KAIROS is deeply saddened and shocked to learn of the shooting of a community leader, Theodora Antonia Hernández Cinto, at her home in municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán in Guatemala.  Theodora has been actively involved in leading community resistance against large-scale mining in their region. She was shot in the head two weeks after President Colom declared the suspension of Marlin Mine operations, in compliance with a recent Inter-American Commission ruling. Other activists have also been threatened.  Just hours after the attack on Theodora, we received an urgent action alert from CEIBA, a KAIROS partners in Guatemala, calling for an international response.

(Theodora Antonia Hernández Cinto. Photo: COPAE, Diocese of San Marcos)

 Details of the attack are included below. (Please note that some documentation uses the name “Diodora”; this is because the pronunciation and spelling of Spanish names varies amongst Mayan Guatemalans, whose first language is generally Indigenous.)

This news is particularly disturbing as KAIROS recently hosted one of our Guatemalan partners, Naty Atz Sunc, in a visit to Canada in June. Another strong community leader and mining activist, Naty spoke passionately about the communities that have been resisting foreign-owned mining projects during the KAIROS speaking tour of Atlantic Canada and at a workshop at the G20 Peoples’ Summit in Toronto.  Her organization, CEIBA, offers training and support to community leaders like Theodora who are defending the rights of their communities and building alternative visions for the future.

We ask that you take the time to write a letter, announce this action in church, and keep Theodora, Naty and all human rights defenders in Guatemala in your prayers at this difficult time.

Please join KAIROS in sending faxes and emails to condemn this attack, demand a full investigation, and urge the Guatemalan state to take action on the community’s demands:

1. That the State take measures to protect the lives of human rights defenders, including an immediate investigation into this incident through the Attorney General's office.
 
2. That the representatives of the Human Rights Ombudsman's Office (PDH) and the Presidential Commission on Human Rights (COPREDEH) in San Marcos carry out their respective functions based on the rights of citizens and in line with the laws of the country regarding cases that affect human rights defenders.

3. That the State comply in full with the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), in favor of communities affected by the Marlin mine who are defending their human rights.

4. That the State guarantee respect for human rights, the national constitution, and international agreements related to the rights of Indigenous peoples.

A sample letter addressed to Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom is provided at the bottom of this message.

Further information

Amnesty International’s action and background information >>

Mennonite Central Committee delegation to the Marlin Mine and affected communities >>

MiningWatch Canada urgent action >>

Pastoral Commission on Peace and Ecology, Diocese of San Marcos, including video footage of Theodora >>

United Church of Canada’s Maritime Conference: Mining the Connections group >>

Further details of the attack

We received the following details about the attack from MiningWatch Canada:

On Wednesday, July 7th, 2010 at 7:30 PM in the small community San José Nueva Esperanza in the village of Maquivil, municipality of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, Ms. Diodora Antonia Hernández Cinto was shot. Two unknown young men showed up at her house asking for a place to stay. When they were refused housing, they asked to buy a cup of coffee. When Ms. Hernández went to give them their coffee, they shot her in the head near her right eye, causing significant blood loss. The two men ran off in the direction of San José Ixcaniche. Ms. Hernández was taken to the hospital in San Marcos and then to the Roosevelt hospital in Guatemala City, where she underwent surgery on June 11th. She is in stable condition, but the consequences of the gun shot are still unknown.

On the same night, at 11:30 PM a group of people arrived in the community to support Ms. Hernández. When they returned to their community Ágel, they heard gunshots approximately 50 metres from their homes.

So far neither the National Civil Police nor the Attorney General's office have begun the necessary steps to investigate the incident. An official complaint was filed in the Attorney General's office of San Marcos (#MP166-2010-2818) on July 8, 2010.

Ms. Diodora Antonia Hernández Cinto is part of a resistance movement against the human rights violations being committed by the company Montana Exploradora, the subsidiary of Goldcorp Inc that is operating the Marlin mine. She has been active in her community Sacmuj, where the company has extensive exploration interests and the inhabitants fear impacts on their natural water springs and the violation of their right to consent. She has been threatened a number of times for her participation in this movement.

Further background on the mine

Since 2005 Indigenous communities affected by GoldCorp’s Marlin mine have denounced mine-related human rights violations, impacts on their health, contamination of their water sources, and curtailed civil liberties. Among the most significant complaints is the violation of their right to free, prior, and informed consent, which is protected under international law in regards to projects developed on Indigenous lands.

On May 20, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS), issued precautionary measures to the Guatemalan government calling for the suspension of mining operations at Marlin to prevent possible negative impacts on the health of the communities as well as their access to water. The government was asked to take immediate measures to protect the lives of community members in the municipalities of San Miguel Ixtahuacán and Sipakapa.

On June 23, 2010 the Colom administration announced its commitment to comply with the precautionary measures and suspend mining operations at Marlin until the IACHR can rule on the merits of the petition filed by the communities.

The Guatemalan government must act immediately to guarantee the security of community leaders and their families. Members of the Front in Defence of San Miguel (FREDEMI) and other human rights defenders have reported an increase in threats against their lives since the State's decision to suspend the Marlin mine's activities. They fear acts of retaliation from mine workers and from the company.

Sample Letter (English below):

Estimado Sr. Presidente Alvaro Colom,

Escribimos con mucha preocupación por la situación actual en San Miguel Ixtahuacán, San Marcos. El 7 de julio la Señora Diodora Antonia Hernández Cinto fue baleada por dos hombres dentro de su casa a las 7:00 de la noche. Ella es conocida por su participación en la defensa de los derechos humanos ante la empresa Montana Exploradora/ Goldcorp Inc. y sus operaciones mineras en la mina Marlin. Es el primer ataque armado contra una activista anti-minera en este municipio.

Entendemos que el 23 de junio, el gobierno de Guatemala aceptó acatar las medidas cautelares emitidas por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Aplaudimos esta decisión de la administración ya que muestra un respeto por los derechos humanos y las obligaciones internacionales de Guatemala. Sin embargo, es urgente y necesario que el gobierno cumpla con estas medidas lo mas pronto posible, y que tome medidas inmediatas para proteger a los pobladores en riesgo contra posibles represalias.

Urgimos una investigación inmediata y profunda sobre los hechos del ataque contra la Señora Diodora Hernández tanto como su acción inmediata para garantizar la seguridad de los defensores de derechos humanos en San Miguel Ixtahuacán.

Atentamente,

[su nombre]

-------

Esteemed Mr. President Álvaro Colom,

I write to express my concern regarding the current situation in San Miguel Ixtahuacán, San Marcos. On July 7, Ms. Theodora Antonia Hernández Cinto was shot by two men inside her home at 7:00 PM. She was known for her participation in the defence of human rights against the mining operations of Montana Exploradora/ Goldcorp Inc. This is the first armed attack against an anti-mining activist in this municipality.

I understand that on June 24 of this year the Guatemalan government accepted the precautionary measures issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and committed to suspending operations at the Marlin mine. We applaud this decision as a demonstration of respect for human rights and for Guatemala's international obligations. However, it is urgent and necessary that the government carry out these measures as soon as possible and take immediate steps to secure the lives of community members at risk of possible retaliation.

We urge you to carry out an immediate investigation into the attack against Ms. Theodora Hernández, and to take immediate action to guarantee the security of human rights defenders in San Miguel Ixtahuacán.

Sincerely,

[your name]

--------

PLEASE SEND TO:

Lic. Álvaro Colom
Presidente de la República [President of the Republic]
Casa Presidencial
6ª Avenida 4-18, Zona 1
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala
Telefax: (502) 2221.4423 / (502) 2238.3579

WITH A COPY TO:

Embassy of Canada in Guatemala: Apartado Postal 400, Guatemala City, Guatemala, C.A. gtmla[at]international.gc[dot]ca  

Doctor Sergio Fernando Morales Alvarado
Procurador de Derechos Humanos [Human Rights Ombudsman]
12 Avenida 12-72, zona 1
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala
Telefax: (502) 2424.1717
gmasariegos@pdh.org.gt/opdhg@intelnet.net.gt

Lic. María Encarnación Mejía de Contreras (interina)
Fiscal General de la República y Jefe del Ministerio Público [Interim Attorny General]
8ª Avenida 10-67, Antiguo Edificio del Banco de los Trabajadores, Zona 1
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala
Telefax: (502) 2411.9124 / (502) 2411.9326
fiscalgeneral@mp.lex.gob.gt

Fiscalía Distrital de San Marcos [Attorny General's Office- San Marcos]
7a Avenida A 8-06, zona 1
San Marcos
Telfono: (502) 7760.4355, (502) 7760.1051
fdsanmarcos@mp.gob.gt

Lic. Rudy Castillo Ramirez
Auxiliatura de la Procuraduría de Derechos Humanos [Human Rights Office - San Marcos]
5ta Calle 7-34, Zona 2
San Marcos, Guatemala
Telefax (502) 7760-8087

Ruth del Valle
Presidenta de la Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la Política del Ejecutivo en materia de Derechos Humanos - COPREDEH [Presidential Commission for Human Rights]
2 Av. 10-50 Zona 9, Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, C.A. 01009
Fax (502): 2334-0119
copredeh@copredeh.gob.gt

Canada’s Indigenous peoples, threatened human rights workers in Congo and Colombia, HIV-infected mothers in Malawi, and Pacific Islanders whose homes and livelihoods are being destroyed by rising waters due to climate change —are among the strong articulate voices unheard at the G8 and G20 this past weekend in Ontario.

Urgent global issues were ignored. Leaders of the world mobilized inadequate resources for maternal health. By focusing on deficit reduction without the implementation of a “Robin Hood Tax” on speculation, they ensured that the burden of the financial crisis will be borne by the very people most in need of pensions, health care and social services, rather than the financiers who created the crisis.

Ignored were the world’s poor people whose lives so dramatically depend on actions of the G8 and G20. Also ignored were the non-governmental organizations whose long relationships with partners in the South inspire advocacy calls on their behalf.

More than ten thousand peaceful protestors strove to reach out with their message of solidarity, justice and compassion and yet were sidelined as press and public focussed on a small minority who employed vandalism and violence. The enormity and overwhelming nature of policing this summit caused many who would have participated in a peaceful march to stay home out of fear. The massive number of arrests evokes public concern that those arrested may include peaceful demonstrators and bystanders, and raises important questions about Canadian civil liberties.

If the leaders of the world had tackled climate change, or implemented a tax on speculation, or mobilized the resources required to end premature maternal death, this might have begun to address the concerns over the immense financial and social costs of these events.

Now is the time to start over, raising the positive, life-saving messages of people and their organizations in Canada and overseas. We call on the media to focus on issues ignored this past weekend, that may help our country make decisions of hope that build a more just and peaceful global community.

In the lead up to the June G20 summit, the International Monetary Fund has issued an interim report on financial reform that the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors discussed when they met in Washington April 23.

Preoccupied with Greece’s financial woes, the G20 ministers did not make any decisions on the IMF report’s recommendations before kicking the ball forward to the June summit. They simply asked the IMF to conduct a further study. The good news is that the idea of a Robin Hood Tax on financial transactions is still among the options under consideration.


The IMF and the G20 are finally discussing some actual reforms of the financial system to avert more crises like the costly one we are still experiencing. Although the government of Canada rejects any measure that smacks of a tax, a serious discussion of measures to make the banks take responsibility for the crisis they provoked is underway.

Broadly speaking, three options have emerged.

1. The Bank Levy

The first is a bank levy, or tax on banks’ balance sheets, which could be imposed on financial institutions in general. The proceeds would most likely be used to create an insurance fund to bail the banks out in any future crisis rather than taxpayers doing so.

2. The Robin Hood Tax

We call the second option the Robin Hood Tax because of its ability to take from the better-off, concentrated in the developed countries, and give to the poor, particularly the extreme poor, in the developing countries. Others, including the IMF, call it the Financial Transactions Tax or FTT. It is a tax on a broad range of financial transactions which financial institutions and speculators engage in.

A portion of an FTT would go to developing countries to alleviate widespread poverty and to assist them in adapting and mitigating the effects of climate change for which more advanced economies are especially responsible.

The remainder would go to governments in developed countries, to help them cope with the deficits and debt that have resulted from the economic crisis This would mean governments would not have to impose the austerity measures that hurt its own people, particularly those who are least well off.

3. The “FAT”

The third option is a Financial Activities Tax or FAT – an appropriate acronym since it is in fact a tax on fat cats. It would tax bank profits and bankers’ excessive remuneration packages with the proceeds going into general government revenues.

It’s Not All or Nothing

These three options need also to be evaluated in terms of whether or not they deter excessive risk taking which was at the core of the recent financial crisis. On the face of it, a levy on financial institutions which goes into an insurance fund, does not deter risk. It might even worsen the situation because those who take bad risks get bailed out.

A tax on financial transactions, by raising the transaction cost, would help to deter risky transactions of uncertain payoff. Still, the best means to deter excessive risk taking is by rules and regulations on the behaviour of the financial institutions.

In the developed countries, financial sectors are engaged in much that is unproductive and wasteful, and any tax, including an FTT, that reduced their size would be helpful.

These three options do not have to be seen as alternatives since they serve different purposes. Some combination of these options could be implemented.

Much of the IMF’s interim report is devoted to embellishing the first option, of a levy on all major financial institutions to provide insurance for them. Initially at a flat rate, it could later be refined to reflect the riskiness of different institutions.

Should a levy on financial institutions not raise sufficient revenue, as the IMF fears, there could also be an additional fee. The IMF calls these levies and fees the Financial Stability Contribution (FSC). The virtue of that name is that it reminds us that financial stability is a public good, good not only for the financial institutions but also for the rest of us.

Beyond insurance, financial institutions should be responsible for fiscal side-effects of the crisis on government deficits and debt. To deal with this the IMF proposes the third option: a Financial Activities Tax or FAT that would tax profits and excessive remuneration packages.

The IMF has given legitimacy to the view that financial institutions have an obligation to pay for the collateral damage caused by their activities.

IMF Gives Robin Hood Tax a Mixed Review

While the IMF gives the Robin Hood Tax some consideration, in fact more than was expected (reflecting successful civil society pressure), it fails to endorse an FTT. However, the IMF does give short shrift to one of the favourite arguments of the critics of a Robin Hood Tax. “The FTT,” writes the IMF, “should not be dismissed on grounds of administrative practicality.” This is a major point.

Regrettably, the IMF stops there. It chooses to interpret its mandate from the G20 narrowly. The report says that measures should be taken to “enable, if desired, a contribution of the financial sector to reflect the wider fiscal and economic costs of financial crises.” But it then limits the costs to those experienced within each country.

This is disappointing because the very essence of the financial crisis is that it is global, above all in its effects. The IMF’s FAT proposal takes account of the national effects but not of the global effects, a distinction that is hard to defend given the reality of globalization and puzzling when put forth by an institution that is itself global.

To take a global perspective would be to recognize that the FTT is the necessary step to go beyond the FAT. Obligations of governments, of institutions, of citizens are global as well as national. The IMF has not faced up clearly to the need for more revenue to permit the developed countries to meet the UN Millennium Development Goals to which they have committed. It has not given due weight to the global crises of inequality and of climate change.

The greatest virtue of the FTT is that it is a genuinely global tax, the first of its kind, fully appropriate to the times in which we live.

Who at the end of the day would pay a levy? the FAT or an FTT?
v The so-called incidence of a tax depends both on who pays it, not just directly but ultimately, and on who benefits from it.

The chief executive of the Royal Bank of Canada says that banks would pass the cost of a bank levy, what the IMF calls a Financial Stability Contribution, on to their customers.

Conventional wisdom says that a tax on bank profits, if it captures excess profits (which certainly exist) may not be passed on. The benefit is the public good of a more stable financial system and fewer crises. Hence, the IMF’s proposal for a FAT has a reasonable chance of being a progressive tax paid by those with excessive earnings to the benefit of the public.

What of the FTT? There is, frankly, a risk that financial institutions could pass on some of the tax to others through for example, higher fees. To the extent that it is a risk, it requires monitoring and regulation.

If the proceeds of the tax are spent on fighting global poverty and climate change the results would be highly progressive in terms of income distribution and would guarantee that the net benefit would be large. In short, the FTT would fulfill its promise as a Robin Hood Tax.

Canada Still the Biggest Opponent

In the midst of this grand debate, the position of the Canadian government is that it has no relevance to Canada. Our banks weathered the financial crisis better than any other country, which is true. Therefore, says Minister Flaherty, there is no need for a levy on financial institutions. Insofar as such a levy is for insurance purposes only, he’s right.

Flaherty goes one step further and advocates a self-insurance scheme where banks would sell debt which, in the event they got into financial difficulties, would be converted into equity, thereby avoiding payments on the debt and making existing shareholders take a hit. It is an ingenious proposal but may have no relevance outside Canada. The IMF report makes no reference to it.

The deep flaw in the government’s position is that it somehow imagines that the soundness of the Canadian financial system means that the financial crisis and the economic crisis are not relevant to Canada. Of course, they are for these are global phenomena from which no country is immune.

Indeed, the economic crisis has quickly caused governments at all levels to experience bigger deficits and rising debt. The FAT, the proceeds of which go into government revenue, deals with this, and its implementation would mean avoiding the imposition of unnecessary austerity on Canadians – which is no small matter.

As for the FTT, its implementation would mean that we could meet the Millennium Development Goals and pay for some of the costs of climate change – which is a very large matter.

The world is well short of a done deal on all this. We must continue to push for the Robin Hood Tax.


*Adapted for KAIROS from a commentary written by Mel Watkins for the Canadian Robin Hood Tax campaign.

From April 19-22, 2010 forty thousand people – NGOs, Indigenous Peoples, political leaders, and citizens from every continent – met together in various working groups to come up with real solutions to climate change. The President of Bolivia, Evo Morales, called the conference in response to the failure of United Nations Copenhagen conference on climate change. Cochabamba became a democratic space to counter the undemocratic process that resulted in the controversial Copenhagen Accord negotiated behind closed doors by only a handful of countries. Attendees participated in sixteen official working groups, many self-organized discussion groups, and a number of workshops which all contributed to the final outcome of the summit. The final declaration, the Peoples’ Agreement, encompasses the results from these three days of consultations.

There are five central issues addressed in the Peoples’ Agreement: a frank discussion of the causes of climate change, proposals for solutions centered on local economies of scale, a condemnation of market mechanisms as a false solution to climate change, a recommendation for the universal recognition of the Rights of Mother Earth, and calls for the establishment of an International Tribunal of Conscience.

The Peoples’ Agreement criticizes the capitalist system’s logic of competition and unlimited growth as the fundamental driver of climate change: “Under capitalism, Mother Earth is converted into a source of raw materials, and human beings into consumers and a means of production, into people that are seen as valuable only for what they own, and not for what they are." Therefore it calls for a new system to be constructed, one that will “restore harmony with nature and among human beings.”  The globalization of the capitalist system, especially since the industrial revolution, is responsible for the exploitation of both the lands and the peoples of the developing world.

This long-term exploitation means that the developed world has accumulated an ecological debt owed to the developing world. The document calls for the recognition and repayment of this debt on the part of the developed countries. Repayment will mean that the industrialized world has to restore the atmospheric space through the “reduction and absorption of their emissions” as well as assume “the costs and technology transfer needs of developing countries arising from the loss of development opportunities due to living in a restricted atmospheric space.” It also means that they must take responsibility for the millions of people that will be forced from their homelands as climate change refugees by offering them sanctuary and a guarantee of their human rights in adopted homelands. Further, it articulates the necessity of constructing an Adaptation Fund for climate change that is managed in a “sovereign, transparent and equitable manner for all States.”

The statement acknowledges that solutions to climate change will involve a “profound shift in agricultural practices towards a sustainable model of production” and a respect for the “right of peoples to control their own seeds, lands, water, and food production, thereby guaranteeing through forms of production that are in harmony with Mother Earth and appropriate to local cultural contexts…[a] deepening [of] the autonomous (participatory, communal and shared) production of every nation and people.” The document goes on to reject Free Trade Agreements that apply Intellectual Property Rights to life and promote technologies such as agrochemicals and genetically modified organisms. It also rejects false solutions such as agrofuels, geo-engineering, nanotechnology, etc that only exacerbate the current crisis.”

The Peoples’ Agreement reflects on how the issue of international funding for climate adaptation and mitigation has been eclipsed by the promotion of market solutions, which it strongly condemns as having “become a lucrative business, commodifying our Mother Earth.” It goes on to say that it would be totally unacceptable to leave the fate of the earth in the hands of markets that demonstratively failed in the case of the recent financial crisis just as existing carbon market mechanisms have failed to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Agreement proposes recognition of the Rights of Mother Earth respecting the following principles:

• The right to live and to exist

• The right to be respected

• The right to regenerate its bio-capacity and to continue it’s vital cycles and processes free of human alteration

• The right of all species to maintain their identity and integrity as differentiated beings, self-regulated and interrelated

• The right to water as the source of life

• The right to clean air

• The right to comprehensive health

• The right to be free of contamination and pollution, free of toxic and radioactive waste

• The right to be free of alterations or modifications of it’s genetic structure in a manner that threatens it’s integrity or vital and healthy functioning

• The right to prompt and full restoration for violations to the rights acknowledged in the Declaration caused by human activities.

To fill the void of legal instruments to combat and guard against climate and environmental violations and to ensure the rights of climate refugees, the document demands the creation of an” International Climate and Environmental Justice tribunal that has the legal capacity to prevent, judge and penalize States, industries and people that by commission or omission contaminate and provoke climate change.” The Agreement ends with a call for the building up of a global Peoples’ Movement for Mother Earth grounded in democratic principles of complementarity and respect and a proposal for a global referendum on climate change with an appropriate level of preparation that will constitute a “broad and democratic space for coordination and joint worldwide actions.” To access the full document go to: pwccc.wordpress.com For more information on the summit contact dmcdougall@kairoscanada.org.

Liberal MP John McKay continues to face a barrage of criticism from Canada’s mining lobby over his modest bill to deny government financing to irresponsible mining operations. His private member’s bill, Bill C-300, will soon return for consideration by the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee. Hearings have been delayed in recent weeks as the committee deals with other pressing matters, such the recent crisis at the federal human rights agency, Rights and Democracy. McKay continues to rally widespread support for his bill from faith-based groups, including KAIROS, as well as environmental, global justice, labour and human rights organizations. Two KAIROS representatives appeared before the committee last November to express church support for the bill and highlight the positive impact it could have for our global partners in developing countries. 

-------

For more information, please contact:
Ian Thomson, Program Coordinator for Ecological Justice and Corporate Accountability
ithomson[at]kairoscanada[dot]org
613-235-9956 ext 222, 
(toll free 1-877-403-8933)