Marta from FiLiA Meets: Louise Winstanley - ABColombia

Marta: Hello, I'm a volunteer for FiLiA. And my role is doing liaisons with Latin America. And this is why we have you here, Louise. So if you'd like to introduce yourself and what you do?

Louise:  Okay. Hi. Yes. Thank you, Marta. And thank you for the invitation. My name's Louise Winstanley, I'm the manager of ABColombia.

ABColombia is a group of organisations which include Christian Aid, Oxfam, CAFOD, SCIAF and Trócaire, and these five organisations make ABColombia and I do the advocacy work on Colombia for these organizations in the UK, in Ireland, Brussels in front of the EU. For how much longer? I don't know. And in Geneva for the UN.

Marta: Fantastic. I think that it will be really useful if we talk about like in a global terms, what was happening, what was the conflict in Colombia for such a long time now, like 50 years, I think? 

Louise: Yeah. So it was just over 50 years ago it lasted in Colombia. Well I say lasted, but it's continuing. So I've explained that a little bit further on, but basically the conflict started because there was no political space for the left in Colombia. There were two parties that were on the right of politics and they were passing the power from one to the other.

And so, as a result of that, you saw, um, the FARC coming to being the guerrilla group that operate in Colombia, the largest of the guerrilla groups. They operated mainly in the rural areas and mainly they kidnapped large landowners or held them to ransom in some way, attacking them, et cetera.

And so we saw a real escalation of that conflict actually in the 1990s, when the landowners decided to form their own self-defence forces. And these self-defence forces came to be known as a paramilitary group, the AUC. But they carried out some of the worst atrocities that you could imagine. 

We always say that, you know, the conflict in Colombia has also formed a smoke screen for many people to forward their economic interests that they have in land.

And so we saw a massive force displacement crisis.  Nearly 7 million people were internally displaced in Colombia. And these were mainly indigenous peoples Afro-Colombian peasant farmers, who were on land that people wanted to develop agro industry, mining and extractive minerals were there.

And so the conflict, was it like a smoke screen for the furtherance of these economic interests as well. 

Marta: I know that Colombia for the rest of the world has been known and unfortunately, because of Escobar and other Narco cartels. What was their position knowing within this environment that you are describing?

Louise: Well, really, the cocaine trade fuelled the conflict in Colombia, you won't find any group that didn't use that money for the furtherance of the conflict. So we saw massive drug cartels, as you know, Pablo Escobar. There was a major cartel in Cali, et cetera. Interestingly enough, Pablo Escobar was also a politician.

So, what we've seen is the drugs money has infiltrated every level in Colombian society. So it's infiltrated in the political elite, in the economic elite, and also into the conflict, the paramilitaries use the money, the guerrilla groups use the money. The army benefited from the money too.

You won't find anybody who hasn’t. And one of the things that many people say, many analysts say, is that money really has kept the Colombian economy afloat it is huge sums of money so they're not going to disappear overnight and of course, for those poorest of farmers, many of which were living in rural areas without sufficient infrastructure, in the midst of a conflict with whereby often the armed actors actually blocked the possibility of them exporting their crops to market. The only crop that they could grow to rise any money was cocoa because they armed actors came and collected that at the gate.

They got very, very little money for it. But it was enough to be able to feed their family and pay for education for their children. And that level of poverty has continued to provide for those who will cultivate the cocoa in Colombia. So it doesn't matter what level you look at it has infiltrated every single level, and it really did fuel the conflict in Colombia.

And, and interestingly, I mean, I lived in Colombia for two years. I worked on human rights issues and one of the things that I found out when I was living there was that the different actors, although they were in conflict with one another. They had agreements about the protection of their drug trafficking routes.

So that drug trafficking money meant that they respected each other's corridors for taking out the drugs. It passed many army checkpoints, they received money for allowing it to pass. So when I say it touched everybody, it really has touched everybody in Colombia.

And of course it generates a huge amount of violence. There was a signing of a peace accord with the FARC guerrilla and one of the elements of the peace accord addresses the cocoa trade. 

And so they addressed it in a very thoughtful way I think. They said that you needed to substitute those crops in order that people could leave the cultivation of those crops and begin to have some economic income, but not just that you got rid of crops and sewed others, but they also had to have outlets to market in order to ensure that they would be an income from that.

And those people who've organized in order to substitute crops, they get paid over a year for the substitution of those crops, once they establish the crops, then they can be taken to market. 

But unfortunately what's happened is that there were many, many people who wanted to get involved in that, but there's been so much violence against the leaders of those movements to substitute crops into work with the government on that from the drug traffickers. And we see many of them killed unfortunately, and also killed by political actors as well. Because, as I said, there are these political actors, like the new paramilitary groups that were established, not only do they have political ends, but they have ends which means that they want the economy from the drugs trafficking.

So the poorest farmers who are trying to get out from under this are having considerable difficulty. 

Marta: This referendum, it was evident among the population that's been very controversial somehow. Could you tell us a bit more about what it meant for Colombia?

Louise: Okay, well, I start with the fact that the Peace Accord is quite a unique document. It was developed over a considerable number of years, but what I think is particularly unique about it is it has a gender perspective, right the way through every single agreement. Now, Colombia is quite a patriarchal society, unfortunately. President Santos who negotiated this peace deal with the FARC did not have to hold a referendum in order to pass this agreement, he could, as president, he had every right to sign off on it, but he decided to hold a referendum early on in the peace negotiations, but having decided to hold this referendum, unfortunately, there was a lot of what maybe we term these days, fake news, about, about the Peace Accord and a tremendous backlash against the fact that they had these gender agreements in it. 

And the gender agreements covered not only women, but lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual community as well because they were equally victims in this conflict and particularly directed at women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual communities experienced terrible human rights violations.

And these were addressed in the Peace Accord but there was this backlash against it. And as a result of that by a very, very narrow margin, half a percent, the referendum was lost. Fortunately, unlike here in the UK with Brexit, President Santos decided they couldn't let years of work on the Peace Accord just drop so he came out stating that he would sit down with those who had led the No vote and they would look to revise the agreement in order to see that it passed.

 Unfortunately, that meant that some of the gender agreements were lost. And particularly those around lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual people they were either reduced or removed. 

But, having said that some still remain. And it still is a much more advanced agreement than we've ever seen before, but it was very saddening to see that what was targeted, were these agreements from a gender perspective. 

So it just shows how much male power is challenged by the fact that women come out and ask for equal rights and how, when you actually achieve that, there's this backlash. I mean, it's quite incredible because it in no way challenged the position of men, what it did was challenge the fact that women had the right to equal treatment, equal treatment in politics, equal treatment in the law in terms of land rights, equal treatment all the way throughout.

If you read through equal treatment before the law, things like conflict related sexual violence, that there would be no amnesties for this. We've not seen that in any Peace Accord before, recognising that the horrendous violence that women experience which is used by men as a weapon of war.

Marta: Yes. I've heard there were talks among the women, not from the two fronts. That seems to be more useful than what had happened with the both sides that men were talking about. Tell us about this. 

Louise: Well, I think what was so interesting about the Colombian Peace Accord is what women achieved and how they achieved it. 

So first of all, they really campaigned. They came together. I mean, women's organisations. All NGO organisations have different perspectives, different viewpoints on the world, but what they managed to do was come together on certain things that they really were all in agreement.

And that actually created strength of a movement that was so important. And what they sought to achieve was that on the frontline negotiating teams, there were women, because there were no women in the government or in the FARC side, the frontline negotiating team. They achieved that. 

They also wanted to achieve that there was a gender sub commission. And the gender sub commission was set up so it had women from the FARC and women from the government. It also had the guarantor countries on it and the UN women, and it also received advice from women’s civil society organisations. 

Now what happened in that gender commission was very, very interesting because the women from the FARC and the women from the government ended up having a joint agenda. They were not from one side or from the other side. So the whole education process, which they went through, which was helped by civil society organisations discussing what a gender perspective was, why it was important for women, et cetera, really influenced these two groups of women.

And they came together with one single agenda to put this, The Gender Perspective onto the agenda of those who, mainly the men, who were making the decisions. And so they were no longer two opposing sides finding an agreement between them. They had an agreed agenda that they wanted to put on the agenda of their own negotiating teams and that made it a really strong agenda and very, very interesting. 

And it certainly wasn't an easy process for them because the women had to take part in the normal agenda of the discussions. But in addition to that, they had to find time for the Gender Commission.

Like most women, they had to do extra hours they had to get up at 4.35 in the morning to meet in order to discuss the things that they had on the Gender Sub Commission. but they had a tremendous commitment and incredible amount of energy in order to be able to achieve this.

Marta: How did the men react to this pragmatic and practical arrangement that the women did?

Louise: Well, yeah, I think it was difficult for them to change their position, but the women were very diplomatic in how they went about it. I think as women have to be yes, but also really educating the men at the same time and changing their perspective.

And in addition to that there were other factors involved. So there were delegations of victims that were going to Havana, which is where the peace talks took place, putting forward their perspective and their proposals. And talking to many of the people who are in the negotiations, this really moved the people who were listening to it because they heard directly from victims, the impact that this has had upon them. 

And it made the men shift their position, especially when women talked about sexual violence and the fact that they weren't willing to accept amnesties for this. And so I think this shifted the pattern of thinking both of the FARC and of the government, because before I think they thought that they could have an agreement that basically just provided amnesties for everything, but that wasn't possible. 

Marta: Yes. I remember last time that I was in Colombia, that there was a slogan in the airport saying like ‘the only danger that Colombia can pose to you is the you don't want to leave Colombia anymore.’

How is the most fear in Colombia at the moment violence? 

Louise: We've seen something very sad happening in Colombia. With the peace negotiations, what happened was a real plummet of the homicide figures, which was excellent. But, instead the violence became very targeted.

It was targeted against human rights defenders and the community leaders. And so, we saw the UN actually officer of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, documented 110 cases of killings of human rights defenders last year. in 2018 alone in 12 months. And the Colombian human rights ombudsman documented 172. I mean, it's unprecedented the numbers of killings of human rights defenders in Colombia. 

Colombia has always been one of the worst country for the killing of human rights defenders, the killing of journalists. But right now it's off the scale. it's men and women.

But what we've seen is a particular increase in the killings and attacks against women human rights defenders. And when we were analysing why that might be, we realised that lot of the increase in attacks against women human rights defenders and community leaders started when they started going to Havana in the delegations, when they came back, they received threats, et cetera. Some of them had to displace from the areas that they were living. 

And then as we saw women achieve the Gender Perspective and the Peace Accord, there was a further backlash against people. 

So in analysing the situation we considered that as women became much more visible in this process, they were much more attacked and as they started to occupy public spaces and speaking out, so they were much more attacked and we really see this very closely linked to their patriarchal attitudes that are in society. And of course the backlash against the Peace Accord because of the gendered agreements produced that narrow no vote as well. 

Marta: What specifically is the role of human rights defenders in Colombia? 

Louise: Well, it's very varied, I have to say. And so we see community leaders at the very local level, women who are organising, for example, looking for the disappeared because their children, their husbands, et cetera, have been disappeared and women who've been victims of this disappearance have banded together with organisations to do something about this. 

We see women who've been victims of conflict related sexual violence. Many of these women took up working at the community level. Many were working at community level when they were violated as well because of the fact that they were doing this work, because of the fact that they were on the front line. One of the ways in which to dissuade them from this work was to violate them. So this is one of the tools that we've seen used as well.

We found that women take this leadership role when their rights have been violated frequently. Yes. And then they work together with other women. 

One of the really hidden crimes against women has been the high, extreme levels of violence against them and particularly sexual violence. And when you start to talk about sexual violence in Colombia, none of the armed actors want to admit that they have committed sexual violence.

An example I could give you is that the paramilitary groups demobilised in 2003/4 they were the worst violators of women, the worst ones for using sexual violence. And yet, if you look at the statistics of those who confessed to that crime, it's negligible compared with what they carried out.

And in talking to people who were a part of this process, they told me that the paramilitaries were willing to admit to the massacres they committed. It was absolute horrendous violence they used against people. They cut people up, live, with chain saws in order to gain control completely of areas.

 But the one thing they would not confess to, was the fact that they had raped women. The reason that they gave us was, it was the one and only thing they couldn't justify to their families.

They could justify massacres, tortures, they could justify all of that because the families are of the same thinking. When you see an enemy as an enemy, you can do what you like, but when it came to sexual violence, it's something outside of the contract and something they couldn't justify, something they never wanted to admit to. 

Marta: And in terms of the possibilities that women have to tell the society what they have been suffering and all that. How is that seen by society or the media or the government? 

Louise: Well, as I said before, it's one of the most, the most hidden crimes of what's happened in this conflict. And it really is a crime where silence continues absolutely. 

Also because for many indigenous women they were terrified of speaking out and I have to say that the terrible torture, as well as the sexual violence happened to indigenous women.

 And those women that we worked with, the organisations who work with indigenous women, said, ‘We are so hopeful when the signing of the Peace Accord happened, that now at last women, indigenous women could speak out about what had happened’ but that's not been the case.

And the reason why it's not been the case is because those demobilising, whether the FARC or paramilitary et cetera, those demobilising have gone back to the communities and women are terrified. They're living next door to those who have violated them. And so now they still cannot of speak out. They're still confined the silence about what actually happened to them, but it's not just indigenous women. It's many women across Colombia. 

So if there's such a silence, how did we find out about the level of violence against women? What it took was Oxfam. They did a survey of the years between 2001 and 2009. Women's groups all across the country took part in this. Women's NGO, Civil Society organisations. They did a survey with women, and that's how they documented what women had suffered, how they had been violated, what they had experienced, because it was anonymous and they would promise to keep that anonymous. and they just told their stories. They tracked the statistics and they told stories, but they were anonymous and they promised to keep them anonymous.

But that was the first survey that really showed what was happening in Colombia. And that survey showed that there was 149 women violated per day in Colombia between those nine years. I mean, it was just incredible. I mean, even for Oxfam, even for the NGOs that did the survey, nobody had realised, they knew it was terrible, but nobody realised the extent.

And it was from then on that we were able to begin to really work on this subject. It became a campaign and it took great courage by a woman journalist in Colombia who had been raped and left for dead, to be the face of that campaign. They needed somebody who would speak out about what had happened and her name's Jineth Bedoya Lima, quite an incredible woman, the first woman who was really willing to speak out publicly in front of the media, in front of everybody about what had happened to her.

And now she leads a campaign called ‘Now is Not the Time to be Silent’. So what that campaign has done is enabled many people across the country to come together and begin to speak about what had happened. It did something to remove the stigma of speaking about this. I'm not saying that's for every woman, because there's still many women who really cannot speak out about it.

But for many, many women, she has made a massive difference in terms of enabling them to have that space to speak out. 

Marta: I just was wondering now, because of what said now, but for instance, comparing with Guatemala, there was a famous case of a community that was taken also by paramilitary forces.

The men were killed. All the males were killed and they were sexual slaves. And they were abused in all possible senses. Finally, they were taken to court, et cetera, the problem was how to translate it, how you translate rape because they were not Spanish speakers and they didn't have a word in their language.

The closest was a word meaning my body is sacred and you have just violated it. So was nothing similar in terms of a specific community in Colombia that was able to talk about what happened. I mean, in terms of the group. 

Louise: It has been very, very difficult. This does happen, but it doesn't happen in any kind of public arena and even where it is happening, the women don't want to speak about it at the moment publicly.

So, yes, in many communities, the human rights defenders and NGOs, women's civil society, organisations are going in. Indigenous women are fostering these discussions in their communities, other women the same, but they're not public yet. People just can't take that step at the moment.

And they're also quite frightened to take the step because the conflict is not over in Colombia. It's something I hinted at the beginning, but. There was more than one guerrilla group in Colombia. So the only the largest of the guerrilla groups signed the Peace Accord. 

There was a demobilisation process of the paramilitary groups, the middle ranking sectors did not demobilise. And they continue to exist in Colombia. They're called criminal groups by the government, but by NGOs and civil society, they're known as new paramilitary groups. There is also a dissident group of the FARC, some of the FARC didn't demobilise and what happened was, when the FARC moved out of some of the areas which are most conflictive, where really they'd been the people who controlled the conflict in that area, it left it open to all these other groups to start fighting over the illicit economies because it's not just cocoa. It's also gold. 

They started fighting over these economies and with the communities caught in the middle. And as I said earlier, the ex-combatants go back to communities very often, the ones who violated the women.

 You also have a very strong patriarchal culture, which many indigenous and African Colombian communities who live on collective territories, where the collective local governments are very concerned about the demobilisation of ex-combatants that have always had a particular structure, a particular way of looking at how communities should operate, not quite got the right word, but they're very worried about the fact that they're going back into these communities and these local leaders may find themselves subjected to that.

And that's why women are worried. because this kind of patriarchal, militaristic attitude could have a major impact or women as well.

Marta: Now, in terms of support that you've received from the international community, what could we do?

Louise: Yes. Well, one of the things that we found particularly helpful is, people in parliament. It's been really important to put on the political agenda, the issue of conflict related sexual violence in Colombia and the gender-based violence that women have generally experienced. And we've had certain champions in the parliament who who've really put this on the political agenda and that's been essential, women of course, as always.

 And the Global Summit certainly in 2014 was a major milestone and certainly supported the women who were negotiating in Havana, the Peace Accord to establish that no amnesties for conflict related sexual violence, it changed the whole global perspective on this kind of violence against women. So that was really very important. 

We now have a Peace Accord with this in. But it's one thing to have an agreement, it's another thing to see it implemented. And that's really where we're finding there are problems. I mean, I think it's also really important to say that the Gender Agreements in the Peace Accord are not just about peace, but they're also about good governance, about really addressing the issues of inequality of women.

So, even if you had no Peace Accord, you would want to see these policies being implemented. So this gives an additional thrust to those, but it's what we would want to be seeing as women and what we'd be expecting across country with good governance really. 

So, we're really working now to try to see that these are implemented. There's been a change of government, and there's certainly been a real cooling off on the idea of implementing the Peace Agreement as a result of that. 

The new president is President Iván Duque Márquez on the 17th and 18th of June he'll be here in the UK. And we're really trying to ensure that the UK government issues a joint human rights statement with the Colombian government and that on this statement, they talk about the implementation of the transitional justice system with particular emphasis on prosecution of those who've committed conflict related sexual violence. 

So if you're listening to this podcast, what we hope is that you will write to your MP, and that you will ask him or her to speak to the government and to say, this is what they're expecting to see when President Duque is here on the 17th and 18th June.

And if you want a text of the letter, you can look at the ABColombia website, which is www.abColombia.org.uk. And on there, you will find a text of a letter that you can send via the website they work for you. 

Marta: Really great. Yes. Thank you so much. FiLiA will echo this and do these actions.

And I hope that anybody that is listening to this is going to do the same. This is very important for women of all the world. It is, and we have to be together in this fight against oppression and violence against us. Thank you so much Louise. 

Louise: Well, thank you very much, and I really, really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you, Marta. Thank you. 

Marta: Thank you.