Action Alert: Colombia July 2002

"The common people are the ones that suffer the consequences (of the escalated armed conflict): We are the ones that recognize that more military aid means more pain." Jose sighs deeply, grabs a handful of grass and throws it into the balmy air. "We know that weapons bring more war and death; and we want to live." This twenty-something human rights advocate works with a social organization in Arauca, the eastern province where the US government plans to guard an oil pipeline partly owned by a US company. Jose expresses the anguish of many struggling on the side of justice and life in the midst of Colombia's intensifying protracted armed conflict.

Recent US Involvement in Colombia
Unfortunately, the United States government is making their work more difficult. Many Colombians are currently experiencing the devastating effects of last year's "aid": the strengthening of State security forces through military training and provision of military hardware and indiscriminate aerial fumigations. The results are dismal; the military continues to work in collusion with the paramilitary groups, included on the US terrorist list and responsible for more than 70% of the human rights abuses, leading to increased terror and loss by the civilian population. The fumigations have not fulfilled their stated aim of eradicating coca, the raw material for cocaine: it is estimated that crop production has actually increased by 25% in the past year. The human health, local economic and environmental costs are staggering.

2003 Aid Request
The U.S. Congress is currently considering the Bush Administration's request for aid to Colombia for 2003. It doesn't look good. Next year's request for Colombia totals $538 million, the vast majority of the $637 provided for the entire Andean region. This foreign assistance budget bill, which appropriates money for all US foreign aid programs for 2003, would allot $374 million in military aid and $164 million in social and economic aid for Colombia. Now, this does not include additional counter-narcotic aid that Colombia will more than likely receive from the Defense budget appropriation. If past funding trends hold to bear in FY 2003, the funding from all US government sources would be a whopping 75% military and police assistance. Yikes!

The legislation includes growth of the aerial fumigation program in the southern region, likely translating into repeated cocktail chemical showers for coca-growing communities of the south. It includes funds for spraying nearly double the land area sprayed last year, setting a goal of 150,000 hectares for 2002 (and 200,000 hectares in 2003) as compared to the 84,000 sprayed by the US-supported fumigation program in 2001. Besides an accelerated continuation of the drug-war, we're particularly concerned about the expansion of US intervention in Colombia.

US Expanded mission in Colombia
The new bill includes language allowing 2003 funds to be used for counter-insurgency as well as counter-narcotic initiatives. What we're seeing here is an extension of the US´s mission in Colombia, from an alleged "War on Drugs" to an even more alarming "War on Terror."

The US is also expanding efforts in Colombia to protecting private corporate interests with public funds. The bill approves $88 million to help Colombia's military protect the Caño Limòn-Coveñas oil pipeline, partly owned by the US company Occidental Petroleum. Funding will go towards training a battalion and as much as $71 million may be used to purchase helicopters.

Arauca is already a tense and volatile conflict zone. The civil population does not need an injection of US military aid to boost the terror and violence of living in the midst of an armed conflict.

In a recent trip to Arauca, a departmental government official, Maria Lola Hernández asked, "Why, when we are suffering from hunger and a lack of healthcare services and educational opportunities, is (U.S.) aid going to the military brigade and not toward social investments? Why are these funds going to support war and not to help the people?"

We can respond to her plea through education and calling up Congress and the Bush Administration to support initiatives for peace.

Action:
We need to tell our Congress members NOW what we think about increased military aid to Colombia and the expansion of US mission in Colombia to include "counter-terror" and protection of US corporate interests.

Visits, Letter Writing and Phone Calls:
The foreign ops bill will likely come up in both the full Senate and House sometime in September, so we have some time to communicate with Congress. Your Congress members will be in their home districts during the month of August. This would be a great time for them to attend a town meeting, or for you to schedule a visit. Thoughtful letters are a great lobbying tool, and can be faxed and emailed when time is short. Sending your letter to your local newspaper is an effective way to maximize your advocacy efforts. While they are in DC, you can reach your member of congress through calling the congressional switchboard, (202) 224-3121. Last minute phone calls will be especially important right before the vote.*

Our concerns:

• "Mission Switch:" An expanded mission in Colombia will escalate the war against Colombian civilians caught in the conflict cross-fire.
• Pipeline Protection: The US Ambassador to Colombia Anne Patterson cited Caño Limòn-Coveñas as just one of more than 300 strategic infrastructure sites for the United States in Colombia. If we start with the use of taxpayer money for corporate protection here, where will be draw the line?
• Aerial Fumigations: The detrimental effects of fumigations on human health, local economies, food crops and the environment are well documented” all leading to increased displacement. Despite the grave costs, the policy has failed and coca production has actually increased.
• Military/Paramilitary Links: Through continued collaboration with the Colombian military, the US is sending mixed messages and implicitly condoning military/paramilitary links. While on one hand establishing a special forces group to combat the paramilitary, the US is indirectly funding a group on it's own list of terrorists.

Our desires:
We want the US government to seek life-giving alternatives to the current militarized avenue of seeking solutions. Rather than continuing with policies that neither meet their stated aims nor contribute to a stable future for Colombia, let's promote effective policies that will help usher forth positive change for a livable future. We can encourage alternative development programs that help facilitate the switch from coca and poppies to legal crops, support judicial reforms and programs to protect human rights in Colombia, support a negotiated peace settlement among and the armed actors. In the US we'd like to see larger and more accessible drug treatment and prevention programs. As long as people in the North consume illegal drugs, poor farmers with few to no other viable options will raise crops with illicit uses.

And, finally, a final call to action from the Latin American Working Group: Another way that your representative can send an important message in support of human rights in Colombia is by signing on to a ´dear colleague´ letter being circulated by the office of Rep, Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, which will be sent to Secretary Powell. This letter expresses concern overt the State Department's decision to certify Colombia on human rights grounds earlier this year.

Before military aid could be sent this spring, the State Department was required by Congress to certify that the Colombian government and military were making progress in cutting ties with paramilitary groups. Despite concrete evidence from internationally recognized organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as organizations in Colombia, that there had been backsliding on human rights over the past year, the State Department issued the certification. Human rights conditions are only helpful if they are enforced, and the State Department's decision to certify and send military aid despite concrete evidence that certification was not warranted sends a harmful message that we will turn a blind eye to violations, putting civilians who are targeted by the paramilitaries at further risk.

* For more hints on lobbying congress, contact the MCC Washington office for, "Colombia: Seeds of Peace: An Advocacy Packet."