Camisea II: the wrong path to the energy sovereignty of Peru

Camisea II: el camino erróneo hacia la soberanía energética de Peru

Translated from Spanish by Martin Allen

Version en español al final del artículo en inglés.

Press release

*Acción Ciudadana Camisea (Camisea Citizens’ Action) regrets the decision of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) to approve the loan for continuation of Camisea.*

December 2007 – Despite the protests of Acción Ciudadana Camisea*, the College of Engineers of Peru and other institutions of civil society, on Wednesday 19th December the IDB approved a loan of US$400 million for the project of exporting liquefied natural gas to the Consorcio Perú LNG [made up of U.S.-based Hunt Oil, South Korea’s SK Corporation, Repsol YPF of Spain and Japan’s Marubeni Corporation].

Last week a Peruvian delegation travelled to Washington for talks with IDB executives, asking for the decision on the loan to be delayed pending adequate evaluation of possible environmental and socio-cultural damage involved in the project, emphasising the correction of the mistakes in Camisea I before the start of the second phase. The delegates were Alberto Barandiaran of Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (DAR – Law, Environment and Natural Resources), Walter Kategari, head of the Consejo Machiguenga del Río Urubamba (Comaru), Carlos Hererra Descalzi, president of the College of Engineers of Peru and former Minister of Energy and Mines, and Congresswoman Gloria Ramos of Unión por el Peru (UPP).

In the past few days the liquefied natural gas project has also been questioned by various organisations of civil society and the media, since it puts Peru’s energy security in jeopardy. Particular attention has been paid to the report by Glenn Jenkins, a Harvard economist specialising in Economics and Development, who states that of all possible uses of the gas, exporting it would be the least profitable for Peru.

Australia: From The Holocaust to Recolonization of Aboriginal People

Call for Solidarity with Aboriginal People in the Northern Territory
Stop the Invasion! Published by Lauredhel October 26th, 2007 in Politics, activism/charity, racism, bigotry, solidarity and indigenous.

For more information go to Intercontinentalcry

International Day of Action, November 17th

Image depicts Australian Federal Parliament flagpole atop Uluru

In June this year, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, announced that there would be a ‘National Emergency Response’ to combat child abuse in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. The measures announced included the quarantining of half of all welfare payments, the abolition of the Community Development Employment Program, the appointment of managers for 73 prescribed communities, compulsory sexual health examinations of children, and the abolition of the permit system, amongst other things.

These measures are a violation of human rights, and is obviously racist and authoritarian. The passage of the Emergency Response legislation is dependent on the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act, and the Northern Territory Native Title Act. Federal police and the military have been sent into the NT to enforce these measures.

Aboriginal people that work through the Community Development Employment Program (CDEP) manage their own wages and money. Abolishing CDEP will push people onto welfare and the welfare income management system that allows for quarantining and tight control of how people’s money is spent. Many people running businesses on CDEP in remote outstations are already being forced to move into larger regional towns. The extraordinary measures give the Federal Government power to seize lands and property without compensation. The owners of those lands and properties have no right of appeal. Lands will be leased for five years, but the government has plans to extend these measures for 99 years. It is entirely up to ministerial discretion whether rent is paid on those lands or not.

The Federal Government has appointed non-Indigenous business managers to the ‘prescribed’ communities. These managers have the power to decide who lives in a community and who must leave; they can observe any meeting of an organisation working at the community, they can change any local programme. Many Aboriginal communities consider these measures, often being administered by under-prepared military personnel, as an invasion rather than an intervention.

These measures return Aboriginal people to the days of mission stations, where life was tightly controlled by authoritarian managers. It is a return to times of colonial control on Aboriginal life, and the complete absence of any autonomy or self-determination. The removal of basic property rights as enjoyed by all other Australians, with the abolition of the permit system, is a gross violation of human rights. Even the Northern Territory police oppose this measure, for the likely adverse effect it will have on crime.