Activists Accuse World Bank’s Lending Arm Of Funding Deadly Honduran Conflict

dinantActivist group Rights Action is accusing the World Bank of indirectly funding a series of attacks against farmers allegedly committed by the security forces of Honduran businessman Miguel Facusse, chief of Corporacion Dinant.

Via Raw Story:

The bank’s private lending arm, the International Finance Corporation, is spearheading several multimillion-dollar projects in Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Americas. However, some are questioning whether the money is doing more harm than good.

Human rights groups accuse the IFC of ignoring warnings that its funding for the Honduran palm oil industry is helping fuel a deadly land conflict that’s turning the fertile Aguan Valley near the country’s northern coast into a virtual military zone.

Farmworkers say they’ve been forced off land that’s mostly taken up by oil palm tree plantations. The controversy is casting doubts about whether the bank and its 182 member countries can respect their own code of ethics while doing business in politically unstable, corrupt societies.

Read the rest of the story at Raw Story.

22 Comments on "Activists Accuse World Bank’s Lending Arm Of Funding Deadly Honduran Conflict"

  1. Liam_McGonagle | Jan 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm |

    I don’t understand you people and your utopian fantasies.

    Warfare is an inextricable part of the human condition, and so is profit. Your very refusal to accept that fact only reinforces the point that conflict is inevitable, and the resentment that motivates you only proves that profit-neutral ‘equality’ is an insubstantial fantasy.

    What could be more natural and right than war profiteering?

    • Nope. Humans can do anything we imagine. Even fly to the moon.

      If you can imagine a world without conflict, than it can happen…of course, first one must cause *a lot* of conflict…here is a plan for world peace:
      1.) determine who agrees with the phrase “might makes right”,
      2.) kill those people,
      3.) kill the people who killed those people (or ask them to kill themselves)…
      4.) The meek inherit the earth?

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 4, 2014 at 3:27 pm |

        1) Determine [insert arbitrary desired qualifier].
        2) & 3) good generally steps for any purge.
        4) Get back to work Comrades!

        Repeat and rinse as necessary.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Jan 5, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

        Agree, but with the proviso that we also kill the people that just passively stood by while the others were killed.

        The problem with human civilization is humanity. Once we get rid of that, all will be mellow.

    • InfvoCuernos | Jan 4, 2014 at 7:46 pm |

      Is that you, Mr. Kissinger?

    • gustave courbet | Jan 4, 2014 at 8:41 pm |

      While I am not a fan of the usage of the naturalistic fallacy, could we agree that war and war profiteering are kind of a bummer? And if we agree that war is kind of a bummer, could we try to, you know, kind of try to avoid it, instead of, say jumping right into it?

  2. Sorry, but how is this “news” exactly?
    Aren’t most, if not all, major banks involved in money laundering, drug and gun running, war profiteering, interest rate manipulation, insider trading, and all kinds of nefarious covert ops and dodgy deals all over the planet, or is that just my tin foil hat talking?

    • Are you sure it’s your tinfoil hat? Perhaps someone else formed it for you?

      • It’s what I suppose based on what I’ve read.

        • I apreciate the way you worded that. To be clear, I am not picking on you. Those are questions that arose for me when reading your comment.

          • No worries, man:) I occasionally have to step back and check myself as well, just to try make sure I am not going completely off the ontological rails.
            You know, with all the recent scandals of banking fraud of one kind or another, how can anyone ever trust those fuckers to be anything other than evil rat bastards?
            A few clicks turns up all kindsa shit. It’s not like you have to dig very deep. But your point is well taken; it’s easy to lose the plot when . . . trying to put together your own model of reality that is different from that of the one offered “official sources.” Chapel Perilous is no joke.

          • I experience you as good people, Juan. no joke, indeed.

          • Thanks, you too.
            Finding myself quite at home in this space. Some interesting critters up in here. I likes it weird;)

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 4, 2014 at 9:01 pm |

            The process of simply entering such models in and of itself seems to generate many of the phenomena attributed to the underlying weirdness of unsanctioned territories.
            Mass psychogenic reality exerts such an overwhelming influence that any separation is bound to evoke a host of conversion symptoms.

          • Oi vey, you’re telling me . . .
            Getting real cozy with ambiguity.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

            I was not adhering to a strict clinical definition of a ‘conversion syndrome’ along these grounds: 1) generally considered somatic manifestations of psychiatric disorder. 2) allowing for a general rejection of the mind/body divide. 3) recognizing that many of the symptoms of Chapel Perilous are present in true mental illness. 4) Not believing that those experiencing Chapel Perilous are mentally ill.
            Thus you have, through a cognitive process, a conversion of disruptive thought paradigms into transient psychiatric symptoms, which I would consider a somatic displacement.

            Now if you want to get into the High Weirdness of the seeming intrusions into actual reality such states may evoke…that’s another topic altogether.

          • You mean like UFO “abductions” temproal anomalies, synchronicities, etc?

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 5, 2014 at 5:40 pm |

            Among others.
            Never been abducted (at least not by aliens). I have had a very John Keelesque experience of persons w/ strange accents, out of date clothing/vehicle, phone/electronics anomalies.

  3. alizardx | Jan 5, 2014 at 3:16 am |

    Palm oil has many uses, but the one that appears to be driving expansion is biodiesel “green” fuel. The problem with palm oil greenfuel in this part of the world is that the method of clearing land is “slash and burn”, the “burn” part releases more CO2 than the palm oil from the plantation is likely to save.

    Absent government subsidies for biofuel, would these plantations exist? While “green” biofuel is possible, what’s needed is an honest NGO to certify that production of biofuel qualifying for subsidies is done only when that biofuel is carbon-neutral including the preparation of land for biofuel production.

    Also note that biofuel is a transitional technology making it possible to use the current inventory of motor vehicles until better electric storage solutions and green electric energy production makes the concept of burning things for portable power obsolete.

Comments are closed.