Running for Our Lives: Victory for Ethnic Studies

Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez

TUCSON -- A grueling spiritual run from Tucson to Phoenix in defense of ethnic studies—in 110-plus-degree heat—culminated in a resounding victory in front of Arizona’s state Capitol.

The victory, however, had already taken place when the 50 runners, after completing nearly 120 miles, were greeted with ceremonial copal and a drum at the Nahuacalli-Tonatierra Embassy of the Indigenous Peoples in downtown Phoenix. Led primarily by high school and college students, the runners were joined by parents, toddlers, elders, teachers, nurses, construction workers and
ceremonial leaders. About 150 supporters joined them as they walked through the streets of Tucson and an equal number joined them as they walked with them to the state Capitol in Phoenix.

The victory had been secured even earlier as the run received an incredible amount of support from the barrios and communities of Tucson, Eloy, Casa Blanca, Guadalupe and Phoenix. It also involved the spiritual support from the Yoeme nation and the Akimel O’odham nation— which provided runners through their own territory.

The purpose of the June 27 to 29 run was to defeat an Arizona state bill (S.B. 1069) that emphasized the teaching of individualism at the expense of ethnic studies. Its passage would have represented the ultimate triumph of ignorance over enlightenment, politics over education and censorship over academic freedom.

As the runners circled the Capitol on the third day, word trickled down that the author of the anti-ethnic studies bill, Arizona State Senator Jonathan Paton, declared his own bill dead. However, the following day, the person responsible for shepherding this bill, Tom Horne, the Arizona superintendent of schools, said that he would attempt to eliminate ethnic studies next year.

While the bill targeted ethnic studies, Horne's real objective was his opposition to Raza Studies, a highly successful academic program of the Tucson Unified School District that stresses the indigenous roots of this continent. Students from this program have consistently outperformed their peers over the past five years. Thus, Horne’s opposition is not about academics, but about his insistence on the supremacy of Greco-Roman roots at the expense of the indigenous roots of the continent. All this, while asserting that ethnic studies are racist, dysfunctional and un-American.

There is not enough room on this page to convey the actual story of this run. Everyone who participated came back with historias sagradas, profound truths. This run will one day rank as an event akin to Cesar Chavez’s fasts or the student walkouts of a generation ago: a monument of what people are capable of when they believe in something.



As one of the young people noted, “We went to fight against an anti-ethnic studies bill, but what we really came for was to know ourselves.”

Many thought it was a desperate act of fools, saying, “You guys must be crazy! Do you know how hot it gets in the middle of the desert?”

Yet, the response was virtually unanimous: “Either we’re crazy or we are serious.” And everyone who participated understood the seriousness of what was at stake: If this bill passes in Arizona, it will ignite a nationwide movement to ban ethnic studies.

While its opponents argue that ethnic studies are un-American, ethnic studies, in fact, are quintessentially American. They are about peoples that have been an integral part of this continent for hundreds, if not thousands, of years but have been historically marginalized, ostracized or disappeared by Western academics.

Horne has attempted to remand ethnic studies to the status of "forbidden curriculums." Through his effort, he would impose upon Arizona the notion of acceptable and unacceptable academic areas of study, conjuring up the era of the Inquisition.

It is precisely for these reasons that the mostly young students decided to put their bodies on the line. They walked and ran with their hearts and they spoke with their feet. When they could no longer run, their spirits took over.

This triumph in the desert has now become an example as to how to defeat emissaries from the Dark Ages – no matter where they rear their ugly heads.

Rodriguez, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona, writes Arizona Watch for New America Media. He can be reached at XColumn@gmail.com

Derecho a no Morir

Argentina



Sandra Chaher
Argenpress




Mientras las mujeres se siguen muriendo por causas evitables, el país patrocino una resolución del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas en la que por primera vez se relacionan las muertes con la vulneración de sus derechos humanos. ¿Se traducirá este apoyo en políticas de Estado que protejan los derechos de las mujeres?

El Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas aprobó el 16 de junio una resolución sobre mortalidad materna en la que por primera vez ese organismo habla de la vulneración a los derechos humanos de las mujeres. El documento fue patrocinado por la Argentina, lo cual implicaría la decisión de tomar el tema como política de Estado, en el marco de la imposibilidad del país de cumplir con los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio.

“Es muy importante que haya sido aprobada esta resolución, y que Argentina la haya patrocinado, porque quiere decir que el tema es parte de nuestra política pública. Sabemos que los organismos internacionales siempre legislan hacia delante, y que entre lo deseado y lo alcanzado hay un trecho, pero una resolución como esta inevitablemente debería empujar el tema hacia dentro del país”, señala Fabiana Loguzzo, directora de la Mujer del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, una de las áreas que fueron consultadas por la representación argentina en Ginebra a la hora de apoyar la resolución.

“El Consejo de Derechos Humanos tiene una conformación difícil para los temas de mujeres debido a la presencia de los países musulmanes –explica Loguzzo-. Esta resolución no salió de la nada. Hay detrás mucho trabajo de los gobiernos y de las organizaciones de mujeres. Desde la reunión anterior del Consejo se venía trabajando en este tema. Ya en ese momento Nueva Zelanda había propuesto una intervención. Y lo más probable es que en las próximas reuniones en que se toquen temas de género se siga profundizando, hilando cada vez más fino.”

En la reunión del 16 de junio, fue nuevamente la representación de Nueva Zelanda la que insistió con el tema, presentando esta vez un proyecto de resolución que fue apoyado por Argentina desde el inicio. En él se señala que frente a la muerte diaria de 1500 mujeres y niñas como resultado de complicaciones ocurridas durante el embarazo, el parto y el puerperio, y reconociendo que la mayoría de estas muertes son prevenibles, y que representan un desafío a la salud, al desarrollo y a los derechos humanos, se exhorta a los estados a asumir políticas públicas que la prevengan y que cumplan con los acuerdos internacionales, entre ellos los Objetivos de Desarrollo del Milenio (ODM).

Estos objetivos fueron establecidos en la Declaración del Milenio, aprobada por 189 países en el año 2000. Se trata de 8 ambiciosos objetivos de los cuales todos los países deberán dar cuenta en el 2015. El quinto se refiere a la salud materna y, en lo cuanto a mortalidad, propone reducirla en tres cuartas partes de acuerdo al índice que cada país tenía al momento de la firma.

Para Argentina, alcanzar los ODM implicaría tener una tasa de mortalidad materna de 13 aproximadamente, cuando la última medición, dada a conocer en el 2008, dio 44 (muertes cada cien mil nacimientos). Todo indica que será muy difícil cumplir la meta.

“Lo primero que vamos a reclamarle al Estado a partir de esta resolución de la ONU es que se atiendan los abortos no punibles en los hospitales de todo el país, ya que el aborto es la primera causa de mortalidad materna” señala la médica epidemióloga Mabel Bianco, directora de la Fundación Estudios e Investigación de la Mujer (FEIM). “También reclamaremos que el Programa Nacional de Salud Sexual y Reproductiva tenga recursos, que haya educación sexual, y que mejore la atención de la emergencia obstétrica, que es el indicador que se disparó en la última medición. Pero lo fundamental son los abortos.”

Hasta el 2007, las muertes por complicaciones de abortos fueron la primera causa de muerte materna. Sin embargo, la última medición del Ministerio de Salud, del 2008, indica que la mortalidad materna bajó de 48 a 44 muertes cada cien mil nacimientos y que el aborto pasó a ser la segunda causa de mortalidad materna (con el 24,2% de los casos) detrás de las causas obstétricas indirectas (26%).

Pero habría que esperar al menos tres mediciones consecutivas para hablar de una tendencia en los índices. “El descenso en un año no marca tendencia. No podemos alegrarnos. Más bien diría que estemos atentas a las próximas mediciones”, señala la médica Mariana Romero, investigadora del Centro de Estudios del Estado y la Sociedad. que saluda la resolución de la ONU como un reconocimiento a la tarea que desde hace años se hace desde el movimiento de mujeres para instalar la problemática de la mortalidad materna como un derecho humano además de un tema de salud pública. “La mortalidad materna es prevenible y evitable. Tener mujeres que se mueren por esta causa es un acto discriminatorio.”

Ana Ferrarotti, a cargo del Programa Nacional de Salud Sexual y Reproductiva del Ministerio de Salud, señala que los índices de mortalidad materna no tienen relación con otros indicadores del país como la tasa de escolaridad o de pobreza. “Tendríamos que tener una MM con tasas mucho más bajas.” ¿Qué falla entonces? Según un estudio en marcha, citado por Ferrarotti, las maternidades más grandes tienen índices mucho más bajos, lo que estaría indicando que las muertes se producirían en las más pequeñas por falta de entrenamiento del personal y de insumos.

En este panorama se inscribe el aumento de las causas obstétricas indirectas como causal de MM, que pasaron de 19% en el 2006 a 26% en el 2007 y que, según Ferrarotti, estarían hablando de problemas de tecnología y de entrenamiento a la hora de atender a mujeres embarazadas o puérperas.

El rumor sobre el bajísimo presupuesto del que dispondría la Dirección de Maternidad e Infancia del Ministerio de Salud de la Nación no mejora las cosas, y hace dudar de que el apoyo dado por el gobierno argentino a la resolución de la ONU en Ginebra se transforme efectivamente en política de Estado.

Gay Filipino Wins Landmark Asylum Case

NAM

DALY CITY, California -- The long wait is over for Philip Belarmino. The federal government did not appeal the gender-based asylum granted him last month, allowing Belarmino to stay in the United States for good.

“I’m really happy. I’m grateful that I’m being given this opportunity to lead a better life in America with the support of my family,” Belarmino said.

The immigration court judge upheld a lower court’s amnesty to Belarmino after he testified that he would suffer persecution if he returned to the Philippines.

In his asylum case, Belarmino testified that as a young boy, he had been molested several times, and was persecuted for being gay. He did not report the abuse to anyone because he did not want his very conservative parents to know he was gay.

After he was granted asylum last May 21st, Belarmino finally told his parents the truth.

“That was a real hurdle, it involved much struggle on my part. But it’s amazing... God has his way of reuniting and mending wounds that have been there for quite a long time, Belarmino said. “And it just so happened that the dialogue of understanding, compassion and love took place on my Mom’s birthday.”

For now, he is officially a refugee. Belarmino’s lawyer, Ted Laguatan, says his client can apply for a green card after a year.

“As a refugee, he’s entitled to work, he’s entitled to stay here, he’s entitled to travel "basta wag lang sya pupunta sa Philippines" [as long as he doesn't go to the Philippines],” Laguatan said.

Belarmino is the first known Filipino to win an asylum case based on sexual orientation. His case now serves as a model for other gay men and women.

Now more confident, the former English professor says the decision was a liberating experience for him.

“The resurgence of that self-esteem, that integrity and the acceptance of who I really am has really encouraged me to really live my life, not the way others see me, or others may want to see me, but the way I really am. And I also can say that I’m more at peace right now because of that total acceptance,” Belarmino said.

Belarmino says he’s now ready to start over. He wants to go back to teaching, and become an advocate for human rights.

Entrevista al Observatorio de Multinacionales en América Latina (OMAL)

"Se han creado distintas categorías de ciudadanía en función de los servicios a los que se pueda acceder según los ingresos de cada cual"


Kepa Arbizu/Aida M. Pereda
Lumpen




Cada vez son más intensas las consecuencias que las multinacionales tienen en la vida económica y social de los lugares en los que se instalan. El Observatorio de Multinacionales en América Latina (OMAL), por medio de esta entrevista, nos explica cuáles son y hace un detallado análisis de la situación mundial a este respecto.

¿Cómo surge y cuáles son los objetivos del Observatorio de Multinacionales en América Latina?

El Observatorio de Multinacionales en América Latina (OMAL) es un proyecto creado por la Asociación Paz con Dignidad en el año 2003, con tres objetivos fundamentales:

-Documentar y sistematizar la información sobre los impactos sociales, ambientales, culturales, económicos y sobre los derechos humanos que han sido generados por la actuación de las empresas transnacionales españolas en América Latina.

-Investigar y denunciar las consecuencias de la presencia de las multinacionales españolas en América Latina, con el fin de sensibilizar sobre ello a la población latinoamericana y del Estado español.

-Trabajar en red con los movimientos sociales europeos y latinoamericanos que resisten frente al poder de las corporaciones transnacionales, promoviendo unas relaciones sociales justas y solidarias entre los hombres y las mujeres del Norte y el Sur.

Para ello, OMAL trabaja en coordinación con organizaciones sociales, políticas y sindicales, instituciones, universidades, ONG y centros de estudios de América Latina y del Estado Español.

¿Qué consecuencias concretas tiene el hecho de que las materias primas de un país en desarrollo estén en manos de empresas privadas y extranjeras?

En las últimas décadas, con las deslocalizaciones, la división internacional del trabajo, las privatizaciones, las subcontrataciones, la flexibilización, la desregulación y, en definitiva, con las transformaciones derivadas de los procesos de globalización económica, las compañías multinacionales han pasado a intervenir en prácticamente todos los aspectos de la vida de las personas. Las corporaciones globales producen, distribuyen y comercializan los coches en los que nos movemos, las redes de teléfono que utilizamos, los alimentos que comemos o la ropa que vestimos. Y eso por no hablar de lo que tradicionalmente se ha dado en llamar servicios públicos, es decir, el agua, la sanidad, la educación y la energía, que también han venido siendo progresivamente subordinados al mandato del máximo beneficio que imponen las empresas transnacionales. Pero, naturalmente, el dejar que todas estas actividades dependan de la lógica empresarial ha provocado una serie de consecuencias sociales y ambientales. Así, se han creado distintas categorías de ciudadanía en función de los servicios a los que se pueda acceder según los ingresos de cada cual, de la misma forma que se han antepuesto los criterios de rentabilidad económica a la protección del entorno.

Bajo la óptica capitalista, estas regiones son competitivas –tanto por su riqueza en recursos naturales y biodiversidad como por la pobreza económica de la mayor parte de su población y porque ésta sirve de mano de obra intensiva– y cumplen un doble papel: de cara al exterior, tienen la misión de proporcionar fuentes de energía a los países con una mayor demanda de consumo de recursos; a nivel interno, han de liberalizar su propio mercado de la energía para permitir la entrada de las corporaciones transnacionales. Con todo ello, lejos de favorecer un fortalecimiento económico y social, el resultado ha sido que se han venido generando numerosos impactos sobre las poblaciones y el entorno.

En este contexto, América Latina representa un caso paradigmático de las consecuencias que puede tener para las regiones del Sur el hecho de que las empresas transnacionales y los gobiernos de los países del Norte estén interviniendo con fuerza en la pugna por controlar los recursos de la región y explotar su potencial como nuevo mercado. Al igual que en otros países del Sur, en Latinoamérica el papel de los recursos naturales energéticos es estratégico, lo que da lugar a situaciones complejas que involucran tanto a las políticas de los Estados como a las transnacionales, con toda una batería de instrumentos jurídicos, legales y económicos que mantienen luchas desiguales y someten a estos países ricos, pero empobrecidos, a graves conflictos.

¿Cuál es la influencia real que tienen todas estas empresas en la política internacional?

El poder de las empresas transnacionales se ha acrecentado en los últimos veinticinco años, como consecuencia de la extensión a escala global de las políticas neoliberales. Desde 1980, las inversiones extranjeras han crecido a una tasa anual que duplica el PIB mundial, concentrándose fundamentalmente en el sector de los servicios, y las principales responsables de este crecimiento han sido las multinacionales: el 84% de la Inversión Extranjera Directa mundial se canaliza a través de este tipo de empresas. Por eso, a día de hoy, las corporaciones multinacionales controlan gran parte de muchos sectores clave de la economía mundial, como la energía, la banca, la agricultura, el agua y las telecomunicaciones.

Y en todo esto ha tenido mucho que ver la estrecha relación de las multinacionales con los Gobiernos, que les han beneficiado en perjuicio del interés de las personas. No es que los Estados se hayan plegado ciegamente a los intereses de las grandes compañías, lo que ha ocurrido es que los Gobiernos han promovido una serie de políticas para favorecer sus negocios. Se podría decir que se trata de una relación de simbiosis, en la que los Estados y las corporaciones se benefician mutuamente

Muchos países de América Latina han tomado el camino de la nacionalización. ¿Es un método válido para resolver los problemas en vuestra opinión?

Después del fracaso de las tres décadas de aplicación de las reformas neoliberales en América Latina, muchas organizaciones sociales y políticas latinoamericanas están planteando la necesidad de contar en sus países con empresas estatales que permitan mantener el control público de los principales sectores productivos. Sobre todo, varios países han apostado por disponer de una empresa petrolera estatal que disponga del monopolio sobre toda la cadena de producción hidrocarburífera, como un primer paso que permita avanzar en la necesaria tarea de establecer límites a las actividades de las corporaciones transnacionales, profundizando en la idea de que los pueblos recuperen la soberanía sobre su territorio, sus recursos naturales y sus actividades económicas.

En esta línea, la nacionalización de los hidrocarburos constituye una condición que, si bien no es suficiente, sí es necesaria para seguir avanzando hacia la soberanía de los pueblos. En el futuro, indudablemente, medidas como ésta tendrán que ser acompañadas de otras que permitan afrontar el fin de los combustibles fósiles y el cambio climático, para fortalecer los procesos de transición energética hacia fuentes renovables de energía. Pero, en cualquier caso, como un primer y fundamental impulso en el sentido de favorecer a los pueblos frente al poder de las corporaciones transnacionales, se antoja urgente poner los recursos naturales en manos de las mayorías sociales del planeta.

Tanto en Europa como en Estados Unidos, dos de los bloques más importantes, ¿se están tomando medidas para limitar la hegemonía de las multinacionales o al contrario?

El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos no tiene articulados sistemas jurídicos capaces de someter a las multinacionales a control: tanto las legislaciones nacionales de los países receptores como los sistemas universales de protección de los derechos humanos y laborales fundamentales no pueden neutralizar la fortaleza del Derecho Comercial Global. Por un lado, la seguridad jurídica de las inversiones de las multinacionales se protege mediante una tupida red de convenios, tratados y acuerdos que conforman un marco jurídico, político y económico en el que las grandes corporaciones tutelan sus derechos sin contrapesos suficientes. Así, en esta nueva lex mercatoria se subordina la seguridad de los hombres y mujeres de América Latina a los intereses de las compañías extranjeras.

Pero, por nuestra parte, creemos que es necesario elaborar una propuesta para profundizar en los mecanismos de control de las compañías transnacionales, que vaya mucho más allá de las medidas voluntarias que hasta ahora se han venido proponiendo. Estas normas deberían articularse en torno a un código internacional que tenga como premisa central desterrar el concepto de la voluntariedad. Y es que no resulta justo que los derechos de las transnacionales se protejan en los tribunales internacionales de arbitraje mientras los derechos de las mayorías sociales quedan en manos de la conciencia empresarial. Más aún, el nuevo entramado jurídico deberá complementarse con la creación de un Tribunal Internacional para las empresas transnacionales, encargado de tutelar y ejecutar las sentencias favorables a los intereses de las poblaciones y equiparando la tutela de los derechos humanos a la eficacia de la que disponen los derechos de las grandes corporaciones. Además, la creación de un Centro de Empresas Multinacionales –adherido a Naciones Unidas y gestionado entre empresarios, gobiernos, movimientos sociales y sindicatos–, que se encargara de analizar, investigar e inspeccionar las prácticas de las transnacionales sobre el terreno, permitiría contrastar y evaluar la información unilateral que actualmente se recoge en las memorias de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa de las compañías multinacionales.

Se ha empezado hace poco el juicio contra Shell. ¿La consideráis la primera de una lista que pasarán por los juzgados o es una excepción? Según vosotros, ¿qué casos concretos, existentes hoy en día, son los más flagrantes de vulneración de derechos por parte de las multinacionales?

El juicio que estas semanas se ha estado dando en Estados Unidos contra la multinacional angloholandesa Shell por su complicidad en las ejecuciones sumarias de nueve activistas medioambientales nigerianos, entre ellos el poeta y activista ambiental Ken Saro-Wiwa, pone en evidencia hechos sumamente graves, como la constatación de la violación de los derechos humanos en países del Sur cometidos, directa o indirectamente, por empresas multinacionales.

Eso sí, el caso de Shell es uno de los más conocidos, pero no es el único. Dentro de los ejemplos que muestran esta realidad, se pueden citar varios casos en América Latina.

Por ejemplo, en Perú se ha denunciado el secuestro y la tortura de campesinos en las instalaciones de la empresa minera inglesa Majaz en 2005. En Colombia, una unidad del Ejército colombiano, acusada de violar sistemáticamente los derechos humanos de la población del departamento de Arauca, recibió financiación de la petrolera estadounidense Oxy para proteger sus instalaciones. En Argentina, el Tribunal Supremo investigó a 17 compañías petroleras -entre ellas la española Repsol YPF- por el daño ecológico que ha causado en cinco provincias de ese país.

Pese a estas y muchas otras denuncias de los impactos de las actividades de las empresas multinacionales sobre los derechos humanos, el medio ambiente, los pueblos indígenas y las relaciones laborales, en muy pocas ocasiones se consigue llevar a juicio a estas empresas y apenas existen casos de sanciones y penas en su contra.

¿Qué tipo de proceso burocrático se sigue para asignar la explotación de una zona determinada a una empresa?

Los procedimientos que han de darse para explotar las áreas con potenciales recursos naturales dependen de la legislación nacional del país al que nos refiramos. Es sabido que las reformas neoliberales se aplicaron en la gran mayoría de países de América Latina, pero no en todos exactamente en el mismo grado. De forma análoga, en general las legislaciones de estos países fueron modificadas para permitir la entrada masiva de los capitales extranjeros, pero el detalle de los procedimientos burocráticos depende de cada situación particular.

En el caso de Colombia, por citar un ejemplo que hemos investigado en OMAL, durante cerca de cuarenta años el esquema contractual que rigió las actividades petroleras garantizaba la participación estatal, con el fin de asegurar el abastecimiento de combustibles y las grandes rentas provenientes de este negocio. La gradual apertura de las actividades vinculadas al petróleo y el gas natural, como consecuencia del ofrecimiento de contratos de asociación a inversionistas extranjeros a partir de los años ochenta, se tradujo en enormes ingresos por las entradas de IED. Sin embargo, el sistema de contratación se ha venido modificando profundamente en el transcurso de la última década, hasta llegar a un modelo similar al que imperaba a comienzos del siglo XX. Por eso, a día de hoy, se está cediendo a las empresas transnacionales la práctica totalidad de los campos petroleros, únicamente a cambio de unas regalías que oscilan entre el 5% y el 30% , pero que en realidad, de acuerdo a la naturaleza de los campos petroleros, se encuentran en torno a una media del 10%. Este cambio del marco regulatorio para favorecer las inversiones de las compañías transnacionales petroleras ha tenido como consecuencia que, en la actualidad, se esté registrando en Colombia un considerable aumento de los niveles de exploración petrolera. El incremento de las actividades exploratorias se está promocionando dentro del marco de seguridad y confianza que favorece la atracción de las inversiones foráneas, y ciertamente está teniendo éxito en sus resultados: mientras el sector recibió recursos por un valor de 449 millones de dólares en 2002, en 2006 las inversiones en exploración alcanzaron la cifra de 1.500 millones.

Lo que es común en todos los casos es que la proliferación de la extracción de recursos naturales es favorecida por planes que fomentan las exportaciones, fundamentalmente de materias primas, con miras “al crecimiento y el desarrollo”, y están controladas fundamentalmente por capitales extranjeros. Entre las consecuencias del desarrollo de este tipo de sector se encuentra la exigencia en la ocupación e intervención de inmensas extensiones de territorio, como es el caso de los agronegocios (soja, eucaliptos, agrocombustibles), la minería y los hidrocarburos.

El área concesionada a proyectos mineros tiende a cubrir un promedio del 10% del territorio de América Latina. Los países que apuestan por este tipo de actividad tienen una legislación muy débil, en materia de impuestos o regalías, para que un mínimo porcentaje de los beneficios de esta actividad pueda repercutir en la población. La forma de ser competitivo en este sector, según la consultora Metals Economic Group, se resumen en esta idea: “los países que no aplican regalías atraen la mayor inversión minera”. Además, a la ausencia de regalías se suma la procedencia de las principales corporaciones mineras -éstas son canadienses, estadounidenses e inglesas (Drummond, Glencore-Xtrata, AngloAmerican, BHP Billiton, AngloGold)-, de manera que sus ingresos por venta van directamente a las casas matrices. Aparte de los impactos económicos, hay que señalar el impacto ambiental difícilmente recuperable, por la deforestación, movimiento de tierras, emisión de cianuro, contaminación de acuíferos y ríos, etc. Y una situación análoga a las de las compañías mineras se produce con los impactos asociados a la presencia de las empresas petroleras por toda la región.

Pese al impacto y la importancia que tienen las multinacionales en la vida de los ciudadanos no están controladas por ningún tipo de voto popular. Parece contradictorio con el término “democracia”. ¿Qué os parece?

Ya sabemos de sobra que la ideología neoliberal se basa en que los servicios públicos, la banca, los bienes de consumo, la alimentación, el agua, el transporte y la energía se tengan que subordinar a la filosofía del libre mercado. Pero ahora, además, se le da una vuelta de tuerca más al modelo de relación entre las empresas multinacionales y la sociedad: se pretende crear una ciudadanía corporativa, en la que los individuos asuman la plena coparticipación y corresponsabilidad en las actividades empresariales. Así, los consumidores ya no sólo han de consumir, sino que todas sus decisiones y acciones han de estar incorporadas en la dinámica corporativa. Y claro, mientras tanto, el Estado sigue reduciendo su actividad en la economía, el capital transnacional consolida su poder y, así, nuestra vida se va haciendo más y más dependiente de las grandes corporaciones.

Ahora bien, resulta imprescindible desmitificar el discurso oficial en este punto: las actividades de las multinacionales no están siendo un elemento que contribuya a disminuir las enormes desigualdades que asolan el mundo; antes al contrario, y a pesar de su tan trabajada imagen corporativa, únicamente sirven para apuntalar el statu quo. El poder de las multinacionales responde a un modelo económico global que establece la economía como única relación entre los países y la ciudadanía. Por eso, es urgente que las grandes mayorías perjudicadas por este sistema encuentren salidas para contener la impunidad que ampara a las corporaciones transnacionales y que están convirtiendo al planeta y a la vida misma en una simple mercancía.

Rachel Maddow Takes Down MSNBC's Resident Racist, Pat Buchanan

By Rachel Maddow
The Rachel Maddow Show

Editor's Note: For decades, conservatives played on the racist and sexist fears of their constituents by spinning dramatic tales of the white man's decline in the face of advances by women, African-Americans, Hispanics and other minority groups. Conveniently putting aside their calls for personal responsibility, conservative pundits and many GOP legislators blamed the woes of working-class white men on affirmative action programs.

Uppity women and minority groups, or so the story went, were exploiting past injustice to gain an unearned leg-up over more deserving white males. White men were, allegedly, increasingly victimized by government policies that privileged women and minorities.



Needless to say, conservatives were far more concerned with rolling back the rights of women and minorities than offering policy solutions that truly helped low-income white men.



In the past few months, conservative griping about the oppression of white men has come back with a vengeance. Lacking any real material with which to attack judicial nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Republican lawmakers and media conservatives have mightily struggled to paint Sotomayor as an unqualified affirmative-action candidate -- one committed to using the law to erode the rights of while males.



Sotomayor was absurdly attacked as a "reverse racist"; she was accused of gaming the system to get ahead; her temperament, educational achievements and judicial history were slimely undermined despite ample evidence that she is more than qualified to serve on the Court.



Some of the most vicious attacks have come from Pat Buchanan, a conservative extremist who for mysterious reasons still enjoys a spot on MSNBC as a "political analyst". Recently Buchanan appeared on the Rachel Maddow show to argue that Sotomayor has made a career of discriminating against white males and that her nomination constitutes affirmative action run amok. Needless to say, Maddow easily dispatched Buchanan's silly -- and racist -- arguments. By the end, the frazzled Buchanan looked like someone's racist grandpa, as Maddow showed just how irrelevant, retrograde and blatantly racist conservative grievance-based ideology has become.



Here is the full transcript:



Rachel Maddow: One prominent Republican who believes that the Republicans did not make enough of the issue of race at the Sotomayor confirmation hearing is my MSNBC colleague, Patrick J. Buchanan, who argued in his column this week that the hearings should have been seized even more by Republicans to try to win over white conservatives who feel aggrieved by racial issues.



He says, quote, "These are the folks that pay the price of affirmative action when their sons and daughters are pushed aside to make room for the Sonia Sotomayors. What Republicans must do is expose Sotomayor as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males."



"Even if Sotomayor is confirmed," Pat says, "making the nation aware she a militant supporter since college days of ethnic and gender preferences is an I assignment worth pursuing."



Joining us now is my MSNBC political colleague, Pat Buchanan.



Pat, it is-it's been far too long since you've been on the show.



It's so nice to see you.



Pat Buchanan, MSNBC Political Analyst: Good to see you, Rachel.



RM: So, your argument is that Republicans could reap political rewards by making the argument that Sotomayor essentially doesn't deserve to be on the supreme court, that she's only there because of her race. Is that-is that-did I understand your argument correctly?



PB: Well, I think I would vote no on Sonia Sotomayor the same way I would have voted no on Harriet Miers-and I said so the first day she was nominated.



I don't think Judge Sonia Sotomayor is qualified for the United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of the Constitution. She's never written anything that I've read in terms of a law review article or major book or something like that on the law.



And I do believe she's an affirmative action appointment by the president of the United States. He eliminated everyone but four women and then he picked the Hispanic. I think this is an affirmative action appointment and I would vote no.



RM: And what do you-what do you think that affirmative action is for?



PB: Affirmative action is to increase diversity by discriminating against white males. As Alan Bakke was discriminated at the University of California at Davis; As Brian Weber, that worker in Louisiana was discriminated against; As Frank Ricci and those firefighters were discriminated against; As Jennifer Gratz, was discriminated against and kept out of the University of Michigan which she set her heart on, even though her grades were far higher than people who were aloud in there.



That's the type-affirmative action is basically reverse discrimination against white males and it's as wrong as discrimination against black females and Hispanics and others. And that's why I oppose it.



RM: I obviously-I have a different view about it, but I want to give you a chance to explain what you --



PB: But why do you have a different view? Why is it OK to discriminate against white males?



RM: Well, let me ask you this.



PB: Sure.



RM: Why do you think is that of the 110 Supreme Court justices we've had in this country, 108 of them have been white?



PB: Well, I think white men were 100 percent of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100 percent of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100 percent of people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Probably close to 100 percent of the people who died at Normandy.



This has been a country built basically by white folks in this country who are 90 percent of the entire nation -- in 1960, when I was growing up, Rachel -- and the other 10 percent were African-American who had been discriminated against. That's why.



RM: But does that mean that you think that there are 108 of 110 white Supreme Court justices because white people essentially deserve to have 99.5 percent of those positions? That doesn't reflect any sort of barrier to those positions by people who aren't white. You think that's just purely on the basis of what white people have deserved to get?



PB: I think a lot of people get up there for a lot of reason, but my argument would be: get the finest mind you can get. Get real scholars. Whether you agree with Bork or Scalia or not, they're tremendous minds and I think there are other minds. I'm sure the Democratic Party, I'm sure has women there that can stand up head-to-head with Scalia and make the case, who have got tremendous credential, knowledge, background.



But this one doesn't have that. She was appointed because she's a Latina, a Hispanic and a woman.



RM: She's also --



PB: I mean, look at --



RM: She is also the judicial nominee who has more judging experience than any judge has gone up in, say, in the past, I don't know, what is it, 70 years? She has been an appellate court judge of some distinction for a lot longer than Judge Roberts was, Judge Alito was. I mean, it's not like she was picked out --



PB: Rachel.



RM: She was like picked out of the minor leagues and brought up here, Pat.



PB: Listen, it certainly is. Look at her own words in "The New York Times," from the tapes. It's in "The New York Times," June 11th. She said, "I'm an affirmative action baby."



RM: Yes.



PB: I got into Princeton on affirmative action. I got into Yale. I didn't have the scores that these other kids did.



How did she get on Yale law review? Affirmative action. How did she get on the federal bench by Moynihan? Moynihan needs a Hispanic woman just like Barack Obama needs a Hispanic woman.



That is not the criteria we ought to use, Rachel.



RM: But, Pat --



PB: ... for Supreme Court justices, conservative or liberal.



That's why I opposed Harriet Miers. I said I know she's going to vote with me. She's a good Christian woman. She's probably a fine lawyer, but she's not Supreme Court material, and neither is Sonia Sotomayor.



And I think you know that, Rachel.



RM: I don't know that at all. And I would say that if you and I agree that what our country needs is to be able to choose from the largest possible pool of talent in order to be able to pick the people who are going to have to function at the highest levels so that our country can compete and our country to do all the hard things we need do, I would hope that you would see that picking 108 out of 110 white justices.



PB: Rachel.



RM: ... to the Supreme Court means that other people aren't actually being appropriately considered. And the reason that you have affirmative action is that you recognize that the fact that people were discriminated against for hundreds of years in this country means that you sort of gamed the system, unless you give other people a leg up.



PB: It is not. It does not.



RM: . the best schools and the best jobs-hold on, I let you talk for a while.



PB: She was put into the best schools. She was put into the best schools.



RM: That's right. She was ...



PB: Of affirmative action, not because of ability, Rachel. She was put there, she said herself, because of where she came from. She's a Hispanic woman. She's from Puerto Rico. That's why she was passed over. Other students who applied there with better scores who were denied the right to go to Princeton.



RM: Do you think that she got the grades that she got at Princeton on the basis of affirmative action, too?



PB: I think what they do in the Ivy League, and you know it as well as I do, that half the class graduates cum laude these days.



RM: How did you do at Georgetown compared to how she did at Princeton?



PB: I'll tell you, I graduated higher in my high school, I will bet or as high as she did. And I certainly say, in Georgetown, I did. And I'll tell you, I will match my test scores against her -- but I'm not qualified for the United States Supreme Court.



RM: But, Pat, for you to argue that there's no basis on which the United States benefits ...



PB: Right.



RM: ... from having Hispanics be among the people who we choose the best and brightest from defies belief.



PB: I don't.



RM: The idea that you think we'll best serve by only choosing among 99.9 percent white people.



PB: Hold it. No, no, no.



RM: ... to hold these jobs, I don't believe you believe it, Pat.



PB: I -- hold on -- I believe everybody should get a chance to excel and be on the United States Supreme Court. But if I look at the U.S. track team in the Olympics, and they're all black folks, I don't automatically assume it's discrimination. I will say, "I think maybe those are the fastest guys we got, that maybe they're the fastest guys in the country, maybe they're the fastest in the world. If they're all -- our Olympic team in hockey is eight white guys from Minnesota, I don't assume discrimination.



Why do you assume discrimination simply because you got one component on the Supreme Court? Where is the genius you think who's a woman and a feminist who sure ought to be on that Supreme Court? Go for her. Don't go for an affirmative action person you know was picked because she's a Latina and because she's a woman.



RM: Pat, when I look at the United States Supreme Court and I see 108 out of 110 white people, I see 108 out of 110 men. I don't look at that and think, "God, white guys are naturally better at this type of work than other people who aren't getting these jobs." I don't think that way.



RM: I want to hear you -- I would love to hear your answer as to whether or not you think that is what explains it, too. Because, I think, what the more obvious explanation is, is that you have to be a white guy in order to get considered for these jobs and has been true since the dawn of time in this country.



PB: No.



RM: That's starting to break up now so that we can tap a bigger pool of talent. You should be happy about that for your country, Pat.



PB: I do. I do. I'm happy when you got all 78 firemen can take a test, but if all the guys that win in the test are all white guys and one is Hispanic, I don't say, automatically, the test was fixed, bias, bigoted against black people, because I don't know that, Rachel.



And those guys did well in that test and they are victims of this evil affirmative action policy which says in effect that everybody's covered by the 14th Amendment and the civil rights laws unless you're a white male and your parents and ancestors came from Europe. Then we can discriminate against you. That's what I am against.



RM: Pat, do you -- do you -- are you happy that we've got a Latino on the Supreme Court for the first time or we're about to? Does that seem like a positive thing for the country?



PB: I would -- I think the Republicans had an outstanding Latino who had outstanding grades, who was brilliant and was gutted, Miguel Estrada.



RM: Let me just ask you a question before going to talk about some other Latino who's not in question here. Are you happy for the United States of America for our prospect as a nation that we'll be the best that we can be, that there is a Latino on the Supreme Court for the first time ever, that that glass ceiling is broken. Do you see it as a positive thing?



PB: If you say, be the best question we can be. We're not being the best we can be with Sonia Sotomayor and I think you know it.



RM: Pat, I couldn't disagree with you more. I credit you sticking to your gun. I think you're absolutely wrong about this and I think that by advocating that the Republican Party try to stir up racial animus among white voters.



You're dating yourself.



PB: I say, you know, I think what they ought to do -- they ought to defend the legitimate rights of white working-class folks who are the victims of discrimination, because that's the right thing to do and because it's the politically right thing to do. It so happens that here, that doing the right thing is the right political thing, standing up for Frank Ricci. We saw the face of -- the face of a victim of these policies.



Rachel, you and your friends admire up there and in New York and you never look at these guys who are working-class guys with their own dreams, just like Sonia Sotomayor.



RM: Pat, I don't need a lecture from you about whether or not I know what working class ...



PB: You certainly do, Rachel.



RM: I really don't need a lecture from you about what I think about working class Americans or what anybody else in New York, including Sonia Sotomayor who grew up in the Bronx thinks about working-class Americans.



PB: What do you think?



RM: A lot of things divide us, Pat. Race is one of those. But there's a lot of other ways in which we just gratify as a country, and for you to privilege race and say that what we really need to make sure we tap, politically, is white people's racial grievances, you're playing with fire and you're dating yourself. You're living in the 1950s, Pat.



PB: Maybe I'm dating in the 1960s when the civil rights act was passed. Do you think Frank Ricci and those guys were treated justly when they were denied that promotion because they were white?



RM: Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst -- I'm very sorry that we're out of time. It's nice to have you back on the show, Pat. Thanks.

El Primer Festival Mundial de Video de los Medios Libres

La Solidaridad No Tiene Fronteras.

En memoria de Brad Will.

27 de Octubre al 29 de Noviembre 2009 México



Convocatoria:

A todos los activistas de medios libres, videoactivistas, periodistas alternativos, trabajadores audiovisuales progresistas, y a los pueblos del mundo a participar en el primer Festival Mundial de Video de los Medios Libres. La Solidaridad no Tiene Fronteras. A llevarse a cabo a partir del 27 de Octubre, fecha en la que es asesinado el videoactivista Brad Will por sicarios protegido por el gobierno Mexicano mientras realizaba su trabajo de reportero de video de Indymedia.org durante los levantamientos en Oaxaca en el 2006. El Festival concluirá el 30 de noviembre, décimo aniversario del proyecto de Indymedia.org, que nace en esta fecha durante las protestas en Seattle contra la OMC.

El Festival busca reunir activistas de medios libres y de video en todas partes del mundo, para celebrar y demostrar el crecimiento y alcance que a tenido el movimiento de Indymedia.org en los últimos diez años. Es una invitación a reactivar y fortalecer las redes de trabajo, colaboración y la organización colectiva alrededor de un Festival Mundial, resaltando video documentales y films producidos por activistas de video y de medios libres, y una celebración de todas las demás formas de medios libres de comunicación incluyendo radio, grafica, periodismo impreso y en línea, y tecnologías del Internet.

La dinámica del Festival será descentralizada, y puede variar dependiendo de la forma y estilo que el comité organizador local prefiera usar. En esencia, la invitación de organizar y realizar este Festival Mundial es para programar una serie de muestras de films y videos independientes de los medios libres, que establecería un motivo para la cooperación internacional, la celebración, la reflexión, propuestas, y acción en el ámbito del activismo y las tecnologías de los medios libres.

Proponemos que el festival sea unido por varios lazos lo mas obvio, siendo el tema, las fechas de aniversario, fechas especificas donde varios puntos del festival pueden contactarse a través del Internet durante las video conferencias y las acciones que podamos realizar simultáneamente, y una articulación política con demandas que podemos difundir por todo el mundo.


Sobre los videos, pueden participar vloggins (video de Internet hasta 10 min.), mini metrajes, cortometrajes o largo metrajes con temática de documental o ficción.
Pueden participar a titulo de grupo, pseudónimo o creación individual.
Puden participar todas las nacionalidades, culturas y pueblos del mundo.

Sobre el Festival se llevara a cabo en tres rutas de trabajo:

Internet:
El festival proyectara la muestra en baja resolución por Internet en horarios agendados, (los creadores que así lo permitan podrán hospedar su material para descarga de los ineternautas en alta resolución ).

Mesas Temáticas:
En algunos lugares de proyección de los videos se realizaran charlas y video charlas con los creadores de los documentales, así como debates temáticos sobre los medios y el software libre.

Proyecciones:
Agenda Nacional e Internacional de Proyecciones, lugares que colaboran en la promoción del festival (invitados todas los cine clubes, video clubes, video salas y centros sociales y culturales, así como organizaciones sociales y colectivos.)

Informes a: videotekka@gmail.com

Chiquita in Latin America

From Arbenz to Zelaya

By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

CounterPunch

When the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya two weeks ago there might have been a sigh of relief in the corporate board rooms of Chiquita banana. Earlier this year the Cincinnati-based fruit company joined Dole in criticizing the government in Tegucigalpa which had raised the minimum wage by 60%. Chiquita complained that the new regulations would cut into company profits, requiring the firm to spend more on costs than in Costa Rica: 20 cents more to produce a crate of pineapple and ten cents more to produce a crate of bananas to be exact. In all, Chiquita fretted that it would lose millions under Zelaya’s labor reforms since the company produced around 8 million crates of pineapple and 22 million crates of bananas per year.

When the minimum wage decree came down Chiquita sought help and appealed to the Honduran National Business Council, known by its Spanish acronym COHEP. Like Chiquita, COHEP was unhappy about Zelaya’s minimum wage measure. Amílcar Bulnes, the group’s president, argued that if the government went forward with the minimum wage increase employers would be forced to let workers go, thus increasing unemployment in the country. The most important business organization in Honduras, COHEP groups 60 trade associations and chambers of commerce representing every sector of the Honduran economy. According to its own Web site, COHEP is the political and technical arm of the Honduran private sector, supports trade agreements and provides “critical support for the democratic system.”

The international community should not impose economic sanctions against the coup regime in Tegucigalpa, COHEP argues, because this would worsen Honduras’ social problems. In its new role as the mouthpiece for Honduras’ poor, COHEP declares that Honduras has already suffered from earthquakes, torrential rains and the global financial crisis. Before punishing the coup regime with punitive measures, COHEP argues, the United Nations and the Organization of American States should send observer teams to Honduras to investigate how sanctions might affect 70% of Hondurans who live in poverty. Bulnes meanwhile has voiced his support for the coup regime of Roberto Micheletti and argues that the political conditions in Honduras are not propitious for Zelaya’s return from exile.

Chiquita: From Arbenz to Bananagate

It’s not surprising that Chiquita would seek out and ally itself to socially and politically backward forces in Honduras. Colsiba, the coordinating body of banana plantation workers in Latin America, says the fruit company has failed to supply its workers with necessary protective gear and has dragged its feet when it comes to signing collective labor agreements in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras.

Colsiba compares the infernal labor conditions on Chiquita plantations to concentration camps. It’s an inflammatory comparison yet may contain a degree of truth. Women working on Chiquita’s plantations in Central America work from 6:30 a.m. until 7 at night, their hands burning up inside rubber gloves. Some workers are as young as 14. Central American banana workers have sought damages against Chiquita for exposing them in the field to DBCP, a dangerous pesticide which causes sterility, cancer and birth defects in children.

Chiquita, formerly known as United Fruit Company and United Brands, has had a long and sordid political history in Central America. Led by Sam “The Banana Man” Zemurray, United Fruit got into the banana business at the turn of the twentieth century. Zemurray once remarked famously, “In Honduras, a mule costs more than a member of parliament.” By the 1920s United Fruit controlled 650,000 acres of the best land in Honduras, almost one quarter of all the arable land in the country. What’s more, the company controlled important roads and railways.

In Honduras the fruit companies spread their influence into every area of life including politics and the military. For such tactics they acquired the name los pulpos (the octopuses, from the way they spread their tentacles). Those who did not play ball with the corporations were frequently found face down on the plantations. In 1904 humorist O. Henry coined the term “Banana Republic” to refer to the notorious United Fruit Company and its actions in Honduras.

In Guatemala, United Fruit supported the CIA-backed 1954 military coup against President Jacobo Arbenz, a reformer who had carried out a land reform package. Arbenz’ overthrow led to more than thirty years of unrest and civil war in Guatemala. Later in 1961, United Fruit lent its ships to CIA-backed Cuban exiles who sought to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs.

In 1972, United Fruit (now renamed United Brands) propelled Honduran General Oswaldo López Arellano to power. The dictator was forced to step down later however after the infamous “Bananagate” scandal which involved United Brands bribes to Arellano. A federal grand jury accused United Brands of bribing Arellano with $1.25 million, with the carrot of another $1.25 million later if the military man agreed to reduce fruit export taxes. During Bananagate, United Brands’ President fell from a New York City skyscraper in an apparent suicide.

Go-Go Clinton Years and Colombia

In Colombia United Fruit also set up shop and during its operations in the South American country developed a no less checkered profile. In 1928, 3,000 workers went on strike against the company to demand better pay and working conditions. At first the company refused to negotiate but later gave in on some minor points, declaring the other demands “illegal” or “impossible.” When the strikers refused to disperse the military fired on the banana workers, killing scores.

You might think that Chiquita would have reconsidered its labor policies after that but in the late 1990s the company began to ally itself with insidious forces, specifically right wing paramilitaries. Chiquita paid off the men to the tune of more than a million dollars. In its own defense, the company declared that it was merely paying protection money to the paramilitaries.

In 2007, Chiquita paid $25 million to settle a Justice Department investigation into the payments. Chiquita was the first company in U.S. history to be convicted of financial dealings with a designated terrorist organization.

In a lawsuit launched against Chiquita victims of the paramilitary violence claimed the firm abetted atrocities including terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that Chiquita’s relationship with the paramilitaries “was about acquiring every aspect of banana distribution and sale through a reign of terror.”

Back in Washington, D.C. Charles Lindner, Chiquita’s CEO, was busy courting the White House. Lindner had been a big donor to the GOP but switched sides and began to lavish cash on the Democrats and Bill Clinton. Clinton repaid Linder by becoming a key military backer of the government of Andrés Pastrana which presided over the proliferation of right wing death squads. At the time the U.S. was pursuing its corporately-friendly free trade agenda in Latin America, a strategy carried out by Clinton’s old boyhood friend Thomas “Mack” McLarty. At the White House, McLarty served as Chief of Staff and Special Envoy to Latin America. He’s an intriguing figure who I’ll come back to in a moment.

The Holder-Chiquita Connection

Given Chiquita’s underhanded record in Central America and Colombia it’s not a surprise that the company later sought to ally itself with COHEP in Honduras. In addition to lobbying business associations in Honduras however Chiquita also cultivated relationships with high powered law firms in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Chiquita has paid out $70,000 in lobbying fees to Covington and Burling over the past three years.

Covington is a powerful law firm which advises multinational corporations. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, a co-chair of the Obama campaign and former Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton was up until recently a partner at the firm. At Covington, Holder defended Chiquita as lead counsel in its case with the Justice Department. From his perch at the elegant new Covington headquarters located near the New York Times building in Manhattan, Holder prepped Fernando Aguirre, Chiquita’s CEO, for an interview with 60 Minutes dealing with Colombian death squads.

Holder had the fruit company plead guilty to one count of “engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization.” But the lawyer, who was taking in a hefty salary at Covington to the tune of more than $2 million, brokered a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only paid a $25 million fine over five years. Outrageously however, not one of the six company officials who approved the payments received any jail time.

The Curious Case of Covington

Look a little deeper and you’ll find that not only does Covington represent Chiquita but also serves as a kind of nexus for the political right intent on pushing a hawkish foreign policy in Latin America. Covington has pursued an important strategic alliance with Kissinger (of Chile, 1973 fame) and McLarty Associates (yes, the same Mack McLarty from Clinton-time), a well known international consulting and strategic advisory firm.

From 1974 to 1981 John Bolton served as an associate at Covington. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under George Bush, Bolton was a fierce critic of leftists in Latin America such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, just recently John Negroponte became Covington’s Vice Chairman. Negroponte is a former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence and U.S. Representative to the United Nations.

As U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, Negroponte played a significant role in assisting the U.S.-backed Contra rebels intent on overthrowing the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Human rights groups have criticized Negroponte for ignoring human rights abuses committed by Honduran death squads which were funded and partially trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when Negroponte served as ambassador his building in Tegucigalpa became one of the largest nerve centers of the CIA in Latin America with a tenfold increase in personnel.

While there’s no evidence linking Chiquita to the recent coup in Honduras, there’s enough of a confluence of suspicious characters and political heavyweights here to warrant further investigation. From COHEP to Covington to Holder to Negroponte to McLarty, Chiquita has sought out friends in high places, friends who had no love for the progressive labor policies of the Zelaya regime in Tegucigalpa.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008) Follow his blog at senorchichero.blogspot.com