Declaración de la caravana por la paz y la democrácia en Colombia / Statement from the Caravan for Peace and Democracy in Colombia

Feliz día internacional de l@s trabajadores! Hoy concluye nuestra serie de blog enfocada en el comercio. Queremos agradecer a tod@s su participación y atención a estos temas importantes, y compartir un último post antes de irnos a observar la marcha del Primero de Mayo en Bogotá.

Del 21 a 1 de mayo, el sindicato nacional de trabajadores del sector agroalimentario de Colombia, SINALTRAINAL, coordinó una delegación internacional que visitó cuatro regiones del país. Delegad@s de siete países se reunieron con organizaciones comunitarias, sindicatos, defensores de derechos humanos y entidades del gobierno colombiano con el fin de examinar los impactos de las políticas del estado y de los multinacionales en el pueblo colombiano.

Aquí se puede encontrar sus conclusiones y su declaración política, que tocan temas de la militarización, la violencia contra defensores de derechos humanos y sindicalistas, la impunidad, los derechos de las víctimas y los impactos humanos y medioambientales de la falta de regulación de prácticas empresariales.

En solidaridad,
Equipo de APP Colombia


Happy International Workers Day! Today concludes our Trade Blog Series. We want to thank everyone for your participation and attention to these important issues, and share one last post before we head out to observe the May Day March in Bogotá. 

From April 21-May 1, Colombia's national Food Service Worker's Union, SINALTRAINAL, coordinated an international delegation that visited four different regions of the country. Delegates from seven countries met with community organizations, unions, human rights defenders and Colombian government entities to examine the impacts of both government and multinational policies on Colombian civil society.

Their conclusions and final statement, which touches on militarization, violence against unionists and human rights defenders, impunity, victims´ rights, and environmental and human impacts of largely-unregulated corporate practices, can be read here.

In solidarity,
WfP Colombia Team

Charter Cities: The new neoliberal experiment in Latin America

By Elizabeth Perkins, WfP Honduras Team

Competition. It’s an inherent concept of U.S. meritocracy, the ‘pull yourself up by the bootstraps’ mentality. (That’s assuming everyone has boots in the first place). Neoliberal economic policy promotes competition as a tool for economic growth. It is based on the assumption that competition improves quality and efficiency. For a ‘developing’ country to create desperately needed jobs, it must compete with other countries to attract foreign investment. This ideology is manifested in Structural Adjustment Programs, free trade agreements like DR-CAFTA and the establishment of free trade zones. Most recently, Charter Cities in Honduras have captured the imagination of economists touting free trade and foreign investment as the country’s way out of financial crisis.

Promises of development aren’t new to Latin America. Nearly a decade ago, DR-CAFTA consolidated neoliberal policies that were already in place. When CAFTA was passed in 2006, Central Americans were told that increases in trade, foreign direct investment, job availability, and exports would raise incomes and standards of living. In 2010, when Honduras decided to raise its minimum wage 6.5%, 16 textile factories picked up and moved to Nicaragua, where minimum wage was half that of Honduras. This is just one example of how this agreement prioritizes U.S. corporations over the rights of workers. The next step in a progression of neoliberal policies being forced on Central America seems to be Charter Cities in Honduras, recently passed into law with the name Zones for Employment and Economic Development (ZEDE).

Since the end of 2010, Honduras has been debating the idea of charter cities in its territory. In the most recent incarnation, the cities are defined as administrative divisions of the country, subject to central government but given autonomy with political, economic, and judicial systems with clear market rules that allow high levels of competition. In other words, they are regions within a country with little governmental control and regulation. The goal is to attract investment and generate employment in uninhabited regions of the country or in municipalities applying for conversion by referendum.


It has been an intense debate pushed primarily by National Party representatives Porfirio Lobo Sosa (former president ‘elected’ after the 2009 coup) and Juan Orlando Hernandez (former leader of the National Congress, and current President). For Honduras to accommodate this new idea, first the constitution had to be changed, after which the law needed a majority vote in Congress. Though essentially the same, it has passed through different incarnations – born as Paul Romer’s charter cities, then drafted into law as Special Development Regions (RED), and most recently passed as the Special Economic Development Zones (ZEDE) law. The first time around, the Honduran Supreme Court of Justice declared RED’s unconstitutional in October 2012. Just two months later in what became known as a ‘mini-coup,’ 4 of the 5 justices who passed the ruling were removed from their posts. ZEDE’s were passed into law the following year. Last month Choluteca was declared as a site for the first ZEDE.

“Model Cities = Expulsion of Garífuna People of Honduras.” Resistance groups protest model cities outside National Congress in Tegucigalpa in January 2013. Photo by Elizabeth Perkins

Resistance groups cite “an enormous inequality and social divide, which has been increasing since the 2009 coup d’état.” Socioeconomic inequality is becoming more drastic, as the National Congress pumps out more and more neoliberal laws, like the ZEDE. National Front of Popular Resistance (FNRP) representatives presented arguments to the Honduran Supreme Court in February (link in Spanish) requesting the justices declare the ZEDE law unconstitutional, as it’s essentially the same RED law that was declared so in 2012.

Mark Klugmann, named by Juan Orlando as the North American representative to promote the ZEDE externally, was recently interviewed by Honduran newspaper El Tiempo (article in Spanish). He says, “CAFTA opened up new possibilities and Honduras becomes the most attractive place for investment with the ZEDE. Investors in neighboring countries are looking to relocate to Honduras.” He argues that the ZEDE will help slow migration because it will offer a variety of jobs.

The Black Fraternal Organization of Honduras (OFRANEH) commented on their blog (link in Spanish), “The word employment has become the lure to capture the imagination of a people made poor and intentionally sunk into ignorance and disinformation.” One of the biggest problems with this plan is that there is no piece of uninhabited land large enough for a city of several million people. Small farming communities and indigenous groups like OFRANEH, whose homes have been named as potential ZEDE sites, are worried.

According to OFRANEH, the United Nations Commission for the Eradication of Racism and Discrimination (CERD) in their report (in Spanish) last month expressed concern for the impact the ZEDE law will have on indigenous and afro-descendant groups. The report urges the Honduran government to reevaluate the compatibility of the law with international human rights treaties it has signed protecting these groups.

“The National Party, since it’s founding, has distinguished itself with a paradoxical anti-nationalist attitude, the periods in which they’ve been in power being characterized by the turning over of national territory and subordination to the banana companies,” states OFRANEH. In the interest of big business, not that of the people, the Honduran government is moving forward with the ZEDE law. Though the U.S. government is not directly involved in this project, it will serve to further U.S. investment interests, widening the ever-growing gap between rich and poor in Honduras and the rest of the world.

What does 'clean energy' mean for indigenous communities in Mexico's Isthmus of Tehuantepec?

By Miriam Taylor, Witness for Peace Mexico Team

"No to wind farms"
Image credit: Climate Connections

Driving through southern Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec, the countryside unfolds like a glimpse into the not-so-distant future. Wind turbines turn busily as far as the eye can see, no fossil fuels required. As one of the windiest places in the world, this seems like an ideal way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a promising step toward combating climate change. But in the global clamor for access to the burgeoning renewable energy market, winners and losers have already emerged. The local communities of the Isthmus region, largely indigenous, have at best been bribed, coerced, and misled into conceding their land rights to wind farm companies. At worst they have been ignored outright, and the federal and state government have granted land permits without free, prior and informed consent, and communities are fighting back.

Currently, the construction of the projected twenty-eight wind farms in the Isthmus region is half-finished. The construction companies are mostly Spanish: Iberdrola, Acciona, Endesa, Gamesa, and Gas Natural Fenosa, with international investments by corporations ranging from General Electric to Energy France and Mitsubishi. It is estimated that in terms of wind energy, the region has a production capacity of between 5,000 and 10,000 megawatts, which is enough to provide 18 million people with electricity. This energy, however, will not be available for consumption by the people who live in the Isthmus. It is destined for businesses such as FEMSA (a Coca-Cola subsidiary), Wal-Mart, Heineken, CEMEX, and Bimbo.

After the Mexican Revolution in 1917, the land rights of peasants were enshrined in the Constitution under Article 27 through the ejido system of communal land ownership. Although the federal government later instituted programs that would enable communities to privatize their land, the majority have opted not to do so, thus making land permits granted without previous consultation illegal.

In addition to Article 27, the rights of indigenous peoples are further protected by the Constitution through an amendment to Article 2, which states, “This Constitution recognizes and protects the right to self-determination of indigenous people and communities and, consequently, their right to autonomy, so that they may… (V) maintain and improve their habitat and preserve the integrity of their lands…” These protections, however, have proved ineffectual in practice. Pedro López Orozco, member of the Alvaro Obregon’s Peoples Assembly, commented in a recent interview with The Americas Program, “We as indigenous people have seen a high level of corruption in the three levels of government. For the State, the law is dead.”

In addition to communities being left in the dark about projects, additional environmental impact studies are needed to determine what the effects of the wind farms would be on the local population, ecosystems, and water resources. The Isthmus is a migratory bird corridor, and records show a marked increase in bird deaths caused by wind turbines. The turbines also require lubricants and other substances that have made their way into both the sea and fresh water aquifers. Fishermen have noted that fish have begun to leave areas close to the turbines, presumably due to their vibrations. And although research shows that wind farms have little effect on human health in sparsely populated areas, the Isthmus is home to 3.8 million residents, many of whom live within the area affected by the noise pollution generated by the turbines, which has been found to be 4,500 feet upwind and 7,000 feet downwind.

Then comes the issue of payment. The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Isthmus live off subsistence farming and fishing. Renting their land for the construction of wind turbines has the potential to be positive for these communities and could provide sorely needed income in a country where an estimated 75% of indigenous people  live in poverty. Corporations, however, have paid paltry rent sums that are only a fraction of what they would have had to pay in countries such as the U.S. or Denmark. Landholders report payments of 138 Mexican pesos (or US $12) per hectare per year, which is substantially less than they would make selling cow’s milk produced on that same land, for example.

Members of the Popular Assembly of the People of Juchitán provide security for events organizing resistance to wind farms. 

Communities of the Isthmus have resisted continued marginalization since the beginning of this process. In the municipality of Juchitán in 2006, a group of neighbors decided to start a community radio project, Radio Totopo, using very basic equipment that would inform citizens about developments in the wind farm project in their native Zapotec language. In March of last year, Radio Totopo was attacked by state police and hired hitmen and much of its equipment was destroyed. Many of those who run the radio have received death threats or have been physically assaulted by groups they say were hired by the wind farm companies in order to intimidate them.

As a result of the community collaboration in the radio project, the Popular Assembly of the People of Juchitán was formed. For several months members of the assembly took turns manning a physical barricade fashioned out of scrap metal, wood, and tarp that prevented access to the construction zone for a wind farm project planned by Mareña Renewables, a consortium of Dutch, Australian, and Japanese investment interests. The barricade withstood attacks by local, state, and federal police, the army, hired hitmen and paramilitary groups.

Residents physically blocked the entrance to the construction zone for a Mareña Renovables wind farm. The sign reads, "No to wind farm projects in the communal lands of Juchitán!"

On January 1^st of this year, another local municipality, Álvaro Obregón, took things one step further. In the spirit of the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, the community’s general assembly invoked the United Nations ILO Convention 169 and the 1996 San Andrés Accords, declaring itself an autonomous municipality. Inhabitants renounced all relationships with the state and federal government and affiliation with all political parties. However, the current mayor of Álvaro Obregón, Saúl Vicente Vázquez, does not recognize the validity of the move and has taken steps to de-legitimize it.

The situation in the Isthmus has many layers, but is quite straightforward. The Mexican government has promoted the growth of alternative energy sources in the country using mechanisms like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and pro-corporate development projects such as the Mesoamerica Project. Doors were opened to international investors, banks, and multinational corporations, which benefit from the wind farms in myriad ways. Corporations from developed countries can take advantage of the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, which enables them to invest in clean energy projects in the developing world and use the carbon credits from the project toward emissions reductions targets. They also collect the profits generated by the project itself. Businesses that consume the electricity can also receive Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that they can count toward emissions reductions targets or sell as carbon offsets to other entities.

But the land belongs to the people who have lived, fished, and farmed there for centuries. If they were included in the process with open access to information, were given a fair share of the profits produced by the wind farms, and if corporations could ensure the protection of the environment, the Isthmus has the potential to be a model of the future of renewable energy. Instead it’s become yet another example of neoliberalism disguised as sustainable development, and the people of the Isthmus are committed to stopping it.

"Wind farms yes, but not like this"
Image credit: Asociación Arcera

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

San Jose, Buenaventura: Ground zero for Free Trade in Colombia

By Chelsey Dyer, WfP Southeast Board

The Port of Bueanventura. Photo credit: Chelsea Dyer

 The houses surrounding me were small wooden structures, built by the hands of the community members who settled in them and developed their lives within their walls. The taste of salt tickled my lips. Wind from the nearby ocean struggled to embrace me in its cooling waves, but the heat of the day and emotion refused to lift. I trod carefully, absorbing the uniqueness and beauty of my surroundings. Occasionally my feet would stumble beneath me, tripping over the shell laden ground as I struggled to comprehend stories of murder, grief, and hope. I was in San Jose, or Sanyu- a small community in the port city of Buenaventura, Colombia- meeting with community members as part of a Witness for Peace Delegation. On this day I heard about how the municipal government was threatening to relocate this community to make way for a boardwalk, and for a brief moment, I entered into the daily reality of tension and frustration of free trade. A reality of homes being bulldozed for tourism and of heritage being forsaken for profit. A reality that residents of San Jose could not escape.

There were individuals whose families had lived in the community since the dawn of its existence, families who had moved there after being displaced from their former homes, and criminals who sought to keep them all under their reign of power and fear. All were irreversibly affected by the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Here, in the daily lives of residents Free Trade was not about pesos, or dollars, or profit. Free trade was fear. It was insecurity. It was volatility.

San Jose is one of many neighborhoods affected by free trade in Buenaventura, a bustling city that contains Colombia's largest port and moves about 60% of the nation’s imports and exports. In addition to international port commerce, the majority of Buenaventura’s local economy depends on the ocean, and the local and national governments are increasingly looking to take advantage of the city’s coastal location to develop bigger and more ambitious tourism projects, seeming to pay more attention to attracting foreigners than serving the needs of citizens. In 2012, Colombia and the United States implemented an Free Trade Agreement (FTA) agreement) that immediately eliminated 80% of tariffs on exported goods. Businesses promised that this free market policy would maximize profits, increase employment and spur economic growth. Communities like San Jose were expressly excluded from the official dialogue, a dialogue that never addressed the reality that such communities would be unlikely to share in this supposed growth.

Left: Traditional fishing boats used by San Jose residents. Right: The community of San Jose contrasted with the encroaching high rises behind them. Photo credit: Chelsea Dyer

San Jose community members still catch fish in their traditional long boats. They harvest mussels, using the meat for sustenance and the shells to craft the floors of their homes. The ocean is more than just an economy. It is a livelihood, a culture, and a mechanism of autonomy and sustainability for the people. Yet, with support from the national government, Buenaventura's municipal government is in the process of forcibly relocating the community to a new neighborhood of cheap, prefabricated houses that sit miles away from the sea. No one consulted San Jose community members about this decision. No one informed them ofother economic opportunities. There are no schools, health clinics or other social services in their new, isolated neighborhood. A community that has survived off of the ocean for more than 70 years is being moved to a compound far from their existing economy, community, and heritage.

With voices silenced, muted by big business and choked with fear, the hope of Buenaventura residents still endures, but violence in the city continues to increase. The situation in Buenaventura supports the idea that when people have no access to viable alternative economic opportunities, they often turn to those that involve violence.

This March, President Juan Manuel Santos ordered an additional 380 policemen and 400 marines to Buenaventura to help combat the violence. Yet, as a recent report by the Interchurch Commission on Justice and Peace stated, “When civilians sought help from the military to prevent the paramilitaries from killing a neighbor, the officers told them that ‘we can’t do anything, our job is to protect wealth.’” Community leaders have repeatedly stated that they do not want more boots on the ground or weapons in Buenaventura, but rather that security will come from investment in their city to create jobs, economic opportunities and thriving communities. According to reports in the press, Buenaventura generates about $2 million USD in tax revenue for Colombia, but only about $150,000 of that money is reinvested in the city, and none of that trickles down to neighborhoods like Sanyu or port workers and their families. After selling Free Trade on false pretenses, the government's strategy has been to send more troops into what is already Colombia’s most militarized city and displace those who are in the way of plans for “development”. More guns, more violence, more fear. And more displacement to keep the problems of the city “out-of-sight, out-of-mind,” altering the aesthetics of the problem while ignoring the root cause.

What have we learned from DR-CAFTA Nearly a Decade Later: Understanding the Nicaraguan reality

By Ileana Valle, WfP Nicaragua Team

According to the World Bank, Nicaragua was able to mitigate the global economic crisis in 2008. In fact, it’s had impressively stable economic growth during the past decade. In 2012, Nicaragua’s GDP growth was 5.2%, slightly higher than the 5.1% growth seen in 2011. Could this be the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) living up to its high expectations? This has been the ongoing discussion.

Let’s go back to 2003, when the rhetoric around this controversial agreement was mainly focused on how DR-CAFTA would not only boost the United States’ economy, but also, single-handedly catapult Central America and The Dominican Republic out of poverty.

The initial negotiation process with Nicaragua was completed in record time - one year. This alone casted a dubious cloud over the actual intentions behind the agreement. Within this timeframe, only a select few were actually present at the negotiating table. Mario Arana, member of the Nicaraguan Foundation for Economic and Social Development (In Spanish: Funides), and Azucena Castillo, General Manager of the Association of Producers and Exporters (In Spanish: APEN) were some of the Nicaraguan representatives present– appointed by then President Enrique Bolaños. But what about the small producers? From the very beginning, on the Nicaraguan side, we saw the scale shifting toward larger corporations instead of all parties involved. As we have learned from NAFTA, these types of unilateral agreements negatively affect small producers whose entire livelihood depends on small production. They struggle to compete with the massive agricultural corporations in the U.S. aided by subsidy policies. So arguably, this deal isn’t very fair depending which side of the power dynamic you may find yourself on.

Although concrete evidence to favor or condemn DR-CAFTA is yet to be found, I sat down with a Nicaraguan economist to put all the contributing factors of this complex reality, into perspective.

Beef Industry
First, Nicaraguan beef is known to be leaner and is a healthier, overall higher quality meat, than their North American counterpart. Further, Nicaragua is the leading beef exporter to Costa Rica, and El Salvador, and number 2 behind the U.S., to Guatemala (USMEF.org 2014). Now through DR-CAFTA, the beef industry in the U.S. is able to import into Nicaragua, and the rest of Central America, at a significantly lower cost - lower than the cost it requires for local Nicaraguans to produce their beef. Additionally, the gigantic retail predator Walmart has been conveniently benefiting and has become a direct competitor not only with their sale of U.S. beef, but also with their domination of the supermarket scene in Nicaragua. So Walmart is actually able to import beef into Nicaragua with tax breaks through the same quotas established between Nicaragua and the U.S. In other words, Walmart can take advantage of the lower cost to import beef into Nicaragua and the rest of Central America in order to compete with locally produced beef and, thus, directly competing with local supermarkets.

What does this all mean? Well, considering that Nicaragua has successfully been the leading exporter of beef in Central America, now the Nicaraguan economy as a whole is being threatened. Most importantly, local producers can’t realistically compete with these exports – so where in DR-CAFTA does it protect the livelihoods of small producers? Further, does the Nicaraguan economy relish in the increased sales of Walmart? Of course not. This revenue goes back to the U.S.

So how do we explain the economic growth that Nicaragua has still managed to experience?

Crop Diversification

The agriculture community has managed to stay afloat due to its successful diversification efforts. Nicaraguan farmers change what they grow depending on international demand. As a result, they vary what they grow from year to year. Additionally, among Nicaragua’s largest exports is coffee - so their being able to change what they grow allowed them to strongly benefit from the drought that happened in Brazil that caused the price of coffee to skyrocket. Finally, gold is another one of Nicaragua’s largest exports; so it’s worth mentioning that both coffee and gold -whose sales make up the majority of Nicaragua’s GDP - are industries not regulated by DR-CAFTA.

New Markets

Looking for new markets is probably one of the most important factors in the Nicaraguan economic dynamic. Nicaragua has been able to successfully engage in new opportunities with the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America (ALBA). ALBA is an alternative to the free trade agreements of the north that was started by Venezuela and Cuba - led by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, respectively.

Through this agreement, Nicaragua is able to export the rice that can no longer compete with U.S. rice coming into Nicaragua, to Venezuela. This is among other basic grains they’ve began exporting to Venezuela. These combined strategies have alleviated the effects of DR-CAFTA, and have greatly contributed to the continued growth. According to the economist we consulted, things would get ugly if ALBA would cease to exist.

So, have the expectations of DR-CAFTA been met? Far from that. I think it’s created a difficult space where the resilience of the Nicaraguan people has played an important role. Being able to diversify, depend on industries that aren’t regulated by DR-CAFTA, and engaging in new market opportunities has allowed them to not only survive, but continue to grow. So in the end, who gains with DR-CAFTA? Clearly the U.S. and few large private Nicaraguan corporations - definitely not the Nicaraguan farmers. What have we learned? Nicaragua has had to go up against - instead of working alongside - the massive economic power that is the U.S.

The Impact of the TPP, Part Two

Josh Wise, Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition

Yesterday we read an introduction to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and explored some of the ways these types of free trade agreements prioritize corporations and hurt jobs in all the countries involved. Today we’ll discuss a bit more about what makes the TPP an especially dangerous version of previous free trade agreements and what we can do to stop it.

When NAFTA was negotiated, it largely dealt with goods – tangible items. As technology has progressed, the trade in services like banking, insurance, legal services, healthcare, etc. has dramatically increased as well. The TPP aims to cover all of these services and more, meaning that there are very few jobs left that can't be outsourced.  The TPP would make it harder for local governments to put labor and environmental restrictions, such as living wages or carbon footprint requirements, on corporate activities. Some of the language in the TPP could also pave the way for deregulation of public service like trash collection, water and other utilities, encouraging big foreign corporations to come in and privatize the service, paying low wages and breaking public sector unions in the process. Corporations will often take a loss in order to win a bid, and then, once public assets are sold off, they raise the price and leave local governments hurting for services.

And if local governments try to fight back, they could open themselves up to an investor-state dispute. These allowances for legal challenges, which began with NAFTA, have given corporations the right to sue governments in extrajudicial trade court and have been used to challenge everything from bans on fracking to universal healthcare, as well as a whole host of environmental regulations.

But goods and service aren't all. Like other free trade agreements, the TPP also includes a chapter on intellectual property, essentially establishing control over the flow of ideas and drastically extending copyright laws, potentially affecting everything from patents on medicine to our freedom to use the Internet. This is not only going to cost lives, but stands in direct conflict with any theoretical idea of "free trade." The version of "free trade" being peddled in these agreements means protections for large corporations, pure and simple.

It's should be pretty clear by now that these agreements not only produce policies that are detrimental to global quality of life, but act as a direct assault on our democratic institutions and the ability of local communities to enact laws as they see fit. The good news is that the public largely agrees. Polls have found that less than 25 percent of Americans think that free trade policy has been good for the country, and that more than two-thirds of the public believes such policy costs the country jobs. When we have had mass mobilization against corporate globalization in the United States, we've won. We won against the WTO after the 1999 Battle in Seattle, and we won against the Free Trade Area of the Americas after the 2001 Miami protests. The ONLY way these agreements get passed is under a shroud of secrecy. Major media outlets have barely reported on the TPP; meanwhile, the President is pressuring Congress to pass “Fast Track,” or Trade Promotion Authority, legislation. Fast Track would mean that once a trade deal is done and submitted to Congress (and thus finally made public to the rest of us as well), Congress would have to vote on it within 60 days, limit debate and offer no amendments, plus the executive branch gets to write the final bill officially implementing the TPP.

So what we can do to beat the TPP? The number one thing we need to do in the United States is defeat Fast Track. Without Fast Track in place, it’s very unlikely that the TPP will make it through Congress, or even finish being negotiated. The good news is that we are on our way to making this happen! Last year, more than 150 House Democrats and nearly 30 Republicans signed a letter to the President opposing Fast Track. At the same time, a majority of Americans from across the party spectrum are opposed to Fast Track legislation. As we engage in grassroots organizing around the country we are convincing members of Congress, one at a time, to build a majority in opposition to Fast Track. When the first Fast Track bill was introduced in January, it was met with widespread criticism and is essentially dead at this point, but a new bill could be introduced any day.

So we need your help! Call your US Representative and Senator and tell them that no form of Fast Track is acceptable. We can have a robust system of international trade that is people-centered, promotes human rights and improves our quality of life. But we can't do it with the current undemocratic, opaque model, and we certainly can't do it with Fast Track. Until trade negotiations fundamentally change to become more transparent and give everyone an equal voice, the TPP and other agreements will continue the global race to the bottom. It's up to us to get organized and turn trade policy into a race to the top!

Free Trade: A Primer / Fundamentos de Libre Comercio

Español abajo

Margaret Boehme, WfP Colombia Team

What does Free Trade mean, exactly?
According to The Economist Magazine, it’s “the ability of people to undertake economic transactions with people in other countries free from any restraints imposed by governments or other regulators.”

What kind of restraints?
Tariffs, for instance, which are taxes paid on certain imports or exports.

That doesn’t sound so bad. I don’t want to pay more than necessary for gas, electronics, clothes, wine, or anything else for that matter. So what’s wrong with an agreement?
For one thing, free trade agreements often go beyond tariff-cutting. According to the World Trade Organization, “[Regional trade agreements] provide for increasingly complex regulations governing intra-trade (e.g. with respect to standards, safeguard provisions, customs administration, etc.) and they often also provide for a preferential regulatory framework for mutual services trade. The most sophisticated RTAs go beyond traditional trade policy mechanisms, to include regional rules on investment, competition, environment and labour.”

That’s confusing. I thought you told me earlier that Free Trade meant people could do business with people from other countries without restraints. Here the WTO is saying that free trade agreements are full of regulations and rules. 
It is confusing, and contradictory, too.

Okay, then. So who benefits from these trade agreements?
Corporations, mostly. As Thomas Edsall opined in the New York Times in February, “Free-trade agreements clearly do have a corporatist dimension that is highly vulnerable to pressure from special interests.”

Special interests such as . . . ?
In the case of the TPP, Chevron, Comcast, PHRMA, Halliburton, and the Motion Picture Association of America. These companies have seats on the committee that advises the U.S. Trade Representative on how to negotiate the TPP, even though the negotiations are a secret to the rest of us.

Back up. What is the TPP?
It’s the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, the largest economic treaty in history, and is being negotiated in secret between 12 countries: United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Last November Wikileaks released draft text of all 95 pages of the TPP Intellectual Property Rights Chapter, but the rest of the agreement is secret, even from Congressional representatives that would be voting on it.

Anything of concern in there?
Yes, plenty. After the Wikileaks publication, Nobel Prize winner and former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote an open letter to TPP negotiators voicing some of his concerns. He said the TPP negotiators should reject certain proposals, such as mandates that extend patent terms and certain mandates that have to do with medicines, surgical operations, and test data for drugs, as well as specific recommendations about copyrights. He said negotiators should resist text that would “restrict access to knowledge”. Read his letter here.

Tell me more.
Okay. In March, Stiglitz wrote:

Provisions already incorporated in other trade agreements are being used elsewhere to undermine environmental and other regulations. Developing countries pay a high price for signing on to these provisions, but the evidence that they get more investment in return is scant and controversial. And though these countries are the most obvious victims, the same issue could become a problem for the United States, as well. American corporations could conceivably create a subsidiary in some Pacific Rim country, invest in the United States through that subsidiary, and then take action against the United States government — getting rights as a “foreign” company that they would not have had as an American company. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility: There is already some evidence that companies are choosing how to funnel their money into different countries on the basis of where their legal position in relation to the government is strongest. 

In fact, you can read the whole New York Times article, “On the Wrong Side of Globalization”, here.

But if Free Trade Agreements boost U.S. exports abroad, won’t new markets and increased demand create more American jobs?
Well, the Economic Policy Institute released a report in 2012 which said that trade growth between U.S. and China “has had a dramatic effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy, though in neither case has this effect been beneficial. The United States is piling up foreign debt and losing export capacity, and the growing trade deficit with China has been a prime contributor to the crisis in U.S. manufacturing employment.” According to their report, the growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost the U.S. more than 2.7 million jobs between 2001 and 2011. Similarly, a recent report from Public Citizen states that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) created a net loss of one million U.S. jobs over the last 20 years due to outsourcing. That’s a lot of lost jobs.

Wait, what’s outsourcing again?
At a basic level, it just means contracting certain job functions to a third party. Under Free Trade Agreements, large companies have more freedom to offshore-outsource, that is, to send production jobs and even services (like call centers) to countries where labor is cheaper and there are fewer mandated worker protections, and human rights, safety and environmental regulations. Economists term this a “race to the bottom,” since it consists of companies and countries competing with each other to see who can cut costs the most, to the detriment of workers. The goods and services produced under outsourcing are then re-exported to global markets—including those U.S. workers who are now out of a job and have less purchasing power.

In conclusion, Professor Stiglitz?
“Trickle-down economics is a myth. Enriching corporations — as the TPP would — will not necessarily help those in the middle, let alone those at the bottom.”


Fundamentos de Libre Comercio

Por Margaret Boehme, Equipo de APP Colombia

¿Qué significa Libre Comercio, exactamente?
Según la revista The Economist, es “la capacidad de las personas para llevar a cabo las transacciones económicas con personas de otros países libres de cualquier restricción que imponen los gobiernos u otros organismos reguladores.”

¿Qué tipos de restricciones?
Los aranceles, por ejemplo, que son impuestos pagados por algunas clases de importaciones y exportaciones.

No suena tan mal. No quiero pagar más de lo necesario por petróleo, electrónicos, ropa, vino, ni ninguna otra cosa. ¿Entonces cuál es el problema con un acuerdo?
De un lado, los acuerdos comerciales regionales (ACR) frecuentemente tienden a ser mucho más que ejercicios de reducción arancelaria. Según la Organización Mundial de Comercio, los ACR “contienen disposiciones cada vez más complejas que rigen el comercio intrarregional (por ejemplo, en relación con las normas, las cláusulas de salvaguardia, la práctica aduanera, etc.) y con frecuencia también prevén un marco normativo preferencial para el comercio mutuo de servicios. Los ACR más sofisticados van más allá de los mecanismos de política comercial tradicionales e incluyen normas regionales en materia de inversiones, competencia, medio ambiente y mano de obra.

Eso es confuso. Pensé que me dijiste antes que Libre Comercio significa que las personas pueden hacer negocios con personas de otros países sin restricciones. Aquí el OMC está diciendo que los tratados de libre comercio están llenos de regulaciones y reglas.Es confuso y contradictorio también.

Bueno, pues. ¿Quién se beneficia con estos acuerdos de comercio?
Las corporaciones, más que todo. Como Thomas Edsall opinó en el New York Times en febrero, "Los acuerdos de libre comercio claramente tienen una dimensión corporativista que es altamente vulnerable a la presión de intereses especiales".

¿Cuáles intereses especiales?
En el caso del TPP, Chevron, Comcast, PHRMA, Halliburton, and the Motion Picture Association of America. Estas compañías tienen asientos en el comité que conseja al Representante de Comercio de EE.UU. como negociar el TPP, aunque las negociones son secretas para los demás.

¿Espera. Qué es el TPP?
El Acuerdo Estratégico Trans-Pacífico de Asociación Económica, el tratado económico más grande en la historia. Está en proceso de negociaciones secretas entre 12 países: Estados Unidos, Australia, Brunei, Canadá, Chile, Japón, Malasia, México, Nueva Zelanda, Perú, Singapur y Vietnam.

En noviembre del año pasado, Wikileaks lanzó un borrador de las 95 páginas del capítulo de Propiedad Intelectual TPP, pero el resto del acuerdo es secreto, incluso para los representantes del Congreso quienes votarán por él.

¿Algo de preocupación en ello? 
Sí, un montón. Después de la publicación de Wikileaks, Joseph Stiglitz, quién es ganador del Premio Nobel y ex economista jefe del Banco Mundial, escribió una carta abierta a los negociadores del TPP expresando algunas de sus preocupaciones. Él dijo que los negociadores del TPP deben rechazar ciertas propuestas, como los mandatos que se extienden a las patentes y ciertos mandatos que tienen que ver con medicamentos, intervenciones quirúrgicas, y los datos de las pruebas de los medicamentos, así como recomendaciones específicas sobre los derechos de autor. Él dijo que los negociadores deberían resistir el texto que "restringir el acceso al conocimiento".

Dime más.
Bueno. En marzo Stiglitz escribió en el New York Times:

Disposiciones ya incorporadas en otros acuerdos comerciales se están utilizando en otros lugares para socavar las regulaciones ambientales y de otro tipo. Los países en desarrollo pagan un precio muy alto por la firma de estas disposiciones, pero la evidencia de que reciban más inversiones a cambio es escasa y controvertida. Y aunque estos países son las víctimas más evidentes, la misma cuestión podría convertirse en un problema para los Estados Unidos, también. Corporaciones estadounidenses concebiblemente podrían crear una filial en un país del Pacífico, invertir en los Estados Unidos a través de esta filial, y luego tomar medidas contra el gobierno de los Estados Unidos - obtener derechos como empresa "extranjera" que no habrían tenido como una empresa estadounidense. Una vez más, esto no es sólo una posibilidad teórica: Ya existe alguna evidencia de que las empresas están optando por la forma de canalizar su dinero en diferentes países sobre la base de que su situación jurídica en relación con el gobierno es más fuerte.

Pero si los Tratados de Libre Comercio impulsan las exportaciones estadounidenses en el extranjero, será que los nuevos mercados y el aumento de la demanda crean más empleo en Estados Unidos?
Pues bien, el Instituto de Política Económica publicó un informe en 2012 que dijo que el crecimiento del comercio entre EE.UU. y China "ha tenido un efecto dramático en los trabajadores estadounidenses y la economía nacional, aunque en ninguno de los casos ha sido este efecto beneficioso. Estados Unidos está acumulando la deuda externa y la pérdida de capacidad de exportación, y el creciente déficit comercial con China ha sido un contribuidor principal a la crisis del empleo manufacturero de los EE.UU”. Según su informe, el creciente déficit comercial de EE.UU. con China le costó a los EE.UU. más de 2,7 millones de puestos de trabajo entre 2001 y 2011. Del mismo modo, un informe reciente de Public Citizen afirma que el Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN) creó una pérdida neta de un millón de empleos en Estados Unidos en los últimos 20 años debido a la externalización. Eso es un montón de puestos de trabajo perdidos.

¿Espera, me explicas qué es la externalización de nuevo?
En un nivel básico, sólo significa la contratación de ciertas funciones de trabajo a un tercero. Bajo acuerdos de libre comercio, las grandes empresas tienen más libertad para externalizar offshore, es decir, para enviar los trabajos de producción e incluso los servicios (como los centros de llamadas) a países donde la mano de obra es más barata y hay menos protecciones obligatorias de los trabajadores y los derechos humanos, la seguridad y las regulaciones ambientales. Los economistas denominan esto como una "carrera hacia el fondo", ya que se compone de las empresas y los países que compiten entre sí para ver quién puede reducir los costos al máximo, en detrimento de los trabajadores. Los bienes y servicios producidos bajo la externalización se vuelven a exportar a los mercados mundiales, incluyendo a los trabajadores de Estados Unidos que ahora están sin trabajo y tienen menos poder adquisitivo.

¿En conclusión, profesor Stiglitz?
“La economía de la filtración’ es un mito. Enriquecer corporaciones - como el TPP podría - no necesariamente ayudar a aquellos que están en el medio, por no hablar de los de abajo.”

 

Starting to unpack the TPP, NAFTA and food sovereignty / Empezando a entender el TPP, el TLCAN y la soberanía alimentaria

Español abajo

By Allison Mountjoy, Community Alliance for Global Justice's Food Justice Project

I recently traveled to New Orleans for the first time and where did I find myself on the first day but the New Orleans food co-op. For my sister, who was traveling with me, it was not surprising when I spent thirty minutes looking through produce and taking pictures of their mission goals. Later we met up with a friend who works in New Orleans at a food hub. Naturally, the three of us spent a good chunk of time discussing what makes a good co-op, the merits of local food, and the designs for working city infrastructure.

Just two days later, and back in Seattle, I was sitting in a Food Justice Project meeting struggling to hold my own in a conversation about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and was struck by experience in New Orleans. Picture three middle-class, over-educated, white women sitting on a porch drinking Guinness, eating guacamole, and criticizing the only food co-op in one of America’s biggest food deserts for not having the buying and distribution power of a Whole Foods. There is something very challenging in that picture and it only got more challenging when I started researching the TPP back in Seattle.

Many of us (myself included) have strong beliefs about sustainable and equitable food systems but so much of what we all, as consumers, are confronted with as information is murky at best. I’m not exactly new to the conversation about the TPP or Free Trade Agreements in general but I felt on such rocky ground trying to talk about it that night in Seattle. My knowledge of the TPP leaned heavily on comparisons to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I have been on industrial and subsistence farms in Mexico and seen the results of NAFTA first hand in fields and grocery stores. So, it’s understandable that my first instinct on the TPP is to be wary; it is being called ‘NAFTA on steroids’ after all. But what do I really know about the TPP?

• Who has the most to gain? Importers, exporters, distributors, or farmers? Why is most of the public information on this coming from WikiLeaks?
• How will our food safety standards be upheld as the seafood import market is expected to increase?
• If seafood becomes cheaper to import from the South Pacific how will this affect our more local fishermen, shellfish farmers, and economies?
• How will this impact the livelihoods of South Pacific fishers, farmers and their families?
• Trade agreements are supposed to increase economic welfare for both food producers and consumers, so what should our recent experience with NAFTA teach us about this?

The three of us in New Orleans had the luxury of choosing, advocating for, and working on a sustainable food system. But Free Trade Agreements like NAFTA made it possible for us to sit on that porch and enjoy beer from Ireland and avocados from Mexico. So I invite anyone reading this to ask the hard questions, the ones that sometimes make us uncomfortable or maybe challenge our lifestyles.

Somewhere to start:

The New York Times, “The Broken Promise of NAFTA” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-broken-promise-of-nafta.html

The Washington Post, “Everything you Need to Know about the Trans-Pacific Partnership” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Seattle Global Justice, “Reasons Why Food Justice Activists Should Care about the TPP” http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/2012/11/10-reasons-why-food-justice-activists-should-care-about-the-tpp/#_ftn9

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “Food Safety Critical Issues in Upcoming Trade Talks”http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

Por Allison Mountjoy, Proyecto por la Justicia Alimentaria de la Alianza Comunitaria por la Justicia Mundial

Hace poco viajé a Nueva Orleans por la primera vez y a dónde mas fui que al lugar de la cooperativa alimentaria de Nueva Orleans. Para mi hermana, que me acompañaba, no era para nada sorprendente que gastara 30 minutos mirando verduras y sacando fotos de la misión y las metas de la cooperativa. Luego nos encontramos con una persona amiga nuestra que trabaja en Nueva Orleans en un mercado alimentario. Naturalmente, pasamos un buen rato conversando acerca de qué hace a una buena cooperativa, los beneficios de los alimentos locales y los planes para una infraestructura urbana funcional.

Dos días después, de regreso en Seattle, estaba sentada en una reunión del Proyecto por la Justicia Alimentaria tratando de defender mis argumentos en una conversación sobre el Tratado Trans-Pacificio (TPP por sus siglas en inglés) y volvia recordar la experiencia que tuve en Nueva Orleans. Imagínese tres mujeres blancas, de clase media, y de un alto nivel de educación sentadas en un balcón tomando Guinness, comiendo guacamole y criticando la única cooperativa alimentaria en uno de los desiertos alimentarios mas grandes de Estados Unidos por no tener el poder adquisitivo ni de distribución de un Whole Foods. Hay algo desafiante en esa imagen, y sólo se volvió más compleja cuando empecé a investigar el TPP en Seattle.

Muchxs de nosotrxs (incluida yo misma) tenemos opiniones fuertes sobre sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y equitativos pero mucha de la información disponible para nosotrxs lxs consumidores es bastante confusa. Yo no soy nueva en la conversación sobre el TPP o los Tratados de Libre Comercio por lo general, pero no sabía cómo articular esos temas esa noche en Seattle. Mi conocimiento del TPP dependía mucho de comparaciones al Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN, o NAFTA por sus siglas en inglés). He estado en granjas industriales y granjas campesinas en México y he visto de primera mano los resultados del TCLAN en el campo y en los supermercados. Entonces, con razón mi primer instinto frente el TPP es ser suspicaz; su apodo es “TLCAN en esteroides.” Pero, ¿qué sé yo realmente del TPP?

• ¿Quién gana más de este acuerdo? Los importadores, los exportadores, o lxs campesinxs?
• ¿Por qué la mayoría de la información pública sobre este asunto viene de WikiLeaks?
• ¿Cómo se mantendrán nuestros normas de seguridad alimentaria frente a la ampliación esperada del mercado de importaciones de mariscos?
• ¿Si vuelve más económico importar mariscos del Sur Pacífico, como afectará esto a nuestros pescadores, cultivadores de mariscos y economías locales?
• ¿Como afectará a lxs pescadores en el Sur Pacífico, lxs campesinxs y sus familias?  
• ¿Se supone que los tratados de comercio aumentan el bienestar económico para ambos lxs productores y lxs consumidores, entonces qué nos debería enseñar nuestra experiencia con el TLCAN? 

Nosotrxs tres en Nueva Orleans tuvimos el privilegio de escoger, incidir por y trabajar en sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Pero los TLCs como el TLCAN hicieron posible que nosotrxs nos sentáramos en el balcón disfrutando cerveza de Irlanda y aguacates de México. Pues lxs invitamos hacerse las preguntas difíciles, esas que a veces nos incomodan o que tal vez desafían nuestro estilo de vida.

Para comenzar:

The New York Times, “The Broken Promise of NAFTA” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-broken-promise-of-nafta.html

The Washington Post, “Everything you Need to Know about the Trans-Pacific Partnership” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Seattle Global Justice, “Reasons Why Food Justice Activists Should Care about the TPP” http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/2012/11/10-reasons-why-food-justice-activists-should-care-about-the-tpp/#_ftn9

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “Food Safety Critical Issues in Upcoming Trade Talks”http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

The Human Face (and Price) of Trade

The Witness blog series is back!

This month, Witness for Peace, in close collaboration with coalition partners in the United States and partners on the ground in Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Mexico, is hosting our second annual blog series – this one focused on the changing system of international trade and its effects on communities both small and large.

When most people hear the word “trade,” their eyes already start to glaze over, visions of tariffs and collective bargaining agreements dancing in their hands. This is understandable – at first, trade doesn’t exactly seem like the most exciting topic, tied up as it is with broader issues of economics, national sovereignty, imports/exports and labor rights. However, trade has implications that reach far beyond the entrances to ports and meeting halls – really, if you’ve ever bought anything or had a job, trade has affected you in some way. Over the course of the next month, we’ll be using this space on the Witness blog to explore the many ways trade changes lives, livelihoods and environments, from small-scale farmers in the U.S. Midwest to port workers in the Colombian city of Buenaventura.

The topics of free trade, unions, workers’ rights and economic policy have become increasingly important throughout the Americas since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994, creating a trade bloc between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and opening the door for subsequent economic policies and practices that prioritized corporations and multinational companies over unions and workers themselves. Since then, such agreements have spread across the region, with the U.S. signing free trade accords with countries including Chile, Peru, Colombia and the majority of Central America.

Though supporters in governments and the business world insist that such agreements help boost competition and encourage sales, the truth is that the few individuals and corporations at the top are those that truly profit, while laborers, farmers and small businesses see few of the benefits and are often left worse off than they were before the agreement took effect. Such agreements lead to lower prices on imported goods that  leave local businesses unable to compete without incurring significant losses; allow much greater influence for multinational corporations; facilitate widespread third-party contracting; and encourage extensive outsourcing in a "race to the bottom." These effects are well-documented, and some communities are refusing to simply accept them as inevitable. Last August, Colombia’s farmers began a national strike that quickly spread across the country and reached the largest cities, primarily as a response to the negative effects the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, signed in 2011, had on their communities and their livelihoods.

Well-researched critiques and comprehensive analyses of such agreements are now more important than ever, with the U.S. on the verge of signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would become the most far-reaching trade agreement in the hemisphere and grant a staggering amount of rights and privileges to corporations and business interests, potentially even overriding national sovereignty and laws in some cases. Through this blog series, we will examine the effects and lessons learned from current trade agreements and labor practices throughout the Americas, and hope to shed some light on the potential regional and global impact of the TPP as well as bring more attention to what’s happening in our own backyards and in thousands of other cities and towns across the continents.

Check back here every weekday for bilingual posts highlighting some of the effects free trade agreements and changes in trade and labor policy have had on individuals and communities throughout the Americas, and how some of our writers have seen those changes reflected in their own lives and the lives of others. Feel free to take a look at our 2013 Drug War blog series as well.

Labor Activists Mendoza and Galvis Under Attack

by Jessye Weinstein
WFP Colombia Team

Two trade union leaders in Barrancabermeja’s Coca Cola plant —William Mendoza, President of the local chapter of the Food Industry Workers Union (SINALTRAINAL) and Juan Carlos Galvis, member of SINALTRAINAL’s National Executive Board—are facing false accusations of terrorism. Barrancabermeja is a paramilitary stronghold, and understanding that paramilitaries are largely responsible for the systematic killing of unionists in Colombia, Mendoza and Galvis are sure that a prison sentence in the parapolitical climate of Barrancabermeja would mean imminent death.

The accusation against these two men of having taken part in placing a bomb in a Coca Cola plant in 1998 was brought by three demobilized paramilitary leaders responsible for hundreds of assassinations. These paramilitary leaders took advantage of the 2005 “Justice and Peace” demobilization law to simultaneously exchange their “testimony” against Mendoza and Galvis for varying degrees of amnesty, while continuing their same campaign of terror towards union leaders that they had waged before demobilizing. Although the charge was leveled in 2008, it is only now being activated, coinciding rather perfectly with the implementation of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Many see this as hardly a coincidence.

In order for the trade agreement to enter into effect, a Labor Action Plan (LAP) was signed by Obama and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in April 2011 with the intention of improving labor conditions in Colombia before the implementation of a binding economic treaty.  Although the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement went into effect on May 15, the LAP never met many of its stated goals, now leaving little leverage for improving labor conditions. In fact, the history of FTAs in other countries   even suggests that the passage of FTAs can be met with a dramatic upsurge in violence against unionists as state energy ceases to be placed in efforts that give a pretty face to the labor situation during negotiations. One example can be seen in the significant rise of violence in Guatemala since the implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006: no trade unionists were murdered in 2006; four were murdered in 2007, then nine in 2008, and 16 in 2009.

Relating this back to the Mendoza and Galvis case, it is interesting to note that although the charge was leveled in 2008, nothing became of the case during all the years of FTA negotiations until the eve of implemetation.  William’s analysis is simple: “Now that they’ve finalized the Free Trade Agreement, they want to finish off SINALTRAINAL. The government now wants to use the judicial process against Juan Carlos and me. They want to send us to prison where we will be assassinated, and in that way strike a blow against SINALTRAINAL…They couldn’t kill us, so they are now trying to frame us.”

Mendoza’s words situate his personal experiences within the context of living in the country still internationally recognized as the most lethal nation in the world for trade unionists. We must not allow the false accusations coming from paramilitary leaders, nor the false rhetoric coming from our government ensuring compliance with the Labor Action Plan, to mask the reality of the labor situation in Colombia and threaten the lives of labor leaders.

Contact your Congressional representatives and members of the Congressional Monitoring Group on Labor Rights in Colombia to express your concern about this case.

Members on the House Congressional Monitoring Group:

Howard Berman,              202-225-4695    
Rosa DeLauro,             202-225-3661    
Keith Ellison,             202-225-4755    
Sam Farr,                     202-225-2861    
Steny Hoyer,             202-225-4131    
James McGovern,            202-225-6101    
Michel Michaud,             202-225-6306    
George Miller,             202-225-2095    
Sander Levin,             202-225-4961    
Nancy Pelosi,             202-225-4965

GM Workers Enter 4th Week on Hunger Strike with Growing International Support

By Austin Robles
WFP Colombia

Dozens of people protested in front of GM's headquarters in Detroit last week, outraged at the company's treatment of its Colombian workers. In Bogotá, 2,700 miles away, a small group of Colombian men were touched by their actions. "They've changed my perception of what I thought Americans were like," one of them told me. “They’ve never met us but they’re doing so much for us.”

Witness for Peace Colombia Team fasting in solidarity with Asotrecol   

I met Jorge my second week in Colombia. I went to meet officials at the U.S. Embassy and immediately noticed a make-shift camp outside the main entrance. Living there are 13 men who belong to the Association of Injured Workers and Ex-Workers of General Motors Colmotores (Asotrecol), and they just commemorated their protest’s anniversary.

A welder at General Motors’ South American subsidiary, Colmotores, Jorge performed manual labor at the plant until he was disabled. He underwent three surgeries and now walks with a cane in his hand and several screws in his spine. GM fired him when he could no longer work due to his workplace injuries, and paid him no medical benefits or severance.

In conversations about Jorge’s case with people in the United States, I sometimes hear that I can’t expect the same standards here that would be applied stateside. The issue in Jorge’s case is that GM didn’t even meet Colombian legal standards. The Ministry of Labor had to review workers’ medical records to ensure they incurred no workplace injuries. The Inspector on some Asotrecol members’ cases was convicted for falsifying records and has a warrant out for his arrest. Colpatria, Jorge's professional risk insurance provider, was also fined for illegally changing his medical records to reflect "common" rather than "occupational" injuries. Sadly, the falsified records do not get nullified automatically, and cases do not get reversed due to corrupt oversight, so Jorge and others in his situation have not received justice.

After one year without any sign of a resolution from GM, Jorge decided to sew his mouth shut and go on hunger strike until his case is resolved. Minutes before he put six stitches in his lips, Jorge explained his rationale to me: “Essentially GM gave us a choice: to die of hunger or to die waiting for them to solve this problem.”

The hardest part of working on Jorge’s case has been fighting for social justice against a U.S. corporation. In every country I’ve lived or traveled, locals have almost always differentiated between the U.S. people’s good nature, U.S. companies’ greed, and the U.S. government’s indifference.

It is sad to have to differentiate between U.S. entities when our ideals and behavior should be based on justice uniformly. Colombians shouldn’t have to react with surprise when people in the States stand up against injustice, even when it’s for someone we’ve never met. GM should be ashamed not just for violating Colombian law, but for not setting a standard that could improve labor conditions in Colombia. The U.S. government, which bailed out GM with $50 billion and remains one of its largest shareholders, should also be ashamed for not holding GM accountable for human rights abuses. Companies and governments are the institutions with the power to make the most noticeable impact abroad, but, in this case, have fallen far short of improving human rights conditions.

I have gone to see Jorge almost every day since he stopped eating. He no longer has the energy or optimism he used to boast, and he is worried GM will let him die before settling his small claim. Across the United States, people are starting to take notice of this case. In over 20 states, they fasted or held protests in solidarity with Jorge and Asotrecol this past Wednesday. They will hold more this Friday, not just in the U.S., but also in Brazil, Canada, and Germany.

As Jorge enters his 4th week on hunger strike, I hope that GM soon corrects its error in this case, and that it one day realizes that it can be a force for positive global change.