Today, we met with the Canadian Ambassador Kenneth Cook who was accompanied by Sonia Garcia of CIDA. The meeting was a two hour marathon of emotion. My overall impression of this meeting was one of frustration, for a number of reasons:

1. The red tape of the Canadian Embassy. A number of comments were made along the lines of what the embassy could not do as opposed to what they could do.
-Regarding their position: "We do not represent Canadian companies, we do not facilitate (on behalf of) Canadian companies."
-Regarding human rights and impact assessment: "The Canadian government is not a police force for this kind of activity."
-Regarding the role of the embassy if they are made aware that a company is not living up to standards: "We would not be silent but it is up to the Guatemalan government.

2. The (obvious) approval of the mining companies. When we pointed out that the community leaders of San Miguel Ixtahuacán were 99% against the mine, Ambassador Cook replied by telling us that statistic implies that community leaders of San Miguel Ixtahuacán were not properly informed. Obviously, this implies that if they were informed they would undoubtedly have been in favour of the mine, because any 'sensible & informed' person would be in favour of the mine. Ambassador Cook also stated that any efforts of scientific testing would always reveal a fault because someone will plant something there to find. Thus, there is no point in even trying to determine the environmental impacts of these mines. Finally, Ambassador Cook's statement that "there is always an environmental cost" seemed passive and blasé. Was the environmental costs that we witnessed truly within an acceptable range? I certainly hope not.

3. Ambassador Cook implied that since we were being toured around by Rights Action, and that they have an obvious agenda, our opinions would be strongly biased. As a scientist, I found this to be extremely offensive. Both personally and professionally, my opinions are informed ones. I do not and will not blindly accept others opinions as my own.
(Photo credit: Catherine Nolin)

That afternoon, we met with Caren Weisbart, an international accompanier, and coordinator of Coordination of International Accompaniment in Guatemala (CAIG). International accompaniment serves three purposes: dissuasive presence; documentation of human rights abuses; and dissemination of information on an international scale. When an individual suffering from threats and other form of intimidation has an accompanier, the message is sent that that person is not alone. Caren explains that there are three types of accompaniments:
-1 - Returnees/Refugees - accompaniment of returnees (sometimes a whole community), until they have had a safe return & acquisition of land.
-2 - Genocide Cases - This type of accompaniment is for individuals who were participating in the documentation of the genocide. The accompaniment would be low profile to protect the identity of the individual.
-3 - International Issues - This type of accompaniment is for individuals who are suffering intimidation from multi-national or international bodies.
(Photo credit: Catherine Nolin)