The Dominion - Nicaragua

Peter Kent calls fraud in Nicaraguan elections, cites "credible evidence"

dawn — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:05:31 +0000

It's been a whirlwind workweek for Peter Kent, who on Monday kicked off his first field trip as Canada's minister of state for the Americas. The junior minister post is a new position created by the Conservatives in order to fulfill their plan to re-engage in Latin America.

Kent started off his week in a meeting with President Daniel Ortega in Managua, Nicaragua.

But he didn't make the local news until he expressed "serious concern" about "credible evidence" pointing to fraud in municipal elections in the country last November. Among the critics of the fairness of the elections are the opposition, the US, and the Organization of American States.

OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza said in a press release that the organization was "very concerned" about the "difficulties unfolding in Nicaragua as votes [were] being counted." The same press release duly noted that "Insulza remarked that since the organization had not been invited to observe any of the latest elections in that country, it is not in a position to comment on them." Ummm... ¿Perdon?

Canada's Quiet Free Trade Agreement

Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:43:34 +0000

Few people have heard of CA4TA

Guatemala City graffiti: We don't want free trade agreement, we want revolution, education, media. photo: Detritus

In June, Canada's international trade minister, David L. Emerson, gave a speech in Ottawa to Canada's business, government, and academic elite to celebrate International Trade Day. "I have no reservations about saying that we have not been aggressive enough and focused enough on ensuring that Canada keeps up with the rapid, almost competitive, expansion of bilateral free trade agreements," said Emerson. "Canada is the only major trading nation that has not negotiated a single free trade agreement in the past five years." One of the agreements the Canadian government is trying to finalize is the Central America Four Free Trade Agreement (CA4TA) with Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. Talks were suspended in February 2004 over a failure to resolve a few issues of contention, though one Canadian Trade official said the talks were "very well advanced." Canada is now informally talking with these Central American countries to resolve a few remaining issues, he said, one of them concerning market access for exports. "My assumption is that it is an opportunity for governments to work out differences so that in official meetings they can just rubber stamp the deal and send it through," said Nadja Drost, co-ordinator of the Americas Policy Group.

A point of contention with Drost and about 150 civil society groups throughout the hemisphere is the refusal to release a draft of the agreement.

The Canadian Trade official, who wished to withhold his name, said that the Canadian government wanted to release the draft but that it would be inappropriate to do so unilaterally since consensus on the issue couldn't be released. Drost countered by pointing out that it was the Canadian government who convinced the countries of the hemisphere to release a draft of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in 2001.

"Now they are saying that they can't get four small Central American countries to do it," she added.

As it stands, the text won't be released until the deal is signed and submitted to parliament for ratification. Although the economic impacts of the deal may not be profound, there are concerns about sovereignty, human rights and democracy based on experiences from past deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

"I think transparency is a major, major issue," said Drost. "I think the public would feel a lot more assured if they knew their concerns about democracy and human rights were being addressed."

Because of the secrecy behind the details of the deal, critics are using NAFTA and the United States' narrowly passed Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) as references for their concerns. Both trade agreements were attacked for failing to promote and enforce human rights, as well as for undermining democracy with unbalanced investor rights provisions.

The investor rights provisions of free trade were first introduced in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It essentially allows corporations to sue local, state or federal governments for labour, environmental or other public interest laws which they deem unfairly impeding their ability to maximize profits.

For example, the Canadian government was fined for entering an international agreement that prompted it to close its borders to toxic substances. Under Chapter 11, Canada was ordered to pay US company S.D. Meyers $4.8 million for "lost business opportunities." Thus far, tens of millions of dollars have been awarded to corporations, while billions of dollars worth of claims are still pending.

The Canadian government, in 2004, responded to some of civil society's concerns about NAFTA's Ch. 11 by revising its negotiation template for Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (FIPA). Although some issues are addressed, according to a policy review commissioned by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and written by the editor of Investment Treaty News, the reforms fall short.

For example, the template restricts host countries from requiring foreign companies to purchase some supplies locally. These requirements would bolster local economic development, but might ultimately inhibit companies from maximizing profits.

Free trade critics are also concerned with the lack of provisions to address and redress weak labour and human rights laws in the Central American countries.

The Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers (CALL), an association of over 350 progressive lawyers that has worked to promote legally enforceable rights for workers in the Americas, has "serious reservations that the proposed CA4FTA will benefit workers in Central America or Canada." It uses past trade agreements, such as NAFTA and CAFTA, to point out historical deficiencies in the area of workers' rights when it comes to international trade.

Under CAFTA, Central American countries are only obligated to enforce domestic labour laws. This is problematic, considering various reports by the US State Department, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), and other human rights organizations point out not only inadequacies with current laws but also institutional failures in enforcing these laws. In the Central American countries included in CA4TA, child labour is pervasive, worker blacklists are made, foreign companies have closed their doors after being informed that workers wanted to form a union, and worker wages are a fraction of what Canadian workers make. According to the ICFTU, in Honduras, Francisco Cruz Galeano, the regional co-ordinator of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), was shot over 20 times and killed.

As of now, Canadian citizens will not learn how CA4TA affects human rights issues until the deal is finalized and submitted to Parliament for approval. The text will then be available for public, media and government scrutiny. But any amendments proposed to address potential shortcomings would have to be reviewed by the Central American partner governments.

Pressure will undoubtedly be put on members of Parliament to pass the agreement as is so that Canada doesn't fall further behind in the race to secure new free trade agreements—something Canada's trade minister has already said needs to be remedied. The same approach was used in the United States to push through CAFTA, which was ratified by a mere two votes, despite widespread opposition by civil society in the United States, as well as Central America.

Cyril Mychalejko is assistant editor of UpsideDownWorld, an online magazine uncovering politics and activism in Latin America.

Cyril Mychalejko investigates the CA4TA, a free trade agreement few Canadians have heard of.

"Heroine" of Sandinista Revolution Branded Terrorist by US State Department

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:42:32 +0000

Dora Maria Tellez, considered by many to be a heroine for her role in the Sandinista overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua in 1979, has been refused entry to the US on the grounds that her role in the revolution constituted terrorism.

Tellez, who had intended to immigrate to the US to take a teaching post at Harvard University, told the Guardian that she is confused by the decision as she has visited the US on several occasions without any trouble.

This announcement comes off the heels of US President Bush's appointment of John Negroponte as his administration's director of intelligence.

According to one organization, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Negroponte, who was US ambassador to Honduras from 1981-85, "was a key player in organizing training for the Contras and procuring weapons for the armies that the United States was building in order to topple the socialist Nicaraguan government."

Many in the academic community are outraged by the decision. In an interview with the Guardian, Toronto-based Nicaraguan sociologist Andres Perez Baltodano questioned the US State Department's definition of terrorism, arguing that "Dora Maria is as much a terrorist as George Washington."

Guardian: US bars Nicaragua 'heroine' as terrorist

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR): Media Omissions on Negroponte's Record

Harvard Crimson: Would-Be Prof Denied Entry Visa

Fair's Fair

Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:35:42 +0000

Marketing and reality in the coffee trade

Eugenio Laguna of the El Porvenir coffee coop in Posoltega, Nicaragua. Rob Gentry

MANAGUA, NICARAGUA ---- Entering the grounds of one of Nicaragua's oldest coffee plantations, the delicate scent of coffee plants and the beauty of ancient trees lead me to believe that I have finally discovered paradise. But not far down the road I spot a few dilapidated shacks. Scruffy, barefoot children run out to greet us. These are the children of coffee workers, and the shacks are their homes. I ask my guide about the wages and working conditions for the coffee workers. He points to the shacks and asks, "What does it look like to you?" This is a paradise of sorts, but not for the workers.

With their seemingly irresistible white cups filled with bitter--sweet froth, Starbucks, assures us that it is a socially--conscious corporation. Once a month in each of the company's 7,834 shops, a Fair Trade 'coffee of the day' is brewed. Fair Trade is an international certification program that ensures coffee farmers a better life. Starbucks openly acknowledges that only a small percentage of the coffee purchased annually is Fair Trade certified, but as Sue Mecklenburg, vice president of business practices for Starbucks proudly states, "100 per cent of the coffee we buy is under conditions that are fair to farmers."

This is the characteristic response of the global coffee chain to the increasing criticism they are facing: they claim to be paying a fair price. True, Starbucks buys coffee at an average price of $1.20 per pound, as opposed to the current global commodity price which currently stands at about $0.50. But a fair price is not Fair Trade. If it were, Starbucks would simply seek Fair Trade certification for their coffee and end the debate.

Fair Trade is a market-based solution to the crisis caused by the collapse of coffee prices, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, "is contributing to social meltdowns affecting an estimated 125 million people--from Central America to Africa." Through the creation of a floor price of $1.26 per pound of coffee and the elimination of middlemen, Fair Trade ensures that more profits go into the hands of small-scale coffee producers. But it is about more than just money.

By allowing small farmers to compete in the global marketplace without being exploited by powerful middlemen, Fair Trade locks in agrarian reforms friendly to small farmers and peasants in the same way that free trade locks in trade policies friendly to large corporations. To be certified as Fair Trade, coffee must be bought from either a cooperative or a democratically run farmers' association. Within such structures, each producer participates in the important decisions concerning distribution. If the producer is part of a cooperative, then he or she actually owns part of the distribution company. Outside the confines of Fair Trade, distribution companies hold the majority of bargaining power and reap the bulk of financial benefits from the trade of commodities such as coffee. Being part of a cooperative or association can be the difference between a farmer being forced to sell his or her small plot of land or being able to keep it and continue making a living. In Nicaragua, the three large coffee cooperatives that presently export from the country were actually formed with the express purpose of maintaining the viability of land reforms introduced by the Sandinista government in the 1980s. In growing the market for cooperatively produced coffee, Fair Trade has thus been instrumental in maintaining agrarian reform in Nicaragua.

Through its emphasis on cooperation, Fair Trade helps to promote organization and development at the community level. While the cooperative or association decides how profits are divided among members, Fair Trade requires that a certain percentage is re--invested into the community. The cooperative focused on Nicaragua's Northern region, Prodecoop, has an education committee that gives kids school supplies and assists farmers and their families in pursuing university degrees and continuing technical education. More importantly, however, a cooperative or association creates an organizational framework within a community and teaches people to work together to solve problems. Where the cooperative provides shelter from market forces, it also opens the lines of communication within a community so that individuals are no longer isolated and forced to wait on government assistance that may never come through. In a country where public investments are minimal and where government policies rarely reflect the needs of the majority, a community's ability to work together can be crucial.

Despite the benefits, life for the Fair Trade coffee farmer remains a struggle. Environmental pressures--such as limited access to water and an increasingly short rainy season--can make cultivation problematic. Furthermore, while the market for Fair Trade coffee has grown steadily, advocates believe that in order for Fair Trade coffee to become mainstream, the large corporations controlling the coffee market such as Starbucks and Proctor & Gamble must get serious about Fair Trade and stop using it simply as a marketing ploy. So while Starbucks' friendly price--which is still six cents short of Fair--is better than nothing, it is certainly short of any true commitment to social justice. Whether the extra pennies fall into the hands of needy farmers is questionable, as is the ability of pennies alone to make the world a better place.

Meribeth Deen visits Fair Trade coffee farms in Nicaragua.