Over the past several months, there have been major advancements in Colombia’s peace process. But more work lies ahead if Colombia wants to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation–each actor in the conflict must be held accountable. In an attempt to ensure a comprehensive peace process, Colombia’s transitional justice system charged a group of multinational corporations (MNCs) with crimes against humanity. The move to charge corporate entities with crimes against humanity is rare and could set a precedent for corporate accountability moving forward.

Colombia’s Peace Process

Late last year, the Colombian government reached a peace agreement with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and has since begun talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN). Negotiations between the government and these two marxist insurgencies have dominated coverage of the country’s peace process. However, it is a mistake to treat the conflict as something exclusive to the government and these leftist insurgencies. The war in Colombia is complex. In order to achieve lasting peace, the process cannot ignore the plethora of groups and interests that have stoked the conflict over its many years. On February 2, the Colombian transitional justice system took a major step in ensuring a comprehensive peace and reconciliation process by charging a group of MNCs with crimes against humanity.

While FARC and the ELN often draw the attention of onlookers, a 2013 government report claimed right-wing paramilitary groups aligned with the Colombian government and/or corporations perpetrated most of the conflict’s targeted killings and a majority of its massacres. The collection of MNCs, which includes Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita were accused of knowingly funding right-wing paramilitary groups in order to protect their interests. The fruit-producing MNCs are believed to have supported the infamously violent United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) which controlled swaths of Uraba and northern Colombia–the country’s main banana producing region.

Corporate Crimes?

Of course, corporations are regularly accused of violating human rights. There are no shortages of stories (many backed by conclusive evidence) in which corporations ruthlessly pursued their interests with a callous disregard for human life. Rich in natural resources, Latin America is home to some of the most harrowing examples of corporate incited conflicts. Notwithstanding the multitudes of corporate interests in the region, fruit companies have a particularly sordid history in Latin America. In the 1950’s, the United Fruit Company worked with the CIA to overthrow an overwhelmingly popular leftist government in Guatemala and install a far-right authoritarian government that was sympathetic to corporate business interests. This authoritarian coup led to a 36-year war and the genocide of an estimated 200,000, predominately indigenous, people. In the 1980’s, The United Fruit Company changed its name to Chiquita Brands International. Though stories past and present suggest that corporations consistently violate human rights, they act as though they are “too big to stand trial.”

MNCs are largely immune from legal accountability. By definition, MNCs are international entities. Their global reach often leads them to argue that a given court does not have jurisdiction over their actions. Therefore, finding a court that will hear a case and have the authority to enforce a ruling is a major challenge for a prospective plaintiff. Furthermore, many courts, including the International Criminal Court, fail to list corporations as judicial persons subject to investigation and prosecution. While courts could potentially punish executives instead of the entity as a whole, complex corporate structures make it difficult to pin liability on particular individuals. Even if a viable case is brought against a corporation, they generally have a distinct economic advantage over the plaintiff that allows them to employ superior counsel or settle the case out of court. On the rare occasion MNCs are found guilty in court, the punishments are often negligible. These factors perhaps explain why Colombia’s transitional justice system is among the first to charge MNCs with crimes against humanity.

Transitional Justice as a Model?

Transitional justice systems are established in the wake of a conflict and are a crucial component in peace and reconciliation processes. According the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), a non-profit that has been working with Colombia since 2005, transitional justice, among other things, works to make “access to justice a reality for the most vulnerable,” ensure “that women and marginalized groups play an effective role in the pursuit of a just society,” and  establish “a basis to address the underlying causeless of conflict and marginalization.” While one would hope and expect that every court system upheld these values, transitional justice systems are established with these particular humanitarian aims in mind. If the consortium of corporations actually did fund paramilitary groups, then it is imperative for peace that they are held accountable. An effective reconciliation process must necessarily give a voice to those most affected by the conflict and create a dialogue that addresses, deconstructs, and delegitimizes the conflicts motivating interests and actors. However, there is often a stark power imbalance between those driving conflict and those most affected by conflict. Unfortunately, these disparities in power translate into the traditional court room.

Far too often, corporate behemoths are able to marginalize the voices of those victimized by their interested pursuits. MNCs are able to bat away, or at least minimize, practically any legal challenge that comes their way. It is too early to argue that events in Colombia signify a turning point for corporate accountability. The charges against these MNCs were pressed by an impermanent court, under particular circumstances, have yet to be proven, and the implications of a guilty verdict remain to be seen. Multinational corporations continue to grow in size and influence, and corporate accountability is often demanded but rarely demonstrated. The fact that that a transitional justice system was among the first to explicitly charge MNCs with crimes against humanity is indicative of the way in which traditional justice systems generally preserve hegemonic interests rather than uphold justice.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colombia Charges Corporations with Crimes Against Humanity appeared first on Law Street.

On November 30, 2016, the Colombian Congress ratified a long awaited peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). After 52 years of fighting and months of negotiations in Havana, Cuba, FARC agreed to permanently put down arms and reinvent itself as a mainstream political party. America’s involvement in the conflict is longstanding. While President Barack Obama’s promises of aid were integral to the action plan for peace, policy shifts under President Donald Trump could jeopardize peace in Colombia.

The Alliance

Colombia is widely considered America’s strongest ally in Latin America. The alliance between the two states is built on Colombia’s entrenched and complex domestic conflict. Though first motivated by an ideological war with communism, the partnership would come to be defined by the U.S.’s war on drugs. President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs in 1971. Rather than addressing domestic demand for drugs, the U.S. government chose to wage war against those producing and trafficking drugs. As a result, Colombia became a focal point for the U.S.’s anti-drug policies. For decades, the Colombian government has received American military and financial support.

Over the years, American interference has undoubtedly contributed to the escalation and complication of the conflict in Colombia. Less than a decade ago, the U.S. was engaging in covert operations against FARC leaders, often in violation of international law. However, in a rare move away from traditional security approaches, the Obama Administration began pushing for peace between the Colombian government and FARC as early as 2009.

In 2015, after a turbulent fews years, Colombian and FARC representatives hammered out the details of a deal which was ultimately defeated in a referendum. A slightly reworked deal was approved by the Colombian congress in late November. The U.S. took the backseat throughout the negotiation process, but a $450 million aid package from the Obama administration was crucial for peace.

A Shifting Stance?

Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, Senior Associate for the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said that the aid package was necessary for peace. The primary purpose of the package is to develop alternative livelihoods for coca growers. Under Trump, there is no guarantee that this aid package will arrive as promised, if at all. The Trump Administration has already placed all ongoing foreign aid under review. Trump has also taken direct action on specific aid packages. In his first week, Trump halted a $221 million aid package to the Palestinian Authority and reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” which bans federal funding to international groups that work to endorse pro-choice policies or provide services related to abortion. There is no guarantee that the money promised under Obama will be delivered under Trump.

The Trump Administration clearly intends to impose conservative policies on foreign aid. Whether or not the Trump Administration will cut off aid to Colombia remains to be seen, and the White House has said little on the matter. However, when asked about the peace deal during his confirmation process, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson expressed his support for the long-standing militaristic policy known as Plan Colombia. He went on to say he “would review the details of Colombia’s recent peace agreement, and determine the extent to which the United States should continue to support it.” Tillerson’s expressed support for Plan Colombia and his ambiguous stance on the peace deal are cause for concern.

Tillerson’s reluctance to commit to peace in Colombia not only puts the deal with FARC in doubt but it could jeopardize future peace talks. While the agreement between FARC and the Colombian government is a major step on the road to peace, these two actors do not encapsulate the conflict. The conflict in Colombia involves a variety of right-wing paramilitary and leftist guerrilla groups. Though FARC has been the major and ever-present belligerent in the conflict, there are more hurdles to jump before Colombia can guarantee total peace. Preliminary peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), another leftist revolutionary group, are already underway. Even if the Trump administration chooses not to obstruct the deal with FARC, the Colombian government may not be able to rely on the kind of support it received from the Obama Administration when looking ahead.

Finally, it is important to note why the first draft of the peace deal with FARC was narrowly defeated in the referendum. Though less affected by the war than those living in rural conflict zones, urban Colombians voted down a deal that they believed to be far too lenient on the guerrillas. Were Trump to oppose the current peace deal, he may well find support from a sizable portion of Colombians who feel their government should not be negotiating with FARC or any other rebel group. This move would not be unthinkable considering Trump’s rhetoric concerning terrorist groups has been unapologetically aggressive, and both FARC and the ELN remain on the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

If Trump is unwilling to continue Obama’s move away from traditional security policies in Colombia, the peace process in Colombia could stall. Even if Trump upholds existing deals and promises between the U.S., Colombia, and FARC, the Colombian government may have to conduct future peace negotiations without American financial or diplomatic support.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does Trump Mean for Peace in Colombia? appeared first on Law Street.