Continuing the November 6th Class Discussion...

It's easy to understand why there was little consensus in class over punishment and reparations for state-sponsored crimes of that magnitude. Many important thoughts were brought forward if only to compound the problematic nature of the issue. Clearly the punishment will never fit the crimes committed and if that is the chosen road how does one identify which laws were broken and to what extent when the judgement is so temporally removed from the crime. Which legal system should be used, whose set of laws? And with such a complex network of criminal culpability who should be singled out for penalization? An article I read recently concerning the legal case against a high-ranking military officer from the "Dirty War" era in Argentina concluded with a sense of relief in response to the life sentence that was handed down. To me it seems very anti-climatic and void of closure, doing little to positively address the fact that state-sponsored repression and violence was able to carve such a wide and uninterrupted wound in Argentina's corpus real. I've had little exposure to death however, I was only nine when my grandfather died and nobody close to me has passed on since, so I'm really in no position to fully empathize with the victims, but I choose forgiveness over an eye-for-an-eye and I can't see that a life sentence or the penalty of death would console me much.

Our culture spends so much time and effort determining guilt and penalizing those responsible, filling the prisons and finding new and more elaborate ways of doing so (ie. the US Patriot Act...coming soon, the Patriot Act II). The comment in class regarding "restorative justice" triggered a lot of valuable thought. When cases such as Argentina's "Dirty War" and Guatemala's Civil War are dealt with legally (or not) I think more focus should be placed on prevention and that we utilize the advantage of hindsight to shift our perspective from treating an isolated case to healing a wound inflicted on humanity as a whole and strive to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. The policy goal should be to somehow institutionalize the sentiment of "nunca mas" that is so often cried out in the wake of rampant injustice. But where does one begin? On whom does the responsibility fall and how do you dissect an event that involves so many seemingly independent players, uniting their personal motives of greed or power to create a charade of international conflict resolution and prevention? As one classmate mentionned, after the dust settled in Guatemala the CIA went back to business as usual. Do you attack the institution that enabled the repression and funded the violence even if the individual orchestrators have left its ranks? I think the most appropriate strategy today is to hold corporations to social and environmental responsibility. But then we're left the vested interests that bind corporations to the politicians, the capitalist soul of America. So in the end I've once again arrived at my familiar yet uneasy conclusion that under the current design of capitalism the world will continuously fail to adequately address the problems of rampant poverty, disgusting inequality and horrific violence that plagues us all and we stand to witness sequals to the same sad stories over and over and over again, all the while crying out "NUNCA MAS".

last301

Different Bananas, same old story.

When the United Fruit Company dissolved it was replaced by Chiquita Brands International, another US-based company with tremendous lobbying power that routinely makes enormous donations to the Democrats in Washington to ensure a “favorable investment climate” in Guatemala and other Carribean nations. In past, the US government has unilaterally imposed over one billion dollars in trade sanctions on the EU for giving priviledged market access to the poorer banana producing nations in the Carribean. They’re still at it Guatemala, going to bat for US shareholders in attempt to capture more of the EU market, spending billions of dollars, but failing to address the issues of poverty and corruption that plague the country where they have set up shop.

A recent article in Latin America Press included details from a report by UN Human Rights advisor, Philip Alston. Alston describes Guatemala as an “ideal place to commit murder” because of rampant corruption, impunity and the reliance on extra-judicial and summary legal action on behalf of “rogue” police forces. In 2005, there were over 5,400 murders in Guatemala and only 1% of cases will result in conviction, largely due to dilapidated institutions that suffer from insufficient state funding. Police enforcers are combining extra-judicial murder with brutal torture to send the message to youth gangs and mafia members that the law is to be feared and treated like any other group involved in systemic violence. Wow. The article really brings to light the lasting impacts of the “US-assisted” civil war that lasted 36 years until the 1996 Peace Treaty. And over what? Bananas. Protecting us from Communist invasion. How different would Guatemala be today if the US’ worst fears actually materialized and a Communist government came to power and then spread across the region? The natural alliance with Castro would have presumably created governments with similar objectives and social policies and the entire bloc would have become internally stronger. Conversely, had the Bay of Pigs actually succeeded Cuba might look a lot like Guatemala today since its social and political climate at the time of the revolution was nearly identical to that in Guatemala. The most disturbing part of the article was that recent polls show that a majority of the population support social cleansing tactics, showing that fear continues to grip a desperate citizenry.

To access this article in full you will have to obtain a trial access code, which can be done through a link at the bottom of the homepage and is good for three weeks. Search for "A Recipe for Crime" from September 21, 2006. Link to Article

last301

Argentina...23 years later.

Every new generation lives among the remnants of their national past. On whom does the burden fall to address a nightmarish historical legacy lingering in the collective memory of a people? Many struggle to rectify injustices that are rooted in the past yet continue to create disparities in the present. Free from responsibility and protected by a temporal shield, others choose not to acknowledge the warts on their national body. Canada is still wrestling with the plight of indigenous communities and sadly the state of their people is often cyclically conditioned, from one generation to the next, as the product of their own misfortunes. Recently, in the southern cone of Latin America, Chile and now Argentina are pursuing legal rectification for the atrocities commited under the rule of military dictatorships. Until June 2005, military and government personnel from Argentina's "dirty war" were given amnesty through the "impunity laws". The 'Full Stop' and 'Due Obedience' laws shielded human rights violators from prosecution. An initiative by a human rights NGO in Argentina successfully petitioned a judge on the unconstitutional nature of these impunity laws. A case from the summer of 2006 is the first time anyone has been sentenced for a dissapearance. These developments are touted as the ability of democracy to overcome impunity and further steps to rectify the horrible legacy of the dictatorship. These changes do have their merit since surely nobody should be legally protected for violating human rights, regardless of when the atrocity occurred. In Walsh's "Open Letter to the Military Junta" the systemic punishing and "planned misery" against millions of people through unjust economic policy was placed among the worst tactics of evil committed by the junta. Today, similar economic agendas continue to cause disparity and create poverty across the continent. It seems a more effective way to afford past and present generations some sense of ease over historical wrongdoings would be to solidify the sentiments of "nunca mas" and create institutional solutions to address the lasting disparities, impunity and corruption that often plague democracies in Latin America. Click here for the report from Human Rights Watch

last301

As with everything else I've read of O'Donnell, I found his piece compelling, meticulous and very insightful. There was so much beneath the surface of Latin American regimes during that period that simplistic and definitive characterization often fall short of capturing the realities and complexities of what was actually going on and the catalysts of their formation. As a quick sidenote, it has been argued that Pinochet's military junta displayed many democratic tendencies as a result of the interrelations among the leaders of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Police Force; a series of checks and balances arose as the leaders vied for power and influence within the Junta.

I found it interesting how the socioeconomic circumstances within Argentina had the effect of cleaving society in two according to their political affiliations and played such a prominent role in instigating the demise of presidential authority. Among the military commanders, the rationale for political intervention gradually superseded all other courses of action as the notion of economic development became synonymous with national security. General Ongania's quote on pg. 405 is representative of this. Once they were in power however, the pressure to save face and not deteriorate as the country's "last hope", was great enough to immediately change the notion of what were acceptable levels of involvement in civil society, which just happened to cascade seemingly overnight into sinister levels of repression and human rights abuse.

In hindsight we see the global ramifications of the institutionalized violence that spread through Latin American throughout that period. Would other nations now rally behind international rights agreements and intervene to uphold the global precedents on behalf of another nation of innocent citizens? Clearly the words, the very essence of "nunca mas", has been quickly forgotten and quietened in the human voice in certain parts of the globe, as can be seen by the situation in Darfour, following eerily in the wake of Rwanda. Let's hope that the military in the southern cone of Latin America strives to segregate themselves from national politics.

last301

Fighting for the Legitimacy of Customary Law

In Canada nobody is above our official legal system and to the extent that these laws are applied equally to all this remains fair and democratic. But in Canada legal enforcement is often applied in a discriminatory manner in tandem with racial profiling. Many people feel the mistreatment and targeting of Aboriginal youth represents the indoctrination of prejudices within the police force. Last July, four young Native women were harassed and threatened by Police for singing traditional songs in a park in Vancouver's Eastside. Among other consequences, the subjugation of Aboriginal communities meant the subordination of the customary and restorative Indigenous legal system. Although smaller crimes contained within the Aboriginal community are sometimes dealt with independently of official Canadian law, this overriding system blankets the actions of all individuals, but not always with just accord.

The situation in Guatemala is quite different since the indigenous communities are more prominent in the national population and have arguably retained more of their autonomy. However, the confrontation between customary Indigenous law and the official legal system of the state is ongoing, often characterized as a battle for legitimacy and authority. A recent article in Latin American Press addresses this issue. link to article

Defensoria Maya is an activist group that fights against economic, political and social discrimination against Guatemala's Indigenous population. Its members are pushing for the recognition of Indigenous law within the official system and their campaign is supported by many prominent social organizations, including the Supreme Court. Beyond negotiating for their inclusion in the formation and application of official laws, Defensoria Maya is calling for an independent system, with distinct values, institutions and procedures, that would guarantee the right of Indigenous people to be tried by their own laws. It seems that many people feel the persistence and strength of ethnocentric behavior among the non-Indigenous class negates the possibility for mutual reconciliation. It is clear that any past efforts to unify the distinct segments of Guatemalan society have failed. What would social unity look like in such a divided nation and considering the unknown consequences is it really desirable? Can two very different systems of law coexist in any society?

Returning to Canada with the same questions presents a new series of complications and further questions. In most larger towns and cities across BC, the Native communities have been given reservation land and subsidies as part of the provincial conpensation scheme. Even if establishing customary Indigenous law within the reservation communities was a beneficial course of action, that would not prevent the discrimination that occurs in urban zones. These issues are merely specific manifestations of the larger problem of enduring anti-Native sentiment within our society. The situation in the Downtown Eastside and crisis of homelessness are further examples of "cracks in the foundation" of our society. Many have come to refer to the Downtown Eastside as an Indigenous Ghetto since it is home to the largest number of off-reserve Natives in the country. The escalating number of homeless, the drastic reductions in single occupancy housing units and the continued discrimination against Aboriginal Youth are all details of a cycle of neglect, originating from a dominant social trajectory that values wealth over equality.



last301

The Right to Education

The battle of education has always been prominent in Chilean society. University grounds are probably the most notorious areas of public dissent and the student voice the most stringent advocate for political and social freedoms. During the Pinochet era, student organizations suffered the same fate as trade unions and left-leaning political groups: repression and violence. Also during this period, spending on education, from elementary to the university level, was severely curtailed in favor of military spending and more maleable social institutions. Last week's issue of the Economist had a brief article regarding the shortcomings of the Chilean education system, specifically at the elementary and secondary levels. While spending on education has dramatically increased following the fall of the dictatorship, matching the levels of most industrialized countries, student performance has failed to improve as a response. The blame has been largely placed on apathetic teachers who are paid based on seniority instead of ability and whose jobs are virtually untoucheable under the union's collective agreement. Young students are following in the footsteps of their university brethren by staging protests against the lack of reform to this deliterious system. A new Teacher Assessment Program has angered those teachers who received the poor training doled out during the Pinochet era. A new program under consideration would use windfall profits from the copper industry to train teachers across the board and subsequently make them accountable for their students' performance. The apparent obstacle to the Chilean government is negotiating with the powerful Teachers Union, but based on the information presented I'm confused as to why this should be so problematic. If some teachers are aware of their inadequacy and fear for their jobs then why not agree to the training program. If they are truly virtuous teachers, then ensuring the healthy mental and social development of their students is of primary importance and the threat of job loss for incompetence shouldn't cause any concern. Would anyone want a half-hearted, detached surgeon fooling around with their vital organs? Ok, it's not quite the same, but the right to education should be treated no different than the right to health care or housing.

last301

Critical Review - Assignment 1

In “The Process of Economic Globalization and Protection of Human Rights in Latin America”, R. Narayanan explores the inherent conflicts and contradictions between economic liberalization and the promotion of human rights. According to the author, the paradox of Latin America is that despite its passing into a ‘dawn of democracy’, as seen by the widespread emergence of democratic regimes in the past two decades, the incidence of human rights abuses remains rampant throughout the continent (Narayanan, 2004). Adopting democratic institutions and practices does not in itself rearrange social and cultural order according to its most fundamental principles of equality and liberty. The scourge of corruption and impunity that plagues much of Latin America is testament to this flawed reasoning. Nor does adopting neo-liberal economic policies necessarily strengthen a state’s democratic institutions, as can be seen by the negative effects of NAFTA on the plight of indigenous communities and the poor in Mexico. This article dissects three policy instruments that are central to the development models of transnational economic agencies such as the World Bank to show their incompatibility with human rights protection. These development models, characterized by mercantilist structural adjustment policies (SAPs), have been demanded by the western world, most notably the United States, as preconditions to trade relations and financial aid.
Although the majority of Latin American states have adopted democratic institutions and political processes, they struggle to consolidate these gains, which would lead to civic and political environments that reflect democratic values and freedoms. At times, democracy seems nothing more than a veil of legitimacy, offering universal suffrage and competitive elections while corruption, impunity and a weak rule of law disempower any mechanisms and modalities that attempt to protect basic human rights, achieve social equality and preserve cultural identities (Narayanan, 2004).
The author offers a critique of international economic and political relations to highlight the adverse effects of globalization on human rights protection in Latin America. The analysis focuses on three key elements: ‘Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement’ (TRIPS), ‘Dispute Settlement Understanding’ (DSU), and ‘Multi-lateral Institutions (MLIs) and the Alleviation of Poverty’. These three elements of trade relations reinforce the exploitative and unjust nature of the western world’s involvement in Latin American affairs. The TRIPS agreement, whose text was drafted by the pharmaceutical industry in concert with the US government, is shown to be reminiscent of colonial era mercantilism. The author holds that it runs counter to the basic tenets of liberalization by favoring monopoly power and creating dependencies (Narayanan, 2004). In the past, European states fueled their economies with the abundant natural resources in Latin America, hampering the development of its domestic industries. Today, health care and food production in Latin America is compromised by foreign corporations seeking access and control of land, markets and labor forces through the channels of free trade.
The incidence of monoculture plantations that has plagued much of the central US has also swept across Latin America, where foreign corporations can outbid domestic firms and exploit cheap labor in contempt of international human rights agreements. To infringe on a country’s food production system borders on cultural genocide in Latin America, where indigenous communities rely heavily on traditional agriculture for subsistence living. The advent of patented, pesticide-resistant seed varieties is highly contentious since it robs the farmer of his right to save seeds for future cultivation. The Monsanto designed terminator technology, which makes seeds sterile after one growing season, is nothing more than economic enslavement since farmers must purchase new seeds every year. Furthermore, the malnutrition and food security solutions designed by western agribusiness firms can be ignorant of local realities in developing countries, as can be seen by the case of golden rice as the failed miracle cure for childhood blindness in Bangladesh (Greenpeace). Allowing the patenting of life forms and giving privileged status to GMOs violates food sovereignty and incapacitates research into new, culturally appropriate agricultural techniques that are adapted to local environments. The efforts to address the adverse effects of globalization on agricultural production are complicated by bureaucratic inefficacy, corruption and pressure by foreign governments who have vested interests in Latin American resources. When regional governments try to safeguard the livelihood of local communities they are faced with cumbersome national policies designed by the tenets of economic liberalization abroad (Narayanan, 2004).

The DSU mechanism has predominantly been a tool for developed states to settle grievances against developing states that strayed from WTO mandates in the interest of protecting basic human rights and dignifying the lives of their citizens (Narayanan, 2004). Along with the World Bank and the IMF’s corrective policy package, entitled the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC), the DSU is insufficient recourse for years of ill-advised economic restructuring and seems to merely reinforce the status quo. Furthermore, the HIPC is only available to countries that undergo “at least two Enhanced Structural Adjustments Facilities under the surveillance of the IMF” (Narayanan, 2004, p. 182).

The central questions of this article ask why Latin American democracies resist consolidation and fail to protect human rights and what internal and external factors help to explain the paradox. Although the author touches on internal problems with corruption and impunity, the crux of the blame is placed on international economic and political institutions that operate unbridled by international rights agreements and are routinely responsible for violating their codes. The logic behind the idea that economic liberalization and democracy are mutually reinforcing has run its course in Latin America. Even in the more developed nations of the continent, such as Chile and Argentina, widespread rights abuses continue to plague civil society. Although the tools and the knowledge for capitalist exploitation were offered by the consolidated democracies of the west, the role of a comprador class within Latin American cannot be understated.

Another important issue raised by this article is the disconnect between multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and the WTO, and the protection of human rights under international law. The author quotes dialogue between the UN Secretary General and the World Bank’s vice-president to reinforce that international trade regimes are not mandated to enforce human rights protection, but rather create the economic conditions necessary for their protection. Since enforcing human rights laws is clearly not their intended role, what is their obligation to cases of rights violations as a result of their policies? When governments allow their own industries to be privatized by foreign firms they are compromising their abilities to defend food sovereignty and uphold their own constitutional rights. The same problems are often true of more developed nations, but the weaknesses of most Latin American democracies compound the struggle and lead to a cementing of the status quo. Multilateral institutions should fully acknowledge their culpability, recognize state sovereignty over agriculture and partner with local governments to design less invasive and damaging economic policies.

Since the colonial encounter, the trends of economic and political manipulation have persisted throughout Latin America. Whereas the Empires of Europe were once to blame, it is now the forces of capitalist imperialism that continue the rape of human and natural resources across the continent. The anomaly of this predatory and insatiable system is that it continues to evolve in spite of our understanding of its consequences. In order to solidify the trajectory of neo-imperialism, its proponents in positions of power cultivate a distorted notion of progress while relying on the undersides of democracy, such as hyper-nationalism, voter apathy and corruption, to inhibit collective resistance. The design and values of this system are so inextricably woven into western culture that its dissolution presents an existential conflict for those who regale in its offerings.

Humanity is clearly witnessing another loss of innocence. With the colonial encounter began the subordination of the indigenous people in Latin America and today, largely through neo-liberal economic policies and political meddling, the erosion of indigenous culture, value and knowledge carries on at a frightening pace. In political organization, the autonomous character of indigenous societies has withered under the power of democracies behaving more like centralized autocracies. In natural resource management, cooperative land stewardship has had to yield to myopic corporate ideology. In regards to human rights, globalization shares the same hypocrisy as colonialism: while intended to civilize, create prosperity and equality, it has fostered violence, poverty and a widening disparity between the rich and poor. Humanity must enter a new era of consciousness where life takes precedence over wealth and the positive strengths of each culture are cultivated to their full potential and united to ensure our survival.

last301

Celebrating the Gains, Confronting the Challenges

Last Saturday I attended the Solidarity Conference with Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela and had the pleasure of experiencing the enthusiasm and momentum behind signs of progressive change in Latin America.

In keeping with the topic of rights, I wish to describe some of the conference proceedings. Rights are an integral part of the notion of place and the connection between people and land is strongly exemplified by the indigenous communities of Latin American. Many of the guerrilla fighters in Chiapas are direct descendants of those who first resisted Spanish colonialism and the same is true of other countries, in areas where the indigenous communities were not totally erased from existence. These people have such real and enduring links to their histories, ones that demonstrate the power of place and the insatiable thirst for justice and equality.

I found the conversations on Bolivia particularly interesting, especially since an indigenous Bolivian woman, whose father fought with Che Guevara during the late 60s, rose from the crowd to speak of past attempts at revolution and brought a human face to the long-endured struggles of the impoverished Bolivian majority.

Opinions on the transformations within Bolivia are naturally divided based on systemic paradigms. Proponents of free enterprise in the form of the FTAA and US-assisted democracy might condemn Morales’ decision to nationalize the gas and mining industries, espousing the archaic rhetoric of a fundamentally flawed Socialist system. This assumes that any change with socialist principles is bound to suffer the same fate as past attempts at communism, but there’s an enormous futility in imposing current models, regardless of their success in one nation, to the unique conditions of another. On the other hand, many see the changes in Bolivia (and Venezuela), however radical they seem at first, as being historically appropriate given the sustained political and economic exploitation by a ruling elite married to aggressive foreign powers. Although Morales is not the ideal candidate to emerge as the newest ally in the struggle against imperialist meddling in Latin American affairs, the significance of his rise to power overshadows any lacking in his political intellect. Bolivia is the poorest, most divided nation in Latin America, with the highest percentage of indigenous people. Morales is the product of class struggle and has come to embody the right to self-determination and the return of power to the have-nots.

In an interview with Spiegel, posted on Spiegel Online click here for interview, Morales reinforces the egalitarian principles and constitutional nature of Bolivia’s ‘indigenous revolution’, by emphasizing the historical and moral importance of Latin America’s indigenous communities. According to Morales: “We Indians are Latin America’s moral reserve. We act according to a universal law that consists of three basic principles: do not steal, do not lie and do not be idle. This trilogy will also serve as the basis of our new constitution.”

last301

Commentary on “Las Casas”

Las Casas makes references to systems of natural and civil, or “Roman” laws. He uses these notions of rights to point out the contradictions and barbarity inherent in the colonial encounter. The conduct of the Spaniards places them outside of the civilized locus they’re supposed to embody and in gross violation of the system of rights they’re supposed to be operating under and assimilating the native community into as part of their divine mission to spread Christianity. There conduct was in “condemnation of all laws known to man.” Las Casas frequently points to the hypocrisy of the encounter and the wickedness of those commanding the slaughter. Although at times it felt as though, should the natives have acted differently (less compliant and submissive), some of these actions would have been legitimized. However, I suspect it was simply the absurdity of his frequent reminder that the natives did nothing to violate the “law” as instituted by the Spanish. Nor did they act in a hostile manner, vengeful, or with hatred, “sins that are properly the province of God.” Under the circumstances of the encounter I hardly think that violating either human or natural law would have been outside their realm of rights.

Las Casas describes how the natives were labeled outlaws and disobedient towards Spanish law and the rule of their King (since Spanish authority encompassed the entire New World) for not acting complacent, when the complacence required of them was as foreign as the religion and the system of law that presided unknowingly over their heads. He asked the question: how can an individual be in rebellion or respite towards a system of royal decree or towards a religion that they do not yet comprehend and to which they do not yet belong?

His notion of rights is crucial to his argument that only the natives had the legitimate right to kill their oppressors. Since their natural freedom was robbed from them in a rain of bloodshed, justice was theirs to deliver.

Las Casas’ narrative frequently returns to the themes of lost innocence and blackened purity. The natives were naturally gentle, humble, peace-loving, already embodying the qualities that were to be cultivated within them through Christianity. The Spaniards traded their duties to their King and God for sin through greed and barbarity. The massacre of the natives symbolizes the loss of innocence and the erosion of both natural and human law. The innocence of all died with the natives while the Spanish “ceased to be men”.

last301

From Thomas Paine’s “The Rights of Man”

Paine explored the temporal aspect of rights and laws and described them as being generational, where laws are created by one generation to govern them during that era, but becoming less applicable, even obsolete, as that generation fades and a new one is ushered in. In the present era of increasing public apathy and widening social stratification how can legislative bodies operate in the detached and objective manner that is required in order to create new laws in an appropriate and equitable manner? If politicians have come to predominantly represent an elite class that’s constantly retreating from a lower class majority, how can the process of public representation be inherently for the greater good of all? Apathy through distraction and ignorance through fear will be greatest challenges to the new generation, who must revise the laws in this time of struggle. I’m not sure if the entity that is global politics is reaching maturity, but the grievances and abuses between nation-states certainly demands that individuals, countries and people, reconsider their place in the system of national and global rights.

Regarding Paine’s distinction between the two modes of government, election/representation and hereditary succession, I would simply like to point out an anecdote that I came across in other readings. According to Burke’s Peerage, the bible for royal and aristocratic genealogy, 34 of the 43 American presidents in history can be genetically traced to Charlemagne, a monarch of France. Is there a pseudo-monarchy operating behind the scene in US politics? Since talent and ability are not hereditary, and there are over 300 million people from all cultures in the United States today you would think a little more genetic diversity would be displayed in the genealogy of American presidents. Add to that the immeasurable degree of corruption within any electoral process and you can see the peculiarity of the observation. In addition, throughout this week’s readings we see the connections between divinity and the equality of man, the rights to rule and even the legislative process. Since the beginning of social organization, rulers have often claimed divine appointment and early European monarchs were no exception. Are Bush’s continual reminders of his ‘God-given duty’ any different?

last301