This past month, two resource-rich countries saw political protests turn deadly as the people tried to reign in the autocratic dictates of an incumbent government. One country was, of course, Iran—where every day it seems the government strangles a little more life out of the people’s protests.
With 24/7 news coverage of that disastrous election, you might be forgiven for not having heard about what happened in Peru, where for a change, the people won.
Beginning in 2008, Peru’s president, Alan Garcia, issued a series of executive decrees to open up 210,000 square miles of the Amazon region, including some land legally protected, to foreign oil, gas, logging, and agribusiness investment.
Garcia aimed to develop a multi-billion dollar industry to aid Peru’s growth (not in itself a bad thing) and saw the fertile and resource-rich Amazon as a golden opportunity, simply too good to waste. The president oversaw the signings of dozens of contracts with a wide variety of foreign officials and companies.
In retrospect, it’s easy to see why Garcia underestimated the vociferousness of his opposition. The Amazonian region is home to only 330,000 indigenous people (roughly 1 percent of Peru’s population) arrayed in some 60 tribes. In general, these Amazonians live in remote areas, speak different dialects, are much poorer than the national average, and lack political or social cohesion.
But this time around, the indigenous people were organized and determined. They had spent years getting ready for Garcia’s assault on their native land. Decades of negative experiences with oil extraction companies had forced them to come together, and to plan ahead. Past protests had not been taken seriously by Peruvian elites and legislative leaders, who merely ignored their claims or temporarily suspended action until the furor died down. Then, as always, they returned to business as usual.
In response, the indigenous leaders created the Peruvian Jungle Inter-Ethnic Development Association to unite their interests. It heralded a unique moment for these besieged peoples. The New York Times quoted the Rev. Joaquín García, a Spanish priest who arrived in the Amazonian city of Iquitos 41 years ago and is director of the Center of Theological Studies of the Amazon, as saying, “There has been nothing comparable in all my years here in terms of the growth of political consciousness among indigenous groups.”
The group coalesced around Garcia’s plans to open the region to foreign investment and exploitation, and chose a confrontational, potentially violent strategy. For seven weeks, they marched and protested. Tens of thousands of indigenous people blockaded roads and rivers. They seized an oil pumping station. They forced the state-owned oil firm Perupetro to shut down its pipeline.
In response, this May, the Peruvian Navy rammed the river blockade and crushed it. In June, police attacked demonstrators near the town of Bagua. During the violence, 24 police and at least 10 civilians were killed. While tragic, the violence produced political pressure, which echoed in the halls of governance. Shortly afterwards, the Peruvian congress overturned two of Garcia’s decrees and the president publicly admitted he should have consulted with the indigenous people. Today, tribal leaders are cautiously optimistic about the turnaround.
Why did the situation in Peru come to this? Keith Slack of Oxfam America, which tracks Latin America’s extractive projects and advocates more local involvement in development decisions, points to historical patterns—wealthier white and mestizo (mixed ancestry) people tend to dismiss the concerns of the indigenous population and lack the political will to routinely engage with them. “Once trust is lost in these cases,” he says, “it’s hard to get it back.”
What are the lessons to be learned for any group looking to stand up to a government that is willing to use force against it? Courage is important. Creativity is important. But organization, planning, consistency, and tenacity are everything.
Change rarely happens swiftly; no one should expect that in Iran. Those in power have many resources at their disposal and a ferocious desire to stay in power. However, it is too late for the ayatollahs to cut the people off from the rest of the world, as have governments in North Korea and Burma. The resolve of those who seek change will make all the difference. It may take years. Unlike Peru, however, the protestors in Tehran are up against a regime with little or no conscience that seemingly doesn’t care how many people are killed in the name of political stability.
Sooner or later, though, oppression does end in the face of unending, broad, morally-based resistance. The theocracy of Iran has begun to wobble. And in Peru, protests have finally led to progress, and the chance to reset history for good.
Jodi Liss is a former consultant for the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, and UNICEF. She has worked on the “Lessons From Rwanda” outreach project and the Post-Conflict Economic Recovery report. Her article, “Making Monetary Mischief: Using Currency as a Weapon,” appeared in the winter 2007-08 issue of World Policy Journal.