Violence, threats and criminalization of activism as part of the political context

When reading the book La zona gris (2007) by Javier Ayuero the question I felt like asking him was: “did you ever feel afraid during your field work?” The book gives an ethnographic account of the collective violence that took place during the crisis in December 2001 in Argentina, and investigates different interpretations of what happened. He describes and analyses the close to 300 lootings of supermarkets that took place, and relates this to how politics is done in the country. He deals with phenomena such as ‘punteros’, ‘cacerolazos’, and ‘clientelismo’. Especially for a foreigner the books serves as an interpretation and in many ways an explanation of the political context of what he calls the grey zone of politics, the quotidian practice that is carried out in the zone between formal and normal party politics, and “extraordinary” events like the looting and collective violence of 2001. To understand the political practices, formal as well as informal, seems vital for a study that wants to get to grips with the relationship between environmental struggles and the political culture.

With this academic introduction I do not only want to raise questions about ethical and practical issues like the possible dangers involved in doing this kind of field work and my responsibility to act on injustices, but also give some examples that I have come to hear about. A few days ago I received an e-mail from one of the many mailing lists that I belong to, that expressed severe concern about an aggressive act against some neighbourhood ambientalistas [environmental activists] who were putting up posters in Avellaneda, an area of Buenos Aires. They were attacked by several people who were travelling in a pick-up with a noticeable registration number. The ambientalistas were putting up posters that were criticizing a multinational corporation and the local politicians who let them start their waste treatment practices in the area. The aggressors questioned their criticism of both the company and the politicians. The ambientalistas interpreted that they aggressors were sent by the local authorities, and before leaving the ambientalistas the aggressors had evidently announced that “this time you were saved [by the police], next time you won’t”. The ambientalistas interpreted the act of violence as instigated by the local authorities, whom they criticized.

The second case that has been discussed extensively within the environmental groups that I interact with is the legal case against the environmental activists Carina and Marcela, in Famatina, the province of Rioja. They were put in prison after having blocked a road as an attempt to try to stop a so called mega mining business to start looting the communal resources. In the following video it is possible to view what evidently lead up to the prosecution, and according to the information that I have the men who are trying to carry the girls aside to be able to pass, are lawyers who work for the environmental office for the local authorities. You can read more and send requests for a fair treatment of the girls at the following link: http://www.hermanosdelatierra.net/secciones/en-el-tapete.html

The third case that I will relate to has received the most media attention, probably because it deals with an agricultural practice that concern 50% of the Argentinean agricultural land – the pesticide ingredient gliphosate that is part of the soybean package provided by the multinational corporation Monsanto. I am not completely sure that all 50% of the agricultural land which is grown by soybean is actually genetically modified and part of the package, but probably a large part is. The scientist Carrasco has performed a medical study of the toxicology of the pesticide gliphosate and his conclusion is that it has the capacity to change the embryonic development, i.e. that it can be harmful for human beings to be exposed to it. Since the revelation of his findings have become known, he has received several threats, and they credibility of his study has been questioned in various contexts. Of course, from one point of view it is possible to claim that all attention is good, and that the environmental movement which opposed the use of gliphosate can benefit from it, but here I want to pay attention to the construction of environmental knowledge, and the freedom of speech including the academic freedom. From my point of view, all three examples place emphasis on the use of public space, in both discursive and a more practical sense.