Plan Colombia and Beyond

Frühling did face occasional charges of being if not timid, at least too indirect in his human-rights advocacy. The main reason for that was his writing and speaking style, which was one of the best examples you’ll ever see of the careful, measured, legalistic tone of the career UN diplomat.

A perfect example came a few weeks ago, when the field office issued its opinion on the Colombian government’s regulations for implementing the very lenient “Peace and Justice” law for demobilizing paramilitary groups. Few could write a sentence like this one in a million years, no matter how hard they tried:

The Office observes that the regulations issued under Law 975, do not succeed in establishing the advisable comprehensive legal framework that simultaneously achieves the effective dismantling of the illegal armed groups, the reintegration of their members into society and the full respect for the rights to truth, justice and reparation of the victims of atrocious crimes perpetrated by members of those groups.

When you read this closely, you see that these are strong words: the UN’s highest human rights official in Colombia thinks that the law is not going to do away with paramilitary groups, reconcile Colombian society, or give victims their due. Frühling’s speeches read similarly, requiring the listener to stay alert for the elaborately worded sword-thrust, usually somewhere in the second-to-last paragraph.

Though these critiques have often been aimed at the Uribe government’s banner policies, their wording and Frühling’s thoughtful, diplomatic style usually kept the office’s disagreements with government officials out of the spotlight and out of the news media. This is necessary, because the office’s mandate must be renewed periodically – the next time is in August – and the Colombian government could always risk international disapproval and close it down (or force it to do less).

In addition to overseeing an expansion in the office’s size, with new satellite offices in Medellín, Cali and Bucaramanga, Frühling adroitly chose a strategy for dealing with the popular Uribe government that centered on proposals instead of criticisms. Each year, Frühling would issue a series of recommendations to the Uribe government and the armed groups for bringing their policies and actions in line with international human rights and humanitarian law.

Frühling convinced most donor nations to endorse the recommendations and to include them in their own official foreign policy declarations regarding Colombia, including the statements that emanated from influential donors’ meetings in London in 2003 and Cartagena in 2005. The United States, however, has not endorsed the High Commissioner’s recommendations. Along with the Uribe government, it objects to the UN office’s adherence to the “principle of distinction” – the element of international humanitarian law that requires efforts to separate civilians from the conflict. Many of the Uribe government’s security policies, which the Bush administration supports, are predicated on greater civilian proximity to the conflict. (Examples include networks of paid informants and the establishment of fortified military and police posts in the middle of densely populated areas.)

These and other criticisms often surfaced in the office’s annual reports, which have always been more strongly worded and remained so under Frühling. An example from the last one:

The human rights situation continued to be critical. There was an increase in reports of extrajudicial executions attributed to members of the security forces and other public officials. High levels of torture and forced disappearances continued. Reports of arrests and mass searches carried out without an appropriate legal basis by members of the army and the Attorney-General’s Office continued.

These reports often angered the Uribe government, whose officials insist that the UN office does not give them enough credit for reductions in violence measures.

The recommendations and the annual reports have helped keep human rights at the top of Colombia’s political debate. The office has ensured that information about the country’s human rights situation comes from a source whose members cannot simply be dismissed as an interest group with a political agenda.

Most importantly, the High Commissioner’s office, both before Frühling’s arrival and during his tenure, has consistently voiced its concerns about the Uribe government’s security policies. The office has quickly gone on record whenever President Uribe launches an initiative that appears to violate Colombia’s international human rights commitments.

• When President Uribe declared a state of emergency upon assuming office in August 2002: The High Commissioner “recalls that measures adopted by governments exercising their emergency powers must conform to commitments derived from international human rights norms. These norms regulate the limits of the state’s actions when restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms are imposed.”
• When President Uribe sought to change Colombia’s constitution to give the military new anti-terror powers (a measure ultimately struck down by Colombia’s constitutional court): “The Office … recalls the incompatibility of giving judicial police functions to the military. In this sense it must highlight the importance of the principles of independence, judicial autonomy and separation of powers, without which the rule of law is weakened.”
• In the midst of the anti-terror law debate, putting emphasis on the principle of distinction: “One of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law is that of distinction between those who participate directly and actively in hostilities and those who do not participate.”
• After President Uribe, in a speech before the military, called non-governmental human rights groups “spokespeople for terrorism”: “Public authorities must always seek to create an atmosphere of calm and mutual confidence that allows necessary spaces of interlocution to be opened to listen to, and to incorporate into public policies, human rights defenders’ valuable contributions.”
• And of course, in response to the “Justice and Peace” law for dealing with demobilizing paramilitaries, the UN office under Frühling has insisted that the law “does not succeed in bringing together the advisable essential elements to establish a transitional justice system that, in order to be an instrument to gain sustainable peace, foresees incentives and offers benefits so that illegal armed groups demobilize and cease hostilities, while at the same time adequately guaranteeing victims’ rights to truth, justice and reparations.”

Even when phrasing its objections in such florid, diplomatic language, Frühling and the UN office have displeased many in the Uribe government. Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo has been unhappy with Frühling’s critiques of the “Justice and Peace” law. Uribe’s first minister of interior and justice, Fernando Londoño, still calls Frühling nasty names in many of his columns and public declarations.

Of course, the UN High Commissioner’s office doesn’t exist to make the Uribe government happy. But it does depend on the Colombian government’s willingness to allow it to be present in Colombia. In August, when President Uribe is likely to be sworn in for his second term, the office’s mandate must be renewed. Its future is unclear: while it is unlikely to be abolished, the second Uribe government may seek to clip its wings. For instance, last year Vice-President Francisco Santos – whose portfolio includes human rights – spoke publicly in favor of limiting the office’s duties to technical assistance and reducing its human-rights monitoring.

This must not happen. As Frühling’s tenure has shown, the UN office’s role is more important now than at any time in the ten years of its existence. It is a crucial voice for international human-rights standards that remain under assault by illegal groups’ abuses and by a popular government’s policies.

If anything, the office’s mandate should be strengthened and expanded, and its next director should be even more pugnacious.