Small Brother prevails in media clamp-down

One big item has dominated the airwaves here in Ecuador since my recent arrival in the country: the Supreme Court ruling in the Correa v El Universo case. The judges upheld the earlier verdicts that condemn Emilio Palacio, former op-ed writer of the Guayaquil newspaper El Universo, as well as the three co-directors of the same newspaper, Carlos, César and Nicolas Pérez, to a $40m fine and a three year sentence in prison, on the charge of defamation of a public authority.

Ecuadorian president Correa calls press scrutiny of his actions to a halt (source)

The reason for this hefty sentence is an op-ed written by Emilio Palacio on February 6, 2011, in which he questions the reasons behind president Rafael Correa's proposal to pardon the alleged perpetrators of the September 30, 2010 coup and attack at civilians in a hospital in Quito. The op-ed frames the president's actions in quite strong wordings (Correa is being referred to as 'Dictator'), hinting at an absence of evidence against the coup-stagers as the real motivation behind the presidential pardon. After highlighting several inconsistencies in the coup story, allegedly framed by the president himself to save face for a series of misjudged actions following the police protests of that very 30th of September, Palacio ends his piece with the advice that, given the different legal status of the pardon (compared with a general amnesty), "the president might himself face lawsuits once he steps down, for having ordered the indiscriminate shooting, without previous warning, of a hospital full with innocent civilians."

The ruling has stirred a lot of upheaval in the national and international (mainly Spanish) press, as it basically sets a dangerous precedent to restrict press freedom, whenever critical of the president's (or another public authority, for that matter) actions. Not only is the ruling's realm quite profound, several questionable procedural irregularities have occurred along the road. To name but a few: the first, 150-page ruling in this case was issued by a judge - who had just started that very day - in less than 24 hours; several judges who sat on the appeal process had been replaced while the appeal was ongoing; and the accuser's legal team has been reported to have exerted heavy pressure on the judges sitting in on this case (even up to the point that the ruling had been written in large part by Correa's lawyers).

There are some more striking elements in this case. Shouldn't the basis of the ruling be evidence presented by Correa's lawyers to prove that Palacio has willingly and knowingly written lies (ie. defamated) about the president? And why suing and condemning the directors of the newspaper, while they have offered to rectify any factual errors upon the president's providing evidence thereof (which Correa kindly declined to do)? No evidence has been reported to have been presented to justify the ridiculously high fines to compensate for the 'moral damage' Correa has suffered as a result of that op-ed (isn't a right to response more in order to rectify such mistakes written in newspapers?). Remarkably, the magnitude of the fines and jail sentence has been justified by Correa's public office, whereas the president has claimed all along this trial to have taken this case to court as a layman, to show that even laymen should not tolerate that newspapers write lies about them.

The sentencing in this case seems to have forgone any measure of proportionality, leaving little margin of interpretation other than setting an example to rein in press scrutiny of high public offices. Worryingly, this has not been the only sign of restricting press freedom in Ecuador. Upon the president's introduction, the National Assembly has passed a law limiting press freedom during elections, and another law is under discussion to set up a media regulatory board to vet the content of Ecuadorian media. Also, two other journalists (Juan Carlos Calderón and Christian Zurita) have been fined $2m for their 'defamatory' book The Big Brother (El Gran Hermano), in which they disclose evidence of cronyism in granting big state contracts to the president's older brother Fabricio Correa. Commenting on his small brother's legal escapades, big brother Correa stated that "one doesn't even observe such acts of barbarity in African dictatorships." The last word has not yet been spilled, so much is certain.

On the road again

It's not an easy time for young people, like myself, who have a keen interest in international affairs, development dilemmas and other cross-boundary enigmas, to find a job. Competition is fierce at home, and it only gets worse if you're looking into getting some real field experience that doesn't come straight off your (parents') bank account. For some reason, it just seems that people had it so much easier say twenty-thirty years ago. You just jumped on a plane and went into the field; whatever your experience was, you could turn it into some development-building skills.

Nowadays, however, thousands of students are able to study international development, human rights or even more specific topic areas - unheard of twenty years ago. All these students enter the labour market, eager for a job, preferably in the field, with no other skills but their mind and all the theoretical discussions they've so eagerly engaged in at uni. They face an increasing demand for professional employees -  upward and downward accountability kind of spiked up the game for development organisations - while stimulating local capacity building (i.e. getting locals to do the job you so eagerly want to do).

Many a student ends up quite disappointed in a random office job in his home country, doing whatever to keep the beer flowing. Others prefer to get out there, earning the field cred by having themselves exploited for a dime (or less) as they tick off all the main world wonders along the way. Admittedly, some beer may have flowed as well.

In my experience, it has been as much about following your heart and engaging in the real stuff as it has been about getting to know the people, or, put better, getting people to know you and what you're worth. After all, you do possess the skills needed to make it; it's just, there's like a thousand of you waiting to do the same job!

Anyhow, to cut the chase: I'm off! After a year of doing bits and pieces, some more related to international development than others, I've managed to get hold of a really interesting intern position at UNDP in Quito, Ecuador. I hope to learn more soon about what it is exactly that I'll be doing there, but word is that I'll become a gender strategist, as part of a team that accompanies Ecuador's decentralisation of development cooperation. Of course, I'll do my utmost best to keep you posted on my wanderings, along with the occasional inspiring video. Let's stick to the development area this time: sometimes you just need people thinking outside the box, or applying approaches from different fields to yours, to achieve a break through, or at the very least, to stir up sedated minds. Enjoy!

And you thought you were off for a nice morning of bargain-hunting...

Two weeks ago, I was out on the streets of Leuven, raising funds for Vredeseilanden. Although it is a non-governmental organisation, 68% of its budget comes from the government. (That's quite a lot, considering that most - if not all - NGOs in the South get nothing from their governments.) However, to justify that this civil society organisation is worthy of these tax Euros, it should demonstrate that it actually has a support base in society. That is why, every year, thousands of volunteers seek the financial contributions of the people on the street as a tangible evidence of them conferring legitimacy on Vredeseilanden's mission in our society.

Who could say no to such cute faces freezing in the cold? (source)

As my fingers were getting numb from the cold, I didn't even get to explaining in most cases what we were raising money for. People either pretended not hear me, ditching me with a cold 'no, no' while staring into the shop displays with the newest sales on offer, or happily pulled out their wallets with their minds torn between which gadget to get in return for their contribution. Fortunately, the mix of people's reactions was balanced enough to keep me going through the cold. One guy, however, made my day.

Asked to support Vredeseilanden, he replied in a somewhat offended manner - 'Don't you know how expensive life's become these days? I have to buy a new car, that's taking more than enough out of my wallet!'. Well, then. I reckoned that if he was going to buy a new car, 5 Euro more wouldn't really make that much of a difference in the face of so big an expenditure. Yet, that really seems to have pulled his strings - 'Haven't you got any idea how much a Mercedes costs? You must think I've got money to spare!' Mightily offended, he then strode off to the car salon and left me wondering whether to rip the hair off my head or burst out in laughter.

This anecdote came to my mind as I was thinking back on the seminar I gave yesterday at a development course. During the last part of that session, we were reflecting with the group on solutions for the structural inequality and unfairness of the international trade system, especially when it comes to agriculture. One of the students asked me why it is that policy makers and politicians persistently neglect the evidence that free trade is hurting instead of benefiting the 1.3 billion small scale farmers who - oh gruesome irony - do not have enough to feed their families. 'Because a lot of them honestly believe that free trade is the real solution to this problem,' I said to her. At which point, then,
several other students joined that girl's outrage at willingly turning a blind eye at three decades of failed agricultural free trade policies.

It struck me that the indignation with which the girls at the seminar fumed against those 'blind and ignorant' policy makers, was not too different from the way that man on the street reacted to me for even daring to suggest that he could pinch off a few bucks from his car budget. As this only hit me several hours after that class, I couldn't share these last thoughts anymore, so I do it here. All too often we are so convinced of other people's wrong, that we erupt like a volcano with lava streams of arguments proving our right. Self-gratifying as this may be, it won't bring us any closer to a solution. For this, we should seek to understand why that other person holds these views and figure out a way - if possible - to create common ground, a level playing field from which to reach a better outcome than the status quo; an outcome to which both parties agree and which they honestly support. After all, there is often little point in being right when you're on your own at the right side of the table.

Warm wishes for today, tomorrow and the days after!

It's the time of the year when many gather with family and friends, to share love and warmth, stories of happiness and sorrow, and laughter. It's also the time of the year when we wish each other the best possible for the new year to come. Next year should be even more glorious, joyful and prosperous than the previous one - imagine the challenge these wishes bring with them as you grow older.

I won't wish you the best, for many others have certainly done so already. Instead of looking forward, I wish you time to look back. Take a look back into last year and think about what you have done, what has happened in your life and how you have felt. Try, then, to gather from these experiences the good things and the bad things and see how they were brought about. What would you like to happen again, what would you like to feel again, what would you like to do again?

Not the what is important in that question, but the how: how did you live, how were you back then? And how can you be to create the space for it to happen again? It's a form of taking care of yourself, for only if you feel well, you can take care of others. So I wish you time to reflect, to nurture yourself, for you to feel confident to face the new year, come what may.

Just like this group of Peruvians, sitting in a bus on their way to march the Inca trail. Their eyes all tell a different story. They were sitting quiet in the bus, looking outside; yet, they were also looking inside, inside themselves, building up strength to face the adventure ahead of them. When you're mentally fit and ready, you've conquered half the journey already!

Happy New Year!

Who said you cannot entertain people with an opinion on the WTO?

Well, the three most important newspapers in Flanders said so, because they didn't publish this opinion piece I co-authored with a colleague of mine. Not that it is not a hot issue, as this robust exchange of views between Paul de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and Pascal Lamy, World Trade Organisation Director-General, illustrates.

Meh. You get it anyway. With a little help for the Dutch illiterates:

For ten years countries have tried to reach a new free trade agreement within the WTO, the so-called Doha Development Agenda. Negotiations have clearly stalled. The 8th ministerial summit (held in Geneva on 15-17 December) won't change this situation. The sought-after result of the Doha negotiations won't be reached, because the key to development is not even on the table: agricultural protection and food security.

Big players, such as the EU and the US, have anticipated the WTO's gradual opening up of food markets to free trade, by creating agricultural policies that protect (read: give income subsidies to) their farmers from cheap imports, with which they cannot compete. They did this because agriculture is a sensitive issue: for, if a country becomes too dependent on food imports, it can no longer guarantee food provision to its people. A crisis only has to occur for export countries to shut their food supplies (and, as of late, they have occurred rather frequently; just think of the 2008 food crisis). Thus, free trade in foodstuffs forces high income countries to subsidise their agricultural sectors, to prevent cheap imports from killing them.

Low and middle income countries, too, have similar issues; their farmers are often not able to compete with foodstuffs that are produced cheaper elsewhere. The difference, however, lies in the absence of a government budget that is able to protect the agricultural sector and (mainly small scale) farmers, who drown and go hungry. This problem becomes even more acute when taking the many concessions of bilateral trade agreements into account, which tend to grant even more access to food markets than is the case in multilateral trade agreements. That explains why West Africa has been flooded in the past two decennia with cheap imports of grains, rice, meat and milk powder (among others), which have seriously disrupted local production and endangered food security.

This situation is not tenable. Which is why low and middle income countries have proposed to introduce flexible tariffs, to safeguard the development of their own agricultural and food sectors, while maintaining the option to cover any food shortages with imports from abroad. These proposals, however, have never been seriously considered. Yet, so long as they won't, these countries will not gain from negotiating further market access in other sectors, as is the case in the present Doha negotiations.

As a matter of fact, the European Union would also stand to gain from questioning free trade in foodstuffs. The common agricultural policy is born out of free market rules, whereas shifting towards more controlled market mechanisms (to harmonise production and import volumes) could render subsidies superfluous. 

About time, then, to see this round of negotiations to the door and start designing free trade that is more just and sustainable, offering farmers in the North and the South a fair chance to supply their fellow citizens.