Escobal mine protests
[1] Since 2009 various community groups have advocated against the mine, citing risks of environmental damage and the land sovereignty rights of the indigenous Xinca people.
[1][2] Escobal opened in 2014 and operated for three years before Tahoe's mining license was suspended by a Guatemalan court for failing to adequately consult with Xinca communities in the area.
[4] Tahoe was in turn created by former executives of (and owned in large part by) previous mining companies such as Goldcorp and Glamis Gold that had already faced opposition in the region, which shaped the community's reaction to the Escobal project.
[1][2] Violence in service of resource extraction has become the norm, serving as a core task of Guatemala's armed forces and a major basis for the country's economy.
[4] Guatemala's Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) requires that mining companies conduct an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) to identify and address any negative effects on the surrounding area, but there is little legal infrastructure for oversight and enforcement.
[1][2][3] The Guatemalan government, however, has been in broad violation of these requirements, and has systematically failed to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from indigenous communities before allowing projects to proceed.
[3][9][11] This was criticized in a report by the United Nations General Assembly on racism and violation of indigenous rights in Guatemala, which found evidence of failure to consult with the Xinca, denial of their identity, and criminalization of their attempts to protest.
[8] The opposition movement has involved a wide range of individuals and organizations: indigenous and non-indigenous, religious and secular, spanning thirty communities, ten municipalities, and three departments in Guatemala.
[1] These include the CDP, Communitarian Councils for Development (COCODEs), the Diocese Commission for the Defense of Nature (CODIDENA), the Parliament of the Xinca People of Guatemala (PAPXIGUA), the Peaceful Resistance in Casillas, and three local mayors.
[1][5] Protesters have challenged the mine on the basis of its environmental impact, the threats posed to human health and well-being, and the legitimacy of the company's right to build on the land without proper consultations.
These votes have been used not only as legal mechanisms but also as forums for mobilizing popular resistance to the mine, a new form of grassroots activism that has changed the landscape of political movements in Guatemala.
[15] Widespread consultas have allowed individuals who do not identify as indigenous, or who do not live directly adjacent to the mine, to nonetheless express their opposition and demand an opportunity for democratic participation.
[1]Xinca activists have played a central role in protests against the mine, using the movement to reaffirm their identity and political autonomy, exercise sovereignty over their land, and build up collaborative institutions.
[1] Women have likewise held a prominent position, in most regions serving leadership roles or making up the majority of the movement — although they often have access to fewer resources than men, so their interests tend to be deprioritized.
[1][2][4][9] It has been facilitated by broad militarization,[2][4][7][17] a state of siege,[2][8][14][15][17][18] orders of capture,[18] surveillance of civilians,[8][9] intelligence and counterintelligence strategies,[1][4][8] and widespread violations of human rights.
[4] Tahoe's private security company Golan Group has surveilled citizens who speak out against the Escobal mine and reported them to the police for arrests.
[1] That same year protesters report that, while peacefully demonstrating against the mine's construction of a high-voltage line, they were violently attacked by "members of the company's private security detail equipped with anti-riot gear, attack dogs, tear gas launchers, and rubber bullet guns, and accompanied by members of the National Civil Police," followed later by army helicopters flying overhead, employing wartime intimidation tactics.
[2][6] On April 27, 2013, Escobal's head of security Alberto Rotondo ordered his team to attack a group of twenty indigenous civilians and peaceful protesters standing in front of the mine.
[4][8] These recordings purport to show him ordering the shooting of protesters and subsequent destruction of evidence, featuring lines such as "we’ve got to get those piece-of-shit animals off the road," "goddamned dogs don’t realize that mining creates jobs," and "just kill the sons of bitches!
"[8] On May 1, 2013, President Pérez declared a 30-day state of siege in four municipalities near Escobal — Casillas, Jalapa, Mataquescuintla, and San Rafael Las Flores — to suppress protests against the mine.
[3] On June 18, 2014, seven indigenous residents of San Rafael Las Flores filed a civil lawsuit against Tahoe Resources in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleging battery and negligence in authorizing or allowing its security team to use excessive force against them in the April 2013 shootings.
[4] Meanwhile, the Canadian government has not taken any concrete action to stop human rights abuses against protesters in San Rafael Las Flores, which researcher Caren Weisbart calls "a critical failure to intervene in crimes of the powerful.
