tree she said, “that depends on Cal­Trans and local author­i­ties.”

Activists Disrupt Arch Coal Corporate HQ In St. Louis

  22nd Jan.  CREVE COEUR, MO —  Sev­en pro­test­ers affil­i­at­ed with the RAMPS cam­paign (Rad­i­cal Action for Moun­tain Peo­ples’ Sur­vival), MORE (Mis­souri­ans Orga­nizi

  22nd Jan.  CREVE COEUR, MO —  Sev­en pro­test­ers affil­i­at­ed with the RAMPS cam­paign (Rad­i­cal Action for Moun­tain Peo­ples’ Sur­vival), MORE (Mis­souri­ans Orga­niz­ing for Reform and Empow­er­ment) and Moun­tain Jus­tice are locked down to a 500-pound small pot­ted tree in Arch Coal’s third-floor head­quar­ters while a larg­er group is in the lob­by per­form­ing a song and dance.  Addi­tion­al­ly, a heli­um bal­loon ban­ner with the mes­sage “John Eaves Your Coal Com­pa­ny Kills”, direct­ed at the Arch Coal CEO was released in the Arch Coal head­quar­ters.

“We’re here to halt Arch’s oper­a­tions for as long as we can. These coal cor­po­ra­tions do not answer to com­mu­ni­ties, they only con­sume them.  We’re here to resist their unchecked pow­er,” explained Mar­garet Fet­zer, one of the pro­tes­tors.

Arch Coal, the sec­ond largest coal com­pa­ny in the U.S., oper­ates strip mines in Appalachia and in oth­er U.S. coal basins. Strip min­ing is an acute­ly destruc­tive and tox­ic method of min­ing coal, and resource extrac­tion dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly impacts mar­gin­al­ized com­mu­ni­ties.

“From the Bat­tle of Blair Moun­tain to the cur­rent fight with the Patri­ot pen­sions, the peo­ple of cen­tral Appalachia have been fight­ing against the coal com­pa­nies for the past 125 years. The strug­gle con­tin­ues today as we take action to hold Arch Coal and oth­er coal com­pa­nies account­able for the dam­age that they do to peo­ple and com­mu­ni­ties in Appalachia and around the world. Coal min­ing dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly impacts indige­nous peo­ples, and we stand in sol­i­dar­i­ty with dis­en­fran­chised peo­ple every­where,”  Dustin Steele of Min­go Coun­ty, W.Va. said.  Steele was one of the peo­ple locked in Arch’s office.

Min­go Coun­ty is rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the pub­lic health cri­sis faced by com­mu­ni­ties over­bur­dened by strip min­ing.  A recent study of life expectan­cies placed Min­go Coun­ty in the bot­tom 1 per­cent out of 3,147 coun­ties nationwide.(1)

Arch’s strip mines not only poi­son com­mu­ni­ties, but also seek to erase the lega­cy of resis­tance to the coal com­pa­nies in Appalachia. Arch’s Adkins Fork Sur­face Mine is threat­en­ing to blast away Blair Mountain—the site of the sec­ond largest upris­ing in U.S. his­to­ry and a mile­stone in the long-stand­ing strug­gle between Appalachi­ans and the coal companies.(2)

The dev­as­ta­tion of Arch’s strip mines plague regions beyond Appalachia.  Arch’s oper­a­tion in the Pow­der Riv­er Basin is the “sin­gle largest coal min­ing com­plex in the world.(3)”  Pro­duc­ing 15 per­cent of the U.S. coal sup­ply, Arch is a major cul­prit of the cli­mate cri­sis.

NASA sci­en­tist James Hansen describes the burn­ing of coal as a lead­ing cause glob­al cli­mate change.(4)  The Mid­west region faces seri­ous pub­lic health impacts from cli­mate change due to “increased heat wave inten­si­ty and fre­quen­cy, degrad­ed air qual­i­ty, and reduced water quality(5),” accord­ing to recent­ly pub­lished data from the Nation­al Cli­mate Assess­ment.

Armed indigenous community forces Petroamazonas to abandon oil project in Ecuador

An indige­nous com­mu­ni­ty in the Ecuado­ri­an Ama­zon has won a reprieve after build­ing up an arse­nal of spears, blow­pipes, machetes and guns to fend off an expect­ed intru­sion by the army and a state-run oil com­pa­ny.

An indige­nous com­mu­ni­ty in the Ecuado­ri­an Ama­zon has won a reprieve after build­ing up an arse­nal of spears, blow­pipes, machetes and guns to fend off an expect­ed intru­sion by the army and a state-run oil com­pa­ny.

The res­i­dents of Sani Isla expressed relief that a con­fronta­tion with Petroa­ma­zonas did not take place on Tues­day as antic­i­pat­ed, but said the firm is still try­ing to secure explo­ration rights in their area of pris­tine rain­for­est.

“We have won a vic­to­ry in our com­mu­ni­ty. We’re unit­ed,” said the com­mu­ni­ty pres­i­dent, Leonar­do Tapuy. “But the gov­ern­ment and the oil com­pa­ny won’t leave us alone. “

The Kich­wa tribe on Sani Isla, had said they were ready to fight to the death to pro­tect their ter­ri­to­ry, which cov­ers 70,000 hectares. More than a quar­ter of their land is in Yasuni nation­al park, the most bio­di­verse place on earth.

Petroa­ma­zonas had ear­li­er told them it would begin prospect­ing on their land on 15 Jan­u­ary, backed by pub­lic secu­ri­ty forces.

Before the expect­ed confrontation,the shaman, Patri­cio Jipa said peo­ple were mak­ing blow­pipes and spears, try­ing to bor­row guns and prepar­ing to use sticks stones and any oth­er weapons they could lay their hands on.

“Our inten­tion was not to hurt or kill any­one, but to stop them from enter­ing our land,” he said.

It is unclear why Petroa­ma­zonas hes­i­tat­ed. The com­pa­ny has yet to respond to the Guardian’s request for a com­ment.

Locals spec­u­lat­ed that it was due to a reaf­fir­ma­tion of oppo­si­tion to the oil com­pa­ny at a marathon com­mu­ni­ty meet­ing on Sun­day.

“They’ve heard that we are unit­ed against the explo­ration so they have backed off,” said Fredy Gualin­ga, man­ag­er of the Sani Lodge. “We’re hap­py they haven’t come. Life is going on as nor­mal.”

The relief may not last for long giv­en the huge fos­sil fuel resources that are thought to lie below the for­est.

“It was a close thing, but we’re not out of the water. The oil com­pa­ny has not giv­en up. They will con­tin­ue to hound us and to try to divide the com­mu­ni­ty. But at least we have a few days respite,” said Mari Muench, a British woman who is mar­ried to the vil­lage shaman.

The elect­ed lead­ers of Sani Isla have pledged to resist offers from Petroa­ma­zonas for the dura­tion of their term.

“This pol­i­cy will remain in place dur­ing our peri­od in office. We’re com­mit­ted to that and we will do what we can to make it more per­ma­nent,” said Abdon Gre­fa, the speak­er of the com­mu­ni­ty.

The bat­tle has now moved to the judi­cial sys­tem and the court of pub­lic opin­ion. Their appeal for an injunc­tion went before a judge on Wednes­day and they are call­ing on sup­port­ers to help them build a long-term eco­nom­ic alter­na­tive to fos­sil fuels.

“We hope peo­ple will write protest let­ters to Petroa­ma­zonas, come and vis­it our lodge, pro­mote Sani, donate mon­ey to our school and projects, vol­un­teer as teach­ers or pro­vide funds to stu­dents to trav­el over­seas so they can learn what we need to sur­vive in the future,” said the com­mu­ni­ty sec­re­tary, Klid­er Gualin­ga.

Indigenous protests sweep Canada

17 Jan­u­ary 2013

17 Jan­u­ary 2013

Idle no more protesters marching in Victoria, BC, December 21, 2012.

Native peo­ple across Cana­da have block­ad­ed roads, bridges and rail­way lines as part of the grass-roots indige­nous move­ment Idle No More.

From British Colum­bia, where dozens of pro­test­ers demon­strat­ed out­side hear­ings for a pro­posed oil pipeline, to Ontario, where bor­der cross­ings to the USA were blocked, the scale of the protests strong­ly sug­gest that the move­ment is show­ing lit­tle sign of dying down.

The Idle No More move­ment began in Novem­ber 2012, when four women from the province of Saskatchewan held a ‘teach-in’ about the like­ly effects of Bill C‑45, a large and com­plex bill pro­posed by Prime Min­is­ter Stephen Harp­er, which would seri­ous­ly weak­en many envi­ron­men­tal reg­u­la­tions.

On 4 Decem­ber, a group of chiefs from the Assem­bly of First Nations (AFN), Canada’s prin­ci­pal indige­nous orga­ni­za­tion, were pre­vent­ed from enter­ing the Par­lia­ment build­ings to lob­by MPs over the bill. News of the snub, using the Idle No More hash­tag, quick­ly spread across the coun­try.

Anoth­er impor­tant ele­ment of the protests has been a hunger strike by There­sa Spence, chief of the Attawapiskat First Nation in north­ern Ontario. This Cree com­mu­ni­ty, despite being the loca­tion of De Beers’s Vic­tor dia­mond mine, is riv­en by social prob­lems, includ­ing poor hous­ing and chron­i­cal­ly inad­e­quate edu­ca­tion pro­vi­sion.

Chief Spence declared that her hunger strike would con­tin­ue until the Prime Min­is­ter and the Gov­er­nor Gen­er­al (the Queen’s rep­re­sen­ta­tive in Cana­da), agreed to meet her to dis­cuss Abo­rig­i­nal rights.

On Jan­u­ary 11 a del­e­ga­tion of First Nations lead­ers, under the aegis of the AFN, held a meet­ing with Mr Harp­er and var­i­ous oth­er min­is­ters. The Gov­er­nor Gen­er­al, how­ev­er, did not attend. The meet­ing was incon­clu­sive, with the Abo­rig­i­nal Affairs Min­is­ter report­ing that ‘it would be fol­lowed by high-lev­el dia­logue between the Prime Min­is­ter and Shawn Atleo’, leader of the AFN.

As described by the native writer Lisa Charley­boy, the objec­tives of Idle No More are ‘to build indige­nous sov­er­eign­ty, to repair the rela­tion­ship between indige­nous peo­ples of Cana­da (First Nations, Métis, and Inu­it), the crown, and the gov­ern­ment of Cana­da from a grass­roots frame­work, and to pro­tect the envi­ron­ment for all Cana­di­ans to enjoy for gen­er­a­tions to come.’

Idle No More has called for a World Day of Action on Jan­u­ary 28th.

 

Six People Arrested Inside Enbridge Hearings

Van­cou­ver, BC / Coast Sal­ish Ter­ri­to­ries – This morn­ing (15th Jan), six peo­ple direct­ly inter­vened in the Enbridge pipeline joint Envi­ron­men­tal Assess­ment and Ener­gy Board hear­ings and put cli­mate change on the agen­da.

Van­cou­ver, BC / Coast Sal­ish Ter­ri­to­ries – This morn­ing (15th Jan), six peo­ple direct­ly inter­vened in the Enbridge pipeline joint Envi­ron­men­tal Assess­ment and Ener­gy Board hear­ings and put cli­mate change on the agen­da. The group man­aged to make their way past police unde­tect­ed and into the secured 4th floor of Vancouver’s Sher­a­ton Wall Cen­ter. Once inside they revealed shirts embla­zoned with mes­sages like “Stop the Pipelines” and pro­ceed­ed to use police tape to cor­don off the hear­ing area as a “cli­mate crime scene.”

“Cli­mate change is killing thou­sands of peo­ple every year, pri­mar­i­ly in devel­op­ing coun­tries and Indige­nous com­mu­ni­ties that are the least respon­si­ble for cre­at­ing this prob­lem. Despite this fact, the Joint Review Pan­el has instruct­ed those par­tic­i­pat­ing in the hear­ings not to talk about cli­mate change. This is a shock­ing­ly irre­spon­si­ble move con­sid­er­ing Canada’s tar sands con­tain twice the amount of car­bon diox­ide emit­ted by glob­al oil use in our entire his­to­ry. New fos­sil fuel pipelines are an irre­spon­si­ble step in the wrong direc­tion.” said Sean Devlin.

The impacts of cli­mate change have been draw­ing glob­al atten­tion recent­ly, between Hur­ri­cane Sandy, unprece­dent­ed dead­ly typhoons in the Philip­pines and pre­vi­ous­ly unimag­in­able tem­per­a­ture records in Aus­tralia. In this urgent con­text the JRP has des­ig­nat­ed cli­mate change and the car­bon emis­sions of Canada’s tar sands “out­side of the panel’s man­date,” a move that offi­cial­ly dis­cour­ages inter­ven­ers from rais­ing these crit­i­cal issues dur­ing their oral state­ments.

“Enbridge and the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment are using their posi­tion of author­i­ty with­in this process to coerce mem­bers of the pub­lic into silence on these issues. The major­i­ty of First Nations and set­tler com­mu­ni­ties in the province oppose fos­sil fuel pipelines. We respect those who are voic­ing their oppo­si­tion to the pipelines inside the hear­ings, but the hear­ing process is mean­ing­less, espe­cial­ly since Harp­er has changed the law, giv­ing his cab­i­net final say on pipeline projects,” said Fiona De Bal­asi Brown.

Today marks the sec­ond day of the Joint Review Pan­el hear­ings in Van­cou­ver and the sec­ond day that the mem­bers of the pub­lic have crossed police lines to make their oppo­si­tion heard. On Mon­day more than a thou­sand pro­test­ers peace­ful­ly forced their way past police onto the Sher­a­ton prop­er­ty drum­ming so loud­ly the noise could be heard inside the hear­ings. Pub­lic out­rage has been embold­ened by a deci­sion to exclude the pub­lic from the hear­ings in Van­cou­ver, a move the BC Civ­il Lib­er­ties Asso­ci­a­tion crit­i­cized yes­ter­day as “poten­tial­ly unlaw­ful.”

The Economics of Insurgency — Thoughts on Idle No More & critical infrastructure

News reports are ablaze with reports of loom­ing Indige­nous block­ades and eco­nom­ic dis­rup­tion.

News reports are ablaze with reports of loom­ing Indige­nous block­ades and eco­nom­ic dis­rup­tion. As the Idle No More move­ment explodes into a new ter­ri­to­ry of polit­i­cal action, it bears to ampli­fy the incred­i­ble eco­nom­ic lever­age of First Nations today, and how fright­ened the gov­ern­ment and indus­try are of their capac­i­ty to wield it.

In recent years, Access to Infor­ma­tion (ATI) records obtained by jour­nal­ists reveal a mas­sive state-wide sur­veil­lance and “hot spot mon­i­tor­ing” oper­a­tion coor­di­nat­ed between the Depart­ment of Indi­an Affairs, the Roy­al Cana­di­an Mount­ed Police (RCMP), the Cana­di­an Secu­ri­ty Intel­li­gence Ser­vice (CSIS), local secu­ri­ty forces, nat­ur­al resource and trans­porta­tion min­istries, bor­der agen­cies, and indus­try stake­hold­ers. These efforts have been explic­it­ly mobi­lized to pro­tect “crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture” from Indige­nous attack.

What is crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture? Accord­ing to an RCMP inter­nal doc­u­ment con­cern­ing the risk of Abo­rig­i­nal protest, “crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture refers to infra­struc­ture, both tan­gi­ble and intan­gi­ble, that is essen­tial to the health, safe­ty, secu­ri­ty or eco­nom­ic well-being of Cana­di­ans and the effec­tive func­tion­ing of gov­ern­ment.” RCMP Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Crim­i­nal Inves­ti­ga­tions have pri­or­i­tized four crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture sec­tors: finance, trans­porta­tion, ener­gy, and cyber-secu­ri­ty.

On Jan­u­ary 5 alone, INM protests includ­ed five bor­der cross­ing block­ades, bridge block­ades, and rail line dis­rup­tions span­ning the coun­try.

And it’s not only intel­li­gence ser­vices that are warn­ing of threats to crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture.

Con­ser­v­a­tive mil­i­tary ana­lyst Dou­glas Bland has also long warned that Canada’s eco­nom­ic vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty is based on the “crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture that trans­ports nat­ur­al resources and man­u­fac­tured goods from mines, oil fields, hydro-elec­tric facil­i­ties and fac­to­ries to inter­na­tion­al mar­kets.” With­out these crit­i­cal sys­tems, he cau­tions, “Canada’s econ­o­my would col­lapse.”

Though Bland has coun­seled a con­cil­ia­to­ry approach to Abo­rig­i­nals in order to stave off the com­ing cri­sis, his alarmism – and that of oth­er right-wing pun­dits – simul­ta­ne­ous­ly jus­ti­fies the state’s secu­ri­ty and sur­veil­lance appa­ra­tus by man­u­fac­tur­ing a fear of native upris­ing. But for Bland and oth­ers, a com­ing “Native Spring” is less feared for its poten­tial “vio­lence” and all the more grave for its threat to prop­er­ty rights.

In Bland’s fic­tion­al book Upris­ing, he pre­dicts coor­di­nat­ed attacks by secret native cells on key instal­la­tions and urban hubs, such as the James Bay hydro-elec­tric dam and the down­town core of Win­nipeg. This attack on crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture telling­ly ends in a blaze of hero­ic Cana­da-US mil­i­tary attacks on the rebel army. (The US gets involved only when they real­ize their source of elec­tric­i­ty, oil, and gas is at stake.)

Here­in lies the real role of right wing alarmists in the INM move­ment: to main­tain the eco­nom­ic sta­tus quo, because ter­ri­to­ry is cap­i­tal. Land is mon­ey. And the cir­cu­la­tion of goods, resources and ener­gy through ter­ri­to­ry is the very essence of cap­i­tal­ism today.

The fact is that crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture in Cana­da is at the mer­cy of Indige­nous peo­ples, who are more rur­al than Cana­di­ans and have access to impor­tant arter­ies for eco­nom­ic flows: trans­porta­tion cor­ri­dors, ener­gy sec­tors, and sites of nat­ur­al resource extrac­tion.

This vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty is dead­ly to the logis­tics indus­try. Logis­tics is a busi­ness sci­ence con­cerned with the man­age­ment of goods and infor­ma­tion through glob­al sup­ply chains. As the World Bank has declared: “A com­pet­i­tive net­work of glob­al logis­tics is the back­bone of inter­na­tion­al trade.” For an indus­try depen­dent on main­tain­ing open chan­nels for cap­i­tal cir­cu­la­tion, a block­ade means mas­sive loss­es: the truck­ing indus­try alone is worth $65 bil­lion and employs more than 260,000 dri­vers.

In the ener­gy sec­tor, Cana­da has oil reserves sec­ond in the world after Sau­di Ara­bia, though less acces­si­ble – 98 per cent of this oil is in Alber­ta and 95 per cent of it is in the tar sands, where effec­tive Indige­nous resis­tance by Treaty 8 and oth­er First Nations has led to glob­al boy­cott cam­paigns and fierce resis­tance.

In north­ern BC, the Unist’ot’en Clan, with sup­port from grass­roots Wet’suwet’en, have built a com­mu­ni­ty of resis­tance direct­ly on the GPS co-ordi­nates of the pro­posed pipeline route from the Alber­ta tar sands to the Kiti­mat port. From this camp they have evict­ed sur­vey­ors work­ing for Pacif­ic Trails Pipeline. Mean­while, in Ontario, Enbrdige’s Line 9 has been has been opposed by the Onei­da, the Hau­denosaunee Devel­op­ment Insti­tute, and Aami­ji­waang First Nation, who have all vowed to fight the pipeline to pro­tect their lands and waters.

In terms of nat­ur­al resource extrac­tion, over 10 per cent of Canada’s econ­o­my is com­prised of the nat­ur­al resources sec­tors and earth sci­ence indus­tries, which direct­ly employ close to 763,000 peo­ple. The great­est con­cen­tra­tion and cor­re­la­tion between Indige­nous lands and min­er­al claims are being cur­rent­ly devel­oped in the north­ern mod­ern treaties and ter­ri­to­ries, such as Nunavut; Yukon; the James Bay region of Que­bec, and the Que­bec-Labrador bor­der; on unced­ed north­west­ern BC lands (e.g. on Nakazdli, Tzal­ten, and Tlin­git tra­di­tion­al ter­ri­to­ry); and in north­ern Ontario’s “Ring of Fire” on his­toric treaty lands, par­tic­u­lar­ly Treaties 3 and 9.

In addi­tion to min­er­al resources, over half of large intact for­est land­scapes are found on lands in his­tor­i­cal Abo­rig­i­nal treaty areas. More specif­i­cal­ly, as Glob­al For­est Watch reports, “Treaties 8 and 9 con­tain about a quar­ter of all of Canada’s intact for­est land­scapes and close to half of all the intact for­est land­scapes that occur with­in treaty areas. Mod­ern land claim set­tle­ments con­tain about a quar­ter of Canada’s intact for­est land­scapes.”

That is not to say mean­ing­ful con­sul­ta­tion con­cern­ing crit­i­cal infra­struc­ture has not been tak­ing place. The prob­lem is that it has exclu­sive­ly been between indus­try and gov­ern­ment, instead of between Indige­nous peo­ples and the state. Jour­nal­ists have been uncov­er­ing mul­ti­ple inci­dents of high-lev­el co-ordi­na­tion between indus­try and gov­ern­ment offi­cials. For exam­ple, Access to Infor­ma­tion requests revealed that the gov­ern­ment has been shar­ing infor­ma­tion with the oil indus­try on envi­ron­men­tal­ists and Indige­nous groups twice a year since 2005 at secret brief­in­gs, even on such seem­ing­ly irrel­e­vant activ­i­ties such as par­tic­i­pa­tion in anti-G20 demon­stra­tions.

The irony is that many cor­po­ra­tions are tired of hav­ing oper­a­tions held up by Indige­nous protest and are will­ing to go fur­ther than gov­ern­ments to rec­og­nize Indige­nous rights. The log­ics of colo­nial­ism and cap­i­tal­ism divide here around con­flict­ing objec­tives of ter­ri­to­r­i­al acqui­si­tion ver­sus the cir­cu­la­tion of goods. But more often than not, the state and indus­try con­verge around the com­mon inter­ests of the rul­ing class. For Indige­nous peo­ples, this becomes a ques­tion of co-ordi­nat­ing lever­age.

In con­clu­sion, I want to high­light three main con­cerns expressed in the risk assess­ments under­tak­en by RCMP, CSIS, Indi­an Affairs, and right-wing thinkers on Indige­nous upris­ing that fore­ground Indige­nous eco­nom­ic pow­er.

The first is that a mis­han­dling of con­flict will gal­va­nize co-ordi­nat­ed efforts of First Nations across the coun­try; hence the rel­a­tive­ly hands-off approach tak­en until now. In the Fed­er­al Coor­di­na­tion Frame­work for the AFN Day of Action in 2007, the pro­posed solu­tion in the case of co-ordi­nat­ed mobi­liza­tion is to “iso­late the splin­ter group.”

Sec­ond, the eco­nom­ic cost of even a few hours of such co-ordi­nat­ed efforts would be crip­pling and impos­si­ble to police giv­en cur­rent resources.

Third – and this is one of the most wor­ri­some trends to observers – sol­i­dar­i­ty and co-ordi­na­tion between non-Natives and Indige­nous peo­ples will encour­age the move­ment to build.

As a final thought, while the gen­er­al pop­u­la­tion might have been tak­en by sur­prise by the strength of Idle No More, the gov­ern­ment had long pre­pared for this inevitabil­i­ty. As far back as 2008, when changes were first pro­posed to the Nav­i­ga­ble Waters Act, CSIS’s Inte­grat­ed Threat Assess­ment Cen­tre warned about “poten­tial unrest.”

Cana­da cre­at­ed the cri­sis of insur­gency. Canada’s greed cre­at­ed a sit­u­a­tion where Indige­nous peo­ples stand with almost noth­ing to lose. There­fore, the fight is theirs to take. It is also ours to sup­port.

Read the full arti­cle here.

Ecuadorian Indigenous Village Threatens to “Die Fighting” Against Oil Company — 15th Jan

 

An indige­nous com­mu­ni­ty in the Ecuado­ri­an rain­for­est says they “will die fight­ing to pro­tect the rain­for­est” after they say they were swin­dled by an oil com­pa­ny into sign­ing away rights to 70,000 hectares of one of the most bio­di­verse areas in the world.

 

An indige­nous com­mu­ni­ty in the Ecuado­ri­an rain­for­est says they “will die fight­ing to pro­tect the rain­for­est” after they say they were swin­dled by an oil com­pa­ny into sign­ing away rights to 70,000 hectares of one of the most bio­di­verse areas in the world.

But the state-backed oil com­pa­ny, PetroAmazonas—backed by the Ecuadore­an army—plans to begin prospect­ing the Kich­wa vil­lage on the Napo Riv­er on Tues­day, The Guardian reports.

PetroA­ma­zonas, one of the biggest oil com­pa­nies in South Amer­i­ca, orig­i­nal­ly offered the vil­lage a new school, uni­ver­si­ty places for vil­lage chil­dren and bet­ter health­care, but dropped those pro­vi­sions before the chief of the vil­lage signed away the rights to the land for $40 per hectare.

But the com­mu­ni­ty sec­re­tary, Klid­er Gualin­ga, said 80 per­cent of the vil­lage oppos­es the deal, which he says has not yet been final­ized. “Peo­ple think it is dis­hon­est and the oil com­pa­ny is treat­ing them like dogs. … They’re very upset and wor­ried. We have decid­ed to fight to the end. Each land­hold­er will defend their ter­ri­to­ry. We will help each oth­er and stand shoul­der to shoul­der to pre­vent any­one from pass­ing.”

“If there is a phys­i­cal fight, it is cer­tain to end trag­i­cal­ly,” Shaman Patri­cio Jipa said. “We may die fight­ing to defend the rain­for­est.”

He con­tin­ued:

It makes me feel sad and angry. Sad because we are indige­nous peo­ple and not ful­ly pre­pared to fight a gov­ern­ment. And angry because we grew up to be war­riors and have a spir­it to defend our­selves. I wish we could use this force to fight in a new way, but our men­tal strength is not suf­fi­cient in this mod­ern world.

[…]

There is huge con­cern the oil com­pa­ny will move quick­ly to clear the land. When that hap­pened else­where, they used armed troops, beat­ings and abduc­tions to remove those who stood in their way.

Jipa and his wife, Mari Muench, a British busi­ness­woman, are fight­ing the plan.

Sci­en­tists say a sin­gle hectare in this part of the Ama­zon con­tains a wider vari­ety of life than all of North Amer­i­ca. The Ama­zon rain­for­est and oth­er trop­i­cal forests are also among the earth­’s best defens­es against cli­mate change, absorb­ing some 20 per­cent of car­bon diox­ide pro­duced by burn­ing fos­sil fuels.

“Pro­tect­ing the Ama­zon basin, which con­tains the largest trop­i­cal rain­for­est on the plan­et, is crit­i­cal to our plan­et’s cli­mate sta­bil­i­ty,” accord­ing to Ama­zon Watch.

Self-Determination and Self-Defense in Cherán, Michoacán

On Decem­ber 11, 2012, the US Jus­tice Depart­ment announced that bank­ing giant HSBC was immune from pros­e­cu­tion despite over­whelm­ing evi­dence that they con­sis­tent­ly failed to imple­ment con­trols against mon­ey-laun­der­ing. Assis­tant attor­ney gen­er­al Lan­ny Breuer said: “Had the US author­i­ties decid­ed to press crim­i­nal charges, HSBC would almost cer­tain­ly have lost its bank­ing license in the US, the future of the insti­tu­tion would have been under threat and the entire bank­ing sys­tem would have been desta­bi­lized.”

The entire bank­ing sys­tem would have been desta­bi­lized?

 

The Depart­ment of Jus­tice opt­ed rather to charge HSBC a record-break­ing 1.9 bil­lion dol­lar fine, and ordered the bank’s activ­i­ties mon­i­tored for five years. The 1.9 bil­lion is equiv­a­lent to five weeks’ worth of HSBC earn­ings, in oth­er words, a drop in the buck­et. The sad­dest part of the sto­ry in the main­stream media, is the focus on mon­ey laun­dered and mon­ey fined, as opposed to lives lost and crime legit­imized in one of the most grotesque admis­sions of com­plic­i­ty with orga­nized crime in the so-called war on drugs. Basi­cal­ly what was announced to the world by the US Jus­tice Depart­ment was that the mon­ey ran too thick, and the crim­i­nals were too pow­er­ful. The glob­al eco­nom­ic impact of pros­e­cut­ing a bank where the dirty mon­ey has been going, was too dan­ger­ous to risk. “Sor­ry kids, but we guess the bad guys win.”

In Cher­an, Michoa­can, Mex­i­co the news of HSBC’s immu­ni­ty from crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion and US sanc­tions comes as no sur­prise. Orga­nized crime has been preva­lent in the com­mu­ni­ty since 2000. After a 2008 may­oral race that left a PRI (Insti­tu­tion­al Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Par­ty) can­di­date in office, illic­it activ­i­ty increased sub­stan­tial­ly. The com­mu­ni­ty learned that orga­nized crime is an inte­gral part of local pol­i­tics and eco­nom­ics every­where. Cher­an is a beau­ti­ful small indige­nous Purepecha moun­tain com­mu­ni­ty sur­round­ed by pre­cious forests, that knows the true cost of those prof­its laun­dered. Imme­di­ate­ly after the 2008 may­oral race the com­mu­ni­ty began expe­ri­enc­ing the dev­as­tat­ing effects of dog eat dog cap­i­tal­ism of which orga­nized crime is only anoth­er part.

The ille­gal log­ging indus­try began to rav­age the community’s most pre­cious forests, which have been tra­di­tion­al­ly respect­ed as a spir­i­tu­al con­nec­tion by the Indige­nous Purepecha peo­ple to their ter­ri­to­ry. The log­ging began to look a lot more like pil­lag­ing and when com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers began to attempt to defend their forests, they were met with a real life night­mare: the log­gers were not only aid­ed and pro­tect­ed by gov­ern­ment agen­cies and local police, the entire log­ging oper­a­tion was being coor­di­nat­ed by mem­bers of a major orga­nized crime syn­di­cate. [To this day I am told by com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers not to name the actu­al syn­di­cate in any­thing I write or say, or risk an almost cer­tain death.]

The first com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers who began to defend their for­est were sim­ply and quick­ly assas­si­nat­ed. From 2008–2011 the sit­u­a­tion only became worse. Crim­i­nals charged pro­tec­tion to run even a small busi­ness in the com­mu­ni­ty of Cher­an. The for­est was raped and ter­ror reigned as any­one felt at risk. The city would become a ghost town by sun­set. This is a real­i­ty con­front­ed by too many com­mu­ni­ties in Mex­i­co every day.

Mur­ders, dis­ap­pear­ances, kid­nap­pings, the crim­i­nal amounts of ille­gal log­ging and the reign of ter­ror came to a head on the ear­ly morn­ing of April 15th, 2011. A group of women had begun qui­et­ly orga­niz­ing in the days before an action to bring the rav­aging of their town to a halt. On April 15th, with chil­dren and youth at their sides, the women rose up and attempt­ed to detain log­gers trav­el­ing through town. The log­gers tried to run the women over and in response the com­mu­ni­ty react­ed as a whole, and began burn­ing the log­gers’ vehi­cles and began detain­ing the log­gers them­selves.

It is at this point that the com­mu­ni­ty rec­og­nized the com­plic­i­ty of the local police when it was police offi­cers who guid­ed orga­nized crime thugs to the place where the log­gers were being held, in an attempt to vio­lent­ly release them. The com­mu­ni­ty erect­ed “fogatas” or bon­fire bar­ri­cades through­out town in order to pre­vent vio­lence against com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers. With­in days the com­mu­ni­ty decid­ed that it no longer trust­ed any politi­cians from any polit­i­cal par­ty or any of the local and state police. They began to orga­nize for self-deter­mi­na­tion and self-defense and chose to return to their tra­di­tion­al Purepecha forms of self gov­er­nance.

A gen­er­al coun­cil of com­mu­ni­ty elders was elect­ed and com­mis­sions were formed in order to car­ry out the community’s logis­ti­cal, social, eco­nom­ic, and polit­i­cal needs. Com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers sim­ply say that they referred to their his­to­ry and referred to their elders in order to return to the way the com­mu­ni­ty was orga­nized before polit­i­cal par­ties, police, and orga­nized crime exist­ed. The gen­er­al coun­cil is legal­ly rec­og­nized as the gov­ern­ing body of Cher­an, Michoa­can today.

The com­mu­ni­ty has main­tained that they only have three demands: safe­ty, jus­tice, and the refor­esta­tion of their ter­ri­to­ry. They have active­ly been refor­est­ing the entire region and take that aspect of their strug­gle very seri­ous­ly, and remind us that for them pro­tect­ing the for­est is both a tra­di­tion­al and a spir­i­tu­al oblig­a­tion. Cher­an does not believe that any­body will ever be able to bring them jus­tice for their dead, dis­ap­peared, and dis­placed as a result of the con­flict, nor do they expect any­one in pow­er to under­stand the jus­tice they seek for the for­est. Today Cher­an knows that jus­tice is some­thing that they will have to take care of obtain­ing on their own from now on. When it comes to safe­ty, the world is able to see what it looks like for a com­mu­ni­ty to take respon­si­bil­i­ty for its own safe­ty through tra­di­tion­al indige­nous forms of self gov­er­nance and self-defense.

Short­ly after the 2011 upris­ing began, com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers state that the local politi­cians and the police sim­ply exiled them­selves in fear from the com­mu­ni­ty, war­rant­i­ng no need to run them out of town. Com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers took the local gov­ern­ment offices, took police trucks, took the polices’ weapons, and put them all to use. His­tor­i­cal­ly, Cher­an had tra­di­tion­al­ly been “policed” or defend­ed by mem­bers from the com­mu­ni­ty. In a vol­un­tary rota­tion mem­bers from each of the four “bar­rios” or neigh­bor­hoods would patrol the com­mu­ni­ty for self-defense in what is known as the “com­mu­ni­ty ron­da.” After the upris­ing the gen­er­al coun­cil made a call out for vol­un­teers to par­tic­i­pate in the com­mu­ni­ty “ron­da”, or com­mu­ni­ty guard. Com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers main­tain that police are imposed by the gov­ern­ment, but the “ron­da” is a tra­di­tion­al way in which com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers pro­tect them­selves and their com­mu­ni­ty. Today the “ron­da” is sep­a­rat­ed into two parts. The “ron­da comu­ni­taria” which is respon­si­ble for patrolling and pro­tect­ing the com­mu­ni­ty from with­in its bor­ders and the “guard­a­bosques” or for­est defend­ers, which patrol the out­skirts of town and deep into the forests in order to pro­tect com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers liv­ing in those more rur­al areas and in order to pro­tect the for­est itself.

Cher­an is not the first com­mu­ni­ty in Mex­i­co to return to their tra­di­tion­al means of com­mu­ni­ty self-defense, nor is it the first place in the state of Michoa­can, nor in the indige­nous Purepecha region. Oth­er com­mu­ni­ties have engaged in sim­i­lar prac­tices of self gov­er­nance and self-defense, and lit­tle by lit­tle more and more com­mu­ni­ties are see­ing tra­di­tion­al self gov­er­nance and self-defense as a viable alter­na­tive to cor­rupt pol­i­tics and sub­mis­sion to orga­nized crime. Recent­ly coun­cil mem­bers from Nurio, Michoa­can, a larg­er com­mu­ni­ty and long time prac­ti­tion­er of self gov­er­nance and self-defense, sug­gest­ed that the entire Purepecha region should begin to orga­nize a region­al “ron­da” that could poten­tial­ly coor­di­nate self-defense patrols on a region­al lev­el for the indige­nous Purepecha peo­ple liv­ing through­out the state of Michoa­can.

It is hard not to throw your hands up in the air in res­ig­na­tion when you hear about crim­i­nals such as HSBC being grant­ed immu­ni­ty from pros­e­cu­tion and sanc­tions, but it is even hard­er not to throw a fist in the air when you see indige­nous Purepe­chas suc­cess­ful­ly over­com­ing orga­nized crime, cor­rupt politi­cians, and big busi­ness by estab­lish­ing mod­els for self-deter­mi­na­tion and self-defense, on a com­mu­ni­ty lev­el.

Simòn Sedil­lo