FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

American Shame in Colombia

by DAN KOVALIK

As Noam Chomsky has often cautioned, when considering foreign relations, and especially military intervention, states should always heed the primary Hippocratic oath – “First, do no harm.”   The U.S. has certainly disregarded this admonition with reckless abandon in Latin America, and Colombia is the foremost example of this, at least at the present time.   Human Rights Watch appears to concur with this judgment.

Thus, Human Rights Watch  (HRW) just released its annual human rights report on Colombia, and it is not pretty.   The punch line of the report is most damning of the United States and its role in that country’s abysmal practices – undoubtedly, the very worst of this hemisphere.

As HRW concludes, after its litany of atrocities being committed by the Colombian state and its paramilitary (death squad) allies,

The U.S. remains the most influential foreign actor in Colombia.  In 2011 it provided approximately US $562 million in aid, about 61 percent of which was military and police aid.   Thirty percent of US military aid is subject to human rights conditions, which the US Department of State has not enforced.   In September 2011 the State Department certified that Colombia was meeting human rights conditions.

HRW explains in detail that the human rights violations the U.S. is aiding and abetting in Colombia are indeed the worst imaginable.   As HRW explains, in Colombia

paramilitary successor groups continue to grow, maintain extensive ties with public security force members and local officials, and commit widespread atrocities.   There has also been ongoing violence against rights defenders, community leaders, and trade unionists.

According to the HRW report, the paramilitary death squads, whose power flows from “[t]oleration of the groups by public security forces,” actively “engage in drug trafficking; actively recruit members, including children; and commit widespread abuses against civilians, including massacres, killings, rapes and other forms of sexual violence, threats and forced displacement.”   HRW notes that, “[i]n January 2011 Colombia’s national police chief publicly stated that such groups are the largest source of violence in Colombia.”  This is a significant admission because the U.S., to justify its continued military support for Colombia, would have the public believe that it is the left-wing guerillas who are most responsible for the violence in Colombia.   In fact, this is not true.  Rather, it is the paramilitary death squads who bear this responsibility, and it is these death squads, allied as they are with the official Colombian security forces, which are being supported by the military aid the U.S. is sending to that country.

Moreover, while the U.S. attempts with a straight face to portray Colombia as a “democracy,” contrasting this with countries such as Cuba or Venezuela which the U.S claims lack democratic values, the recent HRW report makes it clear that Colombia is not recognizable as a democracy in any real sense.  Thus, HRW explains that

Candidates campaigning for the nationwide and  local elections in October 2011 were also frequently killed amid reports of alleged links between candidates and armed groups.  According to the Colombian NGO Mision de Observacion Electoral, 40 candidates were killed in 2011, representing a 48 percent increase in such crimes reported during the 2007 local elections.

If the murder of political candidates were not bad enough, HRW explains that there is “ongoing infiltration of the political system by paramilitaries and their successor groups.  . . .  Colombia’s Ombudsman’s Office reported that 119 municipalities faced a high risk of electoral violence or interference by paramilitary successor groups during the October 2011 local elections.”

In addition, as HRW explains, the Colombian military has been guilty of more than 3,000 extrajudicial killings of civilians in what is known as the “false positive” scandal wherein “army personnel murdered civilians and reported them as combatants killed in action, apparently in response to pressure to boost body counts.”   This “pressure to boost body counts,” moreover, is coming ultimately from the U.S. which is pursuing an aggressive anti-insurgency policy which rewards the Colombian military for its killing of guerillas.

Meanwhile, and of special concern to the labor movement in the U.S., HRW confirms that Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists with 28 unionists killed in 2011.  And, this year has gotten off to a horrible start.  Thus, in recent days, three (3) trade unionists have been killed in Colombia – at least one (Victor Manuel Hilarion Palacios) by the Colombian armed forces themselves.    In another instance, Mauricio Redondo, a leader of the USO union (the oil union of Colombia and that country’s oldest union) was murdered along with his wife, leaving five children orphaned.   Again, such killings do nothing to slow down U.S. aid to the Colombian regime.

Much is to be learned from the case of Colombia.   For one, it puts a lie to the U.S.’s claim, often used to justify U.S. military intervention, of supporting democracy and human rights abroad.   In the case of Colombia, the U.S. is indeed fueling massive human and labor rights abuses by supporting a regime that it is literally at war with its own people.

This brings us to the next and most important lesson – violence is not working in Colombia to end the insurgency or to bring about positive change.  And yet, it is violence that the U.S. is choosing to use ostensibly to advance such ends.   Apparently, the U.S. (the proverbial hammer seeing nails everywhere) does so because violence has become the only tool the U.S. knows to solve problems, despite the fact that this violence almost invariably exacerbates these problems and indeed creates many others.   It is clear that in Colombia the only viable solution for a lasting peace, and for real prosperity, is a negotiated settlement to the armed conflict.  Tragically, it is such a settlement which the U.S. has refused to support over the years.

Indeed, as Colombia Reports explained, the U.S. has actually put out a call in recent days for countries throughout the region to step up concerted, violent assaults on the guerillas in Colombia.   Meanwhile, as Colombia Reports also explained, it is Cuba which is hosting secret peace talks between insurgents and the Colombian government.

As in the case of Haiti where the Cubans have sent doctors to fight cholera and the U.S. sent soldiers to fight the population, it is Cuba which is playing a positive, peaceful role in our hemisphere; not the U.S.   This fact should be humbling to our leaders in the U.S. if they indeed know humility or shame.

Daniel Kovalik is Senior Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers (USW). 

Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
Aidan O'Brien
Thank Allah for Western Democracy, Despondency and Defeat
Joseph Natoli
The Politics of Crazy and Stupid
Sher Ali Khan
Empirocracy
Nauman Sadiq
A House Divided: Turkey’s Failed Coup Plot
Franklin Lamb
A Roadmap for Lebanon to Grant Civil Rights for Palestinian Refugees in Lebanon
Colin Todhunter
Power and the Bomb: Conducting International Relations with the Threat of Mass Murder
Michael Barker
UK Labour’s Rightwing Select Corporate Lobbyist to Oppose Jeremy Corbyn
Graham Peebles
Brexit, Trump and Lots of Anger
Anhvinh Doanvo
Civilian Deaths, Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Drones
Christopher Brauchli
Kansas and the Phantom Voters
Peter Lee
Gavin Long’s Manifesto and the Politics of “Terrorism”
Missy Comley Beattie
An Alarmingly Ignorant Fuck
Robert Koehler
Volatile America
Adam Vogal
Why Black Lives Matter To Me
Raouf Halaby
It Is Not Plagiarism, Y’all
Rev. Jeff Hood
Deliver Us From Babel
Frances Madeson
Juvenile Life Without Parole, Captured in ‘Natural Life’
Charles R. Larson
Review: Han Kang’s “The Vegetarian”
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail