Climate Change: Ecuador keeps it in the ground

Ecuador went to the polls over the weekend in presidential elections, which look like they will go to a right-left runoff. But alongside the elections was another battle: a referendum on banning oil drilling from the Yasuní National Park. And when given a choice, Ecuadorians voted to keep it in the ground:

Ecuadorians have voted in a historic referendum to halt the development of all new oilwells in the Yasuní national park in the Amazon, one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet.

Voters opted to safeguard the unique biosphere by a margin of nearly 20% with more than 90% of the ballot counted – with more than 58% in favour and 41% against, according to Ecuador’s National Electoral Comission. Voting took place in the first round of presidential elections on Sunday.

The move will keep about 726m barrels of oil underground in the Yasuní national park, which is also home to the Tagaeri and Taromenane people, two of the world’s last “uncontacted” Indigenous communities living in voluntary isolation.

That's around 312 million tons of carbon which will be kept out of the atmosphere and which won't contribute to destroying the planet. Or about five years of Aotearoa's emissions, in one decision.

Now all we need is for other countries to do the same. We can't afford to burn the oil we have discovered - not if we don't want to burn ourselves. And the sooner we start legally locking it away, the better off we'll be.

Equality comes to Ecuador

Ecuador's Constitutional Court has legalised same-sex marriage:

Ecuador's highest court has approved same-sex marriage in a landmark ruling in the traditionally Catholic country.

The vote at the nine-member Constitutional Court came as they ruled on the lawsuits by two same-sex couples who wanted to get married.

Five voted in favour, arguing all people were equal. Four said the issue had to be debated in parliament.

Interestingly, Ecuador's constitution has an explicit bigot amendment restricting marriage to opposite genders. The Constitutional Court has effectively over-ruled that. Its an interesting development, which suggests that where there are existing anti-discrimination clauses or binding international agreements (in this case the American Convention on Human Rights), such clauses might not be as useful as bigots think.

British hypocrisy

Last year, when a mob of Iranian students stormed the UK embassy in Tehran, the British government expressed its outrage. Diplomatic premises were inviolable, they said, and Syria had to be punished for failing to protect them.

Today, they're threatening to storm the Ecuadorian embassy in London to arrest Julian Assange.

You don't have to approve of Assange or his weak case for asylum to see this as deeply hypocritical. The UK can not have it both ways. Either diplomatic premises are inviolable and sovereign, or they are not. And if the UK chooses the latter, then it won't have a leg to stand on when people do the same to their embassies in future.

Assange flees justice

Faced with the prospect of extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual assault, Julian Assange has done a runner, hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy and applying for political asylum.

Its a very weak case. Assange is not facing persecution in Sweden; he is facing justice for his alleged crimes. There's no suggestion that he won't receive a fair trial or that he would face cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As for the fear that he will be subsequently extradited to the US, he will have the full protection of the ECHR on that. And the ECHR will not allow him to be extradited to face the death penalty or torture. Finally, despite his claims today, Assange has not been "abandoned" by the Australian government; they have made it clear that they will continue to offer consular assistance in the normal manner [PDF].

It is of course up to Ecuador who they grant asylum to and on what terms. But under the normal international law criteria, Assange wouldn't qualify. He's not a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution; he's just an alleged criminal trying to escape justice.

Correa wins in Ecuador?

BBC reports that left-wing candidate Rafael Correa looks to have won Ecuador's Presidential run-off election, with exit polls showing he has an average 14 point lead over rival banana magnate Álvaro Noboa. If confirmed, this will mean that another South-American government has gone anti-Bush - and that the red tide has swept over every South American democracy south of Colombia (the BBC seems to have recoloured Peru blue; I'm not sure why as their new President is a social democrat).

The only country left in South America's year of elections is Venezuela, to be held next weekend. Hugo Chavez is widely expected to win another term, and the question is how his opponents (and the US) will react. They didn't accept democracy when he was re-elected in 2000; will they accept it this time?

(Actually, I completely missed Guyana, where the left-wing People's Progressive Party maintained its lead over the (also left-wing) People's National Congress. I'm not sure why BBC left this one off...)

Ecuador's election

Ecuador went to the polls today in the first round of Presidential elections, and with 65% of the vote counted, banana magnate Álvaro Noboa is leading ahead of former economy minister Rafael Correa. Fortunately, he's not leading by anywhere near enough, and so there will be a runoff in late November.

This is a straight-up left-right battle, between Ecuador's richest man and a populist supporter of Hugo Chavez. It will be interesting to see how it goes, and whether the trend of South America turning red will continue, or whether Ecuador will join the pro-US neo-liberal bloc.

For those wondering, the next election in this fascinating game will be the Brazilian run-off on 29 October, followed by Nicaragua on 5 November. The latter will be particularly interesting, as the leading candidate is former Sandinista President Daniel Ortega, who the Americans waged a dirty war against during the 80's (ultimately culminating in the Iran-Contra affair). The Bush Administration does not want to see him elected - but fortunately the choice isn't up to them.