After 11 September 2001, U.S. financial assistance to Colombia that previously had been funnelled through the Plan Colombia to fight “narcotics trafficking, was also used to combat terrorism. In October 2001, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the paramilitary groups were added to the list of terrorist organisations. The ex-President Alvaro Uribe adopted a “democratic security policy”, aimed to recover territorial authority and strengthen the state by growing the defence budget from 5.2% of the GDP in 2004 to 14.2% in 2010 (11.057 billion dollars), thus, for the first time, exceeding the education budget (13.9% of the GDP)
Characteristics of the so-called “democratic security policy” became clear through the adoption of the “Justice and Peace” law in 2005. This law provides for the demobilisation of paramilitary soldiers and favours impunity. Only 2% of the demobilised paramilitary soldiers were put on trial for the crimes they committed. This demobilisation process did not neutralise the paramilitary groups. Quite the contrary since their influence within the government grew stronger, culminating in the “para-political” scandal.
By establishing a “network of informers”, the government involved the civilian population in the armed conflict, thus seriously violating international humanitarian law.
Furthermore, 23 paramilitary leaders have been extradited to the United States where they were charged with drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorism, thus saving them from being condemned for crimes perpetrated in Colombia, (mass murder, forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, forced displacements, etc.) and hampering the victims’ right to truth, justice and reparation.
Furthermore, during ex-President Uribe’s two terms of office (2002-2010), there were over 2,500 extrajudicial executions, called the “false-positives”, i.e. killings committed in application of government policies that encouraged members of the Colombian army to “neutralise” irregular armed groups and, in return, receive financial compensation. The armed forces presented the dead civilians as “guerrillas killed in combat” in order to receive for the government bonuses.
The argument that authorised the state to act lawlessly in order to fight terrorism gained ground under the pretext of just that, the fight against terrorism. The Administrative Department of Security (DAS), an intelligence agency directly connected to the President’s Office via the special intelligence unit called the “G3” carried out illegal activities ranging from wiretapping to threats and assaults against some 600 people, mainly human rights defenders, journalists, political and union leaders, members of the opposition and even judges.
Ex-President Alvaro Uribe Vélez and certain high-level DAS leaders are now under investigation. The Commission for Parliamentary Investigations is making a preliminary investigation of Uribe to establish his responsibility for the illegal wiretapping carried out by the DAS during his two terms of office. Bernardo Moreno Villegas, who was the Secretary General at the Presidency for six years under Uribe is being accused of associating with criminals. Jorge Nogouera Cotes, former director of the DAS, is currently on trial for his connections with the paramilitary groups and the assassination of three people. As well, the Colombian government requested the extradition of Maria del Pilar Hurtado, also former director of the DAS charged with conspiracy, who took refuge in Panama since November 2010.
Colombia : The intelligence activities of the State -DAS- serving criminal interests and political persecution (2010)
Special Dossier 9/11
Major trauma and worldwide geopolitical turmoil, 9/11 was also the beginning of a downward spiral in rights and freedoms. Many countries, including the democratic ones, starting with the United States and the United Kingdom immediately reacted to the attacks in New York by adopting special laws that roundly ignored human freedoms. On the pretext of the fight against terrorism, these laws made it legal to detain non-nationals, for an undetermined period of time, and on no specific charges, merely on the suspicion that they participated in a terrorist activity or might have had some connection with a terrorist organisation. Many authoritarian states adopted similar laws that they also used to legitimate repression of government opponents and human rights defenders and to criminalise all forms of social protest.
The fight against terrorism also served as a pretext for practices that were completely prohibited and condemned, e.g. the “legalised” use of torture in detention centres such as the American-controlled Guantanamo and Abou Ghraïb centres, or in many other national detention centres, kept secret to escape the law. In some cases, governments decided on targeted, extrajudicial assassinations. According to Patrick Baudouin, FIDH Honorary President, “propaganda that legitimated violations of the right to freedom, on the pretext of fighting terrorism and conveyed through a reflex of well-stoked and manipulated fear, led to the gradual abandonment of the essential values of humanity”.
Ten years later this liberticidal policy has reaped no benefits and has had devastating effects. With the election of Barack Obama the public discourse underwent a welcome change. But we see that the promise to close the Guantanamo prison has not been kept. And the war is still raging in Afghanistan, and the alliance between the Talibans and various terrorist movements seems to be gaining ground. Looking beyond the combat against Al Qaeda by the U.S. and its allies, there are other countries that invoke the fight against terrorism to continue enjoying impunity for actions like those carried out by the Russian authorities in the North Caucasus. The rest of Asia is not being spared, e.g. China’s repression of its minority groups in Tibet, and in Xinjiang against the Uighur people.
In the name of the fight against terrorism, many dictators have enjoyed the unconditional, continued support from the western countries they needed to stay in power. The revolutions in the Arab world that started at the beginning of 2011 seem to have woken up many of the western governments to the fact that supporting the people’s aspirations to conquer freedom and rights contributes more to the stability of international order than maintaining authoritarian regimes on seat. This change of attitude is still in the tottering stage, still constrained by various economic and geostrategic interests and by the scepticism and feeling of alarm generated by these accelerated upheavals.
In this situation, FIDH calls for the abrogation of all liberticidal legislation adopted or reinforced after 11 September on the pretext of the fight against terrorism. FIDH also calls upon the states to give greater consideration to human rights in their fight against terrorism.
Special 9/11_Antiterrorism and human... by fidhdailymotion
For more information:
Dossier Africa - Antiterrorism and human rights
Dossier Asia - Antiterrorism and human rights
Dossier MENA - Antiterrorism and human rights
Dossier Latin America - Antiterrorism and human rights
Dossier Eastern Europe and Central Asia - Antiterrorism and human rights
The 9/11 Decade and the Decline of U.S. Democracy (by the Center of Constitutional Rights)
Counter-Terrorism Measures and Human Rights, Keys for Compatibility (2005)
Arthur Manet : +33 6 72 28 42 94
Twitter : @fidh_ngo
Source: Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme (FIDH), Paris, le 1er septembre 2011