Comments on: Panama’s Unraveling Democracy: The Social Cost of Martinelli’s Chorizo Law http://www.coha.org/panama%e2%80%99s-unraveling-democracy-the-social-cost-of-martinelli%e2%80%99s-chorizo-law/ COHA is an NGO specialized in monitoring Latin American and Canadian Relations for more than 30 years... Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:22:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: COHA http://www.coha.org/panama%e2%80%99s-unraveling-democracy-the-social-cost-of-martinelli%e2%80%99s-chorizo-law/comment-page-1/#comment-37830 COHA Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:22:50 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=9992#comment-37830 Mr. Hornbeck, While I appreciate your feedback I do not agree with you that the conclusions presented in this piece are "simply wrong." The claim in the article that "the labor-related problems that Obama saw in CAFTA-DR have not been remedied in the proposed FTA with Panama" is admittedly somewhat assumptive and even reductionist but it derives from a thorough comparison of both FTAs' labor chapters and of all 3 CRS Reports (including the updated 2010 version) and is based upon a conscious assertion that the problems of the prior FTA were not solved, despite the new version's more robust language. Before it went through the editing process, this piece did mention the 2010 updated CRS report, but this portion was phased out in favor of the more forceful language that pertained directly to the 2005 version. In retrospect, it was neglectful to allow this portion to be removed and I sincerely apologize for that. Regarding the claim that there is "no discernible difference" between the two FTAs, I'm inclined to agree with you that, in light of the new stipulations in the May 10th agreement, this is an outdated and excessively vague assertion. The purpose of the piece was twofold: 1) to illuminate a governmental agenda in Panama that endangers worker rights and human rights more generally 2) to suggest that, considering the frequency of labor-related abuses in countries that have implemented FTAs with the U.S. (a 2008 AFL-CIO report about Guatemala highlights many such examples) a free trade agreement with Panama may not be in either country's best interest. The Obama administration is keenly aware of what has been going on in the country for months -- Arturo Valenzuela had some critical words for Martinelli in May, well before the latest developments -- and yet it is still actively promoting an FTA with the country. I hope that these points were not lost despite the careless passage that you correctly pointed out. The reality is that most documents are dated with regard to the current situation in Panama. In your February 2010 report you assert that "Panama has higher wage rates, stronger labor laws, and fewer impediments to union formation than many countries in the region." Unfortunately, though by many accounts true at the time, this too is quickly becoming an anachronistic statement. -Alexander Brockwehl Mr. Hornbeck,
While I appreciate your feedback I do not agree with you that the conclusions presented in this piece are "simply wrong." The claim in the article that "the labor-related problems that Obama saw in CAFTA-DR have not been remedied in the proposed FTA with Panama" is admittedly somewhat assumptive and even reductionist but it derives from a thorough comparison of both FTAs' labor chapters and of all 3 CRS Reports (including the updated 2010 version) and is based upon a conscious assertion that the problems of the prior FTA were not solved, despite the new version's more robust language.
Before it went through the editing process, this piece did mention the 2010 updated CRS report, but this portion was phased out in favor of the more forceful language that pertained directly to the 2005 version. In retrospect, it was neglectful to allow this portion to be removed and I sincerely apologize for that.

Regarding the claim that there is "no discernible difference" between the two FTAs, I'm inclined to agree with you that, in light of the new stipulations in the May 10th agreement, this is an outdated and excessively vague assertion.
The purpose of the piece was twofold:
1) to illuminate a governmental agenda in Panama that endangers worker rights and human rights more generally
2) to suggest that, considering the frequency of labor-related abuses in countries that have implemented FTAs with the U.S. (a 2008 AFL-CIO report about Guatemala highlights many such examples) a free trade agreement with Panama may not be in either country's best interest. The Obama administration is keenly aware of what has been going on in the country for months — Arturo Valenzuela had some critical words for Martinelli in May, well before the latest developments — and yet it is still actively promoting an FTA with the country.

I hope that these points were not lost despite the careless passage that you correctly pointed out. The reality is that most documents are dated with regard to the current situation in Panama. In your February 2010 report you assert that "Panama has higher wage rates, stronger labor laws, and fewer impediments to union formation than many countries in the region." Unfortunately, though by many accounts true at the time, this too is quickly becoming an anachronistic statement.
-Alexander Brockwehl

]]> By: Jeff Hornbeck http://www.coha.org/panama%e2%80%99s-unraveling-democracy-the-social-cost-of-martinelli%e2%80%99s-chorizo-law/comment-page-1/#comment-37827 Jeff Hornbeck Tue, 03 Aug 2010 14:51:49 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=9992#comment-37827 This article is an egregious example of COHA's biased assessments that not only fail to provide a well-researched and reasoned position, but actually misrepresent facts and draw conclusions by selectively referring to dated materials. Specifically, two major conclusions are provided that are simply wrong. First, the article contends that based on analysis provided in a CRS report that, "In other words, the labor-related problems that Obama saw in CAFTA-DR have not been remedied in the proposed FTA with Panama." Second, the article goes on to state that with respect to labor provisions and again based on reporting in a CRS report, "In effect, there is no discernible difference between the trade agreement Obama rejected (CAFTA-DR) and the one her currently supports (Panama)." COHA admits to using a version of the CRS report issued during the same year when Obama made his comments, which was 2005. At that time, the CAFTA-DR and Panama Labor chapters were virtually identical. Since then (five years later), and as reflected carefully in a 2010 update of the CRS report, the adoption of the bipartisan May 10th Agreement on labor provisions changed the labor chapters considerably from the CAFTA-DR model, removing the "strive to ensure" language and making the labor commitments more binding and enforceable. One may still take issue with this language, but it is a far cry from the CAFTA-DR model and what President Obama was criticizing in 2005. COHA risks losing even more credibility than it already has by not being honest in its presentation of fact and drawing inaccurate conclusions. COHA articles also suffer from their admittedly colorful but outlandish use language as cited in the above comment. It COHA wants it points to be taken seriously, it must do a far better job. -- the CRS Panama report author This article is an egregious example of COHA's biased assessments that not only fail to provide a well-researched and reasoned position, but actually misrepresent facts and draw conclusions by selectively referring to dated materials. Specifically, two major conclusions are provided that are simply wrong. First, the article contends that based on analysis provided in a CRS report that, "In other words, the labor-related problems that Obama saw in CAFTA-DR have not been remedied in the proposed FTA with Panama." Second, the article goes on to state that with respect to labor provisions and again based on reporting in a CRS report, "In effect, there is no discernible difference between the trade agreement Obama rejected (CAFTA-DR) and the one her currently supports (Panama)." COHA admits to using a version of the CRS report issued during the same year when Obama made his comments, which was 2005. At that time, the CAFTA-DR and Panama Labor chapters were virtually identical. Since then (five years later), and as reflected carefully in a 2010 update of the CRS report, the adoption of the bipartisan May 10th Agreement on labor provisions changed the labor chapters considerably from the CAFTA-DR model, removing the "strive to ensure" language and making the labor commitments more binding and enforceable. One may still take issue with this language, but it is a far cry from the CAFTA-DR model and what President Obama was criticizing in 2005.
COHA risks losing even more credibility than it already has by not being honest in its presentation of fact and drawing inaccurate conclusions. COHA articles also suffer from their admittedly colorful but outlandish use language as cited in the above comment. It COHA wants it points to be taken seriously, it must do a far better job. — the CRS Panama report author

]]> By: Guest http://www.coha.org/panama%e2%80%99s-unraveling-democracy-the-social-cost-of-martinelli%e2%80%99s-chorizo-law/comment-page-1/#comment-37819 Guest Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:04:30 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=9992#comment-37819 While this article seems well-researched, two qualities undermine its potential credibility: 1) The emotive descriptions ("killer blow," "reacted harshly and recklessly," "penchant for arrogance and impetuousness,"...) and 2) vague measurements ("many became furious," "it took days," "in jail for hours,"...) Please refrain from ad hominems; please be more clear about measurements, and please name all sources or specify why they cannot be (instead of: "sources outside the government," "all trade unions"). Reporting in a fashion that is more objective, specific, and insistently factual will garner this article the visibility and appreciation that Panama's reality deserves. While this article seems well-researched, two qualities undermine its potential credibility: 1) The emotive descriptions ("killer blow," "reacted harshly and recklessly," "penchant for arrogance and impetuousness,"…) and 2) vague measurements ("many became furious," "it took days," "in jail for hours,"…) Please refrain from ad hominems; please be more clear about measurements, and please name all sources or specify why they cannot be (instead of: "sources outside the government," "all trade unions"). Reporting in a fashion that is more objective, specific, and insistently factual will garner this article the visibility and appreciation that Panama's reality deserves.

]]> By: Eric Jackson http://www.coha.org/panama%e2%80%99s-unraveling-democracy-the-social-cost-of-martinelli%e2%80%99s-chorizo-law/comment-page-1/#comment-37803 Eric Jackson Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:10:50 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=9992#comment-37803 One of the things that's in Law 30 is impunity for crimes committed by cops while on duty. That's why the "investigations" about Changunola are about riot charges against protesters, with police brutality to be unaddressed. But Martinelli's legislation is all sloppily drafted, in keeping with his reckles, impulsive character. The Law 30 impunity, which provides that under no circumstances may cops be jailed for anything they did on duty (no preventive detention, and, in the unlikely event of a conviction after a years-long process, any punishment happens at a police station at the discretion of the captain in charge), and pending conviction, no internal police discipline for any crime committed on duty. For a criminal case to come to trial ordinarily takes two or three years in Panama City, but much longer if there are defense lawyers interposing delays. It's for ANY crime. As in fabricating or planting "evidence." As in perjury in open court. Not just police brutality. In fact if a cop decides to rape someone while on duty, the Martinelli protecitons apply. So, outrageous ex-lawyer that I am, it occurs to me that during the "investigations" of the events in Changuinola and really, any instance in which a Panamanian cop testifies, the lawyer for the party against whom such testimony is offered ought to object. The grounds? That Law 30 makes the oath to tell the truth under penalty of law for false testimony means very little to a cop, certainly not what it means to any other witness. Thus whenever a cop takes the stand, as a matter of law his or her honesty and reliability ought to be impungned. Now this would surely offend every honest cop against whom it was interposed, and the smart ones would know that it's Martinelli's fault and that Law 30 impedes proper discipline within the police force and thus denigrates police work in the eyes of the public. One of the things that's in Law 30 is impunity for crimes committed by cops while on duty. That's why the "investigations" about Changunola are about riot charges against protesters, with police brutality to be unaddressed.

But Martinelli's legislation is all sloppily drafted, in keeping with his reckles, impulsive character. The Law 30 impunity, which provides that under no circumstances may cops be jailed for anything they did on duty (no preventive detention, and, in the unlikely event of a conviction after a years-long process, any punishment happens at a police station at the discretion of the captain in charge), and pending conviction, no internal police discipline for any crime committed on duty. For a criminal case to come to trial ordinarily takes two or three years in Panama City, but much longer if there are defense lawyers interposing delays. It's for ANY crime. As in fabricating or planting "evidence." As in perjury in open court. Not just police brutality. In fact if a cop decides to rape someone while on duty, the Martinelli protecitons apply.

So, outrageous ex-lawyer that I am, it occurs to me that during the "investigations" of the events in Changuinola and really, any instance in which a Panamanian cop testifies, the lawyer for the party against whom such testimony is offered ought to object. The grounds? That Law 30 makes the oath to tell the truth under penalty of law for false testimony means very little to a cop, certainly not what it means to any other witness. Thus whenever a cop takes the stand, as a matter of law his or her honesty and reliability ought to be impungned.

Now this would surely offend every honest cop against whom it was interposed, and the smart ones would know that it's Martinelli's fault and that Law 30 impedes proper discipline within the police force and thus denigrates police work in the eyes of the public.

]]>