Vogt presents two cases of US multinational corporations that benefit from violence against unionists in Colombia.  He argues that a trade agreement with Colombia would normalize the violence instead of fight against it

Vogt, Jeffrey S.

English

DigitalCommons@ILR

 1
Comments Concerning Proposed United States-Andean Free Trade Agreement 
 
by 
 
The International Labor Rights Fund 
Jeffrey S. Vogt, Assistant General Counsel 
 
March 2004 
 
The International Labor Rights Fund has appeared before the USTR and other executive 
agencies several times over the past 20 years to raise its concerns with regard to the 
systematic violations of internationally recognized worker rights in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America.  Indeed, the ILRF has submitted several complaints under the GSP, the NAALC 
and additionally has testified, advocating for the inclusion of strong labor rights language in 
bilateral or multilateral free trade agreements.  It is in this context that I come before you 
today to express my great concern that the U.S. is considering the negotiation of a trade 
agreement with Colombia, where trade unionists are routinely murdered, tortured and 
threatened with death. In the period 1991-2002, 1,925 union leaders were murdered.   
 
Even more troubling is that the Colombian government has failed to investigate all but a 
handful of these cases, and has failed to bring perpetrators of violence against trade 
unionists to justice.  The failure to adequately investigate these crimes is not surprising 
given the fact that the perpetrators of many of these crimes, the paramilitaries, act with the 
tacit, and at times, open support of the Colombian government.  Until the Colombian 
government severs all ties with illegal armed groups, and prosecutes those responsible for 
the thousands of murders of trade unionists, the U.S. government should not enter into 
negotiations with Colombia for the purpose of concluding a free trade agreement.  
 
In 2003, the reputable Escuela Nacional Sindical issued a report that presents the grim 
reality of life in Colombia. Last year, 90 unionists were murdered, 295 were victims of 
threats of death, 20 suffered attacks against their physical integrity and 6 were kidnapped.  
In addition to these harrowing statistics, we coiuld add 42 detained union leaders in the 
same period, 12 house break-ins to unionist residences and 55 cases of harassment on the 
part of public forces.  Although the total number of murders is down from 184 in 2002, the 
report points out that in 2003, there was an marked increase in the number of death threats 
against unionists and their relatives; an increase in the privations of freedom, detentions and 
house breakings; and an increase of the violations on the part of organisms of the public 
force (police and army).  Indeed, the report notes that the decrease in the homicides is 
related with changes in the strategies of war and areas of conflict between the armed actors 
and not as a consequence of a deliberate government policy.  
 
As a final point, I wish to explain to this panel that persons aiding and abetting this 
bloodshed, including financial support, are the very U.S. multinationals that stand to benefit 
from a free trade agreement with Colombia. I give you two cases in point, both of which 
have been filed in U. S. Federal courts by the ILRF. 
 2
 
1. The Drummond Case 
 
In March 2001, Valmore Locarno Rodriguez and Victor Orcasita, president and vice 
president of the mining union, SINTRAMIENTERGETICA, were riding from work at the 
La Loma coal mine in northern Colombia. The Loma mine is owned by Drummond Co., a 
multi-national corporation based in Birmingham, Alabama.  As the company bus neared 
Valledupar, 30 miles from the mine, it was pulled over by gunmen, some wearing military 
uniforms. They began checking the identification of the workers and, when they found the 
two union leaders, pulled them off of the bus. Locarno was shot in the face and died 
immediately.  Orcasita was taken off into the woods at the side of the road. When they 
found his body the following day, there was clear evidence of torture prior to being shot 
multiple times.  Gustavo Soler, who assumed the position of president after the murders, 
was himself murder shortly thereafter.  
Locarno and Orcasita had repeatedly pleaded with the company for protection. In a meeting 
a week before the assassinations, the union demanded that Drummond provide security for 
its workers, and that the company abide by a previous agreement allowing them to sleep 
overnight at the mine. The company ignored the agreement and refused to allow the men to 
stay. Colombia's paramilitary army, the United Self-Defense Group (AUC), has been 
accused of the murders of Locarno, Orcasita and Soler.  This accusation is supported by 
substantial evidence that links the paramilitary gunmen with Drummond management and 
at least one of its contractors.   
Indeed, Amnesty International explained in a recent report that “the systematic violation of 
human rights of members of popular organizations . . . in the department of Caesar [where 
the La Loma mine is located] corresponds to a national strategy of undermining 
organizations which state security forces deem to be subversive.”   Amnesty International 
commented further that “many violations of human rights in the region are committed in 
order to advance and protect interest of economically powerful sectors.”  Drummond is one 
of the most economically powerful players in the region and in Colombia.   
2. The Coca–Cola Case: 
The Colombian union, SINALTRAINAL, together with the United Steel Workers of 
America and the International Labor Rights Fund, filed a case in the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of Florida against Coca Cola, Inc., Panamerican Beverages and 
Bebidas y Alimentos.  Plaintiffs charge these companies with complicity in the unlawful 
detention, kidnapping, and assassination of Colombian union leaders.  
Although the case involves egregious human rights violations to several trade unionists, I 
wish to discuss with you one case in particular.  On December 5, 1996, the AUC showed 
up in at the gate of the bottling plant owned by Bebidas y Alimentos, who bottles 
exclusively for Coca-Cola.  Isidro Segundo Gil, a member of the union's executive board, 
was shot in the forehead and killed; that evening, the paramilitaries broke into the union's 
office and burned it down.  
 3
The next day, a heavily armed group went inside the bottling plant and called the workers 
together, explaining that if they did not resign by the end of the day, they too would be 
killed.  Identically worded resignation letters were signed under threat of death and the 
union was no more. However, the evidence point to close collaboration between Bebidas y 
Alimentos and the AUC paramilitaries. Plant manager Mosquera had a history of 
associating with the paramilitaries and gave them the instruction to destroy the union. Even 
more troubling was the fact that at the time of Gil's death, the union was involved in 
negotiations with the company.  During a subsequent investigation by the Colombian 
Justice Ministry, the plant's director and production manger were detained, along with a 
local paramilitary leader. All three were later released without charges. To date, no one has 
been prosecuted in Colombia for the murders of trade unionists at Drummond and Bebidas 
y Alimentos.   
In conclusion, I ask this panel to seriously consider what it about to embark upon.  If the 
United States is to continue to hold itself out as the defender of human rights and 
democracy, it cannot now reward one of the most violent countries in the hemisphere, now 
administered by a hostile government that openly threatens trade unionists, human rights 
organizations, defense lawyers, and others who criticize government policy.  For all of the 
thousands who have been murdered, displaced, or are otherwise victims of the long and 
bloody civil war, I urge you not to commence negotiations with the government of 
Colombia until it has: 1) investigated and prosecuted those responsible for act of violence 
against trade unionists; 2) taken adequate measures to ensure that no more trade unionists 
are murdered, tortured or threatened, and 3) have demonstrated substantial compliance with 
the ILO core labor standards.  
 


Comments Concerning Proposed United States-Andean Free Trade Agreement

Vogt presents two cases of US multinational corporations that benefit from violence against unionists in Colombia.  He argues that a trade agreement with Colombia would normalize the violence instead of fight against it.ILRF_Andean_Comments.pdf: 37 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons@Cornell

https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1477&amp;context=globaldocs

Comments Concerning Proposed United States-Andean Free Trade Agreement

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@ILR

eCommons@Cornell