Protests in Peru
For two months, indigenous groups in Peru have staged protests against a series of legislative decrees that threaten their ancestral lands by allowing increased exploration and exploitation of gas and oil throughout the Amazon and encourage private property, which could break up indigenous communal landholdings. A Duke University study shows, according to Reuters, that these new laws could open up approximately 70% of the Peruvian Amazon to natural resource exploitation, up from 15% in 2004, and at least 58 of the 64 mapped out concessions are on lands titled to indigenous peoples. The protests have focused on interrupting petroleum production and blocking important transportation routes. However, they erupted in violence last Friday, as police were dispatched to disrupt a large roadblock in Bagua province that had been holding ground since April 2. There are conflicting reports about how the violence began: indigenous groups claim they were fired upon from a helicopter passing above, while police and the government of Peru claim the indigenous protesters made the first violent move. Regardless, the confrontation ended in the death of over 35 police officers and indigenous protesters. The actual numbers of deaths are still unknown - official government reports cite 9 indigenous and 24 police deaths, while indigenous organizations argue that over 40 protesters were killed on Friday and hundreds of community members are still unaccounted for, according to multiple news sources. As a result of this large death toll, the conflict between indigenous groups and the Peruvian government has received international media attention - and rightfully so. It is an unfortunate and complicated story that warrants more investigation and oversight. Increased media attention will only pressure the Peruvian government to look into what actually happened last Friday. A bit of background: Last summer, Peruvian President Alan García used a special power granted to him by Congress to enact a series of new laws needed to implement the U.S. - Peru Free Trade Agreement. However, many indigenous groups argue they were not consulted about the new laws prior to their enactment, which is in violation of both International Labor Organization Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples, to which the Peruvian government is a signatory of both. Article 32 of the UN Declaration specifically reads "States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources." Indigenous groups in Peru and elsewhere in the region have frequently made a genuine consultative process one of their central demands. In August 2008, the indigenous movement was victorious when Congress repealed Legislative Decree 1015, which would have made it easier for investors to seek approval of private development projects by only requiring a simple majority of those in attendance at a community assembly instead of consent by a two-thirds majority vote by all members of the community. While this was an important victory in terms of maintaining indigenous land rights and autonomy over how communities' land is used, they still view many remaining decrees as threatening their rights, resulting in the continuation of protests to this day. The tactics and calls for indigenous rights are in line with those of indigenous movements opposed to natural resource exploitation in other Andean countries like Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. Yet the government of Peru characterizes such protests as a result of "ignorance"; conducted by people who do no know what is good for the development of the country or easily manipulated by outside interests. Unfortunately, this is a common tactic taken by governments and companies worldwide who are facing protests by indigenous movements - brushing off indigenous demands for their rights as "ignorance" due to their different way of living, instead of actually taking into consideration that these groups often just want to maintain their autonomy. The indigenous communities in Peru argue that they are merely struggling to maintain their traditional way of life and community - something that would be largely disrupted by large-scale extraction carried out on or even near their land. President García also quickly claimed that the violence on Friday had been instigated and financed by outside forces - citing a letter Bolivian President Evo Morales wrote to a meeting of indigenous leaders in Puno, Peru in May, which called for a "revolution," and possible funding links between the protests, <a data-cke-saved-href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124442565236592983.html?mod=googlenews_wsj: target=" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124442565236592983.html?mod=googlenews_wsj: target=" blank"="">Ollanta Humala, the leftist presidential candidate who lost to Garcia in 2006, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera responded that internal problems were the cause of the violence, not Morales' letter: "What provoked the conflicts, the violence, the deaths, and the uprisings was not letters or documents, it was the internal problems of every society, the injustices, abuses, and discrimination that lead people to consider their fights, resistances, and uprisings." While the factors leading to the indigenous protests in the Peruvian Amazon are relatively straightforward, it is far less clear why this protest ended in such bloodshed. And only an in-depth investigation by the Peruvian judicial system (its credibility increased by the recent verdict against former president Alberto Fujimori) or an international body, such as the United Nations or the OAS, will be able to bring some degree of justice and truth. While the Peruvian state has the right to use its natural resources in order to strengthen and grow its economy, since Peru maintains subsoil rights on indigenous land, the indigenous peoples of Peru also have the right to stand up against natural resource extraction on their lands that will not only threaten their traditional way of life, but also can have a harmful impact on their health and the surrounding environment. Environmental degradation, detrimental health impacts, and violence are all factors that have historically occurred alongside natural resource extraction (see both the case of ChevronTexaco in Ecuador and the recent decision by Shell to pay $15.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the company of arming the Nigerian military to protect the company from protests by local community members, leading to the deaths of many activists in 1995). And for a true solution to be found in Peru, all affected parties - indigenous people, campesinos, oil companies, environmental activists, and governments alike - must have the opportunity to sit down and come to some sort of balanced and sustainable compromise as to how the further development of the Peruvian Amazon will continue. Yesterday, the Peruvian Congress voted to indefinitely suspend the application of both Legislative Decrees 1090 and 1064 - two of the laws that sparked the indigenous protests in the Amazon - in order to allow adequate time for debate. However, protests will still continue today, as many believe that the suspension of the two laws was only approved in order to bring an immediate end to the protests, without the intention of actually negotiating with the indigenous population. To follow the news on the events in Peru, consult the Just the Facts news database here.