Category Archives: Resource extraction

Santa Marta: Transitioning away from fossil fuels

By Jim Hodgson

Good news may be hard to find these days. But here’s some. Representatives from about 60 nations met in northern Colombia in April to promote a transition away from fossil fuels.

The First Conference on Transitioning away from Fossil Fuels was a response to frustration felt after recent United Nations COP climate conferences, especially the one held last November in Belém, Brazil. Potential consensus around the transition away from fossil fuels broke down in the face of lobbying by oil companies and opposition from oil-producing nations.

The conference, co-sponsored by Colombia and Netherlands, ended April 29 with a clear message: the global conversation has shifted from whether to phase out oil, gas and coal to how to do it, with financing emerging as one of the biggest obstacles. As in many such international conferences, there were pre-events that gathered people from Indigenous, religious and other sectors.

By all accounts, the gathering in Santa Marta felt different from past climate talks. 

“The mood here in Santa Marta is euphoric,” said Tzeporah Berman, the founder and chair of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty initiative. “After years stuck in endless debates about whether to phase out fossil fuels, finally we are focusing on the how. We are no longer fighting for recognition of the problem, but creating solutions. It’s like watching a dam break – all that pent-up experience, knowledge and passion suddenly flowing into concrete ways to phase out dirty fuels. The hope is contagious.”

But participants were not unrealistic. Colombian President Gustavo Petro warned the world could “reach a point of no return” without the Amazon’s role in regulating the climate. Colombia is itself an oil-producing nation, but it has set a path of “gradual transition at home that balances climate goals with economic realities.”

Finding a good way forward requires addressing the global debt crisis. Countries in the global south that want to invest in renewable energy find themselves blocked by having to spend on high interest payments and imported fuel.

After the conference, Canadian scientist and broadcaster David Suzuki wrote: “Climate action requires unhinging power from foreign corporate privilege and putting it toward justice, democracy and the communities most affected.”

The Canadian government sent a representative: Jeanne-Marie Huddleston, Canada’s chief climate change negotiator – not a minister, but an employee of Environment Canada. Absence of a government minister was criticized (above) by Lloyd Axworthy, a former Canadian foreign minister who has emerged as a frequent critic of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s climate priorities – or lack of them.

In recent weeks, Canada has announced approval for expanding liquefied natural gas, a sovereign wealth fund — which among other things could help oil and gas projects of national interest — and its next budget looks to be cushioned by higher oil prices driven by the Iran war.

Participating states agreed to meet again in Tuvalu in early 2027, a gathering to be co-hosted by Ireland. Climate scientists and the UN have warned that the South Pacific island nation could be submerged by 2100 due to rising sea levels.

Canadian casualties as U.S. takes aim at Cuban businesses

by Jim Hodgson

Readers of this blog may find it odd that I am concerned about the fate of a Canadian mining company operating overseas, especially just days after a new report showed that U.S. sanctions have tripled Cuba’s infant mortality rate over the past seven years. (By the way, retired Latin American studies professor John Kirk of Dalhousie University have a new article about the impact of sanctions posted May 7 at rabble.ca.)

But Sherritt International Corp. had operated a nickel and cobalt mine in Holguín province as a joint venture with the Cuban state for more than 30 years, an arrangement that ensured Cubans shared the benefits of the mining operation. On May 7, as legal implications of new U.S. sanctions became clearer, Sherritt suspended its operations in Cuba.

In response to Sherritt’s announcement, the Canadian Network on Cuba (CNC) said the Canadian government must “take immediate and decisive action in defence of Canadian sovereignty, international law, and the right of Canadian companies to conduct lawful business free from foreign coercion and intimidation.”

CNC said President Donald Trump’s May 1 executive order “constitutes yet another illegal attempt to extend U.S. domestic law beyond its borders and impose Washington’s unilateral sanctions regime on the entire world. This represents not merely an attack on Cuba, but a direct assault on Canada’s sovereignty, on international trade law, and on the principle that no state has the right to dictate the economic relations of other nations.”

Further U.S. measures announced May 7 targeted Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (GAESA), partner of many foreign tourist operations, and Moa Nickel SA, the joint venture between Sherritt and Cuba’s state-owned nickel company.

The current escalation is rooted in the infamous Helms-Burton Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The extraterritorial features of that law provoked anger in Canada and Europe, but those features were effectively waived by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. In April 2019, Trump revived then. Canada’s then foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, objected, saying Canada would “fully defend the interests of Canadians conducting legitimate trade and investment with Cuba.” She reminded Canadians that amendments in 1996 to Canada’s 1985 Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act (FEMA) stipulate that any judgment issued under Helms-Burton “shall neither be recognized nor enforceable in any manner in Canada.”

CNC now poses the question: will the current government enforce FEMA? If the Canadian government fails to act now, FEMA becomes little more than a hollow gesture, and Canada effectively concedes that U.S. law supersedes Canadian law on Canadian soil. CNC argues that Ottawa must therefore:

  • Publicly denounce the Trump administration’s Executive Order as an illegal extraterritorial measure that violates international law and Canadian sovereignty;
  • Immediately invoke and enforce the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to protect Canadian corporations operating lawfully in Cuba;
  • Provide legal, diplomatic, and financial protections to Canadian firms targeted by U.S. sanctions;
  • Coordinate with Mexico, the European Union, CARICOM nations, and other states opposing the blockade to resist Washington’s unlawful coercive measures; and
  • Reaffirm Canada’s longstanding opposition to the U.S. blockade and demand its complete and unconditional end.

Taken together, more than six decades of U.S. sanctions are described in Cuba as a blockade. The term is most apt now after more than three months of a U.S. blockade of fuel shipments from Venezuela and Mexico. The UN General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the U.S. blockade in annual votes for more than three decades. CNC adds:

“The blockade and its extraterritorial application violate the UN Charter, international law, freedom of navigation and trade, and the sovereign equality of states. Yet Washington continues to intensify this economic siege, now seeking to punish not only Cuba, but also Canadian companies, Canadian workers, and Canadian economic interests.”

The new U.S. sanctions follow a “long-standing policy and campaign of economic warfare, sabotage and destabilization aimed at strangling Cuba regardless of the collateral damage inflicted internationally,” says CNC. “Canada must choose whether it will defend its sovereignty and uphold international law, or whether it will permit itself to be subordinated to the extraterritorial dictates of a foreign power: whether to join empire or challenge it.”

Ecuador bans opposition party, criminalizes ecological defenders, joins U.S. military attacks

by Jim Hodgson

In a just world, news that Ecuador has banned its largest opposition party would be enough to scuttle Canada’s plans for a free trade agreement with the country – and even end U.S. military collaboration. But that is not the world we live in.

The news came as 77 organizations from Ecuador, Canada and around the world sent a letter to Canada’s ambassador in Ecuador urging the embassy to adopt Canada’s 2019 Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders in response to the criminalization of Indigenous and environmental defenders. Among the signatories are MiningWatch Canada, Common Frontiers, and KAIROS Canada.

The letter to Ambassador Craig Kowalik was sent in response to the criminalization of Indigenous and environmental defenders from the Federation of Indigenous and Campesino Organizations of Azuay (FOA, Federación de Organizaciones lndigenas y Campesinas del Azuay). 

FOA members are facing criminal proceedings for their environmental defense work to safeguard the Kimsakocha páramo from the Loma Larga gold mining project, owned by Canadian mining company DPM Metals Inc.

The letter to the embassy expresses concern over criminal charges initiated by DPM Metals against six FOA members — Lauro Sigcha, Lizardo Zhaqui, Marco Tapia, Ruth Pugo, Carmita Pérez, and Yaku Pérez — following a peaceful clean-up action to remove mining waste left by the company near the headwaters of the Irquis and Tarqui rivers in the Kimsakocha páramo. The Kimsakocha páramo is a fragile ecosystem that regulates the regional hydrological cycle and provides fresh water to tens of thousands of people. For more than 30 years, Indigenous and peasant communities have defended this ecosystem against large-scale mining projects.

Ecuador bans opposition party

Acting on the request of the government-aligned Prosecutor General, an electoral judge in Ecuador on Friday (March 6) ordered the nine-month suspension of the country’s largest opposition party, the Citizens’ Revolution (RC ). 

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) denounced the ban as the latest escalation in a broader pattern of authoritarian regression, including lawfare against opponents, repeated states of emergency, and deepening military ties with the Trump administration.

“The government of President Daniel Noboa, who is strongly backed by President Trump, is trying to accelerate the destruction of what is left of democracy in Ecuador,” said CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot. The move bars RC –led by former President Rafael Correa – from local elections to be held in 2027.

U.S.-Ecuador military strikes

On the same day as the ban on the RC party, the Ecuadorian and U.S. militaries conducted joint airstrikes near the Colombian border targeting a site allegedly tied to dissidents from the former FARC guerrillas from Colombia. 

These “lethal kinetic operations,” as the U.S. military calls them, are another of Noboa’s efforts since his 2023 election to deepen ties with Washington — including a failed attempt to re-establish a U.S. military base in the country.

Days earlier, on Tuesday (March 3), the United States and Ecuador launched joint attacks against “designated terrorist organizations” – Trumpspeak for drug-traffickers.

Since September last year, the United States has attacked small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, but these attacks in Ecuador are the first known land operations by U.S. forces against drug cartels. At least 150 people have been killed in 44 known strikes. The United States has never shown proof that any of the dead were in fact moving illegal drugs.

While neither government will say precisely where the attacks are happening, Noboa ordered curfews in four provinces west and southwest of Quito, extending to the city of Guayaquil and beyond. Noboa said his country was “entering a new phase in the internal war.”

* An update (March 25 from Drop Site News:

A New York Times investigation raises serious questions about a March 6 airstrike that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicized on social media as proof the U.S. military was “now bombing Narco Terrorists on land.”

According to the Times, the target appears to have been a 350-acre cattle and dairy farm owned by a 32-year-old carpenter named Miguel, not a drug trafficking compound. Farm workers told the Times that Ecuadorean soldiers arrived three days earlier, beat and detained four Colombian workers, subjected them to waterboarding and electric shocks, doused structures with gasoline and set them alight—then returned on March 6 to film themselves bombing the smoldering ruins, producing footage Ecuador and the U.S. jointly promoted as the destruction of a traffickers’ training camp.

The Pentagon said the strike was conducted “jointly” with Ecuador, though Times sources said U.S. troops had no direct involvement in the bombing itself. Ecuador claimed to have recovered weapons and evidence of illicit activity but released no photographs, as it typically does following drug seizures. “It’s a lie that 50 people trained here,” Miguel said, standing amid his dead chickens. “There’s no logic.” (NYT)