Discovery in the Amazon - Case Study Example

The scenario given reflects a situation in modern times, fraught with ethical dilemmas and made complex by conflicting notions of human rights and human duties. I begin by identifying what the human rights violations are in this particular scenario. Firstly, it is indeed easy to see that there are clear violations to the rights of the indigenous tribes to a healthy environment and a sustainable biodiversity. The pipeline, despite its avowed benefits and purported safety nets, will still disrupt the ecosystem in the Amazon – which is held in spiritual stewardship by the indigenous tribes that call it home.

It can also be speculated that the pipeline will give rise to cases of dispossession. The orthodox frame might argue that the pipeline will finally help in the integration of the tribes into the market economy and thus introduce them to the benefits o the development, but a more critical perspective would go further and question, “what/who has kept them out?” – thus referencing a historical divergence point that has created a global system wherein the wealth of one class limits the development possibilities of the other.

In diametric opposition to the claim that it was the birth of capitalism (and the ability to produce capital) that was the turning point in the West and what freed people from poverty, there are arguments that the beginnings of formal property rights was what led to the extinction of customary and collective rights and the deprivation of access to land and other resources of the marginalized. And while the Capitalist-driven frame traces the roots of poverty to the existence of barriers to the market exchange of land and resources, the counter-frame questions the logic of this commodification and exposes the flaws of an unfettered market exchange.

This would result in a slew of other human rights violations such as food sovereignty and land sovereignty. Moreover, there is a clear violation of the autonomy and self-determination of the indigenous tribes that occupy the areas in Ecuador to be affected by the pipeline. Western thought has cultivated the notion that there is but one trajectory towards progress and development, and this can be quantified in material terms. Development, according to Western thought, means roads and infrastructure, access to markets and trading, a quality life that approaches, if not approximates Western life as it is known.

But this kind of thinking is in itself an imposition of a Western imaginary that obscures equally legitimate ways of living and negotiating the world. The clash of economics, politics and ethics are not difficult to see. Deciding purely on the basis of economics means allowing profit to obscure other considerations -- such as the ethical imperatives of protecting the rainforest. Politics on the other hand, involves power and the distribution of it. If wielded wisely, politics should take into consideration the popular sentiments of the indigenous tribes and yield to the democratic will of the majority.

When democratic institutions are weak, however, as in the case of Ecuador, politics and economics often become conflated and operate to preserve the status quo. Who therefore should act to address the ethical dilemma? The protagonist or the international community? First, the protagonist has to resolve her personal dilemmas with regard to her exercise of agency as a woman. She finds herself being made to suppress her authentic self – her womanhood – in order to advance her career interests.

She must continue to assert her gender identity in the contested spheres in which she moves. If she is to advocate for the rights of the indigenous communities, she may choose to do it in limited fashion while still working for her employer (i.e., assure that to the best of her ability, their rights are protected), or in broad, braver fashion – resigning from her job and using her knowledge to commit herself to the struggle of the indigenous tribes. This is a choice that only she can make. But she cannot straddle both camps.

Yes, the international community is dutybound to limit harm to the communities. This is an ethical imperative for the world – it cannot turn away in the face of great harm about to beset a vulnerable group. It does not need to prevent the pipeline from being constructed, but it can work to ensure that mechanisms are in place to protect the groups as much as possible. An example is by insisting on the setting up participatory mechanisms for public consultations, or pushing for grievance procedures in case of redress.

SOURCE: Case study – Discovery in the Amazon