August 2010 Colombia Peace Update
Contents
Soldiers Acquitted for San José Massacre
The Decision to Keep Talking
FOR Report on Military Aid
Land Valued by Many: “To Displace 1,000, Kill 10”
Constitutional Court to Rule on Bases Agreement
Costa Rican Court Suspends US Troop Deployment
SOA Activists Protest at Tolemaida Base in Colombia
Briefs: Presbyterians Speak; Journalist Visa Denied, Granted
Soldiers Acquitted for San José Peace Community Massacre
A Medellin judge acquitted ten soldiers on August 6, including a colonel and major, for participation in the massacre of eight civilians in San José de Apartadó on February 21, 2005.
The case has been a critical measuring stick for the ability of the Colombian court system to render justice in the cases of thousands of killings of civilians in the country’s armed conflict. The community’s members were protected by an Inter-American Human Rights Court ruling, received international accompaniment, and among those killed were a community co-founder, Luis Guerra, and three children. An Army captain, Guillermo Gordillo, confessed to his participation in the massacre, as did several paramilitary members who said they worked together with the military. The victims were killed by machete, and several of them dismembered.
“This makes me deeply sad, after everything that’s been done to make justice,” said Gloria Cuartas, former mayor of Apartadó, who has been an ally to the Peace Community.
Gustavo Araque, attorney for one of the soldiers, said that “the judge was capable of overcoming the political pressure and media war; she ruled in law.”
Cuartas pointed out that the ruling is inexplicable after the confessions of Gordillo and paramilitary men.
Meanwhile, the Peace Community reported threats by paramilitary gunmen in settlements in Córdoba affiliated with the community in June and July. On August 6, the commander of the Army’s Voltigeros Battalion reportedly said on local radio that he was filing suit against a community member for libel and threats.
On the eve of a State Department decision on whether to certify Colombia’s human rights record, the ruling on the massacre also creates a dilemma for U.S. officials, who will have to decide whether to bend the law by certifying, or to recognize that if even a case that receives extraordinary attention doesn’t receive justice, the United States cannot certify progress in human rights. Send a fax to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her not to certify.
The Decision to Keep Talking
By Arno Kopecky
“It’s no secret that around here, to denounce the government is to hang a tombstone around your neck. What guarantees can you give us that
we’ll be safe after you leave?”
The question was posed by the leader of an Afro-Colombian fishing community living in the shadow of a military base at Bahia Malaga on Colombia’s central Pacific coast, and it put us on the spot. As if to underscore the challenge, a steady succession of combat helicopters came rapping in from their dusk patrol of the jungle surrounding the town of Juanchaco.
How to respond? We were a dozen middle class Americans in blue shirts, in town for the night as part of a delegation organized by the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Witness for Peace to better understand the US-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement signed last October. Under terms of the Agreement, described by FOR researcher John Lindsay-Poland as “a consolidation of Plan Colombia,” US forces will take up permanent residence at this air strip and the naval base around the corner, together with six other bases across the country.
The stories we heard in Bahia Malaga conformed to a national pattern: ever since the army built twin bases here in 1986, things have been going downhill for the communities who first settled this region two hundred years ago. “The Navy took my family’s land and threatened to kill us if we ever came back,” said a soft-spoken woman our delegation met earlier that day. She and dozens of families like hers have spent the past 24 years seeking legal redress for the farms their government appropriated, to no avail.
Their demands join those of two and a half million Colombians displaced over the course of former President Álvaro Uribe’s two terms in power. His successor, former Minister of Defense Juan Manuel Santos, took over last weekend with a promise to continue the policy of “Democratic Security” under which a national network of paramilitary groups collaborated with government and military to clear millions of farmers off the land; one third of Colombia’s congress and senate has either been indicted or is under investigation for links to paramilitaries, but justice is nowhere in sight. The official disarming of the paramilitaries under Colombia’s “Justice and Peace” initiative has yet to slow the tide of hundreds of thousands of campesinos forced off their lands each year.
“We want to stay in the countryside,” another woman told us. “We don’t want to move to the city, because we don’t know how to live there. Yet the army is slowly pushing us off the land and the sea.” The navy has already sealed much of Bahia Malaga off to the fishermen who ply the waters in narrow skiffs, while hunters risk being mistaken for guerrillas or cocaine runners each time they enter the jungle. “I came across a patrol when I was hunting the other day,” one grizzled man told us, “and they took away my rifle. They said I should come by the base if I wanted it back, but when I showed up they only laughed in my face.” He got off lightly; the same day our delegation heard his testimony, two teenaged brothers went out hunting in another part of the country and stumbled onto army property; soldiers shot them both, killing the 14-year-old and leaving his 15-year-old brother in critical condition. “If our army does this on its own, what should we expect when the Americans come to join them?”
After a while, the questions started to feel rhetorical. American soldiers and contractors enjoy legal immunity under the new agreement; FOR’s latest report, published on July 29, has revealed a direct correlation between Plan Colombia funds and the “false positives” scandal under which Colombian soldiers murdered three thousand civilians and dressed their cadavers up as guerillas — yet rather than scale back its involvement, the US negotiated the DCA in secret and signed it without congressional debate in either country, ignoring the protests of nearly 
every president in South America… How then to protect Colombians from our army, let alone their own?
What’s more — how do we protect ourselves? Americans may not have paramilitaries knocking down their doors, but the billions our government spends on military exploits in Colombia divert precious resources from collapsing systems of education, health, housing and labor here at home.
In the end, our hosts’ decision to keep talking was an answer in itself. From Bahia Malaga’s fishermen to the union leaders of the Magdalena river valley, from the family members of “false positive” victims in Cali to the silver-haired Senator Robledo in Bogota who has risked jail for opposing his President, the determination of Colombians across the country to maintain their peaceful resistance seems only to grow stronger as the onslaught against them stretches into decades. In place of guns and guarantees, what we have are voices. The only way to lose is to stop using them.
Arno Kopecky participated in a recent special delegation on military bases organized by FOR and Witness for Peace. His article, “Canada Backs Growing Embrace of US Military,” was published on August 6 in the Canadian journal, The Tyee.
FOR Report on Military Aid and Human Rights
FOR released its groundbreaking report, “Military Assistance and Human Rights: Colombia, U.S. Accountability and Global Implications” on July 29, together with the U.S. Office on Colombia, in an event co-organized by the Colombia No Bases Coalition. See coverage and commentary on the report in English by NACLA Report on the Americas, Global Post, Colombia Reports, and Inter-Press Service. The Colombian TV news program Noticias Uno also ran a two-minute segment.
Watch the event in Bogotá that launched the report, with presentations (in Spanish) by John Lindsay-Poland, Alberto Yepes of the Colombia Human Rights Observatory, and Diego Otero, author of a recent book on U.S.-Colombian military relations.
The State Department said it is preparing a response to the report.
Land valued by many: “To displace 1,000, kill 10”
By Isaac Beachy
On July 9, self-identified paramilitaries entered a Peace Community member’s house in Las Claras, Córdoba. Peace Community members were “invited” to a meeting the paramilitaries said they would return for in the next couple days. Members of the Peace Community in Las Claras, who were together for a community work day, met and decided they would not participate in any way, as it violated their principles of neutrality. Likewise they decided that if any Peace Community member were to be taken by the paramilitaries, all other members would go together to retrieve them.They reasoned it was better to be killed together in defense of one than to let one be killed alone. At the Peace Community’s petition, a group of accompaniment organizations, including FOR, began a rotating presence with members of the Peace Community in Córdoba. To this date paramilitaries have not returned to carry out their promise to hold another meeting, but the threat and fear of their presence continues.
Paramilitary groups have long had a strong presence and control throughout Córdoba, which was a stronghold of the Self-defense forces of Colombia (AUC). This has especially been true in Murmullo Alto and La Osa, two villages within miles of Peace Community members, where paramilitaries gathered campesinos for meetings in June. In these meetings paramilitaries informed the campesinos that they would be reasserting their control in the region, first by continuing meetings throughout the region, including in Puerto Nuevo, Alto Joaquín and Las Claras, all villages where Peace Community members live. The paramilitaries also specifically emphasized that no group would be left outside of their control (i.e. those with principles of neutrality).
Having joined the Peace Community in June 2009, members in Puerto Nuevo, Alto Joaquín and Las Claras are fairly new to the community and have made serious advances since joining. They have built a school in Las Claras and have plans for a library. In Alto Joaquín, Peace Community members bring rice they’ve grown to a new threshing machine to de-husk the rice they will eat, sell or distribute to other parts of the community as a part of its continuing efforts for food security. Recently the Peace Community in Córdoba has also started cultivating sugar cane, bananas, cacao (to make chocolate), and coffee.
Unfortunately, the same fertility of the land that gives Peace Community crops such life also attracts large entities who want the land, but without the campesinos who currently work it. Urrá S.A. E.S.P, the company that owns the reservoir that many Peace Community members live by, has distributed pamphlets asking those living around the reservoir to leave. The Colombian government owns over 99% of Urrá S.A. E.S.P. In the early 2000s similar pamphlets were distributed before paramilitaries committed several massacres, causing the displacement of thousands from the lands now below the reservoir. As one Peace Community member said, “They say to displace one hundred, kill one. To displace one thousand, kill ten. That is their strategy.”
For now, the Peace Community has not asked for a specific response from FOR other than the continued work of accompaniers and continued attentiveness of the FOR community. As this delicate situation develops we ask all to be attentive to requests for action you may take on the Peace Community’s behalf.
Isaac Beachy is a member of the FOR accompaniment team in San José de Apartadó.
Colombian Constitutional Court to Rule on US access to Military Bases
The highest Court in Colombia’s judicial structure is soon to pronounce judgement on whether the Defense Cooperation Agreement, signed in October 2009 by Colombia and the USA permitting the latter’s armed forces the use of seven Colombian military bases, is constitutional. Former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe refused to present the Agreement to Congress, arguing (as the USA also did) that it was merely revamping of various existing agreements and did not amount to a new treaty, and thus did not require the approval of Colombia’s elected representatives.
Nevertheless, opposition from each and every one of Colombia’s South American neighbors, as well as Colombian civil society, would appear to be justified, as the Constitutional Court agreed to examine whether or not this lack of congressional scrutiny was in line with Colombian requirements. The preliminary judgement, issued by magistrate Jorge Iván Palacio, argues that the Agreement as it stands is indeed unconstitutional. If the full Court agrees, it would be sent back to the Colombian Congress and could take up to a year to be approved.
US Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield has suggested that, even if the Agreement requires further scrutiny, military cooperation between the two countries can continue under the terms of previous agreements. Nevertheless, despite the much-vaunted bilateral nature of the Agreement, this would represent a setback to the USA, which thus seeks to expand its military control over the Western Hemisphere.
The Colombian Constitutional Court is not the only Latin American judicial organ to have taken up the issue of an broadened US military presence. Within the last month, the Costa Rican Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments to determine whether or not the arrival of up to 46 US warships, 7,000 US soldiers, 200 helicopters and two aircraft carriers through the end of 2010, in this officially pacifist country, is in breach of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court makes its decision, the increased military presence is on hold.
The new Colombian president, Juan Manual Santos, has inherited Uribe’s security policies, including the Defense Cooperation Agreement. However, we shall soon find out if his administration is obliged to present it to the recently-installed Congress. In the event this should happen, a window of opportunity opens to ramp up the opposition from outside the legislature too.
Costa Rican Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Entry of US Military
Civil Society Is Organizing to Maintain the Country’s Status as a Nation Without Armed Forces
By Jamie Way, Narco News Bulletin
July 28, 2010
The Costa Rican Supreme Court last week agreed to take a case challenging the constitutionality of a US-Costa Rican agreement that would allow for a massive US military presence. The agreement cannot go into effect until the Supreme Court rules, thus postponing the arrival of US forces.
On July 1, Costa Rica’s unicameral Legislative Assembly, with 31 votes out of 57, approved the US Embassy’s request to open the country to 46 US warships, 7,000 US soldiers, 200 helicopters and two aircraft carriers. This permission was granted through at least Dec. 31 of this year, officially justified by the necessity of fighting drug-traffickers, providing humanitarian services and providing a place for US ships to dock and refuel. While most reports have put a Dec. 31 expiration date on the agreement, the Nicaraguan media last week reported that Costa Rican Foreign Minister Rene Castro, in a meeting with Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Samuel Santos, said that the agreement is for five years.
Prior Joint Patrol bilateral agreements between the countries allowed only US Coast Guard presence with Costa Rican law enforcement aboard. The US Coast Guard was permitted to follow vessels into Costa Rican waters while in pursuit and awaiting Costa Rican officials. Thus, the new agreement represents a substantial increase in the allowance of US military presence in Costa Rica, a country that abolished its army in 1948 and has a policy of neutrality.
The legislature’s approval of the bilateral agreement has not gone unchallenged. A substantial legislative opposition has formed, including representatives from the Broad Front, Citizen Action Party and the United Social Christian Parties. The opposition has challenged the constitutionality of the agreement, citing Article 12 of the Costa Rican constitution. Article 12 restricts the reasons that military forces may form and states that they must always remain under Costa Rican civilian control. Last week, the Costa Rican Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. This is encouraging news for the opposition regardless of the outcome, because the agreement cannot go into effect until the Court issues a ruling on the constitutional question. There is no indication about when the Court may issue a ruling.
Civil society as well is organizing to oppose the US military presence in its waters and on its soil. Distrust of US motives is widespread in light of the tacit US government support for the Honduran coup, the agreement with Colombia to use seven bases there, and tensions between Colombia and Venezuela in which Venezuelan forces are on high alert in preparation for a possible attack from Colombia. Costa Ricans have reacted by holding forums and protests. Student groups as young as high school have started to form in opposition to the US military presence. Some have created Facebook pages and posted YouTube messages representing civil society’s desire for a peaceful and sovereign nation, like this one.
While Costa Rican officials and civil society have proven themselves to be a formidable force in opposition to the spread of US militarism, it is vital that we in the United States make our voices heard in support of our Costa Rican sisters and brothers.
Former Prisoners of Conscience Take Protest to Military Base in Colombia
Nine U.S. human rights activists held a vigil at the Tolemaida military base in Colombia with a 12 foot banner that reads “U.S. Military out of Colombia.”
TOLEMAIDA MILITARY BASE — August 3 — The Tolemaida military base is one of seven Colombian bases to which the U.S. military has been granted access for 10 years under the U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement, which was signed in October 2009. The agreement has been met with opposition by Colombian and international human rights groups. It caused tensions in the region after a U.S. Air Force document became public that revealed that the United States military is planning to use the seven Colombian bases for “full spectrum operations throughout South America” against threats not only from drug trade and guerrilla movements, but also from “anti-U.S. governments” in the region.
Father Roy Bourgeois, SOA Watch founder and Purple Heart recipient, led this delegation of SOA Watch activists. Most of them have served federal prison terms for nonviolently calling for closure of the School of the Americas (SOA), now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). By confronting this current escalation of U.S. policy, the U.S. activists at Tolemaida are expressing solidarity with courageous Colombians working for peace and justice. Members of the delegation come from all over the United States, are equally male and female, and represent a wide variety of life and faith experiences.
“The bases agreement operates from the same failed military mindset that has given rise to the School of the Americas (SOA/ WHINSEC),” said Father Roy Bourgeois. “The purpose of the bases and the purpose of the SOA/ WHINSEC are the same: to ensure U.S. control over the region through military means.”
After blocking the entrance to the Tolemaida military base for two days, the group held a protest at the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá on August 6.
See videos of their actions. Read the press statement (Word document) that they are now delivering at the Tolemaida base, and bios and quotes (Word document) from the human rights activists.
News Briefs
Presbyterian Church Speaks Out Against Military Base Agreement
The Presbyterian Church-USA, at its General Assembly in July, overwhelmingly approved a resolution “”seeking the permanent suspension of the U.S. military use of seven Colombian bases initiated in 2009” because it will “increase violence and displacement within Colombia, and be perceived by many Colombians as a violation of Colombia’s national sovereignty; and sow distrust among nearby Andean nations which perceive the expanded U.S. military presence in South America to be a threat to their national security.” The resolution was initiated in response to a pastoral letter from the Colombian Presbyterian Church that called for a suspension of the agreement.
The resolution urges “help the work of Presbyterians in the United States and in Colombia who are working to create a more just and peaceful society, as the gospel exhorts us to do.” The Presbyterian Peace Fellowship has an accompaniment team in Colombia.
Journalist Hollman Morris Granted US Visa
Last month, we reported that Colombian journalist Hollman Morris had been denied a US visa to participate in Harvard University’s Nieman Fellow program. The same day we sent our newsletter, the State Department reversed its decision and granted Morris a visa. The reversal responds to widespread protests by academic, journalist and human rights leaders and organizations, and the lack of any evidence to substantiate insinuations that Morris had consorted with terrorists.
