WikiLeaks cables: McDonald's used US to put pressure on El Salvador

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

WikiLeaks cables: McDonald's used US to put pressure on El Salvador
Burger giant tried to delay US legislation in order to aid lawsuit being fought in Central American country, cables reveal
Sarah Boseley guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 21 December 2010 21.30 GMT

McDonald's tried to delay the US government's implementation of a free-trade agreement in order to put pressure on El Salvador to appoint neutral judges in a $24m (£15.5m) lawsuit it was fighting in the country. The revelation of the McDonald's strategy to ensure a fair hearing for a long-running legal battle against a former franchisee comes from a leaked US embassy cable dated 15 February 2006.

Five days earlier, the firms's vice- president for government relations, Dick Crawford, and general counsel for Latin America and Canada, Maria Legett, had briefed the US ambassador on their efforts to get the case settled, using the Central America-Dominican Republic-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) essentially as a bargaining chip. "They explained that the company has engaged in a Washington-focused advocacy effort to put pressure on the Salvadorans to resolve the case according to the rule of law, suggesting that CAFTA-DR implementation should be delayed pending resolution of the case," the cable says.

Ambassador Hugh Barclay argued strongly that what McDonald's was doing "ran directly counter to US interests in seeing CAFTA-DR implemented as soon as possible". Embassy officials also noted that McDonald's invocation of CAFTA-DR in the lead-up to legislative elections would play into the hands of those who have resisted CAFTA-DR by alienating senior government officials who are already working to see that the case is resolved according to the rule of law and by complicating efforts to get additional CAFTA-related reforms through the legislative assembly".The diplomats also argued that the tactic would thrust the case against McDonald's further into the limelight, attracting the sort of negative publicity they did not want. "Crawford acknowledged these concerns and agreed to tone down, but not cease, his company's efforts on this issue."

The case against McDonald's was a long-running and expensive problem for the burger giant. It had been brought by a former franchisee, Roberto Bukele, whose company had opened the first McDonald's in El Salvador in 1972. In 1996, Bukele lost his franchise. McDonald's suggested to the embassy that he had not complied with conditions attached to its renewal, which included remodelling the three restaurants he, by then, owned, using McDonald's-approved sources for food products, establishing a staff hiring and training plan, and obtaining corporate approval of new restaurant sites and new menu items.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-cables-mcdonalds-us-el-salvador

[boppers]

1. Okay, some of these cables are just plain.... weird.

McDonalds wanted to delay a trade agreement.... in order to get a fair hearing...?

This is what our diplomats are up to? Helping fast food companies?

[derby378]

2. This is what happens in a corporate state

Can Rollerball be far behind?

[OKNancy]

4. they really didn't help them much in this case according to the

full article. After reading the whole thing, I just don't think this story is that big a deal.

[Arctic Dave]

5. I believe the word that best describes it is, collusion.

"Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production.<1> It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".<2> In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.<3>"

[jberryhill]

7. What did the US government agree to do?

How DARE a company voice its concerns to the US government on an issue.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Did I say the government?

You are assuming.

What McPukeys did was try to stall legislation on their behalf. Some people may consider this an illegal act.

[jberryhill]

9. Illegal how?

[Arctic Dave]

11. Asking the government to drag out the implantation of legislation

for there benefit.

[jberryhill]

12. And such a request is illegal?

So when you get pulled over by a cop and you say, "Could you just give me a warning instead?" you are doing something illegal?

[Arctic Dave]

13. If you shot someone can you ask the cop to not arrest you?

Sure you could, but I believe the cop would be derelict in duty for not arresting you.

I think you are confusing the request with the crime, which is interference of the law for their benefit.

[Bacchus39]

15. ever hear of a lobbyist????

anyway, I think diplomats do in fact promote trade and business interests of the US overseas. they didn't seem to go along with McDonalds on this one.

[Arctic Dave]

16. OMG! You are still around, how sweet.

Are lobbyist trying to interfere with legislative and judicial execution? If you do, can you let the FBI know, I'm sure they would be very interested to hear your testimony.

[Bacchus39]

18. absolutely, they try to influence legislators to pass and change law. where have you been?

and let us know what law McDonalds broke. I am interested in hearing your testimony. the diplomats did the right thing in this case, end of story.

[jberryhill]

17. Yes, you most certainly can

And, yes it is up to the cop to arrest you or not. You can even ask a judge not to convict you. In fact, you have a RIGHT to get a professional judge-botherer to ask the judge not to convict you.

But since I'm confused, can you tell me where the crime is in this story and who committed it?

[EFerrari]

3. Another day on the plantation!

[Judi Lynn]

6. US embassy cables: McDonald's briefs US ambassador on its dispute with El Salvador's courts

Series: US embassy cables: the documents
US embassy cables: McDonald's briefs US ambassador on its dispute with El Salvador's courts
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 21.30 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/53359

[Auggie]

10. They went through all that for three restauarants in El Salvador?

That's crazy

[JDPriestly]

14. This puts McDonald's in a really bad light.

As if their food didn't already hurt their reputation.

I sign as a Former McDonald's employee -- long, long ago.

[Creative]

19. McDonald's sucks, but if El Salvadorians want to eat their hamburgers,

I don't have a problem with it.

Furthermore, they have the right to deny franchise ownership to those who do not follow their policies.

On the bright side, if this was Venezuela, McDonald's could very well be expropriated (Hugo's Burgers).

[Johnny Harpo]

20. The Ham Burgular Strikes Again

n/t

[Peace Patriot]

21. MacDonald's was just trying to get "neutral judges"? Ri-i-i-ight!

That ain't how it works with U.S.-based transglobal monstrosities like MacDonald's in third world countries where the U.S. boot already kicks the "little people" around.

The U.S. cables variously describe MacDonald's as seeking "a fair hearing," "neutral judges" and resolution of the case "according to the rule of law." This is not at all likely, if history is any guide. What is much more likely is that they were bullying and bludgeoning a local El Salvadoran franchise-holder, he fought back with a $24 million lawsuit and MacDonald's responded by hiring a high end PR firm/lobbyist in Washington DC to get the Bush Junta to bully El Salvador's judges and politicians FOR them--NOT to get "neutral judges" but to get BULLIED AND BLUDGEONED or BRIBED judges, to force the settlement of the case that MacDonald's wanted.

The U.S./Bush Junta, for its part, as represented by the ambassador in the cable, was meanwhile grossly interfering in El Salvador, manipulating public opinion and pressuring the legislature to get the outcome THEY wanted on CAFTA. They were furthermore in touch with operatives within the El Salvador government who were working on MacDonald's behalf!

This lawsuit was obviously a touchy public matter, likely involving issues of El Salvadoran sovereignty and local control--because they thought it could de-rail CAFTA! A central CAFTA issue was justice for local people in such disputes--whether a local franchiser or other local interests often involved in such disputes with multinational corporations (trade unions, environmental groups, activists against privatization of public services, etc.). CAFTA overrides local interests. It is a tool perpetrated by multinational corporations TO override all local interests. So MacDonald's seeking AN INTERESTED JUDGE--one who would rule in their favor--and an UNFAIR HEARING--one in which MacDonald's got its way REGARDLESS of "the rule of law"--would fire up opposition to a "free trade for the rich" treaty that was NOT in the interest of most El Salvadorans.

In their efforts "to get the case settled" by a pressured, bullied or bribed judge, in an UNFAIR hearing, MacDonald's was exposing CAFTA for all to see. Clearly, the U.S. ambassador would be fine with this kind of behavior by U.S. multinationals, if it was not politically inconvenient, and was ALREADY working on MacDonald's behalf, to pressure the justice system from within the El Salvadoran government.

"McDonald's invocation of CAFTA-DR in the lead-up to legislative elections would play into the hands of those who have resisted CAFTA-DR by alienating senior government officials who are already working to see that the case is resolved (NOT) according to the rule of law and by complicating efforts to get additional CAFTA-related reforms through the legislative assembly"..."--from the OP (my emphasis, my "not")

That's my read on this. Imagine this, as an analogy: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld arguing with each other about whether to give the Democrats "cover" on the invasion of Iraq by seeking a UN Security Council resolution. I think that's what this cable reveals: Two bullies--the U.S./Bushwhack government and megacorp MacDonald's--arguing about the best way to fuck over El Salvador. The operatives within El Salvador's government, who were working on behalf of MacDonald's and other U.S. multinationals, needed COVER.

The "rule of law" ain't in it. That is a LIE. MacDonald's didn't want a "fair hearing." They wanted a twisted, anti-people, pro-corporate ruling, like they would get after a rightwing legislature (which the U.S. embassy is working assiduously to achieve) wrote all the CAFTA rules that would forever put the interests of multinational corporations BEFORE the interests of the people of El Salvador.

MacDonald's, like, say, Rumsfeld, in my theoretical scenario, wanted to jump the gun--invade, bomb, kill, no matter what anybody thought about it. The U.S. embassy, like Cheney, in charge of the political spin, favored "going through the hoops" (phony seeking of UN resolution) to better manipulate the public with the phony war narrative.

It would be interesting to know what the USAID propaganda budget was in El Salvador during this hijacking of their country by transglobal scofflaws. We know that the U.S. has poured billions of our tax dollars into rightwing groups and causes all over Latin America, through this agency. This constitutes gross interference, like that in this very revealing cable. And it is quite irrelevant whether or not the discussion disclosed in the cable was legal. The entire thrust of multinational corporate-controlled U.S. policy in Latin America (and other places) is WRONG. This is an "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" inner world that is revealed here, down the "rabbit hole," where everything is upside down, inside out and backwards. The phrase "the rule of law," in this cable, means exactly the opposite: rule by the super-rich.

[conspirator]

22. Someone once said: "There could be no McDonalds without McDonnel Douglas" n/t

[EFerrari]

23. Good one!