Colombia: Issues for Congress
June S. Beittel
Analyst in Latin American Affairs
March 18, 2011
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
President Juan Manuel Santos took office in August 2010 in Colombia after winning 69% of the
vote in a runoff election held in June 2010. Santos defeated Colombian Green Party candidate
Antanas Mockus. In his first months in office, President Santos has taken the country in a new
direction, building on the accomplishments of his predecessor, Álvaro Uribe, who served for two
terms, pursuing social, economic and political reforms in a program he calls “democratic
prosperity.” Santos has strengthened relations with neighboring countries, including Venezuela
and Ecuador, which had been strained under Uribe. Early indications are that he wants to broaden
the scope of U.S.-Colombian relations to include issues such as energy and technology. Former
President Uribe pursued an aggressive plan to address Colombia’s decades long conflict with the
country’s leftist guerrillas and rightist paramilitary groups and to reduce the production of illicit
drugs. Uribe is credited with restoring public security and creating a stable environment for
investment.
In recent years, Colombia, in close cooperation with the United States through a strategy known
as Plan Colombia, has made significant progress in reestablishing government control over much
of its territory, combating drug trafficking and terrorist activities, and reducing poverty. The
improving security conditions and the weakening of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) guerrillas are evidence that the strategy is working, according to supporters.
Critics, however, argue that while pursuing these security gains, 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.
This report provides an overview of recent political developments in Colombia. It reviews the
administration of President Uribe (2002-2010), continuing into the election of President Juan
Manuel Santos and his first months in office. The report then provides background on the long-
standing conflict with internal armed groups that has marked Colombia’s modern development,
examining the roots of the conflict and its major actors as well as their present status. The report
considers ongoing challenges such as human rights, demobilization and displacement, drug
trends, and Colombia’s regional relations. It outlines the National Consolidation Plan which
updates Plan Colombia with a whole-of-government approach to eliminate the insurgency, and it
describes the U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement. The report raises some of the
major policy issues that the U.S. Congress has had, and will continue to pursue, in relation to
U.S.-Colombia policy, such as the pending U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
Congressional Research Service
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
Background ................................................................................................................................ 3
The Uribe Years (2002 – 2010).............................................................................................. 4
2010 Congressional and Presidential Elections ...................................................................... 7
The Santos Election and New Administration........................................................................ 8
Colombia’s Internal Conflict ....................................................................................................... 9
Roots of the Conflict ....................................................................................................... 9
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) ......................................................... 9
National Liberation Army (ELN)................................................................................... 13
Paramilitaries ................................................................................................................ 14
Remaining Political Challenges........................................................................................... 15
Para-political Scandal.................................................................................................... 15
The Justice and Peace Law and Demobilization............................................................. 16
Human Rights Violations by Colombian Security Forces............................................... 18
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) .............................................................................. 19
Landmines .......................................................................................................................... 20
Colombia and Global Drug Trends ...................................................................................... 20
Colombia and Regional Security ......................................................................................... 22
Relations with Venezuela and Ecuador .......................................................................... 23
U.S. Policy Focus...................................................................................................................... 24
Plan Colombia and the Andean Counterdrug Program (ACP) .............................................. 24
Aerial Eradication, Coca Cultivation, and Alternative Development ............................. 26
National Consolidation Plan................................................................................................ 29
Funding for Plan Colombia ................................................................................................. 30
U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation Agreement ................................................................. 32
Additional Congressional Concerns........................................................................................... 35
Paramilitary Demobilization................................................................................................ 35
Human Rights ..................................................................................................................... 36
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement ................................................................................. 37
Figures
Figure 1. Map of Colombia ......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Military Bases Addressed by the Defense Cooperation Agreement.............................. 34
Tables
Table 1. UNODC Estimate of Coca Cultivation in Colombia ..................................................... 26
Table 2. U.S. ONDCP Estimate of Coca Cultivation in Colombia .............................................. 26
Table 3. U.S. Assistance for Plan Colombia, FY2000-FY2012................................................... 32
Congressional Research Service
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Appendixes
Appendix. Key Developments in 2010 ...................................................................................... 40
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 40
Congressional Research Service
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Recent Developments
On February 21, 2011, Mario Uribe Escobar, second cousin to former President Uribe and a close
political ally, was found guilty and sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for having links
to the country’s paramilitaries. Uribe, who served as President of the Colombian Senate, is the
highest ranking elected official sentenced by the Colombian Supreme Court in their ongoing
investigation of the para-politics scandal that alleges ties between illegal paramilitaries and
Colombian politicians. (For more, see “Para-political Scandal.”)
On January 6, 2011, President Juan Manuel Santos extended a state of emergency originally
declared in early December 2010 to cope with severe flooding that killed more than 300
Colombians and displaced more than 2.2 million. He described the natural disaster as Colombia’s
worst in recent history.
On December 13, 2010, the Colombian Congress’s lower chamber approved a victims’ reparation
and land restitution bill (the “Victims Law”). The bill proposes to compensate victims of the
internal conflict, including victims of the government’s security forces, and reform the
redistribution of lands to those who were forcibly displaced.
On November 26, 2010, Colombia restored full diplomatic relations with Ecuador after they had
been severed in March 2008 following Colombia’s bombing of a FARC camp inside Ecuador’s
territory. (For more see “Relations with Venezuela and Ecuador.”)
On October 25-26, 2010, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg initiated a High-Level
Partnership Dialogue and announced the establishment of three working groups on human rights
and good governance, energy, and science and technology.
On September 23, 2010, the Colombian government announced that an air raid and cross-service
military operation had killed top FARC commander Victor Julio Suárez Rojas, alias Jorge Briceño
Suárez or “Mono Jojoy” in his encampment in the department of Meta. This was a major setback
for the FARC as Suárez was the operational leader of the organization’s powerful Eastern bloc.
(For more see “Current Status of the FARC.”)
On August 17, 2010, Colombia’s Constitutional Court ruled the U.S.-Colombia Defense
Cooperation Agreement (DCA) was unconstitutional because it had not obtained required
congressional ratification. (For more background, see “U.S.-Colombia Defense Cooperation
Agreement.”)
On August 7, 2010, Juan Manuel Santos was inaugurated president of Colombia.
On July 22, 2010, the outgoing Uribe government presented evidence at a special meeting of the
Organization of American States (OAS) that the government of Venezuela was harboring
members of two guerrilla groups, the FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN), in several
camps located inside its territory.
For earlier developments in 2010, see the Appendix at the end of this report.
Congressional Research Service
1
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Introduction
U.S. policy toward Colombia takes place in the context of three decades of concern over the large
volume of illegal drugs from Colombia available in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
In June 2000, the United States approved increased assistance to Colombia as part of what had
been initially a six-year plan called Plan Colombia, and it has provided over $7 billion in
assistance from FY2000 to FY2010. In addition to the larger debate over the 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 other 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.1
Concerns in the 112th Congress regarding Colombia and U.S. policy are likely to continue those
of prior sessions: funding levels for Plan Colombia and its follow on strategies, trade, and human
rights. In FY2010, Congress reduced foreign operations funding for Plan Colombia by about 3%.
Congress sought 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 8% 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. The Administration’s
FY2012 request for foreign operations lowers the amount requested for Colombia to roughly
$400 million.
Supporters 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 that has provoked 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 are 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 support for a negotiated end to the
fighting, and reduces illicit drug demand in the United States.
Some Members of Congress, acknowledging the progress in security conditions in Colombia,
have expressed concerns about labor activist killings and labor rights; extrajudicial killings of
Colombian civilians by the Colombian military; and the para-political scandal (linking
1 Prior to the July 2008 rescue of three U.S. defense contractors who were held hostage by the FARC, securing the
release of those hostages had been a key issue of congressional concern.
Congressional Research Service
2
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Colombian politicians with paramilitaries). These concerns have delayed action on the pending
U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA). In both his 2010 and 2011 State of the Union
addresses, President Barack Obama has mentioned the importance of opening foreign markets to
U.S. exports, and the importance of strengthening U.S. trade relations with Colombia. It is
possible the 112th Congress will consider implementing legislation for the CFTA signed by both
countries in 2006. The pending trade agreement is discussed at the end of the report.2
Background
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.3 Colombia has
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 2009, approximately 46% of Colombians lived in
poverty, down from 54% in 2002.4 Colombia’s ability to reduce poverty in recent years is partly
due to increases in the country’s economic growth rates, which reached 7.5% in 2007.5 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.6
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 ransom, 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 were accused of
gross human rights abuses and collusion with the Colombian Armed Forces in their fight against
the FARC and ELN. New illegally armed groups, including criminal bands some of which
include re-armed paramilitaries, are now a problem in Colombian cities and towns.
2 For more information, see CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, by M.
Angeles Villarreal and CRS Report RL34759, Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Labor Issues, by Mary
Jane Bolle.
3 U.S. Department of State, “Background Note: Colombia,” October 4, 2010. 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.
4 The statistics, rounded to the nearest whole number, are from the Colombia National Planning Department, the
National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE), and Misión para el Empalme de las Series de Empleo,
Probreza y Desigualdad (MESEP) as reported in the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the
Caribbean’s (ECLAC) Social Panorama of Latin America 2010 Briefing Paper, November 2010. ECLAC reported that
54% of Colombians lived in poverty in 2002, with 20% living in indigence. By 2009, those poverty and indigence rates
fell to 46% and 17%, respectively.
5 “Country Report - Colombia,” Economist Intelligence Unit, August 2008.
6 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.
Congressional Research Service
3
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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
represented in the Colombian Congress include the Liberal, Conservative, Alternative Democratic
Pole, National Unity, and Radical Change parties, and several smaller political movements.
The Uribe Years (2002 – 2010)
During his first term (2002-2006), President Uribe began to fulfill his campaign promises to
address the paramilitary problem, defeat leftist guerrilla insurgents, and combat narcotics
trafficking. He 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 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.
On August 7, 2006, Álvaro Uribe was sworn in for his second term as president. Pro-Uribe parties
had won a majority in both houses of congress in the elections of March 2006, giving President
Uribe a strong mandate. His government improved the security situation in Colombia,
demobilized the AUC, and made headway in defeating the FARC and ELN. According to U.S.
State Department figures, kidnappings in Colombia declined by 83%, homicides by 40%, and
terrorist attacks by 76% between 2002 through 2008. Police are now present in all of Colombia’s
1,099 municipalities, including areas from which they had been ousted by guerrilla groups.7
President Uribe oversaw 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 provide reparations to victims of paramilitary
violence.8 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, 2008, rescue
of 15 hostages long held by the FARC, including three U.S. defense contractors and a former
Colombian presidential candidate.9
7 U.S. Department of State, “Charting Colombia’s Progress,” March 2008.
8 Latin American Working Group, “The Other Half of the Truth,” June 2008.
9 The dramatic hostage rescue took place during the period when Juan Manuel Santos was defense minister in the Uribe
government. Shortly after his inauguration, President Santos approved a raid on September 23, 2010 that resulted in
another government victory over the FARC, the killing of commander Jorge Briceño (or “Mono Jojoy”).
Congressional Research Service
4
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Figure 1. Map of Colombia
Source: CRS.
Congressional Research Service
5
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Despite this progress under the Uribe government, Colombia faces serious challenges. While the
FARC’s numbers are dramatically reduced, it still has thousands of fighters capable of carrying
out terrorist attacks, kidnappings, and other illicit activities.10 Not all paramilitaries demobilized,
and others have returned to paramilitary and criminal activities since demobilizing. One weakness
of the demobilization program has been the difficulty reintegrating demobilized forces into law-
abiding civilian life.11 Moreover, a new generation of paramilitaries is forming that is more
criminal than political in nature.12 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.13
Although former 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. Since the 2006 elections, there have been several scandals
involving extrajudicial killings by Colombian security forces.14 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 had been dressed by their killers in order to appear to be
guerilla fighters to increase military body counts (the “false positives” scandal).15 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 many 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 more than 3 million displaced since
1997. While the number of newly displaced in 2009 differs considerably between government
estimates and those of NGOs, both assessments have recorded a downward trend in 2009 over the
prior year.
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 would have had to be
amended again (as it was in 2005) to allow him to seek a third term. 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 both the required referendum and the election, the president was
10 The FARC is believed responsible for more than half of the cocaine entering the United States, according to the
November 2008 “Background Note on Colombia,” by the U.S. Department of State.
11 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.
12 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.
13 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.
14 “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.
15 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.
Congressional Research Service
6
Colombia: Issues for Congress
criticized both domestically and internationally for ambitions for 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. President Uribe immediately stated that he “accepted and respected” the court’s
decision, removing himself as a candidate in the 2010 race.17
2010 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. 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.18 The pro-Uribe coalition secured a majority in both the Senate and the
Chamber of Representatives.
Observers thought this election outcome was a
Juan Manuel Santos
good sign for presidential candidate Juan
Santos served as defense minister under President Uribe
Manuel Santos (see box), who headed the
(2006-2009) and in two previous governments as finance
National Unity party and had been leading in
minister and minister of trade. As Uribe’s defense
minister he oversaw some of the strongest blows against
the polls. 19 However, the field of candidates
the FARC guerrillas including the 2008 bombing raid
for president was complex. A successful
inside Ecuador that killed a senior FARC commander,
candidate had to win at least 50% of the votes
and the July 2008 rescue of 15 prized hostages, including
cast, or compete and win in a runoff held on
a Colombian presidential candidate and three American
June 20. Antanas Mockus, Green Party
defense contractors.
candidate and twice former mayor of Bogotá,
Born in 1951, Santos comes from a well-known political
rose dramatically in popularity between March
family in Colombia, owners of the leading newspaper El
and May 2010. Other presidential hopefuls
Tiempo where he worked briefly as a journalist. His great
Uncle, Eduardo Santos, from the Liberal Party, served as
included Naomi Sanín of the Conservative
President (1938-1942). Santos is trained as an economist
Party, Gustavo Petro of the leftwing
and studied at the University of Kansas and Harvard
Democratic Pole; Germán Vargas Lleras, a
University, and the London School of Economics.
right wing Senator who split with Uribe over
his bid for a third term; and Rafael Pardo of the Liberal Party.20
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 “Uribe acepta el fallo y asegura que seguiará trabajando por su país ‘desde qualquier trinchera,’” ABC, February 27,
2010.
18 In addition, a new party—National Integration Party, PIN—formed in November 2009 by relatives and ideological
supporters of politicians under investigation for links to the paramilitaries did well in the legislative elections, winning
eight seats in the Senate and 12 seats in the lower chamber. See Juan Forero, “Colombia voters elect political novices
with possible links to death squads,” Washington Post, March 17, 2010.
19 While Santos served as Uribe’s defense minister during some of the government’s biggest victories, he also had poor
relations with Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez and led the Colombian military when the so-called “false positives”
scandal broke. See, Adam Isacson, “The Next Colombia,” Open democracy.net at http://www.opendemocracy.net/
adam-isacson/next-colombia, March 31, 2010.
20 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
7
Colombia: Issues for Congress
In the May 30, 2010, election, Santos received more than twice as many votes as did Mockus in
an election in which slightly over 49% of eligible Colombians voted. The results were: Juan
Manuel Santos (46.6%); Antanas Mockus (21.5%); Germán Vargas Lleras (10.1%); Gustavo
Petro (9.2%); Noemí Sanín (6.1%) and Rafael Pardo (4.4%).21 Although Santos came close to
winning the majority of votes that were needed to be a first round winner, he had to compete in
the June 20 runoff against second-highest vote-getter Antanas Mockus. In the ensuing weeks,
Santos won the backing of nearly every candidate who responded to his call to create a
government of national unity giving him a strongly favorable position. Mockus faired poorly in
the debates and refused to accept a formal alliance with the leftwing Democratic Pole party.
The Santos Election and New Administration
On June 20, 2010, Santos won the Colombian presidency by the largest margin in recent history.
Santos won 69% of the vote and Mockus received 28%. Santos’s landslide victory earned him the
backing of a unity coalition made up of approximately 80% of the newly-elected Congress, a
stronger mandate than even Uribe had following his two elections.22 When President Santos was
inaugurated on August 7, 2010, he pledged to continue the successful security strategies of his
predecessor while pursuing democratic, economic, and social reforms. He stated that the door to
negotiations to end the armed conflict was not shut. Over the course of his first months in office,
President Santos has led a unity government and retained high popularity ratings, reaching 90%
in December 2010 according to some polls.23
In his first half year in office, President Santos and his Vice President Angelino Garzón have
promoted a more rigorous protection of human rights and—breaking with the Uribe
administration—denounced threats against human rights defenders. President Santos has reached
out to the judiciary in Colombia, ameliorating tensions that had grown between former President
Uribe and the Supreme Court. The Santos administration has proposed legislation to address the
plight of Colombia’s large internally displaced population. The Victim’s Bill would compensate
victims of the internal conflict (including victims of state forces) and restore land to those who
were forcibly displaced.24 The legislation passed the Chamber of Representatives in December
2010 but has yet to pass the Senate. Many observers are eager to see if these new policy
approaches of the Santos administration will result in actual changes on the ground. In addition,
the new administration faced a natural disaster in Colombia. Following heavy rains and flooding
at the end of 2010, the Santos administration took emergency fiscal measures to promote
reconstruction after thousands of homes and important infrastructure were destroyed and
farmland was inundated.25 In the 112th Congress, H.Res. 77 (Mack) introduced on February 8,
2011, would express solidarity with the victims of the flooding in Colombia.
21 Other candidates won less than 1% of the vote. See Juantia León, “La Ola Era Naranja. Santros Dobló a Mockus,” La
Silla Vacía website, May 30, 2010, at http://www.lasillavacia.com/historia/14953.
22 Camila Osorio, “Esta Es la Cara de la Legislatura que Se Posesiona Hoy,” La Silla Vacía website, July 19, 2010, at
http://www.lasillavacia.com/historia/16740; “New Congress Grants Santos Huge Majority,” Latin American Weekly
Report, July 22, 2010.
23 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Colombia, January 2011.
24 Embassy of Colombia, “Reparation for Victims of Violence in Colombia: Sweeping New Reform to Return Land to
Displaced Families,” November 2010. For a critique of the proposed legislation, see Lutheran World Relief, Instituto
de Estudios y la Paz, and U.S. Office on Colombia, Closer to Home: A Critical Analysis of Colombia's Proposed Land
Law, February 2011at http://www.usofficeoncolombia.org/docs/closer-to-home-2011-02.pdf.
25 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Colombia, February 2011; Chris Kraul, “Rains Continue to Lash
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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. Conflict 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
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.26 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.
(...continued)
Colombia,” Los Angeles Times, December 16, 2010.
26 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.
Congressional Research Service
9
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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, tried 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.27 Plan
Patriota reduced FARC ranks, recaptured land held by the FARC, and confiscated large amounts
of material 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.28 This was the first time in the Colombian
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, followed
by a FARC announcement in May 2008 that its top commander, Manuel Marulanda, died in
March of a heart attack, dealt a significant blow to the FARC.
During the raid in Ecuador, information recovered from 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 rejected these claims.
Venezuelan officials 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.29
Tensions persisted between Colombia and Ecuador until relations began to improve in the fall of
2009, and culminated in an exchange of Ambassadors in November 2010. Colombian-Venezuelan
relations, which were often strained between Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and former
President Uribe, have grown much closer under the Santos government. (For more, see
“Colombia and Regional Security.”)
27 “Colombia: Executive Summary,” Jane’s Sentinel Security Assessment, August 24, 2006.
28 Simon Romero, “Files Released by Colombia Point to Venezuelan Bid to Arm Rebels,” New York Times, March 30,
2008.
29 “Analysis: Chávez Reverses FARC Stance, Domestic Moves Ahead of Elections,” Open Source Center, June 19,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
10
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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 been held since 2002 were reportedly executed by the
FARC.30 In August 2007, President Uribe authorized leftist Senator Piedad Córdoba and
Venezuelan President Chávez to begin a 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 found 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
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 reunite one of the
hostages with her son born in captivity who the FARC had turned over to the Colombian foster
care system. 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.
On July 2, 2008, after months of planning and tracking the FARC, the Colombian military
successfully tricked the FARC into releasing 15 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. This successful bloodless rescue was widely cited as an example of the
Colombian military’s increasing professionalism and intelligence capabilities, which was largely
a result of years of U.S. training and security assistance programs provided through Plan
Colombia.31 Some press reports indicate that the United States provided millions of dollars to
help Colombia find and rescue the hostages, including providing tactical support and training by
the U.S. military, and technical assistance supplied by a unit of planners, intelligence analysts,
and hostage negotiators based in Bogotá.32
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 conclusion was premature. The FARC lost three of its
top commanders in 2008 and suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of the Colombian military.
Their communications systems were infiltrated, their leadership was in disarray, and many
30 U.S. Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2007, March 11, 2008.
31 “Colombian Officials Recount Rescue Plan; Commandos Took Acting Classes to Prepare,” Washington Post, July 6,
2008.
32 “U.S. aid was a key to the Hostage Rescue,” New York Times, July 13, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
11
Colombia: Issues for Congress
guerrilla units were reported running short of supplies.33 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.34 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.35 FARC demobilizations, however, decreased in 2009 by about 30% to 2,128.36
Although the FARC, now led by Alfonso Cano, has indicated some willingness to negotiate with
the Santos government, their position continues to weaken.
On the other hand, despite many reverses the FARC remains a serious security threat. While the
FARC’s leadership is no longer in complete control, the group remains committed to its goal of
overthrowing the state. While this is highly unlikely given the FARC’s current status, over its 47-
year history the FARC has demonstrated a capacity to revive and recover from setbacks.
According to one recent report, the FARC, adapting to pressure from the Colombian military,
appears to have once again resorted to guerilla warfare, deepened its involvement in the drug
trade in Colombia and other countries, widely deployed antipersonnel mines, and conducted
coerced recruitment in impoverished communities, particularly of minors.37 The average age of a
FARC recruit is reportedly just under 12 years old.38
FARC had hoped that the government would exchange captured FARC guerillas for hostages it
held, but the Uribe government never complied.39 Beginning in 2008, the FARC unilaterally
released some hostages in an attempt to win some popular support. In March 2009, the FARC
released their last foreign hostage, 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.40 In 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. Following the
unilateral release of Moncayo on March 30, 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.41 Unilateral releases, however, continued as the Santos government settled in. In
February 2011, the FARC released six more hostages in operations coordinated by former Senator
Piedad Córdoba with international assistance.42 The remaining FARC “exchangeable” hostages
33 Patrick McDonnell and Chris Kraul, “Colombian Rebels Splintering,” Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2008; “After the
War in Colombia,” El Pais, July 10, 2008.
34 International Crisis Group, Ending Colombia’s FARC Conflict: Dealing the Right Card, Latin America Report No.
30, March 26, 2009.
35 “Closing the net on the FARC, Striking at the ELN,” Latin American Security and Strategy Review, July 2008.
36 U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control and Strategy Report (INCSR) 2010, March 1, 2010.
37 International Crisis Group (ICG), Improving Security Policy in Colombia, Latin America Briefing No. 23, June 29,
2010.
38 Ibid. The ICG reports the average age of a recruit today is estimated to be 11.8 years.
39 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.
40 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.
41 Hernando Salazar, “Acuerdo humanitario, esquivo en la campaña electoral de Colombia,” BBC Mundo, April 8,
2010.
42 Robert Munks, "Colombian FARC Frees Final Two Hostages in Unilateral Release," IHS Global Insight Daily
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12
Colombia: Issues for Congress
are reportedly 15 members of the Colombian security forces.43 The FARC hopes to exchange
these individuals for some 500 imprisoned FARC combatants they consider political prisoners. In
addition, the FARC continues to kidnap, and it holds a disputed number of other kidnap victims
beyond its “exchangeable” hostages.44
The Santos administration has kept up strong pressure on the FARC. In September 2010, the
Colombian military and police conducted a bombing raid on the camp of FARC military strategist
Jorge Briceño (also known as “Mono Jojoy”), killing him and several other FARC guerrillas.
Briceño was the operational second-in-command of the FARC and a member of the ruling
Secretariat.45 FARC forces have declined by approximately half since 2001 to just under 8,000
today, according to the Colombian government.46
National Liberation Army (ELN)
The smaller ELN was formed in 1965, inspired by the ideas of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.
With a membership today estimated at under 1,300,47 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 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.48 One
measure is the reduction in sabotage attacks on the Caño-Limón pipeline from 171 attacks in
2001 to only five attacks in 2009.49
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 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
(...continued)
Analysis, February 17, 2011.
43 "Colombian Rebels Free 2 Hostages After Delay," EFE News Service, February 17, 2011.
44 Many human rights organizations estimate this number to be several hundred. See 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.
45 “Colombia Politics: Turning Point?,” Economist Intelligence Unit—ViewsWire, September 24, 2010; Sibylla
Brodzinsky, “Colombia Troops Kill Top FARC Rebel Leader ‘Mono Jojoy,’” Christian Science Monitor, September
23, 2010.
46 Communication with an official at the Embassy of Colombia, January 19, 2011. In the early 2000s, the FARC had as
many as 16,000 to 20,000 fighters.
47 According to the Colombian Embassy, the number of ELN force is estimated to be 1,250. Communication with the
Embassy of Colombia, January 19, 2011.
48 International Crisis Group, “Colombia: Moving Forward with the ELN?” October 11, 2007.
49 Carola Hoyas, “Focus on security and investment reaps rewards,” Financial Times, April 5, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
13
Colombia: Issues for Congress
between Valencia and the ELN occurred, but the rebel group rejected Uribe’s offer of a cease-
fire.50 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. Former President Uribe responded by ordering the Colombian
military to step up its operations against the ELN.51
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.52
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.53 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.54
Not all paramilitaries demobilized, and still others have returned to paramilitary activities since
demobilizing. Some former AUC members continue to be active in the drug trade in spite of the
demobilization process.55 The U.S. State Department and U.N. both note that the new illegal
groups do not share the political objectives of the AUC, which sought to defeat leftist guerrillas,
and has shifted to purely criminal purposes such as drug trafficking. Despite their ad-hoc nature,
the new illegal groups—labeled “criminal gangs” or bandas criminales or BACRIM by the
Colombian government and some analysts—pose a threat to Colombian civilians. The Uribe
government took steps to combat them, but Human Rights Watch and others argued that the Uribe
50 Kate Joynes, “ELN Rebels Rebut Colombian Government’s Peace Pledge,” WMRC Daily Analysis, July 12, 2004.
51 “Closing the net on the FARC, Striking at the ELN,” Latin American Security and Strategy Review, July 2008.
52 U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2005, and, “Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia,” Jane’s
World Insurgency and Terrorism, August 10, 2006.
53 “Only 2% of 30,150 Demobilized Paramilitaries to Stand Trial,” Associated Press, April 18, 2006.
54 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.
55 International Crisis Group, Colombia’s New Armed Groups, May 10, 2007; WOLA, Captive States: Organized
Crime and Human Rights in Latin America, October 2007.
Congressional Research Service
14
Colombia: Issues for Congress
government’s efforts were insufficient.56 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.57 In 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 2009.58
The homicide rate in Medellín, Colombia’s second-largest city, continued to rise in 2010 and
reportedly matched the murder levels of 2003. According to the Annual Report of the U.N. High
Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation in Colombia published in
February 2011, the new illegal groups commit murders, threats, extortion, acts of sexual violence
and cause individual and collective forced displacement. The report notes with concern the sharp
rise in massacres linked to violent disputes among and within these groups.59
Remaining Political Challenges
Para-political Scandal
A scandal alleging paramilitary ties to politicians, especially 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 department of Sucre on the Caribbean coast. Since the scandal broke, numerous Colombian
politicians 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 former President
Álvaro Uribe, was arrested for colluding with the paramilitaries. On February 21, 2011, Mario
Uribe was convicted of aggravated conspiracy to commit a crime and sentenced to seven and a
half years in prison.60 Suggesting the widespread fallout from the para-political scandal, the State
Department has reported that of Colombia’s 2006-2010 Congress, 128 former representatives (out
56 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.
57 Adam Isacson, “Friday Links, Increasing Violence Edition,” Blog of the Center for International Policy (CIP)
Colombia Program, October 23, 2009.
58 “Security Update – Colombia,” LatinNews Daily, April 14, 2010. Data cited is from Medellín’s municipal
ombudsman’s office, Personería de Medellín.
59 Human Rights Council, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of
Human Rights in Colombia, February 3, 2011.
60 “Uribe Sentenced for Parapolitics,” LatinNews Daily, February 22, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
15
Colombia: Issues for Congress
of the 268 total) were accused of having paramilitary ties.61 Of those representatives newly
elected to the 2010-2014 Congress, 13 who were re-elected are under investigation by the
Supreme Court.62
The para-political scandal increased tensions between former 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. Government critics questioned President Uribe’s
motivation in May 2008 to extradite key paramilitary figures to the United States as intended, in
part, 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.63 The judicial reform bill was withdrawn by the
government after it received strong criticism from the courts and from members of Colombia’s
Congress.64 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 warned that the former Uribe administration had harassed the Supreme Court as it
attempted to carry out prosecutions of politicians, security forces and others with alleged
paramilitary ties.65
The new Santos administration has moved quickly to repair relations between the Executive and
the judiciary. The improved relations may have been evident in the election of a new Prosecutor
General in December 2010, after an impasse of 16 months when the Supreme Court would not
give its approval to anyone proposed by former President Uribe.
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. The law would also apply to
FARC and ELN fighters if they entered 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 amounted to impunity. The Uribe Administration argued that without the inducement
61 See U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/
100915col_certmemo.pdf.
62 Human Rights Council, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of
Human Rights in Colombia, February 3, 2011.
63 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.
64 Sibylla Brodzinsky, “Rights group rips government; Colombia hinders paramilitary prosecutions, a human rights
group said,” The Miami Herald, September 17, 2008.
65 Human Rights Watch, Breaking the Grip?: Obstacles to Justice for Paramilitary Mafias in Colombia, October 2008.
Congressional Research Service
16
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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.66
The merits of the Justice and Peace Law (JPL) have been fiercely debated both in Colombia and
the United States. Supporters believe it has been an effective means to end paramilitary activities.
The Bush Administration expressed support for the law noting that it facilitated the
demobilization of more than 31,000 paramilitary members. Other supporters of the law observe
that paramilitaries must act in good faith and stop further participation in illegal activities in order
to benefit from the peace process. The Uribe Administration removed some demobilized
paramilitaries, including Carlos Mario “Macaco” Jiménez, from the Justice and Peace process due
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.
Nevertheless, 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. In a 2008
report, the International Crisis Group describes its implementation as “lagging.” The report cited
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.67 With more than 280,000 victims registered under the JPL through
December 2009, many observers have expressed reservations about the Colombian government’s
efforts to provide reparations to victims effectively. Human rights organizations are concerned
that the paramilitaries have not been held accountable for their crimes and, that by under-
reporting illegally obtained assets, have failed to provide adequate reparation to their victims.68
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, only 4,162
had been found potentially eligible to receive benefits under the Justice and Peace Law’s
framework.69 In response to concerns that the Justice and Peace Unit investigating and
prosecuting the paramilitaries was severely understaffed, the Uribe government in spring 2008
66 “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.
67 International Crisis Group, Correcting Course: Victims and the Justice and Peace Law in Colombia, Latin America
Report 29, October 30, 2008.
68 See for example, Latin America Working Group Education Fund, The Other Half of the Truth, June 2008.
69 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/
100915col_certmemo.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17
Colombia: Issues for Congress
authorized a tripling of its staff.70 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.71 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 were not
nearly as heinous as the atrocities they had allegedly committed in Colombia.72 In response to
concerns raised by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that extradited former paramilitaries
would stop cooperating in the JPL process and victims would be unable to participate, the U.S.
and Colombian governments have collaborated to facilitate the continued participation of
extradited individuals through technological hook ups. According to the State Department,
several extradited former paramilitaries have continued to participate by providing their
confessions through teleconferencing.73 Still, in his March 2010 report, then-U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, observed “the
Justice and Peace Law...has not achieved the transitional justice intended for paramilitary
crimes.”74
Human Rights Violations by Colombian Security Forces
For several years, human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the extrajudicial
execution of civilians by the Colombian military. 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, 2008.75 Named the “false positives” scandal by the Colombian press, 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.76 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 from protective detention by a judge who ruled that the pre-trial procedures had taken
too long.77 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
70 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” July 28, 2008.
71 “International Criminal Court not to Allow Colombian Paramilitary Members Impunity,” Noticias Financieras,
August 31, 2008.
72 “Militias March Again,” The Economist, October 31, 2009.
73 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/
100915col_certmemo.pdf.
74 United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, Philip Alston, on his Mission to Colombia (8-18 June 2009), March 31, 2010.
75 Simon Romero, “Colombian Army Commander Resigns in Scandal Over Killing of Civilians,” New York Times,
November 5, 2008.
76 “Siete de los implicados en ‘falsos positivos’ podrían quedar libres en ocho días,” El Tiempo, October 14, 2009.
“‘False positives’ arrests in Colombia,” LatinNews Daily, October 21, 2009.
77 “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.
Congressional Research Service
18
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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 (“false positives”). In
June 2009, on a 10-day mission to Colombia, then-U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial
Executions Philip Alston 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.”78
Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Colombia has one of the largest populations of internally displaced persons in the world—more
than 3 million IDPs—with indigenous and Afro-Colombians disproportionately represented
among those displaced. There is some disagreement 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
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.79 In 2008, both the
Colombian government and CODHES reported more than 300,000 new IDPS, with CODHES
estimating there were 380,000 newly displaced. 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, from 307,223 to 142,299, a 54%
decrease compared to their prior year estimate. CODHES and the government also 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 1985.80 However,
there is consensus that the rate of mass displacements decreased in 2009.81
78 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.
79 U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), “Thousands Displaced in Southern Colombia,” August 22, 2008.
80 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.
81 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
19
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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.82 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.83 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.84 Landmine casualties in Colombia declined further in 2008 to
777.85
Colombia and Global Drug Trends
Colombia’s prominence in the global production of cocaine and heroin has resulted in a U.S.
focus on anti-narcotics efforts in the Andean region. According to various sources, Colombia
produces 60% of the world’s cocaine.86 It is the source of almost 90% of cocaine consumed in the
United States and 60% of the heroin87 seized in this country, according to the State Department’s
2010 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR).
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.
However, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported for 2008 an 18% decrease in
coca cultivation in Colombia from 2007 and reported a rise of 4.5% and 5.5% in Peru and Bolivia
respectively.88 UNODC’s Colombia Coca Cultivation Survey notes the 2008 coca cultivation,
reported at 81,000 hectares, approximated the levels reported in the 2004 to 2006 period. In 2007,
the U.N. reported an unusual rise of 27% in coca growing in Colombia. According to UNODC’s
2010 World Drug Report, coca cultivation in Colombia dropped further in 2009 to 68,000
hectares. (See Table 1). In the same U.N. report, estimates of Colombia’s potential production of
pure cocaine dropped dramatically from 630 metric tons in 2007 to 450 metric tons in 2008 and
decreased further to 410 metric tons in 2009.89
82 Landmine casualties increased nearly 25% in 2005.
83 International Committee to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor 2007 and Human Rights Watch, Maiming the
People, July 2007.
84 International Committee to Ban Landmines, Landmine Monitor 2008.
85 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.
86 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Coca Cultivation in the Andean Region, June 2008.
87 Even though Colombia produces only a small fraction of global heroin production, it is the leading supplier of heroin
in the eastern United States.
88 “Fall in Colombia’s Coca Crop vs. rises in Peru and Bolivia,” Security & Strategic Review, June 2009.
89 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
20
Colombia: Issues for Congress
The area under coca leaf cultivation and the volume of potential production of cocaine are
estimates that depend upon making the best assumptions from limited data. The UNODC and the
U.S. government have developed varying estimates that are the midpoints of a range of likely
cultivation and production, but U.S. and U.N. data often differ considerably. Also, the
organizations sometimes modify their estimates after more data is collected. For example,
UNODC modified its 2008 calculation upward for production of pure cocaine from 430 metric
tons to 450 metric tons. On the other hand, the U.S. government changed its estimate of
production of pure cocaine for 2008 downward from 295 metric tons to 280 metric tons. In 2009,
the U.S. government found that Colombia’s production of pure cocaine declined to 270 metric
tons, a 4% decline from 2008. The estimate is in line with a trend of a sharp decline in the amount
of pure cocaine produced in Colombia over time, and is a 61% drop in comparison with the 2001
production figure by the U.S. government.90
Most heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico and Colombia. In an October
2008 report on Plan Colombia, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that opium
poppy cultivation and heroin production had declined in Colombia by about 50% between 2000-
2006.91 In 2008, the U.N. found that opium production dropped to 394 hectares, the lowest figure
in the last 14 years of reporting.92
In recent years, the Colombian government, with significant U.S. assistance, has stepped up its
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 2007.93 But manual eradication accounts for an increasing
percentage of total eradication efforts. ONDCP has credited ongoing aerial spraying and manual
eradication programs with recent declines in the cocaine productivity of the coca currently
cultivated in Colombia.94 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 of coca eradicated.95 In 2009, the U.N. reported a drop to 104,772
hectares eradicated through aerial spraying and 60,557 hectares eradicated manually.96 In the
2011 INCSR, the State Department notes that the eradication efforts goals were set lower based
on what was accomplished in 2009. Manual eradication in 2010 declined considerably lower than
its goal of 70,000 hectares, when the government managed to manually eradicated about 45,000
hectares of coca “due to budgetary disbursement delays, security concerns, and the dispersion of
90 Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), “New Data Show Cocaine Market Under Significant Stress,”
Press Release, December 9, 2010.
91 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.
92 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009.
93 U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control and Strategy Report (INCSR) 2008.
94 U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, “Official U.S. Colombia Survey Reveals Sharp Decline in Cocaine
Production,” September 10, 2008.
95 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.
96 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
21
Colombia: Issues for Congress
coca crops to smaller fields.”97 In 2010, the government eradicted nearly 101,000 hectares,
slightly above its stated target.98
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 Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center
(NDIC) report, National Drug Threat Assessment 2010, the average street price for a pure gram
of cocaine rose from $99.24 to just over $174 in that time period, while average street sale purity
declined from 67% to 46%, 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 also measures
decreased availability. The NDIC report, published in February 2010, found a sharp decline in
cocaine availability in the United States since 2006 that may have been responsible for price
increases and purity declines. The report identifies no single factor for the decline in cocaine
availability. Rather, a combination of factors, including increased law enforcement efforts in
Mexico and the transit zones, decreased cocaine production in Colombia, high levels of drug
trafficking organization (DTO) violence, and cocaine flowing to non-U.S. markets all likely
contributed to decreased amounts being transported to the U.S.-Mexico border for smuggling to
the United States.
Some observers express caution in interpreting recent trends in price, purity, and availability.
They maintain that short-term fluctuations are not uncommon and may not be sustainable.99 Other
analysts note that over the longer term 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.100 Another likely factor 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 to consumer markets elsewhere in South
America.
Colombia and Regional Security
Another U.S. policy focus in the Andean region is helping Colombia deal with armed
insurgencies that are involved in drug trafficking and have a destabilizing effect on regional
security. 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. With porous borders
amid rugged territory and an inconsistent state presence, all the border regions have been
particularly problematic. The conflict in Colombia and its associated drug trafficking have led to
spillover effects in Colombia’s neighboring countries, especially Venezuela and Ecuador.
97
98 Ibid.
99 “U.S. Drug Czar Claims Cocaine Prices Fall,” Associated Press, November 8, 2007.
100 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.
Congressional Research Service
22
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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 and in some
cases the ELN are strong. The State Department’s 2009 Country Reports on Terrorism report,
issued in August 2010, states that Venezuelan territory is regularly used for rest, resupply and the
venue for crimes to finance Colombia’s FARC and ELN, although the degree to which the
Venezuelan government provides support to these groups remains unclear. According to the State
Department report, Ecuador’s territory is also used for rest, resupply, and training, as well as
some coca processing and the Colombia-Ecuador border region is subject to “narco-terrorist
influence.” The report notes “Ecuador’s greatest counterterrorism and security challenge
remained the presence of Colombian narcotics, criminal and terrorist groups in the extremely
difficult terrain along the porous 450-miles border with Colombia.”101
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
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
until late 2010.
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. In late July 2009, Venezuela temporarily withdrew its Ambassador from
Colombia and cut off trade resulting in trade dropping by one-third between the two countries by
the year’s end.102 The Colombian-Venezuelan relationship deteriorated further in the fall of 2009.
The signing of a new base agreement with the United States on October 30, 2009, permitting the
use by U.S. troops of seven military facilities in Colombia and “use of other facilities and
locations” as mutually agreed, further aggravated President Chávez. Tensions escalated as
President Uribe and President Chávez accused one another of efforts to destabilize their regimes.
However, after his landslide victory in the June 20, 2010, runoff election, president-elect Santos
made several conciliatory moves toward Venezuela and invited President Chávez to his
inauguration. In early July 2010, Santos appointed María Ángela Holguín, a former ambassador
to Venezuela with whom Chávez is known to have good relations, to be his new foreign minister.
Before he left office in a much discussed counter-move, President Uribe released new
information that demonstrated FARC and ELN forces had been harbored by the Venezuelan
government. On July 15, Uribe’s defense minister Gabriel Silva showed the media (in a session
closed to the public) evidence that reportedly showed that senior members of the FARC and ELN
had been hiding in Venezuela. On July 22, 2010, the Colombian government presented evidence
at a special meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) that the government of
Venezuela was harboring some 1,500 members of both guerrilla groups in several camps located
inside its territory.103 President Chávez vigorously denied the allegations and broke off diplomatic
101 For details, see the report at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2008/122435.htm.
102 Alexander Cuadros and Jens Erik Gould, "Latin American 'Friends' to Ease Uribe, Chavez Spat," Business Week,
February 24, 2010.
103 “Uribe Accused of Sabotaging Santos’ Rapproachment with Venezuela,” Latin News Weekly Report, July 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
23
Colombia: Issues for Congress
relations with Colombia (again), and Chávez did not attend the August 2010 inauguration despite
President Santos’s invitation.104
Colombia is also concerned that the FARC is 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
that expired in 2009.105 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.106 However,
relations between Colombia and Ecuador have steadily improved under the Santos
Administration, a process that began in the later months of the Uribe administration.
In the first six months of the Santos Administration, both Venezuela and Ecuador re-established
full diplomatic ties with Colombia. Shortly after his inauguration, President Santos met with
President Chávez and relations were normalized in August 2010. On November 26, 2010,
Ecuador and Colombia announced the restoration of full diplomatic relations after a 33-month
hiatus.107Many analysts see this regional diplomacy as an effort by President Santos to build a
more balanced approach to neighboring countries and to end Colombia’s relative isolation in the
region that had grown during the Uribe administration. Others maintain that future relations with
Venezuela are uncertain, given the unpredictability of President Chávez. Full economic ties
between Colombia and Venezuela—previously Colombia’s second largest export market after the
United States—are expected to be restored in early 2011.108
U.S. Policy Focus
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 six-year plan, with Colombia providing $4 billion of the funding
and requesting $3.5 billion from the international community.109 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
104 President Chávez, however, did send his foreign minister to the ceremony. “Another Step Back for Colombia-
Venezuela,” LatinNews Daily, July 23, 2010; Vivian Sequera, "Santos Assumes Colombia's Presidency Amid
Conciliation with Venezuela, Ecuador," AP Newswire, August 8, 2010.
105 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.
106 “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.
107 “Colombia and Ecuador Restore Ties,” LatinNews Daily, November 29, 2010.
108 Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report: Colombia, February 2011.
109 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,
at http://csis.org/files/publication/090930_DeShazo_CounteringThreats_Web.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24
Colombia: Issues for Congress
and subsequent funding has been approved for Plan Colombia and follow on plans annually.
President Bush continued support for the plan under the Andean Counterdrug Program (ACP) aid
account. The ACP account funded counternarcotics programs in Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador,
Panama, Peru, and, until FY2008, Venezuela. Because narcotics trafficking and the guerrilla
insurgency had 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.110
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. In FY2008, alternative development (AD) programs were shifted from the
ACP account to the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. U.S. assistance includes human
rights training programs for security personnel in response to Congressional concern 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.111
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 to identify drug flights from Peru to Colombia and to interdict
them by forcing them to land, or, if necessary, by shooting down suspect aircraft. The program
was suspended in 2001 after a flight carrying American missionaries was mistakenly 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 number of illegal flights over Colombia by some 73% since 2003.112
Beginning in 2008, the U.S. government began working closely with Colombia to turn over
operation and funding for selected counternarcotics programs to Colombian control in a process
of nationalization.113 Since that time, Colombia has nationalized several programs including the
ABD program. Nationalization plans are to turn over all Department of State counternarcotics
programs with the Colombian army aviation and counternarcotics brigade by 2012. FMF
programs, however, would continue and planning would continue for the turn over of additional
aviation programs to the Colombian National Police.
110 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.
111 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.
112 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2008.
113 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2011.
Congressional Research Service
25
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Aerial Eradication, Coca Cultivation, and Alternative Development 114
Upon taking office, President Uribe announced that aerial eradication, along with alternative crop
development, would form a significant basis of the government’s efforts to reduce cocaine
production. The Plan Colombia eradication spraying program began in December 2000 with 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 95,732
hectares of coca.115 In 2009, aerial eradication declined to 104,772 hectares and to 101,939
hectares in 2010. Manual eradication has also been on a downward trend. In 2009, the Colombian
government manually eradicated slightly under 70,000 hectares of coca, and set its target for
manual eradication at 70,000 hectares for 2010. According to the 2011 International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report, manual eradication in Colombia fell to 45,000 hectares in 2010 because
of “budgetary disbursement delays, security concerns, and the dispersion of coca to smaller
fields.” The report notes that 32 manual eradicators (including Colombian police, military and
civilian contractors) were killed in manual eradication operations in 2010 down from 40 deaths in
2009.116
Table 1. UNODC Estimate of Coca Cultivation in Colombia
(in hectares)
Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Area
163,000 145,000 102,000 86,000 80,000 86,000 78,000 99,000 81,000 68,000
%
change — -11% -30% -16% -7% 8% -9% 27% -18%
-16%
Table 2. U.S. ONDCP Estimate of Coca Cultivation in Colombia
(in hectares)
Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Area
136,200 169,800 144,450 113,850 114,100 144,000 157,200 167,000 119,000 116,000
% change
—
25%
-15%
-21%
0.2%
26%
9%
6.2%
-29%
-3%
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 sometimes different trends as well. Table 1 and Table 2
provide U.N. and U.S. data on coca cultivation in Colombia since 2000. The area of cultivation is
measured in hectares.117 For 2007, the United Nations reported a 27% increase in coca cultivation
to 99,000 hectares.118 U.S. data from the ONDCP showed a 6.2% increase in coca cultivation in
114 Also see CRS Report RL33163, Drug Crop Eradication and Alternative Development in the Andes, by Connie
Veillette and Carolina Navarrete-Frias.
115 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2011.
116 Ibid.
117 A hectare is equivalent to 2.47 acres.
118 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2008; and “Coca Cultivation in the Andean
Region,” June 2008.
Congressional Research Service
26
Colombia: Issues for Congress
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.119 In 2008, the area sprayed declined by 13% from the prior
year and the area manually eradicated increased by 43% compared with 2007.120 Others speculate
that another factor resulting in the positive reduction in Colombia’s coca crop was the success of
Colombian security forces in gaining control of territory from the FARC which could discourage
farmers from replanting.121 As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, both the U.N. and the U.S.
government showed declining trends in coca cultivation in Colombia in 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.122 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 farmers of illicit crops in the switch from illicit to licit crops, and provides
assistance with infrastructure and marketing. The approach includes job creation for rural families
in coca-growing and conflict-prone areas with economic development potential. From 2002
through September 2009, the United States completed 1,290 social and productive infrastructure
projects with communities that agreed to remain illicit crop free according to the Department of
State.123 The USAID Mission in Colombia reports significant progress since funding started
flowing for alternative development through Plan Colombia. By the end of FY2010, alternative
development programs had benefitted 479,221 families and supported 476,215 hectares of licit
crops (cumulative totals) in both coca and poppy areas.124
The success of alternative development in Colombia has been limited both by security concerns
and the limited scope of the program. The 2008 GAO report, among others, that examined the
119 Adam Isacson, “2008: Less Fumigation, Less Coca,” Blog of the Center for International Policy (CIP) Colombia
Program, November 9, 2009.
120 “Mixed Signals Among the Coca Bushes,” The Economist, June 27, 2009.
121 Ibid.
122 “Chemical Reactions: Spreading Coca and Threatening Colombia’s Ecological and Cultural Diversity,” Washington
Office on Latin America, February 2008.
123 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2010.
124 USAID/Colombia provided information to CRS on March 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
27
Colombia: Issues for Congress
progress of Plan Colombia have identified weaknesses in the program such as 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 regarding drug reduction goals or
sustainability. Security concerns were blamed for the proposed withdrawal of USAID assistance
from 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. The organization
called for a tenfold increase in international donor support for alternative development programs.
In 2006, USAID redesigned its strategy to lure coca growers to geographic zones that offered
economic opportunities from zones where coca had been grown.125 The two core projects 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 actually a barrier to reaching those impoverished farmers most vulnerable to coca
growing.126 For example, in one 2009 assessment, researchers conducted interviews with
USAID’s ADAM and MIDAS project staff and with Colombian government staff implementing a
Forest Warden program,127 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.”128
Proponents of U.S. policy argue that both eradication and alternative development programs need
time to work and that alternative development programs do not achieve drug crop reduction on
their own. The Colombia program was designed to support the aerial and manual eradication
programs. In FY2009, USAID reported it had targeted communities “vulnerable to coca
production,” and created nearly 110,000 jobs benefiting over 80,000 families.129 In FY2010,
USAID said it helped rural families produce more than 95,000 hectares of licit agricultural
products and to create more than 150,000 jobs.130 Further, there have been recent reports that
125 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.
126 The Uribe government policy conditioned all assistance on total eradication of coca crops from a particular area;
even one violation by a single family disqualified 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.
127 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.
128 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.
129 U.S. Department of State and USAID, “Colombia U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance Publication FY2009” at
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACR027.pdf.
130 Colombia: USAID FY 2010 Andean Region Alternative Development Performance Results,” USAID
response to CRS March 11, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
28
Colombia: Issues for Congress
U.S.- funded programs have had some success in assisting communities with development
projects located in key priority zones under the National Consolidation Plan (NCP) launched in
Colombia in 2009.131 Increasingly, alternative development efforts support municipalities
identified as priorities under the NCP. One pilot project in the Macarena region located in the
department of Meta—a key cultivation zone—reduced coca growing by 85% between 2005-2009,
compared to a 9.5% reduction during the same time period in other regions of Colombia.132
National Consolidation Plan
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 new 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 marginal areas where insurgent activity by 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 then- Colombian defense minister Juan Manuel Santos in March 2009.
Integrated action combines security, counternarcotics, and development in a sequenced approach
targeting remote, but strategically important, areas. First, security forces enter a contested zone to
stabilize and hold the area so that civilian state institutions can come in to provide social services
such as 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.133
At the national level, the Colombian presidency’s Center for the Coordination of Integrated
Action (CCAI) directs the integrated action programs.134 Launched in 2009, the “National
Consolidation Plan” applies this comprehensive approach nationally to build a positive 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 regional consolidation centers staffed by civilian, police, and
military personnel. The two best-known examples, which have each received U.S. and
international support, are the regional coordination centers established in the 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 municipalities and regions in 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.135
131 Rafael Romo, "Colombia Farmers Find Safety, Success in Growing Alternatives to Coca," CNN Broadcast, January
20, 2011.
132 Colombia: USAID FY 2010 Andean Region Alternative Development Performance Results,” USAID
response to CRS March 11, 2011.
133 Juan Manuel Santos, “Afghanistan’s challenges—lessons from the Colombian experience,” NATO Review, Autumn
2007.
134 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.
135 For a thorough analysis of the strategy based on visits to the regional coordination centers in La Macarena and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
29
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 2007.136 The Colombia Strategic Development
Initiative aligns U.S. assistance with the new strategy. 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. According to the
2011 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, in September 2010 President Santos
“relaunched” the National Consolidation Plan (NCP) so it dovetails with Colombia’s
development plans and targets zones that can become the source of new economic growth in
Colombia. The report notes that the goals of the NCP are “to establish a more comprehensive
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 currently engaged in the drug trade.”137
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. From FY2000 to
FY2009, the United States provided foreign operations assistance to Colombia through the
Andean Counterdrug Program (ACP) account, formerly known as the Andean Counterdrug
Initiative (ACI), and other aid accounts. In FY2008, Congress continued to fund eradication and
interdiction programs through the ACP account, but funded alternative development and
institution building programs through the Economic Support Fund (ESF) account. In the FY2010
request, the Obama Administration shifted ACP funds back into the International Narcotics
Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) 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. In its October 2008 report, the
GAO stated 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 concluded that while significant security gains were achieved by the
Colombian government with U.S. assistance, coca farmers had taken effective countermeasures
against eradications, and alternative development programs had not been implemented where the
(...continued)
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.
136 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.
137 U.S. Department of State, INCSR 2011.
Congressional Research Service
30
Colombia: Issues for Congress
majority of coca is grown.138 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.139
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 from an estimated $507 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. The Obama Administration FY2011 request for foreign
operations would reduce overall funding to Colombia by about 8% as Plan Colombia program
management and funding is gradually turned over to Colombia. The FY2012 budget request for
foreign operations would further decrease funding by approximately 14% below the level of the
FY2011 request. Table 3 provides a more detailed breakdown of U.S. assistance to Colombia
from FY2000 through the FY2012 request.
138 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.”
139 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
31
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Table 3. U.S. Assistance for Plan Colombia, FY2000-FY2012
(in millions $)
ACI/ACP ESF FMF IMET INCLE NADR Air
Wing 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 201.8
55.0
1.7
243.9 4.8 — 122.8
630.0
FY2011 (req)
—
202.9
51.5
1.7
204.0
4.8
—
n.a.
464.9
FY2012 (req)
__
189.1
44.0
1.8
160.6
4.8
__
n.a.
400.3
Total 4,241.4
984.7
648.0
15.9
695.0
59.0 379.1
1,675.5
8,699.0
Sources: Figures are drawn from the annual State Department Foreign Operations Congressional Budget
Justifications for fiscal years 2002 through 2012 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 P.L. 480 (Food Aid). Air Wing figures for FY2009 and FY2010 are estimates
provided by the State Department. Accounts as fol ows: ACI/ACP=Andean Counterdrug Initiative/Andean
Counterdrug Program; ESF=Economic Support Fund; FMF=Foreign Military Financing; IMET=International
Military Education and Training; INCLE=International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement;
NADR=Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs.
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.
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
Congressional Research Service
32
Colombia: Issues for Congress
bases at Palanquero, Apiay, and Malambo; two naval bases; and two army installations (see
Figure 2 for base locations). The U.S. Congress authorized $46 million for construction at the
Palanquero air base in Central Colombia in the defense authorization for FY2010 signed into law
in October 2009 (P.L. 111-84). However, on August 17, 2010, the Colombian Constitutional
Court declared the agreement unconstitutional because it had not been submitted to the
Colombian Congress for approval. Since then, the Santos administration has not submitted the
agreement to Congress, dampening the hostility to the agreement by Colombia’s neighbors,
Venezuela and Ecuador, and other countries.
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.140
On August 18, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Colombia’s Foreign Minister
Jaime Bermúdez to discuss the base deal.141 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.142
Some observers believe the agreement was precipitated by the closing of a U.S. forward operating
location (FOL) 143 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 2009.144
140 Oxford Analytica, “Latin America: Regional tensions challenge UNASUR,” August 21, 2009.
141 “Does the US want bases in Colombia?,” Latin American Regional Report: Andean Group, August 2009.
142 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.
143 The term “forward operating location” or “FOL” has been replaced by “cooperative security location.” However,
because Manta was called a FOL until the time it was closed the term is retained here.
144 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.
Congressional Research Service
33
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.
According to the U.S. Department of State, the agreement with Colombia was not a replacement
for the Manta FOL145 The new agreement provided for U.S. and Colombian security cooperation
including counternarcotics, counterterrorism, and other “mutually agreed upon activities” within
Colombia.146 The radar-equipped aircraft based at Manta (including P-3 Orions and E-3 AWACS)
used for anti-drug surveillance missions over multiple countries had been relocated to other
locations in the Western Hemisphere including the United States and other FOLs based in El
145 Communication with State Department Desk Officer on October 9, 2009.
146 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.
Congressional Research Service
34
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Salvador and Curacao.147 The DCA also did not change the cap on the number of U.S. personnel
deployed in Colombia which remains the same as set by Congress in 2004 (P.L. 108-375)—800
military personnel and 600 contractors. U.S. personnel presence in recent years has declined to
less than half of the authorized 1,400-person cap, which is a trend that is expected to continue.148
Additional Congressional Concerns
Paramilitary Demobilization
In the 111th Congress, some Members expressed continued concern over the ongoing scandal
involving paramilitary ties to Colombian politicians, 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 (FTOs), provided that the
Secretary of State certified that the assistance only went to individuals who had verifiably
renounced and 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 FY2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act (111-117) provided $18.6 million to assist
in the demobilization of former members of foreign terrorist organizations, pending a certification
from the Secretary of State that was issued on August 31, 2010. 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; 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; 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.
147Interview with Department of Defense official on November 9, 2009.
148 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.”
Congressional Research Service
35
Colombia: Issues for Congress
• 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 2009.149 Reportedly, progress in addressing the backlog of cases
concerning extrajudicial killings has proceeded slowly.150 In June 2009, on a 10-day mission to
Colombia, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions found the killings were not a
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.”151
Since 2002, Congress has required that the Secretary of State certify annually to Congress that the
Colombian military and police forces are severing their links to the paramilitaries, investigating
complaints of human rights abuses, and prosecuting those who have had credible charges made
against them. Congress has made funding to the Colombian military contingent on these
certifications which has been made since 2002. 152 In the latest certification, issued on September
9, 2010, Secretary Clinton reported again that the Colombian government and armed forces are
meeting the statutory requirements with regard to human rights. The Secretary noted that
“Colombia’s security situation continues to improve, and years of reforms and training are
leading to an increased respect for and understanding of human rights by most members of the
Armed Forces...At the same time, however, impunity remains a concern, despite years of
improvements to Colombia’s judicial system.”153
149 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.
150 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.
151 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.
152 Today certification is required before 30% of funds to the Colombian military can be released. In prior years, 25%
of funds was held back and released upon certification by the Secretary of State. CRS communication with State
Department, March 18, 2011.
153 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at
http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/100915col_certmemo.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Congress has also regularly included another mechanism to prevent human rights abuses: 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 that it has committed
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. There have been Colombian units that have been disqualified or “not vetted for cause.”
Despite these measures, 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 Agreement154
In 2003, the Bush Administration announced its intention 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
separately 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). Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia
had benefitted from the Andean Trade-Promotion and Drug-Eradication Act (ATPDEA), which in
2002 replaced the former Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).155 The law provides eligible
countries with unilateral preferential access to the U.S. market for certain products in order to
encourage legitimate economic activity in place of a dependence on the illegal narcotics trade.156
In the case of Bolivia, the Bush administration suspended its designation in November 2008,
stating that Bolivia had failed to meet eligibility criteria requiring cooperation with U.S.
counterdrug efforts. In December 2009, the 111th Congress extended ATPDEA trade preferences
to Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador through December 31, 2010 (P.L. 111-124), and late in the
second session provided a six-week extension (P.L. 111-344) for Colombia and Ecuador until
February 12, 2011, when it expired. If the CFTA is not approved this year, Congress could take
action to renew the ATPDEA benefits for Colombia.
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 Colombian government. Labor activist killings
declined during President Uribe’s first term, 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.157 In 2008, the Colombian government reported 38 murders and ENS reported 49 murders.
154 See CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, by M. Angeles Villarreal.
155 See CRS Report RS22548, ATPA Renewal: Background and Issues, by M. Angeles Villarreal.
156 Ibid.
157 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 4.4% of the 18.4 million workforce currently. For further discussion of labor violence
and trends, see CRS Report RL34759, Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Labor Issues, by Mary Jane
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
37
Colombia: Issues for Congress
In 2009, the government reported a decline to 28 murders and ENS reported a slight decline to 47
murders of labor activists.158 For more information about the reasons for the discrepancy between
government and nongovernmental organizations’ tallies, see CRS Report RL34759, Proposed
U.S.-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. A Special Labor Sub-Unit of the
Colombian Prosecutor General’s office, set up in 2006, now employs 19 prosecutors and 76
investigators assigned 1,387 labor-related cases to investigate and process, including 185 priority
cases. According to the State Department, the Labor Sub-Unit has achieved 344 convictions,
including 76 in 2010, involving 392 individuals who committed violent acts against trade
unionists.159 A vast majority of the 1,387 cases are either under investigation or in preliminary
phases of the prosecutorial process. With regard to the 185 priority cases, as of June 15, 2010, the
Sub-Unit achieved 83 convictions in 56 of those cases, convicting a total of 100 individuals.160
Labor groups argue much more needs to be done to end impunity for crimes targeting trade
unionists.161
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
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 112th Congress will consider implementing legislation for the pending CFTA. It could be
considered pursuant to the usual rules or the House could restore TPA-like “fast track”
procedures.162
The intent and role of the Obama Administration regarding reintroduction and passage of the
CFTA 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.163 In June 2009, President Obama met with President Uribe at the White House and
(...continued)
Bolle. Data on current union membership 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.
158 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/
100915col_certmemo.pdf. The State Department reports that the ENS revised its figures upward to 47 after initially
reporting 39 homicides for 2009.
159 Communications from the U.S. Department of State to CRS on March 17, 2011.
160 U.S. Department of State, “Memorandum of Justification Concerning Human Rights Conditions with Respect to
Assistance for the Colombian Armed Forces,” September 9, 2010. Available at: http://www.justf.org/files/primarydocs/
100915col_certmemo.pdf.
161 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; AFL-CIO, “Statement of the AFL-CIO on
Colombian Labor and Human Rights Document,” March 17, 2011 at
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/pr03172011.cfm.
162 For more information on procedures, see CRS Report RL34470, The Proposed U.S.-Colombia Free Trade
Agreement, by M. Angeles Villarreal.
163 Obama for America, “A New Partnership for the Americas,” press release. May 2008, available at
http://obama.3cdn.net/f579b3802a3d35c8d5_9aymvyqpo.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
38
Colombia: Issues for Congress
afterward told reporters that he had asked the U.S. Trade Representative 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.
Colombia has recently negotiated free trade agreements with Canada and the European Union,
which, when they take effect, could increase competitiveness with the United States in various
sectors. In December 2010, the Obama Administration announced the successful completion of
negotiations to modify a free trade agreement with South Korea, originally signed in 2007.164 In
early 2011, some Members of Congress have urged the Obama Administration to bundle the
pending CFTA, the pending Panama free trade agreement, and the pending South Korea free trade
agreement for passage.165
164 CRS Report RL34330, The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and
Implications, coordinated by William H. Cooper.
165 “Linkage Proponents Demand Colombia FTA Bill Before Voting on KORUS,” Inside U.S. Trade, March 18, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
39
Colombia: Issues for Congress
Appendix. Key Developments in 2010
On June 20, 2010, former defense minister Juan Manuel Santos won in a landslide victory a
runoff election to become president of Colombia against former two-time Bogotá mayor Antanas
Mockus.
On May 30, 2010, Juan Manuel Santos and Antanas Mockus came in first and second in the
presidential election. Because neither candidate won a majority, the vote required a runoff.
On March 30, 2010, the 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.
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 “2010 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 January 8, 2010, 17 soldiers, accused of the extrajudicial executions of young men from the
Bogota slum of Soacha, were released from protective detention by a Colombian judge because
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 that these rulings would
adversely effect the investigation of extrajudicial executions involving at least 1,200 cases by the
Prosecutor General’s human rights team.
Author Contact Information
June S. Beittel
Analyst in Latin American Affairs
jbeittel@crs.loc.gov, 7-7613
Congressional Research Service
40