The president-elect of Honduras, Porfirio (“Pepe”) Lobo, is faced with a number of challenges he must address before taking office. Chief among these is the fact that many countries still refuse to recognize the validity of the election he won because it was held under the auspices of a de facto government which had taken control of the country after a military coup in June ousted the then sitting president, Manuel Zelaya.
There were no external observers present for the election which is estimated to have only drawn 30% of eligible voters.
Since the election, Lobo has visited other countries in the region trying to win their approval of the election results. However, members of SICA (the Central American Parliament or Sistema de la Integración Centroamericana) as well the members of the regional trading block continue to insist that Zelaya be returned to office to complete his elected term before Lobo is inaugurated next month.
On December 2nd, the Honduras congress voted not to return Zelaya to office, and the de facto president, Roberto Micheletti, has stated that he will not step down until Lobo takes office.
The Honduran Congress has charged Zelaya with treason for trying to begin a process which would have allowed for constitutional change in that country. If he leaves the Brazilian embassy where he has taken asylum, he could be arrested and tried on those grounds. Micheletti has also raised an alarm that if Zelaya were allowed to leave the country, he may try to mount an armed invasion of Honduras. The possibility of such an invasion is unlikely, and the charge has been raised to justify not offering Zelaya amnesty.
Until the political situation is resolved, international aid to Honduras remains in jeopardy. Recognizing the difficulties he will inherit when he assumes office, Lobo has expressed his opinion that Micheletti should resign and has expressed a willingness to meet with Zelaya. Lobo has also called upon Micheletti to allow Zelaya to leave the Brazilian embassy without danger of arrest. Lobo has also discussed an amnesty for all individuals involved in the June 28th coup.
Meanwhile there has been a report on the Honduran news network, El Libertador, which suggests that old-style death squads which had once been common in the country, may once more active. The report states that on the evening of Sunday, December 6, individuals in a white vehicle without license plates opened fire on five persons who were associated with the popular resistance against the de facto government which came into power after the coup.
“José Luna, a sub-inspector of the Preventative Policía responded to questions about the killings by saying ‘Whenever there are murders, there are people who say the victims were good people.’ He added that the police are tracking those responsible for the massacre. So far, however, they have not been able to locate the vehicle described in the incident.
“During the last few weeks, double cabin pick-ups with no plates have taken on the task of intimidating members of the Popular Resistance Against the Coup d'etat. Reporters of this publication have also complained of being followed and observed by vehicles with similar characteristics, and human rights organizations are also been aware of such anomalies.”
A Spanish language report on the events can be found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNNbzYQdhsA&feature=player_embedded
Monday, December 21, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Coffee Advertising
A recent advertisement for a Canadian coffee chain touts the benefits of a foundation it has created for the purpose of improving coffee production. It asserts that it will help coffee producers become better businessmen and implies that its efforts will improve the quality of life of those producers. The advertisement is careful not to use the term “fair trade” nor does it speak directly about improving the income of coffee producers.
The “Fair Trade” movement began in the 1960s, when a number of NGOs, concerned about inequities in global trading relationships, developed the concept of an “Alternative Trade Movement.” Their hope was that this movement would help balance the terms of trade between wealthy and poorer countries. The idea was based on a handful of early experiments, such as the work of the Mennonite Central Committee in the United States which first imported needlework from Puerto Rico in 1946. This eventually led to the development of the chain of SelfHelp stores, later known as “10,000 Villages.”
The approach taken by these pioneers was to reduce the number of links in the distribution chain. By doing so, the primary producers received a fairer share of the market value of their products. The goal of the Alternative Trade Movement was to treat artisans and farmers in developing countries as equal partners able to set their own prices at what they considered a fair exchange for their labor within the context of the local economy. Alternative Trade Suppliers tended to be collectives which were organized to insure that primary producers benefited directly and fairly from their work.
As the Alternative Trade Movement gained momentum, the idea of a set of “fair trade” principles evolved. While there is still no universally accepted set of guidelines, in general these guidelines ensure that:
• Primary producers receive a fair wage in terms of the local economy;
• Revenues are distributed equitably among members of cooperatives and other collectives;
• Commodity products are guaranteed a minimum price regardless of world market prices;
• Workers are involved in the decision making processes and leadership positions of their cooperatives and organizations and have the right to collective bargaining;
• Exploitive child labour is prohibited;
• Working conditions comply with International Labour Organization [ILO] guidelines;
• Raw materials are gathered in environmentally sustainable manner;
• Operations are open to public accountability and monitored by independent local bodies;
• In some cases, a “social premium” is paid from revenues to local cooperatives or NGOs for community and collective projects;
• In order to ensure stability, contracts are long term trade relationships between Alternative Trading Organizations.
The flagship of the Fair Trade movement has been coffee. A well organized information campaign has helped consumers understand the benefit of supporting Fair Trade coffee production. Fair Trade also tends to produce a better product.
The idea of Fair Trade coffee has become so mainstream that it is now good marketing for coffee companies to align their products with the Fair Trade movement even when their products do not meet Fair Trade requirements. Improving the quality of coffee or teaching farmers better business practices do not, in themselves, constitute Fair Trade.
When a coffee advertisement talks about the benefits of their programs but does not actually use the term “Fair Trade,” the chances are the product is not Fair Trade.
The “Fair Trade” movement began in the 1960s, when a number of NGOs, concerned about inequities in global trading relationships, developed the concept of an “Alternative Trade Movement.” Their hope was that this movement would help balance the terms of trade between wealthy and poorer countries. The idea was based on a handful of early experiments, such as the work of the Mennonite Central Committee in the United States which first imported needlework from Puerto Rico in 1946. This eventually led to the development of the chain of SelfHelp stores, later known as “10,000 Villages.”
The approach taken by these pioneers was to reduce the number of links in the distribution chain. By doing so, the primary producers received a fairer share of the market value of their products. The goal of the Alternative Trade Movement was to treat artisans and farmers in developing countries as equal partners able to set their own prices at what they considered a fair exchange for their labor within the context of the local economy. Alternative Trade Suppliers tended to be collectives which were organized to insure that primary producers benefited directly and fairly from their work.
As the Alternative Trade Movement gained momentum, the idea of a set of “fair trade” principles evolved. While there is still no universally accepted set of guidelines, in general these guidelines ensure that:
• Primary producers receive a fair wage in terms of the local economy;
• Revenues are distributed equitably among members of cooperatives and other collectives;
• Commodity products are guaranteed a minimum price regardless of world market prices;
• Workers are involved in the decision making processes and leadership positions of their cooperatives and organizations and have the right to collective bargaining;
• Exploitive child labour is prohibited;
• Working conditions comply with International Labour Organization [ILO] guidelines;
• Raw materials are gathered in environmentally sustainable manner;
• Operations are open to public accountability and monitored by independent local bodies;
• In some cases, a “social premium” is paid from revenues to local cooperatives or NGOs for community and collective projects;
• In order to ensure stability, contracts are long term trade relationships between Alternative Trading Organizations.
The flagship of the Fair Trade movement has been coffee. A well organized information campaign has helped consumers understand the benefit of supporting Fair Trade coffee production. Fair Trade also tends to produce a better product.
The idea of Fair Trade coffee has become so mainstream that it is now good marketing for coffee companies to align their products with the Fair Trade movement even when their products do not meet Fair Trade requirements. Improving the quality of coffee or teaching farmers better business practices do not, in themselves, constitute Fair Trade.
When a coffee advertisement talks about the benefits of their programs but does not actually use the term “Fair Trade,” the chances are the product is not Fair Trade.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Conflicting Reactions to Honduran Election
The validity of the election of Porfirio Lobo as president of Honduras is still being questioned by the governments of certain Latin American nations. Brazil has announced that they believe it inappropriate to recognize the results of an election held by an “illegitimate government.” They were referring to the government which was established after President Manuel Zelaya was put out of office by a military coup on June 28. Zelaya was exiled to Costa Rica by the military but managed to return to Honduras secretly and has taken sanctuary in the Brazilian embassy.
Following Lobo’s election, the Honduran congress voted not to return Zelaya to office for the remaining days of his term. The protests which had been occurring almost daily since the coup have largely come to an end. It is now incumbent upon the president-elect to begin a healing process in his country. Lobo has promised this would be one his priorities once he is inaugurated in January.
Lobo inherits a volatile situation. Honduras has been ostracized by much of the international community. Aid payments have been suspended, and the country has lost its place in the Organization of American States.
Zelaya, meanwhile, remains in residence in the Brazilian embassy and has stated that he will continue there as long as the government of Brazil permits him. He has also expressed a willingness to meet with Lobo.
The United States, which had earlier made Zelaya’s return to office a condition before they would recognize the election results, have reversed that decision. However, while they have recognized Lobo’s election, the US State Department has also issued a statement to the effect that the election itself was not a “sufficient step” in the restoration of democracy in Honduras.
In addition to questions about the legitimacy of the electoral process, human rights agencies are concerned about the many violations of rights for which the post-coup government was responsible. Javier Zúñiga of Amnesty International, for example, reported: “There are dozens of people in Honduras still suffering the effects of the abuses carried out in the past five months. Failure to punish those responsible and to fix the malfunctioning system would open the door for more abuses in the future.”
Amnesty International has documented arbitrary arrests of demonstrators by police and military, indiscriminate and unnecessary use of tear gas, ill treatment of detainees in custody at times resulting in death, violence against women, harassment of activists, journalists, lawyers and judges, excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests and illegal raids.
However, Canadian Minister of State, Peter Kent, stated that “we are encouraged by reports from civil society organizations that there was a strong turnout for the elections, that they appear to have been run freely and fairly, and that there was no major violence." A number of human rights workers from Canada, including members of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, dispute Kent’s statement.
In a report they released on December 3rd, Irene Lanzinger (President of the BC Teacher’s Federation) reported: "‘We witnessed tear gas used on peaceful protesters, citizens being chased through the streets by police in riot gear. . . . ’ Delegates photographed protestors who had been beaten by police. ‘While standing peacefully outside of our hotel [in San Pedro Sula] we were also tear-gassed by the police’ said Lanzinger.
“The delegation also witnessed strong military and police presence inside of polling stations, unmarked cars patrolling the streets in the days leading up to the elections, and several raids and detentions. ‘These events contributed to a climate of fear in which citizens did not feel free to participate in the elections, contrary to Mr. Kent’s report,’ said Jackie McVicar, member of the Atlantic Region Solidarity Network.”
As a result of their observations, the Canadian delegation has expressed disappointment with Kent’s statement and has asked him to identify which “civil society organizations” he was referring to.
Following Lobo’s election, the Honduran congress voted not to return Zelaya to office for the remaining days of his term. The protests which had been occurring almost daily since the coup have largely come to an end. It is now incumbent upon the president-elect to begin a healing process in his country. Lobo has promised this would be one his priorities once he is inaugurated in January.
Lobo inherits a volatile situation. Honduras has been ostracized by much of the international community. Aid payments have been suspended, and the country has lost its place in the Organization of American States.
Zelaya, meanwhile, remains in residence in the Brazilian embassy and has stated that he will continue there as long as the government of Brazil permits him. He has also expressed a willingness to meet with Lobo.
The United States, which had earlier made Zelaya’s return to office a condition before they would recognize the election results, have reversed that decision. However, while they have recognized Lobo’s election, the US State Department has also issued a statement to the effect that the election itself was not a “sufficient step” in the restoration of democracy in Honduras.
In addition to questions about the legitimacy of the electoral process, human rights agencies are concerned about the many violations of rights for which the post-coup government was responsible. Javier Zúñiga of Amnesty International, for example, reported: “There are dozens of people in Honduras still suffering the effects of the abuses carried out in the past five months. Failure to punish those responsible and to fix the malfunctioning system would open the door for more abuses in the future.”
Amnesty International has documented arbitrary arrests of demonstrators by police and military, indiscriminate and unnecessary use of tear gas, ill treatment of detainees in custody at times resulting in death, violence against women, harassment of activists, journalists, lawyers and judges, excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests and illegal raids.
However, Canadian Minister of State, Peter Kent, stated that “we are encouraged by reports from civil society organizations that there was a strong turnout for the elections, that they appear to have been run freely and fairly, and that there was no major violence." A number of human rights workers from Canada, including members of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, dispute Kent’s statement.
In a report they released on December 3rd, Irene Lanzinger (President of the BC Teacher’s Federation) reported: "‘We witnessed tear gas used on peaceful protesters, citizens being chased through the streets by police in riot gear. . . . ’ Delegates photographed protestors who had been beaten by police. ‘While standing peacefully outside of our hotel [in San Pedro Sula] we were also tear-gassed by the police’ said Lanzinger.
“The delegation also witnessed strong military and police presence inside of polling stations, unmarked cars patrolling the streets in the days leading up to the elections, and several raids and detentions. ‘These events contributed to a climate of fear in which citizens did not feel free to participate in the elections, contrary to Mr. Kent’s report,’ said Jackie McVicar, member of the Atlantic Region Solidarity Network.”
As a result of their observations, the Canadian delegation has expressed disappointment with Kent’s statement and has asked him to identify which “civil society organizations” he was referring to.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Honduran Congress Votes Against Zelaya
Yesterday (December 2nd) the Honduran Congress voted 111 to 14 against reinstating ousted President Manuel Zelaya. Reinstatement of Zelaya had been a condition many other nations had demanded before they would recognize the validity of the November 29th presidential election won by Porfirio Lobo of the conservative National Party.
The vote was held as part of an agreement brokered by the US in an effort to resolve the political crisis in Honduras that followed the June 28th military coup which removed Zelaya from office. The coup perpetrators claimed Zelaya was attempting to change the country’s constitution in order to extend his term as president. In fact, Zelaya was only holding a citizen survey to determine if there were public support for a future referendum question on the constitution.
When Lobo was asked whether he felt Zelaya should be returned to complete the few remaining weeks of his elected term, the president-elect avoided the issue by saying it was a matter for Congress to decide. However, he would have been confident that it would be difficult for Congress to vote other than they did. To have done so would have be an admission on their part that the coup they had supported was illegal.
Meanwhile human rights workers and observers who had gone to Honduras to scrutinize the elections now report having seen “the fear, repression, intimidation, bribery and outright brutality of the government security forces” [Lisa Sullivan of School of Americas Watch]. In San Pedro Sula, for example, a peaceful demonstration on election day was disrupted by police using water trucks and tear gas.
Since the coup of June 28th there has been a brutal crack down on human rights and civil liberties in Honduras. Just prior to the election, police invaded the homes of several individuals thought to be supporters of Zelaya. Human rights workers worried that these tactics would discourage people from participating in the election. Zelaya called upon his supporters to boycott the election.
Media sources in Honduras stated that 60% of eligible voters cast ballots in the election. Foreign observers, on the other hand, reported empty polling stations and, in poorer areas of the country, turn-outs of only 25%.
While the Honduran Congress and President-elect are hoping that as a result of the November 29th election the world will believe that democracy has returned to the Central American nation, critics continue to question the validity of that election. People like Lisa Sullivan worry that Honduras may return to conditions it had been hoped were a thing of the past: “--fear and repression and deaths and disappearances. We know the litany all too well. . . . ”
Prior to the election most countries, including the United States, had stated that they would not be able to give credit to elections held by a de facto government installed by a military coup. However, in the weeks immediately prior to the election, the US modified its stance, claiming it would be inappropriate to deprive Hondurans of the right to vote for their new president. A number of Latin American nations, led by Brazil, however, still refuse to recognize the new government.
While most European nations chose to recognize the election results, they also continued to call for a reconciliation of the parties in Honduras before aid transfers will be resumed.
The vote was held as part of an agreement brokered by the US in an effort to resolve the political crisis in Honduras that followed the June 28th military coup which removed Zelaya from office. The coup perpetrators claimed Zelaya was attempting to change the country’s constitution in order to extend his term as president. In fact, Zelaya was only holding a citizen survey to determine if there were public support for a future referendum question on the constitution.
When Lobo was asked whether he felt Zelaya should be returned to complete the few remaining weeks of his elected term, the president-elect avoided the issue by saying it was a matter for Congress to decide. However, he would have been confident that it would be difficult for Congress to vote other than they did. To have done so would have be an admission on their part that the coup they had supported was illegal.
Meanwhile human rights workers and observers who had gone to Honduras to scrutinize the elections now report having seen “the fear, repression, intimidation, bribery and outright brutality of the government security forces” [Lisa Sullivan of School of Americas Watch]. In San Pedro Sula, for example, a peaceful demonstration on election day was disrupted by police using water trucks and tear gas.
Since the coup of June 28th there has been a brutal crack down on human rights and civil liberties in Honduras. Just prior to the election, police invaded the homes of several individuals thought to be supporters of Zelaya. Human rights workers worried that these tactics would discourage people from participating in the election. Zelaya called upon his supporters to boycott the election.
Media sources in Honduras stated that 60% of eligible voters cast ballots in the election. Foreign observers, on the other hand, reported empty polling stations and, in poorer areas of the country, turn-outs of only 25%.
While the Honduran Congress and President-elect are hoping that as a result of the November 29th election the world will believe that democracy has returned to the Central American nation, critics continue to question the validity of that election. People like Lisa Sullivan worry that Honduras may return to conditions it had been hoped were a thing of the past: “--fear and repression and deaths and disappearances. We know the litany all too well. . . . ”
Prior to the election most countries, including the United States, had stated that they would not be able to give credit to elections held by a de facto government installed by a military coup. However, in the weeks immediately prior to the election, the US modified its stance, claiming it would be inappropriate to deprive Hondurans of the right to vote for their new president. A number of Latin American nations, led by Brazil, however, still refuse to recognize the new government.
While most European nations chose to recognize the election results, they also continued to call for a reconciliation of the parties in Honduras before aid transfers will be resumed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)