Home Blog Page 299

Looking back at Canada’s war in Afghanistan

Photo: A Canadian gunner in a Griffon helicopter over Kandahar district, 2011. Photo by Sgt. Matthew McGregor, Canadian Forces Combat Camera.

Canadian Embassy officials in Kabul, Afghanistan were evacuated today as Taliban forces entered the capital city and took control of the Presidential Palace.

The Taliban (Pashto for students) was formed in the early 1990s by Afghan mujahideen, or Islamic guerilla fighters, who had resisted the Soviet Union in Afghanistan the previous decade with the covert backing of the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1996, the Taliban declared Afghanistan an Islamic emirate.

The stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attack.

Canadian soldiers were first deployed in Afghanistan by Prime Minister Jean Chretien in October 2001. About 40,000 Canadian troops were sent there under the governments of Chretien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper before the end of combat operations in July 2011 and their withdrawal in March 2014.

The costs of war

As of mid-April this year, it has been estimated that 47,245 Afghan civilians have died in the war. The total number of everyone killed could be as high as 241,000 people.

There is no public documentation on how many Afghans were killed as a result of the Canadian military intervention.

Montreal-based writer Yves Engler does compile in this article numerous incidents involving Canadian Forces killing Afghans including a five-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother after their vehicle got too close to a convoy in July 2008.

159 Canadian soldiers were killed and more than 1,800 were wounded during this period. In April 2019, the Canadian Forces’ medical branch released a study that found that more than 155 active service members had taken their own lives since 2010, with many of these suicides linked to their deployment in Afghanistan.

In October 2008, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in “the first comprehensive costing”, reported: “The total projected mission cost of up to $18.1 billion over the 2001-02 to 2010-11 period, represents close to $1,500 dollars per Canadian household.”

The motivations for being in Afghanistan

Ottawa Citizen reporter David Pugliese has written: “In a July 2005 interview, [Defence Minister Bill] Graham acknowledged that mending fences with the Bush administration played a role in the government’s decision to take on the Kandahar mission.”

Pugliese further explains: “The U.S. was still angry over Canada’s refusal to join its invasion of Iraq and it didn’t help that the Martin government had declined to participate in the Pentagon’s controversial missile defence system.”

And Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin commented: “A former, highly placed Defence Department official [says] the reason the Liberals took up the mission was not out of any great noble purpose. It was principally because they had no choice. They had to appease Washington for not having joined the invasion of Iraq.”

Commentary by Senator Colin Kenny, Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom, political scientist Janice Gross Stein and McGill University professor Stephen Saideman all tie Canada’s involvement in the war to its economic relations with the United States.

The unwinnable war

Daniel L Davis, a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a US Army Lieutenant Colonel who served twice in Afghanistan, has written: “America’s senior leaders have known, almost from the beginning, that the war was unwinnable, that the Afghan government was fatally corrupt, and that the Afghan security forces would never be up to the task.”

In December 2019, the Washington Post reported that government documents show that U.S. officials systematically misled the public about the war during administrations of George W. Bush (2001-09), Barack Obama (2009-17) and Donald Trump (2017-21) and hid evidence to make it appear that the U.S. was winning the war.

This past week, Institute for Policy Studies fellow Phyllis Bennis commented: “It’s important that we recognize that this kind of a crisis was inevitable whenever the U.S. pulled out, whether it had been 10 years ago, 19 years ago or 10 years from now, the reason being that this was rooted in the nature of the U.S. occupation that began in 2001.”

She further elaborated in this interview on Democracy Now! that: “The notion that the U.S. could create a military force in Afghanistan that was going to be prepared to defend the country against an indigenous opposition force, the Taliban, was never going to be possible, because it was based on the idea that this would be a military that was supporting a government shaped and imposed by the United States in a Western model that had no bearing on the reality of politics and culture in Afghanistan.”

Bennis asserts: “There is no military solution to the, quote, ‘problems of Afghanistan’.”

What’s next?

Earlier this year, Malalai Joya, a human rights defender and former Member of the Afghan parliament, stated: “I have repeatedly called for the foreign occupiers to leave our country. No nation can give liberation to another nation.”

She further noted: “There is no doubt that in the short-term, the withdrawal of the foreign occupiers may lead to some security and economic problems. But it is in the long run interests of our people that they leave.”

And Joya highlighted: “The suffering of the Afghan people still needs solidarity from justice-loving and progressive movements, individuals, parties and activists around the world.”

As the next days unfold, a fulsome evaluation is needed of the consequences of Canada’s intervention as well as the alternatives to war that could have been pursued.

And as Canada plans to spend half-a-trillion dollars on the military over the next 20 years, including $76.8 billion on new fighter jets, we need a conversation on how to build peace and avoid the carnage seen in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

PBI-Mexico accompanies CONTEC at blockade as Indigenous community seeks recognition of ancestral territory

PBI-Mexico has posted: “On Sunday, August 8, Peace Brigades International (PBI) accompanied the organization Consultoría Técnica Comunitaria AC (CONTEC) in the peaceful mobilization convened by the Raramuri forest community of San Elias Repechique, to which members of the communities of Mogotavo, Cuiteco and Tewerichi also came.”

It highlights: “This population demands legal recognition of its ancestral territory, denouncing criminalization towards indigenous communities.”

El Pueblo reports: “[The forest community] held a peaceful protest in which they intermittently closed the Creel – San Rafael highway in front of the Creel regional airport. There they demanded that they be legally recognized the territory of which they have ancestral possession, territory that was sold and titled to private individuals.”

Pagina 3 explains: “For the Rarámuri, [it is] their ancestral territory, which they know as Bosques de San Elías Repechique [but] for the Cuesta family, it is the Pino Gordo Estate, which they acquired through a purchase-sale contract.”

In August 2020, businessman Fernando Cuesta filed a complaint against the Rarámuri community for dispossession, environmental damage and theft.

CONTEC, which accompanies the community, has noted that when Porfirio Díaz (the Mexican president for most years between 1876 to 1911) sold 85,000 hectares of the territory, the deeds specified they were inhabited by Indigenous peoples.

After the Mexican Revolution and the land reform provisions of the 1917 Constitution, 33,000 hectares of this territory were still considered private property and not recognized as ejidal (communal) lands.

CONTEC further notes that more than 40 years ago, businessmen from the region acquired 12 properties (just over 11,500 hectares) despite the land being occupied by the community of San Elías Repechique.

The Pino Gordo property, that Cuestra claims, covers just over 2,500 hectares.

The Indigenous community has challenged the construction of the Barrancas del Cobre-Creel Regional Airport on their ancestral territory, the Transportadora de Gas Natural pipeline through their forests, and now extensive logging on their lands.

ExpokNews notes: “The indigenous peoples are settled in an area of 11,300 hectares, and at least 65% of that area has already been handed over for forest use: the private owners requested the extraction permits and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources granted them, again without consulting the Indigenous peoples who are settled there.”

Since 2018, the community of San Elías Repechique has been requesting that its territory be recognized as Indigenous Rarámuri territory, not as an ejido, since their way of understanding the territory is different.

This would require a change to Article 27 of the Constitution.

Notably, Mexico’s participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and the United States required that Article 27 be modified to permit the privatization and the sale of ejidal lands.

We continue to follow this situation.

West Coast Environmental Law expresses concern about TMX surveillance of Secwepemc land defenders

The Canadian government owned Trans Mountain Corporation has set up a surveillance tower to monitor Secwepemc land defenders opposed to the construction of a tar sands pipeline on their territory without their free, prior and informed consent.

This 2-minute video includes representatives from West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) visiting the Tiny House Warriors site at Blue River and commenting on the situation.

Eugene Kung, a staff lawyer with the Vancouver, BC-based West Coast Environmental Law, comments: “I’m really glad that we were able to come here in person in order to witness for ourselves the set up and how creepy it is. It looks to me and it feels to me like there’s a real deliberate intimidation attempt.”

And Meghan McDermott of the BCCLA says: “This just seems completely over the top. People just walking in public are being captured. We don’t even know if they are listening to us, recording us, able to distinguish who we are in live time. It’s very problematic to have the state, or corporate subcontractors, doing this kind of level of surveillance.

Their concerns reflect those that have been raised by other bodies.

UN General Assembly

In December 2015, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 70/161 that calls upon all States to ensure that: “Information and communications technologies are not used in a manner that amounts to arbitrary or unlawful interference with the privacy of individuals or the intimidation of human rights defenders.”

Derechos Digitales

The Latin American organization Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights) has also highlighted: “Mere availability of low cost surveillance technology, or its offer by a vendor, does not justify acquisition or deployment.”

It adds: “The excuse [for surveillance] is often the need to ensure public safety, or the efficiency of policing systems. However, these technologies are increasingly invasive, and can adversely affect fundamental rights.”

And Derechos Digitales further cautions: “Any private or public entity considering or carrying out the development or acquisition of surveillance technologies must be legally required to perform a prior human rights impact assessment, involving experts in technology, social sciences, fundamental rights, among others.”

Interference with land defenders

Peace Brigades International-Canada echoes these concerns about the surveillance of Secwepemc land defenders on their territories.

We further highlight that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called on Canada to stop the construction of the Trans Mountain pipeline until it secures the free, prior and informed consent of the Secwepemc people.

 

Ojibwe water protector Tara Houska on police violence paid for by Canadian pipeline company

On August 13, Ojibwe water protector Tara Zhaabowekwe Houska posted on Facebook about being shot with rubber bullets paid for by Calgary-based Enbridge Inc., the company now building the Line 3 tar sands export pipeline in Minnesota.

Houska writes:

“15 days ago I got shot with rubber bullets, mace, and pepper balls paid for by Enbridge.

4 of us jumped off a ladder into a wall of police. I figured I might be seriously injured, but the sound of the drill filled my head. It was all I could hear, at the end. In our handcuffs and zip ties, the 4 rubber bullets that hit me and the chemicals all over my body began to burn as some cops laughed at us, others looked uncomfortable.

I was put into solitary confinement for 4 days after that, after a trip to the hospital because the fire red on the back of my left knee was concerning even to the police. My mind played young people being shot at under a smoky sky with a red sun next to a nearly-empty river being drilled under on an endless loop.

When I [was released and] stepped out into sunshine, the smiles and songs of land defenders greeted. The world felt brave again.

The machines are just south of our camp now, these woods I’ve lived in for 3 years.

The night after getting out of solitary, Line 3 construction kept on shaking the earth, relentless and desperate to finish.

One of my wounds seems to be permanent, with hard scar tissue underneath. Hubbard County used pain compliance techniques on the fearless defenders who stopped Enbridge’s machines 2 days ago. Police brutality on behalf of a foreign corporation.”

Her full post can be read here.

Earlier this week, Audrey Carleton reported on the assault against Houska and other water protectors and detailed how Enbridge “has given Minnesota law enforcement $2 million to fund the policing of protests against construction of its pipeline.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the construction of the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline in November 2016.

The Rainforest Action Network (RAN) has documented that the top five financiers of Enbridge are Canadian banks: TD Bank, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, RBC and CIBC. Collectively they have provided billions of dollars in financing to Enbridge.

The IPCC “code red for humanity” climate change report and human rights defenders

PBI-Canada and PBI-Colombia listening to an environmental defender talking about the impacts of a Canadian oil corporation on his community, July 2021.

The first installment of the Sixth Assessment Report, that reviews the available science assessing the state of climate change, was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Monday August 9.

A group of scientists has also leaked the third installment of this assessment report that says global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next four years and reaffirms the need to halve emissions in the next decade.

These are significant documents in relation to human rights defenders.

The political consensus is that we must limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Last year, we were already at 1.2C.

Human rights defenders are on the frontlines working to stop the megaprojects that further accelerate the climate crisis.

IPCC modelling says we will very likely hit 1.5C by 2040, but that if we don’t start bringing emissions down that could come by 2035.

While 1.2C has already had major implications for the planet, the IPCC says if we can achieve net zero emissions by 2050, we can stabilize temperatures at 1.5C.

If high carbon emissions continue, we could see 1.9C by 2040 and 3C by 2060.

UN Secretary General António Guterres says: “This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.” He further highlights: “We [must] respond to this crisis with solidarity and courage.”

COP26, November 1-12

The next major moment is the COP (conference of parties) 26 climate summit this coming November 1-12 in Glasgow, Scotland. This summit is intended to build on the COP21 Paris Agreement of December 2015 that aimed to limit the global temperature increase to 2C while pursuing the means to limit that to 1.5C.

The hope is that COP26 will increase the level of “climate ambition” beyond the Paris Agreement.

Significantly, the carbon reduction targets, known as intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), by countries following the Paris Agreement would still see the planet heat to 2.6C by 2100.

Climate change and human rights defenders                         

On average, four land and environmental defenders have been killed every week since the Paris Climate agreement in December 2015.

In 2020, Global Witness documented that 212 people were killed in 2019 for peacefully standing against the destruction of nature. 108 of them, more than half the global total, were killed in Colombia (64), Mexico (18), Honduras (14) and Guatemala (12).

Cognizant of this longstanding issue, the UN Human Rights Council passed this resolution in 2019 that says defenders “must be ensured a safe and enabling environment to undertake their work free from hindrance and insecurity, in recognition of their important role in supporting States to fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement.”

PBI accompaniment

This speaks to many of the defenders Peace Brigades International accompanies.

This includes the Peoples’ Front in Defence of Land and Water (FPDTA) in Mexico that opposes the PIM pipeline megaproject, the Regional Corporation for the Defence of Human Rights (CREDHOS) in Colombia opposed to fracking, the Verapaz Union of Campesino Organizations (UVOC) in Guatemala that has identified “hydroelectric, mining and monocultures” as drivers of climate change, and the Honduran Centre for the Promotion of Community Development (CEHPRODEC) that struggles against extractivism, including deforestation.

PBI-Canada upholds the rights of these defenders and works to amplify their struggles both as a protection strategy (given the risks they face) and to build awareness of the structural violence of extractivism that they confront.

Please watch for more details coming soon about our webinar on COP26 and human rights defenders planned for October 26.

PBI-Honduras highlights call for COPINH and Rio Blanco community to be include in Fraud on the Gualcarque trial

The Peace Brigades International-Honduras Project has posted: “On August 17 will start the trial ‘Fraud on the Gualcarque’ for acts of corruption in the concession of the hydroelectric project #AguaZarca over the Gualcarque River, Lenca indigenous territory. @COPINHHONDURAS and the Río Blanco community continue to be excluded from the process as victims whose rights were violated for more than 10 years.”

EFE has reported: “[On August 6] about 70 organizations asked the judiciary to resolve the appeal for amparo filed by [COPINH] prior to the start of the trial in a case of granting the concession of a hydroelectric project to which she opposed.”

“In a virtual press conference, Bertha Zúñiga [said the letter asks that COPINH] be accepted ‘as a victim’ in the case called Fraud on the Gualcarque.”

“The signatory organizations indicate that the Honduran law establishes the right of civil societies to be recognized as victims, and therefore they request the Constitutional Chamber to ‘resolve expeditiously and within the framework of legality’ the amparo filed by COPINH before the trial of this corruption case begins.”

“Zúñiga noted that COPINH filed in November 2019 an application for amparo ‘for the constitutional protection of the rights to justice, due process and fundamental rights of indigenous peoples contemplated in international instruments.’”

“She added that the amparo was filed by COPINH after the Court of Appeals decided in August 2019 to ‘exclude them as a victim’ of the case of irregularities in the hydroelectric project known as Agua Zarca.”

The article highlights: “The Lenca community of Río Blanco and COPINH have denounced that ‘the acts of corruption with which the permits and licenses were authorized’ for the Agua Zarca project were ‘the origin of a series of actions of state and non-state violence’ in the last decade, Zúñiga said. Among these violations are the violation of the right to prior consultation of indigenous communities ‘death threats, armed attacks, murders, including those of Tomas García and Berta Cáceres.’”

The statement from the 69 organizations asks the court to “take into consideration the amicus curiae introduced by the international expert organizations Lawyers Without Borders Canada, ASFC [Avocats sans frontières Canada] and the University of Quebec, the Due Process Foundation (DPLF) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).”

PBI-Honduras has accompanied COPINH since May 2016.

Vancouver-based mining company seeks a review of the rejection of its San José II mine in Oaxaca, Mexico

Photo: A protest outside the Canadian consulate in Oaxaca days after Bernardo Vásquez, an opponent of the Fortuna silver mine, was murdered on March 15, 2012.

On July 28, El Economista reported on Compañía Minera Cuzcatlán (CMC), a subsidiary of Vancouver-based Fortuna Silver Inc., seeking a review of the refusal by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat) of the environmental impact statement (MIA) for its proposed San José II mine in San José del Progreso, Oaxaca, Mexico.

A statement from the mining company says: “CMC has filed an appeal for review with Semarnat, stating the reasons why we believe that the MIA San José II can be evaluated at a second opportunity. In this way we continue to protect our rights and those of 1,200 working women and men, mostly heads of Oaxacan families.”

Mongabay has previously reported: “According to the last MIA that the company delivered in September 2020, they intend to continue with their gold and silver extraction activities in the municipality of San José del Progreso until 2029.”

The environmental permit was reportedly for a 7,000-hectare expansion of the existing 700-hectare mine.

But in its rejection of this permit, Semarnat stated that the company had failed to comply with the provisions of the original permit issued in 2009, by building 75 irregular works without authorization.

La Coperacha reports: “The No to Mining Front, composed of 12 communities in the Central Valleys, [has now] reiterated its demand for the total cancellation of the mining project, because, it recalled, for 10 years the Canadian mining company has systematically violated the human right to a healthy environment.”

Instead, the Canadian company is continuing to seek an expansion of its mine.

On March 11, Peace Brigades International and Amnesty International co-hosted this webinar that featured Neftali Reyes of Educa Oaxaca and representatives from Magdalena Ocotlán discussing the impacts of this mine.

This Educa Oaxaca report on the webinar highlights: “The representatives of the community located just a few meters from the San José mining project, owned by the FSM company, reiterated that ‘the mining company is affecting us a lot’ with water pollution, mine waste, constant noise and the shortage of water.”

For more on this, please see the Educa Oaxaca website here and Oaxacan Collective in Defence of Territories here.

PBI-Mexico began accompanying Educa Oaxaca in May 2013.

 

Canada leads Lima Group efforts with Colombia, Honduras and Guatemala to change the government of Venezuela

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with Juan Guaido (who he recognizes as Venezuela’s interim president) in Ottawa, January 2020.

In August 2017, Canada joined with Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico and other countries in a multilateral body called the Lima Group.

Its founding statement promotes “all credible negotiating efforts [to achieve] a peaceful restoration of democracy [in Venezuela].”

More pointedly, the Lima Group does not recognize the government Nicolas Maduro – and seeks a new government in Venezuela.

Some of what has been proposed includes calling on the international community to: freeze the assets of Maduro’s “dictatorial regime”; recognize Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s legitimate leader; and take steps to “further isolate” Venezuela.

While Canada has imposed sanctions against individuals associated with the Maduro government, it has not applied economic sanctions against the country itself.

On January 23, 2019, the National Assembly declared Guaido the interim president of Venezuela.

Prior to that, the Canadian Press reported: “Emboldening Venezuela’s opposition has been a labour of months. …Canadian diplomats in Caracas, with their Latin American counterparts, worked to get the country’s opposition parties to coalesce behind the one person who emerged strong enough to stand against Maduro: 35-year-old Guaido.”

That article adds: “[Senior Canadian government officials] detailed Canada’s role in aiding democratic forces to rescue the once oil-rich country from the economic and political spiral that has forced three million Venezuelans from their homes.”

In February 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau told the Lima Group: “The time for democratic transition in Venezuela is now. The international community must immediately unite behind the interim President seeking to restore democracy in the country.”

Significantly in April 2019, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and other countries renewed “their call on the National Armed Forces of Venezuela to demonstrate their loyalty to the interim president, Juan Guaidó.”

By May 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that then US President Donald Trump “has been crystal clear and incredibly consistent: Military action is possible.”

While Canada has called on the Venezuelan army to “demonstrate their loyalty” to Guaido, it has publicly rejected the idea of a foreign military intervention.

Earlier this year, Canada, Colombia, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico and other Lima Group countries issued this statement that highlights: “We do not recognize the legitimacy or legality of the National Assembly installed on January 5, 2021. This illegitimate National Assembly is the product of the fraudulent elections of December 6, 2020, organized by the illegitimate regime of Nicolás Maduro.”

Most recently, the Lima Group lost Lima (Peru) when its new president withdrew that country from the group. Its new foreign minister says: “The Lima Group must be the most disastrous thing we have done in international politics in the history of Perú.”

The Canadian government’s interest in Venezuela merits a deeper discussion.

Canada has taken a strong position on Venezuela, but not on Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico despite the significant issues that have been raised in those countries including corruption, democratic legitimacy, and significant human rights violations.

For instance, the meetings between Trudeau and Colombian president Ivan Duque on July 31, 2020, May 11, 2020, January 26, 2019, and September 25, 2018 all make reference to “the crisis in Venezuela”, but not the crisis in Colombia.

Professor Todd Gordon, author of Blood of Extraction: Canadian Imperialism in Latin America, says: “Canada is committed to the assertion of its powers in poorer countries in order to access their resources and labour.”

And MiningWatch Canada’s Latin American coordinator Kirsten Francescone has stated her organization’s “biggest concern” is that Canada’s moves in Venezuela “could potentially be an opening for Canadian mining companies.”

There is also, of course, the question of what right or legal basis Canada has to involve itself in a process with opposition parties in Venezuela to coalesce around Guaido and then actively seek a change in government in his favour especially when there is the appearance of economic benefit in doing so.

We continue to uphold the priority of any state needing to be accountable for its violations of human rights, as well the core United Nations principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs on matters within the jurisdiction of any state.

PBI-Colombia accompanies Nomadesc at one-year anniversary of the murder of five Afro-descendant teenagers in Cali

On August 11, the Peace Brigades International-Colombia Project posted: “PBI proudly accompanies Nomadesc on the first anniversary of the massacre of five children from LLano Verde in Cali.”

They add: “PBI sends a message of solidarity and strength to the families and people known to the victims and joins the claim for justice in the case.”

Álvaro José Caicedo, 15 years old; Luis Fernando Montaño, 15; Léider Cardenas, 14; Josmar Cruz, 16; and Jair Cortes, 14 were killed on August 11, 2020.

On the day they were killed, El Pais reported: “When the authorities arrived in the Cañaduzal [sugar cane plantation], they found the young Afro-descendants dead, they were apparently friends and neighbors in the Llano Verde neighborhood.”

Infobae has also explained: “Llano Verde is a neighborhood in the east of Cali, the sector is made up of several families victims of forced displacement.”

The month after the teenagers were killed, Caracol Radio reported: “Representatives of the victims families announced that one of the mothers has been threatened with death by means of a pamphlet that requires her to remain silent and leave the investigative process still for the death of the 5 teenagers.”

On July 29 of this year, Radio Nacional reported: “In the preliminary agreement presented by the Attorney General’s Office, it was decreed that if Gabriel Bejarano, known as ‘El Mono’, pleads guilty and gives information on why these five minors were murdered in August 2020 in Llano Verde, Cali, he would only spend 38 years in prison.”

“The victims’ lawyers have also asked the Prosecutor’s Office to charge Bejarano with the crime of torture, since at least two of the young men have signs of having been tortured, however, the authorities have not accepted the request.”

That article adds: “El Mono was captured on January 15 and according to the Prosecutor General’s Office he was the person who shot the victims with a firearm. Since 16 January, he has been sent to prison.”

And on the one-year anniversary of the killings, Blu Radio reported: “Five young people, between the ages of 14 and 16, were killed by security personnel at a sugarcane mill in Cali’s 15th commune in August 2020. Murderers have yet to receive a final conviction.”

Along with Bejarano, the other two charged are Juan Carlos Loaiza and Yefferson Angulo.

El Tiempo adds Loaiza and Bejarano were security guards with “ties to a dubious surveillance company, whose owner had been captured in 2019 for alleged ties to a transnational network dedicated to arms and narcotics trafficking” and that Angulo operated machinery to reinforce a dam on the Cauca River miles away from the plantation.

That article concludes: “For the families of the five adolescents, the questions remain. It only remains for them to think that there was anger and fury from the perpetrators of the massacre towards these minors because they were in that place, because they were Afro-descendants and because they were having fun eating sugarcane, one of the few activities of the children and young people of Llano Verde with the games on the soccer field, given the few possibilities of progress.”

And Infobae noted on the one-year anniversary: “Despite the fact that several months have passed since the massacre, the murder of these young people has not been clarified, even though there are already three captured who accepted their participation in the event, the testimonies show that there are more people behind the crime.”

That article also reports: “On October 4, a hearing will be held, where it will be announced if there are pre-agreements with the Prosecutor’s Office to accept the charges against the accused.”

#Los5NiñosdeLlanoVerde #QuienLosMato

PBI-Colombia accompanies CJL and Ituango leaders at meeting with Canadian Embassy

On August 11, PBI-Colombia tweeted: “PBI is present at this meeting with the Embassy @CanadayColombia on the humanitarian crisis in the municipality of #Ituango, #Antioquia. We appreciate the space to discuss this important topic.”

This was one of a series of meetings with embassies that PBI-Colombia has accompanied with the Corporation for Judicial Freedom (CJL) and leaders of Ituango over the past two days to discuss the humanitarian crisis in the region.

Two weeks ago, The Guardian reported: “More than 4,000 people have fled the violence of militias operating in the resource-rich region in recent months.”

“Bringing only what they could carry with them, entire families have fled from their homes in rural hamlets to the urban hub anchoring the region. According to the UN, 1,300 of those displaced are children.”

That article notes the situation for those displaced has been even further complicated because: “Roads have been blocked by mud and debris after heavy rains, while helicopters have been unable to land. As a result, the delivery of food and medical supplies has been stymied, and communications cut off.”

Isabel Cristina Zuleta of Rios Vivos says: “This is a terrifying situation; we’re seeing that the government is completely incapable of protecting these people. The government is not tending to the growing poverty there, nor to the cultural patrimony that is lost when peasant farmers have to abandon their homes, animals and livelihoods.”

PBI-Colombia has previously posted: “Several of the cases that the Corporation for Judicial Freedom is working on focus on defending the environmental rights of communities, and more specifically, the right to water.”

It then further highlights: “One of the sadly famous cases in this area is that of the controversial Hidroituango hydroelectric project, located in the municipality of Ituango.”

Zuleta has stated: “Since its launch in 1997, this megaproject has been imposed by violence and the forced displacement of the population, victims of the armed conflict.”

The Committee for Human Rights in Latin America (CDHAL) has reported: “The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec [the Quebec pension fund] and Export Development Canada [a Government of Canada agency] are financing this project.”

And Above Ground has noted: “EPM [Empresas Públicas de Medellín], a Colombian state-owned enterprise, has twice benefitted from the support of Export Development Canada in recent years. In 2016 and 2017, EDC provided EPM with financing totalling between 500 million and one billion dollars.”

PBI-Colombia has accompanied the Corporation for Judicial Freedom, which was founded in 1993 by a group of lawyers and law students, since 2000.