GUATEMALANS RESIST MEGA-MINES, HYDRO-DAMS

by Nathan Einbinder, Environment News Service

Tailings pond at the Marlin Mine in San Marcos, Guatemala. The water is ultra-blue due to the cyanide and other chemicals used to extract gold from the soil. Photo by author.

GUATEMALA CITY — Amidst the growing controversy surrounding foreign-controlled resource extraction and mega-development projects in Guatemala, populist leader Bishop Alvaro Ramazzini, together with a group of community leaders, is demanding a two-year moratorium on the granting of mining concessions by the Guatemalan government.

In the municipal capital of San Marcos in northwest Guatemala, Ramazzini, with several hundred of his supporters, took to the streets Feb. 24 to call on the country’s Congress for a two-year halt to the sale of mineral rights to international companies. This pause would give the current government enough time to review a petition to reform the existing mining code.

Ramazzini and numerous local and international organizations contend that the current mining law does not properly consult local communities as defined by the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169, which guarantees the right of indigenous people to exercise control over the form of development that occurs in their traditional territory.

Guatemala signed onto the ILO 169 agreement shortly after the affirmation of the Peace Accords in 1996.

Critics of the current government led by President Alvaro Colom argue that the existing mining law fails to address issues surrounding water usage and the low requirement of royalty payments to the state, which stands at one percent of the revenue earned.

According to Guatemala’s Ministry of Energy and Mines, there were 356 mining licenses granted as of December 2006, with hundreds more in the process.

Oxfam International reports that at least 10 percent of the country’s land has been turned over to international corporations for mineral exploration and exploitation.

In recent months, as many as 20,000 citizens from the Highland departments of Huehuetenango and San Marcos have voted against mining operations in regional consultas, or community referendums, which are legal yet non-binding in Guatemalan courts.

The nearby Marlin Mine, a cyanide-leaching, open-pit gold mine owned and operated by Canada’s Goldcorp Inc., has been one target of community criticism, given its well-documented health and water contamination issues, as well as its local opposition movement.

A large dike is holding the cyanide-tainted mine tailings in a pond, but the pond is filling up rapidly, and the mine company is expected to release the tailings into the river at some point in the future.

Countrywide Resistance
The Feb. 24 rally was by no means unusual in Guatemala. Hardly a day passes without news of another protest, roadblock, or urgent community meeting to discuss the prospects of another mega-project.

Across the country, from the Western Highlands to the lowland Oriente, large hydroelectric dams, mines, super-highways, and cement plants are being planned, often with limited consultation with, or support from, the indigenous Maya majority.

The number of proposed mega-projects has increased as part of the government’s plans for development and modernization, and under the framework of the newly ratified Central American Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, which offers incentives to international companies.

Despite the promise of much needed job opportunities and rural services, this model of development often leaves communities socially divided and environmentally damaged, and, according to Ramazzini, leads to an increase in poverty and inequality.

“Green” Mega-development
After mining, hydroelectric dams are the target of the hottest mega-development debate in Guatemala. As stated by the current administration, there is an energy crisis in Guatemala, and one of the methods in solving this issue is by implementing clean “green” energy producers.

According to Julio González of Madre Selva, a Guatemala City-based environmental organization, the motive behind these new hydro-projects is for the sale of electricity to surrounding countries, which they say will benefit only particular economic interests and foreign companies.

Far from bringing new employment to dam-affected regions, González told the daily La Prensa that, “they [the companies] hire 50 or 60 laborers during the construction, and afterwards, no one.”

The latest high-profile conflict is taking place in the Ixcan, in the far north of the country, where the $400 million, 181 megawatt Xalala dam has been proposed and aggressively pursued by the current administration and the National Institute for Electricity, INDE.

According to a study by International Rivers, a US based nongovernmental organization, if the dam project is carried out, at least 2,300 Maya-Qeqchi farmers will be displaced, and the local environment will be severely damaged.

In April 2007, a popular consulta was carried out in the affected communities. Of the more than 21,000 people who voted, 91 percent rejected the Xalala dam proposal. Nevertheless, INDE continues to solicit from international development agencies for funding to carry out the project.
Paulina Osorio was born in a village flooded by Chixoy Dam. Her parents were killed by the Guatemalan Army when she was nine. Photo by Erik Johnson, International Rivers Network.Paulina Osorio was born in a village flooded by Chixoy Dam. Her parents were killed by the Guatemalan Army when she was nine. Photo by Erik Johnson, International Rivers Network.

Digging Up the Past
Guatemalans believe they have good reason to resist the prospect of more hydroelectric dams.

Over 30 years ago, when the INDE started the initial construction on the Chixoy hydroelectric dam in Baja Verapaz, about 90 miles north of the capital, it was hailed by the World Bank, one of its principal lenders, as an engineering miracle.

Since then Chixoy has nearly tripled its initial estimated cost, and now accounts for roughly 50 percent of the country’s national debt.

Despite the economic mishaps, and the fact that the dam may have to be completely dismantled in the near future due to structural problems and the lack of a proper environmental impact statement, Chixoy remains a symbol of a turbulent era in Guatemala’s history.

When the Maya-Achi people of Río Negro, one of the main villages affected, decided they would resist their forced displacement to make way for construction of the reservoir, they were labeled “subversives” by the military, and systematically massacred by paramilitary groups.

According to official reports, 444 men, woman and children were killed, and many others lived in hiding for years in the wooded gulches above the flooded basin.

In all, at least 3,400 people were displaced in the region, and many are still waiting for promised reparations from INDE and the World Bank.

Small Gains
Between the media’s coverage of assassinations, bus accidents, and illegal security organizations that murder with impunity, there is an occasional story detailing the small gains made in the countryside, as ordinary Guatemalans stand against the growing forces of globalization by initiating their own vision of development.

Last week, community leaders from five municipalities met in Chiquimula, in southwestern Guatemala, to discuss a massive reforestation, sustainable agriculture, ecotourism, and potable water project, which will receive funds in part from the Nature Conservancy.

“Today a project is born that will develop the mountain, that for years was neglected,” said a mayor from Huite, a nearby community.

Elsewhere, such as in Chuarrancho, where a large dam is planned on the Río Motagua in the dry intermountain region north of the capital, local leaders have voiced their opposition over the lack of consultation, and the likelihood that such a project would destroy their way of life.

In years past, this type of discontent would label them as subversive, or communist, but today, the open dialogue is empowering and has the potential to bring about a change in the way development is perceived and carried out.

Due in part to the massive opposition against the Xalala hydro-project, the only construction company to show interest in building the dam, Odebrecht [of Brazil], has withdrawn its submission.

With funds drying up in the United States and Canada because of the economic crisis, numerous mega-development projects, such as Skye Resources’ nickel mine in El Estor, are in an indefinite holding pattern. –

—

This story first appeared in March 5 on Environment News Service.

RESOURCES

International Rivers http://internationalrivers.org

See also:

GUATEMALA: GENOCIDE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFY
by Thaddeus al Nakba, Upside Down World
World War 4 Report, June 2008

GUATEMALA: MAYA RECLAIM LAND FROM MINERAL CARTEL
by Sandra Cuffe, Rights Action
World War 4 Report, September 2007

From our Daily Report:

Guatemala: US knew about 1980s abuses
World War 4 Report, March 24, 2009

Salvadorans march against free trade deal
World War 4 Report, March 15, 2009

Guatemala: convictions in Río Negro massacre
World War 4 Report, May 31, 2008

“Goldcorp 7” trial underway in Guatemala
World War 4 Report, Nov. 19, 2007

——————-
Reprinted with permission by World War 4 Report, April 1, 2009
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2009. All rights reserved.

Continue ReadingGUATEMALANS RESIST MEGA-MINES, HYDRO-DAMS 

AMNESTY NOW: HOW AND WHY

by Jane Guskin, Huffington Post

Most analysts agree that the chances of immigration reform in the first year or two of Obama’s administration are extremely slim. We can’t expect politicians and policymakers to take action. The change we want to see has to come from below.

We can make it happen if we unite around a common goal: swift, practical, inclusive legalization NOW, as a first step, and eliminating the backlog for people whose immigration cases are in process. Bring people out of the shadows, resolve their status, reunite their families. (And don’t worry about what to call it—amnesty, legalization, regularization, path to citizenship, etc. We know what we’re talking about, and we’re not fooling our opponents by coming up with new names for it.)

A simple bill we could get behind might look something like this:

1) Change the “registry date” in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), currently set at January 1, 1972, to January 1, 2006. That will allow anyone here since that date to apply for residency through the relatively straightforward registry process.

2) Restore Section 245(i) of the INA, which lets people who entered the US without permission adjust their immigration status here without having to first return home and face the punitive 10-year bar. Section 245(i) has been lapsed since 2000, leaving millions of people without options to legalize.

3) Get rid of the national origin quotas on family-based petitions and expand the total number of family-based visas available, so people don’t have to wait 20 years to reunite with their relatives.

4) Pass the Child Citizen Protection Act, to restore the power of judges to weigh the impact on children when considering the deportation of a parent.

Those four steps will provide options for a huge number of people, including those who would benefit from measures like the DREAM Act (undocumented youth) or AgJobs (farmworkers.) If we’re strong enough, we can also win the Uniting American Families Act (equal immigration rights for same-sex couples), a repeal of the harsh 1996 laws, an end to employer sanctions and other badly-needed measures.

We can win these changes now if we:

– Mobilize, organize, march, petition. We need mobilizations twice as big as the ones we saw between Valentine’s Day and May Day in 2006, in the months after the House passed anti-immigrant bill HR4437. Those mobilizations changed the whole climate in Washington, leading the Senate to approve a package that included AgJobs and the Dream Act. Unfortunately, the mobilizations didn’t continue past May 1, 2006, and the measures approved by the Senate never made it through the House.

– Don’t wait. The sooner we act, the sooner we’ll see results. By the time Obama’s administration passes the 100-day mark on May 1, millions of people should be marching in the streets and calling or visiting their members of Congress.

– Dialogue. Slogans and soundbites won’t convince people who aren’t already on our side. We need to get people talking to each other about immigration, sharing thoughts and experiences, working through fears and doubts and taking a deeper look at the root causes.

Let’s not forget that Congress, not the president, has power over immigration. We don’t need to convince Obama, we just need to make sure that the Democrats in Congress understand that they will benefit from swiftly passing a measure to legalize the undocumented—and they will pay a price if they don’t. Latino voters were key in this latest election, and even though many Latinos are not immigrants and many immigrants are not Latino, a large number of US-born Latinos have immigrant relatives, have experienced anti-immigrant racism and are sympathetic to immigrants. Most naturalized immigrant voters are also sympathetic, having struggled through the system themselves.

Inclusive legalization can consolidate the demographic shift of rural America and permanently change the electoral map. Many of the rural areas which overwhelmingly voted for McCain include substantial immigrant populations—often working in agriculture, meatpacking or other industries—which have been clamoring for legalization. In Finney County, southwestern Kansas, fewer than 10,000 people voted in this year’s presidential election, and McCain beat Obama by 35 percentage points (67%-32%). Yet on April 10, 2006, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people rallied for legalization in Garden City, the county seat, out of a total population of around 30,000. McCain won with similar numbers in nearby Ford County, where several thousand people rallied for immigration reform in the county seat, Dodge City, in April 2006. Over in Madison County, Nebraska, with just over 13,500 voters, McCain won 69%-30%; on April 10, 2006, the Tyson Fresh Meats pork plant in the county seat, Madison, had to shut down because so many of its employees walked out to demand legalization. McCain won with 62% of just over 20,000 votes in Hall County, Nebraska, where on May 1, 2006, hundreds marched in the county seat, Grand Island, for immigrant rights.

It’s clear in the minds of most immigrants and their friends and families that during eight years in power, the Republicans did nothing good on immigration. Most people don’t remember the anti-immigrant bills approved under the Clinton administration, or that the last amnesty came under a Republican presidency. So right now, while the Republican Party is busy trying to develop a strategy for winning Latino support without alienating its white racist base, the Democrats have a chance to move. The Democratic Party needs to see that if it approves legalization now, it will win the continuing loyalty of a large bloc of existing voters, and at the same time create a large bloc of future voters, spread over rural and urban areas, whose gratitude could boost the party’s standing over the next decades.

Will there be a backlash if Congress approves legalization? The 52% of voters who elected Obama mostly don’t hate immigrants, so they won’t get too riled up about legalization, and many will support it, especially if we work to win over those still unconvinced. Among the other 48% of voters, many probably resent immigrants and oppose legalization, but three years from now, most will have forgotten about it or will have gotten used to it. We will likely see a rise in hate crimes and racist attacks over the next four years, with or without legalization for immigrants, but a focus on dialogue will help to ensure that hateful acts don’t gain wide support. And if everyone has legal status, at least immigrants will be able to report threats to police and protest publicly when they are victimized.

There’s no time to waste. Any delays in pushing through legalization will hurt its chances. We need to mobilize behind a united demand, and make our voices heard every single day until we get what is needed.

—-

Jane Guskin is co-author of The Politics of Immigration: Questions and Answers, published by Monthly Review Press in July 2007. She lives in New York City, where she is co-director of the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute, a grassroots foundation supporting nonviolent action for social justice.

This story first appeared March 4 on Huffington Post.

See also:

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS HITS THE IMMIGRATION DEBATE
by David L. Wilson, MR Zine
World War 4 Report, January 2009

A MATTER OF JUSTICE
Sami Al-Arian Case Exposes Federal Immigration Gulag
by Jane Guskin, Huffington Post
World War 4 Report, October 2008

THE “SI SE PUEDE” INSURRECTION
A Class Analysis
by George Caffentzis, Metamute
World War 4 Report, August 2006

From our Daily Report:

US detains record number of immigrants: report
World War 4 Report, March 17, 2009

Deadly repression greases “guest worker” program (on AgJOBS Act)
World War 4 Report, May 25, 2007

Arizona: students march against anti-immigrant measures (and for DREAM Act)
World War 4 Report, Jan. 13, 2007

——————-

Reprinted by World War 4 Report, April 1, 2009
Reprinting permissible with attribution

Continue ReadingAMNESTY NOW: HOW AND WHY