My brother works with indigenous people in Ecuador to help them defend themselves against the depredations of oil companies, including Occidental. I sent him the letter from the U'Wa lawyer criticizing Nader. This is his response. It is very well informed, detailed, balanced and thoughtful. I STRONGLY encourage those who found the initial letter persuasive to read it in full and to forward it to others who may be wondering about this issue.
One thing I'll say for Nader's candidacy: without it, thousands of conversations like this one never would have happened. That's a form of political change that can't be measured in votes.
Davis Oldham daviso at u.washington.edu
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:47:32 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Oldham <jboNS at hampshire.edu> To: Davis Oldham <daviso at u.washington.edu> Subject: Re: U'Wa lawyer: vote for Gore to advance their cause (fwd)
Thanks for sending this letter. It is important because the U'Wa situation, beyond being a very real case of 21st century genocide, has become a symbol of the struggle for cultural survival world wide. Adler's use of the U'Wa raises serious questions that need to be answered, particularly since his emotionally charged argument makes it easy for the reader to miss the rainforest in favor of a few trees.
First of all, to claim that Gore has taken significant action on behalf of the U'Wa is laughable. Directing Madeline Albright to "pressure the Colombian government for justice for the U'Wa" and returning telephone calls and trying to "come up with a solution" has done little or nothing for the U'Wa who have seen children killed as peaceful protests are broken up and who can expect to see the first test well drilled this year in the land they have been fighting to save. The fact is that the Clinton Gore administration's real position was made clear when agreed to support Colombian President Pastrana's "Plan Colombia" to the tune of $1.3 billion, mostly military aid. (Money to the same army that removed the U'Wa protesters). Somehow that seems to send a clearer message to the Colombian government than any undefined pressure from Albright.
The U'Wa have consistently condemned both sides in Colombia's ongoing guerrilla war and the current escalation funded by the U.S. is not in their interest or that of any of the other indigenous people of the region. Which leads to a second point. A narrow focus on the U'Wa case, however compelling, misses the point that indigenous people throughout the Amazon region (and the rest of the world) face increasing pressure on their land and culture as multinationals in league with local governments, and backed by the world's superpower, take control of more and more territories to extract short term profits and satisfy consumer demand in the US and Europe. The continued support of foreign policies based on corporate interests, and military solutions to conflicts, are what are really responsible for the on-going genocide. And Gore (Nafta, free trade, increased military spending, "Plan Colombia" and so on), is not significantly different from Bush on these issues. Gore and Bush do differ on the Alaska oil fields. So if Gore cares about the U'Wa, why doesn't he take the same sort of stand on drilling in Indigenous people's territories. And if he is so good on the environment, why is the U.S. funding indiscriminate spraying of the pesticide Round-up in the Amazonian rainforest as part of the "war on drugs"? (Drift has taken some of these chemicals across the border to Ecuador so poor people there too are seeing trees and crops die and sickness in their communities). And why has this administration proposed releasing a genetically modified fungus into the Amazon, (aimed at coca crops but no one knows what else it might kill)? This is environmentalism? This is good for the U'Wa?
Regarding Adler's critique of Nader's apparent hypocrisy, the first thing to say is that it should be taken seriously. If Nader does own stock in Occidental through his Fidelity investments (something I have little reason to doubt) then he should be challenged on two counts. First, he SHOULD be supporting campaign to save the U'Wa's territory by adding to the pressure on Fidelity (the largest investor in Occidental) to take their money out of Occidental and second, because if he were to publicly take his money out of Fidelity (and thus out of Occidental) it would both help publicize the U'Wa case and be a great opportunity to challenge Gore to do the same.
However, no one should make the mistake of thinking Nader's connection to Occidental is in any way equivalent to Gore's. The former is an investor, through a fund manager, while the latter owes much political career to the company and its founder Armand Hammer. His family owns stocks directly in Occidental, he receives campaign donations from them ($500,000 since he became VP), and he gets a big income (half a million dollars a year) from royalties on land he got from OXY and now lets them lease to mine zinc.
Basically, the difference between Gore and Bush seems to be the good cop, bad cop difference. Both with continue foreign policies that support corporate interests, both will support military spending and military solutions to conflict, but while Bush will support big oil and industry unapologetically, Gore will occasionally set limits (Alaska) and will listen to lawyers or well funded environmental groups with very specific concerns. He might even act on one or two that aren't too far reaching. Nader, however, is the only candidate I see who addresses the root causes (corporate and military) of the cultural and environmental destruction in Latin America and elsewhere. His is not a spoiler candidacy, it is an important opportunity to propose and work for policies that put human rights, for the U'Wa and everyone else, over corporate interests.
I hope that you will share this answer with those who have seen Adler's letter, so I will end by saying a bit about myself. I have been working with the Secoya, an indigenous nation in Ecuador, since 1996, as they have faced the same pressures for oil development that the U'Wa have. I have helped the Secoya develop their own impact analysis of oil development, provided technical assistance to oppose illegal agreements for oil activities, and sat with indigenous leaders at a negotiating table with Occidental and Government officials to insist on traditional territorial and cultural rights. Like Adler, I will continue after the U.S. elections to help indigenous communities defend their rights against multinationals. Unlike Adler, I do not feel I am working alone; I know I am part of a movement of environmentalists, human rights workers, grass roots community groups here and abroad, students, unionists, and even some lawyers; I hope and anticipate that Nader's strong showing next week will advance our work and make change somewhat easier.
Jim Oldham
joldham at hampshire.edu
413-559-5692
>
>"If you live in a state where the race is close, don't even think of
>voting for Nader to help the U'Wa tribe he so righteously hides behind.
>You won't be helping them. Instead, you'll be sacrificing the tribe's
>best interests for Ralph Nader's. And the U'Wa won't owe you their
>thanks. You'll owe them your apology."
>
>The full letter follows:
>
>Why I won't vote for Ralph Nader, by Spencer Adler
>
>(October 31, 2000) Three years ago, I heard the story of a tribe from
>the cloud forest of Colombia -- five thousand people threatening to leap
>off a cliff in mass suicide if oil drilling took place on their land.
>
>Their plight moved me, and I got involved. I was the original attorney
>who took up their case against Occidental Petroleum, of Los Angeles. I
>wrote the shareholder resolution against the company, and spoke at the
>annual shareholder meetings on their behalf. Last year, I was horrified
>when three Americans working on the case were kidnapped in Colombia, and
>murdered. As it happens, Al Gore's family has long-standing ties to
>Occidental, for which Ralph Nader has loudly criticized the vice
>president, pleading with environmentalists to vote for himself, instead.
>
>When his campaign began, Nader promised not to be the spoiler -- not to
>pull away from Gore the critical votes that might tip the balance in any
>swing state. Unfortunately, that's exactly what he's doing -- targeting
>the undecided voters in the undecided states in one of the closest races>
>in history. Despite the fact that Nader himself owns Occidental stock
>through his Fidelity investments, much of his anti-Gore rhetoric focuses
>on the vice president's Occidental connection.
>
>Nader's campaign now has every chance to lose the election for Al Gore.
>In fact, the republicans recognize this vulnerability, and have hired a
>Washington public relations firm to place Nader ads in crucial undecided
>markets.
>
>Once this election is behind us, most of the people who today are
>impassioned over the U'Wa cause will move on. Ralph Nader will move on.
>The
>voters will move on. I, on the other hand, will lobby either the Gore
>team or the Bush team, depending upon who wins. Gore in the past has
>directed Madeline Albright to pressure the Colombian government for
>justice for the U'Wa, and I'm convinced that if he wins the election, he
>will do more. His team is far from perfect. But they'll return my calls
>and try to come up with a solution. Bush's team won't. Ralph Nader
>claims there is no difference between the candidates. But from my
>perspective, this difference is as big as the rainforest itself.
>
>If you live in a state where the vote is a foregone conclusion, you may
>want to vote for Nader to make a point. Or you may want to help the
>Green Party get the five percent of the vote they'll need to get federal
>funding four years from now. But if you live in a state where the race
>is close, don't even think of voting for Nader to help the U'Wa tribe he
>so righteously hides behind. You won't be helping them. Instead, you'll
>be sacrificing the tribe's best interests for Ralph Nader's. And the
>U'Wa won't owe you their thanks. You'll owe them your apology.
> > (Spencer Adler is an attorney in private practice in Washington, DC. His
>phone number is (202) 463-8600. He is available for comment to the
>media.)
>
>The Law Office of Spencer Adler, P.L.L.C
>a professional limited liability company
>1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 350
>Washington, DC 20037
>(202) 463-8600
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.