Given before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs of the United States Senate Appropriations Committee, 192 Dirksen Senate Office Building, February 24, 2000

KIRK: Well, thank you very much.

LEAHY: You've waited a long time today ...

KIRK: It's been very interesting. First, I want to thank the subcommittee for inviting me. Chairman McConnell, Senator Leahy, it's a pleasure to come here and talk with you about the proposed aid plan to Colombia.

I have a written statement that I've submitted for the record. But I'd like to just comment briefly on a couple of things that have been said today during this hearing. I think I'd like to make it very clear that I agree that Colombia is as matter of serious concern not only for the United States but also for the international community.

We believe that this policy needs to be scrutinized very carefully. And it needs to be scrutinized based on the facts. And that's what I'd like to discuss today.

I would like to comment on a couple of things that were said earlier today in the testimony, three basic points. Number one, this idea that human rights problems in Colombia, and specifically the relationship between the military and paramilitary groups are simply the result of some bad apples. General Wilhelm used the phrase local collusion with paramilitary groups.

With a great deal of respect to the general, I would simply like to say that is not supported by the facts. We released a report yesterday that shows that far from local collusion, what we were able to document is continuing ties between the military and paramilitary groups, and specifically ties that go right through the whole structure of the army.

KIRK: We were able to document ties between paramilitaries and the military in half of the 18 brigades that now function within the Colombian army. This is not history, this is reality. This is present day.

It is clear that President Pastrana has made a commitment to human rights. He has made that commitment to us in meetings. Ambassador Moreno has also made the same commitments. We understand that there is a will -- at least in terms of what Colombian officials will say -- to do more for human rights. But what we don't see are actions on the ground.

There are two things that have been cited as proof that the Colombian government has made progress in combating these ties between the military and paramilitary groups, and specifically military involvement in abuses. Ambassador Pickering mentioned the question of statistics. That, in fact, the number of human rights violations that are directly attributable to the army, to the military in general, have decreased in recent years. That's absolutely correct.

We would agree that direct ties between the military and human rights violations have decreased. But that does not take into account the whole question of open collaboration, collusion and support for paramilitary groups. There are no statistics that measure that. What there are cases -- the kinds of cases that we included in our report -- that show that this collusion, this collaboration and indeed even an open creation of paramilitary groups continues to occur in Colombia.

In our report, we looked into the behavior of three brigades. And I think it's important to note that those three brigades are based in Colombia's largest cities. We're not talking about brigades that are rural areas. We're not talking about far-away places. We're talking about the capital of Colombia, Bogotá. We're talking about Medellín and we're talking about Cali. This is far from something that is out there in the woods that can't be controlled or can't be supervised. This is happening in the heart of the Colombian army.

Secondly, both Ambassador Pickering and Ambassador Moreno cited our report and said that it was actually a good sign for the Colombian government and its progress on human rights, because much of our information was based on the work of Colombia's own investigators, prosecutors who work for the attorney general's office. But I would like to point out that many of those investigators have been threatened because of their work and have been forced to leave Colombia. There isn't an effort on the part of the Colombian government to protect them.

Secondly, I'd like to comment on the question of conditions. We welcome statements that have been made by the Colombian government that they will support human rights. But I think it's key to match will with measurable benchmarks that the United States can use to see exactly what the facts are on the ground. We cannot simply be satisfied with expressions of good will. We have to be able to match that with real progress.

I've covered Colombia now since 1992, and every year we get expressions of good will. Every year we get intention. But those intentions are not backed up by real progress on human rights.

Let me just cite one example. I think it's especially appropriate for this hearing because it has to do with the case of a Colombian senator. This Colombian senator, Manuel Cepeda, was murdered in 1994 in the capital of Colombia -- in Bogotá. And the investigation done by the attorney general's office showed that this murder had been carried out by the military -- by military officers in collusion with paramilitary groups.

Until Human Rights Watch protested the fact that these officers remained on active duty only three months ago, those officers continued on the payroll of the Colombian army, and also continued in working in military intelligence. And it was only until we protested that, in fact the investigation showed that these Colombian officers had killed a Colombian senator, it was only then that these two individuals were discharged from the army. That's the kind of progress...

LEAHY: Discharged and then what else happened?

KIRK: Well, now they're put at the disposition of a civilian court. But the fact is that they remained on active duty, they remained on the payroll until this became public.

LEAHY: Are they -- are they before the -- are they before the civilian courts now?

KIRK: They are before the civilian courts. But let me just say that these two individuals are low-ranking officers. They're at the sergeant level. And what we've seen again and again is that the Colombian government will cite statistics of officers sent to the civilian courts for trial, and those officers are almost always privates or sergeants.

LEAHY: Well, do you remember what the rank was of these two?

KIRK: They were both sergeants.

LEAHY: And was anybody else either sent to military courts, suspended, their status changed as a result of this?

KIRK: In this particular case, these officers told investigators that they were acting under the orders of a general, who at that time was the head of the 9th Brigade. And that general actually died of a heart attack in 1996, so the case stopped investigating him at that point.

But it is clear that it wasn't just the actions of these sergeants. It was clear that they were acting on orders from their commanding officer....

LEAHY: When you operate in Colombia, what type of freedom do you have to operate? I don't ask this in a -- I mean, I'm just curious. You're down there discussing things of -- areas of murder, of gross human rights violations. I can think of countries in Central and South

America where people have done this, been church groups and otherwise, and ended up killed.

What -- is this a concern for Human Rights Watch ?

KIRK: Well, I think it's mainly a concern because of our Colombian colleagues. Because we consider Colombia the most dangerous country in the world now for human rights defenders.

Luckily, people like myself, who work for international organizations, have not lost anyone. But we have lost many of our Colombian colleagues. And in fact, Monday is the anniversary of the day of the murder of one of the human rights defenders that I worked most closely with in Colombia, Jesús Valle.

So we are extremely concerned about the safety of our colleagues in Colombia and their ability to do just the kind of work that is needed to document continuing human rights abuses in the country. We do face a serious problem because these human rights workers continue to receive threats, and continue to feel that they jeopardize their lives, especially when they speak publicly.

I feel very fortunate myself to be able to speak publicly here without being afraid when I walk out of the room. I'm afraid that my Colombian colleagues, with all due respect to the Colombian

ambassador, do not feel the same freedom.

LEAHY: You heard Ambassador Pickering say in answer to a question of mine, the work the army's doing to purge itself of human rights violations. I believe he cited some -- or he has in the past anyway, cited 15 officers who were discharged as a sign of progress. How would you respond to that? Is that a real sign of progress?

KIRK: We were looking at that figure the other day, 15 officers. And the only way we could, kind of, account for each of the officers was to go back as far as 1990 to find exactly who they meant by being discharged. So in other words, in the past 10 years, 15 officers have been discharged. Most of them simply discharged. In other words, not prosecuted for the human rights abuses that they've been accused of doing. So no, we don't see that as a sign of great progress. Certainly it's welcome when officers who commit human rights violations are discharged. But we also want to see them prosecuted.

LEAHY: How does that contrast with -- or does it -- with the national police?

KIRK: That's an important contrast, I think, because, for instance, since General Serrano took

charge of the Colombian police in 1994, he has discharged an average of 1,000 officers every year. That is for human rights violations, but also because of corruption and other criminal activity. But I think it's clear -- the lesson that we take from that is number one, it is possible, when there's political will, to make great advances on human rights. And second, that it is possible in Colombia, if the Colombian government and the commanders of the army and the navy and the air force decide to apply the same kinds of measures that General Serrano has done within the police.

LEAHY: I'm told that we have prosecutors and investigators, human rights monitors and others that had to flee Colombia even to today because of concern for their own safety. Is that your

understanding?

KIRK: That's correct. And it's very disturbing to us. Just at the time when, especially the United States, wants to have this aid monitored and wants to be able to collect the human rights information that it needs, for instance, to apply the Leahy amendment, to find that even the governments own investigators, the people in the attorney general's office that we depend on to forward these cases, are having to flee the country.

And in fact, much of the information that we collected for this report was taken from prosecutors who are out of Colombia, and who wanted, because they're committed to their jobs, they're committed to doing their duty, they wanted to see some accountability. And unfortunately, their only recourse was to go to international organizations like Human Rights Watch, and see if they couldn't, by talking to us about their cases, forward them within the Colombia judicial system, because most of these cases that are summarized in this report are stopped, are essentially frozen because the prosecutors who are shepherding them through the judicial system have had to flee the country.

LEAHY: Is that the major source of your information and investigation, the Colombian attorney general's office?

KIRK: We match our interviews with Colombia prosecutors with our own interviews with eye-witnesses and other information that we've collected from victims of violations.

LEAHY: Now you -- I just want to make sure that I fully understand this, you have spoken about General Serrano. You spoke about the national police and what they've done. Are you suggesting that if the will was there, the same could be done in the military?

KIRK: I think that's unquestionable, that the military can take measures today that would begin to produce real results in terms of human rights protections. One of them is simply purging officers that have a proven record of support for paramilitary groups.

One of the things that you will note from our report, is that many of the officers who were in charge of these units that we have tied to paramilitary activity, not only remain on active service, but have been promoted, in essence rewarded for their collusion with paramilitary groups.

That is something that I think would be very evident to General Tapias if he decided to appoint a review committee. That's one of the conditions that we're supporting, to have an outside review

committee look at some of these cases and see who is it that really needs to be out of uniform.

LEAHY: And so to anticipate questions, that it would be naive to suggest that the -- that the army take this on, while fighting the guerrillas. Is that naive? Does it diminish their ability to fight? Does it make any difference in their ability to fight? Does it make any difference in their ability to protect the nation?

KIRK: I think to the contrary, it would strengthen their fight against guerrillas, because it's clear that the Colombian military has a duty, an obligation to protect the nation, has a duty to fight threats against Colombia democracy. There's no question about that. But the only way they can protect democracy is by observing democracy, and observing the rule of law.

When the government itself, through its military, violates law -- violates the rule of law, by committing human rights violations, they lose credibility. And I think that they would be a stronger army, they would be more effective at defending Colombia, if they themselves obeyed the law.

LEAHY: Thank you. Ms. Kirk, we will put your full statement in the record. And if there are other questions, we'll provide that. I'm sorry you have had to be here so long but I hope you found this interesting.

I had to leave for a while to go to the floor to get a couple of judges confirmed, and we did. But in between, was able to follow this hearing. I think it has been a well worthwhile hearing, especially as the whole Appropriations Committee is going to have to look at this.

For my part, I have some very real concerns. I have some very real concerns, we're talking about simply throwing aid at a -- U.S. tax dollars at a problem without doing the systemic steps necessary to not only improve human rights, but to actually reach the goal of stopping drug abuse.

I -- I don't think the administration's plan has been well thought out. I think it is too open-ended. I think it almost guarantees there will be U.S. troops eventually involved directly or indirectly in Colombia. And I think that this committee has some major questions to ask itself.

That's not a question for you Ms. Kirk. We're going to have to make that decision here, but I appreciate you taking the time. I think you've helped us with our deliberations.

KIRK: Thank you very much.

LEAHY: Thank you, Ms. Kirk.