Plan Colombia and Beyond

« Hogs not bombs | Main | Democratic Security's fuzzy math »

October 13, 2004

Critics need not apply

Readers of the Colombian newsweekly Semana may have seen an article last week about a June 2004 letter from USAID to one of its contractors in Colombia. In the letter, a USAID official questions support for Colombian non-governmental organizations that criticize U.S. and Colombian government policies.

The contractor, Management Services for Development (MSD), was forced to accept the resignation of two project directors due to this and other complaints from USAID. The controversy caused Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that funds foreign aid, to freeze the flow of some human rights aid for over two months.

MSD has managed a significant chunk of U.S. aid to Colombia that fits under the "human rights" category, including assistance to Colombian government entities with human-rights responsibilities (such as the office of Vice President Francisco Santos), support for an early-warning system to prevent abuses, and technical support, protection, and other aid for some non-governmental human-rights groups. This aid, within a $24 million-per-year category called "Support for Democracy" under the "Andean Counterdrug Initiative" appropriation, is part of the 20 percent of U.S. aid to Colombia that goes to something other than the military, the police or the aerial fumigation program.

"Training and support for human rights non-governmental organizations" has been an non-military aid objective since Plan Colombia's inception. Though several prominent Colombian human rights organizations have refused aid that bears the taint of Plan Colombia, CIP has nonetheless supported this aid. An effective, independent NGO sector is absolutely necessary to keep democratic space open for those who happen to disagree with the government but wish to work within the system. It is also necessary to keep the Bogotá government accountable for its human rights performance.

The USAID letter to MSD is disturbing because it indicates that U.S. support to Colombian NGOs may be becoming "politicized" – that is, conditioned on what the recipient organizations say or believe.

"The purpose of this letter is to formally convey our grave concerns regarding a number of contract performance issues," the missive begins. High among those concerns is that some organizations MSD has chosen to support have dared to criticize Plan Colombia in writing.

For example, while USAID welcomes constructive criticism of Plan Colombia, USG policies and/or the Government of Colombia during debates and open policy forums supported by the human rights program implemented through MSD, it is nonetheless not appropriate for stringent criticism to be included in formal publications funded by the program. MSD has, however, permitted documents and/or publications funded under the contract to include language strongly critical of Plan Colombia and/or other USG programs and policy.

This appears to mean that, with USAID funding, it is permissible to criticize Plan Colombia orally, but not in writing. Must AID contractors now ensure that their NGO grantees' publications avoid criticisms of U.S. policy?

The letter chides MSD employees themselves for having "taken meetings considered by the CTO [the USAID contract officer] to be contrary to US Government policy (for example, the recent Humanitarian Accord meeting with the French Embassy)." What a chilling criticism that is. Does it really mean that MSD employees cannot "take meetings" with anyone whose positions run counter to U.S. policy? Perhaps it makes sense to avoid the French embassy – they're an enemy country now, after all – but can't this guideline be interpreted to mean that MSD employees should avoid CIP employees because we've criticized Plan Colombia?

In another passage, the letter instructs MSD to "include a strategy and approach for ensuring that events supported under the contract are supportive of USAID objectives."

For example, ... as USAID'S strategy for strengthening human rights in Colombia is focused upon strengthening the GOC's capacity in this area, work with the NGO community should be targeted to that support which advances this objective.

It should be evident that "strengthening the GOC's capacity" to guarantee the basic rights of all of its citizens is a central goal of human-rights NGOs' aggressive research, documentation, case advocacy – and even their criticisms. By pointing out the gaps between policy and practice, and by recommending steps that need to be taken, these groups are encouraging a whole range of improvements in the Uribe government's human rights performance. This is the role that independent NGOs have come to play, on a whole range of issues, in every functioning democracy.

But Colombia's most independent and effective NGOs are not out to win a popularity contest. Nor are they in business to encourage government policies or excesses that they fear will close space for non-violent dissent and worsen the human rights situation overall. Remaining independent – and, thus, credible – means speaking truth to power, saying things that neither the U.S. nor the Colombian government particularly wants to hear. If the organization in question gets U.S. government funding via MSD, it may even require them to "bite the hand" on occasion.

A defense of the USAID stance might argue that it only restricts what recipient organizations do and produce with U.S. funds. If that's the case, are Colombian human rights groups who receive U.S. assistance really required to compartmentalize their arguments, to gag themselves depending on the source of their projects' funding? That's awfully unlikely to happen, and to our knowledge, the support that European countries provide comes with no such strings. (We at CIP would make no such pledge to our own funders, nor would they expect it.)

Semana reports that the MSD affair caused Sen. Leahy to put a "hold" on aid to the program in July. The hold was lifted a few weeks ago, though it's not clear whether the issue has been resolved adequately.

Posted by isacson at October 13, 2004 05:00 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://ciponline.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2

Comments

Post a comment