The Specter of Greed

Yo personalmente elijo la globalización. ¿Y usted?
Jaime Raúl Molina

There is no greater disaster than greed.
Lao-tzu

Panama’s Agenda Magazine has done it again—they’ve set loose their columnist Jaime Raúl Molina to preach the glories of allowing international corporations to conduct business without restrictions. In his most recent piece, “Los mitos del movimiento anti-globalización,” Molina claims that the good of humanity is the primary concern of global commerce.

The February 19, 2006 issue of The Panama News included my response to one of Molina’s earlier articles, “La carretera de la discordia,” which also appeared in Agenda. In that piece, Molina advocated the construction of a highway through Darién—one of the last rainforests of the Americas—arguing that this will open Panamá to the rest of the world.

In Molina’s most recent work, he summarily dismisses the apprehensions of those who have taken a stand against unrestricted commercial globalization. According to Jaime Raúl Molina, global commerce is a benevolent force, possessing a life of its own, that will eliminate poverty from the earth.

Jaime Raúl Molina doesn’t appear to be kidding about this.

While I agree with him that globalization will help create jobs and spread the benefits of the best that modernity has to offer, I strongly disagree that corporations should be allowed to deal freely, without restrictions, anywhere in the underdeveloped world. Economic history repeatedly teaches us that mantra that guides corporate interests is ‘maximum profits at a minimal cost’—and such a stance easily leads to the exploitation of a vulnerable labor force.

But what I find most alarming about Molina’s article is that he appeals to the most ignoble stimulus of human nature: greed. In addition, in “Los mitos del movimiento anti-globalización,” Jaime Raúl Molina is guilty of selling false hope—he claims that unrestricted commercial globalization will solve the financial hardships of Panama’s poor.

And it’s precisely on these points that Molina and the publicity created by the proponents of the Canal’s expansion intersect: their arguments in favor of their causes appeal to greed and offer false hope.

A couple of weeks ago, a security guard that works near my home cornered me—literally—to let me know, with no uncertainty in his voice, that any Panamanian who votes against the expansion of the Canal is an idiot. He believes that the Canal’s widening will offer jobs for virtually everyone. He has swallowed the propaganda of the Authority of the Panama Canal (ACP)—hook, line, and sinker.

I am not Panamanian. Thus, I am not entitled to try to persuade anyone to agree with me. Plus, I must admit that I believe that the widening of the Panama Canal is a no-brainer. It needs to be done.

As the proposal is currently written, however, I see two dangers. One, without the appropriate safeguards to protect against financial abuses, the project will become a magnet for greed. And, two, because of the greed factor, there is a real danger that environmental concerns will fall by the wayside. In fact, studies commissioned by the ACP, the main proponent of the expansion, suggest that the widening can result in the salinization of Gatún Lake, the main source of drinking water for Panama City. But it seems that this information is being swept under the rug.

Both concerns are grave. It would be foolish to dismiss them lightly.

I agree with Jaime Raúl Molina that globalization is not only inevitable, but it’s desirable. But I’m not naïve enough to believe that corporations are angelic forces watching out for our welfare.

I also agree that the Panama Canal needs to be widened. However, Panamanians need to implement a system of strict financial controls to ward off the specter of greed.

Sometimes Writers Are Misinterpreted

Anybody who writes doesn't like to be misunderstood.
Norman MacCaig


I have written several articles about Father Héctor Gallego, the Colombian priest whose life work serves as the inspiration for the novel I’m currently revising: The Saint of Santa Fe.

In commemoration of the thirty-sixth anniversary of Father Gallegos’ disappearance, I wrote the article “A Time for Truth,” which appeared in the June 18 issue of The Panama News.

The Panama News received a letter in response to this piece. However, before sharing this reader’s opinion, I want to ask, did I really exonerate General Omar Torrijos from responsibility in Father Gallegos’ death?

Here is Jim Marsh’s letter:

Please may I say how much I enjoyed the recent article by Silvio Sirias on the tragic disappearance of Father Héctor Gallego, the well-loved priest of Santa Fe, whose work with the campesinos brought him into direct conflict with the military rule of Omar Torrijos.

Whilst I agree with many of the conclusions reached by Silvio, I disagree strongly with his belief that Torrijos knew nothing about the abduction and probable murder of Father Gallego.

The same “ignorance of events” was used by many high-ranking Nazis at Nuremberg, where many tried to protect Hitler’s memory by claiming that he knew nothing about the death camps, and it was all the work of Himmler, and Himmler alone.

Every time some one goes digging at a former military base, further corpses always seem to be unearthed—victims of an era that most Torrijos apologists tend to forget.

In any other democracy, there would be strenuous efforts to locate and properly bury such tragic victims, but not in Panama.

So we wait, and we hope that one day, maybe some one, somewhere, will find the bones of Father Gallego, and allow us to bury the man who did so much to help those less fortunate than himself.

Only then can we stop asking the question “¿Donde está Héctor Gallego?”

Saludos,

Jim Marsh
United Kingdom

Sometimes a Writer Brings Forth Fears

Americans are rightly concerned about the security and the integrity of the nation's borders because the system is broken. Some are concerned about the possibility of terrorists crossing our borders and coming into our cities.
Chris Cannon

Fear defeats more people than any other one thing in the world.
Ralph Waldo Emerson


The Latino and Latina marches that took place in the United States in March of this year, 2006, inspired me to write the article that appeared in the April 9 issue of The Panama News.

I received a rather angry response. The truth, the reader’s reaction left me somewhat bewildered. In her frustration over the growing American concern over illegal immigration, I believe she misinterpreted the views I expressed on the growing presence of Hispanics in the States. As I reread the response today, the message still seems alien to me. It's as if the letter had nothing to do with my article.

Fear has to power to render even the most rational person uncomprehensible.

Below is the response:

I just read your OpEd piece on Hispanic Immigrants. You failed to mention a few important points: the Hispanics we are discussing here in the states have violated our laws in coming here. We do not want borders that are porous. If we did, we wouldn't have the laws. Instead, the Hispanic community has taken it upon themselves to pour into our country, with no regard for our laws or sometimes even our culture. Hoisting Mexican flags was one activity that soured more than a few Americans, I can assure you. I cannot imagine Mexico taking lightly to millions of Americans just marching into Mexico and hoisting U.S. flags.

Why is it so hard to imagine our reaction when that behavior happens here?

What you also failed to mention is that the planned marches did catch the eye of U.S. citizens. I have not met one person who is now more mobilized than previously to find a way to stop the parade of Mexicans into the U.S. ...a parade by people who seem to care less about our laws, who care less about being supported by the taxpayers here, who take hospital beds without regard to displacement of our citizens, who take support services without regard to the fact that someone else is paying their way.

Jobs? This isn't about jobs. It's also not about diversity. It's about respect. It's about honor. It's about people abiding by the laws. It's about Mexicans feeling entitled to treat us in a manner that they would not extend to us if we came to their country.

Should the Immigration law be passed? No. A stricter one is needed.

Cynthia Freyer
Pullman, Washington