Ecuador Living

Ecuador Living Update – Correa Pros & Cons

October 11, 2007

One frequent concern readers express about Ecuador regards the political stability there.

Personally I quite like what I see of Ecuador ’s current President, Rafael Correa…though I repeat I never trust the data I get to make really accurate judgments.

Our last two updates began a series that look sat Correa’s actions to see if he can be a good leader even though he has been painted by a lot of the overseas press as a left wing populist, much like and allied with Hugo Chavez.

Our first update reviewed how Correa’s background is totally different than that of Chavez or other ruthless South American leaders of the past such as Peron and Pinochet. They were soldiers. Correa has a rags to riches scholarly background with no military service at all.

One concern many readers and the press write about is Correa’s views on the US military base at Eloy Alfaro Airport in Manta. Here is a typical response I receive. This came from an Ecuador Living reader.

“ Gary , I am very interested in your web site. It looks very pretty but the truth is Ecuador is in the hands of bad people now and is controlled by bad political people. Correa is one of them, asking the USA to leave Port of Manta . Manta has seen so much prosperity because the US NAVY is there. Watch what is going to happen. Ten years from now, Bolivia , Peru , Venezuela and Ecuador are going to be Communist countries like Cuba . My family are living in Ecuador and are selling everything and they have. Regards”

Personally, I believe this creates buying opportunity and is keeping prices lower than they should be. Here is why. Guess why…in two words Plan Colombia . Plan Colombia makes us ask, “Manta’s prosperity comes at what cost?

The daily press paint Correa as a leftist for wanting the US out of Manta but they never get around to mentioning Plan Colombia . Few people have heard of this which I am sure suits The US government, Monsanto and DynCorp. We’ll get to DynCorp in a moment.

Let’s look at a point of view that differs from what we read in the papers that come out on the newsstand every day.

First previous updates looked at how Correa negotiates. The purported bond default in February was given as an example. Correa threatened right up to the last day to renegotiate (default) Ecuadorian bonds. Then after extracting concessions, he paid…on time…in full.

The military air base in Manta may be another such example. Correa has a problem with Plan Colombia and the air base is a fantastic negotiating tool he can use to resolve this trouble.

The website Globalpolicy.org has a good explanation of this and says:

“The Eloy Alfaro air base in Manta , Ecuador , is one of five primary air bases in the country. After Washington negotiated a ten-year lease agreement that would allow the US military to use a portion of the base, US operations there attracted little attention, at least until Ecuador’s 2006 presidential election campaign, when President-elect Rafael Correa pledged not to renew the lease in 2009. It was a popular move among many of his constituents.

“The US FOL at Manta has attracted more attention among Ecuadorians because it is seen as part and parcel of Plan Colombia , the US-Colombia policy to combat narco-trafficking and terrorism inside Colombia . Correa’s election suggests that Ecuador wants no part of Plan Colombia because he campaigned strongly against any Ecuadorian role. And as tensions between the two countries escalated in 2006, and again this year, a measure of Ecuadorian ill will aimed at Colombia is now being redirected to the US at Manta. “The nationwide position not to involve Ecuador in Plan Colombia is the first reason why Ecuadorians do not want the US military to remain in Manta, says

“Fredy Rivera, professor and researcher with the Ecuadorian branch of the Latin American University for Social Sciences, told ISN Security Watch during a recent telephone interview that another reason why Ecuadorians did not want the base to remain was their belief that the base was only used for counter-drug missions. “The surveillance equipment can be used to watch activity in Colombia, Peru, parts of Venezuela and Bolivia, and of course Ecuador,” Rivera said, adding, “this is official discourse.”

“Clearly, Ecuador does not regard the US as a close regional partner. And as the US draws ever closer to Colombia, holding on to what many consider Washington’s last beach head in South America, it is possible Ecuador will consider Colombian and US foreign policy as one.

“The final reason why Ecuadorians do not want the base at Manta renewed is due to US and Colombian foreign policy,” Rivera noted. During 2006, relations between Ecuador and Colombian were tense due to fumigation on the Ecuadorian-Colombian border and the presence of Colombian armed forces on Ecuadorian sovereign territory. On two occasions, the Ecuadorian ambassador to Colombia was called back to Quito for consultations - diplomatic signaling for a high level of discontent.”

The article at Globalpolicy.org goes on to say that Correa had adopted a tough stance as the most logical negotiation position at this point. If the US wants to prevent the base from being closed, then Correa should ask, ‘What are you going to give me?” It makes sense for Correa to start with a very hard line. And if he extracts from the US aid or other kinds of concessions, perhaps something related to trade, then it’s part of the bargaining.

So the air base at Manta Ecuador allows Colombia to take advantage of Ecuador, helps the US spy on Ecuador, encourages Colombian military to cross the Ecuadorian border, creates tension between Ecuador and Colombia rebels and is used for fumigation that drifts into Ecuador.

Let’s look a bit more at this fumigation. Here is what the website Corpwatch.org says:

“Imagine that scene for a moment — you are an Ecuadorian farmer, and suddenly, without notice or warning, a large helicopter approaches, and the frightening noise of the chopper blades invades the quiet. The helicopter comes closer, and sprays a toxic poison on you, your children, your livestock and your food crops. You see your children get sick, your crops die.” These are the words of Bishop Jesse de Witt, president of the International Labor Rights Fund, in a letter to Paul V. Lombardi, CEO of DynCorp.

“DynCorp, the Reston, Virginia-based all-purpose defense contractor, is rapidly acquiring the kind of reputation for global villainy and malfeasance that used to be Bechtel’s calling card in the 60s and 70s. As we reported a few weeks ago, DynCorp has been hit with a RICO suit by a former employee alleging that the company fired him after he reported improprieties by company supervisors in Bosnia to the Army CID. According to the lawsuit, those improprieties included “coworkers and supervisors literally buying and selling women for their own personal enjoyment, and employees would brag about the various ages and talents of the individual slaves they had purchased.

“The very origins of the company are somewhat murky. President Harry Truman established DynCorp shortly after the end of World War II, supposedly to provide jobs for veterans and to market surplus military equipment. Certainly, DynCorp has never severed its umbilical relationship to the federal government. The billion-dollar company enjoys contracts with the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, EPA, IRS and DEA. It trains “police forces” in some of the US ’s most brutal client states, including El Salvador , Panama , Haiti and Bosnia . Many of its top employees were recruited from the Pentagon, the CIA or and State Department. Indeed theories are rife across Latin America , in particular, that DynCorp has always functioned as a cut-out for Pentagon and CIA covert operations.”

If you were President of your country and saw that this was taking place in part because of operations at an airport in your country, what would you do?

Let’s look at this fumigation a bit more. Here is what an article by James Ridgeway at alternet.org says:

“ Washington , D.C. —For seven months, the Environmental Protection Agency sat on a call to investigate the coca-defoliation program in Colombia . Presented by one of the agency’s own internal boards, the letter asked for a study of harm to people and the environment posed by the U.S.-backed spraying of Roundup Ultra, a chemical critics compare to Agent Orange. When the resolution was proposed at a December 10 meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, “there was a lot of eye rolling and clearing of throats among the EPA members,” said one government employee. No one from EPA “thought it had a snowball’s chance in hell” of reaching administrator Christie Whitman’s desk.

“Those EPA members may seem jaded, but for a long while they also appeared to be right. President Bush has kept the agency hamstrung, forcing it to do an about-face on global warming and to relax water-quality standards. Now the president is seeking yet more funding for Plan Colombia , which is supposed to cut off the supply of cocaine on the streets of New York by halving the 300,000 acres of coca fields in Colombia over five years. The U.S. has pledged $1.3 billion in this fiscal year to support the $7.5 billion scheme with army anti-narcotics training and helicopters.

“So far, the attack hasn’t worked. Over 38,000 hectares have been sprayed since this year alone, but coca production is shifting to other parts of Colombia and spreading into Ecuador . The program has become the pretext for a Vietnam-style counterinsurgency in which U.S.-trained units of the Colombian army link up with paramilitary death squads in a bloody drive against guerrillas. U.S. Special Forces, who are doing the training, are kept out of the fighting, but U.S. civilian contractors who fly the spray planes have been reported in the thick of firefights.

“Meanwhile, the peasantry are getting drenched with Roundup Ultra. In one EPA study published in 1993, California doctors reported that the herbicide’s active ingredient, glyphosate, ranked third out of 25 chemicals that caused harm to humans. Some observers say the aircraft blitzing Colombian coca fields are flying at too great a height to ensure surrounding villages and farms are kept safe from the spray. Lower flights would court direct hits by rebel troops.

“Our concern is the longevity of the effects of the spraying: If the farmers can’t plant, they can’t grow or eat,” said Alberto Saldamando, general counsel of the San Francisco-based International Indian Treaty Council, who drafted the resolution. “This is going to affect the whole agricultural economy. We think it’s a very serious health-damaging case. We are talking about indigenous people. They are poor; they are not aware of what can happen to their health.”

So the US air base at Manta is helping Plan Colombia and the spraying of the Amazon with Roundup. Is that bad?

The article goes on to say: “Roundup is sold widely in the U.S. , and the EPA says it’s safe for most commercial uses. According to the State Department’s Web site, glyphosate is less toxic than common salt, aspirin, caffeine, nicotine, and vitamin A. In a report sent to the House Appropriations Committee in January, the State Department, with the concurrence of the EPA, claimed that “there are no grounds to suggest a concern for human health.”

“But in a 1996 out-of-court settlement, the manufacturer Monsanto admitted to certain reservations about such glyphosate-based herbicides. Monsanto withdrew claims that Roundup is “safe, nontoxic, harmless, or free from risk,” and signed a statement, saying absolute claims that Roundup “will not wash or leach in the soil” aren’t accurate. Roundup Ultra, the product used in Colombia , is a concoction boosted by other powerful chemicals manufactured by ICI and Exxon.”

Of course the EPA and the US skirt around this problem by saying (according to the article):

“We do not govern the use of Roundup in another country,” the spokesman said. “Anything we say about the use of chemicals in another country is only speculation because we have no authority to check what they’re doing.”

Stephen Leahy, a freelance environmental journalist for the past 12 years has more to say about this at his website. Leahy’s writing has been published in dozens of publications around the world including New Scientist, The London Sunday Times, Maclean’s Magazine, The Toronto Star, Wired News, Audubon, BBC Wildlife, and Canadian Geographic. He writes:

“ TORONTO , Jun 11 (Tierramérica).- U.S.-funded aerial spraying of suspected coca plantations in Colombia near the Ecuador border has severely damaged the DNA of local residents, a new study has found.

“Blood samples from 24 Ecuadorians living within three kilometers of the northern border had 600 to 800 percent more damage to their chromosomes than people living 80 km away, found scientists from the Pontificia Catholic University in Quito , Ecuador .

“The border residents who were tested had been exposed to the common herbicide glyphosate — sold by the U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto under the brand Roundup –during a series of aerial sprayings by the Colombian government begun in 2000, part of the anti-drugs and counterinsurgency Plan Colombia , financed by Washington .

“The Ecuadorians suffered a variety of ailments immediately following the spraying, including intestinal pain and vomiting, diarrhea, headaches, dizziness, numbness, burning of eyes or skin, blurred vision, difficulty in breathing and rashes, says the study, which is to be published in the journal Genetics and Molecular Biology.

“But the extensive damage to DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) found in the randomly selected individuals may activate the development of cancer or other developmental effects resulting in miscarriages, according to lead researcher César Paz y Miño, head of human molecular genetics at the Catholic University of Ecuador.”

“The concentration levels of Roundup were measured at more than 20 times the maximum recommended rate and may be the reason behind the genotoxic (capable of causing genetic mutation) effect on the exposed individuals, he said.”

Even the Colombians know how bad Plan Colombia is for Ecuador . The website Colombiajournal.org says:

“Plan Colombia : Effects in Ecuador

“Plan Colombia is designed to eradicate drug crops, put a stop to the violence and raise the socio-economic level in Colombia , but the effects of the plan are not limited to within the country’s borders. All four nations that border Colombia face certain repercussions and have reacted in various ways to the plan. The two nations that have openly voiced their support are Peru , which happened only after Fujimori resigned and an interim prime minister was appointed, and Ecuador . Both Venezuela and Brazil have made clear their intention to withhold support.

“It is Ecuador that faces the greatest danger as the Colombian military sprays coca fields and violence escalates in the southern Putumayo region of Colombia . The main consequences in Ecuador of the military push south in Colombia are the arrival of hundreds of refugees, the spillover of violence and the possibility of coca cultivation and processing on Ecuadorian soil. These are problems that would confound any nation, but Ecuador in its weak and vulnerable socio-economic and political condition is especially susceptible to their negative consequences.”

Yet I have yet to see any of this information in the daily Western press.

It is really hard to trust what any politician says. They may mean what they say or they may be stretching the truth. They may find that realities change that do not allow them to fill promises. They may just be negotiating.

Instead we have to watch what politicians do and hope that we do not miss too much of what lay beneath the surface.

This process of observation has given me some positive feelings about Correa. Some of the things he has said made no sense. Yet his talk about booting the Yanks off the Manta air base makes a great deal of sense to me. I have no idea if this is his actual intention or if this is just a negotiating ploy. Time will tell but his actions in this matter look like he is doing the job he took on, to improve the lives of the Ecuadorian people.

Gary

Come join us in Ecuador this November. See http://www.garyascott.com/catalog/ecuador-tours-november-2007

Here is an excerpt from a delegate that just attended one of our courses. Gary & Merri, Thank you both for an enlightening, memorable, informative five days that were filled with life-changing ideas and wisdom from you two. It was indeed an honor to attend your seminar. I loved your stories and enjoyed hearing the joys and challenges of your journey… so far. And look forward to the next chance we get to share some time with you.

Merri, your meals were outstanding! Wholesome food and delicious. At the meal we had when we reached town we just looked at each other and shook our heads at the difference between your cooking we had experienced for the past few day and the usual restaurant fare.

Gary, the passion and understanding that flows from your presentations embraces the group and magic happens. The wisdom you shared from your life experiences in writing and publishing was priceless and I can’t express in words the effect it had on me.

Thanks again! Kind regards,