Crossing the line: Joe DeRaymond and the SOA

I neglected to post a tribute when one of FOR's first volunteers in Colombia, Joe DeRaymond, died in September. I had met Joe several times in his capacity as a member of the program's Colombia Committee when I worked in the San Francisco, CA office before coming to Colombia. I then had the privilege, just the month before he died, of leading the delegation in August in which Joe made his last visit to the Peace Community. Despite the pain and difficulty of the advanced stage of his brain cancer, his joy at visiting the Community one last time was palpable. I am honored to have shared that with Joe, who was not only a former FOR accompanier but also an assiduous advocate for human rights and the end to impunity in Latin America. As people gather in Fort Benning, Georgia for the annual SOA protest/vigil, I post this email appeal, sent today, for support for the Joe DeRaymond Memorial Accompaniment Fund, in memory of an inspiring man and tireless activist. ~Moira

In 2006, Joe DeRaymond served a three-month sentence for "crossing the line" at Fort Benning, Georgia, where the School of the Americas (SOA, now called WHINSEC) is located. Joe spoke about going again this year to the annual SOA vigil, which occurs this weekend. Though his passing last month obviously changed that plan, his ashes will be spread at the vigil in accordance with his wish. He actively participated in the movement to close the school, through lobbying, educating his community, and protests.

We are gratified by the generosity of those of you who have contributed to Joe DeRaymond Memorial Accompaniment Fund, which has now received more than $3,200 - including from the owner of a local landfill that Joe organized to clean up!

Joe also spoke strongly against the plan to establish US military bases in Colombia, and FOR's Liza Smith will conduct a workshop and strategy session with activists from across the country at the SOA vigil on Friday night. If you are travelling to the vigil, please join us at the workshop, stop by the FOR table, and hear Liza sing from the stage.

This is the third and final email appeal for donations towards this fund. The fund will remain open, but we are writing you several times because this is a special moment just after Joe's death and right before the SOA Vigil.

Joe's commitment to the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó and to nonviolent alternatives persists, even after his death. Please support the continuation of that commitment by materially supporting accompaniment of the Community. Fifty dollars covers a weekly stipend for an FOR volunteer in San José. Ninety dollars covers the cost of a critical satellite phone from the remote area. Any amount contributes to maintaining the team to which Joe gave so much during his life. Click here to make your tax-deductible donation.

For peace and community,
John, Liza, Susana, Moira, Peter, Rachel, and Marion

Bases deal signed, but what are the real intentions?

November 11 update: A version of this piece has been published on CommonDreams.org under the title "Signing of Colombia Bases Deal Could Set the Stage for 'Expeditionary Warfare'". Check it out!

After several months of secrecy and controversy, on October 28th the US and Colombia signed an agreement to allow the US military extensive access to seven Colombian bases, notwithstanding serious concerns about true intentions and eventual consequences.

Despite pledges by Colombian and U.S. governments about the limitations of the agreement, the agreement text and U.S. military documents contradict such assurances. One of the principal concerns raised by regional governments after news was leaked of the pending agreement has been the possibility of the bases’ use for aggressions against neighboring countries. In an interview Sunday with the Colombian daily El Tiempo, Ambassador Brownfield claimed that joint operations aren’t planned outside of Colombia, and that Article IV of the agreement expressly forbids such operations. In fact, a careful review of the text of the agreement reveals no such prohibition.

Not only that, but similar assurances by Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva that the agreement "has no geopolitical or strategic connotation, other than being more effective in the fight against drug trafficking" are even more hard to believe after reading a recently-uncovered Pentagon budget document that expresses clear regional intentions for the Palanquero base. The document describes the U.S. presence in Palanquero as an “opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America,” and confirms the fears of Colombia’s neighbors when it discusses the possibility of using the base to confront the "threat" of what it calls "anti-US governments." The most chilling phrase, however, is the discussion of the potential use of Palanquero to “expand expeditionary warfare capability.”

Perhaps in hope that the true scope of the agreement wouldn’t be discovered, the Colombian government has pushed through the signing of the agreement without Congressional approval, claiming that as a mere bilateral agreement no approval is required. This is despite the fact that Colombia’s State Council, a judicial body that advises the government on administrative issues, found that the agreement is in fact a treaty and should be reviewed by Congress. The Council also called the agreement “very unbalanced for the country."

For Colombians who live near the bases, the deal is also worrisome, as the agreement lacks environmental protections. The U.S. has no obligation to remediate ecological damage, nor does the deal provide for damages claims on behalf of the Colombian government. The agreement states, for example, that bases will be turned over in “as is” condition upon termination of the agreement. Given the U.S. military’s legacy of environmental damage around the world, this is a serious concern for the land and populations surrounding the bases.

Criticism of the deal signing has come from many corners. Presidential candidate and Senator Gustavo Petro urged the Colombian government to renounce the deal, calling it illegal without Congressional approval and pointing to the regional tensions it has fueled. Brazilian president Lula da Silva proposed a “non aggression pact” for UNASUR (Union of South American Countries) over concerns about the “gaps” in the deal that could allow U.S. military personnel based in Colombia to participate in attacks on neighboring countries. Twenty-seven European organizations signed a letter to President Obama just before the deal was signed, urging him to reconsider. On November 1st, several pacifist organizations from the U.S. and other countries protested at the Palanquero air base, raising a “no to US troops in Colombia” banner and comparing the plan to “a little School of the Americas in Colombia.” The activists commemorated the 1998 massacre of 17 peasant farmers launched from the Palanquero base and carried out with the participation of pilots from a U.S. company under contract with Occidental Petroleum.

You too can support a change U.S. policy toward Colombia by urging your Representative to sign a Dear Colleague letter to Secretary Clinton. The letter, initiated by Representatives McGovern, Schakowsky, Payne and Honda, calls for reduced aid to Colombia's military and increased support for human rights and humanitarian efforts. Click here to take action.

The cumbia of the disconnected

Marches in Colombia are often colorful and vibrant, and the Carnival March for Life, Dignity and Popular Identity in Medellin on October 9^th was no exception. Drummers, clowns on stilts, clowns in tutus made up the parade, and a band played the “Cumbia of the Disconnected”:

I had a full salary
I had many dreams
I paid all the utilities
And nothing was left for food
Nothing was left for food

If you paid the utilities
And want to go grocery shopping
Don’t come with that story
You only have enough to pay on credit
You only have enough to pay on credit
…
Doña Luz was already blind
From saving money
But nonetheless
The bill always went up
The bill always went up

The phone in my house
Answering it is always a problem
Because calls appear
To Holland and Cartagena
To Holland and Cartagena
…

The march, which I accompanied at the petition of our partner organization the Medellin Youth Network (Red Juvenil), was the symbolic closing of the Medellin Social Forum, in the tradition of the now-geographically-dispersed World Social Forum. The Forum, held October 2-11, brought together communities and organizations from Medellin, the region and other regions of Colombia to, as the website explained, “address the problems caused by neoliberalism, authoritarianism y privatization, with the aim of creating alternatives and proposals to transform the situation of poverty and social exclusion in the city of Medellin, Antioquia and Colombia.”

As described in the “Cumbia of the Disconnected,” a primary focus of the march and the Forum itself was access – or lack thereof – to utilities like water, electricity and telephone. In the comunas, or shantytowns, of Medellin, many of the poorest, most of whom are displaced people from other regions of the country, either have never had connections to such utilities, or have been disconnected because of their inability to pay the high fees on their scant to nonexistent income.

A primary complaint of the Red Juvenil and other organizers of the Forum and march is that Public Companies of Medellin (EPM for its Spanish initials), which provides utilities in the region, does not fulfill its obligation as a public company supposedly at the service of the public. EPM is only 51% publicly held, and the Red Juvenil and others accuse it of acting very much in the predatory and profit-focused manner of private companies, at the expense of the most needy.

While accompanying the march and listening to the charges against EPM, I was struck by the sad irony of the way problems for Colombia's displaced population are so intertwined. Three weeks ago I accompanied a 3-day series of workshops and meetings in Amalfi in the northeast of Antioquia, where EPM has gotten declared what in Colombia is the equivalent of eminent domain in order to construct a fourth hydroelectric damn in the Porce River. Over 8,000 independent miners and small farmers will be displaced by this dam, many of whom were displaced by the construction of the previous dam upriver. The community, with the support of FOR’s partner organization the Antioquian Campesino Association, is working to achieve fair compensation and relocation in the area, in order to avoid the fate of many of those displaced by previous dams, who for lack of better options ended up in the shantytowns of Medellin and victim to the extravagant rates EPM charges for utilities.

Though this seems like a pretty depressing situation, I was inspired by the way that the Red Juvenil and the other organizations of the Forum made it a point to bring the march/carnival to the people in the comunas themselves. So often, forums and marches and other such manifestations of protest and articulations of alternatives happen in city centers, universities, and other sites where dwellers of shantytowns don’t have access. The comuna residents may be disconnected from electricity, but the Red Juvenil and the Forum is making sure they are not disconnected from the struggle for a better Medellin, Antioquia, and Colombia.

Colombia’s War: “He’s giving our country away”

Check out my newest article, published on a great international women's journalism site, The WIP.

The sparse media coverage of Colombia tends only to give vague descriptions of a violent country with a thriving drug trade. But I’ve come to understand in my 15 months living and working here as a human rights observer and accompanier, that, like many armed conflicts in the world, the war continues because it serves the interests of the rich and powerful, from the Uribe administration to multinational corporations.

Despite its claims to the contrary, the Colombian government’s policies do little to end the violence. Spanning over nearly five decades and multiple administrations, the internal conflict has resulted in countless deaths and over 4 million internally displaced Colombians.

Read the rest of the article

Mini culture shocks

I recently returned from my second visit to the Peace Community after officially having left in June. My first visit, at the end of August, was a quick two-day thing with the delegation I was leading, so there was little time for hanging out or reflecting. This last visit, however, was a tad longer and less frenzied.

With that extra bit of reflection and personal space, I realized that I was experiencing a bit of double-reverse culture shock. As I described when I first arrived in Bogotá, I had a hard time adjusting to the big, bad city after a year in the deep campo (to which, of course, I had had to adjust when I arrived there in June of last year). Going back last week, even for just five days, was bit of a shock to the system, as was turning quickly around and heading back to the city. Bursts of mini culture shocks, as it were.

Besides getting the hang again of properly adjusting a mosquito net and using the formal usted verb form, I was struck on my second day by how living outside of a direct conflict zone has dulled some of the senses I had honed while living in the Peace Community. That morning, as a helicopter flew extremely low over the village, folks ran out of their houses and kids out of their classrooms to follow its trajectory. Standing there watching with Community members, I was reminded of the close proximity of the conflict and the way that it is integrated into daily life there. Such a sense has slipped from my consciousness since being in Bogota. Seldom now do I even note the passing of a helicopter, though I have to admit that at times I do still catch myself looking out the window when one passes, trying to ascertain its route as we do while accompanying in the Community.

Now I'm back in Bogotá, and pretty relieved to be after two weeks of work travel. I guess the place must be growing on me...

Counter-tourism, international campaign & letter to Obama

While the Colombian Government has launched a public relations campaign, "Discover Colombia Through Its Heart," complete with enormous heart sculptures placed in downtown D.C., a group of activists has responded with its own "counter-tourism" campaign. Offering "exploitation opportunities and luxuriously abusive vacation packages," the campaign's site describes how "as a visitor to Colombia, you will be overwhelmed by legendary Colombian hospitality. You may even be fortunate enough to receive the same 'red carpet treatment' given to some Colombian citizens by the army -- literally rolled up in a red carpet and shipped across the country! These no-cost excursions start with kidnapping, continue with being trucked hundreds of miles to a more violent frontier region and end with extrajudicial execution and a press conference announcing 'positive' kills of guerrilla fighters." The website and various direct actions are part of a larger counter-campaign, No More Broken Hearts.

Love it!

Also launched this week is an international campaign to defend the right to defend human rights in Colombia. Coinciding with the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights Defenders, the campaign launched yesterday at an event in downtown Bogotá. "In Colombia, being a human rights defender is a dangerous, often deadly job," says the campaign website. "And things are getting worse."

Lastly, we are asking folks in the U.S. to urge their representatives to sign a letter to President Obama. The letter expresses concern about the plan for 7 U.S. military installations in Colombia. Please take action!

US & Colombia Rush Negotiations For Seven Military Bases As Dissent Grows

You live in a nice house in a tense neighborhood. Your neighbors haven’t been too pleased with you lately, and you have a terrible roach infestation running havoc in your house. But perhaps there’s hope. A big, strong guy lives down the street, and is offering to help out. He has big guns and says he has just the spray to get rid of those pesky roaches if you just let him crash at your place.

I’m not the first to have used the tough-neighbor analogy when discussing a current proposal for seven US military bases in Colombia, but others have failed to mention all the problematic side effects of inviting the neighbor to stay. This neighbor has a very sketchy reputation and just may try to take advantage of your sister, not to mention raid your fridge and clog up your toilet. His presence will really upset your neighbors, even the ones with whom you have been friendly. Though he says he’s only staying at your house to help with the roaches and maybe intimidate the troublesome folks next door a bit, he always seems to get involved in other things: he traipses around in the neighbors’ gardens and hassles his host’s family members. Besides, his record in getting rid of the roaches isn’t all that exemplary. Is it really worth it?

Perhaps this analogy simplifies matters too much, but I’m not the only one playing with rhetoric. Obama continues to defend the bases proposal, arguing that the U.S. is not establishing bases in Colombia but simply extending existing agreements with the country. Under U.S. military terminology – using euphemisms that call to mind Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" - the proposals for Colombia would not be bases because they would not be property of the U.S, but instead be called Forward Operating Locations or Cooperative Security Locations. Nonetheless the U.S. would still have control over what happens in those installations, as it does in bases, and is insisting on immunity for its personnel under Colombian law. Argentine president Cristina Kirchner said it well when she joked to Uribe last week, “Come on, nowhere in the world is a General Fernandez going to give orders to a General Johnson!”

The Colombian government has also been toying with words. The wordsmithing is apparent in a recent in a memo to the Colombian Senate explaining that the base plan is "a simplified agreement of technical cooperation and development of related bilateral agreements already in force." Previous bilateral agreements, however, make no mention of U.S. military personnel being based in Colombia. So it’s a bit of a stretch to claim this agreement is simply a matter of extending previous accords. In Colombia, this renaming is part of the Uribe administration’s strategy to slide the agreement through without submission to the Colombian Congress for approval, since the Colombian constitution requires congressional approval for international treaties and the submission of such agreements to review by the Constitutional Court, but not for extensions of previous treaties.

Despite Colombian president Uribe’s effort to avoid congressional input, some in Colombia's Senate aren’t too sure that they like the idea of inviting the neighbor to stay. Senators from the left-wing political party Polo Democrático have insisted on a public debate and are now fighting to have the administration submit the agreement to Congress, as the law requires. The first session of the debate, held Tuesday, raised some very worrisome issues. Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo of the Polo Democrático expressed concern that he and other members of opposition parties, investigative journalists, and human rights activists might themselves be in danger if the U.S. military sets up house in Colombia, given that a stated aim of the bases is counterterrorism. “If Uribe claims that we are the ‘intellectual bloc of the FARC’ because we disagree with him, and the U.S. classifies the FARC as a terrorist organization, will we then be targets too?” he asked.

Even supporters of the bases have inadvertently provided reasons to worry. During the debate, a senator supporting the bases spent over 40 minutes comparing, via a PowerPoint presentation complete with photos and detailed descriptions, the military arsenals of Colombia and Venezuela. He concluded that since Colombia's arsenal is substantially smaller and less powerful than Venezuela's and since Colombia would therefore lose in a war against its neighbor, Colombia should accept the U.S. military bases with open arms. The senator, whose information was clearly informed, if not supplied, by the Colombian military, thus affirmed the fear of those opposing the bases that the installations may well be used in aggressions against Colombia's neighbors. Perhaps Chavez isn’t over the top when he cautions that the bases could mean war. Arlene Tickner, a political science professor at the University of the Andes in Bogotá, affirms Chavez’s concerns. She says that U.S. government documents suggest that Palanquero, one of the sites for the proposed bases, could eventually launch missions far beyond Colombia. "One of the interests of the U.S. Air Force in particular is to use the base in Palanquero to do surveillance activities from the air outside of Colombia and throughout the continent, eventually using the base to reach even Africa."

Also raised in the Senate debate was the serious concern about the behavior of U.S. soldiers and contractors given the U.S.’s insistence on complete immunity under Colombian law for its personnel. This would likely also apply to subcontractors, like Dyncorp, which has been accused of ignoring, even firing, whistleblowers; tolerating widespread sex trafficking among its employees, and failing to act even in documented cases of rape against underage girls on a U.S. base in Bosnia. These concerns are important because most crimes committed outside the United States are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and Status of Forces Agreements, part of the negotiations of foreign military installations, protect US personnel from legal action even in the case of the most serious crimes. This issue clearly scares the bases' proponents: in the Senate debate, senators supporting the plan refused to allow the mother of a 12-year-old girl raped by U.S. soldiers in Melglar to speak, calling such testimony "pornographic" and irrelevant to a discussion of war planes and tanks.

All these local and regional concerns seem to be making the Uribe and Obama administrations sweat. In a memo to the Colombian Senate, the Defense Minister said that final negotiations wouldn’t happen until the last weekend of August. Now, however, the Colombian daily El Tiempo has reported that a Colombian negotiations team will be in Washington this weekend in order to finalize the bases deal. This new urgency demonstrates that leaders want to move the deal before local and regional debate heats up even further.

Opposition in the U.S. is also mounting. On Thursday over 100 U.S. organizations sent a joint letter to Secretary Clinton urging her to halt negotiations with Colombia. Making reference to Obama’s statement to hemispheric leaders in April, in which he cautioned against military-only interactions with the region, the organizations called on the administration to “broaden relationships with South America and value respect for human rights,” arguing that “the United States should not create a fortress in Colombia in concert with the region’s worst rights violators, the Colombian military.” The groups oppose the bases because of the potential to escalate regional conflicts; the precedent for mission creep in current bases like Manta, Ecuador; the fact that such an agreement demonstrates tacit support for the horrendous human rights record of the Colombian army; and the stated counternarcotics aim for the bases despite the failure of the U.S. war on drugs.

You, too, can take action. Send a message to Secretary Clinton that you don’t want U.S. military bases in Colombia.