Newsletters

Date: March 4th 2008

February 29, 2008

Accompanier Eran Wade shares these reflections at the end of his time in Colombia:


It may be hard for those of us in the United States to understand how we and our international policies are viewed in Colombia. It's easy and natural for us to look out for our own self-interests, but it may be harder for us to see why it makes a difference that our international policy take into consideration the human rights violations of another country. When we do business and support another country that corruptly ignores the plight of it's own citizens and the leaders who are trying to help, we are perceived—as Madeline Albright says—"as marginalizing the poor." 



Being here in Colombia has given me a new perspective. Maybe if I can share this perspective, it could help us to see how taking a stronger stance on human rights could benefit the United States. One leader told me, "It's not just that the U.S. is rich. It's how they got that way." Our support of the Colombian government is perceived as "stepping on the backs of the poor" (who have nothing) so that corporations (who already are sustainable) can have more. 



I'm all for democracy, freedom and entrepreneurship. The U.S. is a capitalist society and the economics of our country are very important. But if most of us knew that our country's economic interests were growing at the expense of peoples lives, we might look into how we can change that. I don't believe the average person in the U.S. wants to have our economic interests advanced at the cost of human rights and the First Amendment freedoms of people here in Colombia. I wish I could report that we look like the good guys here. I wish we were seen as the bearers of freedom, democracy and fairness. I wish we had a better reputation. But the truth is, we not only are perceived as ignoring the rights of freedom and the poor, we're perceived as only advancing our own economic interests at the expense of freedom and the poor. 



Some would say that we need to focus on protecting the interests of the U.S. and we cannot help the poor in other countries. However, I'd like to make a point that is entirely and personally mine regarding the situation in Colombia. When our economic interests in other countries encourage the human rights we ourselves value and take for granted in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we go further to consolidate our best long-term economic interests. We create fewer enemies and more long-term friends who will be happier doing business with us later on. We support fair rules that allow people to work hard for a meaningful life. They are less likely to resent us. Making friends with people in other countries does more to solidify our economic security in our global world. 



A university student here in Colombia wrote to me, "I don't know how much the vision you had about Colombia before coming here has changed, but I guess the experiences you have lived here, have changed your mind. Now you can understand what is really going on here and what kind of support the people really need. Even for me, sometimes it's really hard to try to understand how much the people have suffered in my country, because I am used to living in a city apparently far away from the conflict; but I am not blind, and I don't want to be blind. There are people who have lost their hope, and I know that every single thing I do (and other people do) to help them can bring back the hope, and encourage us to keep the faith and to build a new country with opportunities for everybody, especially for those who need it." 



Now my experience in Colombia is coming to an end. I cannot resist one final story. This one comes from an anthropologist who kept a diary for two weeks in a small town in Colomba in the spring of 2001. Michael Taussig, professor at Columbia University in New York, tells a story of a displaced group that is very similar to the stories I've heard while here in Colombia. The book is titled "Law in a Lawless Land."

He writes:
"I was invited by a schoolteacher who worked there many years and knew the peasants in the mountains in that region. He showed me the army barracks by the barrier across the only road leading from Buga to the mountains of the cordillera Central. There's no way the army wouldn't know the paras went by on their on their way to cut people to pieces. 'It was a terrible thing to see that apparatus,' a young peasant man said in the newspaper, referring to the laptop computer the paras use when they pull into a mountain village to check their death list more than likely provided by army intelligence. Everyone evacuated the area immediately and came down the mountain to stay in Buga. I interviewed a few of the several hundred living in an enclosed basketball stadium. They had been there exactly a year, sad and scared to go home, their farms and animals gone."

He continues, "Even cornered in the stadium they were receiving death threats. Where else can they go? They cannot go back to their farms. The army says it cannot guarantee their security. What the army means, I think, is 'We will kill you…either directly or by setting loose the paras.' I was told by the peasant refugees that the army had supplied the paras with transport and even, on one occasion, helicopter gunship support when they engaged with the guerrilla that has been in the high mountains there for many years."

As one of the United States leaders of the accompaniment program said, "There are 3 reasons for going to Colombia: 1) To see 2) To be seen and 3) To communicate what's going on to people in the United States."

Our presence in Colombia allows us to walk along side those leaders who are being intimidated, threatened, and violated. We then see the work that is going on and the reason for their request for accompaniment. Finally, if we communicate what's happening with those in the U.S., we can do our part to put an end to the injustices that cause the abuses in the first place. With our freedom of speech and petition, we can make our voices known to the United States government to make sure our growth with Colombia is predicated by true and independent verification of basic human rights and freedom.

Besides the human rights observations, I also had a theory regarding another difference between Colombia and the United States. I suspect that we attempt to fill a void through material wealth. One thing I've noticed while here in Colombia is a strong sense of community. Families, school groups, churches, and neighborhoods are all strong ties that help give value and belonging to the people. Of course, we have this in the United States and the potential for it. But it also seems that it is stronger here in Colombia. When we lack this sense of community and relationship, we try to fill the gap with promises of the same, but we buy into the advertisement of more wealth. In essence, we naturally try to protect and defend the loneliness of our lives with more stuff. This is just my theory. I notice less of this in Colombia.

People always asked what I was going to be doing in Colombia—"Building something, teaching, giving out basic necessities of life." Yes. Yes I did all of these things. I built something. I taught. I gave out provisions. I built a new frame of mind. I taught intimidated communities that they were not alone. I gave out provisions of hope, time, and the ideas that there are people in the United States who are just like them who care about them.

Taussig mentions in his writings that human rights groups have been criticized for not condemning the work of the guerrillas as often as they should. Take comfort in the words of one of the pastors in describing the situation, "We are in defense of life. There are no other marches." There are no other causes or allegiances more basic than this: that innocent people should have the right to live, no matter what group is responsible.