Ecuador activists reoccupy OCP pipeline construction site

Image from standoff with policia and OCP workers at the oil pipeline project in Ecador on July 16, 2002.

Atossa Soltani of Amazon Watch faces an OCP construction worker on July 16, 2002 in Ecador.

It absolutely amazes me to see that these people come from all over the world to protest an oil pipeline in Ecuador (the only resource that actually brings the country capital and labor, besides bananas and tourism in the Galapagos). These people fear that the ecosystem of Ecuador will be "damaged", and that the people will be forever crushed by the "oppresive oil companies". If anything, this will help Ecuador in an area that they desperately need a boost, nation-building. I don't know if you have recently checked out the currency situation in Ecuador, or the economy on the whole, but everything is practically in shambles. Those "evil oil empires", believe it or not, employ native Ecuadorians to work on these oil pipeline projects. These are jobs that would otherwise never be in Ecuador.

Now I know you might argue that nation-building simply is not possible with economic dependence on natural resources (see Russia). But in the case of Ecuador, it simply seems like their most REASONABLE option, considering everything else. In order to bring capital (machines, technology) into the country, they have to look attractive to those outside of the country (the "evil" oil companies that bring computers into the country and build big processing plants **technology**).

Don't whine to me about wages of native Ecuadorians who work for Western oil companies. How much do you think that these skilled Ecuadorian workers would be making picking bananas, if there weren't these companies to begin with? Hahaha.. try 1/10 of a percent, if even.

And oh, you say, what about the poor indians? Their homes will be destroyed. Those indians with their backwards culture of coca-leaf chewing and magic plant rituals need to clear their dreary eyes and atleast put the effort into learning Spanish. I cannot tell you how many indians are in the Andes mountains who still do not know that the West has arrived. Its pathetic, and a drain on the economy as a whole. What type of productivity do these people provide for the Ecuadorians besides drug trade and little woven sweaters? Zilch.. Want a little socialism thrown in? How about they begin to pull their weight for the better good of all in the country? Their corruptive ways of drugs and rampant breeding simply does not help anyone.

Look at the potentially disasterious situation in Bolivia, with that monkey-looking coke-head Quispe. Do you think this socialist clown has any clear plan laid out other than probably kicking out the American mining companies in Bolivia? And you argue that the Bolivian mining companies will now get their chance in the competitive international market. Not a chance.. They simply don't have the capital nor the resources to extract the metals to begin with (if you need an example, look at your amigo Chavez and see how swell everyone's feeling over there in Venezuela).. If this clown gets elected (that is if his indian cronies can even read the ballot), I imagine the military will take care of him, before he does of them.

More than anything, what seems troublesome, is this whole leftist, sappy environmentalist movement essentially blocking any chance the country of Ecuador has at developing their country. They build a pipeline at a certain place, there is a problem. In another, same problem. It seems that they do not care about the environment at all. They are centered towards one objective, and one objective only. Stop oil. And unfortunately, that is putting Ecuador and its people in grave danger for any chance of development.

Sure, everyone loves the indian and his ways, and everyone would love to believe that the indian way of life is the natural way of life. But look at your indian brothers over in Africa... hahah.. They are killing themselves with the AIDs virus. And can you imagine what its like for an indian community to be struck by natural disaster? Talk about complete devastation. Nope, there aren't any supermarkets, just destroyed crops. Any type of housing structure, destroyed. Simply, death and destruction. Now, if you think that rebuilding your community every ten years after a major natural disaster is a way of luxury and natural living, you're out of your mind.

Simply, this movement of Julia "I love every living thing on earth" Butterfly and the rest of these environmentalist hooligans is completely aimed at stopping the world. There is no compromise. They want to keep Ecuador and the rest of the third world underdeveloped. Don't blame Western dominance, blame these dope-smoking environmentalists for pulling the third world down. <<**remember, without capital investment, there is no work, and subsequently no development**>> Nuclear power? No! Oil pipelines? No! Mining? No! Its absolutley ridiculous. Where else do they think these countries are going to find the developmental capital? Might as well fall from the sky.

Cheers

Juan your comments lead me to belive your from the US and are a right wing republican. I also suspect your knowledge on development in South America is limited at best. The comments about the native needing to learn spanish proves your narrow minded and don't have a clue to reality.

You also forget that the present development is trespassing on land the local communities own and a judge will be visiting the site on Friday. So the current situation is about following the law in that area. Which Oxy is failing to do. Also, didn't you notice the un-elected president Bush finally annouced a week or two ago that global climate change is a real scenario and that we need to do something about it. And pumping more carbon based fuels into the air isn't helping the matter. This issue isn't a nimby issue, it's a global issue and global climate change isn't just isolated to Oxy's development in Ecador, it's an issue we all need to be aware of and push for more sustainable energy sources.

Hahahah.. I love the misuse of that word "narrow-mind". You see, the mind is to be used for reasoning (try it sometime!). The heart is used for acceptance and tolerance. You do not reason when you say that the culture of the indian provides some sort of "flavour" or traditional value to the Ecuadorian way of life.

I asked the question before and I ask it again. What does the indian provide for the rest of Ecuador? The indian does not pay taxes to the government. He does not speak the langauge of the government. What service does he provide for the rest of his country (is it even his country?). He lives in Ecuador. He is a citizen of la República del Ecuador. Does he have a duty to provide for his own country? He might as well not exist.

See, the problem in the case of a country who is trying to nation-build is that they need their citizens to be productive. I would say that the easiest and most effective way to make Ecuadorians productive is to create business with international corporations (such as those in Ecuador right now trying to extract oil).

To have a group of indians sitting on their land doping themselves up on rituals from thousands of years ago really does not help the situation for the average Ecuadorian. And then to have them get in the way of a possible and important link (the pipeline) towards nation-building (and hopefully some day prosperity) makes the situation even worse.

Sadly, but truthfully, these indians have to get with the times. They must realize that they have a duty as an Ecuadorian citizen to help with the process of development. Look at the most prosperous nations in Latin America (Argentina [well used to be, hah!] and Chile). They had a simple policy with the indians, either be productive, get out, or get killed. Unfortunately, sometimes, that's the way it has to be, if your true task is nation-building and ultimately a better nation for all.

All that I ask of these environmental wackos is to either support the betterment of all the people in Ecuador or simply support the Indians. They are playing both sides of the delimma. First, they say they feel terrible to see these poor people in Ecuador being oppressed by the West and then they say that they want the "greedy" international corporations out of Ecuador and the poor indian's land (hah!). Unfortunately for them, you cannot have it both ways because the latter is the solution for the former.

Its either an increase in productivity and capital provided by these corporations, that will help the nation of Ecuador or a decline in present and future possibilities for prosperity in Ecuador.. the way of the indian (los vagos, los narcotizados)... the inefficient, wasteful, uneducated..

So which one is it?

Estas un vendido, que no?
Which Ivy league school did you get your education from? You learn all those fancy, economic terms and reasoning on your own?

Native people have a right to their own land. And in today's world, with its abundance, there is no need for people to be starving or driven from their land. I have an answer to your question. The wealth and money should be taken from people like you and used to meet human need. How is that? There was a near revolution in Ecuador a year ago. Sounds like there needs to be another.

Terms like "capital investment" "efficiency" are just ways to justify imperliast rule. You want to know what's wrong with corporations and dollarization and privitization? Look at Argentina? It was once the wealthiest country in the region. Now, thanks to the IMF and bankers, it's an economic basket case.

In response to your comments about greenhouse gases and temperature related effects of oil.. as far as I am concerned, this simply is not Ecuador's problem. True, they may be harmful to the earth, but last time I checked, oil is in high demand. This is a key resource that Ecuador can offer to the world and can ultimately prosper from. What right do these environmentalists have to take away the chances of prosperity for all Ecuadorians? To take that away and say that they shouldn't produce oil, simply on the grounds that they will produce a "harmful substance to the environment" is very detrimental to the possibilities Ecuador has as a developing country.

On top of that, a clean, safe, and viable alternative to oil (see pebble-bed modular nuclear reactor) has already been invented and currently is being used, yet the environmentalists still remain against it.

I don't see these pinko hooligans protesting for nuclear reactors to be built anywhere.

What is the environmentalist's solution? As previously said, to stop the world.

Salud!

Hey comrade,

The difference between your train of thought and mine is that I believe there are plenty of resources and abundance in this world, just waiting for any and all to take advantage of it, while you believe some people should be fed their abundance like a morning bowl of Wheaties.

Beyond the personal wealth of anyone on this planet, there still is enough money to make everyone happy and healthy. In the situation of the indians, they need to realize that their way of life simply is not suited towards survival (see my previous description of natural disasters). I applaud them for wanting to better their situation, but I despise their attitude that somehow they deserve this or that, from people who did work for their happiness. The days of caudillos and estancias are over (so stop reminiscing!).

You and I both know that smoking god-knows-what and weaving little sweaters for American tourists is not a path of providing for one's family. The chances for prosperity in the long run would be greater if they started teaching themselves and their children Spanish (the language of commerce in Ecuador), creating the possibilities of further education, and acquainting themselves with the way of life.

Easier said, than done. But still, you have to start somewhere.

Salud!

Oh yeah, forgot one more thing...
Argentina's situation is not a result of the IMF or any other money lending institution. Argentina has a long history of corruption in the government, from the very birth of their democracy. <<Look at historical events such as Menem's whole family moving over from Lebanon to be assigned posts in the Argentine government>>. Their markets and government completely corrupted any past accumulations of wealth (boy, the mid 90s were great in Argentina).

In addition, with the peso tied to the dollar, this unfortunately did not stop the value of the peso from deterioriating. For a while, you'd go anywhere for entertainment in Buenos Aires and it would cost you a pretty penny. The currency had gone to hell by the end of the 90s.

And with this disasterous combination of corrupted government and shoddy currency, investors began to bail out. For whatever reason (hell I see plenty of reasons!), they no longer trusted their money in Argentine bonds. And so began the collapse of pobre Argentina.

The IMF, if anything, did what they could to help Argentina. Most of the money given to the country was not used for the right purposes (bribes, personal wealth). I guess, this is one flaw I see in the IMF. Even though they provide loans, I think they should be held responsible for how these loans are used. I'm talking strict monitoring of any purchases by the government. But then again, you and your communist cronies would yell dictatorship! Western world domination!

You expect too much out of these young democracies (its only been almost 20 years for Argentina). They need someone to hold them by the hand. Hahaha

Hasta siempre, loco!

Juan, you scurry the issues and don't adress that the OCP project has gone onto community held lands and currently tresspassing. Or are you waiting for the judge's verdict from the visit on friday?

By the way, is genocide the answer to nation building? "Thy will be Done - The Conquest of the Amazon, the story of Nelson D. Rockefeller" by Charlotte Dennett and Gerald Colby explains how the amazon was taken over through genocide. The wycliffe bible insitute and the Rockefellers were some great killers in the name of so-called progress?

You see, this is the problem I described earlier about the indians and these environmentalists. If the indians cared about their own country, they would permit the pipeline (or even consider selling the land to the foreign company [or if they were even smarter, plan to receive a monthly cut of the oil profits from the pipeline]) to be built on their land.

Jennifer "Puff the Magic Dragon" putting her backwards ideals of natural preservation over the overall economic boost of the country is a major threat to nation building. Think about it. They build a pipeline. Thousands of Ecuadorians are employed, and even then, the indians get a profit from the situation. They will not have lost at all, yet gained from the "evil oil business".

What it all comes down to is whether these people want to remain in their conditions with a large possibility of further conditions worsening or do they want to proceed in the process of prosperity.

As far as genocide being a route to nation building, I must say, ashamedly, that it is one way. Nation building is a long process (it took the USA around 150 years). If the people feel that the situation with a certain group of people may make it practically impossible to develop (as in the case with many of these tribal indians), then they might opt to genocide or expulsion in order to speed the process of development.

Most right-wing military regimes involve expulsion or some sort of genocide simply to speed up the developmental process. Nation building requires efforts on all citizens, with a focused mind towards one common goal, hence propaganda and silenced speech. Even though I strictly condone any of these types of practices and find them extremely non-democratic, I must say that the industrialization through non-democratic means (especially fascist societies [leave national socialism out of this one]) can tell us a lot about the process of building a nation and industrial base.

While most people are not willing to wait five or six generations for development (see above comment from Che about his robin hood ideals), they have to ask themselves whether or not they are willing to endure the pains of fast industrialization. Most aren't and therefore turn to some fantasy of gold raining from the sky or Bill Gates emptying his fortune on the front lawn of the third world. They also acquire the attitude of the oppressed (poor) versus the oppressive (rich). In some cases this can motivate a nation to get their act together and actually seek progress (see Fascist Italy). But in most cases, not. It creates animosity towards those embracing development and further hinders the chances of prosperity.

Its a choice between time (try 50 years) versus getting rid of the inefficient. Which one do you choose?

Juan,

Chew on this for a bit. How is it working for Oxy? Do they pay you well?

by Ceclia Rodriguez

"Neo-liberalism is a set of global economics re-hashed in the 70's by Milton Friedman, the University
of Chicago, and Friedrich Von Hayec and are not well-known to North Americans as such. I want to
describe them to you, because I am sure each of you will recognize them, once I do that.
Neo-liberalism states that economic crises or problems, are the fault of government intervention in the
economy. Its fundamental principle is "economic liberty". What does this mean? It means that an
economy must be free of impediments in order to operate. It therefore views things like social
programs and regulations as impediments (in fact in GATT it calls them "barriers to the free flow of
trade and capital") and so requires the elimination of social security programs, government housing
programs, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws, labor legislation which protects
workers, import taxes, price controls, subsidies. Because the principal goal of neo-liberalism is to
maximize the profits of private enterprise it dedicates itself to the privatization, and liberalization or
de-regularization of the economy, while carrying out so-called stabilization programs. What does this
mean? Well, if it were true that "free market" forces were allowed to operate for example, today the
USA would not have an automobile industry, a steel industry or a computer industry, certainly not the
microchip industry. It was the Reagan administration which greatly extended government
protectionism for the rich and saved those industries In essence, neo-liberalism guarantees free
markets for the poor, government protection for the rich. The government or the state apparatus
therefore has a role insofar as aiding the rich and controlling the population through state repression;
stronger anti-crime measures like more prisons, longer prison sentences, more police.

Neo-liberalism, according to Friedrich Hayek, requires a new moral system, and I quote; "A free
society requires certain morals which ultimately are reduced to the maintenance of life; not all life
because it may be necessary to sacrifice individual lives in order to preserve major numbers of lives.
Therefore the only moral rules can be those which provide for the 'computation of lives' determined by
private property and its contract." And the evidence of the last quarter century speaks for itself;
indigenous communities, industrial workers, and women for example represent disposable lives, so
the "structural adjustment" which has taken place has found it necessary to eliminate their livelihood,
all for the "greater good" of course. Under such a set of morals, for example you can justify the
dumping of nuclear waste on Indian reservations in the U.S., what do a few million lives mean, when
balanced with the importance of profits? You can also justify the elimination of millions of peasant and
indigenous communities in Mexico(or Ecador..emphasis added), so that land which was once cultivated collectively, can now pass to the hands of multi- nationals who will use it to cultivate crops for exportation;
a much more profitable activity.

You recognize neo-liberalism now? Remember the television ads of all the Republicans who won
political seats on Tuesday; less government, tough on crime, eliminate welfare and put people back
to work by reducing taxes for the rich? Understand as well that it is nothing new, that it is a
regression, a re-hashing of the old formula of exploitation, global rape and pillage of human and
natural resources so essential to the most primitive form of capitalism; that it is doublespeak, lies and
ideological manipulation. These economic policies are in fact eliminating "individual entrepreneurs"
from the marketplace and sustaining powerful multi-nationals who know no borders, who have loyalty
to no national identity, who recognize no government, except their own corporate one. The
democracies that the multi-nationals will nurture and support are "democracies of the free market";
futile exercises, because the real political power and decision-making occurs in board rooms, and is
carried out by faceless technocrats who are accountable to and elected by no one. It is the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization who call the shots in the world
today. "

This guy is supporting murder in order to create an empire. Sounds familiar. Oh, ya. Hitler!

Are you guys really that shallow to not post your own responses and simply cut and paste an article written by some phony academic/activist? Come on, I've gotten three responses on this message board and they have not exceeded three lines. Please, put some penmenship into your views (you will learn much more when you cannot put your own thoughts into words).

In response to your article by Ms. Cecilia Rodriguez (I'm sure she prefers to be called Ms. instead of Miss and I assume that she remains unmarried for lack of hyphenated last name, hah!), I have several reactions to this hunger-striking, women's-rights-loving, indian-fantasizing lunatic.

Somehow, she starts off her ramble as if she is an expert in neo-liberalism or plainly liberalism for that matter. Her lack of understand of the whole philosophical concept is quite astounding. And to imagine that people actually read this "stuff" for academic purposes is very frightening.

In order to understand neoliberalism, one must first understand the underpinnings (specifically liberalism). From the very start, her description of neoliberalism being strictly based on "economic liberty" is quite flawed and scarcely specific. Liberals, in general, believe that society should be shaped around the process of market interaction, meaning that you and I should interact in a market exchange with very little (none, if possible) interference by the government.

The principal goal of neoliberalism is to maximize those types of interactions on the whole, meaning they want as many people as possible to become interactive with the market. No, they don't want to solely "maximize the profits of private enterprise". Neoliberalism roundly supports the person who fosters his own ingenuity to create something to exchange within the market (the entrepreneur). That's right, from the small liquor store all the way to the big corporation. Market interaction is good.

You may ask why would you want a strew of markets or even countries producing the same good all at once? Because, with large numbers of people creating a common good will create and ultimately foster competition. With competition comes the great and wonderful EFFICIENCY (remember this word, its important). The more competition, the more efficient certain entrepreneurs must become to ultimately try to be the one with the highest quality good produced at the cheapest cost (ultimately beneficial to the consumer).

The idea that the liberal market somehow excludes a section of society based on class constructs is simply not logical in this situation. Why would the liberal want to exclude someone who is a potential buyer and seller from the market? The more consumers and producers in the market for the neoliberal, the more efficient the market functions.

One main problem that most lefties have with the whole liberal/neoliberal market is the idea that people's status in society is completely determined by the market. That's right. A company is not going to pay a worker more than what he is worth the company. If his skills are valuable, even hard to find, there is going to be competition for that worker among all firms and therefore the wage for that worker is going to be higher. And the same goes with the converse. If a worker's skills are fairly common in the work world (hence the number of those types of workers available remains high), then he will be paid less (or become what Rodriguez calls as "disposable").

Ultimately, the wages are out of the firm's control and in the market's control (and even more in the worker's control). If the worker chooses to make himself marketable (through such things like education and work experience) then, of course, he will receive a higher wage.

It is difficult for many people to even begin to reason and accept an idea like this. Somehow, putting a dollar amount on someone's life (as if strong character and good intentions are actually worth something in the real world, hah!) seems cruel and mean, yet it remains extremely straight-forward and fair. You are paid for your ability and nothing more. Can you imagine what it would be like to be paid according to which neighborhood you live in or which family you are from? Indeed, the market would become much more complicated in that situation, and success (even going from disposable to valuable) would be almost nonexistent.

The average human being starving on the indian reservation or in the jungle would actually do something about their situation, especially living within the "land of opportunity". But, you just don't see many of these people taking advantage of their opportunities, or even attempting to appreciate their own work value. If anything, their lifestyle is completely self-degrading and depreciating, with drug rituals and mass pregnancy rights. Which brings me to a point that I even question. Should we consider these human beings to be rational? If truly irrational, then can we even discuss the indian in economic terms?

Rodriguez describes these people as if they are powerless and simply pawns in a big corporate game. Beyond any value that they would bring to the economy, she fantasizes that they are the pure or even the innocent who deserve nothing but nurturing and splendid lives (all in return for nothing, I might add). She tends to want to demonize the whole democratic market-capitalist system (one of which she is merely a byproduct), but she still doesn't understand the simple and fair concept of <<those who offer something to society will most definitely benefit from society>>.

Which brings me back to my original question. What benefits do these indians and their culture offer to all of society? On the other hand, what benefits are they receiving from society? Very little. And people like Rodriguez tend to want to construe this phenomena into terms of skin color and culture, as if these people have been simply damned to hell on earth. In the market economy, the productive are rewarded and the unproductive remain fairly unimportant, and ultimately disposable.

The indians have nothing to offer to the society and its people, so in turn they receive nothing from society. Is that not fair enough for you?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to ask Rodriguez and others if she/they find the market capitalist system unfair or even "evil", what type of system would she/they prefer to live under? And why the hell hasn't she moved away from civilization to go live with her brethren?

Hundreds of thousands of Latin American children die every year from malnutrition while the rich take cover in their ultra-secured mansions, feasting in splendor. That's capitalism.

In the last twenty five years a land mass the size of France has been carved out of the Brazilian Amazon. That's capitalism.

Two hundred and fifty thousand jobs in the Mexican maquiladora sector vanish, many relocating in China. That's capitalism

In Nicaragua, mass unemployment and hunger and distended stomachs grow as the global commodity price of coffee plummets and arable land is pulled out of production. That's capitalism.

There will always be a few soul-less "libertarian" cyborgs like Juan around to wrap these horrors in a tissue of market mysticism. Laissez-faire is a religion without morals. Note how Juan, like braindead fundamentalists everywhere, justifies his faith by invoking catechism. The market is efficient, even if it produces 75% unemployment and mass misery, because..... it's the market!! And it's plain to geniuses like Juan that the market wouldn't be inefficient unless it was efficient to be inefficient -- thus it's efficient!

All I'll say to you, Juan, is that capitalism is war. It's subjects, for whom you have infinite contempt, are sharpening their knives. Prepare for stormy seas ahead, jackass.

Aaron, my friend, you suffer from victim-victor vision. You still fail to explain to me why someone who does not offer something to society should receive something from society? And how do we determine who deserves what and what exactly they deserve? I mean, should we take away incentive from our lives altogether and just live in an inefficient (and as history shows us, even worse) economy? Those Russian pinkos already showed us what non-incentive based industry does to economy. Misallocation and shortages.

Mexico, Brasil, Nicaragua, do you really think those economies are advanced or even can be considered fully capitalist? You see, what happens is that when certain consumers or producers try to dodge the economy (in such cases of piracy and bad business practices), capitalism simply does not work. For instance, in Brazil, if you were to speak with many company managers, most of them try to dodge taxes by keeping unclean books (that's a popular one too in Argentina). Other examples include mass piracy in the Mexican music industry, virtually no honesty between foreign investors and many Mexican firms. In other words, they live in a retarded capitalist system. And to expect that everything is going to be fine and dandy with these non-capitalist elements within the capitalist system is plainly ignorant.

Now many could explain these factors as simply part of the process of capitalist development. Sure, you make your mistakes here and there during development, and that's somewhat acceptable. As far as you attacking capitalism using examples as such, its shabby, because that simply is not an example of capitalism functioning in the bad. Call it corruption, call it management functioning in the bad, but capitalism simply doesn't throw people away like that.

Capitalism does self-correct itself (eg. many firms enter and exit of industries due to levels of overall profit). If profits are high, and an industry is booming, this is going to be incentive for more people to enter the industry, until supply exceeds demand and prices drop. If you want to see an example of capitalism functioning bad, look at the late 1920s or even today. And it always seems to be able to CORRECT itself. That's capitalism.

It seems people like you simply do not understand the process of transition. Development takes TIME and lots of resources. To simply say that Mexico has fully developed and capitalism simply is not working there is ridiculous. To say, Mexico is trying to implement capitalism and for the most part it is functioning, yet there are still some problems, seems more plausible.

Please, don't take things out of context here. Understand that like most other things in the world, capitalism with corruption produces some bad results. Yet still, compared to all other economic systems this world has seen, capitalism is able to produce a system that allocates goods to those who most want them. And can you imagine, without even anyone (eg government) controlling the amounts produced or consumed. Now, that's capitalism.

Cheers!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it that everything is turned into war witih you lefties? Hahaha, you remind me of the Spartacus Youth Club members that got their asses tanned when they tried to start a revolution with a bunch of construction workers. Among all the people in the world who you say are "sharpening their knives", there are countless more who would prefer to live under a capitalist country, than a non-capitalist one. This vision of capitalism that you have with the big, fat man smoking a cigar stepping on third world economies is extremely comical. Capitalism doesn't only benefit him, but all consumers (remember the high quality goods?).

Juan, you fail to prove to me how capitalism improves the lives of the majority, not just those working for Enron, Arthur Andersen or Oxydental Petrolium. Not everyone needs to benefit society. Yes it's a war and you obviously don't know who Cecilia is or you'd have ranted on that one too.

I don't see Oxy benefitting the civil or rural societies of Ecador. Please explain to me how it is that destroying the rainforest benefits the peoples of Ecador? Explain to me how it is when the oil pipiline explodes and contaminates the drinking sources of the people is a benefit to society? Aren't people entittled to drink clean water and breathe clean air? Or is that just a by-product of your capitilist analogy?

I think your definitions of certain things are way tooo different than mine and therefor I don't really give a shit what your opinion is nor do I wish to debate someone like you because your a wacko nut case who spends too much time being the nay sayer. You believe in genocide. I believe in love and the right for self determination.

Hahahah, Cecilia Rodriguez, la mera mera.. the indian-loving, let's-get-it-on-girls cheering, ethnic-studies-reading queen of them all. She's a psycho girl, living in a psycho world. Yeah, I've seen her stuff on "Feminism and the Chiapas Movement" and I'm appalled that people can actually make a living off of something like that. I can't imagine what type of fire hazards she must have in her office (can anyone say bat doo-doo?).

I have not failed you one bit, young man. You have failed to read. Do you really want to make me recap? Oh, what the hell.... (I'll try to say it this time in baby words for you).

--In Ecuador, there are no big tall buildings or machines to make things. This is called "unindustrialized society". Now, what Ecuador wants is foreign companies to come and build big buildings and machines so that they can provide jobs and bring money into the country. These are jobs and money that we wouldn't have if the big "meany" foriegn companies didn't come.

Now in this case, Ecuador has oil (the stuff you put in your car) in their country. People all over the world want oil to run their cars and boats and lots of other machines. Everyone wants oil, its so popular!

Another thing is that oil is very expensive. Ooooo! So what would you do if you were Ecuador? I would use all the oil that I want, and still have some left over. Hmm.. what to do with extra oil? Why don't we sell to people who want oil really badly and then we can make some money with the extra oil we don't use? And yes! There will be money coming into the country.

But wait... we don't even know how to get oil from the ground... Hmm... and we don't even know how to transport the oil from the place to everyone else. Why don't we find someone to help us! Yeah, brilliant idea! Let's call up the Americans and they can come and bring the machines and show us how to do everything. We'll pay them for the work with some of the oil we have! Good idea!---

You see, even a child can understand this simple concept. Civil society gains with new jobs, new techniques, and new capital all being imported into the country. Rural society gains in that if they were smart enough (and really knew how to handle their own possessions) they would sell their land or rent their land to the oil companies and also gain a profit from the oil extraction. As far as oil spills in Ecuador, in economic terms we call this a "negative externality"... you must weigh the costs and the benefits of this oil pipeline with the small possibility of oil leaking.

the benefits - jobs, capital (K) [machines], new techniques learned, possible further investment in the country, economic boost, furthering the process of development

the costs - possible pollution, possible loss of land, the cost of not using the oil (an opportunity cost - a missed chance)

Now when you weigh the costs and the benefits, the benefits definitely outweigh any costs listed. (Please add any costs you think I left out). Simply, Ecuador and other countries continue forth with international projects, like pipelines and mining, because of the wonderful benefits these foreign companies bring into the country, otherwise they wouldn't do it to begin with. <<trust me, if ecuador didn't want them there, they would have the military remove them at once>>

Yes, people are entitled to clean water and clean air, but do I think that there's any large possibility that building an oil pipeline in Ecuador will prevent people from seeking those??... nonsense...

See, son, the problem is not that your definitions differ from mine. It is simply that you do not know the correct definitions for words to begin with. Like it or not, words can only mean so much. This is simply not a "normative" issue (look it up in the dictionary, http://www.m-w.com). I have explained why Ecuador should build the pipeline in their country in clear terms that anyone can understand, and to say that you disagree over definitions of words is a sign of weakness on your part.

And your continued apathy towards my explanations shows who really is the (shall I use one of your words) "close-minded" person. I never said I believed in genocide (you put those words in my mouth) and I would really love to hear your explanation of, what the hell, love and self-determination have to do with this topic.

Cheers, and lighten up, boy.

--Please, try to read my responses a little bit more carefully if you plan on having an intelligent conversation.. save your hippy, flower-power love emotions for the indian pow-wows...

Juan as you sit and preach your garbage about the joys of capitalism the OCP pipiline leaks into a river.... As you sit preaching how glorious your wisdom is, there are two other known oil spills from the OCP pipeline. Now, what are those communities going to do about clean water and clean land to live on? Huh, and who the hell do you think you are to be so self rightous about how capitilism is good for the few.

And oh, Ms. Rodriguez was the US spokesperson for the EZLN. Yes that's right, your death to the majority capitalism ideaolgy is considered war by many people. There are, believe it or not, people in this world who don't want to be part of your plastic breast implanted fake society you talk about. And those people will fight like hell to keep you from jamming your shit down there throats. Self determination is a basic right which capitlism solves through violence. Why not just bomb ecuador and start over. Wouldn't that be easier Juan?

Juan as you sit and preach your garbage about the joys of capitalism the OCP pipiline leaks into a river.... As you sit preaching how glorious your wisdom is, there are two other known oil spills from the OCP pipeline. Now, what are those communities going to do about clean water and clean land to live on? Huh, and who the hell do you think you are to be so self rightous about how capitilism is good for the few.

And oh, Ms. Rodriguez was the US spokesperson for the EZLN. Yes that's right, your death to the majority capitalism ideaolgy is considered war by many people. There are, believe it or not, people in this world who don't want to be part of your plastic breast implanted fake society you talk about. And those people will fight like hell to keep you from jamming your shit down there throats. Self determination is a basic right which capitlism solves through violence. Why not just bomb ecuador and start over. Wouldn't that be easier Juan?

Son,
Please stick to non-fiction writing on this board. I really don't feel like hearing you rant about this war and that war that the lefties have started. As far as I am concerned, a war requires atleast two participants and the capitalists simply aren't involved in any war. So if you and Ms. Rodriguez want to keep on playing little games of cowboys and indians with the Mexican government, go right ahead. Please, leave me out of it.

As far as clean water, you are going to have to prove to me that: a) the chances are above a nominal amount that the Ecuadorian pipeline is going to have shoddy construction, and b) as a result the pipe will leak into the main fresh water source of Ecuador, and c) that there will be an evident increase in the use of gasoline as a result of the pipeline. As far as I am concerned, Ecuador currently uses the amount of gasoline that they need (there isn't a shortage or anything). So they will be more prone to export their oil than they will be to use it all up domestically. As far as their responsibility for clean air abroad, please read my post about that further up the page.

What really boggles me is that you believe it is a one hundred percent chance that oil will contaminate all of the water of Ecuador (as if it isn't already contaminated) and no one will be able to get fresh water. There are plenty of oil pipelines that have not leaked in the past, or even that have leaked and still people in the area remain to live there. Its a bit extreme to say that the construction will be the demise of all the people in Ecuador. Almost paranoia (I would get that checked out).

Personally, I'd rather not touch someone's throat. hahaha. I'm not on here to jam anything down anyone's throat. This is a forum for an exchange of ideas. I simply write my ideas and I hope that you will read them and (instead of insulting me) actually comment on them.

If you have read my posts, I have explained how in this case the Ecuadorian people (yes, all of them) can benefit from the pipeline (even the injuns!). Now unless you can come up with some hard facts to back up your whole theory on how the pipeline will ruin Ecuador as we know it, I simply cannot give into your paranoia.

Personally I find it selfish of you to say that people in Ecuador cannot have jobs simply because your own views tell you that it is wrong to use oil. Do you see how backwards that is? You want these people to remain in the state that they are and even worsen only because your conscious tells you, "Oil's bad!". I would like you to tell me that if Ecuador shouldn't develop in this fashion, what holds in store for them? How should they develop? Should they not develop and remain in the current state that they are (its not pretty).

Self-determination... these people have enough trouble staying sober to pick a president, nevermind determining their own political status..haha.. Ecuador has decided that they do want to be a liberal capitalist country and of all the Marxist visions you have of a Bolivarian Republic or whatever the hell you call it, I think your idealistic attitude is harmful for the situation. If you go to Ecuador, you will find that there are very little people that give into your ideas. Maybe a few college students (who are funded by the US), but its simply Americans with ideals (leave your berets at home kids!) who actually corrupt the situation. Do you think the indians could actually begin to fathom organizing a protest like that? Of course not. You want to talk about getting involved, look at that Butterfly girl involving herself in the situation.

Ecuadorians, in general, don't like violence. They leave that to the drug dealers and the theives (the lowest part of society). Then again, I guess you might like to smoke some crack here and there. Who am I to keeping you from taking a couple of lines.

Your smug, condescending tone reminds me of the bourgeois professors I used to have. I used to love to rustle their feathers with questions they possibly couldn't answer about the economy. So, I guess with the unraveling of the US economy and the fall of Enron, you have a lot of idle time on your hands, huh? There are no more energy policies or other deregulation policies for you to write. That's too bad.

The problem with your neoliberal economic theory or dogma is that it's nothing more than a prescription, or a justification really, for foreign control/corporate control of Ecuador or other countries. Less social spending and more foreign investment has just led to a huge decline in the standards of living across the board for Latin America. Rather than see the problems that neoliberalism causes, free market idealogues ignore reality and conclude that the problem must be that there isn't enough of a free market and/or that neoliberalism needs to be adopted faster. That's done a lot of good in Russia. Ecuador or any other country shouldn't have to try and provide cheap labor or easy access to resources to seem attractive. Countries should be able to develop the things and industries that they need and be able to provide their citizens/workers with good jobs, healthcare and education while doing it. Industrialization doesn't need to be perilous to the population. Course you don't agree cause your job is to insure more money to the banks, corporations and stock holders.

Ecuador Removes Health, Education Segments From Oil Fund

August 2, 2002
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

QUITO -- In another step toward the signing of a long-delayed $240 million standby credit accord with the International Monetary Fund, Ecuador's executive branch has proposed to eliminate a health and
education category from an oil revenue fund.

On Friday, President Gustavo Noboa submitted eight amendments to a fiscal responsibility law, which establishes a fund to collect revenues from a new oil pipeline.

The fund is aimed at paying down debt and building a contingency reserve for fiscal and natural emergencies.

The addition of a category for health and education, to which 10% of fund inflows would be deposited under a previous proposal, was one of the obstacles holding up the IMF accord.

With the amendments, 70% of fund deposits would still go toward debt reductions and 20% to the contingency reserve. But no mention is made of what's to happen with the balance 10%.

The fiscal responsibility law requires that Ecuador's debt to gross domestic product drop by 16 percentage points every four years until the ratio of debt-to-GDP falls to 40% from 78% currently. One of the eight amendments aims to prohibit the country's debt/GDP from increasing once that target ratio is hit.

Another change sought is the elimination of an article that would require any central government budget surplus at the end of a fiscal period to automatically be allocated according to the new fiscal law guidelines.

Yet another change would require the country's social security system to resolve its deficit to guarantee current and future pension payments.

Another proposal would require the nod of the central bank for future foreign debt issues.

Savings from debt buybacks would go into investment projects, in yet another proposed amendment.

Budget planners would be required to use projections from a high-profile international energy agency in drafting base oil prices for projected revenues.

Yet analysts note that one key condition still pending for IMF aid is a
cut of some $500 million in public spending to hit the primary fiscal surplus target of 6.4%. The cut is equivalent to about 5% of GDP. Ecuador's finance minister, Francisco Arosemena, is currently in
Washington meeting with IMF officials.

Meanwhile, Mauricio Yepez, president of the central bank's board of director, said the primary surplus should come in at 6% this year, while the global surplus should amount to 2% of GDP. He added that economic growth this year should amount to about 4%, and 6% next year.

By Maria Elena Verdezoto,Dow Jones Newswires


ECUADOR: IMF Wants Future Oil Revenues to Service Debt, not Health

By Kintto Lucas

QUITO, May 29 2002 (IPS) - The IMF has conditioned approval of a loan to Ecuador on the modification by parliament of a law that earmarks for health and education 10 percent of revenues from the oil exports that will be piped through a new heavy crude pipeline still under
construction.

The revenues attained from the OCP pipeline, which will carry crude from the Amazon jungle region to Pacific coast ports, must go exclusively towards servicing debt, International Monetary Fund (IMF) spokespersons told Ecuador's negotiators in Washington.

But on May 22, the Ecuadorean Congress approved a law that assigns 70 percent of future oil export earnings from the pipeline to paying off the foreign debt and the state's debt to Ecuador's Social Security Institute, 20 percent to an oil fund, and 10 percent to health and education.

Minister of Economy and Finance Carlos Julio Emanuel, who has been in the United States since last week negotiating with the IMF, confirmed
that the allotment of 10 percent of the revenues to social spending is the main obstacle Ecuador is facing in securing approval of a 240 million-dollar credit.

''The negotiations will continue, and I expect the problems to be worked out soon,'' since the differences are based on the IMF's complaint that
the percentage reserved for health and education has been ''pre-assigned'' before it even exists, Emanuel explained on a stopover in New York.

But ''the entire law is a pre-assignation, because the same could be said of the 70 percent that is allocated to paying off the debt and the 20 percent that is to go into the oil fund,'' to be used to service the
debt in the case of future oil price slumps, he argued.

Nevertheless, Emanuel said President Gustavo Noboa would try to fulfill the IMF requisite, by somehow getting the law amended, although he did
not explain how the president meant to do that. Observers point out that the only way would be for parliament to enact a new law.

The chief of the IMF mission for Ecuador, Bob Traa, also questioned how much maneuvering room Noboa had, saying it was odd that the president believed that such an important law could be changed after it had been approved by Congress.

In its original form, the draft law submitted by the Noboa administration stipulated that 80 percent of the revenues obtained by exports of oil pumped through the OCP pipeline would to go towards paying off the debt, and 20 percent would go into the oil fund. But the
legislature modified the bill, allotting 10 percent to social spending.

The pipeline, to run from Ecuador's Amazon jungle region to the Pacific coast in the northwestern province of Esmeraldas, is being built by the OCP Limited consortium, made up of Alberta Energy of Canada, Kerr McGee and Occidental Petroleum of the United States, Agip Oil of Italy, the Spanish-Argentine Repsol-YPF, and Techint of Argentina.

The 600-km pipeline, to begin operating next year, has drawn loud criticism from local and international environmental groups, indigenous communities and even the World Bank, which have all warned of the
damages it will cause to pristine areas of the Amazon jungle and water sources that supply cities like Quito.

The law approved last week by Congress only involves the funds derived from exports of crude carried by the pipeline. The revenues from the rest of Ecuador's oil exports - the country's main source of foreign-exchange - will continue to be used as stipulated by the national budget, which allots 40 percent to debt- servicing.

Ecuador's debt amounts to 16 billion dollars, equivalent to 95 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Of that total, 52 percent
is owed to private banks, 30 percent to multilateral lending institutions, and 18 percent to the rich countries grouped in the Paris Club.

The new law also stipulates that the Ministry of Economy and Finance is to cut fiscal expenditure and service the public debt, to attempt to bring down the level of debt to 40 percent of GDP in the next 10 years.

Traa said that it was possible that an agreement would be reached in June, despite the discrepancies between the IMF and Ecuador, which he said did not only involve a question of percentages, but ''go much
deeper than that.''

Minister Emanuel warned that if an agreement is not reached with the IMF, his country may use the future oil income as a guarantee for loans in private banks - an option opposed by the multilateral lender.

Economic analyst Wilma Salgado said the Ecuadorean population will not benefit in the least from the rise in oil revenues if the government
yields to the IMF's demand that the funds from exports of the piped oil be used exclusively to pay the foreign debt.

''Under the new law, the creditors who hold Ecuador's public debt, most of which is external, will be the beneficiaries of 90 percent of the revenues from exports of oil transported by the OCP pipeline,'' she
said.

Salgado underlined that not only will the creditors directly receive 70 percent of the foreign exchange brought in by the new exports, but the remaining 20 percent will be deposited in a fund that will be used to
service the debt when oil prices drop.

The payment of the public debt became a top priority for this Andean nation of 12.4 million 20 years ago, due to ''the combined pressure of the IMF and of local holders of foreign debt bonds, generally financial
intermediaries or high-level government officials,'' she explained.

''Local traders purchased debt bonds on the secondary market when the price dipped below 20 percent of nominal value. Later, they pressured
the governments for preferential treatment such as that granted by this law, thus allowing them to double or triple the value of their investment,'' Salgado added.

''The bonds have quadrupled in value since the announcement of the new law, in which creditors are guaranteed that Ecuador will earmark the earnings from the sales of oil transported by the new pipeline to
servicing the public debt,'' she stated.

Reposted for fair use not for profit educational intentions. Hopefully Juan can handle the bit of insight that this provides.

I have been reading these posts back and forth regarding the "oil business" and the "humanitarian business", frankly, I am amazed.

Neither side has mentioned a solution rather both are for the restating of the problem. The reality of the situation is that both sides much like nature itself must come to a balanced agreement.

If Juan Brujo is as the spanish title suggested, a puta for the government, that is sad. I read a lot of his posts and understood the economic justifications for the oil company providing financial independence to a country so poor. However, if his words are simply rhetoric for the government then, that is also not a solution. Specifically since I read the following reports stating the government wanting oil over health and education. Never the less, the environmentalists can offer no better than reiterating the facts too.
Juan, what is wrong with this picture is that you are praising the love of money over humanity. So, to follow up the "puta" as a name for your type I would have to add that I noticed your last name, (since you made comments about the female's name who stood up to you) translated becomes a male witch or warlock. Interesting professions you have chosen. Now, why not get along with these concerned folks who have needs just like you and the Indians of South America, just like me an American that starved while growing up in Chile....and instead of fighting them, try in your heart to find a solution.
On the other side of this materialistic coin is the environmentalist who seems to be saying "they are killing the planet...that's wrong." Yet, I ask all you tree huggers and flower smellers, what have you offered also as any viable solution? Do you implement any plans of social health systems or education instead of just flying down to Ecuador and posing for a news article claiming your right to fight?.
No, I am sad at both parties arguments with some of the most childish posts I have ever read regardless of the big and small words. Neither side has any solution they are both Putas for Personal Gain.
Meanwhile, there is no balance of nature taking place, like the oil companies and the people meeting to see what both may do, we watch the total destruction of the ionosphere and as I speak the world here in Alaska shakes from an earthquake, natures way of balance.
Wake up all of you who read this! Scientists, Geologists, Petrolium Engineers, Hydrogeologists, Environmentalists, and Economiststs, Everyone! get to work and find a solution of balance that is responsible not a transaction of whoredom on both sides that reflects your ego rather than the humanitarian mirror of nature. There must be a way of providing both sides with a solution and I am of the belief that it does not come simply from the Magickal Wand of the Warlock named Juan, yet neither does it come from the Self Appointed Martyrs of Evironmental Concerns.
Bottom line is, if either of you want to survive and continue to post your opinions online, you better get cracking with solutions instead of talking SMACK!
Shalom From Alaska....where there is also oil drilling going on.
Jamie Dakis, Artist