March 15, 2004

MEPs Upstage Uribe

by John Coventry and Nick Dearden

Colombian President Uribe was dealt a diplomatic rebuff from the European Parliament when he arrived on February 10 after a controversial invite from Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) belonging to the Socialist Group. Campaigners had expressed deep concern at his imminent arrival in the wake of the Colombian government’s branding of human rights defenders as “terrorists.” Last September, Uribe told human rights groups to “take off their masks and stop hiding their ideas behind human rights.” Comments by Colombia’s Vice-President Francisco Santos just two weeks before the visit, in which he accused human rights groups of “undermining democracy” did little to appease his critics.

Such talk does not play well with progressive members of the European Parliament. Four groups—the Confederal Group of the European United Left (GUE), Greens, Liberals and the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities (EDD)—together with many members of the large Socialist Group, staged protests both in and outside the Parliament building. In an unprecedented show of support for the people living under Uribe’s hard line regime, MEPs wore white scarves emblazoned with the message “peace and social justice in Colombia,” and stood up or walked out during Uribe’s speech. Sources within the chamber said that Uribe was clearly rattled by the protest as well as by the fact that the chamber was less than a third full when he spoke.

MEP Jillian Evans said, “I was disappointed with the decision to invite President Uribe to the Parliament. My group had voted against this very idea on the basis that someone who is presiding over such injustice and human rights abuses does not deserve the same honor as others who have addressed the Parliament in the past.” MEP Richard Howitt, who had recently visited Colomibia as part of a delegation organized by U.K.-based organizations War on Want and Justice for Colombia, was vociferous in his denunciation of Uribe’s anti-terrorism legislation. According to Howitt, “The Colombian government has deliberately flouted United Nations human rights recommendations, which it signed up to with international donors last year. For example, by transferring judicial powers to the Colombian army which, together with its paramilitary allies, is responsible for more than three quarters of all atrocities.”

Under the guise of “democratic security,” Uribe has conducted mass arrests and is attempting to legitimize security measures previously thrown out by the Constitutional Court who said he had exceeded his power. He is in the process of establishing a “million-man” informer network as the eyes and ears of the state; giving the army powers to tap telephones, make arrests and raid homes; and creating a “peasant army.”

Uribe’s performance at the European Parliament was cool, but not flawless. Appearing at a session of the Foreign Affairs Committee—an unusual procedure for a Head of State, and a victory for those MEPs expressing concern at Uribe’s invitation in the first place—the Colombian president faced questions on paramilitary negotiations, compliance with UN human rights recommendations and his fierce criticism of non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Uribe has stated that he would not support a negotiated solution with any armed group unless it first declared a unilateral ceasefire. But he has started talks with paramilitaries responsible for the vast majority of Colombia’s human rights abuses despite the fact that his own government admits that they have killed at least 750 people since their so-called ceasefire was announced. When asked about the apparent double standards, Uribe dodged the question.

The president repeated specific criticism of the Colombian Commission of Jurists (CCJ), an NGO that won a prestigious human rights award last year. When asked outright to withdraw his statements criticizing NGOs last September, Uribe refused, saying, “I am entitled to express my reservations and disagreements.” Last week, the Colombian deputy Minister of Defence said that 95 percent of the information in the international arena comes from organizations who sympathize with the guerrillas.

While in Colombia, these statements amount to free expression, their branding of certain Colombians as terrorist’s places the lives of those accused in danger—some 55 percent of the 15,000 people detained since Uribe came to office have been social activists. The incredible increase in detentions under Uribe’s “democratic security” policy have largely affected trade unionists and leaders of civil society, not guerrillas, prompting one senior British trade unionist who recently visited Colombia to say he believed that the country had become a “police state.”

The July 2003 London Declaration, a donor agreement under which Colombia gained $450 million in EU aid, was premised on Uribe’s commitment to fulfilling 24 recommendations of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Yet a meeting on November 30 concluded none of the recommendations had been fully met, and deliberate action directly contrary to seven had been taken, including implementation of Uribe’s anti-terrorism laws. A further aid consideration is the merging of the budget for Colombia’s aid department, the Colombian Cooperation Agency (ACCI), with Plan Colombia money in order to establish a single High Commission for Social Action. This restructuring threatens to divert EU aid money to the controversial U.S.-sponsored Plan Colombia program.

Uribe claimed that Colombia has “room for democratic discussion” in order to vary its compliance with the UN recommendations. In an article published in Colombia’s main daily El Tiempo, Colombian Vice President Santos accused those criticizing Colombia for not meeting the obligations it has signed up to as expressing “typical neo-colonial ideology that reigns in certain European sectors.” To summarize: not only will Colombia not honor it’s obligations to the UN and international community, but those suggesting they should do so are neo-colonialists.

Such an outright breech of international obligations made only last year means that Western governments, including the UK, have a responsibility to apply serious pressure. As Richard Howitt puts it: “If Europe is serious about [the London Declaration], it must have the conviction to delay any further donor’s conference, and ensure any new monies are made conditional on full and unqualified compliance with the UN recommendations.” But instead, the British government’s position was clearly evident in the words of the British Ambassador in Bogotá who said there has been a “vast improvement” in human rights.

Britain, and many others countries, point to the improving statistics released by the Colombian government with regard to killings and kidnappings. Colombian NGOs and trade unions claim that while massacres seem to have fallen, more targeted killings have increased. Kidnappings by guerrillas have fallen, while paramilitary and state-driven forced disappearances have risen.
Whatever the truth, the figures are, at best, ambiguous. Human rights abuses attributed to the armed forces are increasing—according to their own figures and the UN—and paramilitary activity continues unabated. Moreover, many different civil society representatives from across Colombia have clearly stated that Western governments should not be providing military assistance their government. In light of this, surely we should expect a more nuanced position from governments like the UK.

Uribe’s visit seems to have marked a sea change in the campaign for social justice and human rights in Colombia. On Uribe’s return to Colombia, billboard adverts have appeared across Bogotá proclaiming that Colombian NGOs that campaign abroad are “traitors” and that they should confine their criticism to a Colombian audience—and presumably risk their lives in the process.

Isabel Hilton, a British journalist and participant in the War on Want and Justice for Colombia delegation recently wrote an article for El Tiempo—where such voices are rarely heard—in which she said that abiding by international humanitarian and legal standards is not neo-colonialist, but “simply part of belonging to the multilateral world.” She recognized the human rights abuses on “both sides,” but also pointed out that “the guerrillas are not calling for a donors’ conference, the guerrillas are not invited to speak to the European Parliament and the guerrillas are not welcome as interlocutors by MEPs, heads of state or heads of governments.” Her article was met with a response from Vice President Santos the following day that accused Hilton and other delegates of conducting “campaigns of disinformation.”

Uribe’s charm may be waning on Europe’s decision-makers. The protests in the European Parliament are a significant example of growing objections to the Uribe regime. Also, over 100 MPs in the British Parliament have signed up to early day motion 333, demanding the immediate suspension of military aid to Colombia until full details of its destination are released.

Some present in Strasbourg felt that Uribe’s visit might have actually benefited those fighting for social justice in Colombia. According to MEP Jillian Evans, “Ironically, I think that Uribe’s visit did end up benefiting Colombia. Not, as he had hoped, in gaining support for his unjust, authoritarian government, but in bringing the plight of the ordinary citizens of Colombia to the attention of the people of Europe.”

She concluded, “I was glad that so many colleagues joined us in wearing white ‘peace and justice in Colombia’ scarves and in walking out of the chamber when Uribe began addressing the Parliament. These simple actions blatantly demonstrated our objection to his presence and to the human rights abuses being perpetrated against Colombian citizens.”

John Coventry and Nick Dearden are campaigners with the British NGO, War on Want (http://www.waronwant.org).

Back to Top . Comments