Return to: Home | World Affairs | South America

Anguish, oil and the Amazon

Published 18 June 2009

Observations on Peru

Violence erupted in the Peruvian Amazonia earlier this month, when thousands of indigenous people, protesting against legislation that would open up the country’s rainforest to logging, gas and oil contractors, were met by a poorly planned police response. During the events that ensued hundreds of indigenous protesters were killed or injured, and thousands displaced. At least 23 police officers also died.

The protesters, mobilised by AIDESEP, the umbrella group of indigenous people’s organisations, belong to various tribes under constant threat in the Amazonia: at least 30 ethnic groups have already disappeared completely. Many have served in the army and are well trained in weapon use, and the police sent to pacify the region were outnumbered and outmanoeuvred. They had been sent by the Home Office minister Mercedes Cabanillas, but without clear orders. A potential candidate in the country’s 2011 presidential elections, Cabanillas had dithered for months, in an attempt to avoid becoming politically implicated. In turn, she had been ordered to put a stop to blockades along the few roads connecting the vast jungle region with the rest of the country by the current president, Alan García, keen to preserve his own political capital.

The government’s handling of the crisis has been heavily criticised by many Peruvians, even those who disagree with AIDESEP’s tactics. García branded the protesters savages and terrorists. To divert attention from his own role in events, he blamed an international conspiracy for the protests, suggesting that Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez, envious of Peru’s record-breaking economic growth, were responsible. In addition, he’s ignored the long-standing support of the Danish, German and Spanish governments for the protesters.

Like all of his predecessors, García has achieved economic growth by extracting natural resources and exploiting workers. Policies are fundamentally discriminatory: even initiatives for the poorest are undermined by policies that permit unreasonable labour practices and the systematic destruction of the Amazonia’s environment and cultural identity. The protesters’ thesis – that through local political representation, communities can play a central role in the sustainable use of natural resources – is far more progressive than the president’s.

Indigenous people have demonstrated commitment to the country. They presented Congress with a detailed analysis of the contested legislation’s effects as early as September 2008, only to be messed about for months by a token consultation process. In the end, they felt political institutions had failed them. Roadblocks were the only option left.

Unless there is a serious attempt to address the rights of indigenous peoples, the government’s actions are likely to benefit radical nationalist groups in the 2011 elections. But the private sector that García is so keen to protect could easily be part of a settlement: instability and violence, after all, are not good for business.

Taking fundamental positions only leads to the radicalisation of the protesters, and the need for tougher state repression. The government must accept its responsibility in the crisis and ensure that those guilty of the deaths of Peruvians – on both sides – are brought to justice.

Enrique Mendizabal is a research fellow and programme leader at the Overseas Development Institute

Post this article to

6 comments from readers

emma
22 June 2009 at 15:17

This is certainly not only a problem of the national government's responsibility. To start with a banality: this is the responsibility of those architects of FTAs in the 90s.

Nor is this issue about to end. In regard to seriously addressing the 'rights of indigenous peoples' (which could just read 'the rights of people'), this sounds like an invitation to a talk-or-write-shop. As the history of land-based conflict in Nepal demonstrates to even the least-keen eye, any measures which reform land-related policy and legislation are woefully inadequate when 'we' (as we so often are) are considering such highly stratified societies as Peru, Nepal, Zimbabwe et al. Land-based conflict and tension is the theatre of power: who has it (access and control to land); and who doesn't (those who don't).

For now, the curtain has closed in preparation for the next round. This is not about a 'clash of cultures' - we can throw Huntington and the tedious blog titles out of the window - this is about people who are...quite simply...rather tired of being screwed over by the same people.

ps. Where are INDEPA?

jzavalalozano
22 June 2009 at 16:27

He technical support of law 1090 had mistakes. And, one big mistake was ignore a public consultation from amazonic places.

I think that mind of some public planner have to change, because, some of them believe in Lima like a country of the VIII Century. The cost as result of this kind of mistake, in social, logistics and economic terms, was high in comparison to a "clever negotation" among public sector and natives.

There are a lot of critics: people who believe that natives are savage, and people who believe that government is a faccio power agent. However, the same parametric thinking about Lima as a unique center power of Peru, split the relationship among provinces, districts and comunities.

lfzegarra
22 June 2009 at 18:14

The recent events in the Peruvian Amazon are a good indicador of Garcia´s incompetence. This does not come as surprise: incompetence and corruption characterized Garcia´s first government. Also, it shouldn´t be surprising that a large proportion of Peruvian population support "anti-system" political leaders such as Ollanta Humala or Keiko Fujimori. For the good of democracy, Garcia should learn to recognize his huge mistakes and begin to rule the country as a real statesman.

jzavalalozano
22 June 2009 at 21:16

Please, many natives produces cacao and coffe of high quality. Today, they aren't different from a concept of savage people.

There are many incentives from radical groups to address natives to a rage! The benefit: political power. However, it is the justification from the government for the last violent actions on Bagua.

Please, it is important to begins thinking that the world is beyond that the ideas from a textbook.

quiquemendizabal
23 June 2009 at 19:04

These are all very interesting comments. It is true that, as emma says, the land issue if critical to this conflict. The solution, I would argue, needs to be political.

This requires an explicit change in the prevailing discourse: the model that Mr. Garcia has been following (growth by all means) needs to be abandoned for one that incorporates the latest evidence based research on the importance of tackling inequality head-on for achieving sufficient and sustainable equitable growth (this is even the World Bank’s approach by now).

Crucially, more and better information about the causes and consequences of the conflict needs to be made accessible to everyone in Peru. This will hopefully help to promote a more inclusive debate like the one being supported by the Peruvian Economic and Social Research Council (CIES www.cies.org.pe)

HeidiJane
26 June 2009 at 16:06

One should also look at the administrative structure for which the Peruvian government has to deal with these types of crisis. If the government were more decentralized, maybe the local government would have been able to retain the conflict and solve local problems before the national guards were called in. A more critical look at these types of ways to deal with crisis are necessary within Latin America.