Colombia – peace, human rights and ecumenical accompaniment

Photograph: William Fernando Martinez/AP: The Guardian

A new round of peace talks begin this week in Oslo between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) and the government of President Juan Manuel Santos. Officially peace has already come and under law the government treats armed activity as criminality. In practice many areas remain on a military footing and groups on both sides use violence to control land and business interests. Colombia is still the world’s largest source of cocaine.


Colombia has the greatest levels of poverty and inequality of any country in Latin America. There is a new Victims and Land Restitution Law so that small farmers can apply for the return of lands that they have lost to elites during the war. However in effect much power is in the hands of local military factions. Restitution of stolen land would require the blessing of whatever faction holds sway in the area otherwise the consequences could be life-threatening. More than 25 land rights leaders have been killed since August 2010. In an article in the Guardian yesterday, Victor Salas, a municipal official in the town of Corinto who deals with complaints about human rights abuses, comments that he very rarely gets a complaint about rebel abuses although Farc dominate the area. “Around here you have to know how to live” he says “If you want to stay, you keep your head down”.

In situations such as this the Churches’ commitment to justice is tested. It is encouraging therefore that local and international churches are seeking to rise to the challenge, helping local people achieve restitution and begin to reassert some control in their communities. An Ecumenical Accompaniment programme has recently started, inspired in part by the programme operating in Israel and Palestine co-ordinated by the World Council of Churches. The Methodist Church Colombia is supporting the Latin American Council of Churches in managing this programme in conjunction with international partners. It will place international monitors in affected communities in order to support local people in taking steps to realise their rights. Find out more here and do consider supporting this programme.

Do consider writing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Draw the Minister's attention to the role of international human rights monitors in Colombia. Ask the Minister to use his influence to ensure that the Colombian Government guarantees protection for Land Reclamants and their human rights defenders in keeping with International Law and Colombia’s Human Rights Obligations.

UK Drones and Targeted Killing

The targeting of suspected members of terrorist groups with missiles by the United States has been rightly condemned. In the past week the point was made at Methodist Conference and at URC General Assembly that, although terrorists operate outside of the law, it is vital that Governments do not do likewise. (Both forums debated the Baptist, Methodist and URC report on drones).

©2012 iStockphoto LP - alxpin

Drones provide new capabilities enabling track and kill operations such as those carried out by the CIA in northern Pakistan and Yemen. But is this US precedent providing a rationale for track and kill elsewhere? In Afghanistan, for example, should the UK military track and kill insurgents who have been positively identified by military intelligence, eliminating them with missiles even when they are far from the field of battle at the time? What would be the ethical and legal basis for such a policy?

I provide here an RAF report of 3 April describing a track and kill operation carried out using an RAF Reaper Unmanned Aerial System (drone) that extended over 5 hours. In all likelihood this type of operation could not be carried out by any means other than an armed drone.

On one mission this week, the Reaper was tasked with tracking a known insurgent travelling on a motorbike in the region of Lashkar Gah. Over the course of 5 hours the Reaper tracked the insurgent and it was only once there was no risk to civilians that the aircraft was authorised to carry out a successful strike.

This account does not reveal whether this known insurgent was armed or whether he was engaged in hostilities at the time that he was killed. The answers to these questions are a matter of legitimate public interest. If he was not then this effectively amounts to a state sponsored assassination. Whether assassination should become a key part of NATO foreign policy and military strategy is a matter of topical debate. These and other questions are being discussed at two separate meetings in London today. Pax Christi has arranged a seminar on the use of drones involving experts in law and military ethics. In addition a two-day workshop involving an array of international speakers has been organised by University of Surrey titled “Hitting the Target? How new capabilities are shaping contemporary international intervention”.

Methodist Conference and URC General Assembly have passed resolutions calling for greater transparency around the UK’s use of Unmanned Aerial Systems. On behalf of our churches we will be engaging with the Ministry of Defence seeking clarification on UK policy and practice and will keep you posted on progress. Your suggestions as to how our churches should be responding to these ethical questions are welcome. Leave a comment here or email me at hucklesbys@methodistchurch.org.uk