Weekly Report - 10 February 2004
COLOMBIA: AUC: OAS deal fails to convince sceptics
Warning bells have not ceased to sound since the government of President Alvaro Uribe embarked upon the negotiations leading to the `demobilisation' of the paramilitary groups. Uribe got former Colombian President César Gaviria to go out on a limb by committing the OAS to support this process, just as a string of events illustrated exactly how risky it is.
At the end of January, Gaviria agreed with Uribe that the OAS would monitor the disarmament of the paramilitary organisations. There were ructions within the organisation because a number of members considered that the secretary-general should have consulted first on a matter of such importance (Gaviria later conceded that, while he had acted within his powers, this would have been better). In the end, Uribe got what he wanted: faced with a fait accompli, the permanent council of the OAS endorsed Gaviria's action.
Caveats old & new
This provided Uribe with international `cover' after the strong caveats recently issued by James Lemoyne, special envoy of UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in Colombia, to the effect that a mishandled demobilisation process with the paramilitary groups could jeopardise an overall solution to the Colombian conflict. `Badly conducted,' he said, `the paramilitary process could weaken Colombian democracy.' This had been echoed by the Red de Iniciativas por la Paz y Contra la Guerra (Redepaz), an umbrella for about 300 Colombian NGOs seeking a political solution to the war. Said Redepaz: `The current process with the AUC has not been handled with a public agenda and is beginning at the end.'
The `agreement to accompany the peace process' as the accord signed by Gaviria is entitled, has come in for heavy criticism from human rights organisations. One of them, Human Rights Watch, warns the OAS that it should `take steps to ensure that it does not bestow international legitimacy on a process that grants impunity to the perpetrators of gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.' It also says, `In our opinion, the agreement would not permit the OAS to wholly fulfill its proper role of assisting and verifying the Colombian peace process. This is because, according to reports, the document bars the OAS from providing its opinion regarding legal and political decisions that the Colombian government decides to make in crucial areas such as the disarmament, demobilisation, and rehabilitation of the paramilitaries - unless the government or other actors in the process request its opinion. Under these circumstances, the OAS is wrongly reduced to acting as a mere spectator.'
Fears not unfounded
The biggest concern of the critics is that the paramilitaries might be allowed to get away with the heinous crimes committed over the past years — and some fear that their links with the drugs trade may not be really severed. A string of recent events suggests that many of the fears expressed are not unfounded:
At the end of January, Gaviria agreed with Uribe that the OAS would monitor the disarmament of the paramilitary organisations. There were ructions within the organisation because a number of members considered that the secretary-general should have consulted first on a matter of such importance (Gaviria later conceded that, while he had acted within his powers, this would have been better). In the end, Uribe got what he wanted: faced with a fait accompli, the permanent council of the OAS endorsed Gaviria's action.
Caveats old & new
This provided Uribe with international `cover' after the strong caveats recently issued by James Lemoyne, special envoy of UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in Colombia, to the effect that a mishandled demobilisation process with the paramilitary groups could jeopardise an overall solution to the Colombian conflict. `Badly conducted,' he said, `the paramilitary process could weaken Colombian democracy.' This had been echoed by the Red de Iniciativas por la Paz y Contra la Guerra (Redepaz), an umbrella for about 300 Colombian NGOs seeking a political solution to the war. Said Redepaz: `The current process with the AUC has not been handled with a public agenda and is beginning at the end.'
The `agreement to accompany the peace process' as the accord signed by Gaviria is entitled, has come in for heavy criticism from human rights organisations. One of them, Human Rights Watch, warns the OAS that it should `take steps to ensure that it does not bestow international legitimacy on a process that grants impunity to the perpetrators of gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.' It also says, `In our opinion, the agreement would not permit the OAS to wholly fulfill its proper role of assisting and verifying the Colombian peace process. This is because, according to reports, the document bars the OAS from providing its opinion regarding legal and political decisions that the Colombian government decides to make in crucial areas such as the disarmament, demobilisation, and rehabilitation of the paramilitaries - unless the government or other actors in the process request its opinion. Under these circumstances, the OAS is wrongly reduced to acting as a mere spectator.'
Fears not unfounded
The biggest concern of the critics is that the paramilitaries might be allowed to get away with the heinous crimes committed over the past years — and some fear that their links with the drugs trade may not be really severed. A string of recent events suggests that many of the fears expressed are not unfounded:
End of preview - This article contains approximately 800 words
Subscribers: Log in now to read the full article
Not a Subscriber?
Enquire Now