[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        HUMAN RIGHTS IN COLOMBIA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to address a serious situation 
which exists with a key Latin American ally of the United States. I am 
speaking of Colombia. Colombia is widely recognized as one of the most 
stable democracies in the hemisphere. It has a traditional civilian and 
democratically elected government. Colombia is the largest recipient of 
United States aid in the hemisphere and a critical element in our drug 
strategy. Colombia is also a country close to the hearts of many people 
from Wisconsin. My own Dane County has a Colombian sister city, 
Apartado. Madison, WI is the home of a leading Colombian human rights 
organization, the Colombian Support Network. I am indebted to these 
fine Americans for their tireless efforts to uphold the principles of 
human dignity which should be the foundation of every country including 
Colombia and the United States.
  I know my Senate colleagues understand the troubles which President 
Gaviria has faced in the last 4 years in his struggles with drug 
cartels and guerrilla forces. The Colombian people are a spirited and 
courageous people with a passion for their beliefs. Whether or not 
their struggles are channeled for good depends on whether their 
government sustains an environment for legitimate social processes. As 
allies, I believe that Colombia and the United States need to be 
truthful with each other--even when the truth maybe difficult to face.
  The truth is that there is an increasing intensity of violence that 
pervades all parts of Colombian society. Human rights violations are 
widespread; government forces as well as leftist guerrillas and drug 
lords are guilty of the most heinous acts of murder, kidnapping, and 
other forms of terror. In spite of many significant reforms under 
President Gaviria, I'm sorry to say that there appears to be more 
promises than progress. I believe that Colombian violence is not only a 
concern for Colombians but for all their regional neighbors. It would 
be foolish and shortsighted for the United States to overlook such 
dangers in our own hemisphere. The health and well-being of Colombia is 
a national interest to the United States.
  Although Colombia has been a stable democracy, I too often hear 
Colombians describe their society in oligarchic terms. That worries me 
because history teaches that the forces of democracy are not kind to 
oligarchies and that the resulting struggle is often violent. A 
Colombian sociologist recently likened the violence in his country to 
jungle vegetation that grows on weakened social structures. By that 
metaphor, their structure must be weak indeed because the violence in 
Colombia is staggering.
  Their rate of violent deaths, as documented by any number of 
international organizations, is among the highest in the world--and 
growing. In 1992, there were 28,000 murders including over 100 
massacres in which four or more people were killed. The 1993 statistics 
have reached 30,000. The portion of these murders that is best known is 
related to narcotrafficking. The Medellin cartel of the late Pablo 
Escobar was notorious for its violent practices. Experts consider the 
remaining Cali cartel to be more sophisticated but let us not kid 
ourselves about the willingness of criminals, no matter how 
sophisticated, to shed blood for their greed.
  I know my colleagues are aware of President Gaviria's struggle 
against narcotrafficking, and with the substantial and--I might add--
increasing aid of the United States. As we consider the 
administration's budget proposals for an additional $80 million of 
foreign aid to fight drugs, I believe we must also look at President 
Gaviria's other struggle--the one with leftist guerrillas throughout 
Colombia. Early in his administration, President Gaviria made 
significant gestures of reconciliation to these guerrilla forces. 
Negotiations reached a high point in June 1991 but then the situation 
deteriorated as guerrilla violence increased. By November 1992, things 
were so bad that a frustrated President Gaviria seemed to abandon his 
efforts to achieve broad negotiated settlements. He declared virtual 
war against the terrorists, murderers, and kidnappers, against that 
handful of deranged fanatics who have not read in the newspapers the 
sorry story of the end of communist totalitarianism. Colombian defense 
spending in 1993 was more than twice their 1990 level. Many outside 
experts, including the GAO, have warned that today we are unable to 
prevent Colombia's use of our antinarcotics foreign aid in their war 
with the guerrillas. Why are such distinctions important, many will 
ask? There are two reasons. In the first place, we have very limited 
resources and competing priorities; the administration has placed its 
Colombian drug strategy high on the list because of Colombia's close 
relationship to our drug problems at home. We must make every dollar 
count toward that goal.
  I have a second concern as well. Much of Colombian violence is 
committed by drug lords and guerrillas but as much can be attributed 
directly or indirectly to the government itself and its escalating war 
with the guerrillas. I have here, Mr. President, Amnesty 
International's latest study of this political violence. In their view:

       Although the Colombian government may not itself have 
     instituted policies which have resulted in systematic human 
     rights violations, it is clearly bound by national and 
     international law to ensure the armed forces act within the 
     law. The government's failure to take decisive action to 
     bring those responsible for widespread abuses to justice and 
     to demonstrate that further human rights violations will not 
     be tolerated is more than a tragic omission; it fuels the 
     cycle of violence.

  Those are tough words. Let me speak briefly to some of the facts 
behind the words. To begin with there are several groups who have been 
associated with this violence: the Colombian military itself, their 
National Police, and paramilitary groups who receive some levels of 
clandestine government support but who operate outside of their 
authority. Let me make myself clear; when I speak of the Colombian 
military, I am not saying that the President or the Minister of Defense 
are directly behind this violence. These are abuses committed by 
individual members of these organizations. My point is that the 
government has created a climate which--to restate it in Amnesty's 
words--a climate which fuels the cycle of violence.
  One example occurred in the past year in the course of an army 
counter-guerrilla operation. Last November, the government announced 
that an army battalion commander had been discharged because of reports 
that his troops had massacred 13 people. It turns out, this officer--a 
commander who ought to set an example for his troops--had been 
implicated in another massacre in 1988 in which 21 plantation workers 
died. In that case a warrant was issued for his arrest but he was never 
arrested or brought to trial. His punishment was a promotion. Maybe he 
did set an example after all. This kind of impunity undermines 
authority and encourages overzealous behavior in operations which are 
ripe for human rights abuses. According to Amnesty International, 
impunity is a phenomenon which continues today unabated.
  Mr. President, it is worth understanding why counter-guerrilla 
operations are so ripe for abuses. The nature of guerrilla warfare 
makes it hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. In too many 
cases government forces just stop trying to identify those 
noncombatants--the innocents protected around the world by 
international law. As the saying goes, they ``fight the guerrillas by 
removing the water from the fish.'' We all know what that means. In 
Colombia it is common for the army or paramilitary units to enter a 
rural village and give all the villagers three simple choices; help 
fight guerrillas, leave the village or face torture and death. As a 
result many of Colombia's cities face swelling ranks of peasant 
refugees who are traumatized and destitute.
  Ironically, the expansive Colombian military justice system 
effectively precludes civil jurisdiction in such cases. The Colombian 
constitution even contains a doctrine of due obedience that protects 
those operating under orders. We also remember the doctrine of due 
obedience. It is in some ways reminiscent of Nuremberg.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by turning my attention to the plight 
of those peasant refugees of the guerrilla war and others among the 
poorest of Colombia's urban population. Again the Colombian Government 
has created a climate which fuels the cycle of violence. Many Colombian 
cities have death squads who, to use their own words, ``eliminate and 
eradicate, by whatever means, all those elements not fit to live in 
society such as bandits, pickpockets, and drug addicts.'' That was a 
motto of a more selective death squad. Others have included 
prostitutes, homosexuals, vagrants, street children, and even trash 
collectors. According to Amnesty International, most of what some 
Colombians call ``social cleansing of disposable people'' appear to be 
carried out by police agents many of whom are contracted by local 
traders seeking to protect their economic interests.

  Amnesty has provided a gripping example. In June of 1992, the 
Colombian State Council, their highest judiciary body, ruled that two 
police agents had killed an individual and ordered the Ministry of 
Defense to pay damages to each of his parents. The Ministry of Defense 
rejected the ruling and in their statement said, ``at no time was 
evidence presented that the police force or the public administration 
were at fault, hence there is no case for the payment of any 
compensation by the nation.'' So far, so good. But they went on to add 
that there was no case ``particularly for an individual who was neither 
useful nor productive, either to society or to his family, but who was 
a vagrant whose presence nobody in the town wanted.''
  Mr. President, I believe this level of disdain for the dignity and 
worth of the least of our brethren undermines the significant progress 
which Colombia has made on paper. In the words of Amnesty 
International, ``the failure to ensure respect for human rights and the 
rule of law cannot be compensated for by the introduction of numerous 
largely ineffectual measures ostensibly designed to safeguard human 
rights, but which in reality have mainly served to protect the 
government's national and international image.''
  Frankly, Mr. President, I believe those of us concerned with social 
problems at home can learn much from the Colombian experience. But I 
must point out that the biggest distinction which presently separates 
our two countries is our respect here for the rule of law. Colombia has 
spent 37 of its past 44 years under some form of a state of emergency 
during which time constitutional guarantees have been side-stepped. 
President Gaviria has had his country under these conditions since 
1992. The Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American 
States has called upon President Gaviria to reserve these states of 
emergency for only the most serious matters and to use routine measures 
to deal future internal disturbances--as yet to no avail.
  Mr. President, I close in search of ways in which we can help the 
government and the people of Colombia. I would like to see the 
administration exert every effort to encourage a cease fire on the 
parts of the guerrillas and of the government and to return to 
negotiations. I would also challenge the administration and the 
Colombian Government to seek innovative and practical solutions to the 
``end-use monitoring'' problem in order to ensure both countries that 
our military aid provided for fighting drugs is only used for that 
purpose. With a cease fire in place, we could also be more confident 
that our aid provided for fighting drugs is only used for that purpose. 
And finally, I urge the administration to insure that all contacts with 
members of the Colombian Government reflect the highest respect for the 
rule of law and human dignity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________