Thursday, May 29, 2025

 

Source: Craig Murray

There is a stunning contrast between the access given by the UK to the Israeli Embassy to influence prosecutions of anti-Genocide journalists and protestors, and the repudiation by the UK of United Nations querying such prosecutions. The UK has rebuked the UN for “outside interference”.

I cannot state enough how unusual it is for the UK to give direct access to the Israeli Embassy to the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service, in order for the Israeli government to influence the prosecution of UK citizens. This is not about extradition, in which case there may be treaty arrangements for direct contact between prosecutors. It is just not normal nor right for an Embassy to be involved with domestic prosecutions in this way.

This is one of a series of heavily redacted emails seen by the Guardian, Middle East Eye and lawyers for Palestine Action. They show the Israeli government being granted direct influence with UK police and prosecutors, to urge the prosecution of UK citizens protesting in the UK, against a genocide for which Israel stands accused at the International Court of Justice, with her leaders indicted before the International Criminal Court.

There is no British precedent for this situation and it is very much against international practice, although comparators may be found in influencing prosecution decisions in Vichy France or the Eastern European communist bloc by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union – though there were instances of pushback even there. By contrast the UK system is openly influenced by the Israelis.

There is no reticence from the UK government in forwarding Israel influence. Although all released correspondence has been heavily redacted, it is plain that individual cases have been discussed with the Israelis, including those of Palestine Action.

The United Nations has written to the UK on the subject of its treatment both of pro-Palestinian protestors and journalists and the abuse of anti-terrorism legislation. It is almost certain that some of the same cases the UN cites are those the Israeli Embassy has been involved in. The contrast between the UK’s treatment of the Israelis and of the United Nations could scarcely be different. The Israelis are invited in, while the Starmer regime has repudiated the United Nations.

This is stunning hypocrisy. It is characterised as being in the interest of those being persecuted by the UK and Israel, to prevent “interference from international organisations” such as the United Nations. This is beyond the pen of Orwell or Kafka. You can imagine the authors sniggering as they wrote it.

But the truth is the exact opposite of the UK government line. Unlike the Israeli Embassy, the United Nations really does have a right to interfere. The Special Procedures mechanisms by which the United Nations approached the UK are a well-established part of international law, and the UK is a party to them. These are instituted by the Human Rights Council, and it has always been the position of the UK that all nations are subject to them.

In addition the UK is since 1971 a full party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is monitored by the Human Rights Committee and to the provisions of which the UN Special Rapporteurs specifically referred in querying the UK’s actions in this matter.

So the Israel Embassy has no right to interfere, and the United Nations has a direct right to interfere; yet the UK has encouraged the illegitimate while repudiating the legitimate. This is a classic example of the way that Zionism has fundamentally poisoned public institutions in the UK, and also of the profound Zionist capture of New Labour.

Yesterday’s revelation that David Lammy has lied to parliament and the country about suspending trade talks with Israel, while UK “trade envoy” Lord Austin is actually there, should be no surprise.

The hypocrisy does not even end there. The UK has been the most vociferous of countries in weaponising the UN Special Procedures against its own designated enemies, such as Russia and China. For the UK now to repudiate these UN investigations as “interference” is precisely to adopt the position of those states it has long argued against.

I have no doubt that this has been duly noted by any dictatorship the UK may seek to criticise in future.

You will recall that I am among a number of journalists about whose detention under the Terrorism Act and the seizure of whose electronic equipment, and thus correspondence, the United Nations interrogate the UK. You can read the UK government reply in full here.

ukgovtreply

Since the UN wrote, there have been further high-profile arrests of journalists, including Sarah Wilkinson and Asa Winstanley. The basic UK response is that the UN should not interfere, but one point of detail the UK states is particularly worth noting. Detentions and confiscations such as mine under the Terrorism Act specifically do not require the police to have any “reasonable grounds of suspicion”.

What kind of state makes a point of empowering its police to act unreasonably?

But read this further from the UK government reply:

I was detained and my electronics seized under Section 7. That means the UK government is claiming that I was “concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”. Just digest that for a moment.

I might say that nothing in my questioning – which was roughly equally split between the subjects of Wikileaks and Palestine – related in any way to the potential commission of any acts of terrorism. Is the government really pretending that, in travelling home from an Assange campaign meeting in Iceland, they truly suspected I was preparing to commit terrorism? This is ludicrous.

It has often been noticed that despite Sarah Wilkinson, Asa Winstanley, Richard Medhurst, Johanna Ross, John Laughland, Vanessa Beeley, Kit Klarenberg, Ernest Moret, Richard Barnard, Tony Greenstein and Natalie Strecker all being swept up under the Terrorism Act in a campaign against journalists this last two years, there has never been a single mention in UK mainstream media of the UK’s arrest of journalists under the Terrorism Act.

Even following the United Nations intervention to question the UK on the arrest of journalists the UK did not mention it. Even the UK’s tiny number of licensed anti-genocide voices in the mainstream media, such as Owen Jones, have never mentioned it.

Yesterday Asa Winstanley won an important legal victory at the Old Bailey where a senior judge ruled that the police raid on his home and seizure of his equipment was unlawful. That is an important and rare legal victory, and I am tempted to attribute it partly to the turning of the tide of Establishment opinion against sacrificing all principles of law to the interests of Israel.

You may perhaps not be surprised to learn that this victory, too, has not been covered by the mainstream media. This conspiracy of silence over extreme abuse of police power against journalists is deeply troubling.

 

Source: Mondoweiss

On Tuesday afternoon, Israeli media published photos of a long queue lined up in barbed-wire-fenced passageways waiting to receive aid in Rafah. The harrowing scenes were part of the initial attempt by the U.S.-Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to implement its project to distribute assistance to the residents of the Gaza Strip.

After hours of waiting under the scorching sun, people began to push into the long, narrow passageways, which were fenced on both sides and marked with signs directing those queuing to the distribution point. The chaos quickly devolved into a stampede, and people began rushing the scene, grabbing whatever aid boxes they could find. Within hours of the opening of the aid distribution point, news quickly spread of people securing aid, and thousands had gathered near the checkpoint.

Amidst the chaos at the distribution center, the American team working at the site lost control over the crowds. Although some of them carried weapons and fired in the air, according to eyewitnesses, the hungry families did not stop. The Israeli media reported that an army force was called in to protect the foreign employees of the aid distribution company, with reports of fire being opened on the crowd.

Gaza’s Government Media Office said in a statement on Tuesday that “the Israeli occupation is failing miserably in its aid distribution project in the apartheid zones, amid the collapse of the humanitarian process and the escalation of the crime of starvation.”

‘It looked like a large prison

People began arriving at an area called al-Alam, west of Rafah, which is under complete Israeli military control. According to testimonies, people went to the area after receiving information to go there to receive the food parcels. As some families headed out, others followed.

When people in the Rafah area saw scores of people heading to al-Alam and returning carrying boxes of food aid, everyone who could reach the area went to get food.

Muhammad Abu Hadi, 34, was in his tent in the Mawasi area of ​​Khan Younis when he saw his neighbor carrying a food box and returning to his tent around 3:00 p.m. He immediately asked him where he got it. His neighbor told him a point had opened in Rafah for the distribution of food parcels.

Muhammad headed to the point immediately. When he arrived, “it felt like a desert,” he said. “You walk a long way, then you find the fence. There were two lines, one for men and one for women.”

“There were about five American employees; the rest were Arabs who spoke like us,” Muhammad added. “They treated us respectfully, and we received a food box and returned the same way through the barbed wire.”

Muhammad says they were not searched or harassed, but cameras were installed in several places, capturing each person from every angle.

“I arrived at the distribution point. It looked like a large prison, with common paths and vast spaces between us and the distribution point. But people removed the fence and stormed the place without anyone attacking them later.”

Muhammad explains that the Israeli army was not far from them when chaos first broke out; they were stationed near the distribution center, but they did not shoot anyone until he left, carrying a box of food aid at around 4:30 p.m.

Some reports have emerged suggesting that the U.S.-backed aid distribution centers are already being used to detain civilians seeking food parcels. According to Drop Site News, at least one person was detained near the Morag Corridor “after he failed to provide information on a relative.” 

Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill said that the family of the detained man received a call from him while he was being detained by Israeli intelligence in Rafah, and that they were “demanding information about one of our relatives with whom we’ve had no contact since the beginning of the war.”

According to Scahill, when the family was unable to provide the information the army requested, “communication was cut off,” and they were later informed that he was transferred to a detention center, and is “now considered missing.”

Late Tuesday evening, the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Missing and Forcibly Displaced Persons released a statement saying that a number of people had been reported missing by family members after leaving to go retrieve aid at the distribution point and not returning home since.

Starvation as a weapon of war

Tuesday’s events are the latest development in what international humanitarian organizations have described as a policy of engineering famine and starvation, with Israel using the control over aid as a weapon in its genocide. 

Since March 3, Israel has closed all crossings into the Gaza Strip and prevented the entry of food and medical supplies. This has led to the return of widespread hunger to the Strip, with the threat of famine looming once again.

According to the March 2025 report of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN body tasked with monitoring famine, 470,000 people in Gaza have reached “Phase 5: Catastrophe/Famine,” with 96% of all Gazans experiencing “acute food insecurity,” and 22% of the population suffering from “catastrophic levels.” 

The Government Media Office in the Gaza Strip described Israel’s policy as one of “engineered starvation.” 

“During the 84 days of siege, at least 46,200 trucks loaded with aid and fuel were supposed to enter Gaza to meet the population’s minimum needs,” the Media Office said on May 24. “The occupation has been promoting a misleading narrative claiming that it has allowed the entry of ‘aid.’ Reality shows that only about 100 trucks have entered, representing less than 1% of the population’s basic needs.” 

The UN’s humanitarian chief has made similar statements, saying that the aid Israel has allowed through in recent days represents “a drop in the ocean of what’s needed.”

Leading up to the creation of the GHF, Israel was not only undermining existing agencies like UNRWA but was also targeting and killing aid personnel on the ground in Gaza. This has been part of Israel’s method of fomenting chaos and the collapse of local aid delivery networks. 

Over the past several months, the army’s targeted assassinations of community leaders and Gaza officials in charge of aid distribution have led to the emergence of armed gangs that steal aid, allegedly under the protection and facilitation of the Israeli army.

The most recent example of this tactic was evident on May 24, when Gaza officials said that the Israeli army ordered aid trucks to pass through specific routes where these gangs were present, only to be looted. The Government Media Office said that the Israeli army bombed security personnel protecting the aid on May 23, killing six of them.

How the GHF will supposedly distribute aid

Prior to Tuesday, which was the first official day of aid distribution by the GHF, several Israeli reports published the supposed plans of the American company to distribute aid, in coordination with the Israeli army. According to reports, the GHF was to distribute assistance to Gaza residents according to Israeli military instructions and in four main distribution areas that the Israeli military would establish within the Strip. Aid would be given to residents according to a specific distribution mechanism, and the Israeli military would be stationed a few meters away to “protect” the distribution centers.

The plans did not mention a center for residents of northern Gaza or any other place within the north. Residents of Gaza City and the north would have to go to their designated points south of the Netzarim axis, which divides Gaza between north and south. This means that residents seeking aid may be prevented from returning to northern Gaza.

Food parcels would be distributed from the ports of Ashdod and Jordan and brought into the Gaza Strip via the Karam Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing. Each parcel would supposedly contain enough food for a family for approximately one week. According to Israel’s Channel 12, one person from each family will receive the parcel after undergoing a comprehensive security check.

According to Israeli media reports, the food basket to be distributed to families is sufficient for a whole week and includes basic food items. This has angered Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, who believe this method guarantees a slow and silent death for Palestinians in the Strip.

According to local reports, Gazans received an announcement from the GHF that the “emergency situation” that arose from the aid distribution on Tuesday would lead to the postponement of distribution on the following day. The announcement reportedly also cited “the need to fully secure the aid” and to perform “necessary maintenance procedures on site to ensure the smooth running of the operation” as additional reasons for the suspension of aid delivery tomorrow. Mondoweiss could not independently ascertain the veracity of the statement.

Public and international rejection of the American plan

The United Nations, along with numerous other international aid agencies and humanitarian officials, has condemned the formation of the GHF, saying the Israeli and American plans do not meet the basic standards and principles of humanitarian aid delivery.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Gaza stated that the Israeli plan “appears designed to strengthen control over essential supplies as part of a military pressure strategy,” which is a “violation of humanitarian principles.”

The UN team warned that implementing the plan would force civilians to travel to dangerous military areas to obtain food rations, endangering their lives and the lives of relief workers, as well as making it difficult for people with special needs and the elderly to reach distribution points.

In a surprise move on Monday, Jake Wood, Executive Director of the GHF, announced his resignation in a statement, saying “it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence,” which Wood said he “will not abandon.”

Gazans divided over aid distribution plan

Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip, as thousands of hungry families are awaiting food, opinions are divided among people. Some want to obtain food by any means necessary, regardless of how it will reach their children’s mouths. Others view the American plan as a new chapter in the strangulation Israel is imposing on the Palestinians.

Ahmad Ghanima, 42, a father of six, says he doesn’t care where the food comes from. All he wants is to feed his children, who scream day and night with hunger. “I watch them shrink due to the lack of food,” he told Mondoweiss.

“Give me bread for my children, and I won’t ask where you got it from or how it got to us,” Ghanima added. “I’m dying watching my children groan with hunger. They’ve lost their ability to scream and speak. They groan day and night, and I can only get a plate of lentils once a day, which isn’t enough for three of my children.”

Ghanima lives in a tent with his family at a displacement center in Gaza City. Some residents of the center view the American food distribution plan as a new kind of siege imposed on Palestinians in Gaza.

“They set our calorie needs, giving us the minimum. It’s as if they’re telling us, ‘We don’t want to kill you now. You can wait a little while before we kill you,’” said Osama Abu Matar, a displaced person and father of three in Mawasi, Khan Younis.

“The United States and Israel want to eliminate us,” Abu Matar added. “They are devising subtle ways to kill us because the barbaric and brutal killing throughoutthe war has exposed them to the world. Now, they will kill us by controlling our food.”Email

Tareq S. Hajjaj is the Mondoweiss Gaza Correspondent, and a member of the Palestinian Writers Union. He studied English Literature at Al-Azhar University in Gaza. He started his career in journalism in 2015 working as a news writer and translator for the local newspaper, Donia al-Watan. He has reported for ElbadiMiddle East Eye, and Al Monitor.

 

Source: Esperanza Project

In 2012, the Kichwa people of Sarayaku won a historic lawsuit against the Ecuadorian state in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—one of the first major tests of Ecuador’s trailblazing 2008 Constitution, the first in the world to recognize the Rights of Nature. But thirteen years later, the promises of that legal victory remain largely unfulfilled. In early 2024, Ecuador’s Constitutional Court gave President Daniel Noboa six months to comply. He didn’t. And now, with his recent re-election and his efforts to roll back core environmental protections, it seems even less likely that he will.

“We saw the problems coming,” says José Gualinga with a serious face, his features glowing in the light of the fire during a traditional guayusa ceremony in Sarayaku territory, in the heart of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Gualinga is one of the Sarayaku leaders who for more than three decades has led a historic movement of peaceful resistance against oil exploitation in the Amazon.

Today, the Sarayaku people stand not only as guardians of their territory, but as global trailblazers in the movement to recognize the Rights of Mother Earth — a struggle they helped bring into the international spotlight long before it became a legal trend.

Gualinga recounts the start of the struggle: “In 1990, when we heard the news that oil company CGC would enter the exploration phase, a group of young leaders, aware of the devastation petroleum had caused in the northern Amazon over the previous two decades, organized to stop them. That’s how the Peace and Life Encampments were born.”

He remembers how at the time, the oil company managed to buy the loyalty of many leaders of neighboring communities — sometimes with promises of development, sometimes with bribes and handouts, in classic Latin American political style. Soon, Sarayaku was left alone in its fight.

“They bought all the radio stations in Puyo and broadcast daily news and interviews demonizing our people. They said Sarayaku leaders were the obstacle keeping our people in poverty. Other leaders went on air to call on Indigenous communities to rise up against Sarayaku,” Gualinga recalls.

In 1999, after unsuccessful attempts to win over Sarayaku, the oil company announced it would enter by force. Sarayaku reinforced the Peace and Life Camps — surveillance posts to prevent the oil company’s entry.

Their strategy also included political advocacy in Quito and constant communication with international human rights organizations. The incursions into their territory lasted until 2003, when the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights issued emergency protective measures.They then took the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and it took nearly a decade after that for the Sarayaku to finally gain their favorable ruling.

As a result, Rafael Correa’s government paid Sarayaku $1.3 million in compensation and held a public apology ceremony.

The verdict also required the government to remove 1,400 kg (or a ton and a half) of explosives buried in virgin jungle — which has never been done. The explosives left in the sacred territory of Sarayaku continue to threaten what the people know as Kawsak Sacha – the living forest – and the lives and safety of the Sarayaku community, according to a press release they published in 2022. “Since the Inter-American judgment was issued in 2012, the State has not removed or deactivated even one kilogram of the more than 1,400 kg of explosives present in the territory. At the hearing it was evident that the State currently has no plan to comply with this order, nor to ensure Sarayaku’s participation and consultation on it.”

Nor has the government fulfilled the two most important points for Sarayaku: the guarantee of non-repetition, and the creation of a legal framework to ensure the right to Prior Consultation for Indigenous peoples affected by extractive projects.

In 2022, Sarayaku filed a complaint with Ecuador’s Constitutional Court for the state’s failure to comply with the ruling after ten years. In January 2024, the Court ruled in favor of Sarayaku, giving President Daniel Noboa six months to fulfill the ruling. Noboa has yet to even make a public statement on the case.

According to Mario Melo, the lawyer who represented Sarayaku, “Ecuador’s Constitution strongly supports the right to resistance, the collective rights of Indigenous peoples, and the rights of nature (…) What’s really lacking is political will on the part of the state to comply. Sometimes, organizations also hesitate to assert their rights. Sarayaku is an example.”

This legal struggle plays out in a country that once led the world with its 2008 Constitution—not only recognizing the Rights of Nature but also affirming Indigenous peoples’ right to Prior Consultation. Today, both promises are under increasing threat.

Prior Consultation?

This principle, written into the 2008 Constitution, requires the state to obtain the consent of communities affected by extractive projects before any intervention. Controversy began immediately after the new Constitution was passed.

Correa was the political force behind the world’s first Constitution to grant rights to nature and recognize Prior Consultation. But he had his own interpretation: when the government paid compensation to Sarayaku, Correa said that Ecuador is a democracy, not a state of consensus — meaning if a minority opposes a project that benefits the majority, the majority must prevail.

Since Correa left office in 2017, conditions for conservation and Indigenous rights have deteriorated. President Noboa has proposed a new Constitution that would eliminate the principle of Prior Consultation altogether.

What Correa couldn’t have foreseen was that in the years to come, national referendums would be held on conservation issues — most recently, in the successful citizen initiative to ban oil drilling in Yasuni National Park — and in all of them, anti-extractivist votes would prevail. This created a window of hope for environmental protection.

Correa’s party remains the country’s most powerful political force, with a majority in the National Assembly. In the 2024 presidential elections, something happened that could change everything.

In the first round of voting, there was a near tie between Correa’s candidate Luisa González and current president Noboa. In third place came Leonidas Iza, representing Ecuador’s Indigenous peoples. With only 6% of the vote, Indigenous communities suddenly appeared to be the deciding factor in the April 2025 runoff.

For the first time, Indigenous peoples held real political leverage — the perfect circumstance for Ecuador to become the first country in the world to voluntarily turn away from extractivism. That would have been historic.

Like all Ecuadorians, both Indigenous Amazonian peoples and those in other regions want a more comfortable standard of living. But who says the only path to prosperity is through nature’s destruction?

And to those who still believe in the euphemism of “responsible extraction,” I quote Petrobras engineer Jorge Enrique Moreira, whom I interviewed in 2012. He explained in detail that petroleum extraction without disturbing nature is impossible. Other petroleum engineers I’ve spoken with say that “sustainable oil extraction” is basically a fairytale.

In the end, the alliance between Correa’s party and the Indigenous movement didn’t come to power. Despite leading in nearly every poll, and despite the serious political weakening suffered by Noboa’s presidency, Correa’s candidate lost by ten points. Rumors of electoral fraud have filled the political discourse ever since.

Face-to-Face Resistance

In 1999, under President Jamil Mahuad, the Ecuadorian government authorized the Argentine oil company CGC to enter Sarayaku territory — without any consultation process. Although Prior Consultation wasn’t yet constitutionally mandated, Ecuador had signed international treaties committing to it.

In 2002, the conflict escalated. The military openly supported the oil company, and Sarayaku turned to Ecuadorian courts. The company tried to negotiate, but Sarayaku’s demand was simple: leave. There was no middle ground.

The community went on high alert, seeking international help. Meanwhile, the company used dirty tactics: it destroyed a sacred tree, planted explosives in a sacred mountain, and tried to split the community by forming a parallel pro-oil leadership. 

Listening to Gualinga and others describe the harassment by the oil company, it’s hard not to think of a real-life *Avatar nightmare.

“Our peaceful and persistent resistance worked,” says Gualinga. “But we won’t stop until the law is fulfilled and our territories are respected.”

Many see Sarayaku as an inspiration for other Amazonian communities to stand firm against extractivism. Their peaceful resistance — grounded in law — has indeed been successful. : no oil or mining operations have ever entered Sarayaku territory.

Yet across the country, many extractive concessions face active resistance. Sarayaku’s example reminds us that people have a right to live in a healthy environment — and that peaceful resistance works.

The Kawsak Sacha Proposal

What makes Sarayaku’s struggle unique is the context they give it. For community members, this isn’t just a land conflict. They are demanding the Ecuadorian state live up to the Constitution’s mandate to grant rights to nature and embrace Sumak Kawsay as a development model.

“Sumak Kawsay,” a Kichwa concept incorporated into the 2008 Constitution, means “Buen Vivir” or “Good Living.” Unlike the Western model of development, which measures well-being by access to goods and services, Sumak Kawsay takes a holistic approach. Its three pillars, according to Sarayaku’s Life Plan, are:  

– Sumak Allpa (territory, environment, and natural resources)  

– Runakuna Kawsay (economic, political, and social systems, including basic services)  

– Sacha Runa Yachay (wisdom, ancestral knowledge, Indigenous education, and culture)

In 2018, Sarayaku presented the Kawsak Sacha (Living Forest) Declaration to the world — affirming that humans and nature are one living organism, and harming nature is simply wrong.

Gualinga explains: “The Kawsak Sacha Declaration is rooted in defending both the Rights of Nature, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and the collective rights of Sarayaku. It proposes ecological balance, values biodiversity, and supports Sumak Kawsay.”

He adds, “To truly recognize the Rights of Nature, we must recognize the beings of the forest as persons, not objects or resources. The beings of the forest relate to one another, and we Indigenous peoples coexist with them. Kawsak Sacha and Sumak Kawsay are inseparable — one cannot exist without the other.”

What Do Ecuadorians Say?

Caring for nature — for reasons beyond simply producing oxygen — is a core part of Ecuadorian culture. Not only among Indigenous peoples, who see nature as a mother to be respected, but also among urban dwellers, who are reconnecting with nature as part of a global trend.

In 2014 and 2019, referendums in Azuay Province rejected new mining projects. In 2023, a national referendum asked whether oil extraction should continue in Yasuní National Park. Despite a pro-oil media blitz, 59% voted to end operations there.

On the same day, voters in Quito’s Metropolitan District were asked whether the Chocó Andino forests should remain mining-free. An overwhelming 68% said yes.

Still, many politicians continue to see nature as a free source of wealth, regardless of constitutional or popular mandates.

One historic case is Chevron-Texaco. Between 1966 and 1972, Texaco caused massive contamination in Ecuador’s northern Amazon. In response, 47 Indigenous leaders filed suit in New York. Texaco got the case moved to Ecuador, where the Correa government supported a fair trial.

The Ecuadorian judge ruled for the plaintiffs: Chevron-Texaco was ordered to pay $9 billion in damages and issue a public apology. Instead, Chevron launched a smear campaign against Ecuador, the plaintiffs, and their lawyers.

In 2013, a U.S. federal judge ruled — incredibly — that the plaintiffs and their lawyers had committed extortion and applied RICO law (intended for organized crime) against them. In 2014, the same judge ruled the Ecuadorian trial was invalid and freed Chevron from its obligation.

This legal persecution continues today — especially against former attorney Steven Donziger, whose license was revoked, who served time in jail, and whose career was ruined for taking on the oil giant.

Recently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued another landmark ruling — this time for the voluntarily isolated Tagaeri and Taromenane peoples living in Yasuní. The court found the Ecuadorian state guilty of violating their rights to life, dignity, environment, collective ownership, cultural identity, and more.

Solutions?

A group of Ecuadorian economists recently published “20 Economic Alternatives to Extractivism,” proposing modest tax reforms that would generate over three times the revenue produced by oil fields in Yasuní.

In addition, high-value bioenterprises — like those using Amazonian medicinal plants — are on the rise. Ecuador’s artisanal chocolate bars are now found around the world. A national brand associated with protected lands and ancestral stewardship would only grow in value.

Thematic tourism could also thrive. Ecuador as a country that enforces Rights of Nature would have a unique appeal for conscious travelers. Tourism can be harmful, or it can end poverty — it depends on the kind of people who come.

All signs suggest Ecuadorians prefer a slower, more respectful development model that honors both nature and Indigenous autonomy. The fact that Rights of Nature are in the Constitution is a major step — some call it hypocrisy, but I believe it means the laws will eventually have to be honored.

None of this is coincidence. The young leaders who kept extractivism out, the ongoing community struggles, the referendums, the court victories — they are part of a larger awakening. Humanity is realizing we are one with this beautiful blue planet, and that conservation is not a luxury, but a duty to future generations.

Politically, dark times lie ahead for conservation in Ecuador. Noboa’s government is determined to dismantle the world’s first Constitution to grant Rights of Nature. But the struggle continues. Significant and organized resistance continues within Ecuador against President Daniel Noboa’s efforts to dismantle the constitutional protections for the Rights of Nature. Indigenous communities, environmental organizations, and civil society groups are actively opposing these initiatives through legal action, public demonstrations, and international advocacy.

The Sarayaku, for their part, have done much more than resist — they’ve helped redefine the global conversation about environmental justice, anchoring a visionary struggle to recognize Mother Earth not as property, but as a living being with legal standing. And they are far from finished with this fight.

As for the Sarayaku case, Gualinga is resolute:  

“We’ve been advised to file criminal charges against the government officials who failed to carry out the Constitutional Court’s ruling. We’re evaluating our options. But our position is clear and non-negotiable: Nature is not for sale.”


Riki Cevallos writes about environmental issues, collaborative economies, food sovereignty, community managed travel and the crusade of humanity for its freedom. Riki’s latest communication project in TikTok and Instagram, @FilosofiaRerenne5.0 (Perennial Philosophy 5.0), aims to interpret concepts of esoteric philosophy in contemporary language. Riki’s Mission is to serve the awakening through information and community action.