|
Week of Resistance
PART ONE
DEVELOPING JUSTICE
Since September 2005, when the very first steps of investigation into Chalatenango´s mineral wealth took place on the part of the mining company Martinique Inc, the people of Chalate have stood firm by their belief that such exploration that would thereafter lead to exploitation of their land was wrong. Subsequent research and trips to Honduras and Guatemala, where mining sites were visited, along with the communities destroyed as a result, consolidated the fear that the nature of mining projects was too destructive to permit or live through. San Jose Las Flores, the first community to have had discovered the threat, and then later joined by the CCR, have since then transformed this fear into resistance, raising awareness in other communities and articulating a regional movement in opposition to the mining projects. Activities such as the six day fast held in March., and the June 1 st rally, held in reaction to the celebration of Tony Saca´s government, have all been opportunities to further voice the position of Chalatenango´s communities.
The past week, running from the 12 th to the 28 thof June, saw this movement go one step further as the initiative was taken to not only strengthen regional support, but to also prompt national awareness on the subject. From press conferences to regional and national forums, to a great march held in the capital on the Friday 16 th, the week has invited more people to get involved in the debate.
 
On the 13 th of June, a national forum was held at the University of Central America (UCA) on the subject of mineral exploitation and its subsequent effects to environmental, human and economic development. Organized by a national committee, made up by NGO’s such as CCR, CRIPDES and UCRES, the forum was attended by numerous representatives from Chalatenango and other departmental communities, as well as guest speakers from the Human Rights Ombudswoman, Oxfam America and the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources.
The discussion on mining, as it did in this forum, invariably touches on the concept of development, especially when there is a conflict of ideas regarding in what exactly consists a just and sustainable template for development for El Salvador. According to the human rights lawyer, Yanira Cortez, environmental degradation caused by mining projects inhibits the development and implementation of human rights. In order for the latter to be achieved, man and woman must be allowed to live in healthy and adequate conditions. As an environment is gradually destroyed, already existing social problems are deepened and new ones are created. In effect, the abuse of the environment is also an abuse on human rights, and a hindrance to human development. Señora Cortez then expressed the responsibility of the state to take into consideration human rights before making any decision whatsoever, and to promote economic development that respects the life of all Salvadorians. This view is very much in tune with the principal cause of resistance on behalf of the CCR as it fights to protect its environment, livelihoods, and right to live in adequate economic conditions.
The Minister of the Environment, Don Hugo Barrera, chose to use the law as one mechanism to justify the State’s behavior so far in the face of mining projects in general. There is no law in El Salvador that forbids mineral exploration and exploitation, but there is a legislative process that allows the Ministry of Environment to review any proposed environmental project before it goes ahead. The law, Barrera declared, must be respected and followed, and the State is in no capacity to challenge projects without legal backing. Furthermore, before jumping the gun and only looking at the consequences of mineral exploitation in neighboring Central American countries, it is much more sensible to look towards developed bodies such as the US or the EU, where mechanisms to extract mineral wealth from the earth have been refined and ameliorated over the years. Needless to say, Barrera was keen to overlook the fact that over the past century, the US has experienced a destruction of catastrophic proportions of its environment and many of its communities due to mining projects.
As Barrera continued, it became clear that his opinion was that in terms of development, lessons must be learnt from those already developed, and not from those in its process. And indeed, this attitude is painfully evident in El Salvador’s new reality as it tries to embrace and keep up with neo-liberal politics inspired by countries such as the US. Development in this case, is seen as growth, and the faster this country is urbanized, privatized and made consumer-friendly, the more and better developed it is. Mining projects carried out by foreign companies in developing countries are a tribute to a global and developed frame of mind, born from the creation of a frontier-less playground for commerce and business. But when a doctrine such as this is applauded by few and suffered by most, it is hard to view sense in this form of development.
The representative of Oxfam America clarified that their preoccupation was not on coming out for or against mining projects, but on evaluating what these projects mean to development. After years of research all over the world on the effects of mining to a community or country’s progress, experience has shown that mineral exploitation does not lead to sustainable development. The World Bank has facilitated mining projects by reducing the taxes a company must pay to the country in which it wishes to operate. Mining companies in El Salvador will have to shell out no more than 2% of its profits to the government. Considering that an ounce of gold is currently worth around $700, it is no small wonder that international companies will try and imbue a political environment, through structures such as the World Bank or IMF, which can maximize profits, and minimize social and humanitarian responsibility in the process of making money.
If development is to be sustainable, than it must benefit and respect the environment in which it is taking place. But if a potential source of wealth and development can be used to benefit the country it is found in, than it should be exploited. The two main ideas Oxfam America put forward are that if there are elements in the earth that can help the development of El Salvador, then why not take advantage of it? But, of course, the question is, how to do it, and who will it benefit?
When I later asked Esperanza, a member of the CCR what she saw as development, she answered that mining projects are not development. “In this land [Chalatenango], it is densely populated, agriculturally used, and the source of our basic needs. How is it [mining] development if it contaminates the land we use? We do not eat gold.” Her view on development is that before it can take place on a national scale, it must first start off within a person. An individual must develop his or her values and ability to analyze and criticize, so that when it comes to facing external forces, in this case the threat of the mining projects, one is not tricked or fooled.
The CCR and Chalatenango communities are walking in a direction that is uncomfortable or ill-fitting in the global model of development. They advocate grass-root organization, a form of development that is not generated from the top of the hierarchical structure of world economics, but one that grows with the people at ground level, which supports organic initiatives, and invests in its people. Mining projects do not conform to this vision. The national forum saw scientific, legislative and economic evidence put forward in the debate, but the message from the CCR was simple. It said, and says today more strongly than ever; “Our position is NO. No to mining and Yes to life”. And with that, the discussion was closed.
Stephanie Kennedy
Read part two on the Week of Resistance Against Mining
|
UPDATES ARCHIVE