Colombia: Issues for Congress
June S. Beittel
Analyst in Latin American Affairs
April 23, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32250
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Summary
In the last decade, Colombia—a key U.S. ally in South America—has made significant progress
in reestablishing government control over much of its territory, combating drug trafficking and
terrorist activities, and reducing poverty. Since the development of Plan Colombia in 1999, the
Colombian government has stepped up its counternarcotics and security efforts. The U.S.
Congress has provided more than $7 billion to support Colombia from FY2000 through FY2010.
In October 2009, Colombia and the United States signed a defense agreement that provides U.S.
access to Colombian military bases for counter-terrorism and security-related operations for the
next decade. The improving security conditions in the country and the weakening of the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas are cited as evidence that the
strategy is working by supporters. Critics, however, argue that while pursuing these security
improvements, U.S. policy has not rigorously promoted human rights, provided for sustainable
economic alternatives for drug crop farmers, or reduced the amount of drugs available in the
United States.
First elected in 2002, President Álvaro Uribe initiated an aggressive plan to reduce violence. He
has made substantial progress in addressing both Colombia’s 46-year conflict with the country’s
leftist guerrillas and the rightist paramilitary groups that have been active since the 1980s. Uribe,
who enjoys wide popular support, was reelected with a strong majority in 2006. He is credited
with restoring public security and creating a stable environment for investment. Backers of the
president helped to organize a referendum to change the constitution again (after it was changed
in 2005 to allow a second term) so the president could run for a third term. The Colombian
Constitutional Court, however, ruled on February 26, 2010, that the referendum was
unconstitutional citing several irregularities. President Uribe immediately accepted the ruling and
removed himself as a candidate for president in the election slated for May 30, 2010.
Concerns in the 111th Congress regarding Colombia continue those of prior sessions: funding
levels, and U.S. policy regarding Plan Colombia, trade, and human rights. In FY2010, Congress
reduced overall funding for Plan Colombia by about 3%. Congress continues to seek an almost
even balance between social and economic aid (including rule of law programs) and security-
related assistance (i.e., equipment and training to the Colombian military and police). In the
FY2011 request, the Obama Administration asked for 9% less than what was enacted in FY2010
with the balance between “soft-side” traditional development assistance and “hard-side” security
and counternarcotics assistance closer to 50/50.
While acknowledging the progress in security conditions in Colombia, some Members of
Congress have expressed concerns about labor activist killings and labor rights in Colombia;
extrajudicial killings of Colombian civilians by the Colombian military; the para-political scandal
(linking Colombian politicians with paramilitaries); and the domestic security agency (DAS)
scandal concerning unauthorized spying on President Uribe’s political opponents and human
rights activists. These concerns have delayed consideration of the pending U.S.-Colombia Free
Trade Agreement (CFTA). President Obama in his State of the Union address in January 2010
supported strengthening trade ties with Colombia, but prospects for the CFTA in the 111th
Congress remain uncertain. For more information, see CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-
Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Economic and Political Implications and CRS Report
RL34759, Proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Labor Issues.

Congressional Research Service

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Political Situation........................................................................................................................ 4
The First Uribe Administration.............................................................................................. 4
The Second Uribe Administration ......................................................................................... 4
Constitutional Court Ruling and Uribe’s Prospective Third Term........................................... 5
Congressional and Presidential Elections............................................................................... 6
Progress in Addressing Colombia’s Internal Conflict ............................................................. 7
Roots of the Conflict ....................................................................................................... 7
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) ......................................................... 8
National Liberation Army (ELN)................................................................................... 11
Paramilitaries ................................................................................................................ 12
Remaining Political Challenges........................................................................................... 13
Para-political Scandal.................................................................................................... 13
The Justice and Peace Law and Demobilization............................................................. 14
Human Rights Violations by Colombian Security Forces............................................... 15
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) .............................................................................. 16
Landmines .......................................................................................................................... 17
Colombia and Global Drug Trends ...................................................................................... 17
Colombia and Regional Security ......................................................................................... 19
Relations with Venezuela and Ecuador .......................................................................... 19
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 21
Plan Colombia and the Andean Counterdrug Program (ACP) .............................................. 23
Aerial Eradication and Alternative Development .......................................................... 24
Integrated Military/Civilian Strategy ............................................................................. 27
Funding for Plan Colombia ........................................................................................... 28
U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement ................................................................. 29
Paramilitary Demobilization................................................................................................ 32
Human Rights ..................................................................................................................... 33
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement ................................................................................. 34

Figures
Figure 1. Map of Colombia ......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Military Bases Addressed by the Defense Cooperation Agreement.............................. 32

Tables
Table 1. UNODC Coca Cultivation in Colombia ....................................................................... 25
Table 2. U.S. ONDCP Coca Cultivation in Colombia ................................................................ 25
Table 3. U.S. Assistance For Plan Colombia, FY2000-FY2011 .................................................. 29

Congressional Research Service

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Appendixes
Appendix A. Key Developments in 2009................................................................................... 37

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 38
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 38

Congressional Research Service

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Recent Developments
On March 30, 2010, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) released Sergeant
Pablo Emilio Moncayo, thought to be the insurgents’ longest held hostage who spent over 12
years in captivity. A few days before, another soldier who had been held for 11 months was
released. The FARC declared it would be their last “unilateral hostage release” until the
government of Colombia agreed to a “humanitarian exchange” of political prisoners (the FARC
hold an estimated 22 Colombian soldiers and police hostage, while the Colombian government
holds some 500 FARC guerrillas in prison).
On March 14, 2010, congressional elections took place in advance of the May 2010 presidential
election. Indicating strong popular support for continuity with the policies of the Uribe
administration, the two parties in the ruling coalition, the National Unity Party (also known as the
Partido de la U or the U Party) and the Conservative Party, won the most seats. Together with
other parties in Uribe’s center-right coalition, they secured a majority in both houses of Congress.
(For more, see “Congressional and Presidential Elections.”)
On February 26, 2010, the Colombian Constitutional Court ruled by a 7 to 2 majority to deny a
referendum to allow President Uribe to run for a third term. This ended months of speculation
that had frozen the campaign for president for the elections scheduled for May 30, 2010.
On February 11, 2010, during a visit to Washington to lobby for continuation of support for Plan
Colombia, Colombia’s Defense Minister Gabriel Silva stated that he had been told by U.S. State
Department officials that the planned $55 million cut in aid to Colombia in the FY2011 budget
request will not undermine cooperation between the United States and Colombia and simply
reflected an “across the board belt tightening.”
On January 8, 2010, 17 alleged perpetrators of the extrajudicial executions of young men from
the Bogota slum of Soacha were released. A Colombian judge dismissed the charges against the
army personnel who allegedly murdered the Soacha victims and disguised them as guerilla
fighters (to increase body counts) on the grounds that the pre-trial procedures had taken too long.
Six additional soldiers, of the more than 40 implicated in the Soacha murder case, were released
on January 12. The representative of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in
Colombia expressed concern about the negative repercussions of the Soacha ruling on the
investigation of extrajudicial executions by the Prosecutor General’s human rights team involving
at least 1,200 cases.
For earlier developments in 2009, see Appendix A at the end of this report.
Introduction
Colombia is a South American nation of roughly 45 million people, the third-most populous
country in Latin America. It is an ethnically diverse nation—58% of the population is mestizo,
20% white, 14% mulatto, 4% black, 3% black-Amerindian, and 1% Amerindian.1 Colombia has

1 U.S. Department of State, “Background Note: Colombia,” May 2009. For more discussion on Afro-Colombian issues,
see CRS Report RL32713, Afro-Latinos in Latin America and Considerations for U.S. Policy, by Clare Ribando Seelke
and June S. Beittel.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

one of the oldest democracies in Latin America, yet it has been plagued by violence and a conflict
that has lasted over 40 years. The country’s rugged terrain historically made it difficult to
establish state control over large swaths of the nation’s territory. High rates of poverty have also
contributed to social upheaval in the country. In 2008, approximately 43% of Colombians lived in
poverty, down from 52% in 2002.2 Colombia’s ability to reduce poverty in recent years is at least
partly due to increases in the country’s economic growth rates, which reached 7.5% in 2007.3
Security improvements and a more stable economy have attracted foreign direct investment
(FDI), which grew from roughly $6.5 billion in 2006 to some $9 billion in 2007, largely in the oil,
manufacturing and mining sectors. Nevertheless, income inequality and land ownership
concentration are still significant problems.4
Drug trafficking has helped to perpetuate Colombia’s conflict by providing earnings to both left-
and right-wing armed groups. The two main leftist guerrilla groups are the FARC and the
National Liberation Army (ELN), both of which kidnap individuals for ransoms, commit serious
human rights violations, and carry out terrorist activities. Most of the rightist paramilitary groups
were coordinated by the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which disbanded in
2006 after more than 30,000 of its members demobilized. Members of the AUC have been
accused of gross human rights abuses and collusion with the Colombian Armed Forces in their
fight against the FARC and ELN.
Colombia is a democratic nation with a bicameral legislature. The Liberal and Conservative
parties, which dominated Colombian politics from the 19th century through much of the 20th
century, have been weakened by their perceived inability to resolve the roots of violence in
Colombia. In 2002, Colombians elected an independent, Álvaro Uribe, as president, largely
because of his aggressive plan to reduce violence in Colombia. The major political parties
currently represented in the Colombian Congress include the Liberal, Conservative, Alternative
Democratic Pole, National Unity, and Radical Change parties, as well as several smaller political
movements. To some observers, the legitimacy of the Colombian Congress has been undermined
because 87 of its 268 members, many from pro-Uribe parties, have either been jailed or placed
under investigation for ties to illegal paramilitary groups.5

2 The 2008 statistics are taken from a Colombia National Planning Department and the National Administrative
Department of Statistics (DANE) household survey as reported in the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean’s (ECLAC) Social Panorama of Latin America 2009 Briefing Paper, November 2009.
ECLAC reported that 52% of Colombians lived in poverty in 2002, with 25% living in indigence. By 2008, those
poverty and indigence rates fell to 43% and 23%, respectively.
3 “Country Report - Colombia,” Economist Intelligence Unit, August 2008.
4 ECLAC reports that Colombia is now the fourth most unequal society in Latin America and the Caribbean, after
Bolivia, Brazil, and Honduras. Colombia also has one of the most unequal land tenure patterns in Latin America, with
0.4% of land holders owning 61% of registered rural property. See ECLAC, Social Panorama 2006; J.D. Jaramillo, El
Recurso Suelo y la Competividad del Sector Agrario Colombiano, 2004.
5 Frank Bajak, “Head of Colombian Governing Party Arrested for Alleged Paramilitary Ties,” Associated Press, July
25, 2008; “Parapolitics: Power and Democracy Seized by Mafias,” presentation at the Inter-American Dialogue,
December 9, 2008, by Claudia López. The number currently under investigation (as of the end of 2009) is from U.S.
Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full report at:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Figure 1. Map of Colombia


Source: CRS
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Political Situation
The First Uribe Administration
During his first term (2002-2006), President Uribe took steps to fulfill his campaign promises to
address the paramilitary problem, defeat leftist guerrilla insurgents, and combat narcotics
trafficking. President Uribe took a hard-line approach to negotiations with illegally armed groups,
declaring that the government would only negotiate with those groups who were willing to give
up terrorism and agree to a cease-fire. These included paramilitary groups with which former
President Pastrana had refused to negotiate. Negotiations with the AUC paramilitaries resulted in
a July 15, 2003, agreement in which the AUC agreed to demobilize its members by the end of
2005. President Uribe endorsed a controversial Justice and Peace Law that provided a framework
for those demobilizations. Uribe also built up the strength of the Colombian military and police,
which stepped up their counternarcotics operations and activities against the FARC. High public
approval ratings, largely due to reductions in violence as a result of his security policies,
prompted Colombia to amend its constitution in 2005 to permit Uribe to run for reelection.
The Second Uribe Administration
On August 7, 2006, Álvaro Uribe was sworn into his second term as president. Pro-Uribe parties
won a majority in both houses of congress in the elections of March 2006, giving President Uribe
a strong mandate as he started his second term. The domination by pro-Uribe parties, most of
them new, appears to have further weakened the traditionally dominant Liberal and Conservative
parties. Nevertheless, there is not a high level of unity among the pro-Uribe parties.
Now in the final months of his second presidential term, President Uribe retains widespread
support in Colombia although his support has dipped somewhat due to the economic decline. His
popularity derives from the progress his government has made in improving the security situation
in Colombia, demobilizing the AUC, and defeating the FARC and ELN. According to U.S. State
Department figures, kidnappings in Colombia have declined by 83%, homicides by 40%, and
terrorist attacks by 76% since Uribe took office in 2002. Police are now present in all of
Colombia’s 1,099 municipalities, including areas from which they had been ousted by guerrilla
groups.6 President Uribe has overseen the demobilization and disarmament of more than 31,000
AUC paramilitaries, although the demobilization process has been criticized for failing to provide
adequate punishments for perpetrators and reparations to victims of paramilitary violence.7 On
March 1, 2008, the Colombian military raided a FARC camp in Ecuador killing a top FARC
leader and capturing his computer files. This was followed by the July 2 rescue of 15 hostages
long held by the FARC, including three U.S. defense contractors and a former Colombian
presidential candidate.
Despite this progress, Colombia faces serious challenges. While FARC’s numbers have been
dramatically reduced, it still has thousands of fighters capable of carrying out terrorist attacks,
kidnappings, and other illicit activities.8 Not all paramilitaries demobilized, and others have

6 U.S. Department of State, “Charting Colombia’s Progress,” March 2008.
7 Latin American Working Group, “The Other Half of the Truth,” June 2008.
8 The FARC is believed responsible for more than half of the cocaine entering the United States according to the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

returned to paramilitary activities since demobilizing. One weakness of the demobilization
program has been the difficulty reintegrating demobilized forces into law-abiding civilian life.9
Moreover, there are credible reports that a new generation of paramilitaries is forming that is
much more criminal than political in nature.10 An estimated 4,000 to 9,000 new fighters have
formed and as many as 15% to 20% of the troops of the new paramilitary groups may consist of
former combatants.11
Although President Uribe has not been personally implicated, the Colombian Supreme Court is
investigating suspected links between Colombian politicians, many from pro-Uribe parties, and
paramilitary groups. Ongoing peace talks with the ELN have yet to yield any tangible results.
Since the 2006 elections, there have several scandals involving extrajudicial killings by
Colombian security forces.12 The latest of these scandals broke in October 2008 when 27 soldiers
and military officers (including three generals) were fired over the discovery that 13 murdered
civilians who had been dressed by their killers to appear to be guerilla fighters to increase military
body counts.13 As a result, General Mario Montoya, the commander of the Colombian army,
stepped down on November 4, 2008.
Drug production and trafficking continue to generate millions of dollars annually for illicit
groups. As a result of the conflict and drug-related violence, Colombia has one of the largest
populations of internally displaced persons in the world, with a reported 380,000 people displaced
in 2008 alone.14
Constitutional Court Ruling and Uribe’s Prospective Third Term
President Uribe’s high approval ratings led many of his supporters to urge him to seek a third
presidential term. For Uribe to be reelected, the Colombian constitution had to be amended again
(as it was in 2005) to allow him to seek a third term. Uribe’s supporters delivered a petition with 5

(...continued)
November 2008 “Background Note on Colombia,” by the U.S. Department of State.
9 Jonathan Morgenstein, Consolidating Disarmament: Lessons from Colombia's Reintegration Program for
Demobilized Paramilitaries, United States Institute of Peace, Special Report 217, Washington, DC, November 2008.
10 Those concerns are cited in the U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2007, March
2008. See also: International Crisis Group (ICG), “Colombia’s New Armed Groups,” May 2007; Chris Kraul, “In
Colombia, Paramilitary Gangs Control Much of Guajira State,” Los Angeles Times, August 31, 2008.
11 Chris Kraul, "New gangs run Colombians off their land; The government says paramilitary groups no longer exist.
But more and more people are being displaced," Los Angeles Times, December 3, 2008; “Militias March again,” The
Economist, October 31, 2009.
12 “Amnesty Says all Sides in Colombia Have Bloody Hands,” EFE, May 28, 2008; Chris Kraul, “Colombia Military
Atrocities Alleged,” Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2008.
13 In addition to the 27 officers dismissed in October 2008, 24 other officers were subsequently dismissed under the
Commander of the Armed Force’s discretional authority, bringing to a total of 51 members of the Colombian armed
forces dismissed in connection with the Soacha murders. See U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification
Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 8,
2009.
14 The figure for 2008 was reported by the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES), a non-
governmental agency in Colombia. The CODHES figures are frequently higher than those reported by the Colombian
government. However, the government’s agency, Social Action, reported a slightly higher figure of 389,967 displaced
persons for 2008. See http://www.accionsocial.gov.co/Estadisticas/publicacion%20junio%20de%202009.htm.
According to an official at the Colombian Embassy, the Social Action total for IDPs in 2008 was greater because, for
the first time, it included those displaced in prior years who were registering in 2008.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

million signatures to Colombian election authorities urging them to convoke a referendum to
reform the constitution to allow a third Uribe term. In December 2008, the Chamber of
Representatives (or lower house) of Congress passed an ambiguously worded bill authorizing
President Uribe to run in either 2010 or 2014. Legislation to explicitly permit him to run in 2010
passed the Senate. The different versions of the bill were reconciled in a bicameral committee to
allow President Uribe’s reelection in 2010. In August 2009, the Senate passed the reconciled bill
and in September the bill was approved by the Chamber of Representatives. The next step of the
process was for the legislation to be reviewed by Colombia’s Constitutional Court.15
For months the 2010 presidential election campaign was virtually suspended as Colombians
anticipated the possibility of President Uribe running for a third term. While his supporters urged
him to run and polls indicated he would easily win the referendum and the election, the president
was criticized both domestically and internationally for ambitions to a third term that could
potentially undermine Colombia’s democratic institutions, erode constitutional checks and
balances, and continue to concentrate power in the executive.16
But on February 26, 2010, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled 7 to 2 to deny a referendum to
allow President Uribe to run for reelection. In its decision, the Court cited irregularities from the
financing of the petition calling for the referendum that would lead to a constitutional amendment
to permit a third term to other irregularities including how the legislation passed through the
Colombian Congress.17 President Uribe immediately stated that he “accepted and respected” the
court’s decision, removing himself as a candidate this year.18
Congressional and Presidential Elections
Legislative elections for the entire 268-member bicameral Congress took place on March 14,
2010. The elections were the least violent of recent times with a high turnout of more than 13
million voters. But the election was marred by some reports of vote buying, other irregularities,
and a slow count. The electoral outcome was unsurprising overall; voters gave a strong victory to
pro-Uribe parties, indicating their support for continuing President Uribe’s democratic security
policies. Two parties in the pro-Uribe coalition, the National Unity Party (also known as the
Partido de la U or the U Party), and the Conservative Party won the most seats. The pro-Uribe
coalition secured a majority in both the Senate and the Chamber of Representatives.
Observers thought the election outcome was a good sign for Uribe’s former defense minister,
Juan Manuel Santos, who heads the National Unity party and had been leading in the presidential
polls. However, the field of candidates for president is complex.19 A successful candidate must

15 “Uribe on course for a third term in Colombia,” Latin American Regional Report: Andean Group. September 2009.
16 Patricia Markey, “Colombia’s Uribe Mulls Reelection, but Will he run?” Reuters, August 22, 2008; “Editorial: Mr
Uribe’s Choice,” New York Times, August 22, 2008; Sibylla Brodzinsky, “Is Colombia’s Uribe pulling a Chavez on
term limits?,” Christian Science Monitor, September 2, 2009; Diana Delgado, “Foreign Investors See Risk in Colombia
Pres’ Possible 3rd Term, Dow Jones Newswires,” September 4, 2009.
17 “Colombian court rules against reelection,” LatinNews Daily, March 1, 2010.
18 "Uribe acepta el fallo y asegura que seguiará trabajando por su país ‘desde qualquier trinchera’," ABC, February 27,
2010.
19 Mr. Santos was defense minister in the Uribe administration during some of the government’s biggest victories
against the country’s main guerilla movement, the FARC (such as the July 2008 rescue of 15 hostages). He also had
poor relations with Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez as minister and lead the military when the so-called “false
positives” scandal broke. See, Adam Isacson, “The Next Colombia,” Open democracy.net at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

win at least 50% of the cast votes; a runoff on June 20 is likely. The Conservative Party’s
successful primary candidate, Noemí Sanín, is running against Mr. Santos. Sanín narrowly won
the Conservative Party primary held March 14, potentially threatening the unity of the
Conservative Party and the stability of the ruling coalition. In the first Gallup poll since the
legislative elections, the then-leading candidates (Santos and Sanín) were shown to be the likely
competitors in a runoff. However, Antanas Mockus, Green Party candidate and twice former
mayor of Bogotá, has been rising in popularity. In a Datexco poll released on April 9, 2010,
Mockus has surged passed Sanín. The poll, which was only conducted in Colombia’s principal 13
cities, had the following results: Santos (29.5%), Mockus (24.8%), and Sanín (20%), suggesting
Mockus might compete with Santos in the June 20 runoff.20 Other presidential hopefuls include
Gustavo Petro of the Democratic Pole; Germân Vargas Lleras, a right wing Senator who split with
Uribe over his bid for a third term; and Rafael Pardo of the Liberal Party.21
A new party—National Integration Party, PIN—was formed in November 2009 by relatives and
ideological supporters of politicians under investigation for links to the paramilitaries. It did well
in the legislative elections, winning eight seats in the Senate and 12 seats in the lower chamber.22
Because the Urbista vote in the presidential contest is split between Santos and the Conservative
Party candidate, it may be necessary to gain the support of the PIN in order to win. Santos claims
the mantle of Uribe—though he has not been publicly backed as Uribe’s choice—and he may be
reluctant to include the PIN in his coalition given its linkages to the most unsavory features of
Colombia’s political past including death squads and narcotics trafficking.23
Progress in Addressing Colombia’s Internal Conflict
Roots of the Conflict
Colombia has a long tradition of civilian, democratic rule, yet has been plagued by violence
throughout its history. This violence has its roots in a lack of state control over much of
Colombian territory, and a long history of poverty and inequality. Conflicts between the
Conservative and Liberal parties led to two bloody civil wars—The War of a Thousand Days
(1899-1903) and The Violence (1946 to 1957)—that killed hundreds of thousands of Colombians.
While a power sharing agreement (the so-called National Front pact) between the Liberal and
Conservative parties ended the civil war in 1957, it did not address the root causes of the
violence. Numerous leftist guerrilla groups inspired by the Cuban Revolution formed in the 1960s
as a response to state neglect and poverty. Right-wing paramilitaries formed in the 1980s when
wealthy landowners organized to protect themselves from the leftist guerrillas. The shift of
cocaine production from Peru and Bolivia to Colombia in the 1980s increased drug violence, and

(...continued)
http://www.opendemocracy.net/adam-isacson/next-colombia, March 31, 2010.
20 Mockus appears to have built his support from a low of 3% in February by conducting an innovative campaign in the
Green Party primaries, portraying his candidacy as corruption free, and adding Sergio Fajardo, former mayor of
Medellín and another centrist candidate, to his ticket as vice president on April 12. For more on the Mockus candidacy,
see “Mockus bursts into contention for Colombian presidency,” Latin American Weekly Report, April 15, 2010.
21 Isacson, “The Next Colombia,” March 31, 2010.
22 “Colombians vote for continuity,” Latin American Regional Report – Andean Group, March 2010.
23 Juan Forero, “Colombia voters elect political novices with possible links to death squads,” Washington Post, March
17, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

provided a source of revenue for both guerrillas and paramilitaries. The main paramilitary
organization, the AUC, began demobilization in 2003 and disbanded in 2006. Major armed
groups today are the FARC, the National Liberation Army (ELN), and the new generation of
paramilitary groups.
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
The FARC can trace its roots to armed peasant self-defense groups that had emerged during “the
Violence” of the 1940-50s. By the 1960s, those groups—located in the remote, mountainous
regions between Bogotá and Cali—had developed into a regional guerrilla movement. In 1964,
the guerrillas announced the formation of the FARC, a group dedicated to rural insurgency.24 The
FARC is the oldest, largest, and best-equipped and financed guerrilla organization in Latin
America. It mainly operates in rural areas, but has shown its ability to strike in urban areas,
including Bogotá. It conducts bombings, murders, mortar attacks, kidnappings, extortion, and
hijackings mainly against Colombian targets. The FARC is fully engaged in the drug trade,
including cultivation, taxation of drug crops, and distribution, from which it reaps significant
profits. In recent years, the FARC has increased it activities along Colombia’s borders with
Ecuador and Venezuela.
The Pastrana Administration (1998-2002) entered peace negotiations with the FARC in which
FARC was granted control of a Switzerland-size territorial refuge during the peace process. With
continued FARC military activity, including kidnapping a Colombian senator, President Pastrana
halted the negotiations and ordered the military to retake control of the designated territory.
During the inauguration of President Uribe on August 7, 2002, the FARC launched a mortar
attack on the presidential palace that killed 21 residents of a nearby neighborhood.
In mid-2003, the Colombian military’s Plan Patriota campaign to recapture FARC-held territory,
began operations with a largely successful effort to secure the capital and environs of Bogotá. In
2004, military operations by up to 17,000 troops, turned to regain territory from FARC in the
southern and eastern regions of the country. The FARC responded with a tactical withdrawal, but
launched a counter-offensive in February 2005. The conflict with the FARC has largely remained
in the countryside. The FARC was unable to disrupt President Uribe’s August 7, 2006,
inauguration. In 2006 the FARC controlled an estimated 30% of Colombian territory.25 Plan
Patriota reduced FARC ranks, recaptured land held by the FARC, and confiscated large amounts
of materials used to process cocaine. Despite these advances, critics pointed out that large
numbers of civilians were displaced during the campaign.
Colombia’s March 2008 Raid of a FARC Camp in Ecuador
On March 1, 2008, the Colombian military bombed a FARC camp in Ecuador, killing at least 25
people; among them were Raúl Reyes, the terrorist groups’ second-highest commander (whose
real name is reportedly Luis Edgar Devia Silva), four Mexican students visiting the camp, and
one Ecuadorian citizen reportedly tied to the FARC.26 This was the first time in the Colombian

24 Peter DeShazo, Johanna Mendelson Forman, and Phillip McLean, Countering Threats to Security and Stability in a
Failing State: Lessons from Colombia, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, DC, September 2009.
25 “Colombia: Executive Summary,” Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment, August 24, 2006.
26 Simon Romero, “Files Released by Colombia Point to Venezuelan Bid to Arm Rebels,” New York Times, March 30,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

military’s 44-year struggle against the FARC insurgency that it had killed a member of the
FARC’s seven-member ruling secretariat. A few days later, Ivan Rios, another member of the
FARC’s secretariat, was murdered by his own security agent. These high-level killings dealt a
significant blow to the FARC, particularly following a FARC announcement in May 2008 that its
top commander, Manuel Marulanda, died in March of a heart attack.
During the raid in Ecuador, information on captured laptops suggested Venezuela was providing
support for the FARC, including information that the Chávez government was planning to
provide millions of dollars in assistance to the FARC for weapons purchases. The files also
included information that President Rafael Correa of Ecuador received campaign donations from
the FARC in 2006. Both Chávez and Correa vigorously reject these claims. Venezuelan officials
have dismissed the data as having been fabricated even though Interpol verified in May 2008 that
the files had not been tampered with since they were seized. In a welcome turn of events on June
8, 2008, President Chávez called for the FARC to release all hostages unconditionally and to
cease military operations, maintaining that guerrilla warfare “has passed into history,” signaling a
major change in his public stance.27 Tensions persisted between Colombia and Ecuador until an
improvement in relations began in the fall of 2009. Colombian-Venezuelan relations remain
strained despite a temporary rapprochement with President Chávez.
Hostage Releases, Escapes, and the July 2008 Hostage Rescue
Since 2007, prisoner escapes, hostage deaths, and later hostage releases have focused
international attention on the plight of hundreds of hostages held by the FARC. In April 2007,
Colombian police officer Jhon Frank Pinchao escaped after eight years in FARC custody. In June
2007, 11 departmental deputies who had held since 2002 were reportedly executed by the
FARC.28 In August 2007, President Uribe authorized leftist Senator Piedad Córdoba and
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to conduct dialogue with the FARC to secure the release of
some 45 high-profile hostages, including the three American contractors held since 2003.
Negotiations stalled in November 2007 due to the FARC’s failure to provide proof of life of the
hostages and allegations that President Chávez inappropriately contacted the head of the
Colombian Army. However, the Colombian government did find over a dozen proof of life
videos, including videos of the three American contractors, in a November 2007 raid on the
FARC. In December 2007, Fernando Araujo, a former minister of development, escaped from the
FARC after being held as a hostage for more than six years. From February through July 2008,
Araujo served as Colombia’s foreign minister.
Six hostage releases occurred during early 2008. In January 2008, two hostages were released to a
delegation led by President Chávez and the Colombian government was able to successfully
reunite one of the hostages with a son born to her in captivity that the FARC had turned over to
the Colombian foster care system more than two years ago. A day after the two hostages’ release,
Chávez’s call for the international community to no longer label the FARC and the ELN as
terrorist groups prompted widespread condemnation. Nevertheless, his role in the release of
hostages continued. On February 27, 2008, the FARC released four former members of the
Colombian Congress to Venezuelan officials in Colombian territory.

27 “Analysis: Chávez Reverses FARC Stance, Domestic Moves Ahead of Elections,” Open Source Center, June 19,
2008.
28 U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007, March 11, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

On July 2, 2008, after months of planning and tracking the FARC, the Colombian military
successfully tricked the FARC into releasing 15 of their prized hostages. Those hostages included
three U.S. defense contractors—Marc Gonsalves, Thomas Howes, and Keith Stansell—held since
February 2003 and former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, held since
February 2002. The success of the bloodless hostage rescue was widely cited as an example of
the Colombian military’s increasing professionalism and intelligence capabilities, which has
occurred largely as a result of years of the U.S. training and security assistance programs
provided through Plan Colombia.29 Some press reports indicate that the United States provided
millions of dollars to help Colombia find and rescue the hostages, including tactical support and
training provided by the U.S. military and technical assistance supplied by a unit of planners,
intelligence analysts, and hostage negotiators based in Bogotá.30
Current Status of the FARC
Many analysts hailed the successful July 2008 hostage rescue as evidence that the FARC was
disintegrating, but others maintained that it was premature to draw that conclusion. The FARC
lost three of its top commanders in 2008 and suffered a series of humiliating defeats at the hands
of the Colombian military. Their communications systems were infiltrated, their leadership was in
disarray, and reports indicated that many guerrilla units were running short of supplies.31
Demobilization of FARC combatants rose sharply in 2007 to 2,480 from less than half that
number the prior year. In 2008, 3,027 FARC combatants were reported demobilized.32 Many
rebels reportedly hoped to take advantage of the Colombian government’s offer to allow the
Justice and Peace Law’s provisions to apply to those who surrender.33 Although the FARC, now
led by Alfonso Cano, is still unwilling to negotiate with the Uribe government, their position is
much weaker.
FARC has hoped that the government would exchange captured FARC guerillas for hostages held
by the FARC, but the Uribe government has never done so.34 But FARC has begun unilaterally
releasing some of its hostages. In March 2009, the FARC released the last foreign hostage they
were holding, a 69-year-old Swedish national who had suffered a stroke during captivity.
According to the U.S. Department of State, between January 1, 2009, and November 30, 2009,
the FARC voluntarily released 15 hostages.35 In late March 2010, the FARC unilaterally released
two of their high-value “exchangeable” hostages: Corporal Jesúe Daniel Calvo Sánchez, who had
been in captivity for 11 months, and Sergeant Pablo Emilio Moncayo, who had spent 12 years in
captivity, one of the world’s longest-held hostages. Moncayo’s father had raised awareness about

29 “Colombian Officials Recount Rescue Plan; Commandos Took Acting Classes to Prepare,” Washington Post, July 6,
2008.
30 “U.S. aid was a key to the Hostage Rescue,” New York Times, July 13, 2008.
31 Patrick McDonnell and Chris Kraul, “Colombian Rebels Splintering,” Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2008; “After the
War in Colombia,” El Pais, July 10, 2008.
32 International Crisis Group, Ending Colombia's FARC Conflict: Dealing the Right Card, Latin America Report No.
30, March 26, 2009.
33 “Closing the net on the FARC, Striking at the ELN,” Latin American Security and Strategy Review, July 2008.
34 The Uribe government has not ruled out an exchange, but it has always objected to a FARC pre-condition that any
hostage-exchange talks take place in a small demilitarized zone. Relayed in a communication from Adam Isacson,
April 2010.
35 See U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full
report at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

his son’s plight and those of other hostages in walks around Colombia wearing chains. Following
the unilateral release of Moncayo on March 31, 2010, there were a few calls for a humanitarian
exchange between the government of Colombia and the FARC primarily by the government’s
leftist critics.36 All the remaining FARC “exchangeable” hostages (reportedly 21 or 22
individuals) are members of the Colombian security forces that the FARC hopes to trade for some
500 imprisoned FARC combatants they consider political prisoners.37 In addition, the FARC
continues to kidnap and hold perhaps hundreds of other kidnap victims beyond its
“exchangeable” hostages.38
National Liberation Army (ELN)
The smaller ELN was formed in 1965, inspired by the ideas of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
With a membership of about 3,000, it is less active than the FARC, but has still been able to carry
out high profile kidnappings and bombings. In addition to terrorizing the rural civilian population,
the ELN has also targeted the country’s infrastructure, especially its oil and electricity sectors. Its
operations are mainly located in the rural areas of the north, northeast, the Middle Magdalena
Valley, and along the Venezuelan border. The ELN earns funds from the taxation of illegal crops,
extortion, attacks on the Caño-Limón pipeline, and kidnapping for ransom. Its size and military
strength have been dramatically reduced since the late 1990s.39 One measure is the reduction in
sabotage attacks on the Caño-Limón pipeline from 171 attacks in 2001 to only five attacks in
2009.40
In recent years, the ELN has shown more willingness to attempt peace negotiations with the
government. In December 2003, President Uribe revealed that he had met with an ELN leader to
discuss possible peace initiatives, but a subsequent ELN statement ruled out any possibility of
demobilization. However, in 2004, the ELN and the Colombian government accepted an offer
from Mexican President Vicente Fox to facilitate peace negotiations. In June 2004, Mexico
named Andres Valencia, a former Mexican ambassador to Israel, as its facilitator. Meetings with
Valencia and the ELN occurred, but the rebel group rejected Uribe’s offer of a cease-fire.41 In
April 2005, the ELN rejected further Mexican facilitation after Mexico voted to condemn Cuba at
the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The Colombian government and the ELN held several
rounds of exploratory talks in Havana, Cuba between December 2005 and August 2007. In June
2008, the ELN announced that it would not continue negotiating with the Uribe government for
the time being. President Uribe responded by ordering the Colombian military to step up its
operations against the ELN.42

36 Hernando Salazar, “Acuerdo humanitario, esquivo en la campaña electoral de Colombia, BBC Mundo, April 8, 2010.
37 Vivian Sequera, "Uribe changes tack on release of rebels' hostages," Associated Press, September 21, 2009; “Farc
releases longest-held hostage,” Latin American Weekly Report, March 31, 2010.
38 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2009, January 2009. According to the government’s National Fund for the
Defense of Personal Liberty (Fondelibertad) the FARC continues to hold only 66 kidnapping victims. However, human
rights groups, both inside and outside Colombia, contend that the number is far higher. See section on “Disappearance”
in U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full report
at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.
39 International Crisis Group, “Colombia: Moving Forward with the ELN?” October 11, 2007.
40 Carola Hoyas, "Focus on security and investment reaps rewards," Financial Times, April 5, 2010.
41 Kate Joynes, “ELN Rebels Rebut Colombian Government’s Peace Pledge,” WMRC Daily Analysis, July 12, 2004.
42 “Closing the net on the FARC, Striking at the ELN,” Latin American Security and Strategy Review, July 2008.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Paramilitaries
Paramilitary groups originated in the 1980s when wealthy ranchers and farmers, including drug
traffickers, organized armed groups to protect themselves from kidnappings and extortion plots
by the FARC and ELN. The largest paramilitary organization, the AUC, was formed in 1997 as an
umbrella organization for a number of local and regional paramilitary groups operating in the
country. As discussed in more detail below, the AUC disbanded in 2006. Not all paramilitary
groups had joined the AUC umbrella. The AUC massacred and assassinated suspected insurgent
supporters and directly engaged the FARC and ELN in military battles. The Armed Forces of
Colombia have long been accused of turning a blind eye to these activities. The AUC, like the
FARC, earned most of its funding from drug trafficking. Jane’s World Insurgency and Terrorism
estimated that in 2006 paramilitaries handled 40% of Colombian cocaine exports.43
On July 15, 2003, the AUC agreed with the Colombian government to demobilize its troops by
the end of 2005. At that time, the State Department estimated that there were between 8,000 and
11,000 members of the AUC, although some press reports estimated up to 20,000. The
demobilization begun in 2004 officially ended in April 2006. By that time, over 30,000 AUC
members had demobilized and turned in over 17,000 weapons.44 AUC leaders remained at large
until August 2006 when President Uribe ordered them to surrender to the government to benefit
from the provisions of the Peace and Justice Law.45
Not all paramilitaries demobilized, and still others have returned to paramilitary activities since
demobilizing. Moreover, there are credible reports that a new generation of paramilitaries has
formed and are recruiting former paramilitaries. Some former AUC members continue to be
active in the drug trade in spite of the demobilization process.46 Jane’s World Insurgency and
Terrorism reports that since the demobilization, the AUC’s purpose has shifted from combating
the FARC and ELN to protecting drug trafficking networks and preventing the extradition of
leaders wanted on drug trafficking charges in the United States. The State Department and U.N.
both note that the new illegal groups do not share the political objective of the AUC, which
sought to defeat leftist guerrillas. Despite their ad-hoc nature, the new illegal groups—labeled
“criminal gangs” or bandas criminales by the Colombian government and some analysts—pose a
threat to Colombian civilians. While the Uribe government is taking steps to combat them,
Human Rights Watch and others argue that the current government’s efforts are not sufficient.47
Some observers attribute a recent increase in violence in Colombia (following years of decline) in
part to the growing prevalence of the new criminal groups and competition between them.48 In

43 U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, and, “Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia,” Jane’s
World Insurgency and Terrorism, August 10, 2006.
44 “Only 2% of 30,150 Demobilized Paramilitaries to Stand Trial,” Associated Press, April 18, 2006.
45 Vicente Castaño, brother of AUC founder Carlos Castaño, remains at large. Vicente Castaño is under investigation
by Colombian authorities for ordering the 2004 murder of his brother who reportedly planned to turn paramilitary
leaders over for extradition to the United States as part of peace negotiations.
46 International Crisis Group, Colombia’s New Armed Groups, May 10, 2007; WOLA, Captive States: Organized
Crime and Human Rights in Latin America, October 2007.
47 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” July 28, 2008, available at http://justf.org/files/primarydocs/
080728cert.pdf. A 2010 report points to the shortcomings of the Uribe government’s response to the new paramilitary
organizations including tolerance of their abuses by Colombian security forces. See: Human Rights Watch,
Paramilitaries' Heirs: The New Face of Violence in Colombia, February 2010, available at
http://www.hrw.org/node/88060.
48 Adam Isacson, “Friday Links, Increasing Violence Edition,” Blog of the Center for International Policy (CIP)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Medellín, for example, where some of the new criminal groups operate, the number of murders
doubled from 1,045 in 2008 to 2,189 in 2009.49 The homicide rate in Medellín, Colombia’s
second-largest city, has continued to rise in 2010 and reportedly has matched the murder levels of
2003.
Remaining Political Challenges
Para-political Scandal
A scandal alleging paramilitary ties to politicians, including current members of the Colombian
Congress, erupted in November 2006. On November 9, 2006, the Colombian Supreme Court
ordered the arrest of three congressmen for their alleged role in establishing paramilitary groups
in the Caribbean state of Sucre. Since the scandal broke, numerous Colombian politicians,
including several past and current members of the Colombian Congress, have been charged with
ties to paramilitary groups. Former Foreign Minister Maria Consuelo Araujo was forced to resign
due to the investigation into her brother’s and father’s connections to the paramilitaries and their
involvement in the kidnapping of Álvaro Araujo’s opponent in a Senate election. In December
2007, Congressman Erik Morris was sentenced to six years in prison for his ties to the
paramilitaries, the first member of Congress sentenced in the ongoing scandal. In February 2008,
the former head of Colombia’s Department of Administrative Security (DAS), Jorge Noguera,
was formally charged with collaborating with paramilitaries, including giving paramilitaries the
names of union activists, some of whom were then murdered by the paramilitaries. In April 2008,
Mario Uribe, a former senator, second cousin, and close ally of President Álvaro Uribe, was
arrested for colluding with the paramilitaries. By November 2008, more than 30 congressmen
from pro-Uribe parties had been indicted for links to the paramilitaries.50 The State Department’s
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Colombia covering 2009 notes the widespread
fallout from the para-political scandal with 87 members of the Colombian Congress, 35 mayors,
and 15 governors implicated in crimes.”51
The para-political scandal increased tensions between President Uribe and the Supreme Court,
which is charged with investigating the politicians accused of having paramilitary ties, many of
whom are from pro-Uribe parties. In July 2008, representatives from the two branches met to
discuss President Uribe’s concern that the paramilitary investigations were advancing too quickly.
Despite those meetings, the Supreme Court ordered the arrest of Senator Carlos Garcia, head of
Uribe’s main coalition party, in late July. Tensions escalated in August when the press reported
that two of President Uribe’s advisers had met with representatives of Don Berna, the top
paramilitary leader, at the presidential palace in April.52 Government critics questioned President

(...continued)
Colombia Program, October 23, 2009.
49 “Security Update – Colombia,” LatinNews Daily, April 14, 2010. Data cited is from Medellín’s municipal
ombudsman’s office, Personería de Medellín.
50 Economist Intelligence Unit, Colombia risk: Government effectiveness risk, November 14, 2008.
51 See U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full
report at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm. The report notes that by the end of 2009, 66
politicians had been detained and 18 politicians in total had been convicted for their ties to paramilitary groups.
52 “Uribe Squares up to Supreme Court and Liberals as Parapolitical Scandal Deepens,” Latin American Weekly Report,
August 28, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Uribe’s motivation in May 2008 to extradite key paramilitary figures to the United States as
partially intended to thwart investigations into government-paramilitary ties. They also
questioned the motives behind a judicial reform package submitted by Uribe to the Congress that
would remove the Supreme Court’s power to investigate legislators.53 The judicial reform bill was
withdrawn by the government after it received strong criticism from the courts and from members
of Colombia’s Congress.54 In October 2008, Human Rights Watch released a report that examined
the government’s efforts to investigate and prosecute paramilitaries and those who collaborated
with them. It warns that the Uribe administration has harassed the Supreme Court as it has carried
out prosecutions of politicians, security forces and others with alleged paramilitary ties.55
The Justice and Peace Law and Demobilization
As part of the paramilitary demobilization process, President Uribe introduced a Justice and
Peace Law granting conditional amnesties to illegal combatants. As written, the law could also
apply to FARC and ELN fighters if they enter into negotiations with the government. Colombia’s
Congress approved the legislation in 2005. The Justice and Peace Law called on demobilized
fighters to provide an account of their crimes and to forfeit illegally acquired assets in exchange
for an alternative penalty of up to eight years’ imprisonment. If the accused was found to have
intentionally failed to admit to a crime, the alternative penalty could be revoked and the full
sentence for the concealed crime would be imposed. Critics contended that the penalties were too
lenient and amount to impunity. The Uribe Administration argued that without the inducement of
the new law, paramilitary leaders and fighters would be unwilling to demobilize and violence
would continue.
In July 2006, Colombia’s Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the law. In the
ruling, however, the Constitutional Court limited the scope under which demobilizing
paramilitaries can benefit from the reduced sentences. Paramilitaries who commit crimes or fail to
fully comply with the law will have to serve full sentences. The law affirmed that paramilitaries
must confess all crimes and make reparations to victims using both their legally and illegally
obtained assets. Paramilitary leaders reacted by stating that they would not comply with the law.
In response, President Uribe ordered paramilitary leaders to turn themselves in. By October 2006
all but 11 paramilitary leaders had complied with this order.56
The merits of the Justice and Peace Law have been fiercely debated both in Colombia and the
United States. Supporters believe it has been an effective means to end paramilitary activities.
The former Bush Administration expressed support for the law noting that it facilitated the
demobilization of more than 31,000 paramilitary members. Supporters of the law observe that
paramilitaries must act in good faith and avoid further participation in illegal activities in order to
benefit from the peace process. The Uribe Administration has removed some demobilized
paramilitaries, including Carlos Mario “Macaco” Jiménez, from the Justice and Peace process due

53 Juan Forero, “U.S. Extraditions Raise Concerns in Colombia,” Washington Post, August 19, 2008; Human Rights
Watch, “Colombia: Proposal Threatens ‘Parapolitical’ Investigations,” August 4, 2008.
54 Sibylla Brodzinsky, “Rights group rips government; Colombia hinders paramilitary prosecutions, a human rights
group said,” The Miami Herald, September 17, 2008.
55 Human Rights Watch, Breaking the Grip?: Obstacles to Justice for Paramilitary Mafias in Colombia, October 2008.
56 “Country Report - Colombia,” Economist Intelligence Unit, October 2006; Human Rights Watch, “Colombia:
Court’s Demobilization Ruling Thwarts Future Abuses,” July 19, 2006; “Gobierno colombiano abrirá debate público
sobre decretos reglamentarios de ley de Justicia y Paz,” El Tiempo, August 29, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

to their continued participation in illegal activities. In May 2008, Uribe extradited Jiménez,
Salvatore Mancuso, and 13 other paramilitary leaders who had violated the terms of the law to the
United States to stand trial on drug trafficking charges.
Despite these results, the OAS Mission to Support the Peace Process in Colombia and other
observers have expressed concern about the institutional frailty of the Justice and Peace process.
Although more than 155,000 victims have registered since the law’s passage, the International
Crisis Group describes implementation as “lagging.” Their report cites lack of interest in victim’s
rights by the Uribe government, inadequate support for the implementing institutions, and the
persistence of armed conflict and threatening presence of new illegal armed groups.57 Human
rights organizations are also concerned that the paramilitaries have not been held accountable for
their illegal activities and, that by under-reporting illegally obtained assets, have failed to provide
adequate reparation to their victims.58
Other observers are concerned that many paramilitaries have not participated in the Justice and
Peace process. Of the more than 31,000 paramilitary members that had demobilized, just 3,751
had been found eligible to receive benefits under the Justice and Peace Law’s framework.59 In
response to concerns that the Justice and Peace Unit investigating and prosecuting the
paramilitaries was severely understaffed, the Uribe government in spring 2008 authorized a
tripling of its staff.60 The International Criminal Court is monitoring the investigations and
prosecutions of former paramilitaries to ensure that those who are guilty of human rights abuses
are held accountable for their crimes.61 In August 2009, the Colombian Supreme Court suspended
further extraditions of paramilitary leaders to the United States because the crimes for which they
stand accused in the United States such as drug trafficking are not nearly as heinous as the
atrocities they have allegedly committed in Colombia.62
Human Rights Violations by Colombian Security Forces
Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the extrajudicial execution of
civilians by the Colombian military for several years. This issue received prominent attention
when more than a dozen young men from the impoverished community of Soacha were lured to
another part of the country with a promise of jobs and then murdered. In October 2008, the armed
forces were linked to the murders of civilians whose bodies had been disguised as guerillas in
order to inflate military body counts. As a result, the government fired 27 soldiers and officers
(including three generals) and the commander of the Colombian army, General Mario Montoya,
resigned on November 4, 2008.63 Named the “false positives” scandal by the Colombian press,

57 International Crisis Group, Correcting Course: Victims and the Justice and Peace Law in Colombia, Latin America
Report 29, October 30, 2008.
58 Latin America Working Group Education Fund, The Other Half of the Truth, June 2008.
59 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 8, 2009, available at:
http://justf.org/files/primarydocs/090908cert.pdf.
60 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” July 28, 2008.
61 “International Criminal Court not to Allow Colombian Paramilitary Members Impunity,” Noticias Financieras,
August 31, 2008.
62 "Militias March Again," The Economist, October 31, 2009.
63 Simon Romero, "Colombian Army Commander Resigns in Scandal Over Killing of Civilians," New York Times,
November 5, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

there have been continuing revelations about this problem as the Colombian military has worked
to revise a policy that rewarded high guerrilla body counts. Many observers believe that justice in
the Soacha murder cases, and in other cases, has lagged.64 In January 2010, more than 20 soldiers
accused of carrying out the Soacha murders (of the more than 40 implicated in the case) were
released by a judge who ruled that the pre-trial procedures had taken too long.65 The
representative of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia expressed concern
about the negative repercussions of the ruling on the more than 1,200 cases of extrajudicial
executions being investigated by the Prosecutor General’s human rights team. Victims’ families
announced they would pursue the case in the International Criminal Court.
The State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for Colombia covering 2009
stated that “political and unlawful killings remained an extremely serious problem,” and that
“there were periodic reports that members of the security forces committed extrajudicial killings
during the internal armed conflict,” although the number had decreased since the prior year. In its
2009 State of the World Human Rights report, Amnesty International asserted that between June
2007 and June 2008, at least 296 civilians were extrajudicially killed by Colombian security
forces and many were disguised as guerillas who had been killed in combat. In June 2009, on a
10-day mission to Colombia, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions found that
the killings were not a result of official government policy. Nevertheless, according to the Special
Rapporteur, “the sheer number of cases, their geographic spread, and the diversity of military
units implicated, indicate that these killings were carried out in a more or less systematic fashion
by significant elements within the military.”66
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Colombia has one of the largest internally displaced populations in the world—more than 3
million IDPs—with indigenous and Afro-Colombians disproportionately represented among those
displaced. There is some discrepancy over the current rate of displacement. The Colombian
government registered over 250,000 IDPs in 2007, a decline of about 8,000 from 2006. Some
IDPs do not register with the Colombian government out of fear and procedural barriers.
Therefore, estimates of new displacements put forth by NGOs tend to be higher than government
figures. For example, the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES), a
Colombian NGO, estimated that some 305,000 people were displaced in 2007, about 27% more
than the number CODHES recorded in 2006. Although still concerned by the overall numbers of
individuals displaced, international NGOs found that the rate of mass displacements decreased in
2007. In 2008, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) expressed particular
concern about new displacements occurring along southern Colombia’s Pacific Coast.67 In 2008,
both the Colombian government and CODHES reported more than 380,000 new IDPs.68 This was
an increase of over 24% over the prior year’s total, according to CODHES.

64 “Siete de los implicados en ‘falsos positivos’ podrían quedar libres en ocho días,” El Tiempo, October 14, 2009.
“’False positves’ arrests in Colombia,” LatinNews Daily, October 21, 2009.
65 “Uribe at odds with judiciary over human rights,” Latin America Weekly Report, January 14, 2010. According to this
report, 17 soldiers were released on January 8 and another 6 were released on January 12, 2010.
66 United Nations, Press Release, “Statement by Professor Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial
executions – Mission to Colombia, 8-18 June 2009.” Available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C6390E2F247BF1A7C12575D9007732FD?opendocument.
67 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Thousands Displaced in Southern Colombia,” August 22, 2008.
68 The figure for 2008 was reported by the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES), a non-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

In 2009, CODHES estimated that 286,389 people were displaced, a 24% reduction below the
CODHES estimate for 2008. The government projected an even greater drop in the number
displaced in 2009. CODHES and the government differ on the total number displaced. The
government has registered 3.3 million people as IDPs since 1995, while CODHES estimates as
many as 4.9 million have been displaced since 1985.69 There is more consensus on the trend that
mass displacements decreased in 2009. According to the State Department, “the government,
international humanitarian organizations assistance organizations, and civil society observed that
the rate of mass displacements declined during the year.”70
Landmines
The use of landmines by Colombian guerrilla groups is an ongoing problem in the country.
Although Afghanistan and Cambodia continue to have higher rates of landmine casualties (per
capita) than Colombia, the International Committee to Ban Landmines reported that Colombia
had the highest number of landmine casualties in the world in 2006, with 1,106 casualties.71 Both
Human Rights Watch and the International Committee to Ban Landmines report that the vast
majority of landmines are laid by the FARC and ELN.72 In 2007, Landmine Monitor cited a
decline in landmine casualties to 895, the first decline since 2002. The change was attributed to
setbacks suffered by the FARC.73 Landmine casualties in Colombia declined further in 2008 to
777.74
Colombia and Global Drug Trends
Colombia’s prominence in the production of cocaine and heroin justifies the U.S. focus on anti-
narcotics efforts in the Andean region. According to various sources, Colombia produces 60% of
the world’s cocaine.75 It is the source of almost 90% of cocaine consumed in the United States
and 60% of the heroin76 seized in this country, according to the State Department’s 2010
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.

(...continued)
governmental agency in Colombia. The CODHES figures are frequently higher than those reported by the Colombian
government. However, the government’s socio-economic development agency, Social Action, reported a slightly
higher figure of 389,967 displaced persons for 2008. See:
http://www.accionsocial.gov.co/Estadisticas/publicacion%20junio%20de%202009.htm.
69 CODHES bases its estimates on fieldwork, and from information gathered from the media and civil society. The
government bases its figures on registered IDPs whose applications for recognition have been accepted. For more
discussion, see U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2009, February 2010.
70 Ibid.
71 Landmine casualties increased nearly 25% in 2005.
72 International Committee to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor 2007 and Human Rights Watch, Maiming the
People, July 2007.
73 International Committee to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor 2008.
74 Statistic from the Government of Colombia’s Presidential Program for Integral Action against Landmines
(PAICMA). Information provided by official from the U.S. Embassy in Bogota on October 23, 2009.
75 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Coca Cultivation in the Andean Region, June 2008.
76 Even though Colombia produces only a small fraction of global heroin production, it is the leading supplier of heroin
in the eastern United States.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

The world’s supply of cocaine is produced by just three countries: Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia.
Until the mid-1990s, Peru and Bolivia were the two major producers. Colombia eclipsed Bolivia
in 1995 and Peru in 1997, the result of increased eradication programs in those two countries and
the displacement of coca cultivation to Colombia. Cocaine production in Colombia increased
fivefold between 1993 and 1999. UNODC reported for 2008 an 18% decrease in coca cultivation
in Colombia and reported a rise of 4.5% and 5.5% in Peru and Bolivia respectively.77 These
changes are from the level in 2007 when the U.N. reported an unusual rise of 27% in coca
growing in Colombia. The UNODC’s Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey notes the 2008 coca
cultivation reported at 81,000 hectares approximates the levels reported in the 2004 to 2006
period. The report also notes an even larger decline in “potential” production of cocaine of 28%,
from 600 metric tons in 2007 to 430 metric tons in 2008.78
Most heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico and Colombia. In its October
2008 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that opium poppy cultivation
and heroin production had declined by about 50% between 2000-2006 in Colombia.79 In 2008,
the U.N. found that opium production dropped to 394 hectares, the lowest figure in the last 14
years of reporting.80
In recent years, the Colombian government, with significant U.S. assistance, has stepped up its
eradication efforts, with manual eradication accounting for an increasing percentage of total
eradication efforts. In 2007, the Colombian government eradicated over 219,529 hectares of illicit
coca crops, up from 215,421 hectares eradicated the previous year. Aerial eradication accounted
for 70% of the coca crops destroyed in 2007.81 ONDCP has credited ongoing aerial spraying and
manual eradication programs with recent declines in the cocaine productivity of the coca
currently cultivated in Colombia.82 The U.N. reported in 2008 that the Colombian government
eradicated 133,496 hectares through aerial spraying and 96,115 hectares through manual
eradication for a total of 229,611 hectares.83
After a long period of stable prices, purity, and availability of illegal drugs in the United States,
evidence indicated that the price of cocaine rose significantly between January 2007 and
September 2009. According to the National Drug Threat Assessment 2010, the price for a pure
gram of cocaine rose from $99.24 to just over $174 in that time period. Based on data from the
System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) database, purity also declined
from 67% to 46% in the same time period, a drop of more than 30%. The supply of drugs is often
judged by changes in price, with higher prices signifying decreased supply. Declining purity is
also a measure indicating decreased availability. The National Drug Threat Assessment 2010,

77 “Fall in Colombia’s Coca Crop vs. rises in Peru and Bolivia,” Security & Strategic Review, June 2009.
78 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Colombia: Coca Cultivation Survey, June 2009.
79 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Plan Colombia:Drug Reduction Goals Were Not Fully Met, but Security
Has Improved; U.S. Agencies Need More Detailed Plans for Reducing Assistance, GAO-09-07, October 2008.
80 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009.
81 U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control and Strategy Report (INCSR) 2008.
82 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, “Official U.S. Colombia Survey Reveals Sharp Decline in Cocaine
Production,” September 10, 2008.
83 UNODC, Colombia: Coca Cultivation Survey, June 2009. The manual eradication figures reported for 2008 were
slightly higher than the U.S. Department of State in its INCSR Report published in February 2009. The U.N. reported
96,115 hectares and the INCSR Report stated 95,732 hectares were eradicated manually, a difference of 383 hectares.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

published in February 2010, found sharp decline of cocaine availability in the United States since
2006 that may have been responsible for price increases and purity declines. The report states
although no single factor for the decline in cocaine availability can be identified, a
combination of factors, including increased law enforcement efforts in Mexico and the transit
zones, decreased cocaine production in Colombia, high levels of cartel violence, and cocaine
flow to non-U.S. markets likely contributed to decreased amounts being transported to the
U.S.-Mexico border for subsequent smuggling to the United States.
Some observers have expressed caution in interpreting government figures on price, purity, and
availability. They maintain that short-term fluctuations are not uncommon and may not be
sustainable.84 Other analysts note that retail cocaine prices have dropped dramatically since the
mid-1980s. Even with the significant increase in price for a pure gram of cocaine between 2007
and 2009, the price has still not surpassed the level of 2001 (a year after the inception of Plan
Colombia) when it was $194 per gram.85 Another possible explanation for the declining cocaine
supply in the United States is that cocaine is being diverted to Europe (a highly profitable market
with the Euro markedly more valuable than the dollar) or South America.
Colombia and Regional Security
Another justification of current U.S. policy in the Andean region is that drug trafficking and
armed insurgencies in Colombia have a destabilizing effect on regional security. With porous
borders amid rugged territory and an inconsistent state presence, border regions are particularly
problematic. Colombia shares a 1,367-mile border with Venezuela, approximately 1,000 miles
each with Peru and Brazil, and much smaller borders with Ecuador and Panama. The conflict in
Colombia and its associated drug trafficking have led to spillover effects in Colombia’s
neighboring countries, especially Ecuador and Venezuela.
Relations with Venezuela and Ecuador
Colombia’s relations with its neighbors have been strained by the spillover from Colombia’s
counter-insurgency operations, including cross-border military activity. Colombia has asked both
Venezuela and Ecuador for assistance in patrolling border areas where the FARC is strong. The
State Department’s 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism report, issued in April 2009, states that
the Venezuelan government did not systematically police its border with Colombia to prevent the
movements of groups of armed terrorists or to interdict arms or the flow of narcotics. According
to the State Department report, Ecuador’s territory is also used for rest, resupply, and training, as
well as some coca cultivation and processing primarily by the FARC. Because of poverty in the
area near Ecuador’s northern border with Colombia, the region is especially susceptible to
“narcoterrorist influence” and a contraband economy has developed.86
Following the March 2008 raid on a FARC camp inside Ecuador by Colombian military forces,
Ecuador broke off diplomatic ties with Colombia. In a show of solidarity, Venezuela broke

84 “U.S. Drug Czar Claims Cocaine Prices Fall,” Associated Press, November 8, 2007.
85 For a discussion critiquing government price and purity claims, see Coletta A. Youngers and John M. Walsh,
Development First: A More Humane and Promising Approach to Reducing Cultivation of Crops for Illicit Markets,
Washington Office on Latin America, Washington, DC, March 2010.
86 For details, see the report at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122435.htm
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

diplomatic and trade ties with Colombia and sent 10 battalions of troops to Venezuela’s border
with Colombia. After a diplomatic intervention, Venezuela restored diplomatic relations with
Colombia although Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa remained angered by the affair and did
not.
Ties between Venezuela and Colombia were severed again in July 2009 when it was reported that
Swedish-made military equipment—sold to the Venezuelan government in the 1980s—had been
found in a FARC camp. On July 27, 2009, Venezuela temporarily withdrew its Ambassador from
Colombia and cut off trade. Venezuela’s hostile actions were attributed to the implied relationship
between the Venezuelan government and the FARC, and President Chávez’s outspoken
opposition to the military base agreement with the United States announced by the Colombian
government earlier in the month. President Chávez subsequently agreed to send his Ambassador
back to Bogota, but has left in place the trade restrictions against Colombian exports. Trade
between Venezuela and Colombia exceeded $7 billion in 2008 with Venezuela as Colombia’s
second largest trading partner after the United States. China became Colombia’s second largest
trade partner in late 2009, as trade fell dramatically between Colombia and Venezuela. Overall for
2009, trade between Colombia and Venezuela—largely consisting of Colombian exports to
Venezuela such as food and vehicles—fell by 34%.87
The Colombian-Venezuelan relationship deteriorated further in the fall of 2009. The signing of
the new base agreement on October 30, 2009, permitting the use by U.S. troops of seven base
facilities in Colombia and “use of other facilities and locations” as mutually agreed, further
aggravated President Chávez. Additional incidents in late 2009 continued to inflame the
relationship including the kidnapping and murder of 10 members of an amateur Colombian
soccer team in Venezuela; Venezuela’s arrest of two Colombian nationals for allegedly spying;
and the killing of two members of Venezuela’s National Guard at a roadside checkpoint in
Táchira state near the border. President Chávez ordered some 15,000 National Guard troops to the
border with Colombia and in early November made remarks in a weekly broadcast that were
interpreted by Colombia as a threat of war.88 In response, Colombia filed a protest with the U.N.
Security Council. President Chávez later ordered two footbridges in the border area to be blown
up.
Tensions escalated as the leaders accused one another of efforts to destabilize their regimes. In
December 2009, Chávez accused Colombia of sending unmanned spy planes over Venezuela.
Colombia accused Venezuela of illegally sending a Venezuelan helicopter into Colombian
airspace. Chávez repeatedly accused Uribe of providing the United States with support for a
planned U.S. invasion of Venezuela. Uribe has accused Chávez of imposing an “embargo” on
Colombian products much like the U.S. embargo of Cuba. At the Rio Group Summit meeting
held in Cancún, Mexico, in late February 2010, the leaders reportedly exchanged insults.
However, out of the meeting, both leaders accepted a group of mediators to intervene to help
them overcome bilateral differences. President Chávez has indicated that he will consider a new
beginning with Colombia after the May presidential election (and after President Uribe was
barred from the race by the Constitutional Court on February 27, 2010). Chávez recently reacted
strongly to frontrunner Juan Manuel Santos’ remark that he was proud of his leadership of the
Colombia bombing raid into Ecuador in 2008 in a presidential debate held on April 18, 2010.

87 Alexander Cuadros and Jens Erik Gould, "Latin American 'Friends' to Ease Uribe, Chavez Spat," Business Week,
February 24, 2010.
88 Michael Shifter, “Calm Down, Chávez,” Foreign Policy, November 10, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Colombia is concerned that the FARC are using Ecuadorian territory to launch attacks. Leftist
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa opposes U.S. involvement in Colombia, and he did not renew
the United States’ 10-year lease on the Manta air base for regional counternarcotics operations.89
Ecuador is also concerned that aerial spraying of coca crops in southern Colombia is reaching
into Ecuador potentially damaging licit Ecuadorian crops. Other concerns between the countries
relate to high numbers of refugees from Colombia’s conflict.90 However, relations between
Colombia and Ecuador have recently improved despite many areas of ongoing and significant
sensitivity.
Ecuador has yet to fully restore relations with Colombia but a distinct thawing has taken place.
Colombia’s foreign minister in a “side meeting” met with the Ecuadoran foreign minister during a
U.N. General Assembly in New York in late September 2009 and several times in October 2009
in an effort to repair relations. One important step toward repairing ties between the two
governments were the decisions to exchange charges d’affaires in November 2009 and to
reactivate the binational border commission (Combifron).91 Colombia has offered Ecuador
intelligence about FARC camps on the Ecuadorian side of the border. In its present overtures to
Ecuador’s government, Colombia’s foreign ministry has downplayed ties between the FARC and
Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa and stressed the Colombian government’s long time concern
about FARC operations inside of Venezuela and Ecuador.
In early 2010, the two nations demonstrated improved coordination in security operations in the
difficult-to-control border region when they reported near-simultaneous actions against the
FARC.92 However, on January 23, 2010, the Ecuadorian government denied it would be
conducting joint military operations with the Colombian military and said their intention was to
cooperate in intelligence sharing to avoid mistakes and fulfill their sovereign duty to patrol their
borders and dislodge armed groups.93 In response to the April 18 presidential debate in Colombia,
where candidates were asked about the controversial air raid into Ecuador and Santos responded
he was “proud” of his role in it, Ecuador’s foreign minister immediately condemned the
candidate’s response.94 Efforts to restore bi-national ties are likely to wait until the outcome of the
presidential race is clear.
Issues for Congress
Debate on U.S. policy toward Colombia takes place in a context of significant concern over the
sheer volume of illegal drugs available in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The
United States approved increased assistance to Colombia as part of a six-year plan called Plan

89 For ten years (1999-2009), the United States had troops stationed at an air base in Manta, Ecuador, which served as
one of three forward operating locations for regional counterdrug activities. President Correa kept a campaign promise
not to renew the Manta base lease, and the last counterdrug flight flown from Manta took place in July 2009.
90 “Ecuador Moves Colombians from Border,” LatinNews Daily, August 28, 2007; "Some 50,000 Colombians in
Ecuador to be Registered Under Un-backed Scheme," States News Service, December 12, 2008.
91 “Trilateral dynamic changes,” Latin American Weekly Report, November 5, 2009.
92 "Ecuador, Colombia coordinate border," LatainNews Daily, January 21, 2010.
93 "Ecuador rules out joint military operations with Colombia," EFE News Service, January 23, 2010.
94 Notably in the televised debate on April 18, Antanas Mockus, who has since surged in the polls, ruled out a cross-
border action as a violation of international law. See, Christian Völkel, "Colombian Presidential Candidate Angers
Venezuela, Ecuador," IHS Global Insight Daily Analysis, April 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Colombia in June 2000, and has provided over $7 billion in assistance from FY2000 to FY2010.
The United States from FY2000 to FY2009 provided assistance to Colombia through the Andean
Counterdrug Program (ACP) account, formerly known as the Andean Counterdrug Initiative
(ACI), and other aid accounts. In the FY2010 request, the Obama Administration shifted ACP
funds back into the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account. The
Obama Administration FY2011 request reduces overall funding to Colombia by about 9% as Plan
Colombia program management and funding is gradually turned over to Colombia.
In addition to the larger debate over what role the United States should play in supporting
Colombia’s ongoing struggle against drug trafficking and illegally armed groups, Congress has
repeatedly expressed concern with a number of specific policy issues. These include continuing
allegations of human rights abuses; the health and environmental consequences of aerial
eradication for drug control; the progress of alternative development to replace drug crops with
non-drug crops; judicial reform and rule of law programs; and the level of risk to U.S. personnel
working in Colombia. Prior to the release of the three U.S. hostages held by the FARC in early
July 2008, securing the release of those hostages was also a key issue of congressional concern.
In October 2008, the GAO released a report stating that Plan Colombia had only partially fulfilled
its drug reduction goals. In the years 2000-2006 coca cultivation and production of cocaine had
actually increased by about 15% and 4%, respectively. The report concludes that while significant
security gains were achieved by the Colombian government with U.S. assistance, coca farmers
had undermined eradication goals by taking effective countermeasures and alternative
development programs had not been implemented in the areas where the majority of coca is
grown.95 Moreover, the report criticized the “nationalization” of Plan Colombia programs—the
transfer of U.S.-administered programs to the Colombians—as too slow and lacking
coordination.96
Proponents of the current U.S. policy towards Colombia point to the progress that has been made
in improving security conditions in Colombia and in weakening the FARC guerrillas. They favor
maintaining the current level of security assistance to Colombia in order to help Colombian
security forces continue to combat the FARC and ELN, solidify their control throughout rural
areas, and eradicate illicit narcotics. They also believe that guerrilla forces regularly cross borders
using neighboring countries’ territory for refuge and supplies, and that this has a potentially
destabilizing effect in the region.
Opponents of current U.S. policy in Colombia respond that the counterdrug program uses a
repressive approach to curbing drug production which could provoke a negative popular reaction
in rural areas. They argue for halting aerial fumigation of drug crops, limiting aid to the
Colombian military, and stressing interdiction rather than eradication so that the direct costs to
peasant producers is less. Some critics of U.S. policy support a policy that focuses largely on
economic and social aid to combat what they consider to be the conflict’s root causes, curbs
human rights abuses by paramilitary groups and security forces, provides vigorous support for a

95 According to the report: “…alternative development is not provided in most areas where coca is cultivated and
USAID does not assess how such programs relate to strategic goals of reducing the production of illicit drugs or
achieving sustainable results.”
96 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Plan Colombia: Drug Reduction Goals Were Not Fully Met, but Security
Has Improved; U.S. Agencies Need More Detailed Plans for Reducing Assistance, October 2008, GAO-09-07.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

negotiated end to the fighting, and emphasizes illicit drug demand reduction in the United
States.97
Plan Colombia and the Andean Counterdrug Program (ACP)
Plan Colombia was developed by former President Pastrana (1998-2002) as a plan to end the
country’s 40-year-old armed conflict, eliminate drug trafficking, and promote development. The
initial plan was a $7.5 billion three-year plan, with Colombia providing $4 billion of the funding
and requesting $3.5 billion from the international community. The U.S. Congress approved
legislation in support of Plan Colombia in 2000, as part of the Military Construction
Appropriations Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-246) providing $1.3 billion for counternarcotics and related
efforts in Colombia and neighboring countries. Plan Colombia was never authorized by Congress
and subsequent funding has been approved annually. President Bush continued support for the
plan under the ACP aid account. The ACP account funded counternarcotics programs in Bolivia,
Brazil, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, and, until recently, Venezuela. Because narcotics trafficking and
the guerrilla insurgency have become intertwined problems, in 2002 Congress granted the
Administration flexibility to use U.S. counterdrug funds for a unified campaign to fight drug
trafficking and terrorist organizations.98
Formerly, the ACP and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) accounts supported the eradication of
coca and opium poppy crops, the interdiction of narcotics shipments, and the protection of
infrastructure through training and material support for Colombia’s security forces. U.S.
assistance supports alternative crop development and infrastructure development to give coca and
opium poppy farmers alternative sources of income, and institution building programs to
strengthen democracy. Alternative development (AD) programs were shifted from the ACP
account to the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account in FY2008. U.S. assistance includes human
rights training programs for security personnel in response to Congressional concerns about
human rights abuses committed by Colombian security forces. Congress has prohibited U.S.
personnel from directly participating in combat missions and has capped the number of U.S.
military and civilian contractor personnel that can be stationed in Colombia in support of Plan
Colombia at 800 and 600 respectively.99
The United States also supports the interdiction of drug shipments through the Air Bridge Denial
(ABD) Program. The Air Bridge Denial program began as a joint interdiction effort between the
United States, Peru, and Colombia that sought to identify possible drug flights and to interdict
them by forcing them to land, and if necessary to shoot down the aircraft. The program was
suspended in 2001 after a flight carrying American missionaries was shot down over Peru.
Following the establishment of new safeguards against accidental shootdowns, the program was
renewed in Colombia in 2003. The State Department credits the ABD program with reducing the

97 Julia E. Sweig, Andes 2020: A New Strategy for the Challenges of Colombia and the Region, Council on Foreign
Relations Center for Preventive Action, January 2004.
98 The State Department and the Department of Defense explain expanded authority as providing them with flexibility
in situations where there is no clear line between drug and terrorist activity.
99 The FY2005 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4200; P.L. 108-375) raised the military cap from 400 to 800
and the civilian cap from 400 to 600. The cap does not apply to personnel conducting search and rescue operations, or
to U.S. personnel assigned as part of their regular duties to the U.S. embassy. According to the State Department,
military personnel levels between 2005-2008 have ranged from 136 to 563 military and 173 to 454 civilian contractors,
averaging 250 of each.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

number of illegal flights over Colombia by some 73% since 2003.100 In 2008, the U.S.
government began to transfer control of the ABD program to the Colombian government. In
2009, nationalization efforts proceeded with the title transfer of 17 UH-1N helicopters in the
Colombian Army Aviation program, the transfer to the Colombian police of the helicopter support
packages that are part of the aerial eradication program and the transfer of the Air Bridge Denial
program to the control of the Colombian government.101
Aerial Eradication and Alternative Development 102
Upon taking office, President Uribe announced that aerial eradication, along with alternative crop
development, would form a significant basis of the government’s efforts. The Plan Colombia
eradication spraying program began in December 2000 with operations by the U.S.-funded
counternarcotics brigade in Putumayo. It should be noted, however, that spraying does not
prevent, although it may discourage, the replanting of illicit crops. During 2008, the Colombian
government sprayed 133,496 hectares of coca and manually eradicated 96,113 hectares of coca
and poppy.103
The United Nations and United States use different methodologies to estimate annual coca
cultivation levels in Colombia. The different methodologies yield results that not only show
different levels of cultivation, but different trends as well. Table 1 and Table 2 include United
Nations and United States data on coca cultivation in Colombia since 2000. The area of
cultivation is measured in hectares.104 For 2007, the United Nations reported a 27% increase in
coca cultivation to 99,000 hectares.105 U.S. data from the ONDCP showed a 6.2% increase in
coca cultivation in 2007. Some of the 9% increase in cultivation that ONDCP reported for 2006
may be attributed to the fact that the area surveyed increased significantly from the previous year.
In 2008, both the United Nations and the United States showed a decline in coca cultivation (they
each measured a downward trend but their estimates of hectares cultivated differed). The 2008
estimates in each case approximated the cultivation levels of 2004. Analysts have attributed the
decline to greater eradication pressure. Some observers say the relative reduction in aerial
spraying compared with the more labor-intensive manual eradication in 2008 caused coca
cultivation in Colombia to decline.106 In 2008, the area sprayed declined by 13% from the prior
year and the area manually eradicated increased by 43% compared with 2007.107 Others speculate
that another factor resulting in the positive reduction in Colombia’s coca crop was the success of

100 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2008.
101 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2010.
102 Also see CRS Report RL33163, Drug Crop Eradication and Alternative Development in the Andes, by Connie
Veillette and Carolina Navarrete-Frias.
103 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2009.
104 A hectare is equivalent to 2.47 acres.
105 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2008; and “Coca Cultivation in the Andean
Region,” June 2008.
106 Adam Isacson, “2008: Less Fumigation, Less Coca,” Blog of the Center for International Policy (CIP) Colombia
Program, November 9, 2009.
107 "Mixed Signals Among the Coca Bushes," The Economist, June 27, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Colombian security forces in gaining control of territory from the FARC which could discourage
farmers from replanting.108
Table 1. UNODC Coca Cultivation in Colombia
(in hectares)
Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Area
163,000 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 78,000 99,000 81,000
%
change — -11% -30%
-16%
-7% 8% -9%
27%
-18%

Table 2. U.S. ONDCP Coca Cultivation in Colombia
(in hectares)
Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Area
136,200 169,800 144,450 113,850 114,100 144,000 157,200 167,000 119,000
% change
—
25%
-15%
-21%
0.2%
26%
9%
6.2%
-29%
Notes: U.S. government estimates for 2008 from the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá, November 6, 2009.

Aerial eradication has been controversial both in Colombia and the United States. Critics charge
that it has unknown environmental and health effects, and that it deprives farmers of their
livelihood, particularly in light of a lack of coordination with alternative development
programs.109 With regard to environmental and health consequences, the Secretary of State, as
required by Congress, has reported that the herbicide, glyphosate, does not pose unreasonable
health or safety risks to humans or the environment. In consultation for the certification, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency confirmed that application rates of the aerial spray program in
Colombia are within the parameters listed on U.S. glyphosate labels. However, press reports
indicate that many Colombians believe the health consequences of aerial fumigation are grave,
and many international non-governmental organizations criticize the certification for being
analytically inadequate.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds alternative development
programs to assist illicit crop farmers in the switch from illicit to licit crops, and provides
assistance with infrastructure and marketing. Through September 2009, the United States has
completed 1,290 social and productive infrastructure projects. These programs have benefited
more than 439,000 families in 18 departments.110 The USAID Mission in Colombia reports
significant progress since funding started flowing for alternative development through Plan
Colombia. In an October 2008 fact sheet, USAID states that to date there have been 238,263

108 Ibid.
109 “Chemical Reactions: Spreading Coca and Threatening Colombia’s Ecological and Cultural Diversity,” Washington
Office on Latin America, February 2008.
110 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2010..
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

hectares of licit crops supported in areas that illicit crops once predominated, and more than
280,000 jobs have been created.111
The success of alternative development in Colombia has been limited both by security concerns
and the limited scope of the program. Various reports, including the recent GAO report that
examined the progress of Plan Colombia, have identified weaknesses in the program including
that a majority of the USAID alternative development projects were not located in areas where
the majority of coca is grown in Colombia and they have not been evaluated with regard to drug
reduction goals or sustainability. Security concerns were blamed for the planned withdrawal of
USAID assistance to five departments where coca production was increasing, according to a
USAID memo leaked to the press in October 2006. UNODC reported in June 2006 that
alternative development programs have been successful, but only reach 9% of Colombian coca
growers and called for a tenfold increase in international donor support for alternative
development programs.
In 2006, USAID redesigned its strategy to lure coca growers to specific geographic zones that
offered economic opportunities with an effort to keep these zones free of illicit crops.112 The two
principle projects that form the core of the current USAID strategy are More Investment for
Sustainable Alternative Development (MIDAS) and Areas for Municipal Level Alternative
Development (ADAM). As noted, both projects have generated thousands of hectares of licit
crops and jobs, but the USAID projects have been criticized for not reaching those most
vulnerable to coca cultivation nor providing adequate income substitution during the
comparatively long time needed for alternative crops to mature and generate sufficient and
sustainable income. Several assessments of USAID’s alternative development program under
Plan Colombia cite the “zero coca” policy of the Colombian government as a barrier to reaching
those impoverished farmers most vulnerable to coca growing.113 In one recent assessment,
researchers conducted interviews with USAID’s ADAM and MIDAS project staff and with
Colombian government staff implementing a Forest Warden program,114 and they were told
“alternative livelihoods assistance reaches only a small segment of the population in need, i.e.
either cultivating coca or vulnerable to coca cultivation.”115 Proponents of U.S. policy argue that
both eradication and alternative development programs need time to work. USAID has argued
that alternative development programs do not achieve drug crop reduction on their own, and that
the Colombia program was designed to support the aerial eradication program and to build “the
political support needed for aerial eradication efforts to take place.”116

111 USAID/Colombia, "Program Overview: Alternative Development," Fact Sheet, October 2008.
112 U.S. GAO, Plan Colombia: Drug Reduction Goals Were Not Fully Met, but Security Has Improved; U.S. Agencies
Need More Detailed Plans for Reducing Assistance, October 2008, GAO-09-07, pp. 48-49.
113 The Uribe government policy conditions all assistance on total eradication of coca crops from a particular area; even
one violation by a single family disqualifies a locality from receiving government assistance or assistance from
international partners such as USAID. See: U.S. GAO, Plan Colombia: Drug Reduction Goals Were Not Fully Met, but
Security Has Improved; U.S. Agencies Need More Detailed Plans for Reducing Assistance; Vanda Felbab-Brown et al,
Assessment of the Implementation of the United States Government’s Support for Plan Colombia’s Illicit Crop
Reduction Components, April 17, 2009.
114 The Forest-Warden Families Program identifies families eligible for a monthly stipend to keep their land free from
illegal crops. It is run by the Colombian government agency Social Action and is not supported by USAID.
115 Vanda Felbab-Brown et al, Assessment of the Implementation of the United States Government’s Support for Plan
Colombia’s Illicit Crop Reduction Components, a report produced for review by the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), April 17, 2009.
116 Joshua Goodman, “U.S. Pulling Economic Aid from Colombia’s Coca Infested South,” Associated Press, October
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Integrated Military/Civilian Strategy
In early 2007, the Colombian Ministry of Defense announced a “Policy of Consolidation of
Democratic Security” to guide security policy for the Uribe administration’s second term (2006-
2010). The strategy was intended to consolidate the gains of the Democratic Security policies that
were successful in reducing violence in the first term and to consolidate state presence in areas
where insurgent activity by FARC and other illegal armed groups, drug trafficking and violence
converged. Led by civilian and defense officials in the Ministry of Defense, this major shift in
approach was based on an “integrated action doctrine” and was declared to be a “strategic leap”
forward by former Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos in March 2009.
Integrated action is a sequenced military and counternarcotics strategy in high priority geographic
zones designed to reestablish Colombian government control of marginalized areas. It has been
promoted as a model to guide future U.S. assistance to Colombia, especially as funding for Plan
Colombia gradually winds down. Under this approach, security forces enter a contested zone to
stabilize and hold the area so that civilian state agencies can come in rapidly behind to provide
social services including justice, education, health, and housing to assert a positive state presence.
The doctrine is based on the premise that all military and social actions are interdependent and no
efforts can be successful if the others are not.117
At the national level, the Colombian presidency’s Center for the Coordination of Integrated
Action (CCAI) directs the integrated action programs.118 Now part of a “National Consolidation
Plan,” the coordinated military/civilian efforts are focused on building a state presence in the
highest priority areas seen as strategic to the FARC. At the local level, application of this strategy
is carried out at comprehensive fusion centers—renamed “regional coordination centers” in mid-
2009—which are physical locations within consolidation zones where military, police, economic
development, social and judicial activities are coordinated. The two best-known examples, which
have each received some U.S. and international support, are the regional coordination centers
established in La Macarena in the Meta department and Montes de María near the central
Caribbean coast. Both are intended to function as models for CCAI efforts in other regions of
Colombia. Critics argue that the blurring of lines between military and civilian activities poses
some dangers and that there is a need for increased civilian leadership and greater representation
of local interests.119

(...continued)
12, 2006; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), “Coca Cultivation in Andes Stabilizes in 2005,” June
20, 2006; UNODC, Coca Cultivation in the Andean Region, June 2006; and, UNODC, Colombia Coca Cultivation
Survey, June 2007.
117 Juan Manuel Santos, “Afghanistan’s challenges—lessons from the Colombian experience,” NATO Review, Autumn
2007.
118 CCAI is an interagency group that works out of the President’s office bringing together members from 15
government ministries and other state agencies for the purpose of coordinating government efforts to introduce state
presence to priority areas where it had not existed or was weak. See: Peter DeShazo, Phillip Mclean, Johanna
Mendelson Forman, “Colombia’s Plan de Consolidación Integral de la Macarena: An Assessment,” Center for Strategic
& International Studies, June 2009.
119 For a thorough analysis of the strategy based on visits to the regional coordination centers in La Macarena and
Montes de María, see: Adam Isacson and Abigail Poe, After Plan Colombia: Evaluating "Integrated Action," the next
phase of U.S. assistance, Center for International Policy, International Policy Report, Washington, DC, December
2009.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

USAID programs and the U.S. Department of Defense have strongly supported this approach and
provided funding to CCAI programs since 2007.120 According to the State Department, the U.S.
government collaborated with Colombia in 2008 to pilot integrated counternarcotics initiatives in
three regions that combined security, eradication and development. In 2009 in order to support
successes made under Plan Colombia and to help in implementation of the government’s National
Consolidation Plan, “the United States delivered its comprehensive assistance in a more
sequenced approach to help establish a government presence in former conflict and rural areas,
deter coca replanting after eradication, improve interdiction along Colombia’s Pacific coastline
and provide alternative livelihoods for those engaged in the drug trade.”121
Funding for Plan Colombia
From FY2000 through FY2010, U.S. funding for Plan Colombia and its follow-on strategies
totaled over $7 billion in State Department and Defense Department programs. Most U.S.
assistance was provided through the ACP account, although this account was consolidated into
the INCLE account in the Obama Administration’s FY2010 request. In FY2008 Congress funded
eradication and interdiction programs through the ACP account, and funded alternative
development and institution building programs through the Economic Support Fund (ESF)
account. In previous years, alternative development and institution building were funded through
the ACP account. In addition, support for aerial eradication programs is provided from the State
Department’s Air Wing account. The Defense Department requests a lump sum for all
counternarcotics programs worldwide under Sections 1004 and 1033, and under Section 124, of
the National Defense Authorization Act. DOD can reallocate these funds throughout the year in
accordance with changing needs. While not considered a formal component of the ACP Program,
the Defense Department has provided Colombia with additional funding for training and
equipment for a number of years, as well as the deployment of personnel in support of Plan
Colombia.
In 2008, there was significant debate in Congress about the proper balance between so-called
“hard side” security assistance (i.e., equipment and training to the Colombian military and police)
and “soft-side” traditional development and rule of law programs. While some Members
supported the Bush Administration’s emphasis on security-related assistance to Colombia, others
expressed concerns that the Administration put too much of an emphasis on the security
assistance component. Many Members have expressed a desire to see a more rapid transfer of
responsibility for the military operations associated with Plan Colombia from the United States to
Colombia. Since FY2008, Congress has reduced and rebalanced assistance between security-
related programs and economic and social aid in the annual foreign assistance appropriations
legislation. In the Administration’s FY2011 budget request for foreign operations, aid to
Colombia is proposed to decline by approximately 9%, from an estimated $512 million
appropriated in FY2010 (not including DOD assistance) to $465 million requested for FY2011,
with the balance between “soft-side” development assistance and “hard-side” security and
counterdrug assistance moving closer to 50/50. Table 3 provides a more detailed breakdown of
U.S. assistance to Colombia from FY2000 through the FY2011 request.

120 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Plan Colombia: Drug Reduction Goals Were Not Fully Met, but Security
Has Improved; U.S. Agencies Need More Detailed Plans for Reducing Assistance, October 2008, GAO-09-07.
121 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2010.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Table 3. U.S. Assistance For Plan Colombia, FY2000-FY2011
(in millions $)

ACI/ACP ESF FMF IMET INCLE NADR AirWing DOD Total
FY2000 60.1
—
—
— — — 38.0
128.5
226.6
P.L. 106-246
832.0
—
—
—
—
—
—
100.7
932.7
FY2001 48.0
—
—
— — — 38.0
190.2
276.2
FY2002 379.9a — — — — 25.0 38.2 117.3
560.4
FY2003 580.2b — 17.1 1.2 — 3.3 41.5 164.8
808.1
FY2004 473.9
—
98.5
1.7 — .2 45.0 178.2
797.5
FY2005 462.8
—
99.2
1.7 — 5.1 45.0 155.3
769.1
FY2006 464.8
—
89.1
1.7 — — 45.0 140.5
741.1
FY2007 465.0
—
85.5
1.6 — 4.1 37.0 129.4
722.6
FY2008 244.6
194.4
55.1
1.4
41.9 3.7 39.0 119.9
700.0
FY2009
230.1
196.5
53.0
1.4
45.0
3.2
12.4
127.9
669.5
FY2010 (est)
c 201.7
55.0
1.7
248.9d 4.8
— 122.8
634.9
FY2011 (req)
—
202.9 51.5 1.7 204.0
4.8
—
n.a. 464.9
Total 4,241.4
795.5
604.0
14.1
539.8
54.2 379.1
1,675.5
8,303.6
Sources: Figures are drawn from the annual State Department Foreign Operations Congressional Budget
Justifications for fiscal years 2002 through 2011 and the State Department’s Washington File, “U.S. Support for
Plan Colombia, FY2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations,” July 5, 2000. DOD data for FY2002-FY2010
provided by DOD in response to CRS request, received April 22, 2010.
Notes: For FY2000 and thereafter, Plan Colombia funds are assigned to the State Department’s International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau (INL) or the Andean Counterdrug Initiative (ACI). The State
Department transfers funds to other agencies carrying out programs in Colombia, of which USAID has received
the largest portion. Defense Department data reflects non-budget quality estimates of DOD counternarcotics
support provided. DOD requests one sum for programs around the world and adjusts its regional al ocations as
needed. Table 3 does not include Public Law 480 (Food Aid). Air Wing figures for FY2009 and FY2010 are
estimates provided by the State Department.
a. Includes $6 million appropriated to FMF but transferred to the ACI account.
b. Includes $93 million in FMF regular appropriations and $20 million in FMF supplemental funds that were
transferred to the ACI account.
c. U.S. Department of State has subsequently real ocated sums to different accounts in the FY2010
Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations. In the FY2010 request, funds previously shown in
the Andean Counterdrug Program moved to the State Department’s INCLE account.
d. This figure includes approximately $12.9 million for Air Wing contract costs attributable to Colombia.

U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement
On October 30, 2009, the United States and Colombia signed an agreement to provide the United
States access to seven military facilities in Colombia to conduct joint counternarcotics and anti-
terrorism operations over a 10-year period. The seven facilities include three Colombian air force
bases at Palanquero, Apiay, and Malambo; two naval bases; and two army installations (see
Figure 2 for base locations). In the United States, $46 million of funding for construction at the
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Palanquero air base in Central Colombia was included in the defense authorization for FY 2010
signed into law October 2009 (P.L. 111-84).
The disclosure regarding the negotiations and elements of the base agreement in mid-July 2009
resulted in a strong reaction from countries in the region led by President Hugo Chávez of
Venezuela, who claimed that he saw the placement of U.S. troops in Colombia as a threat and
described the base agreement as fanning “the winds of war” across the region. Colombian
President Uribe toured seven Latin American countries in early August 2009 to meet with heads
of state in an effort to diffuse opposition to the agreement and allay concerns. Following this
outreach effort, Brazil and Chile toned down their opposition to the agreement and cited
Colombia’s sovereignty in the matter, but only Peru’s President Alan Garcia expressed outright
support for the pending agreement.122
On August 18, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Colombia’s Foreign Minister
Jaime Bermúdez to discuss the base deal.123 The same day, the U.S. State Department released a
press announcement naming the pending agreement the U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation
Agreement (DCA). Through the announcement and at the meeting, officials noted that the DCA
did not establish any new U.S. bases in Colombia, but would provide access or continue to
provide use of seven Colombian military facilities to deepen existing security cooperation and
that the agreement harmonizes and updates existing agreements. Negotiations for the agreement
concluded August 14, 2009, followed by a review of the provisional agreement by both
countries.124
Some observers believe the agreement was precipitated by the closing of a U.S. forward operating
location (FOL) at a coastal air base in Manta, Ecuador, used for regional counterdrug operations.
The FOL at Manta allowed U.S. forces to patrol the Pacific. The 10-year lease (1999-2009) was
not renewed by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa following up on his campaign promise to
decrease U.S. presence in the region. The final U.S. mission from Manta was flown in July and
the U.S. forces left Manta in September 2009.125
According to the U.S. Department of State, the agreement with Colombia is not a replacement for
the Manta FOL126 The new agreement provides for U.S. and Colombian security cooperation
including counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and other “mutually agreed upon activities” within
Colombia.127 The radar-equipped aircraft based at Manta (including P-3 Orions and E-3 AWACS)
used for anti-drug surveillance missions over multiple countries have been relocated to other
locations in the Western Hemisphere including the United States and other FOLs based in El
Salvador and Curacao.128

122 Oxford Analytica, “Latin America: Regional tensions challenge UNASUR,” August 21, 2009.
123 “Does the US want bases in Colombia?,” Latin American Regional Report: Andean Group, August 2009.
124 U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement,” August 18, 2009. See
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/aug/128021.htm.
125 Juan Forero, “U.S. Plan Raises Ire in Latin America,” Washington Post, August, 8, 2009; "U.S. military operations
in Ecuador to be transferred to five bases in Colombia," BBC Monitoring Americas, July 10, 2009.
126 Communication with State Department Desk Officer on October 9, 2009.
127 Italics added. See: U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement,” October 30, 2009.
Available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/oct/131134.htm.
128Interview with Department of Defense official on November 9, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Even with the new agreement, the cap on the number of U.S. personnel deployed in Colombia
will remain the same as set by Congress in 2004 (P.L. 108-375)—800 military personnel and 600
contractors. According to the State Department, the 1,400-personnel limit “will continue to be
faithfully respected.” U.S. personnel presence in recent years has declined to less than half of the
authorized number which is a trend that is expected to continue.129 Every operation undertaken by
U.S. personnel from the bases must receive prior approval from the Colombian government
according to the signed agreement.130


129 U.S. Department of State, “U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement,” October 30, 2009. Available at
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/oct/131134.htm. According to the announcement: “Consistent with U.S. policy
to nationalize U.S.-supported activities by turning them over to Colombian authorities, U.S. personnel presence has
been in a gradual decline. It is the United States’ expectation and commitment that those trends will continue.”
130 For the text of the U.S.-Colombia base agreement see: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/131654.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Figure 2. Military Bases Addressed by the Defense Cooperation Agreement


Source: Adapted by CRS from information provided by U.S. Southcom.
Paramilitary Demobilization
The 111th Congress remains concerned over the ongoing scandal involving paramilitary ties to
Colombian politicians. Some Members of Congress have expressed concern about both the AUC
demobilization process and the overall demobilization framework under the Justice and Peace
Law approved by the Colombian Congress in 2005. (For background, see “Para-political
Scandal” and “The Justice and Peace Law and Demobilization.”)
The FY2006 Foreign Operations Act (P.L. 109-102) provided $20 million to assist in the
demobilization of former members of foreign terrorist organizations, provided that the Secretary
of State certified that the assistance only went to individuals who had verifiably renounced and
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

terminated membership in the FTO; that the Colombian government was cooperating with the
United States on extradition; that the Colombian government was working to dismantle FTO
structures; and that the funds would not be used to make cash payments to individuals. The
FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-8) provided $16.7 million to assist in the
demobilization of former members of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs), pending a
certification from the Secretary of State that was issued on October 16, 2009. In that certification,
Secretary of State Clinton certified to Congress
• That assistance will be provided only for individuals who have verifiably
renounced and terminated any affiliation or involvement with FTOs or other
illegal armed groups, and are meeting all the requirements of the Colombia
demobilization program, including disclosure of past crimes; the location of
kidnapped victims and bodies of the disappeared; and, knowledge of FTO
structure, financing, and assets; and are not involved in criminal activity.
• That the Colombian government is fully cooperating with the United States to
prosecute the extradited leaders and members of FTOs who have been indicted in
the United States for murder, torture, kidnapping, narcotics trafficking, or other
violations of United States law.
• That the Colombian government is not knowingly taking steps to legalize titles of
land or other assets illegally obtained by FTOs, their associates, or their
successors; and that the Colombian government has established effective
procedures to identify such land and assets; and is seizing and returning such
land and assets to their rightful owners and occupants.
• That the Colombian government is dismantling the organizational structures of
FTOs and successor armed groups.
• That funds will not be used to make cash payments to individuals, and funds will
only be available for any of the following activities: verification, reintegration
(including training and education), vetting, recovery of assets for reparations for
victims, and investigations and prosecutions.
Human Rights
Debate in the U.S. Congress has continued to focus on allegations of human rights abuses by the
FARC and ELN, paramilitary groups, and the Colombian Armed Forces. The State Department’s
February 2010 human rights report states that the Prosecutor General’s Office in Colombia has
been assigned 1,302 cases concerning extrajudicial killings by the armed forces allegedly taking
place between 1985 and 2009.131 Reportedly, progress in addressing the backlog of cases
concerning extrajudicial killings has proceeded slowly.132 In June 2009, on a 10-day mission to
Colombia, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions found the killings were not a

131 U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full
report at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.
132 This is one finding in U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights
Conditions with Respect to Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,”September 8, 2009. Available at:
http://justf.org/files/primarydocs/090908cert.pdf. For example in the continuing investigations of the Soacha murders,
the report notes that family members of the victims have been threatened while 75 members of the armed forces were
being investigated in connection with the murders.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

result of official government policy. Nevertheless, according to the U.N. official, “the sheer
number of cases, their geographic spread, and the diversity of military units implicated, indicate
that these killings were carried out in a more or less systematic fashion by significant elements
within the military.”133
Congress has annually required that the Secretary of State certify to Congress that the Colombian
military and police forces are severing their links to the paramilitaries, investigating complaints of
abuses, and prosecuting those who have had credible charges made against them. Congress has
made funding to the Colombian military contingent on these certifications. In the latest
certification, issued on September 8, 2009, Secretary Clinton asserted that the Colombian
government and armed forces are meeting the statutory requirements with regard to human rights.
The Secretary noted that “Colombia remains a country in transition,” and that “while the security
situation has vastly improved in the last decade, fighting between the Armed forces and illegal
armed groups continues to harm the country’s citizens, especially its most vulnerable groups: the
displaced, indigenous, and Afro-Colombians.”134
Congress has also regularly included the so-called Leahy amendment in foreign operations
appropriations legislation that denies funds to any security force unit for which the Secretary of
State has credible evidence of gross human rights violations. (The restriction was codified as
Section 620J of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, in the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, (P.L. 110-161).) The Secretary may continue funding if she determines and
reports to Congress that the foreign government is taking effective measures to bring the
responsible members of these security forces to justice. Congress released its last hold on $52.5
million in FY2007 assistance in mid-2009, but reportedly some $19.54 million of FY2008 funds
and $15.6 million of FY2009 funds for the Colombian military remain on hold.135 Despite these
actions, human rights organizations claim that the U.S. government often turns a blind eye to
questionable activities of Colombian security forces.
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement136
In 2003, the Bush Administration announced its intentions to begin negotiating an Andean region
free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia. In its announcement, the
Administration asserted that an FTA would reduce and eliminate barriers to trade and investment,
support democracy, and fight drug activity. After regional talks broke down, the United States
pursued bilateral trade agreements with Colombia and Peru. The United States and Colombia
signed the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement on November 22, 2006, now called the
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA); the agreement must now be ratified by both
nations’ congresses. Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru currently benefit from the Andean Trade-
Promotion and Drug-Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which in 2002 replaced the former Andean

133 United Nations, Press Release, “Statement by Professor Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial
executions – Mission to Colombia, 8-18 June 2009.” Available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/C6390E2F247BF1A7C12575D9007732FD?opendocument.
134 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,”September 8, 2009. Available at:
http://justf.org/files/primarydocs/090908cert.pdf.
135 Information provided by State Department official, November 12, 2009.
136 See CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Economic and Political
Implications, by M. Angeles Villarreal.
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Trade Preference Act (ATPA).137 In December 2009, the 111th Congress extended ATPDEA trade
preferences to Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador through December 31, 2010 (P.L. 111-124). The law,
signed by the President on December 28, 2009, extends unilateral preferential access to the U.S.
market for certain products.138 If the CFTA is not approved this year, Congress could take action
to extend the ATPDEA benefits.139
Critics of the free trade agreement are concerned about the status of labor rights in Colombia and
the ongoing para-political scandal. Critics argue that violence against labor activists in Colombia
is excessive and inadequately addressed by the Uribe government. Labor activist killings declined
under President Uribe, but increased in 2006. Data on the number of labor leaders murdered in
any given year vary by source. In 2006, the Colombian government estimated that 60 labor
activists were killed, while the National Labor School (ENS, a Colombian NGO) estimated that
72 labor activists were killed. In 2007, both groups reported a drop, with the Colombian
government reporting 26 labor activists killed and ENS estimating 39 labor activists killed.140 In
2008, the Colombian government reported 38 murders and ENS reported 49 murders. In 2009,
the government reported a decline to 28 murders and ENS reported a decline to 39 murders of
labor activists.141 For more information about the reasons for the discrepancy between
government and nongovernmental organizations’ tallies, see CRS Report RL34759, Proposed
Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Labor Issues, by Mary Jane Bolle.
Another area of concern is whether labor activists were killed because of their union activity.
Very few investigations have been completed. More than 2,000 incidents of violence involving
killings and threats between 1991 and 2006 have been alleged. At least 470 union murders are
alleged to have occurred since President Uribe first took office in 2002. According to the State
Department’s human rights report covering 2009, the Colombian Prosecutor General’s office has
obtained 234 convictions (209 for murders) of 334 perpetrators of violent crimes against trade
unionists since 2000. In January 2007, the Prosecutor General’s office set up a Special Labor
Sub-Unit of 13 prosecutors and 78 investigators to investigate 187 priority cases. Of the priority
cases, 18 cases have resulted in convictions of 69 individuals.142 Assigned a total of 1,344 cases,
the Special Labor Sub-Unit has obtained 184 convictions including 69 in 2009. However, a vast
majority of the 1,344 cases are either under investigation or in preliminary phases of the
prosecutorial process. Labor groups argue much more needs to be done to end impunity for
crimes targeting trade unionists.143
On April 8, 2008, President Bush submitted implementing legislation to Congress for the CFTA.
The 2002 Trade Promotion Authority procedures stipulated that Congress must vote on that
implementing legislation within 90 legislative days of its introduction. But on April 10, 2008, the

137 See CRS Report RS22548, ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues, by M. Angeles Villarreal
138 Ibid.
139 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Colombia, March 2010.
140 U.S. Department of State, “Charting Colombia’s Progress,” November 5, 2008. Another possible reason for the
decline in murders is the overall decline in labor union membership in Colombia. Unions have dwindled from 13% of
the formal labor force in 1965 to 4% currently. For further discussion of labor violence and trends, see CRS Report
RL34759, Proposed Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Labor Issues, by Mary Jane Bolle.
141 U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full
report at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.
142 Communications from the U.S. Department of State to CRS.
143 U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Colombia, March 11, 2010. Full
report at: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

House voted 224-195 in favor of changing those procedures, effectively putting congressional
consideration of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement on hold. It is unclear whether and how
the 111th Congress will consider implementing legislation for the pending CFTA in the future. It
could be considered pursuant to the usual rules or the House could restore TPA-like "fast track"
procedures.144
The likelihood of reintroduction and passage of the CFTA under the Obama Administration is
also unclear. During his campaign, President Obama favored delaying consideration of the trade
agreement in order to pressure the Colombian government to further reduce labor violence.145
President Obama met with President Uribe at the White House in June 2009, and after that
meeting he stated to reporters that he had asked U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to work
closely with the Colombian government to see how the two countries could proceed on the
pending FTA. President Obama praised President Uribe for progress in addressing trade union
violence. In November 2009, the U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke announced that the
President’s legislative agenda was so full with health care, financial regulation, and alternative
energy that pending trade agreements including the CFTA would have to wait.146 However, in his
January 2010 inaugural address, President Obama spoke about strengthening trade relations with
Colombia, Panama, and South Korea (all with pending trade agreements with the United States)
as part of his plan to double exports in the next five years. On April 22, 2010, House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer said the pending CFTA is unlikely to be taken up in the House this year.147

144 For more information on procedures, see CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade
Agreement: Economic and Political Implications, by M. Angeles Villarreal. The author notes: “The CFTA
implementing legislation…could still be re-introduced in the 111th Congress under the general rules of both houses, and
could be considered in the House under a TPA-like procedure pursuant to a special rule reported by the Committee on
Rules and approved by the House.”
145 Obama for America, "A New Partnership for the Americas," press release. May 2008, available at:
http://obama.3cdn.net/f579b3802a3d35c8d5_9aymvyqpo.pdf.
146 Alex Kennedy, "US Commerce Secretary: Trade Pacts Must Wait," Associated Press, November 13, 2009.
147 Billy House, “Hoyer: Colombia, Panama Deals Unlikely,” Congress Daily/P.M., April 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

Appendix A. Key Developments in 2009
On December 23, 2009, Caquetá department Governor Luis Francisco Cuellar, who had been
kidnapped by the FARC on December 22, was found murdered. On January 4, 2010, the FARC
claimed responsibility for the murder, the highest level assassination since the 2006 reelection of
President Uribe.
On October 30, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield and Colombian Foreign
Minister Jaime Bermúdez signed the U.S.-Colombia military base agreement in Bogotá that
provides the United States access to seven Colombian military bases for 10 years (see “U.S.-
Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement”).
On September 22, 2009, the Colombian Supreme Court rejected all three candidates put forward
by President Uribe to fill the position of Prosecutor General. The Prosecutor General is a
constitutionally independent position that investigates common crimes as well as suspected
crimes by former paramilitaries and drug traffickers and accusations against the military. The
outgoing Prosecutor General, Mario Iguarán, was considered independent and effective.
On September 17, 2009, President Uribe announced that he favored dismantling the scandal-
plagued Department of Administrative Security (DAS) and would create a new agency with fewer
responsibilities. The 50 year-old DAS, the Colombian Presidency’s internal intelligence agency,
has faced numerous controversies forcing the departure of previous DAS Directors for links to
paramilitary leaders. The DAS drew new scrutiny in 2009 over charges that it conducted illegal
wiretapping of President Uribe’s political opponents including human rights advocates,
journalists and Supreme Court justices.
On September 1, 2009, the lower house of the Colombian Congress approved the reelection
referendum bill that would permit President Uribe to run for an unprecedented third term. Passed
by a single vote over the simple majority needed, the referendum bill which had been approved
by the Senate in August went to the Constitutional Court for its review. The approval by Congress
moved the controversial reelection project forward.
On August 27, 2009, the 12-member Union of South American States (UNASUR) met in
Bariloche, Argentina to discuss common security issues including the pending U.S.-Colombia
base agreement, dubbed the Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA), by the U.S. Department of
State. Controversy over the proposed agreement persisted but condemnation of Colombia by
UNASUR members was more muted than previously. President Uribe sidestepped demands by
Brazil and others to produce a copy of the pending agreement and to provide guarantees that the
DCA would not allow U.S. military personnel to operate beyond Colombia’s borders.
On August 4, 2009, President Álvaro Uribe started a seven-country regional tour to explain to his
counterparts provisions of a pending U.S.-Colombia military base agreement.
On July 27, 2009, Venezuela withdrew its Ambassador from Colombia following allegations that
Swedish-made anti-tank weapons sold to the Venezuelan government had shown up at a FARC
camp in 2008, suggesting that the Venezuelan government had some role in arming the guerillas.
President Hugo Chávez threatened to take additional measures that would damage bilateral trade
with Colombia, an important trade relationship for both countries.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

Colombia: Issues for Congress

On July 16, 2009, the Uribe government announced that it was holding negotiations with the
United States to provide access to seven of its military bases to house U.S. military
counternarcotics units. Regional opposition to the announcement of the U.S.-Colombian
agreement was led by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, although Brazil, Chile, Argentina,
Ecuador, and Bolivia also expressed concerns. Both the U.S. government and the Uribe
administration noted that the United States would not be acquiring its own bases but would obtain
increased access to Colombian facilities.

Author Contact Information

June S. Beittel

Analyst in Latin American Affairs
jbeittel@crs.loc.gov, 7-7613

Acknowledgments
Parts of this report were contributed by Clare Ribando Seelke, Specialist in Latin American Affairs. This
report was originally authored by Colleen W. Cook, who resigned from CRS in October 2008.

Congressional Research Service
38

---