As you probably know, I've written in magazines (both at length, and a bit more briefly) and at various times on this blog about the gold mining operation taking place in the rural community of Guatemala where I grew up. In fact, I focused my grad school research on the issue, since I'm convinced it is hugely important and mostly overlooked. In a nutshell, a foreign mining giant is taking gold from a community that never gave it permission to begin in the first place. A few in the community do benefit, as does the company, its investors, and government officials with ties to the company's national subsidiary. Who loses? Everyone else in the community. It's obvious why if you read my earlier published work.
Today, Sipacapa -- my old hometown -- came up twice in my feed reader. The first was in connection with a community consultation on mining taking place nearby, one of hundreds such consultations that have taken place across the region (the first of which was held in Sipacapa in 2005), all resoundingly opposed to mining of any sort. The people in the rural highlands of Guatemala don't want these mines. In fact, as of last year, an estimated 600,000 Guatemalans had voted NO to mining in similar democratic community consultations made up of ordinary citizens, with very few voting in favor. It's not a fluke.
The other Sipacapa mention in my feed reader was from the mining company's newly released fourth quarter earnings report, which proudly boasts record earnings. Marlin, the mine near my old hometown, has been in the news because of the controversy it has caused, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (a body to which Guatemala is, in theory, legally bound) has called for suspension of operations because of its ongoing environmental and human rights abuses. But the company has been defiant, continuing its practices and assuring its investors that all is well, most notably in a section of the report with the heading, Commitment to Sustainable Prosperity Continues in Guatemala. The body of data and testimony, however, say that 'sustainable prosperity' is precisely the opposite of what the mine is doing for neighbors of the mine.
But the mine is quite profitable and investors, themselves increasingly prosperous, will be pleased with the report, I'm sure.
If you have investments, or if you're not sure what your money's tied up in through mutual funds, I ask you to please consider the people on the other end of the market equation. I'm sure there are investments in which everyone wins. With extractive industries, that's certainly not the case. And when all peaceful, democratic methods of opposition are systematically thwarted, what will those on the losing end of the equation do? I hope we won't need to find out.
I hope this is just the beginning of mainstream international coverage. And may creative, compassionate people find more just and equitable ways to do 'development' wherever the local indigenous populations are at risk.
Thomas Friedman has famously written that thanks to globalization the earth is now flat. To which it must quickly be added that it is flatter for some than for others. While Friedman cites remarkable (and real) advances in places as far flung as Hyderabad, India to make his case, there are still many in the world – billions – who don’t really get a piece of the pie, a place at the table, a level playing field. If anything, for many the earth is becoming more treacherous. But his argument is not entirely without merit, because globalization really isn’t leaving any corner of the globe untouched.
Case in point: Sipacapa, Guatemala. Many of my childhood memories revolve around Sipacapa, where we lived in an adobe house with a tin roof and a bare concrete floor. Behind our house was the community soccer field, and on a clear day we could look out past the eucalyptus trees and see Mexico, several mountain ridges away. There was no electricity or running water in the area in those days, so we’d hike down to a spring in the valley and fill jugs with water which would then be used for cooking, or heated on the wood stove and used for bathing in the pulley-operated shower we built on the front porch.
The village now benefits from electricity and running water. They’re even paving the roads, and many community residents have cell phones. The ways in which this unprecedented connectivity improves people’s lives are many. But globalization is a two-edged sword. The same force that has brought these modern advances has also brought, for one thing, the mining industry – not just to Sipacapa but to many remote villages throughout Latin America and around the world. Mining companies promise economic and community development but seldom keep their word because those with power to hold them accountable, quite frankly, don’t bother. Indigenous peoples, meanwhile - whose interests are officially protected under international agreements - are for all intents and purposes powerless when push actually comes to shove. See the No Dirty Gold campaign for more on these life-and-death issues.
Because I grew up in what is now a mining-affected area and because I am a Christian who is concerned about how abuses of power affect the poor, I returned to Sipacapa this spring to learn more about the mine and to do interviews with people in the area. While showing me around, an old family friend pointed out the local radio station, sitting up on a hill with a tall antenna. The station had been instrumental a few years prior when Sipacapa residents organized an official referendum in which the people voted nearly unanimously against mining in their community. The radio station enabled voting at thirteen different locations to occur simultaneously, and allowed for transparency in the process. Ultimately, though, it wasn’t enough, and the mining operation continues.
Early next year in Guatemala, congress will consider a telecommunications reform bill that will determine the fate of 170 of these community radio stations throughout the country that provide news and information to indigenous people in their own languages. The aim of the bill is to set aside a wave band specifically for such stations and to reduce the cost and red tape involved in obtaining licenses. In areas with high illiteracy, community radio is essential for the dissemination of important information like storm warnings and provides a forum for public debate on important issues.
It will be interesting to see whose interests prevail in congress, in a land with a government modeled after our own. And it will be a poignant snapshot of the pros and cons of globalization. From my standpoint, connectivity is good, generally speaking, as long as it’s a two-way street. I think most residents of Sipacapa would agree. But who really gets to call the shots? In the case of community radio in Guatemala we will see whether globalization will be a force for good or ill in the lives of the poor, for whom the world has been anything but flat.
For more on the situation in the Sipacapa area and elsewhere, check out COPAE. Among other things, they are working towards an alternative development plan for the region that will align more closely with the needs of the local people rather than the wishes of a Canadian board of directors. In other words, they are helping the indigenous people to work for flatness on their own terms.
Today, Sipacapa -- my old hometown -- came up twice in my feed reader. The first was in connection with a community consultation on mining taking place nearby, one of hundreds such consultations that have taken place across the region (the first of which was held in Sipacapa in 2005), all resoundingly opposed to mining of any sort. The people in the rural highlands of Guatemala don't want these mines. In fact, as of last year, an estimated 600,000 Guatemalans had voted NO to mining in similar democratic community consultations made up of ordinary citizens, with very few voting in favor. It's not a fluke.
But the mine is quite profitable and investors, themselves increasingly prosperous, will be pleased with the report, I'm sure.
