| Información |  | |
Derechos | Equipo Nizkor
| ||
| Información | | |
Derechos | Equipo Nizkor
| ||
23May13
Contextual analysis of the discourse of the "El Pais" newspaper against the Guaranis of the APGIG, owners of the TCO Itika Guasu
On 20th May 2013, the Tarija newspaper "El País" published a communiqué of ours dated 1st May 2013. It is the first time that it has done so without (our) having to pay for its publication. Nevertheless, as the hand-out has to have a price, the newspaper issued another article which yet again, included falsehoods and half-truths and took information out of context. To make it simpler to understand this, we publish here at the end of our commentary, the complete text of that article which was entitled "APGIG and Nizkor accuse Roberto Ruiz and Walter Ferrufino, whom they describe as nefarious".
We will try here to clarify what this manipulation consists of, as it is an inherent feature of the journalistic style of this newspaper.
Walter Ferrufino Lino Condori Roberto Ruiz I) The article commences with the following information:
"Another strategic project for Tarija, the construction of the Entre Ríos-Palos Blancos road, to which Evo Morales' government has committed 85 million dollars, is opposed by the Assembly of the Guarani People of Itika Guasu (APGIG), advised by the NGO Nizkor, which is not registered nor does it have authorizations to operate in Bolivia."
This "strategic project" for Tarija is simply to pave the Entre Ríos - Palos Blancos route, a road which was constructed by the Army for the purposes of the Chaco war and never previously paved and which is, together with the Tarija - Entre Ríos road, one of the most dangerous highways in the world. Therefore, the use of the word "construction" is simply false.
The Government of Evo Morales has promised to pave it, not to construct it, through the Bolivian Administration of Roads (ABC), among other reasons because SEDECA Tarija (the Departmental Service of Roads), i.e., the Departmental Government, has demonstrated repeated and systematic incompetence.
The project, according to the newspaper "is opposed by the Assembly of the Guarani People of Itika Guasu (APG IG)", a statement which is totally false. The APGIG has demanded compliance with the right to consultation to which the Guaranis are entitled, but it could not be further from the truth to say that they "oppose" the work. The newspaper is merely expressing its opinion that demanding the right to consultation constitutes a boycott of this or any other project, quite simply because that right is being exercised by indigenous peoples who, for some reason, have the right to have an opinion.
The aggravating factor, according to the newspaper, is that they are receiving legal advice, something inherent in the "maldad indígena" ("indigenous evil"), since they have dared to defend their rights using their own advisers. As anyone can understand, this "barbaric" custom cannot be given to the indigenous peoples and less still when their advisers are presumably "foreign" and therefore, xenophobically guilty of violating the racist uses and customs which prevent the indigenous people from taking advice.
II) The newspaper continues with the following statements:
"The APG IG/Nizkor demand prior consultation before the company contracted by the Bolivian Administration of Roads (ABC), who must enter into the area where the works are to be executed, carries out an analysis to validate the project developed by the Departmental Service of Roads (SEDECA)."
According to this the prior consultation is demanded even before the ABC carries out a study of the project developed by SEDECA, which is clearly a nonsense typical of ignorant indigenous groups and foreigners with evil intentions.
In fact, consultation was requested at that time because SEDECA had concealed the project and did not comply with the judgement of the Constitutional Court 2003/2010-R of October 25th 2010, notified on 12th April 2011 both to the APGIG and to SEDECA, as both are parties to the said judgement.
In other words, SEDECA was acting in flagrant violation of that judgement, as they had been doing since the date it was first notified to them. As a result the APGIG approached the head of the TESA study (Technical, Economic, Social and Environmental Study), the ABC, to demand compliance with their right, this being in any event entirely logical in the context of the study given that in the absence of prior consultation the project would be null and void.
This means that the directors of SEDECA and Governor Condori, to whom SEDECA directly reports, have violated the law in what the prosecutor, in the indictment against Walter Ferrufino, described as:
.... an illegal act defined by and punished pursuant to Art. 154 of the Criminal Code, based on the following grounds: failure to carry out a prior consultation using the appropriate procedures and through their representative institutions, before approving any project which might affect their lands or territories (of the people of Itika Guasu) - pursuant to the International Labour Organisation Convention Nš 169, Art. 6.1(a), ratified by Law 1257 of 11 July 1991 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Arts. 18, 19 and 32.2, passed into law pursuant to Law 3760 and 3897 - thus not having complied with the right of indigenous peoples to decide their own priorities in the process of social development relative to the lands which they occupy and their participation in the formulation, application and evaluation of plans and programmes which directly affect them according to ILO Convention Nš 169, Art. 7.1, ratified by Law 1257 of 11th July 1991, and confirmed by Art. 256 of the Political Constitution of the State, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Art. 32.1, passed into law by Law 3760 and 3897.
III) The newspaper continues with another falsehood:
"The demand for prior consultation is made notwithstanding that for the most part the road follows the right of way consolidated in favour of the Bolivian State and which applies to the existing route"
In this statement the bad faith is transparent: the newspaper admits that the road passes through indigenous territory... but the State has a consolidated right and therefore there is no right to consultation, ignoring yet again the provisions of the current Political Constitution of the State and the above-mentioned legal arguments of the Prosecutor in the case of Walter Ferrufino, as well as the agreements signed between the Departmental Government and the APGIG in September 2009 where the territorial ownership of the TCO Itika Guasu is expressly acknowledged.
IV) The newspaper "El País" persists in its fallacies:
"With these arguments the APGIG has released itself from its obligation to comply with national and departmental laws insofar as they concern free access by the State for the execution of works of infrastructure and development and which departmental and municipal governments must comply with, according to legal analysts consulted by El País."
This statement conceals the fact that the Government of Tarija signed an agreement with the APGIG in September 2009 in which a) it recognised that the ownership of the Original Community Territory (TCO) Itika Guasu lies with the APGIG and b) it uses the legal system of usufruct to apply to all rights of way within the boundaries of the TCO. Evidently, Governor Condori and Secretary Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner are aware of this agreement as it is one of the "non-public" reasons why the construction of the diversion to Chaco has been cancelled.
But more than this, the Constitutional Judgement 2003/2010-R of 25 October 2010, notified to SEDECA was also based on a problem concerning roads within the TCO Itika Guasu, and in respect of which SEDECA appealed for relief to the Constitutional Court precisely on the grounds that the indigenous people did not have a right of ownership or a right to consultation.
As is well-known, SEDECA lost the case and its arguments were rejected by the highest court in the State, in a judgement which expressly recognised the right of ownership by the APGIG of the TCO Itika Guasu, and of course the right to consultation which is granted to the original indigenous peoples who have lived in this land for at least 400 years. But apparently "El Pais" is unaware of this and Lino Condori, Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner and Walter Ferrufino deliberately continue to violate this judgment.
The situation is so scandalous that the newspaper has never published the arguments contained in this judgement, nor the fact of the indictment of Walter Ferrufino for breach of his duties as a public official.
It would be beneath the dignity of the ancient lineage to which the owners of this newspaper belong to publish issues which are favourable to indigenous rights when everyone knows that the indigenous do not have rights, and most certainly do not own lands.
V) But the insult is worse still, according to the newspaper, when it states:
"In fact, the communiqué refers to the fact that the APGIG is 'the legal and legitimate owner of the TCO Itika Guasu'".
We have already made clear that the APGIG is the legal and legitimate owner because this is what the New Political Constitution of the State provides, as does the applicable law, and it has been ratified with no possibility of appeal by the highest court: the Constitutional Court.
To all the above we should add that the TCOs have characteristics which are described as "very special" (especialísimas) in law and that is that they are inalienable, indivisible, irreversible, collective, made up of communities or groupings, unattachable and imprescriptible.
VI) The false statements continue with real intellectual audacity and categorically assert that:
"However the APGIG/Nizkor, in a communiqué published on 1st May 2013 behaves as if it were the "owner" of the Original Community Territory (TCO) and as if this were a geographical unit separate and distinct from Bolivian territory."
Persisting with its racist language, the newspaper affirms that we have said that the TCO is a "geographical unit separate and distinct from the Bolivian territory", which is not only completely untrue but is also motivated by a racist construct, used on other occasions by this newspaper, according to which the "indians" are separatists and opposed to national unity simply because they are an indigenous people and, in short, because they exist.
The significance of this statement is that it constitutes a practical application of colonial thought: the "indians" can never be owners of land and therefore not only do they have no rights but they should be exterminated.
As it is now a crime to promulgate this view, the newspaper writes in such a way as to present the consequences of its philosophy whilst concealing the reasons for the same. A futile exercise in a state where there is a rule of law in which civil liberties also apply to the "indians" and which are protected by the Constitution and the law.
It is foolish and wrong to argue that the APGIG wants to be "independent" of the national state and does not want to comply with the law, when the Departmental Government, SEDECA and the Sectional Executive of O'Connor are the entities which violate indigenous rights recognised in the New Political Constitution of the State. This provides in its art. 2:
"Given the pre-colonial existence of nations and rural native indigenous peoples and their ancestral control of their territories, their free determination, which consists of the right to autonomy, self-government, their culture, recognition of their institutions, and the consolidation of their territorial entities, is guaranteed within the framework of the unity of the State, in accordance with this Constitution and the law." |1|
In its turn, art. 41.5 of Law 1715 of the National Service of Agrarian Reform (as amended by Law 3545), provides:
"The Original Communities Territories are the geographic spaces that constitute the habitat of indigenous peoples and original communities, to which they have traditionally had access and where they maintain and develop their own forms of economic, social and cultural organization, in a way that ensures their survival and development. They are inalienable, indivisible, irreversible, collective, made up of communities or groupings, unattachable and imprescriptible."
And if there remains any doubt about such an eccentric ideology, the "Autonomy and Decentralisation Law 'Andrés Ibañez'", Law No. 031 of 19th July 2010, stipulates:
Native indigenous campesino nations and peoples.- "Are the people and nations who existed prior to invasion or colonisation, who constitute a socio-political unit, historically developed, with organization, culture, institutions, law, rituals, religion, language and other common and integrated characteristics. They are based in a specific ancestral territory and have their own institutions, they are Suyus, made up of Markas, Ayllus and other organizational forms in the high lands and in the low lands they have the characteristics typical of each indigenous group, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2, Article 30 paragraph 1 and Article 32 of the Political Constitution of the State".
One would be forgiven for thinking that ignorance rules at the "El Pais" newspaper and that the conceptual errors which become apparent during a contextual reading of the article are only explicable by the fact that its journalists are functional illiterates.
But nothing would be further from the truth. It is simply the fact that they are racists, they reject indigenous rights and, from their colonial and feudal perspective, the real scandal is that the indigenous guaranis can own land and violate the colonial laws of land ownership of the feudal lords who are represented by the newspaper.
They support an alliance such as that which exists at the heart of the Departmental Government between the extreme right-wing and known racist, Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner and his nephew-in-law, "rancher without land" and complete reactionary, Walter Ferrufino, an alliance in which Lino Condori nominally occupies the position of Governor whilst these wicked officials violate the Constitution to pursue their racist theories.
VII) To conclude this reactionary and irrational discourse the newspaper asserts (citing as its source anonymous "legal analysts"):
"The curious thing about this case, said one of them, is that so far the Government has not investigated Nizkor, whose role was already questioned when the APGIG opposed the expansion of the GVT (Gas pipeline Villa Montes Tarija), at the same time as it received 14 million dollars from Repsol to give the go-ahead to works which facilitated the export of gas to Argentina, through secret agreements that no-one to this day has any knowledge of".
Here the perversion of the language used reaches its paroxysm resorting to a mixture of the most completely untruthful arguments:
a) The above wording leaves it deliberately unclear whether it was Equipo Nizkor or the APG IG who received 14 million dollars from Repsol.
As we have already repeatedly explained, in our communiqué of 15th March 2011 entitled "The APG IG Announces the Beginning of the Financial Activity of the Itika Guasu Investment Fund", we made public the fact that the Fund had been constituted [as a result of the "Agreement of Friendship and Co-operation between the Assembly of the Guaraní People of Itika Guasu and Repsol YPF E&P Bolivia SA] and that it was the property of the APGIG. Equipo Nizkor was our legal and financial adviser. The communiqué was published in Spanish, English and French to comply with the standards of international financial practice.
b) The agreement was made with Repsol "to give the go-ahead to works which facilitated the export of gas to Argentina, through secret agreements that no-one to this day has any knowledge of".
A completely false statement. The agreement between Repsol Bolivia SA and the APGIG concerned the recognition of the ownership of the TCO Itika Guasu and of the right to consultation. These are not secrets and the Government, and specifically the Ministry for Energy, has complete knowledge of the agreement. It is obvious, for a very simple reason, that these agreements have absolutely nothing to do with the gas pipeline which takes gas to Argentina: that pipeline does not cross the TCO of Itika Guasu and therefore it does not give rise to a right to consultation.
c) We have stated in various communiqués that the APGIG never opposed the GVT, it simply demanded the right to be consulted. Today there is irrefutable documentary evidence of the fact that the delay in the construction of the pipeline had nothing to do with the APGIG and a great deal to do with the incompetence of the government of Tarija and the Sectional Executive of O'Connor; who, in more than 10 years have still not managed to complete the Canaletas diversion because in the original plan, they forgot to foresee the construction of at least four bridges. This is the real and objective reason for the delay and, as is readily understood, it has nothing to do at all with the APGIG.
d) The anonymous "legal analyst" is "surprised" that Equipo Nizkor has not been investigated for the facts enumerated (in the article) and which are completely false. The Bolivian state has absolutely no reason to investigate Equipo Nizkor on the basis of the false premises put forward by "El Pais", because this organization has not committed any violation of any law as the advice that it has given has been provided in the context of its not-for-profit human rights activities, protected under international agreements to which the Bolivian State is a party.
VIII) The same applies with respect to the assertions of Secretary Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner who, according to the newspaper with reference to the communiqué of the APGIG/Nizkor, declared the following :
"... in the context of the Political Constitution of the State, and regarding the empowerment of indigenous peoples, they are working to ensure that several NGOs such as Nizkor do not take advantage of the original indigenous peoples, as is happening in Entre Ríos.
Ruiz affirmed that NGOs take advantage of these situations, demanding multimillion dollar compensation in the name of the indigenous peoples to permit construction of any works within their lands and that this conduct had occurred throughout the country, citing as an example that of the Tipnis (the indigenous territory and national park Isiboro Sécure).
"This NGO asked for several million dollars in compensation, for example, for the construction of a hydrocarbon plant in the name of the indigenous people and this money was never paid; they tried to extort various companies in the name of the people of Itika Guasu and the fact that we were able to stop it is the reason why Nizkor is so irritated" he stated.
Here again we have a completely false statement and false arguments.
a) Equipo Nizkor never wrote to Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner, nor to the government of Tarija, or to the Sectional Executive Walter Ferrufino, and therefore the statement that it did so is completely untrue.
b) Equipo Nizkor has never had anything to do with the construction of a hydrocarbon plant, not least because the plant concerns an indigenous jurisdiction that is not that of the APGIG, nor has it had a direct relationship with any company as mendaciously asserted by the Secretary.
c) If there is one thing this nefarious official, Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner, can be sure of, it is that the TCO Itika Guasu is not the TIPNIS and here the ownership of the TCO is beyond dispute; to use the situation of the TIPNIS at this point and in these circumstances is an unacceptable act which confirms his racist and reactionary philosophy.
IX) And finally, there are the statements of another wicked public employee, Walter Ferrufino, who, according to the newspaper, reaffirms his denial of the right to consultation.
We should remember simply that as of 2nd April 2013, Walter Ferrufino is indicted for breach of duty, a crime punishable under Art. 154 of the Criminal Code, precisely for refusing the right to consultation to the APGIG. As judgement nš 760/2003-R of the Constitutional Court stated:
"The formal indictment is not a mere attribution of the punishable act to a person, but rather it is based on the existence of sufficient evidence of the act and the participation of the accused in that act, in one of the degrees of criminal participation established by substantive criminal law; in other words, there must be reasonable indications as to his participation in the act of which the person is accused".
The only thing to add to this is that, since the date of the indictment, the conduct of Walter Ferrufino has only served to increase the evidence against him with respect to his repeated and systematic breach of the said judgement of the Constitutional Court.
In the end, it is the courts which will decide his criminal responsibility and we believe that there are more than sufficient elements to find that his guilt has been amply established.
This concludes the contextual analysis of the article in the newspaper "El País" of Tarija which we believe we have sufficiently described and in which the falsehood of the arguments and the racist intent are easily identified as a matter of mere semantic logic.
As we already stated in our communiqué of 1st May 2013, it is clear that both Walter Ferrufino and the Executive Secretary of the Departmental Government, Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner, have a problem understanding the principle of legality and the respect for indigenous rights and civil liberties which exist in the rule of law. Their conduct can only be explained if it is analysed from a racist perspective, that is to say, by understanding that they are motivated by racial prejudice against indigenous peoples, not only against the APGIG.
Guaye and Charleroi, 23 May 2013
Legal Department of the APG IG
Equipo Nizkor
APG IG and Nizkor accuse Roberto Ruiz and Walter Ferrufino, whom they describe as wicked Another strategic project for Tarija, the construction of the Entre Ríos-Palos Blancos road, to which Evo Morales' government has committed 85 million dollars, is opposed by the Assembly of the Guarani People of Itika Guasu (APGIG), advised by the NGO Nizkor, which is not registered nor does it have authorisations to operate in Bolivia
The APG IG/Nizkor demand prior consultation before the company contracted by the Bolivian Administration of Roads (ABC), who must enter into the area where the works are to be executed, carries out an analysis to validate the project developed by the Departmental Service of Roads (SEDECA).
The demand for prior consultation is made notwithstanding that for the most part the road follows the right of way consolidated in favour of the Bolivian State and which is already applicable to the existing route.
However the APGIG/Nizkor, in a communiqué published on 1st May 2013 behaves as if it were the "owner" of the original community territory (TCO) and as if this were a geographical unit separate and distinct from Bolivian territory.
In fact, the communiqué refers to the fact that the APGIG is "the legal and legitimate owner of the TCO Itika Guasu".
With these arguments the APGIG has released itself from its obligation to comply with national and departmental laws insofar as they concern free access by the State for the execution of works of infrastructure and development and which departmental and municipal governments must comply with, according to legal analysts consulted by El País.
The curious thing about this case, said one of them, is that so far the Government has not investigated Nizkor, whose role was already questioned when the APGIG opposed the expansion of the GVT(Gas pipeline Villa Montes Tarija), at the same time as it received 14 million dollars from Repsol to give the go-ahead to works which facilitated the export of gas to Argentina, through secret agreements that no-one to this day has any knowledge of.
The APG IG justifies its contract with Nizkor, ratifiying an earlier communique which states: "with respect to our advisers, it is obvious that it is within our autonomous powers as an indigenous association to retain legal, financial, notarial, environmental and other specialist advice which relates to our long-term legal strategy, as well as to take advice from human rights organisations, universities and specialists in international criminal, mercantile and environmental law and, to do so, we do not have to request authorization from or offer explanations to any company or the national or deparmental governments"
The communiqué, which we reproduce in full separately, accuses the Executive Secretary of the Departmental Government, Roberto Ruiz Bass Werner, of being a liar, and the Sectional Executive of O'Connor, Walter Ferrufino Gaite of protervo (perverse, obstinately evil, according to the Dictionary of the Spanish Language of the Royal Academy of Spain).
Ruiz retorts
With reference to the communiqué of the APGIG/Nizkor Ruiz stated that in the context of the Political Constitution of the State, and regarding the empowerment of indigenous peoples, they are working to ensure that several NGOs such as Nizkor do not take advantage of the original indigenous peoples, as is happening in Entre Ríos.
Ruiz affirmed that NGOs take advantage of these situations, demanding multimillion dollar compensation in the name of the indigenous peoples to permit construction of any works within their lands and that this conduct had occurred throughout the country, citing as an example that of the Tipnis (the indigenous territory and national park Isiboro Sécure).
"This NGO asked for several million dollars in compensation, for example, for the construction of a hydrocarbon plant in the name of the indigenous people and this money was never paid; they tried to extort various companies in the name of the people of Itika Guasu and the fact that we were able to stop it is the reason why Nizkor is so irritated" he stated.
Ferrufino confirms
Ferrufino responded to the APG IG/Nizkor by asserting that the statements of the representatives of Nizkor were of no concern to him and that in reviewing their website these affronts were not only addressed to the sectional executive but also to the Governor of Tarija and to Roberto Ruiz.
He went on to make assurances that he would continue his initiative to carry out a consultation with the inhabitants of the APGIG to get acceptance to the construction of this section of the road. "If it is a question of consultation, then that must be done, but it will be through the board of the APG to the communities of the APGIG. We must make sure that Nizkor does not interfere in the decisions of the APG. It's fine for them to offer legal and technical advice but they cannot decide", he said.
[Source: El País, Tarija, 20May13]
Notes:
1. T.N.: The English version of this article has been taken from the translation of the 2009 Political Constitution of the State prepared by the Embassy of Colombia, Washington DC and published by William S. Hein & Co., Inc.: Political Constitution of the State, 2009 (Bolivia) (HeinOnline World Constitutions Illustrated library 2011) [Back]
 | This document has been published on 22Aug13 by the Equipo Nizkor and Derechos Human Rights. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. |
