Chapter 7 Review
Citizens’ Revolution, 2006-2015
By the turn of the millennium, Latin American countries had had enough of the failed neoliberalism that the Global North claimed would bring development and prosperity. Citizens elected progressive, leftist governments in many Latin American countries, including Ecuador. President Rafael Correa took office in 2007, after running a successful campaign in which he promised to create a “new 21st century socialism”, in addition to his support of the environmental and indigenous rights movements. There are five things that define this new era (which Ecuador is in today), some of which are due to the election of Correa: the state has taken a role in social welfare, economic growth has led to social goods (education and healthcare) for citizens, minority participation has increased, extraction revenues have been redirected to the state to fund social welfare programs, and nations in the region have begun to distance themselves from the US and the rest of the Global North.
These new socialist governments have had a positive effect on the poor in Latin America. From 2002 to 2010, the number of people living below the poverty line decreased by more than 20%. In Ecuador specifically, the poverty rate fell 8% in Correa’s first five years as president. This was accomplished through the redistribution of wealth from the elite to the poor, with policies such as monthly payments to the impoverished and subsidized electricity. Actions like these have helped keep Correa’s popularity high, especially among Ecuador’s previously forgotten citizens.
To distance Ecuador from the United States, Correa’s administration has withdrawn from many agreements previous administrations had complied with, such as a treaty which allowed a US Air Force base in Manta. Other actions include shifting debts toward China, expelling the US ambassador, and offering protection to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. These measures had the desired effect; Ecuador’s relationship with the US grew strained.
This increasingly hostile position on foreigners led to even less transnational funding for Ecuador’s environmental NGOs. In fact, President Correa sent a letter to USAID advising them to stop their work in Ecuador, which they did in 2014. As the state grew more powerful, it began to enforce laws that it previously had ignored, which disrupted the work of organizations such as Conservation International. The government’s growing power hurt ecodependent organizations by limiting their already shrinking sources of funding, and by poaching their employees. As time went on, more and more ecodependent workers took government jobs. Eventually, these changes even led to the end of Fundación Natura, which after 35 years couldn’t stay afloat any longer. Although ecoresistors did much better than ecodependents under Correa, as they did not rely on foreign funding, they soon realized that he was not the environmentalist they had hoped/voted for. In many ways, his administration became a problem- the government was the new extractor.
In many Latin American countries, such as Bolivia and Venezuela, the governments have promoted natural resource extraction and used the new revenue for social programs, prioritizing poverty reduction over environmental protection. This plan didn’t go over well in Ecuador, where Correa’s voter base elected him largely because of his pro-environment stance. Correa’s plan to continue large amounts of resource extraction has caused tension between different areas of government as well as between the government and the people. Multiple members of Correa’s administration have left due to internal conflict between ministries. The government has become increasingly authoritarian on some fronts, even declaring that it has the right to dissolve NGOs who do not act in the interest of the nation. President Correa has mocked protestors resisting extraction, and the state has unjustly imprisoned activists, searched their homes without cause, set loose paramilitaries, and has even been suspected of playing a part in killing ecoresistant movement leaders.
I find it extremely disheartening that even President Correa, who was supposed to bring about positive change for Ecuador, is just more of the same when it comes to extraction and corruption. It makes me wonder what would have happened in the US if someone like Bernie Sanders, who had similar campaign promises as Correa, was elected. I doubt he would have turned to the extreme and unsettling tactics that Correa has when his methods of creating change were challenged. Correa’s childish mocking of his opponents, calling them “nobodies”, does however remind me of another US politician- our current president. Despite our country’s many flaws, I’m thankful I live in the United States. Even Trump, who can seemingly recover from anything, wouldn’t get away with some of what Correa has done (although he may want to); commanding paramilitary forces to silence protestors and dissolving organizations that disagree with him are not within his power. However, like Correa, he does seemingly have the power to make extremely unpopular environmental/indigenous rights decisions, such as his reversal of President Obama’s halt on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines (Jones et al., 2017). The construction of these pipelines is the closest, most recognizable event happening in America that can be compared to some of the problems regarding extraction in Ecuador. One (relatively) positive thing that can be said about Trump is that he never claimed to be an environmentalist, unlike Correa. A large part of Correa’s campaign was the promotion of buen vivir/sumak kawsay; his administration even had the concept added to the 2008 constitution. His decision to end the Yasuní Initiative in 2013 solidified his reversal on pro-environmental & indigenous policy in the minds of many (including myself). However, Correa’s high amounts of spending on social programs and infrastructure keep him popular with the majority of citizens; they are willing to turn a blind eye to the environmental injustices his administration commits.
At the start of reading this book, I was thrilled to hear that a progressive leader who cared about both the people and the environment had been elected as Ecuador’s president. The more I read, especially after finishing this chapter, I realized that I had been too optimistic; although his policies sound impressive on paper, they aren’t put into practice. I hope that in the future, the injustices of Correa’s administration are brought to light, and that the people of Ecuador who haven’t yet realized the cost of extraction-driven development are educated on the subject. There is still a lot of work to be done, and I believe that ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and ecoresistors all have a role to play in leading Ecuador toward the path of ecological synthesis and sustainability, and ultimately buen vivir/sumak kawsay.
References
Jones, A., Diamond, J., & Krieg, G. (2017, January 24). Trump advances controversial oil pipelines with executive action. Retrieved September 19, 2017.
By the turn of the millennium, Latin American countries had had enough of the failed neoliberalism that the Global North claimed would bring development and prosperity. Citizens elected progressive, leftist governments in many Latin American countries, including Ecuador. President Rafael Correa took office in 2007, after running a successful campaign in which he promised to create a “new 21st century socialism”, in addition to his support of the environmental and indigenous rights movements. There are five things that define this new era (which Ecuador is in today), some of which are due to the election of Correa: the state has taken a role in social welfare, economic growth has led to social goods (education and healthcare) for citizens, minority participation has increased, extraction revenues have been redirected to the state to fund social welfare programs, and nations in the region have begun to distance themselves from the US and the rest of the Global North.
These new socialist governments have had a positive effect on the poor in Latin America. From 2002 to 2010, the number of people living below the poverty line decreased by more than 20%. In Ecuador specifically, the poverty rate fell 8% in Correa’s first five years as president. This was accomplished through the redistribution of wealth from the elite to the poor, with policies such as monthly payments to the impoverished and subsidized electricity. Actions like these have helped keep Correa’s popularity high, especially among Ecuador’s previously forgotten citizens.
To distance Ecuador from the United States, Correa’s administration has withdrawn from many agreements previous administrations had complied with, such as a treaty which allowed a US Air Force base in Manta. Other actions include shifting debts toward China, expelling the US ambassador, and offering protection to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. These measures had the desired effect; Ecuador’s relationship with the US grew strained.
This increasingly hostile position on foreigners led to even less transnational funding for Ecuador’s environmental NGOs. In fact, President Correa sent a letter to USAID advising them to stop their work in Ecuador, which they did in 2014. As the state grew more powerful, it began to enforce laws that it previously had ignored, which disrupted the work of organizations such as Conservation International. The government’s growing power hurt ecodependent organizations by limiting their already shrinking sources of funding, and by poaching their employees. As time went on, more and more ecodependent workers took government jobs. Eventually, these changes even led to the end of Fundación Natura, which after 35 years couldn’t stay afloat any longer. Although ecoresistors did much better than ecodependents under Correa, as they did not rely on foreign funding, they soon realized that he was not the environmentalist they had hoped/voted for. In many ways, his administration became a problem- the government was the new extractor.
In many Latin American countries, such as Bolivia and Venezuela, the governments have promoted natural resource extraction and used the new revenue for social programs, prioritizing poverty reduction over environmental protection. This plan didn’t go over well in Ecuador, where Correa’s voter base elected him largely because of his pro-environment stance. Correa’s plan to continue large amounts of resource extraction has caused tension between different areas of government as well as between the government and the people. Multiple members of Correa’s administration have left due to internal conflict between ministries. The government has become increasingly authoritarian on some fronts, even declaring that it has the right to dissolve NGOs who do not act in the interest of the nation. President Correa has mocked protestors resisting extraction, and the state has unjustly imprisoned activists, searched their homes without cause, set loose paramilitaries, and has even been suspected of playing a part in killing ecoresistant movement leaders.
I find it extremely disheartening that even President Correa, who was supposed to bring about positive change for Ecuador, is just more of the same when it comes to extraction and corruption. It makes me wonder what would have happened in the US if someone like Bernie Sanders, who had similar campaign promises as Correa, was elected. I doubt he would have turned to the extreme and unsettling tactics that Correa has when his methods of creating change were challenged. Correa’s childish mocking of his opponents, calling them “nobodies”, does however remind me of another US politician- our current president. Despite our country’s many flaws, I’m thankful I live in the United States. Even Trump, who can seemingly recover from anything, wouldn’t get away with some of what Correa has done (although he may want to); commanding paramilitary forces to silence protestors and dissolving organizations that disagree with him are not within his power. However, like Correa, he does seemingly have the power to make extremely unpopular environmental/indigenous rights decisions, such as his reversal of President Obama’s halt on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines (Jones et al., 2017). The construction of these pipelines is the closest, most recognizable event happening in America that can be compared to some of the problems regarding extraction in Ecuador. One (relatively) positive thing that can be said about Trump is that he never claimed to be an environmentalist, unlike Correa. A large part of Correa’s campaign was the promotion of buen vivir/sumak kawsay; his administration even had the concept added to the 2008 constitution. His decision to end the Yasuní Initiative in 2013 solidified his reversal on pro-environmental & indigenous policy in the minds of many (including myself). However, Correa’s high amounts of spending on social programs and infrastructure keep him popular with the majority of citizens; they are willing to turn a blind eye to the environmental injustices his administration commits.
At the start of reading this book, I was thrilled to hear that a progressive leader who cared about both the people and the environment had been elected as Ecuador’s president. The more I read, especially after finishing this chapter, I realized that I had been too optimistic; although his policies sound impressive on paper, they aren’t put into practice. I hope that in the future, the injustices of Correa’s administration are brought to light, and that the people of Ecuador who haven’t yet realized the cost of extraction-driven development are educated on the subject. There is still a lot of work to be done, and I believe that ecoimperialists, ecodependents, and ecoresistors all have a role to play in leading Ecuador toward the path of ecological synthesis and sustainability, and ultimately buen vivir/sumak kawsay.
References
Jones, A., Diamond, J., & Krieg, G. (2017, January 24). Trump advances controversial oil pipelines with executive action. Retrieved September 19, 2017.