A Note of Celebration and Caution—Regarding the Release of Colombian and American Hostages

By Natalia Cardona

The news that 14 hostages held by the FARC in Colombia were freed on Wednesday July 2, came as both a surprise and a great relief. Their freedom and wellbeing was celebrated around the world.

Having seen the disturbing footage of these same hostages when the FARC’s proofs of life were intercepted earlier this year everyone rejoiced at their freedom when it was revealed. Greater joy was brought on by the fact that the operation went off without escalating the violence or leading to a full-scale massacre. Watching the videos of the captives, including Ingrid Betancourt and the 3 hostages from the United States as they were united with their families was surely a reason to celebrate. No one should be held hostage or be treated so cruelly.

But the celebratory tones are muted by the fact that the FARC still holds 700 hostages and hundreds more are being held or were disappeared for political reasons by paramilitary groups with close ties to the Colombian military and government officials. Moreover, recent reports put into question whether this operation actually happened in the way the Colombian government describes. Details of this operation will surely be revealed in years to come but the following is a summary of what has been reported thus far.

Moreover, Colombia is still facing severe problems related to its 50 year old conflict. Ongoing paramilitary, military and guerrilla violence and massive economic inequalities compound the problems and force many of the poorest to grow coca in order to survive. U.S. policy towards Colombia including Plan Colombia and U.S. Colombia FTA are misdirected and only add to the social unrest.

The following synopsis should give us some food for thought as we examine the release of the hostages and some of the celebratory and cautionary notes surrounding this event.
_________________________________________________________

The official details from the Colombian government is that they were able to obtain the release of the hostages by infiltrating the FARC unit that was holding them and its secretariat and posing as a humanitarian mission that was to move the hostages to another FARC camp.

Other versions of what happened to obtain the hostages’ release
Recent reports have arisen from Swiss media stating that the rescue was staged and not a mastermind military operation as was previously noted by Colombian officials. Reportedly $20 million was reportedly paid to the FARC and one of the hostage’s guards was pressured through his wife in order to facilitate the release with intensive involvement of the United States in making the deal. Dominique Moisi, a leading foreign policy expert in France, pointed to this Swiss report as a probability. And French media have raised questions about the relatively good health of the hostages especially given the haggard appearance of Betancourt in the last proof of life video. The French media suggested that the hostages were given food and medicine in preparation for their return.

Today the Colombian government is accusing Jean Pierre Gontard of being the source of the Swiss media report. Gontard, with the Colombian government's permission, has represented Switzerland in previous efforts to broker a peace agreement with FARC rebels and was trying to broker a deal for Betancourt’s release before the operation occurred. The Colombian government is also accusing Gontard of transporting money for the FARC in an effort that is seen by many as a way to draw attention to the ‘failures’ of those who try to obtain the release of these hostages through negotiation.

What of Israeli Involvement?
Another version of the story points to Israeli involvement in the release. Haaretz.com has reported that Israeli security companies were involved in providing advice and equipment to the Colombian government. According to Haaretz, the Israeli activity involved dozens of Israeli security experts, and was coordinated by Global CST, which is owned by former General Staff operations chief, Brigadier General (res.) Israel Ziv, and Brigadier (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser. Asked about the Israeli involvement in the operation Ziv said there is "no need to exaggerate." "We don't want to take credit for something we didn't do," a company source added. "We helped them prepare themselves to fight terror. We helped them to plan operations and strategies and develop intelligence sources. That's quite a bit, but shouldn't be taken too far." Global CST won a $10 million contract to work with the Colombian government at the suggestion of the Israeli government.

The White House released a statement acknowledging the CIA and the National Security Agency were involved in providing intelligence and equipment for the operation. However, the Colombian government stated that this operation was strictly a Colombian operation.

What were the three United States citizens who were kidnapped doing in Colombia?
The three Americans—Marc Goncalves, Thomas Howes and Keith Stansell—worked for Northrop Grumman doing surveillance of coca plantations as part of the U.S.’ failed Plan Colombia. Though the program operated under the authority of the U.S. Southern Command—and included work for the CIA, DEA, and State Department--several Defense Department agencies oversaw different aspects of the program including maintenance, surveillance equipment and data gathering, and more than 12 corporations were involved in outfitting the planes. But no one took responsibility once the contractors were kidnapped. John McQuaid, of the Huffington Post, writes that the program was embedded in a net of institutions but it operated on its own with minimal oversight. Once trouble hit and the three contractors were kidnapped, the institutional netting broke. The company was quick to pass these gentlemen’s portfolios and program to a shell corporation as soon as they were kidnapped—CIAO-- and Southern Command did not take any responsibility until the 3 men were released recently. This case points to broader problems with government contracting, especially in terms of holding these private military companies accountable for their actions abroad and accountable to their employees.

“The Man Ingrid Hugged”
General Montoya the man Ingrid Betancourt hugged and thanked for her release has an extremely controversial record. According to an IPS article Montoya’s record includes previous oversight of the 24th Brigade which the U.S. State Department reported had links to paramilitary groups at La Hormiga, in the Department of Putumayo, where a gravesite of more than 100 civilians killed by these same paramilitaries was discovered in 2001. In March 2007, an intelligence report produced by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was leaked to the Los Angeles Times and it indicated that Montoya and a paramilitary group known as Bloque Cacique Nutibara "jointly planned and conducted a military operation in 2002 to eliminate Marxist guerrillas from poor areas around Medellin, a city in northwestern Colombia that has been a centre of the drug trade." According to the IPS article Operation Orion began at 2:00 a.m. on Oct. 15, 2002 in Medellín's 13th district. At least 14 people were killed, and residents and human rights organizations testified that about 50 more "disappeared" in the following weeks. And on Oct. 21 of that year the presidential web site featured a statement by Montoya saying that "we will continue, and what we are doing in the 13th district is a message to the violent, telling them: desist, we will go everywhere in the country because urban guerrilla warfare has no place in Colombia."

Certainly the Colombian army should be recognized for their efforts. Yet questions regarding their behavior and previous actions must not be ignored. One successful mission cannot erase a history of human rights violations at the hands of the army which in many cases works in tandem with paramilitary death squads.

The Current Political Crises
The operation took place amid a growing political crisis for President Uribe and his administration. The release of these hostages occurred on the heels of a ruling by the Colombian Supreme court that Yidis Medina, a Colombian congresswoman whose vote was key in passing a law which allowed for President Uribe to be reelected in 2006, was bought by promises of political favors. President Uribe has gone as far as to call the Supreme Court a supporter of terror and is proposing a referendum to right the wrong of his election having been made possible by an illegal act. This presidential proposal has drawn criticism from many sectors who are calling for the President to respect Colombia’s institutions. Many see this step as a maneuver by President Uribe to set the stage for a third run at the presidency. This news also comes amidst the growing parapolitical scandal which links more than 60 congressional representatives to the right wing paramilitary death squads and has led to the arrest of 33 Congress members most of whom are Uribe supporters.

What does this mean for the FARC?
The FARC has suffered many blows in the past few years. Among these losses are the recent operation that led to the release of Ingrid Betancourt; the death of three of its secretariat members; the “misplacement” of the son of Clara Rojas’ (Ingrid Betancourt’s vice-presidential running mate who was also kidnapped),who was discovered by the Colombian government in an orphanage; and the death of 11 deputies whom they were holding hostage. Some point to these setbacks as the beginning of the end for the FARC. Others note that the FARC’s extensive profits from the drug trade will certainly keep it alive. They say it will continue to exist though perhaps not in the same way it does now, especially given that the FARC lacks support among Colombians.

Despite the weakening of the FARC many, including Fidel Castro are today calling for a negotiated solution to the conflict and they insist it is the only way to solve the problems Colombia is facing. And Ingrid Betancourt has added her voice by encouraging the Colombian government to end its “vocabulary of hate” against her former captors. “At some point we must speak with the people we hate,” she stated during an interview with BBC.

What about the U.S.—Colombia FTA and Plan Colombia?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stood her ground on stopping the U.S. Colombia FTA from going to a vote. While she extended her congratulations to the Colombian government for a successful operation and the release of the hostages Ms. Pelosi has come under criticism for requiring that more work be done to ensure that Colombian union leader’s rights do not continue to be violated.

Some political analysts have pointed to this operation as a signal to fund Plan Colombia but in a different way, stating that what has worked in the past will not work now. However, they forget that Plan Colombia was originally intended to reduce the amount of cocaine entering the U.S. from Colombia by 50%. Plan Colombia has failed to do that and in 2007 the UN reported that coca growth had increased by 27%. Moreover, it is important to remember the Colombian military’s abusive human rights record and their ties to the paramilitary death squads. Forgetting Plan Colombia’s initial goals is a mistake on the part of these analysts but forgetting the Colombian army’s record and the current political crisis is a recipe for disaster. It is clear, as a Boston Globe article stated this weekend, that no one rescue mission will solve all of these problems.

Extradition

Colombia's El Tiempo reported yesterday that Víctor Patíño Fómeque, a former top Cali Cartel figure extradited to the United States, will serve only six years in prison. After that, he and his family will be given new identities in the U.S. federal witness protection program. A source in Colombia's Prosecutor-General's Office (Fiscalía) told El Tiempo that at least two of the top paramilitary leaders extradited in May are interested in getting this deal for themselves. "Diego Murillo, 'Don Berna' and Francisco Javier Zuluaga, 'Gordolindo', are aiming for a similar arrangement."

Another Trade Mistake: Colombia Deal Would Worsen a Bad Situation

By Arnie Alpert

Supporters of a new trade agreement with Colombia have said that the deal would bolster efforts by the South American country to improve human rights and spur economic development, to the benefit of both countries. However, a closer look suggests that the corruption and violence run so deeply within the Colombian government that any talk of “free trade” should be met with skepticism.

Colombia’s political and economic climate is entrenched in deep inequalities. Decades of conflict with guerrilla groups, the rise of right-wing death squads tied to the military, and trafficking in illegal drugs contribute to widespread poverty in a country rich in natural resources.

Additionally, the Colombian government and army received $6 billion, in mostly military U.S. aid since 2001, to ‘fight the war on drugs and terror’-- despite the fact that both the government and military are closely linked to right wing death squads that are responsible for most of the country’s human rights abuses. Furthermore, after seven years of anti-drug counterinsurgency aid, the “war” model clearly has failed. Production of cocaine is up, not down.

Moreover, high-level corruption is part of a pattern of widespread human rights abuses. Today more than sixty members of the Colombian Congress are under investigation for ties to right wing death squads. Among them is President Alvaro Uribe’s cousin, former Senator Mario Uribe Escobar, who was recently arrested. Former intelligence officer Rafael Garcia, himself imprisoned for his role in covering up the criminal histories of para-military leaders, testified that members of the armed forces and government ministries, too, are enmeshed with the illegal militias.

Additionally, Colombia continues to be the most dangerous country for trade unionists, based on the number of assassinations which take place each year. Arguments that the rate of political murders is on the decline are unconvincing. The National Labor College, based in Medellin, reported a “worrying increase in assassinations against unionized workers” which in the first 3 months of 2008 occurred at nearly twice the rate of the same period last year.

There is no reason to believe a trade agreement would improve the situation. To the contrary, an influx of duty-free agricultural products and increased pressure for production of cash crops for export will most likely force out small farmers, just as NAFTA did in Mexico. Farmers who cannot earn a livelihood will feel increased pressure to migrate or join the drug trade. In a country where nearly 4 million people have already been displaced by civil war, that is a recipe for instability, not security.

Likewise, in the United States, NAFTA-style trade agreements are a significant factor in the ‘race to the bottom,’ where the search for cheaper wages drives jobs to countries where workers rights are even more disrespected than they are here.

For Colombia, a trade agreement with the United States will make a bad situation even worse. For the United States, a trade deal with Colombia will add to economic insecurity at home with no boost for security abroad.

Arnie Alpert is the New Hampshire Program Coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee.

Another Trade and War Connection in the Americas

The Americas Policy Program has put together and excellent Primer on Plan Mexico. The report written by Laura Carlsen puts forward detailed analysis regarding the policy, its background and what needs to change. This policy as part of the expansion of NAFTA is a clear connection to what we have been talking about for the past few years on this site, mainly that trade and war are companion policies. Just as Plan Colombia is a failed policy which is now accompanied by an unjust trade agreement so are Plan Mexico and the expansion of NAFTA. Following is a summary of the Primer and a link to the entire document.

Plan Mexico
The Bush Administration has put its proposal to militarize Mexico into the upcoming Iraq supplemental bill. On Oct. 22, 2007 President Bush announced the $1.4 billion dollar “Merida Initiative” (nicknamed Plan Mexico)--a security aid package to Mexico and Central America. The initiative has fatal flaws in its strategy; instead of leading to a stable bi-national relationship and peaceful border communities, its military approach will escalate drug-related violence and human rights abuses.

The NAFTA Connection
The Bush administration’s concept of a joint security strategy for North America came to the forefront under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) as an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). When the three North American leaders met in Waco, Texas in March of 2005, they put into motion a secretive process of negotiations between members of the executive branches and representatives of large corporations to facilitate cross-border business and create a shared security perimeter. Subsequent meetings including the April 2008 trilateral summit in New Orleans extended these goals in total secrecy amid mounting criticism.

Secrecy
In this context, instead of reviewing polices and opening them up to public debate, the Bush administration has launched its boldest advance yet within the SPP context—Plan Mexico. Speculation was that the Plan would be announced at the Montebello SPP meeting in August of 2007, but perhaps because of the presence of SPP protestors at that meeting President Bush delayed the official unveiling of the “Merida Initiative” several months. However, the last two SPP meetings have included discussions of Plan Mexico and the State Department has been clear about the link.

Plan Colombia All Over Again
The experience of Plan Colombia reveals the pitfalls of Plan Mexico. Plan Colombia is a similar U.S. military aid package designed to fight the drug war. Since its inception in 2000, it has contributed to entrenched violence and corruption in that South American country while failing to reduce drug flows to the United States.

To read the rest of the Primer please click here.