Upcoming Events

International | Anti-Capitalism

no events match your query!

New Events

International

no events posted in last week

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail supporter? Anthony

offsite link Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony

offsite link Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony

offsite link RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony

offsite link Waiting for SIPO Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

Human Rights in Ireland
A Blog About Human Rights

offsite link UN human rights chief calls for priority action ahead of climate summit Sat Oct 30, 2021 17:18 | Human Rights

offsite link 5 Year Anniversary Of Kem Ley?s Death Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:34 | Human Rights

offsite link Poor Living Conditions for Migrants in Southern Italy Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:14 | Human Rights

offsite link Right to Water Mon Aug 03, 2020 19:13 | Human Rights

offsite link Human Rights Fri Mar 20, 2020 16:33 | Human Rights

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Lockdown Skeptics

The Daily Sceptic

offsite link Easter Quiz: Why Are White Things So White? Thu Mar 28, 2024 09:00 | Steven Tucker
It's hard to tell the difference these days between genuine news stories relating to 'anti-racist' ? or, more realistically, anti-white ? ideas and the spoofs and fakes. Pit your wits against our Easter quiz.
The post Easter Quiz: Why Are White Things So White? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Record Ozone ?Holes? Reported Despite 35-Year CFC Ban Thu Mar 28, 2024 07:00 | Chris Morrison
The ozone hole scare of the 1980s and the banning of CFCs was the template for the subsequent alarm promoting Net Zero. Yet the ozone hole is now back as large as ever, even after a 35-year CFC ban.
The post Record Ozone “Holes” Reported Despite 35-Year CFC Ban appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link News Round-Up Thu Mar 28, 2024 00:50 | Richard Eldred
A summary of the most interesting stories in the past 24 hours that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy about the virus and the vaccines, the ?climate emergency? and the supposed moral defects of Western civilisation.
The post News Round-Up appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Heart Scarring Detected Over One Year After COVID-19 Vaccination, Two New Studies Find Wed Mar 27, 2024 19:30 | Will Jones
Heart scarring was detected more than one year after COVID-19 vaccination in some people who suffered myocarditis following receipt of a shot, researchers reported in new studies.
The post Heart Scarring Detected Over One Year After COVID-19 Vaccination, Two New Studies Find appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

offsite link Harvard?s Latest Act of Shame Wed Mar 27, 2024 17:42 | Dr Peter Gøtzsche and Janus Bang
With the firing of Prof. Martin Kulldorff for having the temerity to be proven right in his scepticism of Government Covid measures, Harvard really shows it has lost its way, say Dr. Peter Gøtzsche and Janus Bang.
The post Harvard’s Latest Act of Shame appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Lockdown Skeptics >>

Voltaire Network
Voltaire, international edition

offsite link Moscow attack reminds us of the links between Islamists and Kiev's fundamentalis... Tue Mar 26, 2024 06:57 | en

offsite link Failure to assist a people in danger of genocide, by Hassan Hamadé Tue Mar 26, 2024 06:32 | en

offsite link Yugoslavia March 24, 1999 The Founding War of the New Nato, by Manlio Dinucci Sun Mar 24, 2024 05:15 | en

offsite link France opposes Russian Korean-style peace project in Ukraine Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:11 | en

offsite link Voltaire, International Newsletter N°79 Fri Mar 22, 2024 11:40 | en

Voltaire Network >>

ILO to investigate conditions in Coca Cola in Colombia

category international | anti-capitalism | other press author Monday March 13, 2006 13:48author by Peter Report this post to the editors

IUF negotiate agreement on ILO investigation - Coke have yet to make official request of ILO

International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) and Coca-Cola agreement to request United Nations' ILO to conduct independent investigation of Coca-Cola labour practices in Colombia

Posted to the IUF website on 02-Mar-2006 - www.iuf.org

The IUF has consistently expressed serious concerns about labour relations practices in the Coca-Cola system's Colombian operations. Like others, we have supported the call for an independent investigation (rather than a Coca-Cola initiated internal assessment) as the only adequate response to reported serious rights violations. The IUF has now secured agreement with The Coca-Cola Company that both parties shall request the United Nations, through its International Labour Organization (ILO), to conduct such an investigation.
ILO poster on the killing of trade unionists in Colombia
ILO poster on the killing of trade unionists in Colombia

The ILO, as the UN specialized agency responsible for developing and promoting international labour standards, is clearly the appropriate body to investigate the degree to which these internationally-recognized standards are in practice respected by the Coca-Cola system in Colombia.

The investigation will be in the hands of the ILO. The modalities and the findings of such an investigation will not be influenced by the IUF, The Coca-Cola Company or any part of the Coca-Cola system. Our purpose is to ensure that workers throughout the Coca-Cola system in Colombia can fully exercise the rights which are set out in the United Nations' ILO human and labour rights standards. We anticipate that the results of an ILO investigation will provide a credible basis on which to concretely address any issues that arise from the investigation.

The IUF has requested the ILO to conduct such an independent investigation. Based on the agreement with the company that we reached at our latest meeting on February 28 in Atlanta, we understand Coca-Cola will do the same.

Related Link: http://www.iuf.org
author by Boycott Coke Campaignpublication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 14:10author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If Coke have nothing to hide in Colombia then why do they refuse an indepedent investigation in their bottling plants?

Instead they have opted for a process whereby a body (the ILO) will investigate coke's bottling plants. The only problem is that ED Potter who is one of the people who will oversee this investigation is an employee and on the bankroll of guess who? - Coca Cola.

Another "Classic Coke" Move to Deny and Delay Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Colombia.

Coca-Cola and its ally, the International Union of Food Workers (IUF), have announced that they will jointly "request" the International Labor Organization (ILO) to conduct an investigation of Coca-Cola’s operations in Colombia. To the uninformed, this might appear to be progress towards an independent investigation of Coca-Cola’s complicity in violence against trade union leaders at its bottling plants in Colombia. Since 1996, eight leaders of SINALTRAINAL, the independent union of food and beverage plant workers in Colombia, have been murdered in connection with their union activities at Coca-Cola bottling plants, and countless others have been threatened with death and otherwise tortured. A recent independent investigation into the alleged human rights abuses at Coke’s bottling plants in Colombia, led by New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, verified 179 separate human rights abuses at Coke bottling plants in Colombia. This same investigation found that there were credible allegations that paramilitaries carrying out violence against unionists at Coke bottling plants did so "with the knowledge of and likely under the direction of company managers."

SINALTRAINAL and 6 individual victims of violence initiated a lawsuit against Coca-Cola and its Colombian bottlers based on the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victims Protection Act. The case is pending in federal court in Miami.

The story about Coke’s latest ploy to obtain a favorable investigation is not complicated; these are the objective, verifiable facts:

Coca-Cola is reeling from its legacy of violence in Colombia. Over 23 U.S. universities, including the University of Michigan, New York University and Rutgers University have cancelled or suspended Coca-Cola’s supply contracts, costing the company millions of dollars in previously guaranteed revenues from the exclusive supplier contracts, but also, and more important, countless students say they will not drink Coke beverages, thereby breaking the cycle of consumption of this optional product that is tainted with the blood of Colombian workers.

Coca-Cola, following the corporate playbook, first denied any responsibility for its own bottlers in Colombia, asserting that these offshore companies are independent. But that did not pass the straight face test with the public as everyone knows these companies exist exclusively to bottle and distribute Coca-Cola products, and Coca-Cola has complete control over its bottling plants.

Coca-Cola then selected and paid for an "audit" of its Colombian facilities by Cal Safety, a company of dubious origins that even Wal-Mart conceded was not up to the task of performing an independent audit. Cal Safety issued a report exonerating Coca-Cola, but did not even attempt to visit the Coca-Cola facilities in Colombia where the greatest problems were, including the Carepa plant where Isidro Gil was murdered by paramilitaries invited into the Coca-Cola bottling plant by the manager of the facility.

Coca-Cola, through its newly-hired Director of Global Labor Relations, Ed Potter, then created a "Commission" consisting of representatives of major universities and prominent worker rights advocacy organizations, including the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), the Solidarity Center, and United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS). The Commission was tasked with developing a methodology for conducting an independent investigation of Coca-Cola’s complicity with the paramilitaries in Colombia that have targeted for violence the leaders of SINALTRAINAL who were organizing Coca-Cola bottling plants. When the Commission actually asserted its independence by kicking Mr. Potter out of the group so that it could indeed be independent from the company, Coca-Cola backed away from the Commission and began creating reasons to delay and obstruct the commission’s work. Ultimately, Mr. Potter’s clever idea was to insist that the attorneys for SINALTRAINAL and the individual victims of violence agree that any findings of the Commission, as well as any evidence uncovered by the Commission, could not be used in the court case. Because this demand would require them to violate the rules of legal ethics, something Mr. Potter knew, the lawyers refused this demand.

Now, Mr. Potter and his colleagues have a new, clever plan – they announce that they will "request" that the ILO do the "independent" investigation. Well, we should immediately suspect that something is up because Mr. Potter has not asked SINALTRAINAL’s lawyers to agree that the ILO’s findings be excluded from court, when he insisted that Coca-Cola could not participate in the Commission’s study unless its findings were buried. What does Coca-Cola and Ed Potter know that you don’t?

– Ed Potter has been the U.S. employer representative to the ILO for at least 15 years and holds that position today. The U.S. employer representative is a very powerful and influential position within the ILO. Further, Coca-Cola recently hired Stan Gacek, who used to work for the AFL-CIO, and was himself for years one of the U.S. labor representatives to the ILO, to help grease the wheels with the ILO and international labor unions. Gacek’s large Coca-Cola paycheck permanently disqualifies him from claiming to be independent or to speak for the interests of labor.

– The ILO has refused for years to create a Commission of Inquiry to examine the unprecedented situation of violence against trade union leaders in Colombia, generally due to blocking efforts by Mr. Potter, other employer representatives, and the government of Colombia. Mr. Potter’s sudden willingness to "request" the ILO to conduct a company-specific study, something the ILO has never done, means that Mr. Potter and Coca-Cola are pretty confident of the results of the study before it has even begun.

– As SINALTRAINAL has informed us, even before this investigation has gotten off the ground, officials from Coca-Cola FEMSA, which owns almost all of the Coke bottlers in Colombia, have visited the Coke bottling plants in Colombia and told employees that Coca-Cola FEMSA management will hand-select the employees it will allow to give testimony in any upcoming investigation.

– Finally, the IUF, the "union" that joined Coca-Cola in making the "request" to the ILO, benefitted from the violence against SINALTRAINAL in Colombia and has been defending Coca-Cola’s record of human rights violations ever since. When Isidro Gil, the leader of SINALTRAINAL’s union in the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Carepa, was murdered inside the plant by paramilitaries brought in by Coca-Cola management, the company then, in a classic move, found a "company union", and recognized IUF’s affiliate, SINTRAINAGRO, without an election by the workers. This was the official end of SINALTRAINAL at the plant, and IUF has never raised its voice t inquire about the murder of Isidro Gil that paved the way to Coke’s recognition of IUF’s affiliate.

In short, Coca-Cola won’t agree to any process it can’t control. To this latest ploy, we must say, three strikes and you’re out. Coke bought the Cal Safety report, abandoned the Commission when it asserted its intent to act independent of the company, and now has used its extraordinary power and resources to "request" the ILO to issue a report. Coke did so without disclosing Coke’s direct relationships to the ILO. Everything that happens next, you can be sure, has already been scripted by Coca-Cola, like a television jingle.

We must also not lose sight of the real issue. Regardless of any findings regarding Coca-Cola’s current activities in Colombia , the murder and torture of SINALTRAINAL’s leaders at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia is not in dispute. Those things happened, and the union’s demand that Coca-Cola extend its human rights policy to employees of bottling plants must be met before we can even begin to discuss a process for Coca-Cola to return to the campuses that have done the right thing by booting Killer Coke.

murder.jpg

Related Link: http://www.killercoke.org
author by Peterpublication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 15:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Probably the biggest indicator that the above commentary is sectarian bile is the allegation that the International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) "benefitted from the violence against SINALTRAINAL". The basis of this comment is that the union that started representing workers in the Carepa plant some years after Sinaltainal were driven out, by right wing death squads and the plant's management, affiliated to the IUF - a body that represents millions of food and beverage workers around the world. The affiliates in Ireland are the ATGWU and SIPTU. Sinaltrainal could affiliate and meet with and discuss with representatives of all of the Coca Cola workers around the world - that would be one way of countering anti-trade union violence, would it not?

You only have to go to the IUF website to see that the allegation that the IUF is an international 'company union' is simply rubbish. After that, it is easy to read the above comment and to pick further holes. There are probably elements of truth in the screed above that look like a convincing case, but are probably the equivalent of adding 2 and 2 and getting five. There are a bunch of impressive sounding fiery denunciations. That is about it.

For example, much as they might like to, Coca-Cola FEMSA management cannot "hand-select the employees it will allow to give testimony in any upcoming investigation". Workers would resist that stipulation and publicise it. It is unworkable. Were Coke to try it in practise it would undermine their case.

Whatever the limits of any UN sponsored investigation (we have seen many in Ireland) it is shooting yourself in the foot to dismiss it before it even gets off the ground. The speed with which the above counter argument appeared makes it look like someone is desperate to hold on to one way of protesting human rights abuses in Colombia and to deny any other body (even one representing millions of workers) the opportunity to get a word in. Very sectarian.

Look at the IUF website and ask yourself if this - out of the blue - instant critique makes sense.

Related Link: http://www.iuf.org
author by Boycott Coke campaignpublication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 16:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

A couple of points:

The IUF over the last few years have made noise about human rights in Colombia and Coca Cola bottling plants. This is in direct response to the boycott coke campaign and came after the campaign was initiated and not before. It is also worth remembering that the initial response of the IUF was the same as that of Coke's - that there was no problem in the coke factories. They have since been forced to back track on this. All the same this is to be welcomed and this is a very small move in the right direction. However it would be better to support the workers in Sinaltrainal who are under heavy threat rather than to use every possible opportunity to try and undermine them and side instead with Coca Cola managment.

The speed of the response from the boycott coke campaign can simply be explained that this announcement from the IUF is old news. It was made on March 2nd - check the IUF website for confirmation. That gives ten days to write a considered response.

Now as for whether or not management can interfere with any investigation that is not genuinely independent well again look at the facts:

On Saturday 4th February, Bogota Coca Cola plant Sinaltrainal leader PLUTARCO VARGAS ROLDAN received a message threatening him and his family pushed under the door of his house. It said the following:

“You’ve really got a problem now, don’t give us an excuse or one day you’ll arrive home and there won’t be anyone there. Watch yourself and your family, we really want to get you. Don’t try and be clever, because were watching you. You’ve been warned.”

This threat came directly after the company has been obliging workers in Bogota to sign documents stating that Coca-Cola does not violate human rights.

If this isn't management trying to intimidate its workers through its paramlitary allies then what is?

It is more than clear that Coca Cola management are putting in the ground work for intimidating workers on the shop floor in advance of a sham so called indepedent investigation by the ILO.

There is no response from Peter about the connections between Coca Cola and the ILO through their head of global relations Ed Potter. His silence on this speaks volumes.

author by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Colombia Solidarity Networkpublication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 17:04author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It is laughable that Peter thinks this is an advance. Coke agreed in a meeting in Rome with the Mayor of Rome to participate in and independent mission to Colombia. This would have included the IUF and various others. Coke reneged on the deal and along with the IUF insisted that the independents be withdrawn. The ILO deal is just another cover.

Is this the same ILO who resisted for years any investigation into the killings in Colombia but granted one into Venezuela after one trade unionist was killed? Yes it is.

Is this the same IUF who in internal correspondence with Siptu admitted that their was evidence to suggest that Coke were responsable for the murder of Isidro Segundo Gil? Yes it is but they won't say so publicly. Copies of the correspondence are available and it has previously been quoted on indymedia.

Is this the same IUF who is testifying against their own members in Guatemala and appearing on behalf of Del MOnte? Yes it is.

If Coke is so keen on an independent investigation why did their chief counsel in the Miami lawsuit resign due to Coke's lack of commitment to an investigation?

author by Peterpublication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 17:58author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"There is no response from Peter about the connections between Coca Cola and the ILO through their head of global relations Ed Potter. His silence on this speaks volumes."

As I know nothing about the guy my "silence" bespoke the fact that I knew nothing about him. I don't know about you but I like to get a handle on what I am talking about before I open my mouth. However, I have discovered from a section of your pre-prepared statement (one of the bits you you left out) that Potter

“serves on the Applications of Conventions Committee within the International Labor Organization…”.

So old Ed, besides working for Coke management, is also a member of an ILO Committee. Now, I also looked at the ILO website and I couldn't find Ed's name there. Maybe he is deep under cover on behalf of Uncle Sam and Coca Cola - or maybe he is just not as important as you fear. I am sure he does his best on behalf of the bosses he represents.

The ILO looks like a pretty big organisation and as subject to broader forces and stresses as any other UN organisation. But, since the US could not get the UN to agree to go to war on Iraq, what makes you think that this one member of a sub-committee of a UN organisation is going to dictate the shape, size and overall content of an investigation of labour conditions in a US multinational in Colombia? Are you telling me that you have some inside dope on the ILO on this issue, or is this all supposition on your part?

Now, another thing you forgot to tell us is that your response was a cut-and-paste job from a statement by Terry Collingsworth, Sinaltrainal's counsel in the legal action against Coca Cola in the US. Mr Collingsworth runs the International Labour Rights Fund and makes the following comment that I take issue with:

"Coca-Cola and Anti-Union Death Squads in Colombia
Violations of human rights are rampant in Colombia due to lawless activities of both the right wing paramilitaries and leftist guerillas."

Right wing death squads are responsible for the vast majority of attacks on trade unionists in Colombia. Guerilla groups such as the ELN and FARC are not responsible for the campaign of terror against trade unionists. That is an established fact. Perhaps Mr Collingsworth knows this, but is prepared to say anything to win support for his clients' case in the US. If so, I can only take it that the statement that you partially reproduce is in the same vein. I see from the IUF a concern that their campaign to force Coca Cola to sign a worldwide agreement on workers rights in the Coca Cola system could be undermined by the outcome of the case in the US - if it goes the wrong way. Maybe Collingsworth is miffed by this or sees it as his job to undermine anything that Coca Cola agree to, even where that agreement has been forced by a trade union.

I did not post this story to "undermine" anything you are doing. However, it seems that the IUF do not agree with your boycott campaign and maybe this got up your nose. A read of the IUF website does not tally with the picture of the IUF in your first statement (that admittedly you did not write). You have modified that picture slightly in your second one (that you clearly did write). But you see enemies where they do not exist. Are you paranoid?

In relation to "Sinaltrainal leader PLUTARCO VARGAS ROLDAN", he can bring evidence to the enquiry team that he is being coerced into signing something he does not agree with. If the enquiry is properly constituted, what is your problem with that?

Here is something else I question: if it is a "sham so called independent investigation by the ILO" then why would "Coca Cola management [put] in the ground work for intimidating workers on the shop floor in advance". If the enquiry is a sham they would not have to go to this trouble. It seems to me that the clear demand should be to expose the intimidation of workers and to allow them to freely give evidence to the enquiry team (if properly constituted).

As you say in relation to the example you give: "If this isn't management trying to intimidate its workers through its paramlitary allies then what is?" Indeed. They must be potentially afraid of something in relation to the proposed enquiry. Maybe they have not read your crystal ball..

Protests should be made to Coca Cola to force its bottlers to stop intimidating workers, intimidation that prevents workers from freely giving evidence. What is your problem with that? Wouldn't this direct public call help beleaguered workers in Colombia more than a decision to buy Pepsi instead of Coke the next time you feel a thirst coming on.

author by know152publication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 18:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

and SinalTrinal is its name-oh?

All that we can see here is that any attempt to arrive a solution or throw light on the subject is opposed by those who have a vested interested in a continuing problem in Colombia.

author by Alan Whickerpublication date Mon Mar 13, 2006 22:03author address author phone Report this post to the editors

In the space of a few short sentences from Gearoid O’Loinsigh (above) we travel breathlessly to Rome Italy, Colombia, Venezuela, Dublin Ireland, Guatemala, before finally touching down in Miami Florida.

Ever get the feeling of being snowballed in the heat (Dublin excepted)?

author by Gearóid O Loingsigh - Colombia Solidarity Networkpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 00:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

sorry alan if I travel a bit too much for you. Do you have a problem with the content? If so challenge it! I note that Peter (not his real name) doesn' challenge it as he knows that Coke reneged on a deal with none less than the Mayor of Rome. Rome was where the IUF held an international meeting which Sinaltrainal attended and after which Siptu quoted as an example of good relations etc. So good anyone independent is no longer to be included in the commission.

Don't know what heat you refer to. It is cold and rainy in Bogota at the moment.

author by Danpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 01:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"and SinalTrinal is its name-oh?

All that we can see here is that any attempt to arrive a solution or throw light on the subject is opposed by those who have a vested interested in a continuing problem in Colombia."

Hate to burst your bubble kid, but SINALTRAINAL is the only union worth talking about as far as Colombia's Coke workers are concerned. It represents a clear majority of unionised workers in the company (more than all the other unions in Coke put together).

The only unions to oppose SINALTRAINAL's call for a boycott represent a grand total of 50 people between them, and one (the IUF's Colombian affiliate) has a notorious record of collaborating with far-right paramilitaries. Furthermore, the boycott call has the full support of the CUT, Colombia's main union federation, which represents 85% of unionised workers.

So as far as Colombia is concerned, I am afraid that there are no unions of any significance that oppose the boycott. The pro-boycott unions are the only ones worth talking about, and the union leading the call for a boycott, well, SINALTRAINAL is its name-oh...

Perhaps, with your profound insight into the Colombian situation, you can explain why SINALTRAINAL members have a "vested interest" in being threatened by paramilitary thugs.

And as someone so eager throw light on the subject, I'm sure you'll read the following account with great attention. It comes from a report by a Canadian labour delegation who visited Colombia in 1998 and were horrified by their encounter with the IUF's Colombian affiliate:

February 1998
REPORT OF THE CANADIAN TRADE UNION DELEGATION TO COLOMBIA
Background to Tour:

In response to an escalation of attacks directed against Colombian trade unionists, the mission was conceived and coordinated by the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America (ICCHRLA), a church-based organization which has established extensive working relationships of solidarity with church, human rights and popular organizations in Colombia since 1989.

The purpose of the trip was to investigate abuses of human rights directed primarily against the organized labour movement of Colombia, but also other institutions of civil society, namely human rights, church, women's and peasant organizations.
Each participating Canadian organization was responsible for selecting and covering the costs of its delegate(s), while ICCHRLA covered additional logistical expenses and organized the many details of the tour, including developing an agenda, internal travel and translation.
The delegation was in Colombia from October 1-11, 1997 and consisted of the following eight (8) persons:
John Bird, journalist, United Church Observer; Bill Fairbairn, South America Program Coordinator, ICCHRLA; Carl Hetu, Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) and member of the CSN (Quebec); Rick Kitchen, Canadian Auto Workers Local 127 (Chatham, Ontario); Ken Luckhardt, Staff Representative, CAW Social Justice Fund; avid Onyalo, Staff, Canadian Labour Congress Human Rights Department; Don Schmidt, Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA); Paul Smith, Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA)

Colombian Trade Unionism: A Final Overview

Throughout our meetings with Colombian trade unionists in all regions visited, we witnessed an incredible determination to carry forward the struggle against virtually impossible odds. While eleven days certainly limited our ability to meet with unionists from all sectors and regions of the country, the testimonies provided our delegation with an overview that allows us to come back to Canada and make very strong recommendations for increased trade union solidarity between Canadian and Colombian workers.

In only one instance were we troubled by anyone involved in the labour movement and that instance deserves mention.

While visiting the northern region of Uraba, members of our delegation met with the leadership of the National Agricultural Union, SINTRAINAGRO. The union was formed in 1988 after the government revoked the legal status of two unions: SINTAGRO and SINTRABANANO. The new union, SINTRAINAGRO, represented a fusion of the two…

During our interview with the SINTRAINAGRO leadership, our delegation was deeply disturbed both by the tone and content of the discussion. We were struck by the fact that the briefing provided by the union leaders represented an interpretation, which was diametrically opposed to that provided to us by all the other NGOs with whom we met in the region. Specifically, the leaders expressed little concern over the incursion of paramilitary groups into the region (which has resulted in countless massacres and tens of thousands of refugees). Furthermore, they never acknowledged the abuses committed by the military in the region nor the links between the military and paramilitary forces, which has been well documented by Colombian and international human rights organizations. The SINTRAINAGRO leaders whom we met also launched a vociferous and slanderous personal attack against the courageous mayor of Apartado, Gloria Cuartas, a woman who is well known as a strong advocate for peace and a defender of the rights of the civilian population. Disturbingly, the leaders did not make a single reference to the conditions of exploitation their membership experience at the hands of the local banana growers.

Before we left the meeting, we were essentially warned that we would not be wise to travel in the region (under the auspices of church-based human rights organizations) without the prior approval and direction of the SINTRAINAGRO leadership.

Our concerns regarding the SINTRAINAGRO leadership were only heightened the following day when we met with the army commander of Uraba, General Rito Alejo de Rio. Here, we were struck by the fact that General de Rio's briefing of the situation in Uraba coincided exactly with that provided by SINTRAINAGRO leaders. Moreover, in referring to that union under its present leadership, General de Rio had only words of praise, describing the union as "the model of models."

Our reason for raising this in this report is not just for information purposes. Rather, the SINTRAINAGRO leadership told us that it had recently been accepted as an affiliate of the IUF and that this affiliation would allow it to give the international labour movement the real story of what is happening in Colombia.

In any event, we are concerned that a union described by an army general, well known for his support of paramilitary death squads in the area, as a "model of models" will perhaps begin to play a role in the international labour movement circles that will further confuse and disinform the rest of the world about Colombian workers' struggles.

While it is certainly not our role to pass judgment on the international affiliation of Colombian trade unions, we strongly believe that this situation should be monitored very closely. There are hundreds of former members of this union who are now displaced in other regions of the country who would undoubtedly have a very different story to tell regarding the particular leadership that currently heads SINTRAINAGRO. In our view, their testimonies should form part of the final assessment of the role this union is now playing in the Uraba region.

author by Peterpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:08author address author phone Report this post to the editors

We are going off the point here.

If the ILO investigation proves to be without credibility, it will have no credibility. Simple as that. As far as I am aware, the ILO has not yet agreed to the investigation. Presumably it will. When that happens it would make sense to fight for an open, transparent and independent investigation.

A couple of points:

Point 1
There is an assumption that I have knowledge "that Coke reneged on a deal with none less than the Mayor of Rome" and of "a deal with the Mayor of Rome". Sorry, don't know what you are talking about. Never heard of it. Don't follow Italian politics that much.

But, so what? Are you saying that Coke will renege on the ILO "deal"? If so, it will be devastating for their reputation internationally. Or are you suggesting that the ILO 'findings' are already in the bag - how do you know? If so, the enquiry will be devoid of credibility. But, you have to prove in detail that is happening and prove how it is happening. Your fears and assumptions are not enough. If, as has been suggested, that the ILO was prevented from investigating in the past, and that the pressure to investigate came from forces sympathetic to your position, but is investigating now, then why oppose the investigation that you originally called for? Is it because Coke has been forced by international pressure to agree to it?

Point 2 (related to Point 1)
The point was made by the Boycott Coke Campaign that Coca Cola companies in Colombia are trying to prevent workers giving honest evidence to the proposed ILO enquiry. Do you call here and now for workers to be allowed to give evidence without any company or right-wing paramilitary intimidation? If not, why not.

Point 3
Sinaltrainal is (by far) the most significant union in Coca Cola in Colombia (in a place where death squads murder trade unionists with impunity). However, the boycott campaign is not supported by the Colombian trade union confederation CUT (unless it has decided to do so in the very recent past). There is no boycott of Coca Cola products in Colombia (again, unless one started recently and the workers stopped producing it). Those are the facts as far as I can see (I am willing to stand corrected on the production of real evidence to the contrary). There is nothing inherently wrong with calling a first world boycott of a product that continues to be produced in the third world economy for the local market. I will say it does not make long-term political sense to me and appears to be a barrier to broader support. But that is up to those who campaign actively on the issue and beside the point here.

(It seems odd that very significant publication on exploitation of Colombian workers who produce coal is receiving no attention from Indymedia readers - particularly since coal (unlike coke - of the cola variety) is imported into Ireland from Colombia. The last time I looked the front page article on that subject only had one comment - I put up what I thought was a link to a news item about an investigation into labour conditions in Colombia. Instead I stepped into a hornet’s nest of clearly agitated people who think that this Coca Cola thing is the most important issue in Colombia today. Just an aside).

Point 4 (related to point 3)
Dan quotes a 1998 characterisation of the Sintrainagro trade union that makes it appear to be a stooge of the military. This appears to be some general point about the IUF because Sintranagro is affiliated to the IUF. I have no way of ascertaining whether that is correct or not. Why then have over 400 members and leaders of Sintrainagro been murdered by right wing death squads between 1989 and 2003? Why did death squad members attempt to murder a Sintrainagro leader in 2003 (whose protection had just been withdrawn by the Colombian state), and why does the union organise strikes on behalf of its members in such circumstances? The two pieces of information do not tally. I have no way of telling whether the original characterisation is globally or locally correct or not correct.

However, it is also beside the point of the original posting.

If the ILO agree to the enquiry what will your (the posters with a problem on the issue) attitude be: to boycott it or to engage with it and to fight for the truth to come out. You know best what you think is in the interests of workers in Coca Cola in Colombia.

author by Danpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 14:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Your feigned naivety isn't very convincing, "Peter".

The CUT supports the boycott. This is a matter of fact, it is not open to any dispute. The CUT president appeared at the press conference with SINALTRAINAL in 2003 when they launched the call for a boycott.

When an Irish delegation, of which I was part, visited Colombia last summer, we met the CUT leadership and asked them directly if they supported the boycott campaign. They were very happy to affirm their continuing support for the boycott.

We have this affirmation recorded on video tape. We would be happy to arrange for "Peter" to view this tape, if (and only if) he pledges that he will retract his opposition to the boycott once he is shown that the CUT supports it (otherwise I don't see why we should waste our time).

Secondly, the boycott DOES apply to Colombia. Again, this is a matter of fact, and it is not open to any dispute. Everywhere we travelled in Colombia, we saw the support that social organisations have given to the boycott campaign. Every trade union, farmers' group, womens' organisation, had posters, stickers and leaflets promoting the Coke boycott.

It's perfectly true to say that the Coke boycott is not the main focus of their activity, but this means very little. Social organisations are engaged in a desperate battle for survival, with limited resources at their disposal. They have to prioritise, and they can only give limited attention to the boycott.

Nonetheless, they fully support it. They recognise that the boycott campaign has brought people's attention to the situation in Colombia, and they understand that a victory for SINALTRAINAL would be a victory for all trade unionists and social activists in the country.

The arguments against this latest inquiry have been outlined above, and I won't repeat them.

I note that "Peter" has made no attempt to deny the latest threats and intimdation directed against SINALTRAINAL members by paramilitaries acting on behalf of Coke management. This is welcome.

As with all previous instances of violent intimidation directed against SINALTRAINAL, it is clear that the paramilitary intervention assisted Coca Cola in its attempt to break the union. The company and its apologists would have us believe that this is a mere coincidence. Anyone who has studied the facts closely will find this hard to swallow.

Finally, "Peter" claims that the proposed ILO inquiry is a viable alternative to the boycott campaign. In reality, Coca Cola has only felt under pressure to do something because of the existence of the boycott. The boycott is the reason why Coke hired Cal Safety to do its fraudulent report. The boycott is the reason why Coke spent $10m on a charity fund for Colombia to whitewash its record.

The boycott has been by far the most effective tactic in the struggle of the Colombian Coke workers. None of its critics have been able to propose any other tactic that could deliver the same results.

The choice is simple - either you stand with SINALTRAINAL, the CUT, and the workers' movement of Colombia, and you support the boycott. Or you stand with Coca Cola and condemn it.

author by Peterpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 15:34author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dan:

CUT - Boycott
Just point to a public statement from CUT (CUT website preferably) to that effect - that I can access. I did not see your video. Where can it be accessed publicly (if it is not a waste of your time)?

Colombia
"Coke boycott is not the main focus of their activity.... they can only give limited attention to the boycott". I accept your characterisation.

Intimidation
My point is simply this - if the paramilitaries and/or the company are preventing people from giving truthful evidence, then surely you call on them to desist and you do this publicly. It implies a fear of the enquiry by the company. Are the company right to fear it? You say they should have no fear because it is a stitch up? Do you say this?

Violence against SINALTRAINAL
I oppose it. The attack on Sinaltrainal in Carepa (in 1997?) appeared to have the connivance of the management there. Isn’t that the basis of the court case in the US?

""Peter" claims that the proposed ILO inquiry is a viable alternative to the boycott campaign"
I do not. I simply said was going to happen. You put words and ideas in my mouth that are not there.

"The boycott has been by far the most effective tactic."
It has been effectively the only tactic - it does not mean that it is the best one or that another one that combined civic society support with support from Coca Cola trade unions in the world might have been more effective. We will never know. It is definitely true that Coke are concerned about young people (especially in the US) breaking the consumption habit.

"The choice is simple - either you stand with SINALTRAINAL, the CUT, and the workers' movement of Colombia, and you support the boycott. Or you stand with Coca Cola and condemn it."
I am afraid that is a version of George Bush's infamous comment - "You stand with ‘US’ or you stand with the terrorists". Rubbish. Grow up.

author by Anonpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:24author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Peter writes
"Why then have over 400 members and leaders of Sintrainagro been murdered by right wing death squads between 1989 and 2003? "

Sintrainagro is a bit of a special case. The current leadership is in fact allied to the paramilitaries, supported the Army and the paras in their fight against the left guerrilla and is more likely to be victim of FARC attacks. Examples of evidence for this follow:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/10/terrorist_state.shtml
"According to a February 4, 1998 report published by the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), the Fifth Front of FARC squads "now specifically target members of SINTRAINAGRO [agricultural workers’ union] and ‘Esperanza, Paz y Libertad’ (Hope, Peace and Freedom)"

For people who can read Spanish, this is from from Sintrainagro's own newsletter of January 2005:
"Hace una década Urabá era víctima de una de las más sangrientas arremetidas que contra población civil haya tenido conocimiento Colombia. En ese entonces los victimarios eran las FARC, los victimados, los desmovilizados del EPL. Más de mil homicidios a manos de las FARC hablan por si solo, los inmolados trabajadores bananeros la gran mayoría. "

Or try this
http://www.cdpsanjose.org/article.php3?id_article=95
"Estas luchas populares de los ochenta llevaron a huelgas jamas vistas, a tomas pacíficas y luchas que la historia guardará en la memoria de las resistencias que siguen vivas y que de nuevo saltan. Es en medio de esta efervescencia, la Unión patriótica surge como respuesta a toda esta búsqueda de dignidad. La dirección de Sintrainagro fue aniquilada y posteriormente copada por el accionar Estatal-paramilitar. "

In the late 80's, early 90's Sintrainagro was clearly of the left. In the mid-90's the left was literally exterminated from the union and the right-wing leadership managed to affiliate to the IUF.

author by Anon 2publication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The FARC received a great deal of press when its members killed three American environmental activists who were living with the U’Wa Indians last summer. Though the FARC attempted to distance themselves from the attack by saying it was carried out under the orders of a rogue commander, they have nonetheless been implicated in the killings or kidnappings of oil workers, peasants and other potential allies. For instance, according to War Without Quarter: Colombia and International Humanitarian Law, the 1998 Human Rights Watch Report, "In May 1997, the José David Suárez Front of the UC-ELN announced over a Casanare radio station that it would consider the 1,300 workers at facilities belonging to British Petroleum ‘military objectives.’" According to a February 4, 1998 report published by the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF), the Fifth Front of FARC squads "now specifically target members of SINTRAINAGRO [agricultural workers’ union] and ‘Esperanza, Paz y Libertad’ (Hope, Peace and Freedom), a movement which includes former guerrillas committed to nonviolent democratic political action." http://www.iuf.org/iuf/wp/03.htm

[Can someone translate the Spanish?]

author by Anon 3publication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:39author address author phone Report this post to the editors

The ISR article is from 2000 and the 1998 IUF link it cites does not work. Black & White: not! Gray: maybe. Confused: more so.

author by Anon 4publication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 16:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Why didn't the first 'Anon' give us the full quotation – the full quotation gives it a slightly different colouration. I get the impression of people holding back on stuff they find awkward to explain.

This is not simple – it is complex. Better to avoid flinging around accusations.

author by Danpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 20:53author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I'll repeat what I said, "Peter". The Colombia Solidarity Network will be quite happy to arrange for you to see the video, if you pledge explicitly that you will abandon your opposition to the boycott once you see the CUT leadership confirm their support for it. Otherwise I see no reason why we should waste our time on you.

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant, and merely betrays your breathtaking ability to ignore the essence of the matter when it doesn't suit you. You would sooner travel to the moon and back than look the facts square in the face.

As I said, your feigned naivety is not convincing for a moment. We know perfectly well who you are, and we know what your agenda is. You have been waging a desperate campaign to undermine support for the boycott and the solidarity campaign with SINALTRAINAL from behind your keyboard for a long time now. You claim to be concerned about the Colombian people, but you have never lifted a finger to help them. Your only interventions have been to attack SINALTRAINAL and their supporters.

Your arguments have been demolished time and time again. Your attacks on Labour Youth last year resulted in your bogus claims being torn to shreds by LY members. You keep changing your positions because that is the only way you can keep going.

You are no longer attempting to deny the main allegations against Coca Cola, from the terror campaign in Carepa to the recent threats against union members in Bogota. But you still do your best to undermine the boycott, which has done more to put pressure on Coke than anything else has or could have.

I will say again - there are two straight choices. You can support SINALTRAINAL, the CUT and the Colombian workers' movement, and support the boycott. Or else you can support Coca Cola and condemn the boycott.

It really is as simple as that. Some things in politics, as in life, are complicated. But sometimes there are straightforward moral choices that have to be made, and talk of "complexity" is simply an alibi for cowardice.

You have clearly made your choice. If "growing up" means becoming like you, I hope I never attain your standards of maturity.

author by Peterpublication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 21:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dan,

Why not simply place the segment from the video on Indymedia - unless you consider that a waste of your time. The rest of your post is an attempt to on your part to refuse to answer the questions I asked about intimidation of workers (allegedly by Coca Cola and right wing paramilitaries) who may wish to give evidence to the proposed enquiry. Why the intimidation if the enquiry is a stitch-up?

Your characterisation of what I think, do or write is off the wall. You spend time throwing out baseless allegations and then complain that your time is being wasted. If you simply answered the points at issue it might be a discussion that goes forward. You seem to assume that I am some kind of enemy of yours and that I put the info above on Indymedia to annoy you. While you certainly seem to be annoyed, I can assure you it was not my intention and I had no idea whatever that it would give rise to this amount of NOISE. I really had never heard of the Potter guy and had no idea about the "deal" done (or not done) in Rome with the Mayor.

As for your moral absolutism, it is useless in politics and is a recipe for putting potential support off. For instance, let us say I wanted to work with your group (on second thoughts that prospect might alarm you more than my writing on Indymedia), what do I get: a precondition. I can’t even watch a video segment without renouncing an opinion on a tactic first. I can scarcely believe that you are serious, but you certainly appear to be. I did not bring up the boycott tactic in the first place. It is not an issue here.

I suggest that you do not waste any more your very precious time on this, unless you are actually prepared to stop the second-guessing. In any case, the ILO enquiry may or may not happen. You will have to deal with it politically, and not on the basis of moral absolutes and very cheap debating points. It is possible that the enquiry could be a sham - but shouldn't we wait and see first. It is certainly a product of the pressure being felt by Coca Cola. You seem to be turning a partial victory into a defeat or at least a setback. But that’s moral absolutism for you.

author by know152publication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 11:15author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It would strike most people as strange that someone would refuse to show someone a video that they believe to be so convincing unless the other person agrees in advance to do renounce a view that the video should convince them off anyway.

And the video is only claimed to show someone saying they support the boycott after all.

And what are coke's sales figures for the last 10 years in Latin America anyway?

author by Danpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 15:20author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Peter", for the final time, your feigned naivety is not convinving for a moment. I know perfectly well who you are personal details removed and I know that you have been an implacable opponent of the boycott for the past two years. You have been posting on Indymedia repeatedly during that period, under a wide range of pseudonymns, but your writing style, agenda, and intellectual dishonesty makes you instantly recognisable.

Initially you claimed that Coca Cola had no case to answer, that they were simply innocents abroad, "caught in the crossfire" of Colombia's civil war. Now you seem to have abandoned that position because it is so obviously false - you know that it lacks all credibility.

You are now desperately trying to undermine support for the boycott campaign by posing as a friend of the Colombian workers' movement and pretending that your disagreement with the boycott is merely tactical. Of course, if your anti-boycott efforts were successful, you would dump the whole issue like a hot stone.

You have never lifted a finger to help the people of Colombia, you have never offered your support for any cause related to their struggles against repression and exploitation (even by posting on Indymedia). Your ONLY interventions have been to attack the boycott campaign.

I'll give a brief example of your dishonesty (dealing with every case would take us all day). I wrote the following:

"The boycott DOES apply to Colombia. Again, this is a matter of fact, and it is not open to any dispute. Everywhere we travelled in Colombia, we saw the support that social organisations have given to the boycott campaign. Every trade union, farmers' group, womens' organisation, had posters, stickers and leaflets promoting the Coke boycott.

It's perfectly true to say that the Coke boycott is not the main focus of their activity, but this means very little. Social organisations are engaged in a desperate battle for survival, with limited resources at their disposal. They have to prioritise, and they can only give limited attention to the boycott.

Nonetheless, they fully support it. They recognise that the boycott campaign has brought people's attention to the situation in Colombia, and they understand that a victory for SINALTRAINAL would be a victory for all trade unionists and social activists in the country."

You selectively quoted this as follows:

" "Coke boycott is not the main focus of their activity.... they can only give limited attention to the boycott". I accept your characterisation"

as if I had confirmed your claim that "there is no boycott of Coca Cola products in Colombia (again, unless one started recently and the workers stopped producing it)."

In the latter statement, you claim that the boycott cannot be taken as applying to Colombia unless "the workers stopped producing it".

Nonsense, as anyone familiar with the situation will know. Over 90% of the workforce in Coke's Colombian plants are on part-time contracts, and can be sacked at any time. They can't take even the most minimal action to defend themselves, never mind shut down production altogether.

This is the consequence of Coke's anti-union campaign - they didn't attack SINALTRAINAL for the hell of it, but so they could replace full-time workers (over half the workforce in the early nineties) with temporary staff. As a result, even if SINALTRAINAL were able to bring out all the full-time workers, they wouldn't be able to halt production. If their members stopped producing Coke unilaterally, they would simply lose their jobs - in other words, they would be doing Coke's work for them.

It's ludicrous to demand that the Colombian workers' movement must dedicate all its resources to a boycott campaign in Colombia if it wants our support. They are fighting a desperate battle for survival and must prioritise. SINALTRAINAL only have one full-time official. Their financial resources are very limited. If they can organise new groups of workers (which they have done recently), that is far more important than anything else.

We, on the other hand, do not face such a desperate situation, and can dedicate some time to supporting SINALTRAINAL. Many honourable people have done that in many different countries, while you have been doing everything you could to undermine SINALTRAINAL.

You accuse me of "moral absolutism". Well, I suppose I do believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, so guilty as charged. You are outraged because I don't recognise you as a great friend of the Colombian people. Why should I - simply because you are willing to shed crocodile tears for SINALTRAINAL while you stab them in the back? You may not be willing to take an honest look at yourself in the mirror, but that doesn't mean that we're not permitted to call a spade a spade.

In the light of your real agenda and your real record of behaviour towards SINALTRAINAL's solidarity campaign, it's absolutely natural that I don't feel obliged to expend energy convinving you that the CUT supports the boycott. It's taken you a couple of years to acknowledge that Coca Cola has done anything wrong in the first place. Maybe by 2008 you'll finally acknowledge the fact that the CUT supports the boycott.

On a happier note, your efforts to undermine the boycott campaign have proved to be a dismal failure, as the recent progress of the campaign in the US underlines. SINALTRAINAL will win sooner or later, whatever you do to attack them.

author by Gearóid O Loingsigh - Colombia Solidarity Networkpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 16:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

comment on editorial matters removed Doesn´t matter we all know who he is, regardless of his claims to the contrary. The argument here is tiring, as "Peter" and others have trashed these same lies out time and time again. The CUT formed part of the campaign "Colombia Clama Justicia" which held a public hearing in Atlanta, Brussells and Bogota. It was from these public hearing that boycott campaign came. The CUT at no time disputed this call nor their participation in the call the launched it. So much so they launched it,. with Carlos Rodriguez of the CUT and Domingo Tovar of its human rights department.

It is not the only tactic, in many countries people are raising awareness of the issue. In some they ahve opted to withdraw investments in pension funds that deal with Coke. Siptu rejected this option as well.

IN a couple of weeks time The Permanent Tribunal of the Peoples (a body which springs from the famous Russell Tribunals against the US in Vietnam, look it up Peter before abusing) will hold a session in Bogota to judge Coke and Nestle for their crimes in Colombia. YOu ,may want to hold off "Peter" as I will be putting up a more detailed post on this nearer the date.

YOur feigned lack of knowledge on teh italian deal with Coke is laughable. You have no interest in Italy but you have one in defending Coke.

author by Danpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 17:20author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Pat, I would much prefer if we could concentrate on what matters here - Coke's criminal behaviour in Colombia, and what can be done to stop them. Unfortunately, there have been repeated attempts to divert people's attention away from the real issues by people determined to undermine the boycott campaign.

author by know152publication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 17:44author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dan - Pat, I would much prefer if we could concentrate on what matters here - Coke's criminal behaviour in Colombia, and what can be done to stop them. Unfortunately, there have been repeated attempts to divert people's attention away from the real issues by people determined to undermine the boycott campaign.

It would have taken much less time to post the piece of video you claim to have on indymedia or some other filesharing site than it has taken for you to post such long winded posts to distract from the fact that you claim to have something that you won't back up.

Are you going to post it?

author by Danpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 18:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

know152, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. On the few occassions when you have bothered to put forward arguments on this site instead of making childish remarks, you keep changing the goalposts when your arguments are demolished. Yourself and "Peter" should really meet up. I don't have the video, another member of our delegation recorded it, and I'm certainly not going to take any trouble to arrange for you to see it. It wouldn't make any difference if it was shown to you that the CUT supported the boycott, you would still find an excuse for opposing it.

author by Peterpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 19:11author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Dan,

I won’t write again on your personal fixation - it does you no credit. For the last time.

You find it hard to concentrate on what I have actually written on this subject. I ask you to read it carefully.

If I write, “I accept your characterisation”, it means exactly that. There are no ands, ifs or buts. OK?

I never wrote, “Coca Cola had no case to answer”. Not once. Quite the opposite. Check it out.

I never once used the phrase you quote me as using, “caught in the crossfire”, with regard to Coca Cola in Colombia. Not once. Check it out.

I deny that my “ONLY intervention have been to attack the boycott campaign”. Wrong again. Check what I posted above. Didn’t mention it. I also wrote in this very thread, “I did not bring up the boycott tactic in the first place. It is not an issue here.” Check it out.

However, since you bring it up, you say in relation to the boycott that Coca Cola workers in Colombia “would simply lose their jobs… they would be doing Coke’s work for them.” I believe a variation of that argument was used with regard to Irish Coca Cola workers, and it was dismissed out of hand. I accept what you say on the point with regard to Colombia.

Again with regard to Colombia, I freely admit that you are the dedicated one. However, if it had not been for what I felt was a gross injustice directed at other workers I would not have intervened - the invective directed at the IUF above in this thread is simply absurd. I would simply say this. It is possible to have a disagreement and not be an enemy. It is possible to listen to a critical comment and not go off the rails with baseless allegations and imagined motives. You need to win friends, not enemies.

I put up the ILO item because I thought it was interesting. You have a particular view of it. I have not rejected your view out of hand. I have questioned it. What is your problem?

Finally, You seem to think that I have written constantly on this subject for the past two years. I have not. The last was over 8 months ago. It is not a subject on which a view is welcome, if the boycott tactic is questioned. So be it.

I believe the “core” issue here is whether or not the proposed ILO enquiry will bring out the nature of the repression faced by workers who work in Coca Cola in Colombia. Some think it is simply a ploy by Coca Cola. While I am sure that Coca Cola will attempt to control the parameters of the enquiry, I wonder if they have the ability to succeed. The fact that one of their hirelings serves on an ILO sub-committee may or may not be significant. The ILO’s structure and composition is subject to the same forces in the world that control other UN agencies. The fact that the Boycott Coke campaign have written that there has been an attempt to coerce workers into giving Coca Cola a clean bill of health suggests that the enquiry’s composition and methodology is not pre-determined. Should evidence be given to it, or should it be boycotted, if it happens? That seems to be one core question.

author by Danpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 19:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

This is obviously going in circles, and I don't see any point carrying on the discussion. I have developed a very jaundiced view of "Peter"'s motivations. If anyone wants to see what I base this view on, they might like to follow his contributions to a previous thread relating to the Coke boycott:

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/70037

Or else you can read this comment that someone else posted on that thread:

Slither, slither
by Badman Thu Jun 02, 2005 19:17

PETER: "It may however be the first conclusion you jump to about people who think differently to you."

No, it's not. I do, however, eventually arrive at the conclusion when faced with somebdoy who persists in arguing that black = white and who seems to be otherwise generally sane.

Furthermore, I think that this response, which seems to be your stock answer to questioning of your motives is nothing more than a cheap debating trick. Anybody who works on the premise that everybody is always honest and truthful is going to find this world a thoroughly mysterious place.

Anybody who routinely responds in such a way to genuine and highly plausible suggestions of dishonest motives, in a world where significant divergences between stated opinions and underlying motives are common, is highly likely to be a scoundrel too.

Could you let me know which Sinaltrainal campaign launched in July 2003 the labour party are supporting in your view, as opposed to the boycott campaign launched by Sinaltrainal in July 2003, which is, as far as I know, the only campaign launched by Sinaltrainal in July 2003?

It really seems to me that, if you cannot answer this question (and I don't think it is possible to) , it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion other than that you are being dishonest or that you are a complete idiot. I think the former is much more likely as you appear capable of stringing words together into sentences

author by Peterpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 21:07author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Eh, Dan,

Would you like me to answer the question at the end of that post you re-published? If you want me to I will, as it can be answered with ease. I also have information that I think is new. (I am not the one insisting on arguing the toss on the boycott all over again.)

Alternatively, readers can go to the link you so helpfully included.

Now, what about the proposed ILO enquiry, or do you want to wait until it is an established fact and give us your thoughts then?

author by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Colombia Solidarity Networkpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 22:12author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"Peter" you didn't just put it because you thought it was interesting. It is up as a link on mining in Colombia as an attempt to divert attention from other issues. This is funny as it is we who are accused of only concentrating on one issue when in fact we have a lot to say on a whole range of issues.

You are tiring and not worth dealing with. every time as Dan says arguements are demolished you move the goal post. If you see the video you will probably get into a debate on semantics.

I was once asked for proof of the CUT participation of the launch of the boycott. So I showed a photo to the ICTU who I presume passed it on to Siptu as that was the intention. I was told "how do we know that is them"... and it goes on and on, just like George Bush who continues to talk of WMD in Iraq.

By the way someone did replace my name with Dan's above. Indymedia editors please correct.

author by Peterpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 23:02author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You will find that I already posted the following comment above - it shows that you do not bother considering an alternative point of view.

The point being.....?
author by Peter publication date Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:08

........

"(It seems odd that very significant publication on exploitation of Colombian workers who produce coal is receiving no attention from Indymedia readers - particularly since coal (unlike coke - of the cola variety) is imported into Ireland from Colombia. The last time I looked the front page article on that subject only had one comment - I put up what I thought was a link to a news item about an investigation into labour conditions in Colombia. Instead I stepped into a hornet’s nest of clearly agitated people who think that this Coca Cola thing is the most important issue in Colombia today. Just an aside)."

---------

author by John Meehanpublication date Thu Mar 16, 2006 00:00author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Two links here for readers getting dizzy from the discussion above :

http://www.killercoke.org/restciuf.htm

http://www.answers.com/%22Colombia%22%20%22ILO%22%20%22...al%22

Hi Dan and Gearóid - keep up the good work on this issue.

I'm inclined to avoid debating with contributors who use pseudonyms - maybe the unproductive dialogue with "Peter" will nudge you both towards the same point of view?

author by Gearoid O Loingsigh - Colombia Solidarity Networkpublication date Thu Mar 16, 2006 01:35author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I agree with John that discussions with people who don't use their real name are problematic, but then they sometimes divert the issue as "Peter" has successfully done on this issue. "Peter" to the best of our knowledge has never attended a single event organised in solidarity with Colombia. Speakers have come over from farming communities, indigenous communities, prisoners defence groups, trade unions (other than sinaltrainal), lawyers, former poltiicians in exile, human rights defenders. The list in the last 10 years is quite long. Never seen "Peter" or his ilk at any of them.

The use of fake names allows "Peter" and others to reignite issues already discussed an nauseum on previous threads as if he were coming to the debate fresh. It uses up time and resources that could be better spent on productive solidarity issues. But then that is what "peter" has in mind.

When we post up stuff about coke we are not believed and when we post up stuff critical of the FARC we are not believed by the same small group (other thread on FARC).

author by Colombia Solidarity Campaign (Britain) - Colombia Solidarity Campaign (Britain)publication date Thu Mar 16, 2006 01:47author address author phone Report this post to the editors

I am reproducing here the comment from our sister organistion in Britain on why the joint request from the IUF and Coke is just another ploy. Hopefully it will be my last posting on the issue. "Peter" can entertain himself elsewhere.

Another “Classic Coke” Move to Deny and Delay Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Colombia
Coca-Cola and its ally, the International Union of Food Workers (IUF), have announced that they will jointly “request” the International Labor Organization (ILO) to conduct an investigation of Coca-Cola’s operations in Colombia. To the uninformed, this might appear to be progress towards an independent investigation

Contact: Terry Collingsworth, Executive Director, International Labor Rights Fund, Counsel for SINALTRAINAL, 202-347-4100, ext 2 (office); 202-255-2198 (cell)

Coca-Cola and its ally, the International Union of Food Workers (IUF), have announced that they will jointly “request” the International Labor Organization (ILO) to conduct an investigation of Coca-Cola’s operations in Colombia. To the uninformed, this might appear to be progress towards an independent investigation of Coca-Cola’s complicity in violence against trade union leaders at its bottling plants in Colombia. Since 1989, seven union leaders who worked at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia and a plant manager friendly to SINALTRAINAL (National Food Service Workers Union), the major union representing Coca-Cola workers, have been murdered in connection with their union activities and countless others have been threatened with death, kidnapped and tortured.
A recent independent investigation into the alleged human rights abuses at Coke’s bottling plants in Colombia, led by New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate, verified 179 separate human rights abuses at Coke bottling plants in Colombia. This same investigation found that there were credible allegations that paramilitaries carrying out violence against unionists at Coke bottling plants did so “with the knowledge of and likely under the direction of company managers.”
SINALTRAINAL and 6 individual victims of violence initiated a lawsuit against Coca-Cola and its Colombian bottlers based on the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victims Protection Act. The case is pending in federal court in Miami.
The story about Coke’s latest ploy to obtain a favorable investigation is not complicated; these are the objective, verifiable facts:
• Coca-Cola is reeling from its legacy of violence in Colombia. Over 23 U.S. universities, including the University of Michigan, New York University and Rutgers University have cancelled or suspended Coca-Cola's supply contracts, costing the company millions of dollars in previously guaranteed revenues, but also, and more important, countless students say they will not drink Coke beverages, thereby breaking the cycle of consumption of this optional product that is tainted with the blood of Colombian workers.
• Coca-Cola, following the corporate playbook, first denied any responsibility for its own bottlers in Colombia, asserting that these offshore companies are independent. But that did not pass the straight face test with the public as everyone knows these companies exist to bottle and distribute Coca-Cola products, and Coca-Cola has complete control over its bottling plants.
• Just before its 2005 annual shareholders’ meeting, Coke issued a report, in which they claimed, “ … a respected, independent third party found no instances of anti-union violence or intimidation at bottling plants."
The Coca-Cola Co. was referring to a bogus report by Cal Safety Compliance Corporation, a Los Angeles-based company. The report was commissioned and paid for by The Coca-Cola Co. Cal Safety's monitoring record has been widely discredited in publications from the Los Angeles Times to Business Week. According to United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) "Cal-Safety is not regarded as a credible monitoring organization within the mainstream worker rights advocate community as a result of its track record of missing egregious violations in high profile cases and its flawed monitoring methodology." (See “United Students Against Sweatshops Statement on Cal Safety” at: www.killercoke.org/usascal.htm)
The USAS statement further exposes Cal Safety's poor monitoring track record by describing the results of a thorough investigation into Cal Safety's monitoring methodology by Dr. Jill Esbenshade, presented in the recently released book, "Monitoring Sweatshops." In her research, Esbenshade conducted extensive interviews with Cal-Safety auditors and directly observed the company's labor auditing in practice. Given the problematic practices documented, Cal-Safety's poor track record is perhaps not surprising. In numerous key areas, Cal Safety failed to adhere to minimum accepted standards for competent factory investigation.
Prior to the Cal Safety report, Coca-Cola repeatedly claimed that another group had done an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses by Coke's bottlers in Colombia that totally exonerated both Coca-Cola and its bottlers from any wrongdoing. When students at Carleton College in Minnesota asked who did the report and could they obtain a copy, they were told by a Coca-Cola representative that the report was done by White & Case, but it was unavailable to the public. What the Coca-Cola representative did not reveal is that White & Case is a large international corporate law firm that represents Coca-Cola in the Alien Tort Claims lawsuit regarding human rights abuses at its Colombia bottling plants. Alexis Rovzar, who is an executive partner at White & Case, serves as a director of Coca-Cola FEMSA, Colombia's largest Coca-Cola bottler and a defendant in the lawsuit.
• Coca-Cola, through its newly-hired Director of Global Labor Relations, Ed Potter, then created a “Commission” consisting of representatives of major universities and prominent worker rights advocacy organizations, including the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), the Solidarity Center, and United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS). The Commission was tasked with developing a methodology for conducting an independent investigation of Coca-Cola’s complicity with the paramilitaries in Colombia that have targeted for violence the leaders of SINALTRAINAL who were organizing Coca-Cola bottling plants. When the Commission actually asserted its independence by kicking Mr. Potter out of the group so that it could indeed be independent from the company, Coca-Cola backed away from the Commission and began creating reasons to delay and obstruct the commission’s work. Ultimately, Mr. Potter’s clever idea was to insist that the attorneys for SINALTRAINAL and the individual victims of violence agree that any findings of the Commission, as well as any evidence uncovered by the Commission, could not be used in the court case. Because this demand would require them to violate the rules of legal ethics, something Mr. Potter knew, the lawyers refused this demand.
• Now, Mr. Potter and his colleagues have a new, clever plan — they announce that they will “request” that the ILO do the “independent” investigation. Well, we should immediately suspect that something is up because Mr. Potter has not asked SINALTRAINAL’s lawyers to agree that any findings of the ILO, as well as any evidence uncovered by the ILO’s investigation, could not be used in the court case. What does Coca-Cola and Ed Potter know that you don’t?
— Ed Potter has been the U.S. employer representative to the ILO for at least 15 years and holds that position today. The U.S. employer representative is a very powerful and influential position within the ILO. In addition, CokeFacts.org, a site set up by The Coca-Cola Co. to respond to the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke (www.KillerCoke.org), states: “Ed Potter, our director of global labor relations, serves on the Applications of Conventions Committee within the International Labor Organization…”
— Further, Coca-Cola recently hired Stan Gacek, who used to work for the AFL-CIO, and was himself for years one of the U.S. labor representatives to the ILO, to help grease the wheels with the ILO and international labor unions. Gacek’s large Coca-Cola paycheck permanently disqualifies him from claiming to be independent or to speak for the interests of labor.
— The ILO has refused for years to create a Commission of Inquiry to examine the unprecedented situation of violence against trade union leaders in Colombia, generally due to blocking efforts by Mr. Potter, other employer representatives, and the government of Colombia. Mr. Potter’s sudden willingness to “request” the ILO to conduct a company-specific study, something the ILO has never done, means that Mr. Potter and Coca-Cola are pretty confident of the results of the study before it has even begun.
— As SINALTRAINAL has informed us, even before this investigation has gotten off the ground, officials from Coca-Cola FEMSA, which owns almost all of the Coke bottlers in Colombia, have visited the Coke bottling plants in Colombia and told employees that Coca-Cola FEMSA management will hand-select the employees it will allow to give testimony in any upcoming investigation.
— Finally, the IUF, the “union” that joined Coca-Cola in making the “request” to the ILO, benefited from the violence against SINALTRAINAL in Colombia and has been defending Coca-Cola’s record of human rights violations ever since. When Isidro Gil, the leader of SINALTRAINAL’s union in the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Carepa, was murdered inside the plant by paramilitaries brought in by Coca-Cola management, the company then, in a classic move, found a “company union”, and recognized IUF’s affiliate, SINTRAINAGRO, without an election by the workers. This was the official end of SINALTRAINAL at the plant, and IUF has never raised its voice to inquire about the murder of Isidro Gil that paved the way to Coke’s recognition of IUF’s affiliate.
In short, Coca-Cola won’t agree to any process it can’t control. To this latest ploy, we must say, three strikes and you’re out. Coke bought the Cal Safety report, abandoned the Commission when it asserted its intent to act independent of the company, and now has used its extraordinary power and resources to “request” the ILO to issue a report. Coke did so without disclosing Coke’s direct relationships to the ILO. Everything that happens next, you can be sure, has already been scripted by Coca-Cola, like a television jingle.
We must also not lose sight of the real issue. Regardless of any findings regarding Coca-Cola’s current activities in Colombia, the murder and torture of SINALTRAINAL’s leaders at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia is not in dispute. Those things happened, and the union’s demand that Coca-Cola extend its human rights policy to employees of bottling plants must be met before we can even begin to discuss a process for Coca-Cola to return to the campuses that have done the right thing by booting Killer Coke.

author by Peterpublication date Thu Mar 16, 2006 09:56author address author phone Report this post to the editors

If our British friend looked, he would see that his post is effectively a carbon copy clone of the Boycott Coke Campaign reply at the start of this thread. I pointed out that it was by Terry Collingsworth. I also made the point, that has not been answered, that it is simply not possible for a bottler to hand pick who would give, or not give evidence, to an ILO or any other, enquiry – and/or that proof of such an effort exposes them to contempt. Where is the demand that workers be allowed to give evidence without intimidation? I am waiting.

I also pointed out that such an effort on the part of bottlers indicates a fear that such an enquiry may have a degree of independence. Exactly how much is open to question. Again, the characterisation of the role of the IUF is open to serious question.

Who talked about going around in circles?

At least we are back to discussing the nature of a proposed ILO enquiry, even though it is through repetition of a point already made.

author by know152publication date Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

"author by Danpublication date Wed Mar 15, 2006 17:38

know152, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. On the few occassions when you have bothered to put forward arguments on this site instead of making childish remarks, you keep changing the goalposts when your arguments are demolished. Yourself and "Peter" should really meet up. I don't have the video, another member of our delegation recorded it, and I'm certainly not going to take any trouble to arrange for you to see it. It wouldn't make any difference if it was shown to you that the CUT supported the boycott, you would still find an excuse for opposing it."

So, you don't have the evidence you claimed you had. The fact that CUT is or isn't supporting the boycott is not a determining factor in my opposition to the boycott. So, 'no' showing it to me would not change my mind.
However, the fact that you offered to show the video then withdrew due to your lack of the same video would make most neutrals question whether you were honest in the offer to begin with. And suggest that much of your over 'evidence' is equally lacking.

author by Danpublication date Tue Mar 21, 2006 17:48author address author phone Report this post to the editors

You really are some piece of work aren't you?

Yes, the Colombia Solidarity Network does have a video of our meeting with the CUT (along with every other meeting we had with social organisations over the space of three weeks). No, I don't have a copy of that particular video in a format that I could easily post on the Internet (as far as I know, the member of our delegation who did all the videos has not transferred them into digital form).

I mentioned the video because I am fed up hearing "Peter" and company deny that the CUT supports the boycott. I would be quite happy to personally take the trouble for "Peter" and anyone else who makes a song and dance about the CUT's position to see the video of our meeting with the CUT leadership. This would involve getting in touch with the member of our group who did all the videos, obtaining a copy of that particular video, then finding a venue where the video could be screened.

This would require a modest investment of time and energy on my part, so I'm not going to do it for the good of my health. I will do it if "Peter" or anyone else who has made a big point out of the CUT's alleged failure to support the boycott is willing to pledge that they will change their mind once they have been shown definitively that the CUT supports the boycott. This is only reasonable, since they apparently attach some weight to the CUT's view.

Otherwise, I am not going to take the trouble trying to convince people who are determined not to be convinced. I have a finite amount of spare time to put into political activism, and I would rather spend that time trying to convince people whose minds are genuinely open that they should support the boycott campaign.

I'm certainly not going to waste any time on you, since you have made clear that you couldn't care less what the CUT has to say on the matter.

Going back to your earlier post, I note that you haven't made the slightest effort to answer any of the arguments that I've put forward on this thread. When you referred to "long-winded posts", you actually meant "posts that contains a lot of information and arguments that I can't possibily deal with and so will ignore in their entirety".

In other threads, you've been reduced to bleating "if you want to spend your day parsing through each sentence every person posts to find some fatal flaw, feel free" when your most basic arguments fall apart under scrutiny. I'd advise you to recognise your limitations and stick with the childish remarks - you're good at that.

author by know152publication date Tue Mar 21, 2006 20:32author address author phone Report this post to the editors

.........."Going back to your earlier post, I note that you haven't made the slightest effort to answer any of the arguments that I've put forward on this thread. When you referred to "long-winded posts", you actually meant "posts that contains a lot of information and arguments that I can't possibily deal with and so will ignore in their entirety".

In other threads, you've been reduced to bleating "if you want to spend your day parsing through each sentence every person posts to find some fatal flaw, feel free" when your most basic arguments fall apart under scrutiny. I'd advise you to recognise your limitations and stick with the childish remarks - you're good at that."........

Actually, if you read the posts at all you would have seen that I presented no argument on this thread. I suggested the thrust of the thread was to promote the viewpoint that only Sinaltrinal was the one true church.

I asked if you were going to post the video withour preconditions... which you're not....

I asked what the sales figures for Coke in Colombia and Latin American for the last 10 years were? Surely, if the people of Colombia were so outraged they would not buy the product locally. To which I received no reply.

As for my comment "if you want to spend your day parsing through each sentence every person posts to find some fatal flaw, feel free" on another thread. Yep, I said that. I think it is true if people seem to think that the fact that I had missed 3 of the people at the Coke stall outside GPO undermines the point that the boycott hasn't got much public support.

If you seriously think I'm going to sit down and tease through your cut and paste of press releases, then I must think I'm as devoid of other interests as you are.

As for my remarks being childish, sure we can't all be as mature and paternalistic as your good self. We need people like you, Dan, to run our lives for us. We're helpless without you.

author by Knowdunaree2000publication date Wed Mar 22, 2006 15:19author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Funny, with your busy social life, you still have so much time to post on Indymedia bitching at people.

author by know152publication date Wed Mar 22, 2006 17:45author address author phone Report this post to the editors

that I've posted what ...about 30 comments?.... in a 14 month period.

What is your addicition rating?

author by anonpublication date Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:38author address author phone Report this post to the editors

It certainly seems to me that at least initially CUT fully supported the boycott (see link). It now seems that certain members of the Liberal Party with positions inside the CUT (eg Carlos Rodriguez) have performed a great flip-flop by making private comments to delegations saying they don't support the boycott.
The link is http://colombia.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/4346_comment...#4673
It is in Spanish but it is clear that the CUT lent their name to the campaign against Coke in a big way.

Rueda de Prensa y Plantón
por Central Unitaria de Trabajadores Thursday, Jul. 17, 2003 at 4:27 PM
derechoshumanos@cut.org.co +(57)-1-3237550 / 3237950 Calle 35 # 7-25 piso 9, Bogotá D.C.
Respetuosamente les estamos invitando a participar de la rueda de prensa que se realizará el día 22 de julio de 2003, en la sede de la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores CUT ubicada en la Calle 35 No.7-25 piso 9, a las 10:00 a.m. sobre el lanzamiento de la campaña mundial contra coca cola.

Este día se realizaran igualmente rueda de prensa en la ciudad de New York, Estados Unidos y Roma Italia.

El mismo 22 de julio del presente a las 2:00 p.m., realizaremos un plantón de protesta frente a las instalaciones de coca cola ubicada en la carrera 94 No.42-94, Fontibón.

Convocan: Central Unitaria de Trabajadores CUT, Comité de Justicia Social por Colombia de Estados Unidos, Campaña Permanente Nacional e Internacional contra la Impunidad Colombia Clama Justicia, SEMBRAR, Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo, Coordinador Nacional Agrario, Centro de Acción Internacional de Estados Unidos, Instituto Nacional Sindical, Observatorio Social, Megaproyectos Empresas Transnacionales y Derechos Humanos en Colombia y SINALTRAINAL.

Atentamente,

CARLOS A. RODRÍGUEZ DÍAZ
Presidente

DOMINGO TOVAR ARRIETA
Director Dpto. Derechos Humanos

Bogotá, D. C. Julio 17 de 2003
www.cut.org.co

author by antonpublication date Sat Mar 25, 2006 17:42author address author phone Report this post to the editors

Everywhere the Lasc delegation visited in Colombia the people were out waving banners supporting the boycott campaign , according to Dan .I imagine that the delegation only visited a small area ; or else they didn’t stray very far from where Gearoid wanted them to go. In which case the whole journey was a bit of a waste of time as far as making an accurate assessment of workers conditions in Coke plants .
A curious indymedia reader asked at the time of the trip whether the delegation would be visiting the Carepa bottling plant .
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/70346
He was told that it would be far too dangerous. The impression lasc is giving is of a cowered workforce producing killer coke under conditions of near-slavery , whose only hope for salvation comes from kind-hearted and ethical consumers in Europe agreeing to boycott coke. And yet they baulk at a UN delegation visiting the area . Most odd.......

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2024 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy