"We would like to express our support for the carefully balanced aid package to Colombia that invests in the long-term economic prosperity of the country, while simultaneously attending to immediate security needs of Colombia. Colombia has made great strides in its effort to extend state institutions into areas that were once ungovernable. Now it is time to consolidate those gains through responsible aid for security and greater investment in social and economic development." Read the full letter (PDF).
Read more »
Dear Honorable Representative or Senator,
We are heartened to see the improvements made in U.S. policy towards Colombia in both the House and Senate FY08 foreign operations appropriations bills. The increased emphasis on rural development and the justice sector will help Colombia more effectively conduct counternarcotics efforts while strengthening its democratic institutions and the rule of law. As you meet to reconcile the two bills, we urge you to advocate for the greater allocation for rural development and the improved balance between military and non-military assistance contained in the House bill and to support the new direction both bills present.
While rule-of-law programs are sometimes referred to as part of the “soft side” of the package, these programs will help the Colombian government get tough on drug traffickers and human rights abusers. Vigorous investigation and prosecution of paramilitary leaders who have committed gross violations or who continue to traffic drugs and foster violence are essential if the demobilization process is to reduce violence and weaken organized crime. Expanding victims’ access to justice, strengthening victim and witness protection and improving oversight and human rights performance of government security forces will build confidence in the rule of law and contribute to conflict resolution.
The increased resources for rural development, including for programs to help small farmers turn away from illegal drug production, are a sensible and much-needed improvement. While the aerial spraying program is perceived as tough—and indeed it is tough on the small farmer families whose food crops have been destroyed along with illegal drug crops—it has not worked. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in 2006 Colombia produced slightly more coca than at the start of the United States’ $5.4 billion investment in 2000. Aerial spraying has moved coca production from one area of the country to the next, with intensifying conflict and environmental damage following the expansion of coca into new areas. After seven years of spraying, it is time to focus on a more sustainable approach. While rural development programs with voluntary manual eradication require time and patience, if devised and implemented with close cooperation from local communities, they can provide a more permanent solution to illicit drug production, as well as reduce the factors that fuel the conflict.
We also greatly appreciate the specific dedication of development assistance and human rights safeguards for Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, which have suffered disproportionately from poverty and conflict. Finally, we ask that the final law contain the maximum funding possible for programs to benefit Colombia’s internally displaced population.
These adjustments to the aid package represent continued strong support for Colombia. Indeed, these changes will help the government of Colombia consolidate the comprehensive presence of the state in areas long abandoned, where coca and poppy production has expanded, armed groups of the left and the right have shown absolute disregard for human rights, and the conflict has brutally raged. We would also note that the increased revenues approved by the Colombian government available this year from its “war tax” were limited to military and police support, making it even more important to focus U.S. assistance on underlying rule of law, economic and social justice concerns.
We urge you to include the substantial allocation for rural development included in the House bill. And as you consider future directions for U.S. policy towards Colombia, we ask you to prioritize support for rural development and strengthening the rule of law, and to increase emphasis on programs for the victims of the conflict.
John Arthur Nues
President and CEO
Lutheran World Relief
Rev. John L. McCullough
Executive Director and CEO
Church World Service
Gimena Sánchez-Garzoli
Senior Associate for Colombia and Haiti
Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
Ken Hackett
President
Catholic Relief Services
Kenneth H. Bacon
President
Refugees International
Mark L. Schneider
Senior Vice President
International Crisis Group*
Raymond C. Offenheiser
President
Oxfam America
George Vickers
Senior Policy Analyst
Open Society Policy Center
Rev. Kenneth J. Gavin, S.J.
National Director
Jesuit Refugee Service/USA
Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory
Director, Washington Office
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Adam Isacson
Director of Programs
Center for International Policy
John Walsh
Senior Associate for the Andes and Drug Policy
Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
Melinda St. Louis
Executive Director
Witness for Peace
Nancy Lindborg
President
Mercy Corps
Rev. Dr. John R. Deckenback
Conference Minister
Central Atlantic Conference
United Church of Christ
Theo Sitther
Legislative Associate for International Affairs
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
T. Michael McNulty, SJ
Justice and Peace Director
Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM)
Robin Buyers
Colombia Team Support Coordinator
Christian Peacemaker Teams
James R. Stormes, S.J.
Secretary, Social and International Ministries
Jesuit Conference
Heather Hanson
Executive Director
US Office on Colombia
Stan Hastey
Minister for Mission and Ecumenism
Alliance of Baptists
Barbara Gerlach
Colombia Liaison
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
Angela Berryman
Interim Assistant General Secretary for Peace and Conflict Resolution
American Friends Service Committee
Cristina Espinel
Co-coordinator
Colombia Human Rights Committee
Marty Jordan
Co-Director
Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA (GHRC)
To respond to this letter, please reply to: Lisa Haugaard; Executive Director; Latin America Working Group; 424 C Street, NE; Washington, DC 20002; email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
; fax; 202.543.7647.
*Organization given for identification purposes only.
Read more »
Lisa Haugaard, Latin America Working Group Education Fund
At Lutheran World Relief’s Forum on "Conflict, Trade and Development in Colombia"
Colombia’s conflict has led to more than 3.8 million people fleeing their homes from violence in recent years, and has caught the civilian population in the crossfire. Given this context, policymakers and donors should ask the following questions as they make decisions about rural development projects or trade agreements with Colombia. This may seem obvious, but too often trade and development decisions are not examined in a “human rights and conflict-resolution” light.
Some key questions for any major development or trade decision in Colombia today are:
- How will it affect human rights?
- Will it help to reduce tensions or aggravate the conflict?
- How will it affect the rural population living in poverty in the conflict zones?
- How will it affect the livelihoods of farmers susceptible to growing coca and poppy? Will it undercut their food crops, leading them to shift towards or revert to illicit drug production, or become more vulnerable to recruitment by guerrilla, paramilitary or other illegal groups?
- What guarantees are included to ensure this project does not favor criminal networks?
- How will it benefit or harm the population—rural, poor, Afro-Colombian, indigenous, internally displaced—already most victimized by the conflict?
- We can not assume that any development project or trade agreement, even if it looks to have an overall positive economic impact, will necessarily ease the conflict. We have to examine the different impacts on particular sectors and geographic regions.
To take the most controversial first…
The pending free trade agreement. Even the most vehemently pro-free trade advocate will acknowledge that some sectors may suffer impacts from trade agreements while other sectors benefit. Which sectors are least likely to benefit from the Colombian FTA, at least initially? A good guess would be, areas of the country without the infrastructure for successful exporting, and sectors of the population least prepared to take advantage of opportunities to export crops and goods favored by a trade agreement—and in particular, small farmers whose crops will not be able to compete domestically with U.S. exports. And these potential losers are likely to be located in Colombia’s conflict zones, and be the population already most victimized by the war, and most likely to be pressed into service by illegal armed groups or lured into illicit drug production.
After pouring so much energy and money into counternarcotics efforts in Colombia, including into the controversial aerial spraying program—have the U.S. and Colombian governments really considered carefully the potential impact the FTA would have on illegal drug production in the conflict zones?
And then there is the question of labor rights. Colombia is not by coincidence the country where more trade unionists are killed than in the rest of the world combined. Often trade unionists are targeted by those who believe trade union activity is illegitimate, by those who equate organizing with insurgency. In some cases, members of the army and security agency have collaborated directly in anti-union violence. Because of this climate, trade negotiations must be linked to measurable improvements in respect for labor rights, reduction in anti-union threats and violence, and an end to impunity in such cases.
Development projects. Those preparing development projects obviously should consider projects aimed at improving livelihoods in Colombia’s conflict zones. Development projects, designed in careful consultation with beneficiaries, should be benefit the population most victimized. This would include Colombia’s enormous internally displaced population, as well as Afro-Colombian, indigenous and other population living in the conflict zones.
But beyond this general aim, the following human rights guarantees would be helpful:
- Ensure that the project not be carried out on land obtained by violence. Substantial numbers of the over 30,000 paramilitaries demobilized still possess the land they stole by violence—yet a serious discussion of return of land to the displaced has yet to take place in Colombia. As paramilitary leaders demobilize under the Justice and Peace law, which in theory obligates them to disclose their illegally gotten gains, including land, most are turning out to be mysteriously impoverished. Little is being turned over to the national reparations commission. The Colombian government should revoke benefits for paramilitary leaders who refuse to disclose their assets, especially land, and should take steps to identify stolen land and plan for voluntary, safe returns where desired by internally displaced persons. But in the meantime, international donors should avoid investing in land obtained by violence. And this is not just a matter of checking title, since many titles have been obtained through threats and corruption. Special attention should be paid to protecting collective lands of Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities.
- Ensure that the project not largely benefit criminal networks. This seems obvious, but is trickier than it appears. Paramilitary or criminal networks are reported to have taken over health sector activities in certain areas, for example. Threats and violence have often been alleged to have accompanied the expansion of African palm plantations, used for biofuel. Where there is a "gold rush" factor, as in biofuel or extractive industries, those seeking to dominate the business have all too often turned to violence to reach their goals. Even otherwise legitimate businesses may be making payoffs to guerrilla or paramilitary groups that contribute to violence.
- Ensure that any industry or agroindustry invested in or supported respects labor rights, does not collude with illegal armed actors in anti-union violence, and upholds freedom of association.
- Avoid resorting to "militarized development." The expansion of Colombia’s civilian government institutions into conflict zones is urgently needed. Funding militarized development, with civic action activities carried out by the army or military-led development projects, may be tempting where donors are concerned about security risks. But this is not a healthy development strategy, and will not win the support of the civilian population in the conflict zones in the way that can be accomplished by civilian-led development projects with community consultation.
Given the complex scenario of violence in the countryside, and in particular the reports of paramilitary or mafia-like ex-paramilitary networks increasing their control over local economic activities and political institutions, donors like USAID should ensure that even rural development contractors and subcontractors are fully briefed on the local human rights situation in the areas they consider for projects.
All of these caveats do not mean the international community shouldn’t provide aid and invest in development projects in Colombia. To the contrary. The United States in particular has an obligation to assist Colombia, given that our demand for illegal drugs helps to fuel their violence. The U.S. Congress’s increased interest in rural development programs in Colombia takes the U.S. aid program in a more promising direction. The right kind of rural investment—participatory and aimed at the population victimized by the conflict—is absolutely central to help resolve the conflict and stem the production of illegal drugs. However, the context of violence means that major trade or development decisions in Colombia must be viewed through this human rights and conflict-resolution lens.
Read more »
Our voices are finally being heard on U.S. policy towards Colombia! In June, a new positive direction for Colombia was approved by the full House of Representatives. With all of your calls to Congress, supporters of the old approach did not have the votes to reinstate military aid and turn back the clock. Just a few weeks after the foreign aid bill was approved, House Resolution 426 on the crisis of internal displacement in Colombia passed the full House by voice vote, with many members of Congress giving impassioned speeches in support. In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee has approved an aid package with increased support for human rights, rural development and humanitarian needs. The Latin America Working Group this year brought together diverse groups to present recommendations for the Congress that helped to turn the tide. But these recent victories reflect our all our collective hard work over the past several years to shift aid for war to aid for development and peace.
Since Plan Colombia began, 80 percent of the annual aid package has gone to the security forces, with only 20 percent going towards social and economic programs. By reducing military aid to 55 percent of the aid package, while simultaneously approving over $100 million more in economic and judicial aid than President Bush requested, the House version of the foreign aid bill marks a very significant shift in the U.S. role in Colombia. Aid is increased for rural development and internally displaced persons. Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities are slated to receive $15 million in development aid, to be used in consultation with these communities.
The aid package aims to strengthen respect for human rights by providing judicial
institutions with the resources they need to investigate abuses and collaboration with
paramilitaries, and includes funding for witness protection as well as to increase victims’ access to justice. Human rights conditions would apply to 40 percent, not just 25 percent, of military aid in the bill.
For several years, proponents of Plan Colombia have claimed that aerial spraying would diminish coca cultivation and thus decrease the availability of cocaine on U.S. streets. However, according to the House report accompanying the bill, “…the perennial goal of reducing Colombia’s cultivation, processing and distribution [of coca] to restrict supplies enough to drive up prices and diminish purity has not worked and the drug economy continues to grow—further weakening the fabric of Colombian society.” Given this failure, the House foreign aid bill sensibly reduces funding for spray planes used to fumigate farms and increases aid for small farmers.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the bill, although the bill won’t go to the Senate floor until September. While the Senate version is not as dramatic a change as in the House, it continues a positive direction in aid to Colombia, increasing aid for rural development and manual eradication. It greatly strengthens aid for the rule of law and for victims, including funding to increase victims’ access to justice and to investigate mass graves.
We can’t rest yet! The final version must be passed by the Senate and approved in the House-Senate conference. See below on how you can take action.
These gains were achieved despite unrelenting pressure from the Colombian government, its many highly-paid lobbyists and the Bush Administration to keep military funding in place and to pry loose approval of the pending U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. After an unproductive visit to Washington this spring, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe returned after just a few weeks, vowing to win over the Democratic Congress. LAWG joined with the Washington Office on Latin America, labor and human rights groups to organize a press conference during which members of Congress pointed to the targeted killing of 72 trade unionists last year in explaining their opposition to a trade pact with Colombia. Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), a new member and former union leader, put his concerns bluntly: “If I had been born in Colombia, there is a strong possibility I would not be here with you today. I could be dead.” Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) underscored the impact of the trade agreement on small farmers: “Many farmers will be forced to choose between leaving their farms for crowded factories or growing lucrative drug crops.” New member Betty Sutton (D-OH) and staunch human rights advocate Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) also spoke. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) delivered the basic message to President Uribe: “He keeps coming back, time and again, because he doesn’t like the message he’s hearing: human rights, human rights, human rights… We want to see real change, real action, not just hear more endless talk.”
Take Action! Contact your senators by early September and urge them to support this new approach in aid to Colombia. Encourage them to provide greater assistance to help Colombia's victims of violence, to strengthen the justice system, to provide real economic alternatives to small farmers, and to cut military aid. We do not expect there to be a specific amendment when the bill goes to the Senate floor in September, but senators should hear what their constituents care about when it comes to aid for Colombia.
Our voices are finally being heard on U.S. policy towards Colombia! In
June, a new positive direction for Colombia was approved by the full
House of Representatives. With all of your calls to Congress,
supporters of the old approach did not have the votes to reinstate
military aid and turn back the clock. Just a few weeks after the
foreign aid bill was approved, House Resolution 426 on the crisis of
internal displacement in Colombia passed the full House by voice vote,
with many members of Congress giving impassioned speeches in support.
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee has approved an aid package
with increased support for human rights, rural development and
humanitarian needs. The Latin America Working Group this year brought
together diverse groups to present recommendations for the Congress
that helped to turn the tide. But these recent victories reflect our
all our collective hard work over the past several years to shift aid
for war to aid for development and peace.
Since Plan Colombia began, 80 percent of the annual aid package has
gone to the security forces, with only 20 percent going towards social
and economic programs. By reducing military aid to 55 percent of the
aid package, while simultaneously approving over $100 million more in
economic and judicial aid than President Bush requested, the House
version of the foreign aid bill marks a very significant shift in the
U.S. role in Colombia. Aid is increased for rural development and
internally displaced persons. Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities
are slated to receive $15 million in development aid, to be used in
consultation with these communities.
The aid package aims to strengthen respect for human rights by providing judicial
institutions with the resources they need to investigate abuses and collaboration with
paramilitaries, and includes funding for witness protection as well as
to increase victims’ access to justice. Human rights conditions would
apply to 40 percent, not just 25 percent, of military aid in the bill.
For several years, proponents of Plan Colombia have claimed that aerial
spraying would diminish coca cultivation and thus decrease the
availability of cocaine on U.S. streets. However, according to the
House report accompanying the bill, “…the perennial goal of reducing
Colombia’s cultivation, processing and distribution [of coca] to
restrict supplies enough to drive up prices and diminish purity has not
worked and the drug economy continues to grow—further weakening the
fabric of Colombian society.” Given this failure, the House foreign aid
bill sensibly reduces funding for spray planes used to fumigate farms
and increases aid for small farmers.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the bill,
although the bill won’t go to the Senate floor until September. While
the Senate version is not as dramatic a change as in the House, it
continues a positive direction in aid to Colombia, increasing aid for
rural development and manual eradication. It greatly strengthens aid
for the rule of law and for victims, including funding to increase
victims’ access to justice and to investigate mass graves.
We can’t rest yet! The final version must be passed by the Senate and approved in the House-Senate conference.
These gains were achieved despite unrelenting pressure from the
Colombian government, its many highly-paid lobbyists and the Bush
Administration to keep military funding in place and to pry loose
approval of the pending U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. After an
unproductive visit to Washington this spring, Colombian President
Álvaro Uribe returned after just a few weeks, vowing to win over the
Democratic Congress. LAWG joined with the Washington Office on Latin
America, labor and human rights groups to organize a press conference
during which members of Congress pointed to the targeted killing of 72
trade unionists last year in explaining their opposition to a trade
pact with Colombia. Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), a new member and former
union leader, put his concerns bluntly: “If I had been born in
Colombia, there is a strong possibility I would not be here with you
today. I could be dead.” Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) underscored the
impact of the trade agreement on small farmers: “Many farmers will be
forced to choose between leaving their farms for crowded factories or
growing lucrative drug crops.” New member Betty Sutton (D-OH) and
staunch human rights advocate Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) also spoke. Rep.
Jim McGovern (D-MA) delivered the basic message to President Uribe: “He
keeps coming back, time and again, because he doesn’t like the message
he’s hearing: human rights, human rights, human rights… We want to see
real change, real action, not just hear more endless talk.”
Read more »
"We write today to express our deep concern regarding what appear to be politically-motivated burglaries targeting human rights and peace organizations. We recognize the many difficult challenges you face in strengthening the rule of law in your country during an ongoing conflict and were encouraged after your recent visit to Washington, D.C., where you reiterated your commitment to human rights. In light of your stance, we are taking this opportunity to call on your government to act on these serious allegations." Read the full letter (PDF).
Read more »
"We are writing to express our deep concern about criminal charges against Dr. Ivan Cepeda. Dr. Cepeda is a courageous human rights defender who has selflessly promoted the rights of victims of Colombia's civil war and created a national social movement to call for justice." Read the full letter (PDF).
Read more »
The LAWG Education Fund (LAWGEF), Catholic Relief Services and other partners hosted a delegation from Colombia in the spring of this year that focused on the humanitarian crisis of internal displacement. With 3.8 million people internally displaced in the last two decades, Colombia’s ongoing crisis of displacement is second only to Sudan’s.
Read more »
|
|
Our Campaigns 
