See the Advocacy Guide
And the Regularly updated website ASJ runs on the crisis
miércoles 2 de septiembre de 2009
Reflections on the crisis in Honduras from MCC Partner
AJS Condemns both Zelaya and His Ouster
by Kurt Ver Beek and Andrew Clouse
Originally published on the Christianity Today blog (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/07/honduras_coup_w.html)
Political leaders from around the world are racing to be the first and loudest to condemn this past Sunday’s coup in Honduras. Everyone from President Obama to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, from the United Nation’s general secretary to Fidel Castro, are denouncing the coup, threatening sanctions and calling for the return to office of ousted President Manuel Zelaya. Yet why are so many Hondurans, including key evangelical leaders, so divided about the coup and Zelaya’s return?
It all starts with the constitution. The Honduran constitution has 379 articles—and all but four can be reformed. It’s one of these four non-negotiable that’s causing all the fuss. The article states that a Honduran president cannot be re-elected. Ever. One four-year term is the only shot a president can have. Nearly all Latin American countries wrote this into their constitutions during the 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to avoid their presidents’ tendency to use second terms to consolidate power and stay in office permanently.
So starting with president-turned-dictator-turned-fugitive Alberto Fujimori in Peru, and more recently including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and now a little closer to home—Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Zelaya in Honduras—Latin American presidents have sought to reform their constitutions to permit re-election. In the last few years Venezuelan president Chavez has been building ALBA, a block of Latin American presidents designed to challenge the U.S. hegemony in the region. His country’s oil income in the form of finance grants, loans and political advisors serves as the carrot to entice presidents to join ALBA. And predictably enough, six of the nine members of the ALBA countries have or are trying to reform their constitutions to pave the way for their possible re-election.
Honduran president Zelaya began a full-out effort to reform the constitution in March of this year by announcing a referendum to be held Sunday, June 28—the day the coup took place—to determine whether the people wanted an assembly called to rewrite the constitution before presidential elections in November. Almost immediately, the country’s political, economic and many religious leaders began lining up against this effort. The Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal; the Congress voted to sanction the president; the attorney general’s office began investigations into possible charges; both political parties—including the president’s own—condemned his actions; and church leaders like Evelio Reyes, pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in Honduras, began holding high-profile prayer vigils each morning in front of government offices.
Had the president done a better job during his first three years in office, his efforts may have been more popular. However his administration has been plagued by ineffectiveness and myriad accusations of corruption. During his first year in office, his administration received over $4 billion in debt forgiveness—with the chief condition that any money not spent on debt was to be invested in reducing poverty. Many organizations, including Christian NGOs, worked for over a year to define how this money could be best invested. However, Zelaya ignored their efforts and instead tried to buy votes by spending 70 percent of the money on raises for teachers and health workers, and the rest on ineffective but politically powerful “cash coupons” for the rural poor. Zelaya has also failed to deliver on promises to build houses, promote land reform, build a new international airport and fight corruption. In the meantime, he has used public funds to finance a pro-government newspaper and TV station, flashy TV and radio ads and pro-government demonstrations. Zelaya did move beyond rhetoric early this year when he impetuously hiked the minimum wage by 60 percent. The raise was desperately needed, but its overnight implementation in an already-struggling economy led to thousands of minimum-wage job losses as many businesses found it impossible to make payroll.
In short, Zelaya’s record is dismal. And that fact has led many Hondurans, including most evangelicals, to be relieved to see his ineffective and corrupt administration come to an unexpected end. Pastor Evelio Reyes, in a speech to support the new government said, “We cannot tolerate these kinds of actions. No country in the world puts up with these types of barbarities, and Honduras won’t either because we have dignity.”
But the president does have his supporters. Despite his decidedly non-leftist background, Zelaya has managed to gain the support of some of the most radical social groups in Honduras by funding their organizations and protests and promising them seats at the constitutional assembly that would have rewritten the constitution. These groups are expert mobilizers and are now returning the favor by leading the increasingly violent protests seeking Zelaya’s return to office.
But other, less radical Hondurans and church leaders also disapprove of the coup. First, the rhetoric Zelaya used during the last three months to promote a rewrite of the constitution touched a nerve for many Hondurans, including evangelicals. Zelaya’s speeches as well as very professional TV and radio ads (designed by Venezuelan advisors) argued that the 70 percent of the Honduran population who live on less than $2 a day have seen little benefit from 20 plus years of democratic rule in which a political and economic elite have run the country and everything in it for their own illicit gain. Zelaya said it was time to hear the “voice of the people” and that reforming the constitution was a good first step in getting that voice heard. This message resonated with the poor and those, including many Christians, concerned about issues of poverty and injustice. Mario Cantor, an evangelical pastor in a marginal urban community, said this:
“The majority of people who supported the cuarta urna (the “fourth ballot box”) believed that the constitution needed to be reformed to be more inclusive. According to some, the constitution excluded certain sectors of the community. So they believe that there is a need to create a constitution that allows the people to have more participation in the country´s decisions. Zelaya himself was talking about a more equitable society, where distribution of wealth is fairer, talking about the common good, as Jesus did.”
In addition, many Hondurans and Honduran Christians are uncomfortable with the military’s role in Zelaya’s ouster, fearing a return to the situation of the 1970s and 1980s when the military was clearly the power behind the president. This was an era of fear, violence and corruption that few Hondurans care to relive. They argue that like him or not, if Zelaya was breaking the law, he should have been charged and tried instead of forcibly removed from his home and flown to Costa Rica. And they are uneasy hearing reports of suspended civil liberties and protesters detained.
They want the democratic system to work the way it is supposed to. As mega church pastor Rene Peñalba stated, Zelaya’s goal “in itself was not bad, but he got the method wrong. And I would say the same about the other side. [Zelaya] deserved to go to trial, but they got the method wrong. Both sides got it wrong.”
While the fear of an oversized role of the military is understandable, it seems clear that they were an ambivalent partner in the ouster, directed by a small but powerful political and economic elite. Although initially Zelaya’s allies in carrying out the referendum, the military has shifted since there was clearly little enthusiasm for the task. Just days before the referendum, Zelaya fired the chief general and the rest of the general’s staff quit in solidarity. Zelaya and his supporters staged a dramatic showdown at a military warehouse to get the ballots while the military stood silently by. And most obviously, while the military carried out the arrest and flew Zelaya to Costa Rica, they did not seize power but immediately installed the president of Congress as President of the country.
What’s clear among all the conflict is that all the existing powers in Honduras—the ruling elite, the Zelaya administration, and the military—show by their rhetoric that they recognize what most ordinary Hondurans want—to live in a country where their voice will be heard and where true democracy and rule of law flourish.
Carlos Hernandez, president of the la Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa (AJS’s Honduran sister organization), a Christian social justice organization in Honduras, argues, “As Christians we need to make the legal systems work for everyone—from the poorest Honduran to the most powerful. So first of all, Zelaya should return to the country and there should be a full investigation into his actions. If he has broken laws, he should be tried and sentenced—not sent to Costa Rica without a trial. Second, we should also push for an investigation into who was responsible for this coup and they should also be investigated and tried. It is only then, by showing that neither side is above the law and that neither side can take the law into their own hands, that we can show the world that justice for all is possible, even in Honduras.”
by Kurt Ver Beek and Andrew Clouse
Originally published on the Christianity Today blog (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/07/honduras_coup_w.html)
Political leaders from around the world are racing to be the first and loudest to condemn this past Sunday’s coup in Honduras. Everyone from President Obama to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, from the United Nation’s general secretary to Fidel Castro, are denouncing the coup, threatening sanctions and calling for the return to office of ousted President Manuel Zelaya. Yet why are so many Hondurans, including key evangelical leaders, so divided about the coup and Zelaya’s return?
It all starts with the constitution. The Honduran constitution has 379 articles—and all but four can be reformed. It’s one of these four non-negotiable that’s causing all the fuss. The article states that a Honduran president cannot be re-elected. Ever. One four-year term is the only shot a president can have. Nearly all Latin American countries wrote this into their constitutions during the 1970s and 1980s in an attempt to avoid their presidents’ tendency to use second terms to consolidate power and stay in office permanently.
So starting with president-turned-dictator-turned-fugitive Alberto Fujimori in Peru, and more recently including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and now a little closer to home—Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Zelaya in Honduras—Latin American presidents have sought to reform their constitutions to permit re-election. In the last few years Venezuelan president Chavez has been building ALBA, a block of Latin American presidents designed to challenge the U.S. hegemony in the region. His country’s oil income in the form of finance grants, loans and political advisors serves as the carrot to entice presidents to join ALBA. And predictably enough, six of the nine members of the ALBA countries have or are trying to reform their constitutions to pave the way for their possible re-election.
Honduran president Zelaya began a full-out effort to reform the constitution in March of this year by announcing a referendum to be held Sunday, June 28—the day the coup took place—to determine whether the people wanted an assembly called to rewrite the constitution before presidential elections in November. Almost immediately, the country’s political, economic and many religious leaders began lining up against this effort. The Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal; the Congress voted to sanction the president; the attorney general’s office began investigations into possible charges; both political parties—including the president’s own—condemned his actions; and church leaders like Evelio Reyes, pastor of one of the largest evangelical churches in Honduras, began holding high-profile prayer vigils each morning in front of government offices.
Had the president done a better job during his first three years in office, his efforts may have been more popular. However his administration has been plagued by ineffectiveness and myriad accusations of corruption. During his first year in office, his administration received over $4 billion in debt forgiveness—with the chief condition that any money not spent on debt was to be invested in reducing poverty. Many organizations, including Christian NGOs, worked for over a year to define how this money could be best invested. However, Zelaya ignored their efforts and instead tried to buy votes by spending 70 percent of the money on raises for teachers and health workers, and the rest on ineffective but politically powerful “cash coupons” for the rural poor. Zelaya has also failed to deliver on promises to build houses, promote land reform, build a new international airport and fight corruption. In the meantime, he has used public funds to finance a pro-government newspaper and TV station, flashy TV and radio ads and pro-government demonstrations. Zelaya did move beyond rhetoric early this year when he impetuously hiked the minimum wage by 60 percent. The raise was desperately needed, but its overnight implementation in an already-struggling economy led to thousands of minimum-wage job losses as many businesses found it impossible to make payroll.
In short, Zelaya’s record is dismal. And that fact has led many Hondurans, including most evangelicals, to be relieved to see his ineffective and corrupt administration come to an unexpected end. Pastor Evelio Reyes, in a speech to support the new government said, “We cannot tolerate these kinds of actions. No country in the world puts up with these types of barbarities, and Honduras won’t either because we have dignity.”
But the president does have his supporters. Despite his decidedly non-leftist background, Zelaya has managed to gain the support of some of the most radical social groups in Honduras by funding their organizations and protests and promising them seats at the constitutional assembly that would have rewritten the constitution. These groups are expert mobilizers and are now returning the favor by leading the increasingly violent protests seeking Zelaya’s return to office.
But other, less radical Hondurans and church leaders also disapprove of the coup. First, the rhetoric Zelaya used during the last three months to promote a rewrite of the constitution touched a nerve for many Hondurans, including evangelicals. Zelaya’s speeches as well as very professional TV and radio ads (designed by Venezuelan advisors) argued that the 70 percent of the Honduran population who live on less than $2 a day have seen little benefit from 20 plus years of democratic rule in which a political and economic elite have run the country and everything in it for their own illicit gain. Zelaya said it was time to hear the “voice of the people” and that reforming the constitution was a good first step in getting that voice heard. This message resonated with the poor and those, including many Christians, concerned about issues of poverty and injustice. Mario Cantor, an evangelical pastor in a marginal urban community, said this:
“The majority of people who supported the cuarta urna (the “fourth ballot box”) believed that the constitution needed to be reformed to be more inclusive. According to some, the constitution excluded certain sectors of the community. So they believe that there is a need to create a constitution that allows the people to have more participation in the country´s decisions. Zelaya himself was talking about a more equitable society, where distribution of wealth is fairer, talking about the common good, as Jesus did.”
In addition, many Hondurans and Honduran Christians are uncomfortable with the military’s role in Zelaya’s ouster, fearing a return to the situation of the 1970s and 1980s when the military was clearly the power behind the president. This was an era of fear, violence and corruption that few Hondurans care to relive. They argue that like him or not, if Zelaya was breaking the law, he should have been charged and tried instead of forcibly removed from his home and flown to Costa Rica. And they are uneasy hearing reports of suspended civil liberties and protesters detained.
They want the democratic system to work the way it is supposed to. As mega church pastor Rene Peñalba stated, Zelaya’s goal “in itself was not bad, but he got the method wrong. And I would say the same about the other side. [Zelaya] deserved to go to trial, but they got the method wrong. Both sides got it wrong.”
While the fear of an oversized role of the military is understandable, it seems clear that they were an ambivalent partner in the ouster, directed by a small but powerful political and economic elite. Although initially Zelaya’s allies in carrying out the referendum, the military has shifted since there was clearly little enthusiasm for the task. Just days before the referendum, Zelaya fired the chief general and the rest of the general’s staff quit in solidarity. Zelaya and his supporters staged a dramatic showdown at a military warehouse to get the ballots while the military stood silently by. And most obviously, while the military carried out the arrest and flew Zelaya to Costa Rica, they did not seize power but immediately installed the president of Congress as President of the country.
What’s clear among all the conflict is that all the existing powers in Honduras—the ruling elite, the Zelaya administration, and the military—show by their rhetoric that they recognize what most ordinary Hondurans want—to live in a country where their voice will be heard and where true democracy and rule of law flourish.
Carlos Hernandez, president of the la Asociación para una Sociedad más Justa (AJS’s Honduran sister organization), a Christian social justice organization in Honduras, argues, “As Christians we need to make the legal systems work for everyone—from the poorest Honduran to the most powerful. So first of all, Zelaya should return to the country and there should be a full investigation into his actions. If he has broken laws, he should be tried and sentenced—not sent to Costa Rica without a trial. Second, we should also push for an investigation into who was responsible for this coup and they should also be investigated and tried. It is only then, by showing that neither side is above the law and that neither side can take the law into their own hands, that we can show the world that justice for all is possible, even in Honduras.”
martes 14 de abril de 2009
Merida Initiative: Security over Human Rights
From: Witness for Peace witnessforpeace.org/article.php?id=682
The Merida Initiative: Human Rights Sacrificed in the Name of Public Security
The historic campaign and election of President Barack Obama spurred much talk of hope and change in the U.S. Our southern neighbors in Mexico have watched the U.S. political landscape with both hope and apprehension, wondering whether President Obama will promote positive change for them. Mexicans understand that - for better or worse - their country’s economic health is closely linked to our own. They are concerned about their country’s security as they face the devastating effects of the current economic crisis in addition to increasing narco violence.
The statistics are chilling: last year 6,000 Mexicans were murdered--some decapitated--in drug-related violence, more than double the year before. Many Mexicans fear that powerful drug cartels are taking over their cities, towns and communities, with cartel representatives infiltrating the police and army.
U.S. government officials are concerned with this increasing violence, knowing that an unstable Mexico with a population of 100 million is a threat to the security of the U.S. In fact last year alone there were 370 drug-related kidnappings in Phoenix, Arizona. But it is not only drug-related violence that should concern policy makers in the U.S. Rising poverty and unemployment rates in Mexico result in more Mexicans turning to drug trafficking and an increasing number crossing the border to look for work in the U.S.
The U.S. Congress responded to these security concerns by passing the Merida Initiative in June 2008 with the support of then Senator Obama. With the Initiative’s inherent focus on a military approach to public security many worry that the protection of human rights will be ignored.
The Merida Initiative is a 3- year aid package totaling $1.4 billion designed to combat organized crime and drug trafficking. The 2008 portion of the package, signed into law by President Bush last year, totals $400 million. While it is unclear how all the approved funds are being allocated, at least $116.5 million were originally earmarked as foreign military funding. The Mexican military’s dubious human rights record raises serious concerns for human rights activists in Mexico and the U.S.
Thanks in large part to the pressure of Mexican human rights organizations, a small portion (15 percent) of the Merida Initiative funds can be distributed only after the Mexican government shows improvement in the following areas: transparency, accountability of police forces, civilian and judicial prosecution of human rights abuses by the military, and the establishment of a relationship with civil society to monitor the Initiative. The U.S. Congress has not yet verified improvement in human rights. The U.S. Congressional Report that accompanied the Merida Initiative expressed concern over a variety of recent human rights abuses in Mexico, and specifically urged for a transparent and accurate investigation of the murder of U.S. journalist Brad Will in October 2006 during the social unrest in Oaxaca. While at the close of 2008, Juan Manuel Martinez Moreno was arrested for this murder, the head of the National Human Rights Commission, a federal institution that conducted an in-depth investigation and presented a full report to the Mexican Attorney General, stated that - against their advice - the Mexican government had arrested an innocent man.
The Mexican government’s blatant disregard of the findings of its own human rights institution demonstrates a failure to emphasize human rights as a core concept of public security. Miguel Angel Vasquez de la Rosa, from the Oaxacan NGO, EDUCA or Services for an Alternative Education, explained that the Initiative’s approach to creating public security actually increases the potential for human rights violations on multiple levels. For him it is clear that with increased militarization, those who suffer will not be the most powerful criminals, but instead the most vulnerable members of society. “The results of this policy will not be to bring regional security, like it was sold to us, but…will most affect civil society, the streams of human migration, and the social movements that demand justice in our country,” Vasquez de la Rosa says. His concern is justified by the reports of abuses committed by Mexican security forces in Oaxaca and Atenco in 2006, and a number of more recent human rights abuses - including the murder of two campesinos by federal military during an “anti-drug” operation in a small community in Oaxaca in August 2007, and the killing of three migrants in Chiapas by state police this year.
Vasquez de la Rosa says that instead of addressing security exclusively through military aid, the Initiative needs to address security on a human level. “How do you create conditions that guarantee people’s security so that they do not have to migrate, so that they can find work in [their home] country?” Making the link between poverty and the need to migrate or join the endless drug cartel employee base, would truly address the level of insecurity felt by most Mexicans.
Integrating a human rights approach into the Merida Initiative would mean addressing the root causes of violence and poverty, and evaluating how public policies contribute. For Vasquez de la Rosa these include the renegotiation of NAFTA, U.S. domestic immigration reform and transparency in negotiations and promotion of the Initiative. Since two-thirds of Mexico’s foreign investment originates from the U.S., Vasquez de la Rosa points out that “the issue of security is not only to help Mexico, but to guarantee that all of the investments that U.S. corporations have [in Mexico] which are many, can be realized in a peaceful context”.
While it is likely that portions of the total package will be allocated this year and next, the Obama administration has the opportunity to reconsider the effectiveness of the Initiative. In addition, President Obama should consider policy alternatives that address violence and poverty. With the support of the Latin American Working Group, members of Congress will present a petition to President Obama to reinstate the ban on imported assault weapons, many of which end up in the hands of drug traffickers. Also recently, more than 1,200 U.S. organizations representing different sectors presented a petition calling for drastic immigration policy reform, in which they also urged the renegotiation of NAFTA. With a clear campaign promise from Obama to address the NAFTA question, there is some hope that U.S. policy might shift toward an approach that prioritizes human rights. However, until policy makers understand the link between the negative effects of NAFTA and the increase in poverty, migration, and violence, the Merida Initiative will continue being the wrong policy to bring true security to people of our countries.
martes 17 de febrero de 2009
New Times in Bolivia: The hope of a new Constitution
By Lynne Longenecker
January 25, 2009 became an historic day in Bolivia when 61% of the population voted to approve a new constitution that expands the rights of the indigenous majority, solidifies state control over natural resources, and lays the foundation for more equitable land distribution. While historic, the vote also followed the pattern of a divided country that is becoming familiar in Bolivian politics, with four of the country’s nine departments strongly rejecting the proposal.
Based at MCC’s office in Santa Cruz, the largest city in the lowlands of eastern Bolivia, we experienced the referendum through the eyes of a city in which it seemed hard to find anyone who openly supported the new constitution, or anything having to do with the Evo Morales government, for that matter. Even so, the day of the vote was amazingly calm and quiet. Vehicles were prohibited on the streets, so kids were riding bikes and people were sitting on lawn chairs where there is normally busy traffic going past.
Even weeks afterward, I've been surprised at the ongoing calm. I thought there might be more immediate reaction, protests, etc. At this point all the "action" seems to be in the context of discourse in the press and media, rather than anything physical. From what we read it sounds like more resistance might come as the government tries to enact laws that put the constitution into practice. This may be a difficult process because the opposition controls one of the arms of congress. Despite the tension, the calm is encouraging, and fits historical patterns that have shown the Bolivian people to be amazingly slow to take to violence. It also matches a recent study by the United Nations which showed that the large majority of Bolivians support peaceful dialog to resolve the country’s differences, as opposed to violent conflict.
It's interesting to see the spin in the press. The press from the western highlands celebrates the victory as a major step forward in rights and opportunity for indigenous people, framing it as the basis for a new era in Bolivian history after centuries of discrimination. The press in the eastern lowlands claims "victory" in the sense that the constitution lost in these four departments. Some claim that this means the new constitution doesn't apply in this part of the country, although that argument doesn’t really have any legal basis. It would be like the "red states" in the recent US elections claiming that Obama wasn't really their president!
What it does mean is that the government will need to choose what kind of posture to take toward the opposition departments. If they try to use this as a mandate to steamroll changes through without negotiation with the opposition, it will fuel sentiment that the government is imposing its changes, and fears of non-indigenous people of being overrun or oppressed by the newly empowered indigenous people. I hear these feelings from people in this part of the country and can understand the fear to some degree, so I hope the government can take a posture of continued dialog in the process of putting this constitution into practice.
It's amazing to see the power of the media in all of this. The leaders of the opposition have been very good at using media to prey on the fears of the people to raise resistance to the government. On the other hand, Evo can be divisive with his rhetoric, too, even though his criticisms of the historically unjust political and economic structures usually seem to be very well founded. How to speak the truth in ways that challenge and change structures without alienating the opposition to the point that it's really detrimental to your cause? I guess that's a difficult tension for anyone working for structural change, and one that MCC will need to navigate in the months ahead. How to promote justice while really listening to voices on all sides of the conflict? When to take a confrontational stance and when a more conciliatory one? How to bring about change that is truly positive and just, and not simply a replacement of one oppressor for another?
So far, it seems like an amazing achievement that the Morales government has been able to walk that line successfully enough to bring about this new constitution through peaceful, democratic processes and minimal violence. We hope the international community can help these processes continue as Bolivians sort out the details of what these changes mean and what a more just Bolivia will look like.
At MCC we see an important need to work at bridge-building in this context, as the tendency is for people to have less and less contact with those from the other side, and for media and politicians to dehumanize the “other” in efforts to capitalize on fear and distrust.
Lynne is serving as coordinator for the peace and justice program for MCC Bolivia. This includes providing administrative support for MCCers working in this program, as well as developing new opportunities for MCC peace-building work in the polarized context of Bolivia.
January 25, 2009 became an historic day in Bolivia when 61% of the population voted to approve a new constitution that expands the rights of the indigenous majority, solidifies state control over natural resources, and lays the foundation for more equitable land distribution. While historic, the vote also followed the pattern of a divided country that is becoming familiar in Bolivian politics, with four of the country’s nine departments strongly rejecting the proposal.
Based at MCC’s office in Santa Cruz, the largest city in the lowlands of eastern Bolivia, we experienced the referendum through the eyes of a city in which it seemed hard to find anyone who openly supported the new constitution, or anything having to do with the Evo Morales government, for that matter. Even so, the day of the vote was amazingly calm and quiet. Vehicles were prohibited on the streets, so kids were riding bikes and people were sitting on lawn chairs where there is normally busy traffic going past.
Even weeks afterward, I've been surprised at the ongoing calm. I thought there might be more immediate reaction, protests, etc. At this point all the "action" seems to be in the context of discourse in the press and media, rather than anything physical. From what we read it sounds like more resistance might come as the government tries to enact laws that put the constitution into practice. This may be a difficult process because the opposition controls one of the arms of congress. Despite the tension, the calm is encouraging, and fits historical patterns that have shown the Bolivian people to be amazingly slow to take to violence. It also matches a recent study by the United Nations which showed that the large majority of Bolivians support peaceful dialog to resolve the country’s differences, as opposed to violent conflict.
It's interesting to see the spin in the press. The press from the western highlands celebrates the victory as a major step forward in rights and opportunity for indigenous people, framing it as the basis for a new era in Bolivian history after centuries of discrimination. The press in the eastern lowlands claims "victory" in the sense that the constitution lost in these four departments. Some claim that this means the new constitution doesn't apply in this part of the country, although that argument doesn’t really have any legal basis. It would be like the "red states" in the recent US elections claiming that Obama wasn't really their president!
What it does mean is that the government will need to choose what kind of posture to take toward the opposition departments. If they try to use this as a mandate to steamroll changes through without negotiation with the opposition, it will fuel sentiment that the government is imposing its changes, and fears of non-indigenous people of being overrun or oppressed by the newly empowered indigenous people. I hear these feelings from people in this part of the country and can understand the fear to some degree, so I hope the government can take a posture of continued dialog in the process of putting this constitution into practice.
It's amazing to see the power of the media in all of this. The leaders of the opposition have been very good at using media to prey on the fears of the people to raise resistance to the government. On the other hand, Evo can be divisive with his rhetoric, too, even though his criticisms of the historically unjust political and economic structures usually seem to be very well founded. How to speak the truth in ways that challenge and change structures without alienating the opposition to the point that it's really detrimental to your cause? I guess that's a difficult tension for anyone working for structural change, and one that MCC will need to navigate in the months ahead. How to promote justice while really listening to voices on all sides of the conflict? When to take a confrontational stance and when a more conciliatory one? How to bring about change that is truly positive and just, and not simply a replacement of one oppressor for another?
So far, it seems like an amazing achievement that the Morales government has been able to walk that line successfully enough to bring about this new constitution through peaceful, democratic processes and minimal violence. We hope the international community can help these processes continue as Bolivians sort out the details of what these changes mean and what a more just Bolivia will look like.
At MCC we see an important need to work at bridge-building in this context, as the tendency is for people to have less and less contact with those from the other side, and for media and politicians to dehumanize the “other” in efforts to capitalize on fear and distrust.
Lynne is serving as coordinator for the peace and justice program for MCC Bolivia. This includes providing administrative support for MCCers working in this program, as well as developing new opportunities for MCC peace-building work in the polarized context of Bolivia.
El Salvador’s Elections: Is a New Time Coming?
By Tobias Roberts
After nearly 20 years of being governed by the conservative, right-wing government of the ARENA party, the people of El Salvador took a confident step towards a long overdue change when they voted for mayors and representatives to the National Legislative Assembly on January 18th.
From 1980 to 1992, El Salvador suffered a cruel civil war with over 70,000 victims as a conservative estimate. The war was fought between the oligarchy and military against a guerilla movement that arose due to two electoral frauds, the repression of social movements, and massacres against the rural population by the armed forces. In 1989 the rich families of the oligarchy and military led by Roberto Dabuisson (who ordered the execution of the Salvadoran archbishop, Oscar Romero) conformed the ARENA party and won the presidency of the first elections. For the past twenty years, ARENA has continued as the leading political force. With policies such as promoting CAFTA, dollarizing the economy, privatizing virtually every public service, and generally governing for the business elite, ARENA has made El Salvador one of the world’s most violent countries with rampant inequality and massive poverty.
However, on January 18th, the Salvadoran people overwhelmingly demonstrated their confidence that the FMLN, the progressive, left-wing party and ex-guerrilla group, will be the course to creating a more just, equal, and peaceful country. The FMLN, for the governing period 2009-2012, will be the party with most representatives in the National Assembly (35), though they will be unable to form a majority because of the inevitable coalitions of ARENA (with 31 representatives) and other smaller right wing parties. On the municipal level, the FMLN went from governing 51 municipalities to 97 municipalities becoming the primary political force in El Salvador for the first time ever, and giving hope to the population that the FMLN will also be able to win the presidential elections to be held March 15.
Despite this clear victory for the FMLN, the major communication agencies, owned exclusively by the oligarchy families, have done all they can to try and downplay this decisive call for change by the people. The FMLN lost the mayorship of the capital and largest city, San Salvador and this was utilized by the major communication agencies to proclaim the FMLN as a “party in decline” or as a “sure sign of distrust by the people of the FMLN.” The result of this massive campaign by ARENA and the oligarchy has created a generalized feeling of confusion amongst the people who seem to accept that the municipal and legislative elections were a triumph for ARENA when in reality they were a clear indication of popular support for the FMLN .
The electoral process in itself was filled with many irregularities, the majority of which were perpetuated by ARENA. Accusations of people voting outside their established municipality in areas where the FMLN held a slight lead, busses of Nicaraguans with falsified Salvadoran ID´s being stopped and sent back to Nicaragua before they were to illegally vote (most likely for ARENA), and numerous accusations of the ARENA party paying individuals for their votes were only some of the abnormalities presented on the voting day. In fact, in one municipality, the elections had to be postponed due to massive protests by the people who found ARENA bringing their supporters from other municipalities to vote in a municipality thought to be won by the FMLN.
Yet even in the face of such blatant abnormalities (which were not broadcast in any considerable means by the communication agencies), the FMLN came out as the leading political force in the country. Perhaps the most symbolic victory and most decisive call for change came from the municipality of Izalco in the department of Sonsonate. Izalco has traditionally been the stronghold of the ARENA party. It is where they always begin their electoral campaigns because for them it signifies the “defeat of the communists.” In 1932, in the municipality of Izalco, a peasant and indigenous revolt lead by Farabundo Martí against the corrupt military junta was crushed by the government and military forces leaving a toll of over 30,000 killed in a week´s time. This event also marked the beginning of the disappearance of El Salvador´s indigenous Nahuat population since being identified as indigenous also meant “communist” to the government. But on January 18th, for the first time ever, the FMLN won the municipality of Izalco thus taking from ARENA one of its primary ideological strongholds.
Now, all eyes are on the presidential elections set for March 15th. The presidential candidate for the FMLN is Mauricio Funes, an ex-journalist who had no involvement with the guerilla movement during the war. This characteristic has inspired confidence and trust in much of the population whom, with Funes as candidate, are seeing the FMLN as a solid political party and not just as an ex-guerilla group. ARENA, financed by the oligarchy, has begun a massive propaganda campaign. But since they can´t seem to find anything against Funes, their campaign has focused on instilling fear in the population around the figure of the FMLN´s vice presidential candidate, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, who was involved in the civil war. TV commercials showing Ceren as a guerilla fighter accusing him of being a terrorist, showing pictures of bridges blown up by the guerrilla groups during the war, showing speeches of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and of course Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, are aimed at trying to depict the FMLN as an unstable and dangerous option that will drive the country into chaos. These images of the FMLN are countered by other ARENA propaganda showing themselves as intelligent, professional politicians, lovers of justice, promoters of equality, and the route to a better future. The campaign slogans of ARENA so far have been: “A more just country,” “Alliance for change,” and “Vote with wisdom”, all of which somewhat ironically depict the exact opposite of what ARENA has stood for during the last 20 years.
Voting in San Salvador on January 18. Photo AlJazeera
In spite of these massive campaigns, current polls continue showing Mauricio Funes having a considerable lead over the ARENA presidential candidate, Rodrigo Avila. This has lead ARENA and the oligarchy into a state of alarm and fear that they could lose these presidential elections. And this surely means that the next month here in El Salvador will be filled with dirty campaigning and electoral violence. And if Funes and the FMLN do come out victorious on March 15th, it will be interesting to see the reaction by ARENA and the oligarch families.
Tobias Roberts currently works with the New Dawn Association of El Salvdor in an HIV-AIDS and community development project. He works in 6 rural communities developing masculinity workshops, beginning women´s cooperatives, and strengthening community organization.
After nearly 20 years of being governed by the conservative, right-wing government of the ARENA party, the people of El Salvador took a confident step towards a long overdue change when they voted for mayors and representatives to the National Legislative Assembly on January 18th.
From 1980 to 1992, El Salvador suffered a cruel civil war with over 70,000 victims as a conservative estimate. The war was fought between the oligarchy and military against a guerilla movement that arose due to two electoral frauds, the repression of social movements, and massacres against the rural population by the armed forces. In 1989 the rich families of the oligarchy and military led by Roberto Dabuisson (who ordered the execution of the Salvadoran archbishop, Oscar Romero) conformed the ARENA party and won the presidency of the first elections. For the past twenty years, ARENA has continued as the leading political force. With policies such as promoting CAFTA, dollarizing the economy, privatizing virtually every public service, and generally governing for the business elite, ARENA has made El Salvador one of the world’s most violent countries with rampant inequality and massive poverty.
However, on January 18th, the Salvadoran people overwhelmingly demonstrated their confidence that the FMLN, the progressive, left-wing party and ex-guerrilla group, will be the course to creating a more just, equal, and peaceful country. The FMLN, for the governing period 2009-2012, will be the party with most representatives in the National Assembly (35), though they will be unable to form a majority because of the inevitable coalitions of ARENA (with 31 representatives) and other smaller right wing parties. On the municipal level, the FMLN went from governing 51 municipalities to 97 municipalities becoming the primary political force in El Salvador for the first time ever, and giving hope to the population that the FMLN will also be able to win the presidential elections to be held March 15.
Despite this clear victory for the FMLN, the major communication agencies, owned exclusively by the oligarchy families, have done all they can to try and downplay this decisive call for change by the people. The FMLN lost the mayorship of the capital and largest city, San Salvador and this was utilized by the major communication agencies to proclaim the FMLN as a “party in decline” or as a “sure sign of distrust by the people of the FMLN.” The result of this massive campaign by ARENA and the oligarchy has created a generalized feeling of confusion amongst the people who seem to accept that the municipal and legislative elections were a triumph for ARENA when in reality they were a clear indication of popular support for the FMLN .
The electoral process in itself was filled with many irregularities, the majority of which were perpetuated by ARENA. Accusations of people voting outside their established municipality in areas where the FMLN held a slight lead, busses of Nicaraguans with falsified Salvadoran ID´s being stopped and sent back to Nicaragua before they were to illegally vote (most likely for ARENA), and numerous accusations of the ARENA party paying individuals for their votes were only some of the abnormalities presented on the voting day. In fact, in one municipality, the elections had to be postponed due to massive protests by the people who found ARENA bringing their supporters from other municipalities to vote in a municipality thought to be won by the FMLN.
Yet even in the face of such blatant abnormalities (which were not broadcast in any considerable means by the communication agencies), the FMLN came out as the leading political force in the country. Perhaps the most symbolic victory and most decisive call for change came from the municipality of Izalco in the department of Sonsonate. Izalco has traditionally been the stronghold of the ARENA party. It is where they always begin their electoral campaigns because for them it signifies the “defeat of the communists.” In 1932, in the municipality of Izalco, a peasant and indigenous revolt lead by Farabundo Martí against the corrupt military junta was crushed by the government and military forces leaving a toll of over 30,000 killed in a week´s time. This event also marked the beginning of the disappearance of El Salvador´s indigenous Nahuat population since being identified as indigenous also meant “communist” to the government. But on January 18th, for the first time ever, the FMLN won the municipality of Izalco thus taking from ARENA one of its primary ideological strongholds.
Now, all eyes are on the presidential elections set for March 15th. The presidential candidate for the FMLN is Mauricio Funes, an ex-journalist who had no involvement with the guerilla movement during the war. This characteristic has inspired confidence and trust in much of the population whom, with Funes as candidate, are seeing the FMLN as a solid political party and not just as an ex-guerilla group. ARENA, financed by the oligarchy, has begun a massive propaganda campaign. But since they can´t seem to find anything against Funes, their campaign has focused on instilling fear in the population around the figure of the FMLN´s vice presidential candidate, Salvador Sanchez Ceren, who was involved in the civil war. TV commercials showing Ceren as a guerilla fighter accusing him of being a terrorist, showing pictures of bridges blown up by the guerrilla groups during the war, showing speeches of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and of course Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, are aimed at trying to depict the FMLN as an unstable and dangerous option that will drive the country into chaos. These images of the FMLN are countered by other ARENA propaganda showing themselves as intelligent, professional politicians, lovers of justice, promoters of equality, and the route to a better future. The campaign slogans of ARENA so far have been: “A more just country,” “Alliance for change,” and “Vote with wisdom”, all of which somewhat ironically depict the exact opposite of what ARENA has stood for during the last 20 years.
Voting in San Salvador on January 18. Photo AlJazeera
In spite of these massive campaigns, current polls continue showing Mauricio Funes having a considerable lead over the ARENA presidential candidate, Rodrigo Avila. This has lead ARENA and the oligarchy into a state of alarm and fear that they could lose these presidential elections. And this surely means that the next month here in El Salvador will be filled with dirty campaigning and electoral violence. And if Funes and the FMLN do come out victorious on March 15th, it will be interesting to see the reaction by ARENA and the oligarch families.
Tobias Roberts currently works with the New Dawn Association of El Salvdor in an HIV-AIDS and community development project. He works in 6 rural communities developing masculinity workshops, beginning women´s cooperatives, and strengthening community organization.
“The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom…”
By Nate Howard
If we take seriously that “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made,” instead of seeing a conjectural separation between Creation and the Creator, we discover that Creation is “nothing less than the manifestation of God’s hidden Being.”
Thus, in light of our worship of a type of progress that destroys creation and dehumanizes man, I would venture to say that there is less fear of God today than at any other time in the history of humanity. By intuition then, I believe I may also say that wisdom is lacking.
Central to the philosophy of progress, preached by our economists, scientists, and politicians, is the belief that universal peace is achievable through unlimited economic progress. Certainly the notion of personal enrichment is a powerful mover, but as wise men and women have always asked, can the foundation for peace really be achieved through the “cultivation and expansion of needs?”
Traditional wisdom leaves no room for the romanticism of peace sought by employing the powerful human drives of selfishness. “Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint.”
Like the region of Sibinal, San Marcos where I work, “there are many poor societies that have too little, but where is the rich society that says “Halt!” we have enough? There is none.”
Here in Sibinal, there are numerous anti-life manifestations of this unwillingness by the rich to practice restraint. One of the most severe is the presence of Goldcorp Inc. Goldcorp is a Canadian-owned mining company that began operations in Guatemnala in 2006 at the Marlin Mine in Sipicapa, San Marcos and continues today with preliminary explorations in areas across the Highlands, one being the region of Sibinal where MCC alongside the San Marcos Diocese has been implementing a food security program. Goldcorp’s mining operation in Guatemala, which is almost entirely given to the extraction of gold, is very difficult to justify on any grounds. To begin, there are serious environmental issues raised as a result of its operations. According to the Mineral Policy Institute (MPI), safe disposal of mine waste is generally recognized as the single largest environmental challenge facing the mining industry worldwide. Similarly, the United States Environmental Protection Agency named water contamination from mining as one of its top three ecological security threats to the world. In addition to the waste, which amounts to 20 tons of earth and cyanide, 250,000 tons of water an hour are involved in the process to create sellable gold. Besides the physical dangers to local communities and ecosystems, this excessive use of water is especially concerning as numerous communities in Sibinal are without potable water systems and deal with water shortages for the irrigation of their crops.
Another area of concern is Goldcorp’s contribution to social conflict in Guatemala. Through a formal consultation process, it is documented that the overwhelming majority of communities are opposed to the presence of the mine. Nevertheless, due to exceptional rights for multinational corporations guaranteed by recent fair trade agreements and clever legal tactics, Goldcorp has been allowed to pay little attention to the stated will of these primarily indigenous communities. In Sibinal for example, though 32 of the 32 villages in the region cast their lot in opposition to the mine, Goldcorp through contracts with the Guatemalan national government has obtained a license to explore an area 25 km2. The result has been conflict. In December of 2004, and then again in January of 2005, blockades organized by indigenous peoples to stop the transport of materials to be used in the construction of the Marlin Mine, have ended in violent attacks perpetrated by the military and police. Since the mine began its operation, a number of clashes have arisen between local residents and the mine’s employees. As a result, indigenous leaders, many of which are women, have faced intense legal harassment, and in some cases, jail time. Most recently, on August 9, 2008, indigenous peoples once again took to the streets successfully blockading 16 points along Guatemala’s major highway system in protest to the mining exploration occurring throughout the highlands. The climate only continues to intensify.
All these negative social and environmental factors aside, the distribution of profits, four-fifths of which are generated by the sale of gold for ornamental purposes, is laughable. The current mining law in Guatemala requires that 1% of the mine’s profits be left behind in Guatemala, of which half is supposed to be passed on to the local authorities in the areas being mined. In the end, due to corruption and other factors, it is estimated that about 01% of total profits actually trickles down to the communities affected by mining operations.
The obvious beneficiaries are Goldcorp’s executives (in 2007 the CEO was the highest paid executive in British Columbia, earning $17 million) and its shareholders, who were paid $31.7 million in the second quarter of 2007 alone. Nevertheless, those benefiting from Golcorp’s practices do not end with those directly invested. A few examples are the 17 million Canadians contributing to the Canadian Pension Plan that is one of Goldcorp’s largest investors, and the thousands benefiting from Goldcorp’s massive donations to such institutions as the University of British Colombia. As cited in a report from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, the reality is that most of Canada’s citizenry, due to its government’s relationship with the extractive industry through economic and political backing is benefiting from the more than 1000 Canadian mining companies that account for 40% of all mineral exploration undertaken globally. Sadly, these same companies have been implicated in human rights abuses and environmental disasters in more than thirty countries.
I could perform a similar connect the dots exercise with another life-threatening manifestation of this lack of restraint—soaring prices of basic foodstuffs and transportation—which the poor severely rely on for their daily survival. 40 years ago Guatemala produced enough corn to keep its price from rising beyond its poor majority’s purchasing capacity, but since capitulating to the guidance of international organizations in the 70s and 80s to cut subsidies and open up its agricultural sector to trans-national competition, production in Guatemala has markedly dropped and its once autonomous food prices are now dictated by the world market. For a season corn prices stayed low, however, with the price affects brought on by the signing of the Central American Free Trade agreement and the bubble-type demand for bio-fuels, the price of corn has increased by nearly 150% in the last 18 months. Unfortunately families in Sibinal do not have enough land to produce sufficient amounts of corn to feed their families and thus are forced to pay exorbitant market prices to eat. They have thus become dependent on mass transit to take them to their distant work, yet with rising prices of diesel their wages barely cover transportation costs. Resultantly, the malnutrition rate of children under five in Sibinal has risen to nearly 83% up from 50% in 2004, and the migration of working-aged males to the US and Mexico has continued to skyrocket to about 75% of the corresponding population.
Nevertheless, all this connecting the dots, only serves to make these cases appear independent and capricious, and as though considerable investigation and proximity are necessary to arrive at the conclusion that they are anti-life. Humbly I suggest that if we cannot see the breakdown in its simplest equation, i.e. that the single-minded pursuit of wealth—materialism—is first, at odds with Christian teaching, and second, contains within itself a limiting principle—Creation—then simply put—we are in trouble.
Let us take a look at the case of energy. As I write, the price of oil just clipped the $137 a barrel mark, a 500% increase since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Many are pointing to our wars in the Middle East and the resultant insecurity around the world’s largest source as the cause of this dramatic price increase in oil. Certainly it is a factor, but there are others too: increased demand from China and India, a falling dollar, price manipulation by OPEC, and the list goes on. Nevertheless, these happenings are the fruit of something much deeper.
As blood is to the body, oil is to economic growth. If it fails, all fails. And though demand may flucuate at times, the supply will oneday indeed fail. Surely there will be more wars to come as the “haves” and “have-nots” draw their lines in the sand and battle for oil rights (its no coincidence that the tables are being set for conflicts with Iran, Venezuela, and soon enough the resurging, oil-rich Russia), but eventually it will run out. Certainly these geo-political factors are creating an urgency around its use, but ultimately the resultant dangers facing communities all around the world like Sibinal, are due to the fact that our pursuit of unlimited growth, requires an unlimited source of energy. Unfortunately, to date, there is no such adequate renewable source.
In light of this basic arithmetical contradiction, a slew of responses have emerged and remerged. Most often we hear that technology will solve our problems. With great optimism our experts tell us that we need not practice virtue, for science will save us. It was less than a half decade ago that the production of bio-fuels on lands once used for domestic food production was hailed man’s new clever saviour. At present they are on the decline…although not without leaving behind a trail of food crisis’s in poor countries dependent on international food markets, instead of their own farms, to feed their $1 a day unemployed agrarian populations.
Another response is that of nuclear energy. Last month, Senators Jon Lieberman and John Warner formally introduced a new bill that would provide $544 billion worth of subsidies to the nuclear energy industry, including a special clause where which the government would assume all liability. Insurance companies, having run their numbers and read their Soviet history, have deemed ionizing radiation to be uninsurable. Yet, insured or not, the hazard remains. Once created there is nothing that can be done to reduce the radioactivity of radioactive elements. Only the passage of time reduces their intensity, and in many case we are talking about thousands of years. Not to worry. Our scientists assure us that we can safely manage these waste deposits, not to mention the nuclear reactors themselves, by employing the most advanced technologies. As if somehow technology can prevent earthquakes, wars, or civil disturbances. Like the dog and his vomit, it appears we intend to return to past follies.
This past January, our president in his address to the Union, had this to say about our exhausted economy, “Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods and crops and services all over the world.” And this to say about the energy issue, “To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology…Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power.”
It is perhaps understandable that he and others would offer this counsel…but this my friends is not wisdom, but instead merely a reflection of the conventional Sisyphean ideas that form the foundation for our current type of globalization—a dream which is unable to logically hold itself.
For every technological breakthrough, or clever economic treaty, another ten of its kind are required to offset the resultant unforeseen negative impacts. Nevertheless, for reflective purposes, let us assume that technology will provide the magic “energy elixir”; let us presume that our politicians and multinational corporations will convince the Venezuelans and Iranians to adopt our free-market capitalism. Is that what they and we need? As asked at the onset, does the expansion and cultivation of needs make for a better world, foment healthier relationships, or create a more virtuous society?
For anyone paying attention it is obvious that the suggestion that we reduce our standard of living is missing from the debate. It’s as if our leaders and experts have a blind spot. Where then do we turn? The answer to me is obvious.
There is a great necessity for folks working at the grassroots to deal with specific cases and connect the dots, which in any sense I have avoided doing (albeit hopefully with eloquence). However, in confronting the philosophy of materialism, ultimately we are dealing with a meta-narrative issue, and thus, the resolution to our problem lies at the meta-narrative level.
As a Christian, I know no greater authority on “right” meta-narratives than the church that adheres to its holy scripture. It is the church that can best begin to steer us towards something more virtuous; or at least bear witness to a different way. There are many places to start, but I can see none more effective than heeding the wisdom given us by our faith tradition and putting first our own house, or in this case church, in order in three distinct ways.
The first is simply to be less greedy and selfish ourselves. Rather than new needs, we should work to cultivate virtues such as restraint and moderation. Do we really need to buy new gold, silver, or diamonds? The church should be an example of temperance. Until then our collective voice is just one of the many. The second acquires its girth from the first. Instead of yielding to those and that which promotes a type of “progress” that is anti-life, we should render our full support to those who truly work for peace. There are great organizations out there doing great work that could use our support. This requires the church actively work to educate itself and learn. The third is to be hopeful. If I have learned anything in my three years here in Central America it is that hope is central to the Christian faith and something that we should always be about. However true hope is displayed through action and so congregational activities such as writing a letter to your church’s Member of Parliament or buying a share and then attending Goldcorp shareholders’ meetings to raise concerns are in order. Be creative…
I leave you with these paraphrased words of hope from Leonardo Boff, a trailblazing Brazilian theologian/ecologist who spoke here in Guatemala…‘our Earth, this living bio-system, is groaning, nevertheless, these are not groans unto death but unto birth, and we along with her must choose life.’
Let us choose life…
After serving for 18 months as MCC’s Hurricane Stan Response Coordinator, Nate Howard is currently working with MCC providing food security support for its programs in San Marcos, Guatemala.
If we take seriously that “His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made,” instead of seeing a conjectural separation between Creation and the Creator, we discover that Creation is “nothing less than the manifestation of God’s hidden Being.”
Thus, in light of our worship of a type of progress that destroys creation and dehumanizes man, I would venture to say that there is less fear of God today than at any other time in the history of humanity. By intuition then, I believe I may also say that wisdom is lacking.
Central to the philosophy of progress, preached by our economists, scientists, and politicians, is the belief that universal peace is achievable through unlimited economic progress. Certainly the notion of personal enrichment is a powerful mover, but as wise men and women have always asked, can the foundation for peace really be achieved through the “cultivation and expansion of needs?”
Traditional wisdom leaves no room for the romanticism of peace sought by employing the powerful human drives of selfishness. “Do not wear yourself out to get rich; have the wisdom to show restraint.”
Like the region of Sibinal, San Marcos where I work, “there are many poor societies that have too little, but where is the rich society that says “Halt!” we have enough? There is none.”
Here in Sibinal, there are numerous anti-life manifestations of this unwillingness by the rich to practice restraint. One of the most severe is the presence of Goldcorp Inc. Goldcorp is a Canadian-owned mining company that began operations in Guatemnala in 2006 at the Marlin Mine in Sipicapa, San Marcos and continues today with preliminary explorations in areas across the Highlands, one being the region of Sibinal where MCC alongside the San Marcos Diocese has been implementing a food security program. Goldcorp’s mining operation in Guatemala, which is almost entirely given to the extraction of gold, is very difficult to justify on any grounds. To begin, there are serious environmental issues raised as a result of its operations. According to the Mineral Policy Institute (MPI), safe disposal of mine waste is generally recognized as the single largest environmental challenge facing the mining industry worldwide. Similarly, the United States Environmental Protection Agency named water contamination from mining as one of its top three ecological security threats to the world. In addition to the waste, which amounts to 20 tons of earth and cyanide, 250,000 tons of water an hour are involved in the process to create sellable gold. Besides the physical dangers to local communities and ecosystems, this excessive use of water is especially concerning as numerous communities in Sibinal are without potable water systems and deal with water shortages for the irrigation of their crops.
Another area of concern is Goldcorp’s contribution to social conflict in Guatemala. Through a formal consultation process, it is documented that the overwhelming majority of communities are opposed to the presence of the mine. Nevertheless, due to exceptional rights for multinational corporations guaranteed by recent fair trade agreements and clever legal tactics, Goldcorp has been allowed to pay little attention to the stated will of these primarily indigenous communities. In Sibinal for example, though 32 of the 32 villages in the region cast their lot in opposition to the mine, Goldcorp through contracts with the Guatemalan national government has obtained a license to explore an area 25 km2. The result has been conflict. In December of 2004, and then again in January of 2005, blockades organized by indigenous peoples to stop the transport of materials to be used in the construction of the Marlin Mine, have ended in violent attacks perpetrated by the military and police. Since the mine began its operation, a number of clashes have arisen between local residents and the mine’s employees. As a result, indigenous leaders, many of which are women, have faced intense legal harassment, and in some cases, jail time. Most recently, on August 9, 2008, indigenous peoples once again took to the streets successfully blockading 16 points along Guatemala’s major highway system in protest to the mining exploration occurring throughout the highlands. The climate only continues to intensify.
All these negative social and environmental factors aside, the distribution of profits, four-fifths of which are generated by the sale of gold for ornamental purposes, is laughable. The current mining law in Guatemala requires that 1% of the mine’s profits be left behind in Guatemala, of which half is supposed to be passed on to the local authorities in the areas being mined. In the end, due to corruption and other factors, it is estimated that about 01% of total profits actually trickles down to the communities affected by mining operations.
The obvious beneficiaries are Goldcorp’s executives (in 2007 the CEO was the highest paid executive in British Columbia, earning $17 million) and its shareholders, who were paid $31.7 million in the second quarter of 2007 alone. Nevertheless, those benefiting from Golcorp’s practices do not end with those directly invested. A few examples are the 17 million Canadians contributing to the Canadian Pension Plan that is one of Goldcorp’s largest investors, and the thousands benefiting from Goldcorp’s massive donations to such institutions as the University of British Colombia. As cited in a report from the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, the reality is that most of Canada’s citizenry, due to its government’s relationship with the extractive industry through economic and political backing is benefiting from the more than 1000 Canadian mining companies that account for 40% of all mineral exploration undertaken globally. Sadly, these same companies have been implicated in human rights abuses and environmental disasters in more than thirty countries.
I could perform a similar connect the dots exercise with another life-threatening manifestation of this lack of restraint—soaring prices of basic foodstuffs and transportation—which the poor severely rely on for their daily survival. 40 years ago Guatemala produced enough corn to keep its price from rising beyond its poor majority’s purchasing capacity, but since capitulating to the guidance of international organizations in the 70s and 80s to cut subsidies and open up its agricultural sector to trans-national competition, production in Guatemala has markedly dropped and its once autonomous food prices are now dictated by the world market. For a season corn prices stayed low, however, with the price affects brought on by the signing of the Central American Free Trade agreement and the bubble-type demand for bio-fuels, the price of corn has increased by nearly 150% in the last 18 months. Unfortunately families in Sibinal do not have enough land to produce sufficient amounts of corn to feed their families and thus are forced to pay exorbitant market prices to eat. They have thus become dependent on mass transit to take them to their distant work, yet with rising prices of diesel their wages barely cover transportation costs. Resultantly, the malnutrition rate of children under five in Sibinal has risen to nearly 83% up from 50% in 2004, and the migration of working-aged males to the US and Mexico has continued to skyrocket to about 75% of the corresponding population.
Nevertheless, all this connecting the dots, only serves to make these cases appear independent and capricious, and as though considerable investigation and proximity are necessary to arrive at the conclusion that they are anti-life. Humbly I suggest that if we cannot see the breakdown in its simplest equation, i.e. that the single-minded pursuit of wealth—materialism—is first, at odds with Christian teaching, and second, contains within itself a limiting principle—Creation—then simply put—we are in trouble.
Let us take a look at the case of energy. As I write, the price of oil just clipped the $137 a barrel mark, a 500% increase since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Many are pointing to our wars in the Middle East and the resultant insecurity around the world’s largest source as the cause of this dramatic price increase in oil. Certainly it is a factor, but there are others too: increased demand from China and India, a falling dollar, price manipulation by OPEC, and the list goes on. Nevertheless, these happenings are the fruit of something much deeper.
As blood is to the body, oil is to economic growth. If it fails, all fails. And though demand may flucuate at times, the supply will oneday indeed fail. Surely there will be more wars to come as the “haves” and “have-nots” draw their lines in the sand and battle for oil rights (its no coincidence that the tables are being set for conflicts with Iran, Venezuela, and soon enough the resurging, oil-rich Russia), but eventually it will run out. Certainly these geo-political factors are creating an urgency around its use, but ultimately the resultant dangers facing communities all around the world like Sibinal, are due to the fact that our pursuit of unlimited growth, requires an unlimited source of energy. Unfortunately, to date, there is no such adequate renewable source.
In light of this basic arithmetical contradiction, a slew of responses have emerged and remerged. Most often we hear that technology will solve our problems. With great optimism our experts tell us that we need not practice virtue, for science will save us. It was less than a half decade ago that the production of bio-fuels on lands once used for domestic food production was hailed man’s new clever saviour. At present they are on the decline…although not without leaving behind a trail of food crisis’s in poor countries dependent on international food markets, instead of their own farms, to feed their $1 a day unemployed agrarian populations.
Another response is that of nuclear energy. Last month, Senators Jon Lieberman and John Warner formally introduced a new bill that would provide $544 billion worth of subsidies to the nuclear energy industry, including a special clause where which the government would assume all liability. Insurance companies, having run their numbers and read their Soviet history, have deemed ionizing radiation to be uninsurable. Yet, insured or not, the hazard remains. Once created there is nothing that can be done to reduce the radioactivity of radioactive elements. Only the passage of time reduces their intensity, and in many case we are talking about thousands of years. Not to worry. Our scientists assure us that we can safely manage these waste deposits, not to mention the nuclear reactors themselves, by employing the most advanced technologies. As if somehow technology can prevent earthquakes, wars, or civil disturbances. Like the dog and his vomit, it appears we intend to return to past follies.
This past January, our president in his address to the Union, had this to say about our exhausted economy, “Today, our economic growth increasingly depends on our ability to sell American goods and crops and services all over the world.” And this to say about the energy issue, “To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology…Together we should take the next steps: Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions. Let us increase the use of renewable power and emissions-free nuclear power.”
It is perhaps understandable that he and others would offer this counsel…but this my friends is not wisdom, but instead merely a reflection of the conventional Sisyphean ideas that form the foundation for our current type of globalization—a dream which is unable to logically hold itself.
For every technological breakthrough, or clever economic treaty, another ten of its kind are required to offset the resultant unforeseen negative impacts. Nevertheless, for reflective purposes, let us assume that technology will provide the magic “energy elixir”; let us presume that our politicians and multinational corporations will convince the Venezuelans and Iranians to adopt our free-market capitalism. Is that what they and we need? As asked at the onset, does the expansion and cultivation of needs make for a better world, foment healthier relationships, or create a more virtuous society?
For anyone paying attention it is obvious that the suggestion that we reduce our standard of living is missing from the debate. It’s as if our leaders and experts have a blind spot. Where then do we turn? The answer to me is obvious.
There is a great necessity for folks working at the grassroots to deal with specific cases and connect the dots, which in any sense I have avoided doing (albeit hopefully with eloquence). However, in confronting the philosophy of materialism, ultimately we are dealing with a meta-narrative issue, and thus, the resolution to our problem lies at the meta-narrative level.
As a Christian, I know no greater authority on “right” meta-narratives than the church that adheres to its holy scripture. It is the church that can best begin to steer us towards something more virtuous; or at least bear witness to a different way. There are many places to start, but I can see none more effective than heeding the wisdom given us by our faith tradition and putting first our own house, or in this case church, in order in three distinct ways.
The first is simply to be less greedy and selfish ourselves. Rather than new needs, we should work to cultivate virtues such as restraint and moderation. Do we really need to buy new gold, silver, or diamonds? The church should be an example of temperance. Until then our collective voice is just one of the many. The second acquires its girth from the first. Instead of yielding to those and that which promotes a type of “progress” that is anti-life, we should render our full support to those who truly work for peace. There are great organizations out there doing great work that could use our support. This requires the church actively work to educate itself and learn. The third is to be hopeful. If I have learned anything in my three years here in Central America it is that hope is central to the Christian faith and something that we should always be about. However true hope is displayed through action and so congregational activities such as writing a letter to your church’s Member of Parliament or buying a share and then attending Goldcorp shareholders’ meetings to raise concerns are in order. Be creative…
I leave you with these paraphrased words of hope from Leonardo Boff, a trailblazing Brazilian theologian/ecologist who spoke here in Guatemala…‘our Earth, this living bio-system, is groaning, nevertheless, these are not groans unto death but unto birth, and we along with her must choose life.’
Let us choose life…
After serving for 18 months as MCC’s Hurricane Stan Response Coordinator, Nate Howard is currently working with MCC providing food security support for its programs in San Marcos, Guatemala.
viernes 6 de febrero de 2009
Bolivia MCCer shares experience on Witness for Peace delegation
By Lindsey Frye
With its rainforest lowlands, fertile valleys and striking mountain peaks, Bolivia is a country of much historical and geographical diversity. This past October I was able to travel beyond the lowland city of Santa Cruz where I’ve worked for the past year with MCC to experience first hand some of this diversity. I participated in a learning tour with Witness for Peace and along with 10 other women from the United States, I met with politicians, religious leaders, social movement leaders and “campesinos” in four different places in the country. Each person we met with shared their story, their hopes and most of them had a pretty strong opinion to share about President Evo Morales.
In 2005, Morales won the presidency with an overwhelming 54% majority vote and became Bolivia’s first Indigenous President. However, the story doesn’t begin there. It begins when hundreds of families who were moved from Potosi to the Chapare region in the 1980s when the world tin prices fell and there was nothing left to mine. The government relocated the families in the hopes that they would become farmers (and also to break up the mining unions). The families began growing coca and the union structure was reorganized with 900 sub-unions with 140 families in each one. One of those included the family of Evo Morales, who rose to become the president of all of the sub-unions.
We visited a coca farm and a union member, Vitalia, who told us about U.S. funded initiatives in the 1990s to eradicate coca. “In those times, there was no day, no night or sleeping, there was just fear and hiding,” she said, with pain in her voice. Her house was raided several times in the middle of the night, with soldiers threatening to kill her children. She lost friends and relatives during this time at the hands of an army funded almost entirely by the U.S. government. As we spoke with the human rights ombudsman, Godofrede Reinike, we learned that not only was the U.S. funding the army, it was also lining the pockets of Hugo Banzer, the president/dictator at the time with $120 million for 5-8 million hectares of coca eradicated. “Banzer did more than that,” Reinike explained, “he eradicated 30 million hectares, which turned into 78 deaths, thousands detained, hundreds permanently wounded. But it made the movement stronger and it made Morales stronger.”
Since 2005, there has been no forced eradication of coca in Bolivia (although the union will eradicate if any of the members are found to be growing more than their quota). We visited a construction sight where Venezuela has optimistically funded a tea factory. Although coca is used for stomach aches as well as an appetite suppressant, and only 2 of the 18 alkaloids in coca are used to make cocaine, exporting the tea is technically illegal because it appears on a list of international illegal substances created by the U.N. in 1961.
There is much more to be said about the trip, but this is a small window. One thing organizations like Witness For Peace have to teach us is that we must look deep down into the roots of the problems that we attempt to address in countries like Bolivia. Many times at the roots are manipulated governments, coerced by money from the North. It is impossible for me as a North American to do development work in Bolivia without looking first to my own country to know how we, along with others, have kept such a beautiful country in complex cycles of poverty for so long. Although Bolivia is 2nd in Latin America in reserves of natural gas, 5th in the world for fresh water and 8th for biodiversity, 60% of the population suffers from malnutrition and 25% of 5 year olds are in the dying stages of hunger. MCC has a lot of important work to be doing in Bolivia. But just as urgently as community development workers or dry latrine projects are grassroots movements in the United States and Canada to work for change in their local and national governments.
With its rainforest lowlands, fertile valleys and striking mountain peaks, Bolivia is a country of much historical and geographical diversity. This past October I was able to travel beyond the lowland city of Santa Cruz where I’ve worked for the past year with MCC to experience first hand some of this diversity. I participated in a learning tour with Witness for Peace and along with 10 other women from the United States, I met with politicians, religious leaders, social movement leaders and “campesinos” in four different places in the country. Each person we met with shared their story, their hopes and most of them had a pretty strong opinion to share about President Evo Morales.
In 2005, Morales won the presidency with an overwhelming 54% majority vote and became Bolivia’s first Indigenous President. However, the story doesn’t begin there. It begins when hundreds of families who were moved from Potosi to the Chapare region in the 1980s when the world tin prices fell and there was nothing left to mine. The government relocated the families in the hopes that they would become farmers (and also to break up the mining unions). The families began growing coca and the union structure was reorganized with 900 sub-unions with 140 families in each one. One of those included the family of Evo Morales, who rose to become the president of all of the sub-unions.
We visited a coca farm and a union member, Vitalia, who told us about U.S. funded initiatives in the 1990s to eradicate coca. “In those times, there was no day, no night or sleeping, there was just fear and hiding,” she said, with pain in her voice. Her house was raided several times in the middle of the night, with soldiers threatening to kill her children. She lost friends and relatives during this time at the hands of an army funded almost entirely by the U.S. government. As we spoke with the human rights ombudsman, Godofrede Reinike, we learned that not only was the U.S. funding the army, it was also lining the pockets of Hugo Banzer, the president/dictator at the time with $120 million for 5-8 million hectares of coca eradicated. “Banzer did more than that,” Reinike explained, “he eradicated 30 million hectares, which turned into 78 deaths, thousands detained, hundreds permanently wounded. But it made the movement stronger and it made Morales stronger.”
Since 2005, there has been no forced eradication of coca in Bolivia (although the union will eradicate if any of the members are found to be growing more than their quota). We visited a construction sight where Venezuela has optimistically funded a tea factory. Although coca is used for stomach aches as well as an appetite suppressant, and only 2 of the 18 alkaloids in coca are used to make cocaine, exporting the tea is technically illegal because it appears on a list of international illegal substances created by the U.N. in 1961.
There is much more to be said about the trip, but this is a small window. One thing organizations like Witness For Peace have to teach us is that we must look deep down into the roots of the problems that we attempt to address in countries like Bolivia. Many times at the roots are manipulated governments, coerced by money from the North. It is impossible for me as a North American to do development work in Bolivia without looking first to my own country to know how we, along with others, have kept such a beautiful country in complex cycles of poverty for so long. Although Bolivia is 2nd in Latin America in reserves of natural gas, 5th in the world for fresh water and 8th for biodiversity, 60% of the population suffers from malnutrition and 25% of 5 year olds are in the dying stages of hunger. MCC has a lot of important work to be doing in Bolivia. But just as urgently as community development workers or dry latrine projects are grassroots movements in the United States and Canada to work for change in their local and national governments.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
