Ecuador apologizes to plantation workers who were exposed to 'modern slavery' conditions
In an event held near the presidential palace in Quito, various members of Ecuador's Cabinet recognized that more than 300 workers of a Japanese-owned abaca plantation were forced to live in conditions of 'modern slavery' with Labor Minister Ivone Nuñez pledging that Ecuador will strive to 'build a state that guarantees the human rights of workers.'
The apology issued by government officials is one of the reparation measures ordered by the court last year.
In the ruling, the Constitutional Court determined that between 1963 and 2019 workers of the Japanese company Furukawa were forced to live in dormitories without basic services at a plantation in western Ecuador, where accidents were common due to the lack of safety training.
Former employees of Furukawa attended Saturday's ceremony along with their lawyers, who have accused the company of not paying reparations to the workers who were affected by the harsh conditions at its plantation in Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas province.
Furukawa representatives were not immediately available for comment. The company changed owners in 2014, and it has said that conditions have changed since then. Furukawa has also asked Ecuador's government to lift a ban on the sale of its properties in Ecuador so that it can pay reparations to workers.
The abaca plant, which is also known as manila hemp, is used to make specialty papers, ropes and fishing nets. The plant resembles a banana plant, but its fruits are not edible.
Ecuador is the world's largest exporter of bananas and is also among a handful of countries that produces large quantities of abaca,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Washington Post
The costs of powering the AI revolution
The July 28 editorial, 'A promising AI action plan,' missed the forest for the trees. Our goal for artificial intelligence should be to make working people's lives better. The Trump administration's so-called AI action plan is not a serious attempt to achieve this goal. It's just a gift to Big Tech. The administration's plan fails to protect working people from the potential harms of AI, some of which we're already seeing today. It also invites corporations to flood U.S. markets with experimental AI products that threaten jobs, safety, civil rights and our privacy. Notably, a wrongheaded proposal to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade was recently resoundingly rejected by 99 senators. America's unions are pushing for a path forward on AI that incorporates workers' expertise and respects their rights so the benefits of the technology can be enjoyed by all. If President Donald Trump truly wants to empower workers, as his plan announced, he should work with unions to achieve that goal. Ed Wytkind, Washington The writer is interim director of the AFL-CIO Technology Institute. President Donald Trump's new 'AI Action Plan' looks to expand American innovation in the field of artificial intelligence. It's a laudable goal. However, to achieve these aims, the Trump administration must invest proper resources in the entire ecosystem that drives the basic scientific research needed to power new AI breakthroughs. That includes investing in colleges and universities across the country. We should not wait for private research investment that might never come. The Trump administration should treat AI research as a priority, but its recent cuts to federally funded university research put our nation's status as a leader in AI development at risk. Academic research, backed by robust federal investments and put into action by the private sector, is crucial to winning the AI race. If the United States' goal is to remain at the forefront of the world's AI race, lawmakers must reverse recent funding cuts to research at U.S. colleges and universities. Without these vital investments, we will cede our AI dominance to foreign adversaries such as China, and we will lose this critical competition. Abigail Robbins, Washington The writer is president of the Science Coalition. As was correctly stated in the July 28 front-page article 'Boom in AI drives higher electric bills for millions,' data centers are consuming more energy as these facilities support the ever-growing artificial intelligence and cloud computing industries. The increases in electrical consumption impact us all through utility costs. This article reminded me of one issue that I have always wondered about: What would be the impacts of all Americans switching to electric vehicles? That change would surely create a significant electrical demand. I am fully supportive of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but electric cars still require energy production to charge the batteries. If energy prices are going up to support the computing needs of AI, can you imagine the amount of extra energy production needed to power electric cars for the entire country? If we don't do something to counter our energy needs, I fear we will see even more drastic utility cost increases in the near future. Adrian Fremont, Alexandria Unfortunately, reading the July 28 editorial, the July 28 front-page article on artificial intelligence and the July 28 news article 'Why extreme weather is so tough on mobile homes' in succession painted a frightening picture of our climate predicament and our apparently deep resolve to make it much worse. We are seeing a dramatic rise in flooding from extreme rain events that claim lives and property, and the explosion of AI data centers is going to ramp up our electricity bills, especially here in Virginia. I felt dubious of the editorial's idea that President Donald Trump's plan for AI is 'promising.' Americans face rising waters, rising electricity rates and rising insurance rates. Will AI provide advice that will fix the cumulative climate mess it helps create? I don't think so. AI might be able to think for us, but it comes with great cost. To mitigate the effects of this changing climate, we need to cut carbon emissions. Our grandchildren will marvel at the hypocrisies of this time. Chris Wiegard, Chester, Virginia Mitch Daniels's speculations in his July 30 column, 'What the heck would you put in a time capsule in 2025?,' about what the world could look like 100 years from now are insightful and thought-provoking. However, he was mistaken to suppose that readers a century from now will shake their heads over how today's leaders have dealt with climate change, 'spending trillions without moving, or any real prospect of moving, the world's thermometer.' In fact, today's policies have already moved the thermometer by quite a lot. The 2014 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate report, which was released before the 2015 Paris accord, said the Earth was on track for a global temperature rise of 3.7 to 4.8 degrees Celsius (or 6.7 to 8.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the year 2100. The latest report, released in 2023, put the likely range between 2.1 and 3.4 degrees Celsius (or 3.8 to 6.1 degrees Fahrenheit). In less than 10 years, we've lowered the temperature of our future world by about 1.5 degrees Celsius. To be clear, this lower level of global temperature rise is still very bad. But it's not as bad as it could be. In other words, what we've been doing over the past decade, such as moving away from fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy, is starting to work. To protect our future, we need to keep up this momentum, not change course. Amy Livingston, Highland Park, New Jersey Josh Max's July 28 online op-ed, '845,000 dead on U.S. highways. Why not address the main cause?,' contended that more driver training would lead to fewer motor vehicle fatalities. Significant obstacles prevent this from being a feasible solution. First, driver education courses are usually only available for those who can afford to pay for them. Second, mass implementation of these programs as requirements would have to be funded from government coffers. Moreover, research doesn't indicate driver education courses for high-schoolers are effective. Newer vehicles are often equipped with advanced crash-avoidance features. But these technologies need to be required and subject to minimum safety standards. Otherwise, they will continue to be offered at a cost and will vary in effectiveness. Last year, the U.S. Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration prudently issued a requirement that automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection be installed on new passenger vehicles in the coming years. AEB can mitigate or reduce crashes involving myriad human behavior-related issues. Transportation officials estimate that this action will prevent at least 360 deaths and 24,000 injuries annually. They should expand the requirement to detect bicycle and motorcycle riders. Similarly, installing impaired driving prevention technology — which, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, could save more than 10,000 lives annually once widely deployed — should be required. In addition to federal action, states should use speed and red-light safety cameras, require all passengers to buckle up, and require motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. All-offender ignition interlock device laws, which reduce repeat drunken driving offenses, should be the norm in all states. So should more comprehensive graduated driver licensing programs, designed for novice drivers to get the experience that research shows offers one of the best options to reduce their risk of a crash. Major reductions to our horrific motor-vehicle death and injury toll can be achieved, but our leaders must advance proven solutions expeditiously. Cathy Chase, Washington The writer is president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Josh Max's July 28 online op-ed discussed possible reasons behind car accidents, but it should have also mentioned how many new cars are built with huge touch screens in front of the driver. They usually require a focus on the screen, which takes away from the driver's focus on the road. These screens have become widespread, to the detriment of highway safety. We should return to automobile levers and switches, with no need to take eyes off the road. Michael Harper, Folsom, California The headline of Sarah Labowitz's July 26 op-ed, 'FEMA has become its own disaster,' should have been 'Trump has become a disaster for FEMA.' The process that Labowitz described was not the one that occurred when I was at FEMA, and I believe she confused the process for a state to receive federal assistance in a disaster. The 1988 Robert T. Stafford Federal Disaster and Emergency Assistance Act established a system that requires the president to make a federal emergency declaration or a federal disaster declaration. FEMA makes a recommendation, prepares the paperwork, sends it to the Department of Homeland Security and then to the president. Except for minor items after the president has made the declaration, FEMA does not issue partial approvals or disapprovals. The statute and regulations require the president to make the ultimate decision. FEMA merely makes a recommendation to the president. The apparent practice of 'batching' requests and recommendations of FEMA professionals, which now go through DHS and then to the president, makes a mockery of the sovereignty of the individual states and their governors and has never been FEMA's practice. FEMA's long-standing tradition treats each state as sovereign and individual. Diane L. Donley, Alexandria The writer is a retired Federal Emergency Management Agency attorney.
Associated Press
6 hours ago
- Associated Press
US and Ecuador sign agreement to combat transnational crime
QUITO, Ecuador (AP) — The United States and Ecuador on Thursday signed a bilateral agreement aimed at strengthening their collaboration against transnational criminal networks. The agreement, signed during a visit of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to the South American country, facilitates the exchange of information on suspected criminal offenders and risk assessments of cargo and travelers. Noem told reporters the efforts are 'crucial steps to improve security and ensure that migration is carried out within the framework of the law.' The deal with Ecuador comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to bolster regional cooperation in its clampdown against immigration and transnational criminal groups, including Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the White House earlier this year. On Wednesday, Noem signed a similar agreement with Chile, which she visited as part of her latest tour of Latin America. That agreement allows Chilean officials to identify potentially dangerous migrants entering or exiting the country and share their fingerprints, iris scans and other biometric data with Homeland Security to prevent such individuals from traveling to the U.S. ____ Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at
Washington Post
6 hours ago
- Washington Post
US and Ecuador sign agreement to combat transnational crime
QUITO, Ecuador — The United States and Ecuador on Thursday signed a bilateral agreement aimed at strengthening their collaboration against transnational criminal networks. The agreement, signed during a visit of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to the South American country, facilitates the exchange of information on suspected criminal offenders and risk assessments of cargo and travelers. Noem told reporters the efforts are 'crucial steps to improve security and ensure that migration is carried out within the framework of the law.'
