 |
| Home | | |
Analyses | | |
Aid | | |
| |
| |
News | | |
| |
| |
| |
| Last
Updated:8/1/00 |
| Press
Release and Letter from Thirty-Three U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations,
July 31, 2000 News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 31, 2000 CONTACT: Carlos Salinas, Amnesty International USA, 202 544-0200; Lisa Haugaard, Latin America Working Group, 202-546-7010 Colombian Military Not Fit to Receive U.S. Aid Washington, DC A group of human rights and nongovernmental organizations urged President Clinton not to certify Colombia to receive US security assistance because of its failure to comply with the human rights provisions which are included in an emergency aid package to combat drugs in the South American nation. The groups also asked Clinton not to waive the certification requirement, another option open to him. If the Administration certifies that the Colombian military meets these conditions or waives the certification requirement, it "will send a clear message to the Colombian government and security forces, at the outset of this major escalation of U.S. military involvement, that the United States' commitment to human rights does not go beyond empty rhetoric," the group stated in an open letter to Clinton. "Everyone agrees that the human rights situation in Colombia is dire. To ignore human rights by issuing a premature certification or invoking the waiver is to agree to the continuing slaughter of civilians, " said Carlos M. Salinas, Acting Director for Government Relations of Amnesty International USA. "I don't see how the Administration can certify Colombia has met these conditions and keep a straight face," said Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group, a coalition of 65 religious, policy and human rights organizations. Colombia does not meet the human rights conditions for a number of reasons, the groups say. The Colombian government has failed to dismiss officers with a proven record of human rights abuses and support for paramilitary groups. Nor has the Colombian government suspended many officers implicated in such crimes while referring their cases to civilian authorities for investigation and trial. A few high-profile officers have been dismissed, but many others implicated in gross violations of human rights remain on duty and have even been rewarded with promotions. The Colombian government has also failed to issue clear orders to the military to stop challenging the jurisdiction of civilian authorities over the investigation and prosecution of human rights cases directly involving the military or where the military facilitated attacks by paramilitary groups, including attacks on human rights defenders and massacres of civilian non-combatants. The Colombian Constitutional Court has ruled that such human rights cases must be tried in civilian courts, but the government continues to allow the military to try such human rights cases in military tribunals, which rarely convict high-level officers. The government has not ordered the military to take effective action against paramilitary leaders nor has the military protected the civilian population from paramilitary attacks. Hundreds of arrest warrants remain shelved while pleas from civilians for protection from imminent paramilitary attacks go unheeded. There exist continued credible allegations of army-paramilitary links throughout the country. A well-documented example is the massacre which took place in the village of El Salado in Bolivar province in February of this year. The military ignored pleas from villagers to protect them from the paramilitaries and even blocked roads leading into the village so that humanitarian groups responding to the pleas for help could not get through to the village. "We have grave doubts about the wisdom of this massive infusion of military assistance to Colombia. It will be an unqualified disaster, however, if the human rights conditions prove meaningless at the very outset," the groups warned Clinton. "We hope that by your leadership you show that human rights is a priority for your administration." Signers to the letter included Amnesty International USA, the Washington Office on Latin America, the Center for International Policy, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, the U.S. Committee for Refugees, and a range of church offices and grassroots organizations. For more information on U.S. assistance to Colombia, see www.ciponline.org/colombia/aid or contact Adam Isacson, Center for International Policy, 202-232-3317. ### July 31, 2000 President Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC Dear President Clinton, The undersigned organizations ask, in the strongest possible terms, that the State Department not certify Colombia to receive security assistance based on failure to comply with the human rights provisions of sec. 3201 of the Colombia supplemental aid package included in PL 106-246. We also ask, in equally strong terms, that you do not issue a waiver. We trust you share our view that disregarding human rights can never be in the national security interest of the United States. A certification or a waiver that ignores this critical human rights situation will send a clear message to the Colombian government and security forces, at the outset of this major increase in U.S. military involvement, that the United States' commitment to human rights does not go beyond empty rhetoric. Instead, the U.S. government should engage the Colombian government in a comprehensive dialogue on human rights and work with the Colombian government to implement concrete measures to stop violations, punish those responsible, and instill respect for human rights. At this moment the government of Colombia is in clear violation of the conditions set out in sec. 3201. As the State Department's own report for 1999 emphasizes, the Colombian government's human rights record "remained poor" and "the armed forces and the police committed numerous, serious violations of human rights throughout the year." The El Salado massacre, covered recently on the front page of the New York Times, is only one example of the many incidents this year in which Colombian security forces aided and abetted paramilitary forces or failed to act to protect the civilian population from atrocities. The Colombian government has not met the conditions in sec. 3201 for the following reasons: 1. The Colombian government has not dismissed officers with a proven record of human rights abuses and support for paramilitary groups and it has not suspended from duty officers implicated in such crimes and referred their cases to civilian authorities for investigation and trial. The Colombian government has dismissed a few high-profile officers, but they do not face any serious prosecution for their actions. Many others remain on duty and have even been rewarded with promotions despite serious allegations against them, such as General Rodrigo Quiñones and General Carlos Ospina Ovalle. 2. The Colombian government has not enforced its own law requiring that military officers implicated in serious human rights violations or the aiding or abetting of paramilitary groups be prosecuted in civilian courts. Major cases remain paralyzed or before military tribunals, which have established a notorious record of impunity. Such cases include, but are not limited to, investigations into attacks on human rights defenders, the El Salado (Feb. 2000), Barrancabermeja (May 1998), San José de Apartadó (March 1997), La Gabarra (May 1999), Mapiripán (July 1997), Santo Domingo (December 1998), El Tigre (January 1999), and El Aro (October 1997) massacres, and open and on-going support for paramilitary groups by key army brigades, including the third and fourth. 3. The Colombian government has not taken effective action against paramilitary leaders or protected the civilian population from paramilitary attacks. Hundreds of arrest warrants for paramilitary leaders remain shelved while pleas from the civilian population about imminent attacks by paramilitary forces go unheeded. Indeed, according to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bogota, the Colombian government's actions against paramilitary forces are largely limited to "making public declarations or designing policies that are never implemented." Moreover, according to the UN office, "signs of the lack of willingness to combat the paramilitary groups effectively include the fact that the location of many of their assembly and training sites is public knowledge of the part of the population and the authorities" and yet the security forces do not act on this knowledge. 4. The Colombian government has not issued clear orders to the military to stop challenging the jurisdiction of human rights cases and allow them to proceed in civilian courts, not military tribunals. The Colombian Constitutional Court ruled that human rights cases should go to civilian courts but the military continues to challenge jurisdiction. President Pastrana not only has the authority, but also the constitutional duty, to ensure that the laws of Colombia are obeyed, particularly by the armed forces. 5. There are continued, credible and abundant allegations of army-paramilitary collusion throughout the country, with recent cases in including the ongoing allegations involving the Third and Fourth Brigades and paramilitary attacks in La Unión (July 8, 2000), Tibú (April 6, 2000), San José de Apartadó (February 19, 2000) and El Salado. For a meaningful certification process, we urge the State Department to consult not only US-based human rights organizations, but also Colombian human rights and other civil society organizations. Human rights advocates who risk their lives on a daily basis are the best judges of Colombia's human rights situation. Many of the undersigned organizations have grave doubts about the wisdom of this massive infusion of military assistance to Colombia. We have raised serious questions about its efficacy as counternarcotics policy, its potential for drawing the United States into a quagmire, its impact on the humanitarian crisis of the displaced, its undercutting of the peace process and its negative impact on human rights. It will be an unqualified disaster, however, if the human rights conditions prove meaningless at the very outset. Is human rights indeed a "minor" objective, as stated by an official with the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy on July 22, in reference to Colombia? We do not believe that it is, and by your leadership we hope you show that human rights is indeed a priority for your administration. Sincerely, Carlos M. Salinas Kimberly Stanton Robert White George Vickers Tamar Gabelnick Lyn Beth Neylon Hiram A. Ruiz Sanho Tree Erica Sweitzer Edward (Ned) W. Stowe Kathryn Wolford Kathy Thornton, RSM David A. Vargas Jaydee Hanson Marie Dennis Trim Bissell Bob Schwartz Lynn Frederiksson John Lindsay-Poland Njoki Njehu Sandra Alvarez Alice Zachmann, SSND Jessica Kipp Katherine Hoyt Alice Wolters / Mark Saucier Marie Clarke Grahame Russell Peter J. Davies Jean Stokan Stephen Coats Wes Callender Mike Amitay Steven Bennett Cc: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright |
|
|
| Asia | | |
Colombia | | |
| |
Financial Flows | | |
National Security | | |
| Center
for International Policy |