For those interested in seeing a cut in US military aid to Colombia

Michael_B says on Jun 23, 2005, 14:43:

LOL Columbia South Carolina once again GB: I was thinking the same thing when reading his post...Los FARC member!!!!. Even visiting Colombia all these years,this gringo can see the difference Plan Colombia is making.

Maybe he means the Plan for Columbia South Carolina, Not our beloved Colombia.

Go away Marxist !!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 23, 2005, 14:59:

I'm all in favor of eliminating US aid completely. I'd like to see the country carved up into various narco-kingdoms with the central government controlling parts of a few cities. No, wait, that's the current situation.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dan says on Jun 23, 2005, 15:13:

UC Don't forget to ask for your cut too

God Bless America!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 23, 2005, 17:20:

I've got dibs on a FARC Front at Parque Lleras in Medellin. El Frente 69!

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 23, 2005, 17:28:

Life expectency less than zero I don't think you'd really want the FARC front in that Paraco controlled town. You'd be skinned and turned into a pair of cowboy boots long before you got to enjoy the perks of Parque Lleras!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 23, 2005, 20:24:

Actually, I am a she and no, I'm not a FARC member or supporter. I have seen for myself the devastation the US military aid and aerial fumigation have caused. Did you hear about the San Jose de Apartado massacre in February? Well, that was commited by the Colombian Army. Yes, there are sectors of the army that are totally corrupt and work hand in hand with paramilitaries. Although the Plan Colombia may have had good intentions, military aid is fueling the flames. I have talked to and interviewed many displaced people who have had family tortured, killed, raped, and kicked off their land by the paramilitary and guerrillas. While the Plan Colombia may be helping a bit keeping the guerrillas calm, paras have increased in numbers huge amounts and now have control of many rural parts of the country (especially in the north - like Uraba and Choco) as well as the cities. Medellin is very controlled by paras. Remember that this is a two sided war. I repeat though, I am in no way a guerrilla supporter. Torture and arbitrary mass detentions in the country have risen huge amounts as well.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 23, 2005, 20:39:

P.S. Careful with who you call a marxist and assume I know nothing of ColOmbia, Michael B. That was a really ignorant and quick-to-make-a-judgment response.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 23, 2005, 22:10:

I was definitely joking. I am well aware that the AUC now controls Medellin. No wonder the homicide rates have dropped precipitously.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 05:51:

A couple points I may not agree with 007 but it's a free world and what she's doing is just democracy in action. If congress would actually listen to their electoral constituents instead of their corporate ones that would be a great thing.

A suggestion for 007, instead of writing letters to Congress demanding that they cut all aid to Colombia, which they're simply not going to do, you might achieve better results if you point out specific programs and expenditures that are a waste of taxpayer money. That's what congress cares about. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but there have been something like 5 congressional delegations to Colombia in the last 2 years, so they're hardly uniformed about the security progress in this country. The old "The Colombian Army is a bunch of rapists and paras" argument isn't going to hold a lot of water with them.

Also, how do you know that the army did the SJ de Apartadó massacre?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jun 24, 2005, 07:34:

how do you know that the army did the SJ de Apartadó massacre? Infamia no entierra memoria por Alfredo Molano Bravo Friday, Mar. 04, 2005 at 8:35 PM

Cuatro campesinos adultos y cuatro menores de edad fueron asesinados
a golpes y destrozados a machete en la vereda La Resbalosa,
municipio de San José de Apartadó, entre el 21 y el 23 de febrero.

La comunidad, que hace mas de diez años se declaró neutral frente a
cualquiera de las fuerzas armadas que actúan en la región, ha
señalado a miembros de la Brigada 17 del Ejercito Nacional con sede
en Carepa, corazón del eje bananero, como responsables de la
matanza. Personas con la autoridad moral de Javier Giraldo y la
credibilidad pública de Gloria Cuartas han avalado las gravísimas
denuncias de la gente.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 08:04:

Sure But there are other people in that area who have blamed the paras. And others who have blamed the FARC.

So my question remains, how to you KNOW who did it? As in evidence.

The Inter-American Court held a hearing on this very subject and the results of the finding were completely inconclusive.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 08:08:

wow going to reply

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 08:21:

wow gringoinbogota - calm down. don't psychoanalyze me and don't patronize me. i happen to love my country but disagree with U.S. military aid to Colombia.

mr.hollywood - thanks for yor comments.
i actuall just wrote out a really long explanation and it didn't post, so here goes another, shorter version.

"The old "The Colombian Army is a bunch of rapists and paras" argument isn't going to hold a lot of water with them."

Actually, I think this is a legit reason. The massacre in San Jose de Apartado is just one example of the Army's less than stellar human rights record. I stayed with a peace community in Choco as an accompanier. They were violently displaced off their land in 97' in a joint paramilitary and 17th brigade of the army,operation called operacion genesis. 100 or so of their members were killed and the rest of the community (2000 people) had to live in a gymnasium in Turbo.

When I went to the U.S. Embassy in Bogota to speak with two official sof the human rights dep't, they did not deny that there are links with the army and paras. Even they know. So, yes, I think my tax dollars going to the corrupt army is wrong and a waste of money.

Also, the aerial fumigation is a failure. One point of the Plan Colombia is to fight the war on drugs and reduce the amount of cocaine coming into the U.S. The amount has not decrease, the State dep't even wrote a report stating as such. The coca fields that have been sprayed have also killed food crops and has been harmful to farmers and the environment.

I understand Congress will not likely cut aid, especially under this administration, but I also disagree with you when you say that they are well informed of the security progress. The Co gov't is not eager to show how torture, arbitrary mass detentions, and forced displacement have skyrocketed. I also understand that this is a very complex war and good solutions are difficult to work, but I do not think Plan Colombia is working.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 08:31:

Thanks for your reply 007 You and I agree on a # of things, such as the futility of aerial fumigation. However, it's not fair, nor effective, to levy OLD charges against the Colombian government and military. I don't doubt your experience in 1997. And you're right that its horrible. However, if you want to convince Congress that there's a human rights problem at the hands of the Colombian government you need to show that it's now, not 8 years old.

What Congress sees when they come to Colombia is increased road security, people not being kidnapped with impunity off the streets of Bogotá, the military having pushed the FARC into the far corners of the country, AUC demobilizing, etc. So if you really want to change congress' minds, you need to have some very substantive and direct criticisms. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.

I wouldn't be shocked if the Army killed those people in Apartado, nor would I be shocked that it was the FARC or the AUC. But nobody has even come close to substantiating any of those accusations and the testimony Father Giraldo gave in front of Colombia's congress was less than compelling, to say the least.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

carter says on Jun 24, 2005, 08:32:

why is it that anyone on this site that has disagrees with a government policy is instantly labelled FARC?

Is this one of the problems in Colombia that people are scared to stand up against other issues becuase any view against the government labels them terrorists.

This must be a great way for the government to keep people in check, they can do what ever they want and anyone who disagrees is a terrorist.

GIB "neither does any Colombian I know here" you don't know ONE Colombian who is against US aid???????

man you gotta get out of the Zona Rosa and Im not talking Villa de Leyva for a weekend.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Jun 24, 2005, 09:23:

My wife is Colombian and she is completely against aid. She thinks any money that goes to Colombia goes in a politician's pocket. She's quite the cynic when it comes to politics.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 09:58:

mr hollywood The 17th brigade of army is CURRently across the river from the community I visited last summer. (2004) There are constant PBI (Peace Brigades Internaitonal)and Justicia y Vida volunteers that accompany this community as a means of protection. The PBI volunteers can be either Canadian, American or European. How does it work? The gov't does not want int'l scandal and word gets passed down to the paras/army in the area to back off. So, with internationals there, there have been no KILLINGS, but the community is still harassed. For example, soldiers try and entice the young men to joining them with promises of money, motorcyles, guns, girls and they tell the young women they will pay them if they sleep with them. The members of the community refuse to cooperate with any armed actor - guerrillas, paras, or army. They have no reason to trust any of them and just want to be left alone.

This community was displaced off their land in 97', and lived in Turbo for 4 years, and with the help of international human rights lawyers, got their land back in 2001. (Law 70 allows them their land) But as I said before the army and paras are still there harrassing.

There are also two Colombian companies that are illegally exploiting their land. The are Maderas del Darien and Unipalma. Maderas illegally clear cuts tress on their land, making profits, and by clearcutting, it leaves no room for new trees to grow. When the community asks the gov't for help and representation, they are ignored.

Unipalma plants African PAlm, which produces a cooking oil. The problem is 1)it's illegal to plant on their land and 2) it's very damaging to the rainforest because the plant is not native to the area and takes up too much water, leaving little for the other plants, crops. Again, no gov't help.


I'm sure you're right with the roads being more secure and kidnappings decreasing.

As far a "peace negotiations" with the AUC, this has been criticized, even in Colombia. It is seen as top-commander drug smugglers responsible for many, many innocent deaths, getting away with very lenient sentences (8 years max). Senator Barack Obama (IL) along with 5 other U.S. senators wrote Presidnet Uribe a letter stating their concerns of leniency and in fact, some of the AUC commanders are wanted for extradiction in the U.S. and Uribe and said no to that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 10:21:

Harrasment? "For example, soldiers try and entice the young men to joining them with promises of money, motorcyles, guns, girls and they tell the young women they will pay them if they sleep with them."

You've just described nearly every military in the world Read history, armies are known for their bad manners. I agree it sucks, but it's a long way from this to killing people and chopping their bodies into pieces.

I don't think anyone, not even the most rabid pro-plan colombia, pro-uribe US congressman, would tell you there are NO problems in Colombia. But that's not their calculation. Their calculation is "would problems be better or worse without US aid to Colombia?" That's the question you should address, and on a specific rather than general level. I'm only telling you this because it's something I know a thing or two about, and I hate seeing the ineffectiveness of political expression because a lot of people simply don't know how to influence Congress. You're much more likely to catch their attention if you point out specific flaws and inconsistancies than if you bludgeon them with simplistic moral arguements.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 13:32:

I thought I had just given you two specific examples and I think you missed my point. If the PBI members were not there to accompany this community, their bodies WOULD be cut into pieces! Like the 8 people, 3 of whom were children, in San Jose de Apartado. That is also a peace community and the one day they leave camp without their international accompaniers, is the day the massacre is commited. And while it is not proved with evidence that the army absolutely did it, the commision that went to the community, including the United Nations High Commissioner, said all evidence pointed to the army.

Shall I give you more examples? A friend of mine's nephew was tied to a tree, had gasoline poured onto him, and set fire becuase he wouldn't join the para/army operation at the time of the displacement in Choco. Then there this is a woman I met in Medellin who teaches young girls and boys in her neighborhood to not join any armed group. She was arrested and accused of being a guerrilla supporter, interrogated at knifepoint, forced to strip naked and photographed, spent 9 days in jail but had nothing to confess. She got out with the help of a human rights lawyer on a second appeal and is afraid to go back home b/c she is now on a hit list.

"Would problems be better or worse w/out U.S. aid to Colombia"

By many people's accounts, including those in all displaced communities I visited, it would be better, not perfect by any means, but better w/out military aid in the sense that it wouldn't fuel an already existing war. And, the amount of cocaine coming into this country has not decreased so that part of the Plan Co has been a failure. Maybe the Plan Co has helped with holding off guerrillas, but the paras and sectors of the army continue to commit horrible atrocities. How can millions of dollars then be justified? what about a CHANGE in foreign policy...

"I don't think anyone, not even the most rabid pro-plan colombia, pro-uribe US congressman, would tell you there are NO problems in Colombia. But that's not their calculation. Their calculation is "would problems be better or worse without US aid to Colombia?"

I never said that the most pro-plan-co. congressman would say there are no problems in CO. and, How do you know that's not their calculation?? You don't think that there is perhaps some corruption/greed in this administration? Corruption has always been in many of Colombia's politicians. Maybe that's not a fair statement of me to make since I don't have hard core proof, as you like.

Lastly, how would you know that this political expression is ineffective? Some members of the House and Senate are slowly starting to take note as I said before with Senator Obama and the Rep. McGovern who is proposing an amendement to cut military aid. Of course they will not all agree, but attention is at least being paid to the issue.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 14:53:

Not trying to pick a fight 007, the last thing I'm trying to do is pick a fight with you. I'm only going to address two of your questions and then let this dog lie.

"You don't think there is at least some greed in this administration?"

Where did you get the idea I think this? Of course there's greed in this administration, particularly if you're talking about the one in Washington. In fact I've hardly seen a greedier bunch. But I don't see how that's relevant to what we were talking about.

"How do you know that this political expression is ineffective?"

Because I worked in politics for a number of years and I know from experience that emotional arguments almost never gain traction on Capitol Hill. Obviously, there are exceptions, such as the crazy Terry Schiavo stuff we saw recently, but when it comes to foreign aid the calculations are very Machiavalian.

Let's put it this way, the three biggest recipients of US foreign aid are, in order, Israel, Egypt and Colombia. Do you think Israel and Egypt have LESS of a human rights problem? Yet they continue getting all the aid in they can ask for.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 16:20:

mr. hollywood Thanks for your reply.
I see your point with regards to israel and egypt and am not as familiar with those situations. I guess the question I pose is, shouldn't a bad human rights record be taken into consideration when giving military aid? Part of the deal when issuing aid to the Colombian army is that they are certified with regards to passing all "human rights tests".
I don't believe they have nor do many human rights organizations. There are documented records of atrocities commited as well.
Call me idealistic, but I think that even though it is/can be an emotional issue, it seems very legitimate, especially when crimes are left in impunity. Isn't that what there is a justice system for?

I see the relevance with greed in the administrations as - those in power not necessarily wanting the military aid for the betterment of the people, but rather for selfish reasons and using rhetoric that says otherwise.

I feel compelled to help the many poor and powerless people not involved in any armed group, that I have interviewed and spent time with, by spreading the word on how the Plan Colombia, directly or indirectly, has made their situation worse.

There is an article you may find interesting in today's New York Times about the negotiations with the paras. I'll post it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 16:25:

June 23, 2005
New Colombia Law Grants Concessions to Paramilitaries

By JUAN FORERO
BOGOTÁ, Colombia, June 22 - Colombia's Congress on Wednesday approved a law governing the disarmament of the country's death squads, which permits the demobilization of thousands of fighters but grants generous concessions to paramilitary commanders accused of atrocities and cocaine trafficking.

The Justice and Peace Law, an underpinning of President Álvaro Uribe's goal of pacifying Colombia, was hailed by government officials as a way to lay the groundwork for removing one of the three illegal armed groups battling in Colombia. "We are proud of this instrument," said Luis Carlos Restrepo, the country's peace commissioner.

But congressional leaders say that in exchange for disarming up to 20,000 fighters, paramilitary commanders are shielded from serious punishment or extradition on drug charges to the United States. The law, passed by Congress on Tuesday and by bicameral committees on Wednesday, will be signed into law by Mr. Uribe within days.

"This is a law that brings no justice, no peace," said Senator Jimmy Chamorro. "It should be called what it really is, a law of impunity and immunity."

Washington has listed 18 paramilitary commanders as among Colombia's top cocaine kingpins, and American counternarcotics officials say the paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces, is responsible for trafficking most of the cocaine reaching American cities. The group, founded by landowners and drug traffickers to battle Marxist rebels, is also blacklisted by the State Department as a terrorist organization accused of assassinating politicians and killing thousands of peasants.

"This gives benefits to people who have committed the worst crimes, and we get nothing in return," said Gina Parody, a leading congresswoman and ally of Mr. Uribe who nevertheless proposed much tougher legislation. "The message we are sending to Colombian society is that crime does pay."

The law highlights the contradictory nature of United States policy in Colombia, which has received more than $3 billion in mostly military aid since 2000 to destroy drug crops and weaken guerrillas.

The law shields the paramilitary commanders from extradition on drug charges by allowing them to confess to trafficking, giving them double-jeopardy protection. It also categorizes "paramilitarism" and related crimes as political crimes, which under the Constitution would safeguard the commanders from extradition on the related crime of trafficking.

The Bush administration and its representative in Colombia, Ambassador William Wood, have strongly supported the law and Mr. Uribe, who has made disarming the paramilitaries a cornerstone in his campaign to win re-election.

But some influential members of the United States Congress have raised dire warnings.

"We want to see the armed groups demobilize, but this law rewards some of Colombia's worst terrorists and drug traffickers without any assurance that their criminal organizations will be dismantled," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who is the ranking member on the foreign operations subcommittee and works on Colombia policy.

In a letter to Mr. Uribe last month, Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Republican who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he was concerned that the law "would leave intact the complex mafia-like structures" by failing to require commanders to disclose knowledge of the organization's operations or financing.

The law contrasts sharply with how other South American nations are now dealing with rights violators in the aftermath of civil conflicts.

In Argentina, the Supreme Court last week ruled that 19-year-old laws granting amnesty to military officers who committed atrocities during that country's so-called dirty war are unconstitutional. In Chile, hundreds of former military officers have been charged with crimes committed during Gen. Augusto Pinochet's rule.

Here, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights in Colombia, Michael Frühling, as well as human rights groups and members of Colombia's Congress, said Mr. Uribe had settled on disarmament at too high a price after a year of official negotiations in a 142-square-mile safe haven where paramilitary commanders operated freely. Critics say the law would do little to compensate victims, recoup land under paramilitary control or disclose the truth about atrocities.

"If you do not clear up what happened and reveal the illegal structures that exist, you not only do not have justice or offer reparations for victims, but you also do not have the elements to dismantle these illegal structures," Mr. Frühling said.

The biggest concern in Washington is that commanders who are, in essence, drug traffickers will remain largely free to continue moving cocaine. The United States has issued extradition orders on at least six commanders, including the most powerful leader, Diego Fernando Murillo, a former underworld hit man wanted by federal prosecutors in New York.

"They are very much involved in drug trafficking activities," an American counternarcotics official said. "If you ask me whether we have heard of a reduction of drug trafficking by those very people who were sitting at the negotiating table, I would say, 'No.' "

The government says that with the negotiations, hundreds of lives have been saved as more than 5,200 paramilitaries have disarmed since late 2003.

But under the law, commanders do not have to guarantee that all their fighters will disarm, or that those fighters adhere to a cease-fire. Critics also say the law does not require a complete and honest confession from commanders in return for sentencing-reduction benefits.

Commanders can, in theory, be charged with crimes, but investigations are restricted and punishment is light - as little as 22 months and possibly on farms, not in prisons.

"This law tries to simulate truth, justice and reparations, but what it really offers is impunity," said Iván Cepeda, whose father, Senator Manuel Cepeda, was killed by paramilitary gunmen in 1994.

Victims' families outraged by the law included Leonel Sánchez, whose son, Jairo Hernando Sánchez, 29, was kidnapped and killed by paramilitaries in 2003.

"It is grave that this law protects them from war crimes, crimes where so many poor people died," said Mr. Sánchez, 57.

Monica Trujillo contributed reporting for this article.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 17:12:

Idealism I envy your idealism, 007Ca. I'm a bit more realpolitik than that.

Thanks for the NYT piece. I think the critics of this law are missing an important point, which is EVERY peace negotiation like this is a deal with the devil. If the Colombian government had the power to arrest and punish all these guys that would be one thing. But realistically they don't. So what you get is essentially the same as a plea bargain in the US courts system. A big criminal comes in and says you give me X amount of reduced punishment and I'll do Y for you. In this case it's reduced jail time for terrible crimes in exchange for an end to hostilities. But the option is further mayhem, so is it a bad deal for Colombia? Personally, I think 8 years in a Colombian jail sounds pretty rough. I'd go on the lam before serving that time.

Another thing to think about is to look at the terms of peace deals in other countries. Many times it's as simple as "Turn in your guns and we'll forgive all your crimes." Study up on some of the African peace processes or the one in Kosovo. Yes, morally its repugnant to let genocidal killers skate free, but then again, so is continued war.

The biggest hope for me with this law is that it's attractive enough that the ELN will also decide to take advantage of it, since its benefits are available to the guerilla groups as well as the AUC. That would leave the FARC alone and morally isolated and show that Colombia is serious about peace.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

007CA says on Jun 25, 2005, 13:49:

mr. h My opinion:

"an end to hostilities? and the other option being further mayhem?"

I wouldn't hold my breath. I wouldn't be surprised if they joined up again, picked up arms, and starting smuggling drugs again (if they ever stop).

Terms of peace deals in other places may be even more lenient than this one, but that doesn't make it right. (I'm not saying you think this)

Are the benefits availabe to guerrillas as well?

0 funny, 0 helpful.