|
══════════════════【立報】═══════════════════ |
| 教 育 專 題 深 入 報 導《2005-05-06》 |
| 本期內容 | |
| ◎ 可口可樂榨乾印度 Coca-Cola Sucking India Dry | |
| ◎ 法院准續抽地下水 社區居民將擴大抗爭 | |
| ◎ 嚴重破壞環境 美大學生要正面答覆 | |
| ◎ 台灣立報徵文啟事 | |
| 可口可樂榨乾印度 Coca-Cola Sucking India Dry | |
|
摘要： 南印度喀拉拉省的帕拉奇馬達鎮的人們，在帕拉奇馬達可口可樂工廠成立3週年的上月22日再度集會，公開表示反對可口可樂公司在當地設廠的立場，同時也譴責該廠對當地環境造成的破壞。 這是印度持續不斷反對可口可樂公司不道德行為最近一次的抗爭，他們表示可口可樂在當地設廠已經造成當地嚴重的用水短缺，以及水源和土地的汙染問題，並且把有毒的工業廢料當作肥料丟棄，同時其出售的飲料含有高濃度的殺蟲劑。可口可樂方面則置之不理，對於其造成的傷害視若無睹地持續照常運作。數萬名社區民眾參與「要求可口可樂出面說明」，並為其行為負責的國際性運動，在印度許多地區的工廠都面臨社區民眾要求關閉工廠的持續抵抗。（資料來源／印度獨立媒體） 原文： The people of Plachimada, in Kerala Southern India, rallied together on Fri-day April 22nd, for the third aniversary of the Plachimada Coca Cola plant, and an accompanying 3 year, 24hrs a day 7days a week, protest vigil outside it's gates, to publicly show it's opposition to the corporation's existing and planned environmental degredation in the area. This has been the most recent of ongoing opposition to Coca-Cola's inethical conduct in India, where they have been alleged to have caused severe water shortages, water and land pollution, the distribution of toxic waste as fertilizer, and for the sale drinks containing high levels of pesticides. Coca-Cola is fur-ther negligent as it has not reported any of the damages it has made, continuing operations. Tens of thousands of community members, have been participating in and In-ternational Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable for it's conduct, with plants in Mehdiganj, Uttar Pradesh, Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu Kaladera, Rajas-tan, facing increasing resistance to their operations as community members de-mand they are shut-down. |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 法院准續抽地下水 社區居民將擴大抗爭 | |
|
Coca-Cola Affected Community in India Promises Escalation of Campaign, Despite Court Ruling 摘要 印度高等法院喀拉拉分庭日前做出判決，允許可口可樂公司每天繼續從印度南部帕拉奇馬達工廠附近的地下水層，抽取50萬公升的水供使用。至於裝瓶工廠則維持過去一年關閉的局面，這是社區民眾密集抗議施壓的結果。 之前拒絕更新可口可樂的執照的普汝馬堤村協調委員會，則被告知有15天的時間去重新考慮他們的決定。可口可樂公司則期盼在未來幾天來獲得一份新的營業執照。不過，高等法院的判決很可能會在送往最高法院，因此可口可樂在帕拉奇馬達的工廠，看來不大可能在近期內重新開張運作。 最近這次判決是針對可口可樂公司在2003年12月16日向喀拉拉高等法院提出的告訴。在這場告訴中，高等法院指出可口可樂公司過度抽取地下水資源，已構成「非法」的行為，應當尋求替代的水資源才是。不過，2003年12月的判決中法院也指出，即使可口可樂公司抽取地下水可以保證對當地的安全不至造成威脅，但也不該被允許，因為「地下水屬於一般平民大眾，因此身為第二當事人的可口可樂公司無權主張享用大量的使用權，而政府也沒有權力允許一個私人機構抽取如此大量的地下水；因為這屬於財產的範圍，應交由信託管理。」 高等法院的判決根據一項報告，建議依正常的降雨量，可口可樂公司一天可以抽取50萬公升的水。然而，喀拉拉省政府和普汝馬堤村都認為這份報告並不充分，可口可樂工廠應當不能在當地運作。也因此這個事件一時之間恐怕難以解決。 「社區民眾想要可口可樂工廠永久關閉的努力只會更加強化，這家公司將永遠無法新開張。」帕拉奇馬達團結委員會的召集人阿亞葉這麼說，他是當地致力於主張社區應有自然資源的主管權背後的主要支持者。「我們也要求喀拉拉政府像最高法院上訴，以保衛社區的利益，和民眾的權益。」 高等法院也指出，可口可樂公司可以抽取地下水，是因為在印度沒有法律規範地下水抽取的限制。「由於缺少了法源，因此抗爭保衛自然資源主管權的行動變的困難。」知名的原住民人權份子比裘伊這麼說。他也指出，受到可口可樂公司污染的地下水的水質問題，並沒有在法律裁量時考慮的範圍中。「這不只是抽取地下水的問題，這攸關民眾的生存問題。」他說。 「我們有信心目前不利於帕拉奇馬達的判決將會被推翻。」印度資源中心的斯里費斯提夫這麼說：「在印度這樣一個水資源如此困乏的地區，這樣的判決是多麼荒謬可笑。像可口可樂這樣的公司竟然可以用這麼奢侈與輕浮的方式浪費我們的自然資源。」 （資料來源／印度獨立媒體） 原文 Plachimada and New York (April 8, 2005): In a surprising move, a division bench of the High Court of Kerala has permitted Coca-Cola to extract up to 500,000 liters of water from the common groundwater resource per day at its Plachimada fa-cility, in southern India. The bottling plant remains shut down for over a year now due to intense com-munity pressure. The Perumatty village council (panchayat), which had refused to renew Coca-Cola's license to operate citing it for over-extraction of water, has been given 15 days to reconsider its decision, and Coca-Cola is expected to file for a renewal of the license to the Perumatty panchayat in the next few days. The High Court ruling is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, and it seems unlikely that Coca-Cola can reopen its plant at Plachimada in the near future. The latest ruling was in response to Coca-Cola's appeal of the December 16, 2003 Kerala High Court ruling. In the significant ruling of December 2003, the High Court had ruled Coca-Cola's heavy extraction of water from the common groundwater resource to be 'illegal' and ordered it to seek alter-native sources of water for its production. Signifi-cantly, the 2003 ruling also noted that even if it was assumed that Coca-Cola could extract water safely, it should not be allowed to do so because "the un-derground water belongs to the general public and the 2nd respondent ?Coca-Cola has no right to claim a huge share of it and the Government have no power to allow a private party to extract such a huge quantity of ground water, which is a property, held by it in trust." The High Court based its judgment on a report which recommended that Coca-Cola could extract up to 500,000 liters of water per day, based on nor-mal rainfall conditions. However, both the state government of Kerala, as well as the Perumatty panchayat, had argued that the report was inadequate, and that the Coca-Cola plant should not be allowed to operate. The issues surrounding Coca-Cola in Plachimada are far from over. "The community struggle to shut down Co-ca-Cola permanently will intensify, and the compa-ny will not be allowed to reopen," said R. Ajayan, convener of the Plachimada Solidarity Committee, a key supporter of the local struggle to assert com-munity control over natural resources. "We are also demanding that the state government of Kerala file an appeal with the Supreme Court to safeguard the interests of the community as well as the right of the panchayat." The High Court also noted that Coca-Cola could extract the groundwater since there was no law reg-ulating groundwater extraction for such purpose in India. "In the absence of such a law, it makes it diffi-cult to protect natural resources from such predato-ry behavior by private companies," said C.R. Bijoy, a prominent Indigenous people's rights activist. He also noted that the quality of the groundwater, which has been polluted as a result of Coca-Cola's practices, was not at all taken into consideration while issuing the order. "This issue is about much more than the extraction of water by Coca-Cola it-self. The issue is about who has the fundamental decision making power over the use of natural re-sources, and it is about the survival of the people," continued Bijoy. "We are confident that the current ruling against the community of Plachimada will be overturned," said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center. "It is an absurd thought that in India, where water is already such a scarce resource, a company like Co-ca-Cola should be allowed to waste precious natu-ral resources in such a frivolous manner." |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 嚴重破壞環境 美大學生要正面答覆 | |
|
University Demands Answers from Coca-Cola 摘要 在美國密西根大學長達6個月學生運動後，推派11名代表強迫可口可樂公司對在哥倫比亞以及印度的罪行提出說明，以及學生、教授和行政人員的嚴密檢查下，可口可樂公司日前終於以防禦姿態作出了回應。在哥倫比亞，可口可樂涉及在裝瓶工廠的謀殺、威脅、撤職、失蹤與攻擊勞工事件；在印度，可口可樂公司則耗盡當地水資源，謊稱有毒工業廢料為肥料，欺騙當地農民，並販售含有過量殺蟲劑的飲料。學生要求密西根大學撤銷該校與可口可樂公司130萬美元的契約。這場學生運動是聯結哥倫比亞勞工和印度農夫的國際性學生運動之一部分。已有13所大學取消和可口可樂的契約關係。 最近Cal Safety國際認證機構（由可口可樂公司委託）發表的報告，內容在於評估哥倫比亞裝瓶工廠的濫用人權控訴是否合理，大部分都受到學生的抨擊。「Cal Safety不是一個可靠的監控者，他們沒有遵循國際認可的監控程序，以及被主流人權與勞工團體所認定的標準。更重要的是，這個評估報告背後完全由那些有過勞資糾紛、同樣惡名昭彰應受指摘的企業如Walmart和耐吉出資，更不足以採信。」密西根大學大二學生裘瑞‧席爾斯特這麼說。Cal Safety是家社會認證公司，他們在1990年代中期引起全球性的反勞力剝削的艾爾蒙特勞力剝削工廠事件，出現過令人震驚的疏忽與錯誤。儘管完全缺乏信用，可口可樂公司卻拒絕任何Cal Safety之外的團體進行調查，即使是大學支持的勞工權利團體也不例外。爭議申訴委員會也對可口可樂公司不願意由中立團體進行調查一事表示過關切。可口可樂的代表對於密西根大學爭議申訴委員會成員艾迪‧霍夫曼的質問：「所以只有Cal Safety，然後就沒有了？」緘默以對。 「在印度的事件裡，假如你是制定環境標準的負責人，那麼請問你為何選擇這樣一個容易乾旱並水資源缺乏的地區做為工廠興建地？」霍夫曼繼續問第二個問題。學生指出可口可樂的辯詞中充滿對真相反覆的扭曲與全然的謊言。特別是，學生指出雖然可口可樂說他們是自動改進了某些做法，但是事實是，所有停止把有毒工業廢棄物當成肥料分發給當地農夫、終止在喀拉拉省水資源已枯竭的含水土層繼續抽取，並在印度法院的指示下在飲料中標示高殺蟲劑含量等行動，都是受到印度公民社會的壓力使然，而非自動自發改進的。 可口可樂公司9名代表和兩名來自中國上海的會議訪客都面臨了訊問。密西根大學是發動對抗可口可樂公司運動中最頂尖的學校之一，他們在大學中位居社會正義的領導地位，在學生的強迫下對他們的自動販賣機採取了高瞻遠囑的行為準則。顯而易見的，若爭議申訴委員會在6月期滿後終止與可口可樂之間的契約關係，這將對該公司造成嚴重的打擊。 （資料來源／http://www.livejournal.com） 原文 Ann Arbor, Michigan, US, 28 Apr.: The Coca-Cola Com-pany was put on the defensive yesterday under the in-tense scrutiny of students, professors, and administrators at the University of Michigan. An expansive six-month-long student campaign came to a head as 11 corporate representa-tives were forced to account for Coca-Cola's crimes in Colombia and India. In Colombia, Coke has been involved in the murders, threats, displacements, disappearances and at-tacks of union workers at its bottling plants. In India, the company has depleted the water supply, distributed toxic waste to farmers under the guise of fertilizer, and sold soft drinks containing excessively high levels of pesticides. Stu-dents are demanding that the University of Michigan cut its $1.3 million contract with the Coca-Cola Company. The campaign at the University is part of an international student movement in solidarity with workers in Colombia and farm-ers in India. Thirteen other universities have already cut their contracts with Coca-Cola. The recently released report by Cal Safety, commissioned by Coca-Cola to evaluate accusations of human rights abuses at its bottling plants in Colombia, was largely discredited by students. "Cal Safety is not a credible monitor. It follows none of the internationally recognized monitoring standards and practices used by mainstream human rights and labor or-ganizations. They are in fact entirely funded by corporations with reprehensible labor records, including Walmart and Nike," said Jory Hearst, a University of Michigan sophomore. Cal Safety is a social auditing firm whose egregious oversight in the El Monte slave sweatshop case launched the global an-ti-sweatshop movement in the mid-1990s. Despite its com-plete lack of credibility, Coca-Cola has refused to allow an investigation by any body other than Cal Safety, not even the University-supported Worker's Rights Consortium. Members of the Dispute Review Board expressed concern over Co-ca-Cola's unwillingness to compromise on a third party inves-tigation. Coca-Cola representatives were mute in response to Andy Hoffmann, a member of University of Michigan's Dis-pute Review Board, when he questioned, "So it's Cal Safety or nothing?" "On the India issue, if you are a leader in environmental standards, why do you choose to build and operate plants in areas prone to drought and water shortages?" continued Pro-fessor Hoffmann. Students pointed out that Coca-Cola's de-fense contained repeated distortions and outright lies. In par-ticular, students noted that though Coca-Cola claimed to re-form is behavior voluntarily, it was actually forced to stop the distribution of toxic waste as fertilizer, to cease the withdraw-al of water from depleted aquifers in the state of Kerala, and to label high pesticide levels in its soft drinks by Indian court orders. As Adri Miller, a University freshman, pointed out, "If Coke has ever changed its business practices, it has been the result of pressure from Indian civil society or the courts, never voluntarily." Nine representatives from Coca-Cola and two additional conference callers from Shanghai, China, faced the interroga-tion. The University of Michigan is one of the most promi-nent schools to launch a campaign against Coca-Cola. The U-niversity has been a leader in social justice among universi-ties and was forced by students to adopt a forward-looking code of conduct for its vendors. Clearly, if the Dispute Re-view Board recommends cutting the contract upon its expira-tion in June, this will be a major setback for the Coca-Cola Company. |
|
| （回目錄） | |
| 台灣立報徵文啟事 | |
|
本報誠徵閱讀經驗分享，歡迎教師、家長及學生分享經驗，題材包括如何推動學生閱讀、啟發學生閱讀興趣、學生閱讀心得或小書評，文長500～1500字皆可，投至fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net，凡經採用，敬奉薄酬。 |
|
| （回目錄） | |
|
參觀立報： |
http://www.lihpao.com |
|
寫信給小編 e-mail： |
fiveguys@ms19.hinet.net |
|
立報地址： |
台北縣新店市復興路43號一樓 |