On the right, legal and institutional victories won by the residents of Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó, Colombia, two Afro-Colombian communities struggling to reclaim land violently taken from them by paramilitary-tied landowners in 1997.
On the left, the names of community leaders murdered for trying to get their land back.
From an excellent new report by Anthony Dest, a former intern and WOLA staffer who spent 6 weeks last year in the two communities in Chocó department, near Panama.
From BBC: Outside Rio de Janeiro’s Maracaná soccer stadium, police disperse protesters objecting to the high cost of Brazil’s hosting of the 2013 Confederations Cup, the 2014 World Cup, and the 2016 Olympics.
A very contentious debate is nearly over. Last Wednesday, Colombia’s Senate approved [legislation][1] that will allow the country’s military to try its own personnel in many more cases of human rights abuse. On Monday, Colombia’s House of Representatives is expected to do the same.
This is a triumph for Colombia’s 280,000-strong armed forces, which have been ever more vocally demanding that the civilian justice system have less jurisdiction over them. But it is a setback for human rights.
Since about 1997, Colombia’s civilian courts had steadily been gaining authority to investigate and judge military personnel believed to have committed crimes against the population. While Colombia’s civilian prosecutors and judges are no models of speed and efficiency, they proved far more likely to hold abusive soldiers accountable than the military’s own justice system, which proved exceedingly lenient in such cases. By the 2000s, civilian courts were handing down historic verdicts, especially in cases of paramilitary killings that benefited from military acquiescence or support. In the past few years, as soldiers stood accused of killing [as many as 4,716][2] citizens — many of them so-called “false positives,” innocent people falsely presented as armed-group members killed in combat — civilian courts convicted a few hundred more, mostly low ranking, military personnel.
That momentum has now stalled. Military demands for “judicial security,” championed by a government that needed military support for its peace talks with guerrillas, have led to legislation that is likely to send many more abuse cases to military courts.
The new law “runs counter to the standards of international human rights law, and many of its provisions run openly contrary to that body of law that regulates, among other issues, the use of force and the administration of justice in any state,” notes a stern seven-page statement [[PDF][3]] issued last week by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ field office in Colombia.
“This bill’s provisions seriously disagree with the state’s other international commitments, especially those regarding the duty to respect international humanitarian law,” contends the Colombian Commission of Jurists [[PDF][4]]. “So many such obligations will be transgressed if this bill is approved, that it is no exaggeration to say that since the 1991 Constitution went into effect, this is one of the legislative initiatives that has most threatened the applicability of fundamental rights in Colombia.”
The bill about to receive final passage is “implementing” legislation. It follows a constitutional amendment that Colombia’s Congress [passed][5] late last year. The earlier provision gave the military justice system “exclusive jurisdiction” over all military abuses “related to the conflict,” with the exception of a list of seven crimes: crimes against humanity, genocide, forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, sexual violence, torture, and forced displacement. These crimes will continue to go directly to the civilian court system. Others, like assault, illegal surveillance, or homicide that does not meet the definition of “extrajudicial execution,” will go to military justice.
The current bill adds further guidelines explaining how the military courts will deal with violations of international humanitarian law (rules of war); defining the crime of “extrajudicial execution,” which doesn’t exist in Colombia’s penal code; and explaining how disputes between civilian and military jurisdiction will be resolved.
In response to outcry from Colombian and international human rights advocates, Colombia’s Congress has made important improvements to the bill’s language. But serious problems remain.
Why does Colombia need to create the charge of “extrajudicial execution”? Why shouldn’t “homicides” go to the civilian court system?
The hundreds of military personnel accused of committing “false positive” murders are currently facing charges of “homicide,” “aggravated homicide,” or “homicide of a protected person.” All of these crimes, the UN High Commissioner’s Office notes [[PDF][3]], “are under the exclusive competence of the [civilian] judicial branch. These must be investigated by the [civilian] Prosecutor-General’s Office [Fiscalía] and judged by autonomous and independent judges.”
But Article 43 of the legislation codifies a new type of crime, “extrajudicial execution,” in line with the constitutional amendment. It’s not clear why this is needed.
Colombia has about 450,000 military and police personnel out of an adult population of about 30.7 million. That means about one out of every 68 Colombians wears a uniform.
Adding together active-duty military, National Guard and reserves, state and local police, and federal law enforcement (ICE, CBP, FBI, Coast Guard, etc.), the United States has about 3.5 million military and police personnel out of an adult population of about 240 million. That means about one out of every 68 Americans wears a uniform.
At “Just the Facts”: U.S. military exercises in April and May
Belize
“Approximately 90 airmen deployed from Hurlburt Field, Florida, are building school structures from the ground up throughout Belize as part of an exercise known as New Horizons,” reports the U.S. 12th Air Force. “The first of the airmen assigned to the 823rd Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineers, commonly known as RED HORSE, began to arrive in Belize in February to begin pre-construction activities and set up logistics for the three-month training exercise that started April 1 and is scheduled to run through the end of June.”
Belize, El Salvador, Panama
Brazil
Here’s video of yesterday’s event (Spanish only) with Ariel Ávila of Colombia’s Corporación Nuevo Arco Iris, one of the country’s principal non-governmental experts on the country’s conflict and the peace talks with the FARC guerrillas.
He’s a very clear presenter and a great source of current information. I am sitting far from the camera’s microphone and hard to hear in this video, and recommend skipping directly to Ariel.
Great overview by David Smilde.
David Smilde
What are the politics of the recent tensions between Venezuela and Colombia?
The most recent tensions started when Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos agreed to meet with former presidential candidate and current Miranda Governor Henrique Capriles. For the Venezuelan government that was an affront because Capriles does not recognize Maduro as the legitimate president of Venezuela. Closely on the heels of that meeting Santos announced Colombia’s intention to strengthen ties to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This latter is significant since NATO is the world’s most powerful military alliance.
Venezuela’s entire foreign policy has been predicated on the idea of Latin American unity and recent years have seen significant progress with the creation of the Union of Southern Nations (UNASUR) and the Council of Latin American Heads of State (CELAC). Colombia’s presence and collaboration has been an essential element of this and their moving closer to NATO could throw a wrench in regional unity.
Part of what has happened is that Juan Manuel Santos is up for reelection in May 2014 and this seems like a move to strengthen his credentials as being tough on Venezuela—both Hugo Chávez and now Nicolas Maduro are very unpopular in Colombia—and close to the United States. Santos was elected as the successor to Uribe. But one of his major policy shifts as president was to reconcile and strengthen ties with Venezuela. This has helped the Colombian economy and facilitated a peace process with guerrilla groups but included sacrifices such as pulling out of a deal with the United States to have US military presence at Colombian bases.
In this photo posted by the FARC guerrillas’ negotiating team in Havana, one of those posing for the picture is Venezuela’s envoy to the talks, Roy Chaderton. Another is a cardboard cutout of guerrilla leader Simón Trinidad, who is in a U.S. prison.
Drug policy was a central topic at the June Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly in Guatemala. And Cuba’s exclusion from the Summits of the Americas came up often. Here, I talk to my WOLA colleagues John Walsh (who was in Guatemala) and Geoff Thale about both topics.
“Some of the Guatemalan troops carrying out the massacres may have heard that the American president was supporting their leader. As for Ríos Montt, Reagan’s dismissal of the reports of the human rights organizations that monitored the conflict may have encouraged him not to take them seriously.”
— From a masterful 5,000-word essay about Guatemala and the trial of former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, by Aryeh Neier in the current New York Review of Books.
“In La Paz, the Morales government has given Brazil the green light to send its reconnaissance drones over Bolivian airspace in an effort to monitor the cocaine trade. …
“[T]he Rousseff administration has signed an agreement with Argentina allowing for cooperation in the further development of drone technology. …
“Concerned about terrorism in advance of the Confederations Cup, Brazil has also deployed its drones near the Uruguayan border. Indeed, the Rousseff administration is negotiating a drone “code of conduct” with Montevideo and Asuncion that would allow Brazilian drones to monitor their territories. …
“Not taking any chances, and hardly wishing to experience the same fate as the DEA, Brazil has been careful to insert strict provisos within the so-called code of conduct agreements with neighboring countries such as Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay. Under the accords, drone flights are to be limited, and neighboring governments will be allowed to view intelligence data from the unmanned aerial vehicles. …
“Brazil is probably correct in pushing for an “under the radar” drone program with Paraguay. Asuncion has long been wary of Brazil, a country that enjoys significant economic influence in the Paraguayan countryside.”
“I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks my end.
“You can’t protect the source, but if you help me make the truth known, I will consider it a fair trade.
“Perhaps I am naive, but I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents.
“We managed to survive greater threats in our history . . . than a few disorganized terrorist groups and rogue states without resorting to these sorts of programs. It is not that I do not value intelligence, but that I oppose . . . omniscient, automatic, mass surveillance. . . . That seems to me a greater threat to the institutions of free society than missed intelligence reports, and unworthy of the costs.”
NSA leaker Edward Snowden in his own words.
So much more eloquent than President Obama’s lame defense of PRISM and similar programs when the news emerged last week.
Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
A member of the carro, the group of inmates who control the Vista Hermosa prison in Ciudad Bolivar, Venezuela, during a routine patrol.
From a remarkable and troubling set of photos by Sebastián Liste, and reported by Jorge Benezra, at the website of Time magazine. “Outside its walls, the Venezuelan national guard patrols; inside, the inmates live and die in a world of their own making.”
Here’s a podcast recorded yesterday with Sarah Krupp, whose graduate work at the University of California at Berkeley took her to Tumaco, on Colombia’s Pacific coast. She discusses the experience of Las Varas, an Afro-Colombian community that sought to abandon coca cultivation. Download the mp3 file here.
WOLA interviewed Las Varas community leaders as part of a 2011 report on Tumaco. See video here. We are now concerned about the safety of these individuals, who — as Sarah Krupp explains — are now in Bogotá after receiving threats from armed groups.