Fictional reporting from Coclesito
by Luis-Gonzalo Mateo, Claretan missionary
I'm a witness to what I say. I was present at the meeting in
Coclecito that was organized by a small minority that accepts Law 44 [the
1999 law that set aside large parts of western Colon and northern Cocle provinces
to be flooded as part of the Panama Canal's expansion], a group tied to
the local representantes. This wasn't a meeting set up by the Coordinadora
Campesina Contra los Embalses. There were a lot of lies and much disinformation.
I would like to address several points.
1. The farmers who belong to the Coordinadora, which represents
that immense majority of farmers, were not informed of this meeting at the
farmers' vigil in Colon. The only information they received was that the President
was leaving it up to them to choose a place and a date for her to meet with
them. I witnessed this. Monsignor Ariz was to serve as intermediary.
2. Justice Minister Winston Spadafora publicly denied that
he had given orders to investigate the farmers who have come together to oppose
Law 44. The President herself expressed alarm at this news, recalling the
times when she herself has been persecuted, and categorically rejecting this
method in her government. Yet we are witnesses that the DIIP investigates
the farmers, and was present all throughout the vigil in Colon. And now they
come up with the idea that we're Zapatistas. It's a fictional report, it's
to demonize the movement, it's the use of the art of lying in order to confuse.
It they have been investigating for months, obliging farmers
to give their names at the police station when they go to a meeting, how come
they have been unable to detect these supposed Zapatistas during all this
time? The only foreigners here are Catholic missionaries who accompany the
people. All have their identities listed as envoys of the religious congregations
and of the bishop. They can testify as to who they are.
3. The meeting at Coclecito was manipulated by a leadership
that supports Law 44. Its positions were not those of the farm families that
congregated there. Proof of this was that the President openly expressed that
she was startled at how few farmers' voices she heard. These words underlined
the existence of other voices, which reject Law 44 and the three-dam project.
4. The language used by the Panama Canal Authority about this
law always leaves everybody with more questions. We hear expressions like
these: "It's not definite;" "It could be like that, but it might not be;"
"Everything is being studied;" and "You will be duly informed."
It seems that the whole country is opening its eyes to the
subject. It's time to have an open dialogue throughout the nation. Let the
economists speak, let the engineers speak (as Ricardo Bermúdez has
begun to do), let the environmentalists speak, and above all let’s hear
what the farmers have to say. At the start of the 21st century, do we agree
with engineering methods from the beginning of the 20th century?
