Saturday, October 13, 2007

California Becomes First State to Prohibit Landlords From Asking About Tenants' Immigration Status

October 12, 2007.

frankrusso-small.jpg By Frank D. Russo

Governor Schwarzenegger has just signed into law AB 976 by Assemblymember Charles Calderon that will prohibit cities and counties in California from enacting any local ordinances that compels a landlord to inquire, compile, report, or disclose any information about the citizenship or immigration status of a tenant or prospective tenant..

The bill also makes it illegal for any landlord under California state law to "Make any inquiry regarding or based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential rental property." California is the first in the nation to enact such a law.

“Cities do not have the authority to form their own foreign policy. Only the federal government can determine the legal status of any citizen,” Calderon stated. “Local ordinances like the one adopted by the City of Escondido place landlords under serious liability whether they comply with the ordinance or fail to comply with the ordinance. Landlords do not want to be immigration officers; they simply want to make a living.”

Calderon’s measure came in the wake of ordinances passed by cities in California and around the Untied States. The ordinances would have forced landlords to determine the citizenship status of their tenants and evict any tenant who is not a legal resident, or face fines and possible revocation of their business license. Such laws placed landlords in an impossible dilemma: comply with the city ordinance, while violating state and federal law or uphold state and federal law, facing sanctions from the cities. In every instance, however, Federal Judges issued restraining orders against the ordinances on the grounds that they violated constitutional due process and supremacy clauses.

The most recent instance of a court making a finding against these types of ordinances was on July 26th when a U.S. District Court Judge in Pennsylvania issued a decision finding Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s ordinance unconstitutional.

Last year, the City of Escondido adopted an ordinance that would have barred landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants and would have severely penalized landlords who failed to determine the immigration status of tenants and prospective tenants with fines and suspension of business licenses. The ordinance was immediately challenged in federal court by a coalition of civil rights groups on several constitutional grounds, as well as the federal preemption of immigration law, and enforcement of that law. On November 20, 2006, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was obtained against the Escondido ordinance from US District Judge Houston. Following the issuance of the TRO the City and plaintiffs entered into agreement that the ordinance would be rescinded and the city would pay $90,000 to those who brought suit to partially pay for their attorney fees.

Calderon told the committee, "Ordinances like Escondido City unfairly targets people of color. Landlords would target certain individuals that look like or talk like or conduct themselves in a manner that violates law and reason. The bill would clearly define the role of local government in this regard."

AB 976 had the support of a number of progressive groups and those concerned with protecting the rights of immigrants, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Labor Federation, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

But it was sponsored by the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities (AACSC) and a number of other apartment owner groups lobbied for its passage and for the Governor to sign it. Landlords fearing potential liability for racial discrimination and other parts of playing the role of border agents, were the major backers of the bill.

Nevertheless, the measure passed the California State Assembly without a vote to spare, 41-25, and the State Senate 22-13 on straight party line votes with only Democrats in support and all votes against it by Republicans. In light of the court decisions, the absence of any major opposition, and the unity of the apartment owners and immigrant groups in support of AB 976, the lack of a single Republican vote for this measure shows how hard the immigration card is played in Republican politics in California, and Governor Schwarzenegger's break from his own party members on this bill.


SOURCE:

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/california_beco.html

Venezuela and Colombia inaugurate gas pipeline

Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:07pm BST
[-] Text [+]

BALLENAS, Colombia, Oct 12 (Reuters) - Venezuela and Colombia on Friday inaugurated a 140-mile (225-km) natural gas pipeline linking Colombian gas fields to Venezuela's gas-deficient western region.

The pipeline will transport 150 million cubic feet per day of natural gas to Venezuela to boost available supply for state oil company PDVSA and advance Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's regional energy integration efforts.

Chavez, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa met in Colombia's sweltering Guajira province near Venezuela's frontier for a symbolic opening of a valve to start the flow of gas.

"This is the integration we need," said Chavez in a speech following the inauguration.

U.S.-based Chevron Corp (CVX.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Colombian state oil company Ecopetrol in May signed a sales contract with PDVSA to provide the natural gas from fields it operates jointly with Ecopetrol.

Western Venezuela suffers from a shortage of natural gas which restricts development of the nation's petrochemical industry, one of Chavez's top priorities.

It also forces some of PDVSA's facilities, such as the giant 960,000 barrel per day (bpd) Paraguana refining complex, to burn liquid fuels instead of cheaper natural gas.

Venezuela plans to import gas from Colombia for four to seven years and then reverse the flow so that Venezuela would export gas to Colombia as new projects come online.

Venezuelan authorities also plan to expand the line to Central America.

But one local analyst, who asked not to be named to avoid drawing his company into controversy, said PDVSA's ambitious plans for new petrochemical projects make it unlikely that it will be able to export to Colombia.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

CAFTA ratified by razor thin majority in Costa Rican elections

October 10, 2007

Protest electoral fraud
by Guerry Hoddersen

On October 7, Costa Ricans went to the polls to vote on the highly
disputed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the U.S.
The day before the vote, the Bush administration issued a statement
saying it would not extend trade preferences to the country if voters
rejected the treaty. It was the last dirty trick in a long campaign by Bush
and his henchmen in Costa Rica--President Oscar Arias and U.S.
Ambassador Mark Langdale—to mislead and threaten Costa Rican voters.
With 96.3 percent of the vote counted, 51.6 percent of voters backed the
agreement while 48.4 percent opposed it. Voter turnout was 60 percent.
Rural areas voted more strongly against the measure than did the urban
centers. A manual recount of ballots began on Tuesday at the request of
anti-CAFTA forces.

Costa Rica is the first country where a free trade agreement has been put
to a public vote. The extremely narrow margin of victory shows that the
steam has gone out of the free trade engine. (Even the U.S. Congress
only approved CAFTA by a two-vote margin.) Furthermore, this election
has little legitimacy in the eyes of many Costa Ricans or anyone, for that
matter, who has followed this important fight.

Today the Costa Rican government and its U.S. corporate co-conspirators
are celebrating the spoils of their unethical and illegal campaign. A full
account of their tactics--including bribery, blackmail and fear—is found in
"CAFTA referendum in Costa Rica: Dirty tricks and repression
mount as vote nears,"
http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol28no5/28511CAFTA.html.

After this article was published in the Freedom Socialist, a major scandal
broke out over an internal government memo that exposed a high level
campaign to manipulate the outcome of the election. In addition, managers
of public institutions like the National Security Institute brazenly erected
banners promoting a "yes" vote in blatant violation of prohibitions against
using public resources to sway the vote. At the same time, the Institute
imposed a gag order on public employees, teachers, and
university students.

Join them in contesting the outcome of this sham election. Write the head
of the Costa Rican Supreme Elections Tribunal and demand that the
results be invalidated because "yes" votes were obtained through illegal
means and in violation of election laws the tribunal is responsible
for upholding.


Send your letters or emails to:
Luis Antonio Sobrado Gonzalez, President
Tribunal Supremo Elecciones
Apartado Postal: 2163-1000
San José, Costa Rica
Email: sobrado@tse.go.cr
Please send a blind copy of your message to Guerry Hoddersen at
fspnatl@igc.org
___________________________________________________________

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Mayans in Guatemala: No compromise, halt mining

By Brenda Norrell,
Posted on Sun Sep 30th, 2007 at 01:20:32 PM EST
Sipakapa is not for sale, Mayan community turned down corporate mining cash

TUCSON, Ariz. – Gold and silver mining in the Mayan homelands in northern Guatemala, near the border with Chiapas, Mexico, is poisoning the water and explosives are destroying the homes in the rural farming community of Sipakapa, Guatemala.

“While the gold mine is there and operating, there is no solution. The only solution is to stop the mining,” said Mario Tema, Mayan from Sipakapa, during an interview at the Western Mining Action Network Conference in Tucson on Sept. 29.

Goldcorp (formerly Glamis Gold) is mining silver and gold at the open-pit Marlin Mine, between two Mayan communities, Sipakapa and San Miguel Ixtahuacan in the San Marcos highlands.

Speaking through a translator, Tema said, “There is a new mine in Guatemala. It is the first of its kind. It has created many problems in our community, especially social problems.

“The government is supporting the mine politically. It makes our organizing very difficult, because it means people are speaking out not just against the mine, but against the government.”

Tema said the mine has been in operation for two years and is causing impacts, both environmental and social impacts.

“We know there is acid mine drainage in the river. There are heavy metals in the river near one mine site. There are also social impacts from the explosives. People are living 500 meters from the explosives used at the mine and there are cracks in their houses. Now, their roofs are leaking. Seventy-two homes have been damaged. We’re talking about 72 families, with an average of six people in each family.”

“The mining company must take responsibility for helping them repair their homes.”

Tema points out there are 22 different Mayan languages in the region. The mine will not just harm the Sipakapense speaking Mayans in Sipakapa and Mam speaking Mayans in San Miguel, but will affect the entire western highlands region of Guatemala now targeted as a mining district.

MineWatch Canada reports that promoters of the mining industry -- the World Bank, Glamis Gold (now Goldcorp) and the governments of Guatemala, Canada and the United States -- promoted the Marlin mine as a "development" project. In reality, however, the mine is simply a business that enriches an international corporation at the expense of the good development of communities.

After the World Bank’s $45 million loan to Glamis, the government of Guatemala began militarization and repression. On January 11, 2005, the government sent more 1,200 soldiers and 400 police agents to Los Encuentros, Sololá, to protect the passage of a cylinder destined for the Marlin Mine. The State forces used tear gas and bullets against the Kaqchikel brothers and sisters who for weeks had been detaining the transportation of the cylinder in protest. Raúl Castro Bocel was murdered by State security forces and more than 20 were injured.

The gold mining company brought in an Israeli security company, which killed one of the people. In San Miguel Ixtahuacán, on March 23, 2005, an employee of the private Israeli security company hired by Glamis Gold, the Golan Group, shot and killed Alvaro Benigno Sánchez, leaving four children without their father.

In Tucson, Tema said the people in his community of Sipakapa have responded with consultation and an overwhelming “No” vote to mining.

“People are also in conflict with their local authorities. The opposition has taken the form of organizing community consultation. Community members were asked to respond, ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on the issue of mining. The people said ‘No.’”

“But the mining companies try to divide the people. It is always generating more conflict in our community."

In Tema’s community, there are 15,000 people and 92 percent are Mayans, with 8 percent of mixed ancestry. There is no commercial industry and people survive from family farms. Some have cows, but no more than six.

In Tucson, Tema said the benefit of attending the Western Mining Action Network Conference came from sharing with other people impacted by mining and discovering how they are working to halt mining. He particularly learned a great deal from Western Shoshone Carrie Dann, leading the fight for Western Shoshone land rights as corporations seize Shoshone territory in Nevada for nuclear testing and gold mining.

Meanwhile, in Guatemala, elections have been underway. Tema said candidates from the civic committee, born out of resistance to mining, did well in municipal elections. The newly elected officials take office January 15, 2008, for a period of four years.

“We have municipal support. We can make decisions and continue to resist this mining project. We can start to make laws and regulations to protect our territories,” Tema said.

“We can engage in our strength in a legal and political way. We have public power in our hands. We have ‘people power’ to work for the benefit of the people in the community.”

Although activist Rigoberta Menchu did not receive enough votes to remain in the race for President of Guatemala, her effort was celebrated.

“For any Indigenous person to stand up and run for president, it is important. We need to pay attention to it,” Tema said.

“In the case of Rigoberta Menchu, it is an historic event. There has not been an Indigenous person running for president since the establishment of the national government in 1821. There has never been an Indigenous person running for President of Guatemala.”

Meanwhile, MiningWatch Canada reports that the Marlin silver-gold mine was discovered by Francisco Gold and developed by Glamis Gold, through its fully owned subsidiary Montana Exploradora de Guatemala. There has been serious and prolonged protest by Mayan villages in the San Miguel Ixtahuacan, which comprises 19 villages, and Sipacapa, which comprises 13 villages, in Guatemala’s highlands department of San Marcos.

Over the past two years, villages in San Miguel Ixtahuacan have been transformed into an open pit mine, which will eventually encompass five square kilometers. Eighty-five percent of the total expanse of the mine is in San Miguel Ixtahuacan and 15 percent is in Sipacapa.

The municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacan has a population of 39,000, most of whom are Mam Maya farmers who depend on farming to survive. Before production at the mine began, there were numerous protests.

In 2006, Goldcorp predecessor Glamis paid for workers from its Marlin Mine to participate in pro-mining demonstrations.

Two years ago, when residents of Sipacapa heard about the mine, they organized a referendum (Consulta) using the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, which affirms the right of Indigenous communities to be consulted in good faith before industrial activity take place on their lands. The people of Sipacapa voted overwhelming against the mine.

Montana Exploradora de Guatemala filed an unconstitutionality suit, as well as an appeal, against the Consulta in 2005. On May 8, 2007, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court ruled that the Consulta was unconstitutional.

In early 2007, the company offered the municipality a “gift,” of $150,000 CDN. It was refused.

--Goldcorp mining in Indigenous territories in the Americas

Goldcorp has gold mining interests in Indigenous territories, including mines in Canada (Red Lake Complex in northwestern Ontario; Musslewhite in Ontario and Porcupine in northeastern Ontario.)

Goldcorp mining interests include mines in Argentina (Bajo de la Alumbrera), Australia (Peak Gold Mine), Brazil (Amapari mine in the northern state of Anapa), Chile (La Coipa gold and silver mine) Guatemala (Marlin Mine and Cerro Blanco), Dominican Republic (Pueblo Viejo) and Honduras (San Martin Mine.)

In Mexico, Goldcorp’s interest include Los Filos/Bermejal and Nukay mines, both in the state of Guerrero, El Sauzal in Chihuahua in the northern state and Penasquito in Zacatecas.

In the United States, Goldcorp has 66.7 percent interest in the Glamis Marigold Mining Company in Humboldt County, Nevada. Goldcorp owns Wharf open pit gold mine in the Bald Mountain mining district of South Dakota.

The Imperial Project is a proposed open pit gold mining operation in the Imperial Valley in southern California. The Quechan Nation is battling Goldcorp/Glamis Gold over the proposed open pit cyanide leaching gold operation, which would violate their sacred Spirit Trail and a wilderness area.

Please see first in series: "Peru’s Indigenous Peoples arise in defense of Earth from mining"

http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com/

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Blueprint for Future Vieques Cleanup Proposed

Contact Information: Elizabeth Totman (212) 637-3662, totman.elizabeth@epa.gov or Brenda Reyes (787) 977-5869, reyes.brenda@epa.gov

(New York, NY) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has signed a proposed federal facility inter-agency agreement (FFA) with several agencies and jurisdictions for the cleanup work on the Island of Vieques in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The proposed agreement is between EPA, the U.S. Department of Navy, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Commonwealth. The agencies will take input from the public on the agreement for 45 days and make any necessary adjustments before finalizing it.

“Work has been proceeding at the site, but reaching an agreement with all the parties involved is a significant milestone,” said Regional Administrator Alan J. Steinberg. “The federal government agencies and the Commonwealth are on the same page on how we will move forward, and that will undoubtedly help in cleaning up this site to the benefit of all involved.”

The agreement requires that the environmental impacts associated with past and present activities on Vieques be thoroughly investigated and that the appropriate actions are taken in order to protect the surrounding community and the environment. The agreement will facilitate cooperation, exchange of information, and participation of all the parties involved.

“The Department of the Navy is committed to completing the cleanup of Vieques Island to support its intended future uses,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Donald R. Schregardus. “Completion of this Federal Facility Agreement marks a major milestone in defining the process by which the Navy will work in partnership with EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the Commonwealth to achieve our common goals.”

Carlos W. Lopez Freytes, President of the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, said, “The Agreement represents an achievement for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico because it guarantees the involvement of the Environmental Quality Board, as co-regulators, on the decision-making process of the cleanup. Our agency is truly committed to having an active participation in order to ensure that the concerns of the community of Vieques are addressed, the local regulations are followed and the cleanup is fair and comprehensive.”

Unexploded ordnance and remnants of exploded ordnance, which contain hazardous substances, have been identified in the former range areas of the eastern portion of the Vieques site, as well as in the surrounding waters. Extensive work has been performed to assess the conditions at the Vieques site as a whole, and today’s proposed agreement lays out the process for further investigation and cleanup.

"We are proud to be part of this team of professionals cleaning up lands in Vieques and restoring the natural environment," said Sam Hamilton, Southeast Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "It is our responsibility to ensure that the refuge is cleared of contaminants and hazards that could pose a threat to wildlife, residents, staff or visitors. We will continue to work with the community and our fellow agencies in this monumental effort."
The U.S. Navy began using Vieques, in conjunction with Roosevelt Roads Naval Station on mainland Puerto Rico, in the early years of World War II, as a base for Allied fleets. Land was acquired in the eastern and western portions of Vieques between 1941 and 1943, with further acquisitions occurring during the late 1940s.

On the western portion of Vieques, the Navy operated an ammunition facility until1948, when the facility ceased operations. It was reactivated in 1962 until its final closure in 2001. Later in that year, the Navy transferred 3,100 acres to the Department of Interior, 4,000 acres to the Municipality of Vieques, and 800 acres to the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust.

The Navy also managed approximately 14,600 acres on the eastern portion of Vieques, which were used for amphibious training exercises and air-to-ground maneuvers. This portion of the island included a waste explosive detonation range, which was operated for many years in support of its training activities. Military training on the eastern section of Vieques ceased in 2003 when the Navy transferred that portion to the Department of the Interior.

In February 2005, the Vieques Island site was placed on EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL), which aims to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation. The NPL is a list of the most hazardous waste sites in the country.

For a copy of the proposed agreement, to send comments to EPA about the agreement, or for more information on Vieques, visit http://www.epa.gov/region02/vieques/
07-114

Mistake costs dishwasher $59,000

Guatemala native Pedro Zapeta a dishwasher in the U.S. for 11 years
From John Zarrella and Patrick Oppmann
CNN

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- For 11 years, Pedro Zapeta, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, lived his version of the American dream in Stuart, Florida: washing dishes and living frugally to bring money back to his home country.

Two years ago, Zapeta was ready to return to Guatemala, so he carried a duffel bag filled with $59,000 -- all the cash he had scrimped and saved over the years -- to the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

But when Zapeta tried to go through airport security, an officer spotted the money in the bag and called U.S. customs officials.

"They asked me how much money I had," Zapeta recalled, speaking to CNN in Spanish.

He told the customs officials $59,000. At that point, U.S. customs seized his money, setting off a two-year struggle for Zapeta to get it back.

Zapeta, who speaks no English, said he didn't know he was running afoul of U.S. law by failing to declare he was carrying more than $10,000 with him. Anyone entering or leaving the country with more than $10,000 has to fill out a one-page form declaring the money to U.S. customs.

Officials initially accused Zapeta of being a courier for the drug trade, but they dropped the allegation once he produced pay stubs from restaurants where he had worked. Zapeta earned $5.50 an hour at most of the places where he washed dishes. When he learned to do more, he got a 25-cent raise.

After customs officials seized the money, they turned Zapeta over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS released him but began deportation proceedings. For two years, Zapeta has had two attorneys working pro bono: one on his immigration case, the other trying to get his money back.

"They are treating me like a criminal when all I am is a working man," he said.
Zapeta's story became public last year on CNN and in The Palm Beach Post newspaper, prompting well-wishers to give him nearly $10,000 -- money that now sits in a trust.

Robert Gershman,one of Zapeta's attorneys, said federal prosecutors later offered his client a deal: He could take $10,000 of the original cash seized, plus $9,000 in donations as long as he didn't talk publicly and left the country immediately.

Zapeta said, "No." He wanted all his money. He'd earned it, he said.

Now, according to Gershman, the Internal Revenue Service wants access to the donated cash to cover taxes on the donations and on the money Zapeta made as a dishwasher. Zapeta admits he never paid taxes.

CNN contacted the U.S. Attorneys office in Miami, U.S. Customs and the IRS about Zapeta's case. They all declined to comment.

Marisol Zequeira, an immigration lawyer, said illegal immigrants such as Zapeta have few options when dealing with the U.S. government.

"When you are poor, uneducated and illegal, your avenues are cut," he said.

On Wednesday, Zapeta went to immigration court and got more bad news. The judge gave the dishwasher until the end of January to leave the country on his own. He's unlikely to see a penny of his money.

"I am desperate," Zapeta said. "I no longer feel good about this country."

Zapeta said his goal in coming to the United States was to make enough money to buy land in his mountain village and build a home for his mother and sisters. He sent no money back to Guatemala over the years, he said, and planned to bring it all home at once.

At Wednesday's hearing, Zapeta was given official status in the United States -- voluntary departure -- and a signed order from a judge. For the first time, he can work legally in the U.S.

By the end of January, Zapeta may be able to earn enough money to pay for a one-way ticket home so the U.S. government, which seized his $59,000, doesn't have to do so.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/immigrant.money/index.html

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Bolivian President Evo Morales on Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Iraq,

Bolivian President Evo Morales on Indigenous Rights, Climate Change, Iraq,
Establishing Diplomatic Relations with Iran, Che Guevara's Legacy and More

Democracy Now!
September 26, 2007

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/26/1442242

AMY GOODMAN: Today, a Democracy Now! special: We spend the hour with Evo
Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. He traveled to New York
this week, where he's scheduled to speak before the United Nations General
Assembly today. On Monday, he addressed a high-level UN meeting on climate
change, during which he accused what he called "predatory capitalism" of
affecting the environment.

Evo Morales first spoke before the UN General Assembly last year, where he
dramatically brandished a coca leaf and vowed never to yield to US pressure
to criminalize coca production. Morales's rise to power began with his
leadership of the coca growers union in Bolivia and his high-profile
opposition to the US-funded eradication of the coca crop. He helped to lead
the street demonstrations by Indian and union groups that toppled the
country's last two presidents.

An Aymara Indian, Evo Morales became the country's first indigenous
president when he was elected nearly two years ago with more popular support
than any Bolivian leader in decades. Since then, he has moved to nationalize
Bolivia's oil and gas industry and is seeking a new constitution that would
grant more power to Bolivia's indigenous majority.

Today, we spend the hour with Evo Morales, talking about indigenous rights,
biofuels, the Iraq war, establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, and the
enduring legacy of Che Guevara on Latin America. Democracy Now!'s Juan
Gonzalez and I sat down with President Morales at the Bolivian mission here
in New York. I began by asking President Morales what his message is this
year to the UN General Assembly.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Last year was our first experience, my
first time at the United Nations, as well as my first time in the United
States. And as the coca leaf stands for and is symbolic of the struggle of
the peoples for land and for their sovereignty, so last time I was here, it
was my responsibility to talk about how it is that I came to become
president of Bolivia.

But today, the most important thing is to talk about the changes that we're
forging in democracy through this cultural and democratic revolution in my
country and at the same time share my enormous concern and to talk about
things that are not just a regional or a local problem, but a global
problem, and that's the environment.

JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the things that has happened, changes, obviously, is
that just a few days ago, more than a week ago, the United Nations General
Assembly passed an important declaration in terms of indigenous rights.
Article 34, specifically, says that indigenous peoples have rights to
promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their
customs. How important is this to Bolivia in the current writing of the new
constitution that you're involved in now?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, we'd like to salute, thank
and recognize the countries of the world that approved and voted for this
Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, just as fifty, sixty years
ago, the United Nations for the first time recognized the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. And it's only now, over 500 years later, that
indigenous people's rights are being recognized. Happily, there were only a
few countries that didn't support this declaration.

And so, I want to say to the indigenous peoples, but also to the other
peoples who live in the cities, that this is a very important thing that the
struggle for indigenous people's rights has not been in vain. And it was
very important to get organized to mobilize. It took over twenty years, but,
working together, people were able to do this, to approve this declaration
and establish that we are people that have rights just like anyone else on
earth.

In some cases, it will be to recognize the rights of minorities in some
countries, this declaration. In my country, it's to make sure that the
majority is respected, and it will be respect for their institutions, for
their structures. And this is an important contribution to unity within our
country, but not because we have a declaration behind us recognized by the
United Nations. It's important that, even though this declaration exists,
that doesn't mean that we, as the majority, are going to be vengeful or use
this as the majority.

I want you all to know, through the means of communication like yourself, I
want the people of the United States and the people of the world to
understand that the indigenous movement is not vengeful. We want to live
together, respecting the difference and the diversity that we have. Some of
the people in our country, when they saw that this declaration that came out
that's not just a declaration recognizing indigenous peoples, but also right
to land, to self-determination, they think that we're going to take a
vengeful attitude, and I'm here to say never.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think the message was of the four countries that
voted no: Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] It will be important for not the
countries, but the people who lead those countries, their ambassadors, their
leaders, to reflect and to embrace a recognition of indigenous people's
rights. I'm convinced that indigenous peoples are the moral reserve of
humanity. So amongst indigenous peoples, there's not a mentality of being
individualist, personalist or egotistical, and therefore there's not an
attitude of trying to take over resources and control them for themselves.
How nice it would be if those four countries, or better, for the presidents
of those four countries, and along with the social forces, and especially
the indigenous peoples, join together to save humanity.

JUAN GONZALEZ: But in practical terms, implementing this in your country is
obviously creating many issues. You have thirty-six different nationalities
among the native people. And the battle now, the constitutional battle over
whether you're going to have provincial autonomy or autonomy for these
indigenous nations, how will that work itself out?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, dialogue and concerting,
coming together. You're right, though, when you recognize that there are
some small groups in my country that still don't recognize exclusion and
racism as it exists in our country. And that's why I call on the countries
that not only supported this declaration, but also the countries that didn't
support this declaration, to come together and move forward to recognizing
indigenous people's rights, but without excluding anyone.

My government will guarantee departmental or state-level autonomies, but
also local-level autonomies and indigenous people's autonomies. A lot will
depend on the specificities of these different regions. Sometimes there will
be regional autonomies and local autonomies; sometimes there will be
regional autonomies, as well as indigenous autonomies. And we'll have to
figure out how these different autonomies are going to work together. When
we made our initial demands as indigenous, original peoples, there were
people who reacted to and rejected our demands. But I want to tell these
people now -- and some people are originally from a place that dates back to
a thousand years, some are much more contemporary, but we all have to learn
how to live together.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. We'll come back to our
conversation in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with the president of Bolivia,
Evo Morales. He's addressing the United Nations General Assembly today. On
Monday, he addressed a high-level UN meeting on climate change. Over eighty
world leaders attended; President Bush did not. In it, Evo Morales spoke in
his speech on Monday about referring to the need to prevent industrialized
nations with their gas emissions from continuing harming the planet.

Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with President Morales at the
Bolivian mission. Juan asked President Morales about the issue of biofuels.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask you about the message that you're going to be
bringing to the United Nations, as well, over the issue of the use of
agricultural products for biofuels, that clearly in Brazil President Lula
has a different perspective. He is promoting the use of biofuels. What is
your perspective on this issue?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] From the time that biofuels were first
talked about, we've seen a spiraling process of speculation of land. There's
a whole speculation on grains like wheat, not only at the regional level
within countries, but also internationally. So, therefore, the cost of
agricultural products rises. And this is a product of that moment from
which, going forward, people have been talking about biofuels.

And personally, in our movement, as well, we're convinced that agricultural
products should not be dedicated, directed towards automobiles, cars, and
that lands be dedicated towards old rusted vehicles. First to people, before
automobiles. And that's our difference.

And we want to debate this, but we don't want to debate it just as
governments or presidents. We want to debate with our peoples, with the
social forces in our countries, and I would even dare to say, at the South
American regional level, submit this to a referendum of the peoples of South
America and let the people say yes or no to different biofuels. This is
something I've learned from Subcomandante Marcos, from his messages -- that
is, to govern obeying the people. That means to govern, but respecting the
different proposals that social forces put on the table, because sometimes
when a proposal is put on the table between presidents, arguments arise, and
this can even generate confusion amongst people sometimes. And that's why I
consider it to be very important that people decide with their votes in a
referendum about what the future biofuels is going to be. That would be the
most democratic thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, you've just established diplomatic relations
with Iran. When the Iranian President Ahmadinejad leaves the United Nations
General Assembly, New York, this week, he will first go to Bolivia. Why did
you establish diplomatic relations?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, it's important our peoples
are from the culture of dialogue, so we have diplomatic relations with the
United States, we have diplomatic relations with Cuba, just as we have
diplomatic relations with France and with Iran, but, above all, diplomatic
relations for life, for humanity, for peace with social justice.

In my country, we're going to be opening commercial and diplomatic relations
to establish relationships of complementarity so that we can resolve the
social and economic problems that we confront. We're never going to
establish diplomatic relations to wage aggression or to hurt or to declare
wars or to get involved in arms races. We're not of the culture of death.

Moreover, I respect the technology, the industrial development in the area
of gas and oil in Iran, and that's what we've seen as interesting, that we
can work together on these issues. And I'd like to agree with you. We
haven't ever thought about other issues in our relations. As far as I know,
it's not a country that's sending troops to end other people's lives in
other countries. And I admire Cuba very much, for example, which sends
people to other countries to help save lives.

AMY GOODMAN: Just to follow up on that point, has the United States weighed
in? Has the United States responded to your diplomatic relations with Iran?
And what do you think of the US talking about perhaps attacking Iran?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] The United States, nor any other
country, can observe or comment or have anything to say about the
relationships that we have with any other countries. We're a small country,
but we're a sovereign country with dignity, with the right to establish
relations with whoever we want. If the United States government reacts, if
they would have reacted, it would suggest that they are still thinking that
Latin American countries need to be subordinate to the United States. But
happily, in Latin America, there are countries with democracies that are
liberating democracies, not subordinate democracies.

AMY GOODMAN: Your vice president has denounced US funding of rightwing think
tanks in Bolivia as intervening in internal affairs of your country.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Former ministers and vice minister of
the government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, who, as you know, escaped to
the United States, and the former President Banzer, who, may he rest in
peace, as well as former President Tutu Quiroga, these former ministers are
financed through foundations, NGOs, to create this counterweight to the
government of Evo Morales. It's impressive. And what we're asking for is
that all international cooperation be transparent, that it come through
formally the central government.

AMY GOODMAN: What are those groups pushing for?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, these neoliberals, the
rightwing organizations, the ones who sold out the country, as we say in
Bolivia, is to exhaust the image of Evo Morales especially. And so, if they
have objected, if they want to exhaust Evo Morales, it's to be done with the
government of Evo Morales. And these things circulated on the internet, then
pamphlets, [inaudible]; verbatim they say, "We have to overthrow this Indian
(and leave that blank)," because I can't repeat those words on the radio.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask you about the student protests that broke out
recently there and the continuing battle over writing a new constitution.
It's been more than thirteen months, and the Constituent Assembly, I
understand, now is going to start meeting again. But the battle, especially
over this issue of the capital for Bolivia, what is the significance of the
battle over whether Sucre or La Paz should be the capital of Bolivia?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Bolivia was founded in 1825, and the
people who were participating, they were only 8% of the population; they
were all mestizos or criollos. But who fought for the independence from
Spain? It was that other 92%; it was the indigenous peoples. So we proposed
to re-found the country, indigenous peoples, non-indigenous peoples,
professional peoples, nonprofessional peoples, but to transform the country.
Therefore, there are sectors that are seeking to undermine or make sure that
the Constituent Assembly fails.

The enemies of this deep structural transformation that we're pursuing, some
of them have entered, are members of the Constituent Assembly, and they've
been working from the very beginning, when the Constituent Assembly started
on 6th of August, 2006, to undermine the process through the demand for
two-thirds, the demand for autonomy, and now the demand to move the capital
of the country.

This issue of where the capital is going to be located is not a national
issue. It's not a problem for the government. It's an issue for just two
departments. And there are families that don't love their country and who
are not working for the majorities, who are working for those people who
have not been respected, the indigenous majorities, they're talking about
where the capital is going to be located as a tool to shut down the
Constituent Assembly.

But what are we working for? What are we betting on? First, as the
government and also as the indigenous movement, to make sure that the
Constituent Assembly concludes successfully. It's the best way to find
unity, equality and justice, to forge that in my country.

And I would like to remember the words of a businessman, actually, from
Bolivia. What did he say before the Constituent Assembly? "I'd rather have
rocks in my door than bullets." What does that mean? That I would rather
have these sorts of popular demonstrations and protests happening than a
civil war, a fighting war with bullets.

And now, so that we have neither the protests nor the shooting war with
bullets, we're pursuing this deep structural transformation through a
democratic process, which is the Constituent Assembly. How are we doing
this? Through the creation of writing a new constitution for the country.

Of course, it's going to be difficult to have equality, but to make those
differences between people smaller is possible. Early in the process, only
weeks into the process, they said that Evo Morales was not going to respect
private property. That was another attack, another attempt to undermine and
cause the Constituent Assembly to fail. With the powerful people above, what
we're trying to do is lift up the people, the humble people, from below,
through using the strategic natural resources that we have to put them on a
more equal footing.

And the other thing that they can't accept is, how is it that what they call
the Indians, that they feel for the country and they're working for their
people and that this Indian is governing well? This is something they can't
tolerate. Two facts: the last time that Bolivia had a budget surplus was in
the 1960s during a boom, a tin boom, and we've been over sixty years always
with a fiscal deficit. Last year, for the first time, in my first year of
government, we have a budget surplus, and Bolivia's international reserves
never were more than $1 billion. And this year we're approaching $5 billion
in international reserves. And the modification of the hydrocarbons gas and
oil law, which cost us blood, thereafter the nationalization of gas and oil,
has allowed Bolivia to improve our revenues, the revenues for the country.
An example: in 2005, Bolivia only received $300 million -- $300 million in
2005 in revenues from state gas and oil, and this year we're going to be
receiving more than $2 billion in revenues from gas and oil. And this is
something they can't accept.

A political class, for them, government was business. It was enrichment.
What they can't accept is that our corruption in Bolivia has been declining.
In the past, Bolivia was considered in the number two position in terms of
the championship for the most corrupt country. Many international
institutions have recognized that corruption is on the decline in Bolivia.
And what these groups don't accept is that this -- what they call an
"Indian" can change Bolivia, bring dignity to Bolivia.

And in this situation, some sectors are talking about the re-election of Evo
Morales, and so this is something that would have to be become
constitutionally permitted. But what do the right, the neoliberal, the
opposition, say to this? And they say we can negotiate anything, but not the
re-election of this Indian. This is the problem. It's not a problem of where
the capital of the country is located. And, of course, they never liked
groups like the ones that you make reference to that will travel from Santa
Cruz to Sucre to agitate, to stir up these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. We'll return to the conclusion,
where he talks about the war in Iraq and the legacy of Che Guevara. Stay
with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our conversation with the Bolivian President Evo
Morales. The Bolivian Supreme Court recently asked the government to start
extradition proceedings for the former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de
Lozada, who lives here in the United States in Miami. They also asked for an
order for him not to be allowed to go to another country, but to be sent
back to Bolivia. I asked President Morales what the former president is
guilty of and whether he thinks the United States will extradite him.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, the United States cannot,
should not receive, protect delinquents from any part of the world. It is
unconscionable that the United States, a democratic country, would be
protecting international criminals like Posada Carriles. The process has to
do with two issues: first of all, human rights, and second of all, for
economic damages done to the state. So people who massacre peoples, that
violate human rights and do economic damage to countries and their economies
have to go to jail. The United States shouldn't be sitting there waiting for
a process to be put into motion, but rather should kick these people out so
that they can be submitted to justice.

I hope the United States respects these norms and respects the decision of
our Supreme Court. But here, we have an experience. The last military
dictator was sent to jail. And since that time, in Bolivia, no member of the
military dares to threaten a coup d'etat. Likewise, any democratic
government that violates human rights, that massacres people or that does
economic damage to the state should also be subject to these sorts of
processes, and their leaders should be put in jail, so that they never dare
to do it again either.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you said a few moments ago that you'd rather
have protesters throwing rocks than using guns. In a few weeks, it will be
the fortieth anniversary of the death of Che Guevara. He died in Bolivia.
Looking back at it -- you were a child then -- what is your sense of the
legacy of Che Guevara to the people of Latin America?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] First of all, in the '40s, in the '50s,
in the '60s -- of course, when I hadn't been born yet -- my first perception
was that people rose up in arms to struggle against the empire. Now, I see
quite the opposite, that it's the empire that's raising up arms against the
peoples. What I think is that back then, that the peoples, they got
organized and struggled, looking for justice, for equality. And now I think
that these transformations, these structural transformations, are being
forged through democracies.

And from these two points of view, Che Guevara continues to be a symbol of
someone who gave his life for the peoples, when in Bolivia and in other
countries around the world reigned military dictatorships. So that's why
it's amazing to see that all over the world Che Guevara is still there,
forty years later. But now, we're living in other times. But to value and
recognize that thinking, that struggle, and if we recognize and we value it,
that doesn't mean it means to mechanically follow the steps that he took in
terms of military uprising.

And that's where, for example, I respect Fidel Castro. In 2003, I was
invited to a conference in Havana, Cuba. And Fidel said the following:
"Don't do what I've done. Do what Chavez is doing: transformations through a
constituent assembly." I think it was a good teaching, because we've seen
the constituent assemblies in Venezuela, in Ecuador and now in Bolivia, as
well, that through democracy we can achieve structural transformations.

AMY GOODMAN: What is the effect of the war on Iraq in Latin America, in
Bolivia, in particular?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] There is a feeling that leads to the
rejection, the repudiation of the United States government. This
intervention of the United States in Iraq helps anti-imperialist thinking
and feeling to grow. The pretext of fighting against terrorism and for
security, with this pretext, they intervene and create all these deaths. But
there are also other issues, economic issues, underlying it. I feel that
we're in a times of not looking to how to extinguish lives, but rather how
to save lives.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask you about the issue of global warming. It's
become a major increasing discussion in many governments and around the
world. From the perspective of the indigenous people of Bolivia, the future
of the planet? And what policies must be adopted, especially by the
industrialized countries?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] So if globalization does not admit
difference and pluralism, if it's a selective globalization, therefore it
will be almost impossible to resolve environmental issues and save humanity.
The most important contribution that indigenous peoples can make is to live
in harmony with Mother Earth. We say the "Mother Earth," because the earth
gives us life, and neither the Mother Earth nor life can be a commodity. So
we're talking about a profound change in the economic models and systems.

AMY GOODMAN: Several years ago, Father Roy Bourgeois and others who founded
the anti-School of the Americas movement at Fort Benning, Georgia, asked
that -- came and visited you in the palace and asked that Bolivia not send
soldiers to train at the -- what used to be called the School of the
Americas, a place where Banzer, the dictator, had trained. Other countries
are considering this ban. I think Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica
have said they won't send soldiers. Will Bolivia?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] So, it's not just a question of not
sending people. Perhaps it would be better to shut the School of the
Americas. But I understand it's also part of the survival and continuation
of [inaudible] and to create a certain interventionist mindset.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask you perhaps a delicate question. You
mentioned earlier your admiration for Fidel Castro. Fidel, before he stepped
down, had been president for more than forty years, before he stepped down
from day-to-day administration in the Cuban government. President Chavez now
has been in office for two terms and is seeking to change the law to
maintain himself in office. Do you think that the leader of a country, no
matter how progressive, should have a limited amount of time in power?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] To put those kinds of limits may not be
the most democratic. Here, what's important is the conscience of a people.
And so, our proposal, there has to be a way to revoke leadership roles, but
also to ratify leadership, and this is for mayors, for governors, for
regional leaders, as well as for presidents. If they have the support of the
people, then they have every right to be ratified in power. And mayors,
governors and presidents, they can also be revoked, their mandates can be
revoked before they finish their terms, if that's the will of the people. In
fact, I'm seeing at this point that, through ratifying and returning people
to power, it actually becomes an incentive for them to do a good -- and
continue to do a good and better job in their municipalities at the
departmental levels in the positions that they hold, because the people have
valued their work, and that's why they're ratified. But when they are not
ratified, they take advantage of that fact, and they say, "OK, I'm on my way
out the door, so now is the time to steal, as my mandate is ending."

AMY GOODMAN: What is your assessment of President Bush?

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] Why would I have to evaluate President
Bush? I respect your country. One concern that I have is that in Iran -- in
Iraq, the massacre of the people cannot continue. I think that this is
something that not only affects President Bush, but affects all the North
American people. I think that in this new millennium, we fundamentally
should be oriented towards saving lives and not ending lives. The
differences continentally between countries, between regions, these should
be discussed. And if there's not agreements between governments and their
presidents, why not submit these issues to the peoples to be decided upon?
This would be the best way to do democracy now.

AMY GOODMAN: Bolivian President Evo Morales. He speaks today to the UN
General Assembly.