Most activists across the world begin their days with mundane routines: a hot drink in the morning; traveling to their office or going through emails. Yet, being a human rights, environmental and indigenous rights activist in Colombia involves something very different — something much darker than any black coffee. Many welcome each new day with gratitude and respect as they don bulletproof vests and are accompanied by armed guards, hoping that this day won’t be their last.

Colombia’s Inidigenous Activists Face Threat of Rape, Death, Murder of Family Members

Nidia Becerra has dedicated her life to working towards driving out illegal activities from her indigenous community’s ancestral lands — from mining and logging to stopping mega-infrastructure projects like roadways and hydroelectric power plants from being built without the communities’ consent. She told NBC that because of this, her life is perpetually in danger. Over the years, she has received hundreds of calls – along with texts and flyers – calling for her death. In 2014, armed men shot her but still: she refused to abandon the fight.

Another indigenous rights activist, Jakeline Romero, spoke of how she experienced not just death threats over the years, but also the threat of the rape or murder of close family members. According to a report by Front Line Defenders, 106 human rights defenders were killed last year in Colombia, making the South American country by far the most dangerous place for activists when compared to other places with similarly-motivated killings.

Why are Human Rights Activists Being Targeted in Colombia?

In 2016, after the signing of a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) – Columbia’s biggest rebel group communities and human rights defenders were caught in the crossfire due to armed groups’ disputes over territories that were previously controlled by the FARC. Despite this, poor implementation of the peace accord – which was supposed to reduce violence in the territories – left activists without adequate state attention or protection.

Rodrigo da Costa Sales, a researcher on the situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas at Amnesty International, believed that measures granted by the National Protection Unit – the institution in charge of protecting human rights defenders in Colombia – are material and individual in nature. Nor did those measures mitigate the risks faced by social leaders or activists, leaving them exposed to even further dangers.

“Violence against human rights defenders in Colombia is mainly focused on the land and territories of indigenous, Afro-descendant, and peasant communities,” da Costa Sales explained.

“There is a lack of state presence in these areas, which contributes to the vulnerability of traditional communities that are at risk due to many issues, such as high levels of violence and land disputes by armed groups, etc.  In addition to that, the state prefers to offer material protection to individuals, instead of mitigating the root causes of the violence against human rights defenders in the country.”

Over the past year, da Costa Sales has carried out research missions within the country to better understand the risks defenders face; measures they created to protect themselves; and actions taken by the state to address the attacks on them. One of the activists he interviewed was Danelly Estupiñán, a territory defender in the city of Buenaventura. Estupiñán has been receiving death threats because of her work to promote Afro-descendant rights in Colombia. Unknown people regularly monitor her house, and unidentified men have followed both her and family members. Estupiñán reported the threats to the prosecutor’s office, but little action has been taken. She believes that she will remain at risk until the state tackles the root causes of the violence against social leaders.

‘Colombia Must Change the Way it Offers Protection’

“Colombia must change the way it offers protection to social leaders at risk,” da Costa Sales insisted.

“Most of these defenders are fighting for collective rights and require collective protection, meaning that social leaders and their communities needed to be protected by the state. Collective protection also means targeting the root causes of the violence against human rights defenders. In addition to that, the highest state authorities at local and national levels should publicly recognize the importance and legitimacy of human rights defenders’ work on issues related to land, territory, and the environment.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights raised similar concerns over the “staggering number” of activists who were targeted and murdered in the nation.

Special Representative, Carlos Ruiz Massieu, who also heads the UN Verification Mission in Columbia, told the UN Security Council in January that pervasive violence in conflict-affected areas continues to threaten peace and pointed to several “profoundly worrying developments” by outlawed armed groups, namely attacks against community leaders and former combatants.

“Peace will not be fully achieved if the brave voices of social leaders continue to be silenced through violence and if former combatants who laid down their weapons and are committed to their reintegration continue to be killed,” he said.

L'articolo Colombia: the Most Dangerous Place For Activists With Hundreds Killed proviene da InsideOver.

President Evo Morales was deposed on November 10 after almost three weeks of protests. The coup d’etat was backed by the US government.

Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, had run for a third consecutive time in office. This was following a ruling in December 2017 when the country’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice overruled the 2009 two-term limit constitution. Under the new constitution, all public offices would have no term limits.

Widespread protests began after the election on 20th of October. Morales, Bolivia’s longest-serving president, was accused of rigging the election, with 47.1% of the votes. With 36.51% of votes, his opponent, Messa, had called for a second-round vote. He would be backed by the USA, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia.

The new coup-backed government, under the leadership of Jeanine Áñez, would begin arresting journalists and politicians, forcing Morales into exile.

During his election campaigns, Morales had promised to return Bolivia to ‘resource nationalism’. Resource nationalism in Bolivia, author, Kevin A. Young, says in Blood of the Earth: Resource Nationalism, Revolution, and Empire in Bolivia “it is a struggle to control the country’s natural wealth.”

Morales’ promise included the protection of the indigenous population, who have historically died when mining resources used, in major parts, by the West.

The mining community, however, saw Morales’ resource nationalism as a threat to their profit. In May 2013, Engineering and Mining Journal (EM&J) reported that Morales’ environmental protectionism as “one of the biggest threats to the global mining industry] in the 21st century”.

“But with heightened awareness of [the mining industry’s] endeavours comes an emerging threat from foreign governments: resource nationalism – the use of tactics from increasing taxes and royalties to tightening exports to outright expropriation – curtailing access to resources for economic or political gain,” the article read.

Morales v. The Mining Industry

Bolivia is home to the largest indium deposit in the world, with the capacity for producing 80 tonnes yearly. The second-largest, in Mount Pleasant, Canada, has the capacity to produce less than half, with only 38.5 tons yearly.

Malku Khota, the site of Bolivia’s indium mine, is capable of producing substantial amounts of silver, indium, lead, copper, gallium and zinc. LCD screens used worldwide, in phones, computers and televisions, are made using indium, a rare metallic element processed out of zinc concentrate.

Before Morales came into power in 2007, resource nationalism was not on the agenda. Global companies operating Bolivia’s mining industry were allowed to profit massively from the country’s resources. Worse, the miners, comprising of indigenous workers, were paid meagerly.

To fulfil his promises of resource nationalism, Morales’s government ensured that the state-owned 51% of all oil and gas firms operating in Bolivia. Profits from mining in the energy sector went back into Bolivia’s public funds. Through these policies, extreme poverty was lowered by more than 50%, and Bolivia’s indigenous-majority population began living above poverty.

Assuaging the West’s neoliberal economic policies, Morales’ policies focused on “indigenous rights”. Under his economic model, the country would no longer be financially dependent on the World Bank, the USA and international mining industries to survive.

On July 10 2012, Morales’ government nationalised the Malku Khota mines, formerly under the ownership of Canada’s South American Silver. “Nationalization is our obligation,” he said.

By November 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague would settle South American Silver’s case against the Bolivian government. Originally asking for $385.7 million, South American Silver would receive $27.7 million from the Bolivian government for the Malku Khota property.

Amid growing concerns of Morales’ nationalisation, in 2007, US Ambassador to Bolivia, Phillip Goldberg, sent a message to Washington. It read:

“Sadly, without dynamite in the streets, it is uncertain whether the Embassy or the international mining companies will be able to attain even this minimal goal [of organising a meeting with Vice President, Álvaro García Linera].”

The struggle over resources in Bolivia is the same story all over postcolonial Latin America. Neoliberalism must win in the region – by soft power or hard power – since Latin America’s resources keep the US wealthy.

L'articolo Bolivia’s Coup was About Who Gets Control of the Country’s Rare Metal, Indium proviene da InsideOver.