Tobias Roberts, MCC service worker in Guatemala, describes the contrasting worldviews that have led to the breakdown in negotiations between a Mayan community and an Italian corporation building a dam, and explores a possible Biblical perspective on the issue.
“Five hundred years ago, the Spanish came and tricked our ancestors out of what was rightfully theirs with meaningless gifts and promises, and now the story is repeating itself as you come here and ridicule our rights and show contempt for our customs. What you need to realize is that at this negotiating table, there are people here; people that demand equality and demand to be heard and respected.”
This was the statement of Miguel de Leon, spokesperson for the indigenous communities of Cotzal, Guatemala during the latest frustrated round of negotiations between communities and corporate executives from ENEL, the largest Italian energy corporation on September 2, 2011.
The mainstream global society values uniformity and generally disregards the differences
Tobias Roberts and his wife, Yasmin Mendez, are MCC workers in Guatemala
and the contradictions that arise from the immeasurable diversity that marks us as human communities. Few times in my life have those differences and contradictions been as apparent as when I participated as an invited observer during the recent negotiations mentioned above.
The negotiations over the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the ancestral lands of the Mayan Ixhil of Guatemala began on May 2nd, 2011 after several years of tension and confusion, but came to a standstill at a September 2nd meeting when ENEL refused to consider a compensation and profit-sharing mechanism that would have provided the San Juan Cotzal people a 20-percent slice of the revenues from the 84 MW Palo Viejo dam, which will be the third largest in the country.
Representatives of ENEL stated they would not negotiate with the communities on any profit sharing mechanism because they considered the community’s demands to be “unreasonable.” This refusal by ENEL to negotiate, and especially the rationale for that refusal, attests to the fundamental dilemma that has plagued the dialogue from the very beginning: the confrontation of two differing paradigmatic worldviews that has led to a “conflict of reasonability”.
What is reasonable and correct for an international energy corporation is very different than what it is considered reasonable and just from the perspective of Mayan subsistence farmers. Though the clash between ENEL and the Mayan population of Cotzal has many causes, the core is this “conflict of reasonability”.
Who “owns” the land?
On May 7th, in the initial round of negotiations, both parties agreed to foundational principles to guide the process of dialogue. ENEL insisted that the communities of Cotzal recognize and respect the property rights of ENEL over the land where the hydroelectric dam was to be built. The communities, for their part, demanded that ENEL acknowledge and respect the International Labor Organization’s treaty 169 which states that indigenous communities have the right to prior consultation regarding any exploration or exploitation of resources on their lands, the right to compensation for damages, and the right to share in the benefits of such activities. Guatemala is a signatory of the ILO 169 treaty.
During the four months of intense negotiations, this issue arose in various moments. On June 10th, the communities presented their list of “demands” to ENEL which included a 20% share of the revenues produced by the hydroelectric dam, a compensation package for damages occurred during the construction, and the conformation of a joint committee to permanently assess damages effected by the dam. ENEL, though refusing to comment on the content of the demands of the communities, suggested changing the terminology. According to Oswaldo Smith, general manager of ENEL in Guatemala and spokesperson for ENEL during the negotiations: “It seems to me that a more correct term for what the communities are asking is “request.”
Though the terminology was not altered, this discrepancy between “demands” and “requests” takes us back to the initial dilemma of the “conflict of reasonability”. The communities of Cotzal call these demands because they consider the land to be historically theirs, and thus believe they have rights over what happens on these lands. ENEL, however, having legal title to the land where the dam is being built and having invested the money and technology that will eventually produce the energy, believes that the communities are only entitled to request certain benefits from ENEL, the legitimate owners.
Finally, after four months of tiptoeing around the heart of the conflict, ENEL openly stated that they would not negotiate the demands of the communities because they were “unreasonable”, and the negotiations came to a halt. The crisis of two “reasons”, of two perspectives, of two worldviews, of two ways of understanding the world and our relation to the land and to community was ultimately unbridgeable.
Conflicting Worldviews
Undoubtedly, the hegemony of the western paradigm and its overarching influence in forms of government, economic organization and the determination of the laws that govern society has rendered invisible any possible alternative to the almost universally accepted norms of representative, centralized government, free-market capitalist economic organization, and laws that are based on the previous two.
Under the authority of this paradigm, the “reason” to which ENEL appeals, would seem to take priority. ENEL has, after all, legal title to the land where the dam is being built. They are providing the capital to invest in energy production and were invited by the government of Guatemala who considers foreign investment and the “wealth” that it creates to be the backbone of the economy of the country.
The communities of Cotzal, however, appeal to another type of “reason” which has the weight of history on its side and is also backed by various national and international laws (Constitution of Guatemala, ILO 169, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). These legal instruments have been fought for in order to protect and give voice to those who have been inevitably forgotten, marginalized and excluded from the western paradigm of representative, centralized government and free-market capitalism. The communities appeal to the “reason” that they have a right to enjoy the fruits of the lands they have collectively inhabited for 2500 years.
Baltazar de la Cruz Rodríguez, spokesperson for the communities, affirms, “We have ancestral rights over our mountains, rivers and forests, and the right to enjoy the wealth that they create in order to create a better life for the communities of Cotzal consistent with our culture and cosmovision.”
What would be a Biblical perspective?
So, who shall we “give the reason” to? Psalm 103:6 offers this reply: “The Lord restores justice and secures the rights of the oppressed.”
The Judeo-Christian tradition scripturally and historically affirms that God gives the reason to the poor and oppressed of the earth through “securing the rights of the oppressed.” But to secure the rights of the oppressed and to give reason to the poor also implies discrediting the legitimacy of the “other reason”; that of a paradigm that assures the existence of oppressed and oppressor.
“He has put down the mighty from their thrones and lifted up those who are downtrodden. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty,” Mary says in the Gospel of Luke. For God to give reason to the oppressed assumes that God acknowledges the existence of societies where injustices and violence have been the historic norm and rejects this.
What, finally is the “reason” that the oppressed appeal to and ask of society? An inclusive society that respects the minimum aspects of justice to guarantee a life of dignity for all; respect for the peasant and indigenous population to fashion autonomous forms of development for themselves without external manipulation; and that the right to life be the most imperative right of all.
When ENEL refused to negotiate the demands of the communities, Miguel de Leon put into words the essence of this conflict of reasonability. “Why do you consider our demands unreasonable? This is our land and our rivers and we are only asking for 20% of the profits that our rivers create. We don´t ask much, but your greed makes you see our simple demands as not reasonable.”
Thank you, Tobias, for that well-reasoned treatment of a complex issue. It makes me ask myself again, How can anyone of us transient humans actually own a piece of the earth? One could argue that any claim of “ownership” is moot. But a people whose intimacy with the land is so visceral that its creatures are emblazoned on their huipils–I guess these are the ones that should have the greater claim. But at what ancient point did they invade and suddenly call the land “theirs”? So with all the uncertainly, it comes down very simply to your last point: honoring the oppressed. And to look for this tendency in the greedy heart of man is almost unreasonable. But you’re doing it, so thanks for that:).
great read bro…