certification course in sailing, then I can rent out their boats! Preparing the groundwork for a summer solo trip... my childhood dream. probably a few years down the road though.
thoughts on persuasive arguement. I have come to realize that ideas and beliefs are intensly personal. Even the most logical arguement will do no good, even with the most 'rational' person. But if you trust someone, you are more likely to believe them. Hence the idea behind making personal connections to relate to their point of view and life story. But is this saying that logic has limited reality in social change? But how much logic? Which facts? if you believe it is fact, it can become fact, and previous reality becomes irrelevant. Or having a different premise which leads to different conclusions, regardless of the philosophical methods one applies.
Speaking of lack of facts, how bout that pat buchanan? When i watch these people, I can't distinguish between whether people are actually that unintelligent to think that facts don't matter - (they get paid to lie) or if they actually believe what they say. Probably a little of both, more so I believe getting paid to lie. which is why Rachel didn't directly challenge him on any of his mistatements (eg sotomayor benefited from AA programs the whole way through, or, no black people died in the civil war..) Heard a compelling arguement that Rush limbaugh and Bill O'riely have been bought out as well. Bigots don't draw party lines so easily. If you dislike government policy due to ideology - than it would be impossible to critize only one party to such a high proportion of the time. it is not ideology. If pat buchanan really believed that stuff what he was saying, he would fit right in with most the elite democrats as well, who believe the same things. They are after all, rich white and male as well. bought and paid for.
just my two cents. First, I will need two cents. I can see how getting paid is appealing to many. Paid? ha!
Shall I go into work tomorrow? probably. do I feel like it? no. Is it easy? yes. and you don't want to go in? no. not really.
would rather be sailing.
or reading
drinking coffee
eating
mmmm..eating
lunes, 20 de julio de 2009
martes, 30 de junio de 2009
i'm sorry rant
the ever important phrase "i'm sorry" should be weilded carefully. Not only does it imply you have done something wrong that you are apologizing for, but that you genuinely feel bad for what you have done. These two requirements cannot be easily met, and it is best not to lie than utter falsehoods. People often get around this simplistic formula by stating 'i'm sorry i made you feel bad'. which translates to, i don't give a shit about what i did, i just wish you didn't take offense to it. This pathetic excuse for an apology should not pass. Am I just being stubborn? probably. but would someone really want me to apologize for something i didn't regret? if people wan't to be soothed by words without significance, i'm all for it. just like telling your two week old crush you love them. But apologizing at its root - if you recognize what you did was wrong, then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. Maybe the apologizer should look to themselves and just not do it... far more productive than offering a sugary apology without action.
just my two cents.
just my two cents.
domingo, 21 de junio de 2009
immigration and labor unions
while immigration reform is in my thoughts, it doesn't often come to the forefront. AFter hiking over the weekend with a women's group (mostly progressive independent women who like the outdoors).. it surprised me to hear about 'the illegals in california ruining the economy'. especially the part about the schools losing so much money to teach the 'Illegals'. I tried to counter this with logic, pointing out the immigrants pay social security and sales tax, are exploited at work, and don't really use any of the services anyways... I always feel uncomfortable with these confrontations. since i am somewhat of a confrontational person anyways, i think i need to be a nicer, more bubbly personality to discuss harmful stereotypes. Maybe i just make people angry and they don't listen anyways.
So...semi-book review of "disposable domestics" (grace chang) which helped me understand immigration as a labor issue, and why the hate speech is simply false.
rough draft for internship:
Anti-immigrant sentiment changes on who it is directed against and when it is deployed. Economic crisis' are one of those times that predictably drum up anti-immigrant fears. The usual charges vary from overwhelmed social services, taking Americans jobs - or for the ambitious immigrant, taking down the economy. Not only are these statements ingenious, they are simply false.
It has been long recognized that immigrants provide cheap labor at little. They use a relatively small proportion of social services, pay sales tax and even social security tax, of which they will see none of. However, even as countless studies show that the net 'economic benefits' of immigrants outweighs the 'costs' this misses the point. Economic refugees do not come to sweatshops for the English.
Grace Chang's book, Disposable Domestics, is as relevant today as it was ten years ago. She notes that one of the reasons immigration is so cost effective for the United States is that their home country has borne the costs of raising them. Many people come to the United States as a young and employable workforce. immigration patterns do not correlate only with the poverty, but rather with US influence and interference in a country. Chang notes that "the extraction of resources by the United States and other First World nations forces many people in the Third World to migrate and follow their countries' wealth." We can see this playing out before our very eyes with the multinational corporations operating in Mexico. They save money through lax environmental laws, and abuse labor laws they know will not be enforced. These corporations put small stores out of business and destroys the places where they operate, syphoning the profits back into the United States. Companies such as Dole own unused large swathes of land, rendering a significant part of a country, such as Guatemala, unproductive.
Upon coming to American, the questions remains, - are illegal immigrants taking American jobs? As Chang points out about immigration raids, - "Creating job vacancies is not the same as creating jobs" - factory raids do not provide decent jobs to Americans. Many of these jobs would not exist in the first place were it not for a super exploitive labor force. This is because if the company employed Americans, the working conditions would be illegal. Under the threat of deportation, undocumented workers face extreme obstacles to organize to confront employer abuses. Even after forced to work long hours, in poor conditions for low pay, employers often do not give a paycheck. The fact that even legalized workers in the United States face harassment, intimidation or fired for trying to organize gives us insight to what companies will resort to to wreck havoc on their workers - without these laws for minimal protection. Companies have even called the INS on themselves during an organizing drive to thwart unionization. American workers have a vested interst in ensuring labor rights to all documented and undocumented workers. It is impossible to compete with a labor force without rights. Power in number ensures that companies cannot use technicalities to justify inhumane conditions.
Part 2. more musinggs: morality of selective law.
Even if people do not agree on many things, being against sweatshops or child labor shouldn't depend on one's nationality or having the right papers. Many of our laws exist because it is simply wrong. If an immigrant commits murder this is wrong. Are they subject to punishment under the law? yes. Why? it is wrong. Is it wrong to have people working in conditions that would be illegal if they company had hired Americans? Yes. But yet these distinctions remain in our legal system and our psyche. Laws should not be something to pick and choose which ones I should abide by, yet this is the system that operates. If the act is immoral, why should it matter who does it? Chang notes that many people believe that "people [low wage laborers] should be grateful for the work they get under any conditions, that it is a privilege, that they are better of with it than without.... At the core, the struggle that all of these workers share is to disabuse the American public and US employers of the belief that employing them in service work resembling servitude in an act of justice or charity."
So...semi-book review of "disposable domestics" (grace chang) which helped me understand immigration as a labor issue, and why the hate speech is simply false.
rough draft for internship:
Anti-immigrant sentiment changes on who it is directed against and when it is deployed. Economic crisis' are one of those times that predictably drum up anti-immigrant fears. The usual charges vary from overwhelmed social services, taking Americans jobs - or for the ambitious immigrant, taking down the economy. Not only are these statements ingenious, they are simply false.
It has been long recognized that immigrants provide cheap labor at little. They use a relatively small proportion of social services, pay sales tax and even social security tax, of which they will see none of. However, even as countless studies show that the net 'economic benefits' of immigrants outweighs the 'costs' this misses the point. Economic refugees do not come to sweatshops for the English.
Grace Chang's book, Disposable Domestics, is as relevant today as it was ten years ago. She notes that one of the reasons immigration is so cost effective for the United States is that their home country has borne the costs of raising them. Many people come to the United States as a young and employable workforce. immigration patterns do not correlate only with the poverty, but rather with US influence and interference in a country. Chang notes that "the extraction of resources by the United States and other First World nations forces many people in the Third World to migrate and follow their countries' wealth." We can see this playing out before our very eyes with the multinational corporations operating in Mexico. They save money through lax environmental laws, and abuse labor laws they know will not be enforced. These corporations put small stores out of business and destroys the places where they operate, syphoning the profits back into the United States. Companies such as Dole own unused large swathes of land, rendering a significant part of a country, such as Guatemala, unproductive.
Upon coming to American, the questions remains, - are illegal immigrants taking American jobs? As Chang points out about immigration raids, - "Creating job vacancies is not the same as creating jobs" - factory raids do not provide decent jobs to Americans. Many of these jobs would not exist in the first place were it not for a super exploitive labor force. This is because if the company employed Americans, the working conditions would be illegal. Under the threat of deportation, undocumented workers face extreme obstacles to organize to confront employer abuses. Even after forced to work long hours, in poor conditions for low pay, employers often do not give a paycheck. The fact that even legalized workers in the United States face harassment, intimidation or fired for trying to organize gives us insight to what companies will resort to to wreck havoc on their workers - without these laws for minimal protection. Companies have even called the INS on themselves during an organizing drive to thwart unionization. American workers have a vested interst in ensuring labor rights to all documented and undocumented workers. It is impossible to compete with a labor force without rights. Power in number ensures that companies cannot use technicalities to justify inhumane conditions.
Part 2. more musinggs: morality of selective law.
Even if people do not agree on many things, being against sweatshops or child labor shouldn't depend on one's nationality or having the right papers. Many of our laws exist because it is simply wrong. If an immigrant commits murder this is wrong. Are they subject to punishment under the law? yes. Why? it is wrong. Is it wrong to have people working in conditions that would be illegal if they company had hired Americans? Yes. But yet these distinctions remain in our legal system and our psyche. Laws should not be something to pick and choose which ones I should abide by, yet this is the system that operates. If the act is immoral, why should it matter who does it? Chang notes that many people believe that "people [low wage laborers] should be grateful for the work they get under any conditions, that it is a privilege, that they are better of with it than without.... At the core, the struggle that all of these workers share is to disabuse the American public and US employers of the belief that employing them in service work resembling servitude in an act of justice or charity."
sábado, 13 de junio de 2009
Peru
President Garcia: "We have to understand" he said, that "when there are resources like oil, gas and timber, they don't belong only to the people who had the fortune to be born there because that would mean more than half of Peru's territory belongs to a few thousand people."
Oil and gas are finite resources and the land the rest under cannot be simultaneiously lived on as well as exploited. Who owns this oil? Using his same logic the oil doesn't really belong to Peru either - just because that country happens to posses oil within its borders. They belong to the people of the world!
Since the use of these resources requires ownership, he is saying not only that they don't belong to the indigenous groups, but that they "Belong" the ruling elite. Its not like cleaning up the river so we all benefit - so the corporation has no right to pollute. No, this is the taking of land, to be given to someone else, at the expense of uprooting and potentially murdering an entire people.
This statement implicitely shows who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' in Garcia's mind, and exposes his racism.
Protests like the ones in Peru and around the world such as for water rights or what have you, it is often said that the motivation is purely political. I fail to see how this denigrates the objective. Of course it is political! Government policies and international policies are political decisions. How can it NOT be political? I think what they are insinuating is 'political gain' in that people care more about raw power than about the issues. This is precisely the point. Their use of 'political gain' is almost absurd because if this were true, the elites would be quite excited. If the indigenous leaders actually renounced their movements, for 'reconciliation' this would be 'politically motivated'. If Obama pledged to renounce torture unequivocally, and doesn't, it is for 'political' reasons. If Max Baucus doesn't support a government sponsored health care plan against the wishes of Montanan's... THIS is politically motivated at its finest. But when people risk their lives for a cause and refuse to renounce and reject everything they stand for... is this politically motivated? I think not.
Oil and gas are finite resources and the land the rest under cannot be simultaneiously lived on as well as exploited. Who owns this oil? Using his same logic the oil doesn't really belong to Peru either - just because that country happens to posses oil within its borders. They belong to the people of the world!
Since the use of these resources requires ownership, he is saying not only that they don't belong to the indigenous groups, but that they "Belong" the ruling elite. Its not like cleaning up the river so we all benefit - so the corporation has no right to pollute. No, this is the taking of land, to be given to someone else, at the expense of uprooting and potentially murdering an entire people.
This statement implicitely shows who is 'worthy' and 'unworthy' in Garcia's mind, and exposes his racism.
Protests like the ones in Peru and around the world such as for water rights or what have you, it is often said that the motivation is purely political. I fail to see how this denigrates the objective. Of course it is political! Government policies and international policies are political decisions. How can it NOT be political? I think what they are insinuating is 'political gain' in that people care more about raw power than about the issues. This is precisely the point. Their use of 'political gain' is almost absurd because if this were true, the elites would be quite excited. If the indigenous leaders actually renounced their movements, for 'reconciliation' this would be 'politically motivated'. If Obama pledged to renounce torture unequivocally, and doesn't, it is for 'political' reasons. If Max Baucus doesn't support a government sponsored health care plan against the wishes of Montanan's... THIS is politically motivated at its finest. But when people risk their lives for a cause and refuse to renounce and reject everything they stand for... is this politically motivated? I think not.
lunes, 8 de junio de 2009
Fair Trade vs. Direct Trade
Stepping into my local coffee shop inquiring if they sell fair trade coffee – I was told that they had something better – “Direct Trade”. I was told this cut out the middle man in Free trade, and was the next step up. Excited, I bought the coffee, and then came home to investigate.
I also began reading more intensly my book on fair trade "the prospects and pitfalls of market driven social justice"
I am disappointed by both. More so by Direct Trade since they are demeaning to Fair Trade on their website, and trying to compete in a tiny market of ethical consumers rather than bring in new ones. And it appears they don't have better labor standards.
The book points out that with the collapse of the international coffee agreement in 1989 the price of coffee was much higher than it is today - even above fair trade prices. Fair trade a few years ago only compromised about .5% of the coffee market. So here we have some people making a little bit of money, but it is bascally peanuts. And people buy it thinking they are doing good, when they don't realize that even walmart used to pay higher price - more fair - than they are now!
I wanted to write a critical assesment of both on the blog at my internship, but I was censored. First time. I guess i can understand why since we put out catalogues of suggestions for how people can be more ethical consumers. But at the same time, isn't being realistic also neccesary? like tossing a dime to the starving child and feeling warm and fuzzy for your contribution for solving world hunger.
So even while fair trade has its pitfalls, some within it are actually trying to change the marco-economic policies, and sell fair trade products as only one small part to increase awareness and create fertile ground for cooperatives around the world who are trying to create an alternative structure to the corporate model. ie no hierarchy, democratic control of the workplace, social conciousness. the foundation must be layed first. Although other fair trade theorists have no such desire and want to increase marketability and don't believe the neocapitalist can or should be changed. It is what it is.
The dangers of co-optation. If Starbucks becomes the major buyer of fair trade coffee this raises legitamate holy fuck type questions. apparently they have already pushed for changing the labor standards, and who fair trade deals with. I think some of this already was implemented. If fair trade becomes mainstream through corporations, who then determines its course? who holds the power? these alliances should be made with suspicion. the book points out that the world bank, imf, starbucks etc. are all in favor of fair trade - at the micro level. (just enough anyways - starbucks only buys 6% fair trade coffee). But none of them would ever support changing the fundamental structures of domination - macroeconomic policies.
I emailed "Counter Culture" about their labor standards with the following questions. What really bugs me is that try to pretend to be all revolutionary on their websites, when they don't even have a vision to change anything. They also mention how transparency is fundamental, but none of the farms they trade with have websites, no way i can check up on them. I guess its easy to be transparent when there is no information. Like me: i am completely honest concerning all aspects of my artwork! uhhhh...
1. Are there specific criteria used to judge labor standards?
2. Are these criteria a prerequisite to developing trade relations?
3. Direct Trade is compared to Fair Trade throughout the website. Since an integral mission of Fair Trade is based on ethical working conditions adhering to ILO standards (no child labor, right to unionize, etc.); by saying Direct Trade has higher standards suggests that Direct Trade ensures better working conditions. Is that a proper assessment?
(“Meanwhile, we recognized that our own standards of quality, transparency, and fair pricing were somewhat higher than the FTC standard. We developed the Counter Culture Direct Trade Certification in the desire to raise the bar of fairness and sustainability and lead by example in the coffee trade”.)
4. One of the biggest criticisms of Fair Trade coffee is that its ‘fair’ price is actually below what the market was before the International Coffee Agreement was abandoned in 1989. The sales of both fair trade and direct trade do not even begin to fill the gap of the price drop. In the interests of social sustainability, does Counter Culture support efforts to change macro-economic relations?
5. Why did Counter Culture choose to peg its bottom floor price in relation to Fair Trade – which it can be argued, is not meeting the needs of farmers.
6. Does Direct Trade aim at increasing the amount of ethical consumers – by offering better coffee, or does it simply compete with Fair Trade consumers?
I also began reading more intensly my book on fair trade "the prospects and pitfalls of market driven social justice"
I am disappointed by both. More so by Direct Trade since they are demeaning to Fair Trade on their website, and trying to compete in a tiny market of ethical consumers rather than bring in new ones. And it appears they don't have better labor standards.
The book points out that with the collapse of the international coffee agreement in 1989 the price of coffee was much higher than it is today - even above fair trade prices. Fair trade a few years ago only compromised about .5% of the coffee market. So here we have some people making a little bit of money, but it is bascally peanuts. And people buy it thinking they are doing good, when they don't realize that even walmart used to pay higher price - more fair - than they are now!
I wanted to write a critical assesment of both on the blog at my internship, but I was censored. First time. I guess i can understand why since we put out catalogues of suggestions for how people can be more ethical consumers. But at the same time, isn't being realistic also neccesary? like tossing a dime to the starving child and feeling warm and fuzzy for your contribution for solving world hunger.
So even while fair trade has its pitfalls, some within it are actually trying to change the marco-economic policies, and sell fair trade products as only one small part to increase awareness and create fertile ground for cooperatives around the world who are trying to create an alternative structure to the corporate model. ie no hierarchy, democratic control of the workplace, social conciousness. the foundation must be layed first. Although other fair trade theorists have no such desire and want to increase marketability and don't believe the neocapitalist can or should be changed. It is what it is.
The dangers of co-optation. If Starbucks becomes the major buyer of fair trade coffee this raises legitamate holy fuck type questions. apparently they have already pushed for changing the labor standards, and who fair trade deals with. I think some of this already was implemented. If fair trade becomes mainstream through corporations, who then determines its course? who holds the power? these alliances should be made with suspicion. the book points out that the world bank, imf, starbucks etc. are all in favor of fair trade - at the micro level. (just enough anyways - starbucks only buys 6% fair trade coffee). But none of them would ever support changing the fundamental structures of domination - macroeconomic policies.
I emailed "Counter Culture" about their labor standards with the following questions. What really bugs me is that try to pretend to be all revolutionary on their websites, when they don't even have a vision to change anything. They also mention how transparency is fundamental, but none of the farms they trade with have websites, no way i can check up on them. I guess its easy to be transparent when there is no information. Like me: i am completely honest concerning all aspects of my artwork! uhhhh...
1. Are there specific criteria used to judge labor standards?
2. Are these criteria a prerequisite to developing trade relations?
3. Direct Trade is compared to Fair Trade throughout the website. Since an integral mission of Fair Trade is based on ethical working conditions adhering to ILO standards (no child labor, right to unionize, etc.); by saying Direct Trade has higher standards suggests that Direct Trade ensures better working conditions. Is that a proper assessment?
(“Meanwhile, we recognized that our own standards of quality, transparency, and fair pricing were somewhat higher than the FTC standard. We developed the Counter Culture Direct Trade Certification in the desire to raise the bar of fairness and sustainability and lead by example in the coffee trade”.)
4. One of the biggest criticisms of Fair Trade coffee is that its ‘fair’ price is actually below what the market was before the International Coffee Agreement was abandoned in 1989. The sales of both fair trade and direct trade do not even begin to fill the gap of the price drop. In the interests of social sustainability, does Counter Culture support efforts to change macro-economic relations?
5. Why did Counter Culture choose to peg its bottom floor price in relation to Fair Trade – which it can be argued, is not meeting the needs of farmers.
6. Does Direct Trade aim at increasing the amount of ethical consumers – by offering better coffee, or does it simply compete with Fair Trade consumers?
sábado, 30 de mayo de 2009
z course economics
the answers from prof. bond from my online course:
me:
Hello everyone, I am a preemie with this stuff, as my following questions will demonstrate. Attempting to stay afloat, but enjoying the readings nonetheless.
“One indicator of the super-profitability of the financial sector is that while profits in the US manufacturing sector came to one percent of US gross domestic product (GDP), profits in the financial sector came to two percent.” What constitutes the other 97 percent?
PB: Hi, it's just a measure, e.g., how much do I weigh in proportion to,say, all the things in my apartment: about 2%, I'm guessing. And my 14 year old son? His weight is closer to 1%. The other 97% is the furniture, the appliances, the books in the little study, etc. Most of the 97% of the GDP that you refer to is the input cost of production; a typical surplus in the 10% range is divided into all the various economic sectors. (I'm surprised its so low for finance, insurance and real estate, and maybe can get around to looking at that again).
ME: Bello talks about bubbles and that the profits are only made by selling before ‘reality sets in’ - is there any such thing as ‘real values’? If someone is willing to pay x amount for a house, why isn’t it worth that much? If the loans could not have been restructured would things have turned out any different?
PB: An underlying value in the marxian sense is the potential for maintaining a decent rate of return by extracting surplus value. That's the ultimate 'real sector' productive value we would look for, to see if an investment can be sustained. We would look for that, but capitalists don't, they look for profit. So if a company like GM makes much more money from GMAC financial gimmicks than from making cars, GM will still get investments in the stock market from gullible brokers and consumers who believe they're buying 'value'. When the bubble bursts and GM goes under, it is all revealed as speculation, with so little production that the company can be trashed. In the case of mortgages, the real estate bubble was fueled by easy credit (not just subprime but more generally). Once the credit ends, as we're seeing, prices crash.
ME: What exactly is speculation – and its connection with fictitious capital. It seems that speculation is referred to not how much something could be worth, but rather how much people can be tricked into thinking its worth.
PB: These are great questions, and I should have backed up long ago on this to try making these links. Let me append the section from my book Uneven Zimbabwe which covers all this, ok? Again, I'll apologise in advance for jargon, but I hope you will see where financial speculation, financial control and financial crisis are all rooted.
me:
Hello everyone, I am a preemie with this stuff, as my following questions will demonstrate. Attempting to stay afloat, but enjoying the readings nonetheless.
“One indicator of the super-profitability of the financial sector is that while profits in the US manufacturing sector came to one percent of US gross domestic product (GDP), profits in the financial sector came to two percent.” What constitutes the other 97 percent?
PB: Hi, it's just a measure, e.g., how much do I weigh in proportion to,say, all the things in my apartment: about 2%, I'm guessing. And my 14 year old son? His weight is closer to 1%. The other 97% is the furniture, the appliances, the books in the little study, etc. Most of the 97% of the GDP that you refer to is the input cost of production; a typical surplus in the 10% range is divided into all the various economic sectors. (I'm surprised its so low for finance, insurance and real estate, and maybe can get around to looking at that again).
ME: Bello talks about bubbles and that the profits are only made by selling before ‘reality sets in’ - is there any such thing as ‘real values’? If someone is willing to pay x amount for a house, why isn’t it worth that much? If the loans could not have been restructured would things have turned out any different?
PB: An underlying value in the marxian sense is the potential for maintaining a decent rate of return by extracting surplus value. That's the ultimate 'real sector' productive value we would look for, to see if an investment can be sustained. We would look for that, but capitalists don't, they look for profit. So if a company like GM makes much more money from GMAC financial gimmicks than from making cars, GM will still get investments in the stock market from gullible brokers and consumers who believe they're buying 'value'. When the bubble bursts and GM goes under, it is all revealed as speculation, with so little production that the company can be trashed. In the case of mortgages, the real estate bubble was fueled by easy credit (not just subprime but more generally). Once the credit ends, as we're seeing, prices crash.
ME: What exactly is speculation – and its connection with fictitious capital. It seems that speculation is referred to not how much something could be worth, but rather how much people can be tricked into thinking its worth.
PB: These are great questions, and I should have backed up long ago on this to try making these links. Let me append the section from my book Uneven Zimbabwe which covers all this, ok? Again, I'll apologise in advance for jargon, but I hope you will see where financial speculation, financial control and financial crisis are all rooted.
Colombia! ILRF
final draft.. not yet approved for my new internship at the International labor rights forum (!) apparently all my cool little links i had put in were de-installed with the copy and paste. I am not (yet) tech savvy enough, nor motivated enough to fix it. My new project is on the colombia free trade agreement, and to make a simple graphic to make it easily understood why we oppose it. This should be fun.
Colombian Senator and Liberal Party Presidential candidate, Cecilia López, spoke about her ideas for peace and human rights in the country yesterday in Washington, DC at an event sponsored by the Washington Office on Latin America and the Center for Justice and Environmental Law. Senator Lopez founded the organization ‘Agenda Colombia Foundation’, has taught economics and demography at various universities, and has written numerous publications addressing solutions to the conflict. She described the current situation in Colombia as a human rights catastrophe.
Her platform, titled ‘Security with Rights’, combines safety with social concerns - “there is no real peace without development”. The elimination of poverty is not simply humane, it is essential for ending the conflict. This is no simple task. In the book she contributed to: “Colombia: Essays on Conflict, Peace and Development”, she says that poverty is an effect of limited democracy and is not the driving force of the conflict. Poverty alone does not cause violence, “the cause… and the resulting escalation in violence, is the insufficiently acknowledged political, economic, and social exclusion which has characterized its [Colombia’s] society.” The solution is to fundamentally change the power structures and opportunities for citizen participation. Unless citizens have a greater say in determining their own fate, the cycle of poverty and violence will continue.
Some of those rights include freedom at work. Intimidation, violence, threats and displacement characterize workers’ daily lives. USLEAP has documented that even though there has been improvements, more unionists are killed in Colombia than the entire world put together – still! Less than 2% of these cases are ever even prosecuted. Fighting for small protections has always been an uphill battle, yet companies’ have still found ways around them. According to the ILRF report, “The Right to Associate”, contract labor has substantially increased in Colombia. Contract laborers do not have access to any of the protections of being in a union, and are often used as ‘union busters’ through mass firing of workers and re-hiring of contract laborers. One of the bottling plants in Bogota was found to have contracted more than 70% of its workforce from associated work cooperatives. One of our previous blogs discusses the five worst offenders of worker rights, and what we, as consumers, can do about it.
The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, (FTA) which is not expected to be debated in Congress this session, has been criticized on many levels. The most common critique is of Colombia’s substantial number of human rights violations. While important, this fails to take into account the causes of these violations as well as the other things inherently wrong with the agreement. (And as if being the worst offender in the world by a small margin rather than a large margin implies victory!) Upside Down World activist, Heidi Andrea Restrepo Rhodes, notes that heavily subsidized US goods would be allowed to enter Colombia duty free. The service and agricultural workers could not possibly compete, and job loss is estimated at 250,000 – mostly rural farmers. In an open letter to Obama and Nancy Pelosi last year, the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council adamantly rejected the FTA. In a popular referendum, 98% of the people responded unfavorably towards the agreement. They say that, “We want an agreement that has real trade as its content, trade that guarantees reciprocal opportunity, so that the well-being of peoples is realized in a manner that is autonomous and sovereign and protects nature and life.”
As Colombia becomes integrated in the global economy, worker rights are even more important. This includes the right to land. Agrarian reform is essential for environmental and cultural protections, as well as moving towards a more egalitarian society. Colombia’s roots are derived from unequal land distribution which has left a lasting legacy of inequality. The conflict continues to drive people off their lands, and the millions of people internally displaced have also been driven from their livelihood.
Senator López declares “the rights of the people are a duty of the state and not a favor”. While current President Alvaro Uribe has dismissed unionists concerns and human rights groups as ‘guerrillas’, she says that it is precisely these things that a democratic government should defend. Laws protecting trade unionists should be enforced and backed by the government. These bold statements will serve as a challenge to Uribe in 2010, arguing that he has put security ahead of everything else, including peace.
Colombian Senator and Liberal Party Presidential candidate, Cecilia López, spoke about her ideas for peace and human rights in the country yesterday in Washington, DC at an event sponsored by the Washington Office on Latin America and the Center for Justice and Environmental Law. Senator Lopez founded the organization ‘Agenda Colombia Foundation’, has taught economics and demography at various universities, and has written numerous publications addressing solutions to the conflict. She described the current situation in Colombia as a human rights catastrophe.
Her platform, titled ‘Security with Rights’, combines safety with social concerns - “there is no real peace without development”. The elimination of poverty is not simply humane, it is essential for ending the conflict. This is no simple task. In the book she contributed to: “Colombia: Essays on Conflict, Peace and Development”, she says that poverty is an effect of limited democracy and is not the driving force of the conflict. Poverty alone does not cause violence, “the cause… and the resulting escalation in violence, is the insufficiently acknowledged political, economic, and social exclusion which has characterized its [Colombia’s] society.” The solution is to fundamentally change the power structures and opportunities for citizen participation. Unless citizens have a greater say in determining their own fate, the cycle of poverty and violence will continue.
Some of those rights include freedom at work. Intimidation, violence, threats and displacement characterize workers’ daily lives. USLEAP has documented that even though there has been improvements, more unionists are killed in Colombia than the entire world put together – still! Less than 2% of these cases are ever even prosecuted. Fighting for small protections has always been an uphill battle, yet companies’ have still found ways around them. According to the ILRF report, “The Right to Associate”, contract labor has substantially increased in Colombia. Contract laborers do not have access to any of the protections of being in a union, and are often used as ‘union busters’ through mass firing of workers and re-hiring of contract laborers. One of the bottling plants in Bogota was found to have contracted more than 70% of its workforce from associated work cooperatives. One of our previous blogs discusses the five worst offenders of worker rights, and what we, as consumers, can do about it.
The Colombian Free Trade Agreement, (FTA) which is not expected to be debated in Congress this session, has been criticized on many levels. The most common critique is of Colombia’s substantial number of human rights violations. While important, this fails to take into account the causes of these violations as well as the other things inherently wrong with the agreement. (And as if being the worst offender in the world by a small margin rather than a large margin implies victory!) Upside Down World activist, Heidi Andrea Restrepo Rhodes, notes that heavily subsidized US goods would be allowed to enter Colombia duty free. The service and agricultural workers could not possibly compete, and job loss is estimated at 250,000 – mostly rural farmers. In an open letter to Obama and Nancy Pelosi last year, the Association of Indigenous Authorities of Northern Cauca Council adamantly rejected the FTA. In a popular referendum, 98% of the people responded unfavorably towards the agreement. They say that, “We want an agreement that has real trade as its content, trade that guarantees reciprocal opportunity, so that the well-being of peoples is realized in a manner that is autonomous and sovereign and protects nature and life.”
As Colombia becomes integrated in the global economy, worker rights are even more important. This includes the right to land. Agrarian reform is essential for environmental and cultural protections, as well as moving towards a more egalitarian society. Colombia’s roots are derived from unequal land distribution which has left a lasting legacy of inequality. The conflict continues to drive people off their lands, and the millions of people internally displaced have also been driven from their livelihood.
Senator López declares “the rights of the people are a duty of the state and not a favor”. While current President Alvaro Uribe has dismissed unionists concerns and human rights groups as ‘guerrillas’, she says that it is precisely these things that a democratic government should defend. Laws protecting trade unionists should be enforced and backed by the government. These bold statements will serve as a challenge to Uribe in 2010, arguing that he has put security ahead of everything else, including peace.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)