Press Conference on “Erasing the Lines:
Trends in U.S. military programs with Latin America”
Lisa Haugaard

December 15, 2005

Reviewing U.S. Latin America policy, there are two interesting stories this year about sanctions – sanctions in favor of human rights and, I’m sorry to say, sanctions against human rights.

The first story is about how difficult it was this year for the State Department to certify that Colombia met the Colombia-specific human rights conditions in the law. The conditions require State to certify that the Colombian government is taking effective measures to investigate and prosecute gross violations of human rights by members of the security forces and to break links between the army and paramilitary groups. 12.5% of military aid provided through the foreign operations bill for FY04 was held up for the first seven months of 2005, the longest such delay since the conditions were put in place in 2000. The delay occurred because of concerns by the State Department, Congress and human rights groups in the United States and Colombia regarding lack of progress on investigating and prosecuting key cases, in particular ones involving alleged extrajudicial executions by members of the army, including the murder of two families in San José de Apartadó, the killing of a family in Cajamarca, and the killing of three trade unionists in Arauca, as well as the Mapiripán massacre case. In a transparently political move, certification was finally granted three days before Colombian president Uribe met President Bush at his Texas ranch – but not before these cases had been raised at high levels in discussions between the Colombian and U.S. governments.

Now, certification on the final 12.5% of FY05 assistance is currently pending in front of the State Department. A new killing of a farmer allegedly by a member of the army in the San José de Apartadó area, continued reports of threats and harassment of civilians by the 17th Brigade, and the disappearance of an Afro-Colombian leader minutes after he was released by police, presumably by paramilitaries who then killed him, are among the cases being discussed, as well as the list of previous cases which have not advanced adequately. Because there are serious allegations at stake, despite the strong relationship between the U.S. and Colombian governments, certification is no longer a cake walk.

The second story is how as many as a dozen Latin American and Caribbean nations are deciding to forgo a portion of U.S. military and economic aid in order to maintain their rights at the International Criminal Court. The United States has been engaged in heavy arm twisting to get countries to sign Article 98 agreements in which countries which have signed the Rome Treaty establishing the ICC then agree not to seek prosecution of U.S. citizens in the ICC. Surprisingly, a dozen Latin American countries have no public Article 98 agreement with the United States and are risking sanctions.

The sanctions originally applied only to non-drug military aid through the foreign operations bill, principally FMF and IMET. The Nethercutt amendment in FY05 extended the sanctions to one category of economic aid, economic support funds (ESF). ESF funds a variety of programs, including judicial reform, anti-corruption programs, work on Freedom of Information legislation, potable water projects, and marketing and technical assistance to small and medium producers. Mexico now has an $11 million ESF program about to be affected by sanctions. In a sad state of affairs, the United States is cutting off programs to support justice because countries have decided to support justice internationally.

Now, the cuts may not be as much as may appear on paper. Programs in the defense budget are not affected, so the ways in which the Defense Department is extending its control over foreign military training programs, a practice we oppose, is one way the Administration is minimizing the impact of these sanctions on military programs. The Economic Support Funds may be reprogrammed to be spent on nongovernmental programs, not government programs—NGO programs are not affected by Nethercutt. But the negative message remains the same: you will be sanctioned if you support human rights through the ICC.

I’d like to call your attention to two excellent editorials in Colombia’s major daily, El Tiempo, “The great hypocrisy” and “The torture boomarang.” The editorials criticize the Bush Administration’s violations of international law, U.S. detention policies and treatment of prisoners and rendition, and the Vice President’s shameful seeking of exemptions on torture for the CIA, as well as the campaign against the International Criminal Court by the “most powerful country on the planet.” “It seems incredible that these kinds of uncivilized steps backward are taking place in a country which calls itself the defender of western values and which has been so on more than one occasion.” The damage that has been done to U.S. moral authority is incalculable. In standing up to the United States on the question of the International Criminal Court, many Latin American countries are providing a lesson we’d do well to heed.

Lisa Haugaard
Executive Director
Latin America Working Group Education Fund