“The SUNTRAC’s movement and role against the Mining Contract in Panama”

In Panama, the Single Union of Construction Workers (SUNTRACS) has called for a series
of mobilizations and protests against the Mining Contract, which was recently approved by
the National Assembly and the Executive branch of the country. In this essay, we will explore
the role of SUNTRACS in this conflict and analyze the reasons behind their opposition to
the contract, as well as the impact it can have on Panamanian society and the environment.

SUNTRACS, led by Saúl Méndez, has played a prominent role in the fight against the Mining
Contract in Panama. This union, which represents construction workers, has extended its
solidarity to popular sectors, unions, student groups, and civil society in general to express
their opposition to this agreement. Their motivation behind this involvement lies in the
perception that the Mining Contract threatens the country's sovereignty and endangers both
natural resources and public health.

Saúl Méndez, the leader of SUNTRACS, has characterized the Mining Contract as a
"contract that sells the homeland," emphasizing their concern over the potential plunder of
natural resources and the negative effects on human health and the environment. In response
to these concerns, the union has called for direct action and urged citizens to join in street
protests and mobilizations.

The Mining Contract in question involves a partnership between the Panamanian government
and the Canadian multinational First Quantum Minerals. While it is designed to boost the
mining industry in Panama, it has been criticized for various reasons. According to
SUNTRACS and other opponents, the voices of significant sectors of society were not
considered during the negotiation and approval process of the contract.

One of the main arguments against the contract is its potential impact on the environment.
There is fear that large-scale mining could cause irreversible damage to local ecosystems and
water sources, which would have severe consequences for communities and the region's
biodiversity. Furthermore, it is argued that the contract grants excessive concessions to the
foreign company at the expense of national interests, which some see as a violation of the
country's sovereignty.

In their protest against the Mining Contract, Saúl Méndez, the leader of SUNTRACS, has
drawn historical comparisons with past events. He has equated the approval of the contract
with the handover of the Panama Canal to the United States in 1903, an episode that generated
tensions and discontent in Panamanian society. The comparison highlights the perception that
authorities have yielded to foreign interests at the expense of national interests and
sovereignty.

Méndez has also held various actors accountable for what he considers an "affront to the
homeland." Among the accused are the Council of Ministers, the 44 deputies who voted in
favor of the contract in the National Assembly, the justices of the Supreme Court who
endorsed it, and President Laurentino Cortizo, who signed it after legislative approval. This
denunciation of responsibility points to a political system that many consider accommodating
to foreign corporate interests.
SUNTRACS is not alone in its opposition to the Mining Contract. Several sectors of
Panamanian society have joined the cause. The National Central of Workers of Panama, the
Ecclesial Ecological Network Mesoamerica-Panama, and the Citizen Pole movement have
expressed their rejection of the agreement, emphasizing similar concerns about
environmental damage, harm to local communities, and excessive concessions to the foreign
company.

These groups have also noted that the process of negotiation and approval of the contract did
not consider the voices of significant sectors of society. They argue that the agreement could
violate the law and the Constitution, raising concerns about its legality and legitimacy.

The opposition of SUNTRACS and other approved groups to the Mining Contract in Panama
highlights fundamental concerns about the country's sovereignty, environmental impact, and
equity in trade agreements. The union has played a significant role in mobilizing society and
calling for direct action on the streets. The fight against the contract has become a focal point
of tension and debate in Panamanian society, and the outcome of this struggle is still to be
determined. The situation in Panama will continue to evolve, and it will be essential to closely
follow developments to gain a better understanding of how this controversy unfolds and what
implications it may have for the country.

Paola Aizpurúa, 4-827-1411