Recognition Act of victims of armed conflict remain
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Tahoe Body Style Changes How Often
This was decided by the president Juan Manuel Santos after a meeting with the senators of the Party of the U.
Tuesday May 10, 2011
At least in the paper for its fourth and final debate the bill victims recognize the internal armed conflict.
president Juan Manuel Santos made the decision to keep the explicit recognition so that only the victims of illegal armed groups have access to compensation provided by the project.
In a meeting at the Presidential Palace, The Party senators expressed concerns U president Alvaro Uribe because that would give explicit reference belligerent status to FARC. However, Santos, who was accompanied by the military leadership, maintained its position of supporting the armed conflict and that reference did not give any political recognition to the illegal groups.
"armed conflict have long ago in this country. Here there is nothing new, here you are not doing an addition to something you had in the past, but continues a very clear is that our military forces operating under the umbrella of IHL, which requires the presence of an internal armed conflict "Bush said.
"That in no way means that the terrorists stop being terrorists or fail to call them. In no way means that we are giving special recognition and a lot less than we are paving the way for the belligerent because it satisfies none of these requirements, nor is there anything new to the firm attitude clear and convincing the government and security forces against the narco terrorism and illegal armed groups everything that generate violence. "
The president thanked the Party of the U for supporting the initiative, and said it was satisfied with the text of the paper for the fourth debate of the law of victims.
also noted that "the admiral (Edgar) Cely, now defense minister in charge, and commanders Army, Air Force, Navy. All, all agreed that for them it is very important and essential to recognize that internal armed conflict. "
Consequently, the paper will remain unchanged, although the U.S. senators announced that the discussion will insist on the thesis and submit proposals to be the plenary of the House that decision is final.
The ideological rift
Public Order Section
The debate over whether or not there is internal conflict places Juan Manuel Santos and Alvaro Uribe of thought in different banks. Uribe Is fighting a losing battle?
Saturday May 7, 2011
Between Juan Manuel Santos and Alvaro Uribe has been no political overtones and pitch changes that show not only the different agendas of government, but their particular moods as leaders. But last week opened a real rift between the two, with the debate on whether or not armed conflict. Paradoxically, the Congress Party of the U promoted the idea that the text of the law of victims include the term "armed conflict" as a framework to limit the universe of beneficiaries of the repair. The interest was mainly to stop the economic bleeding of the State if any person affected by communal violence could be included.
In principle, the phrase has no major legal implications, since in the field of standards, the conflict has been long recognized. Both the Constitutional Court in its judgments and the laws of displaced and demobilized based on this premise. And not to mention the treaties and international jurisprudence, where Colombia has always been treated as a war-torn nation. Recognize or not the conflict does not relieve the government, for example, to comply with its obligations in the humanitarian field.
The phrase also sought to give any political message of legitimacy to the guerrillas, because the governments that preceded Uribe had recognized the conflict and that did not mean never give them belligerent status to the guerrillas, much less stop combat. And the legitimacy that they perhaps were in the negotiation of Caguan, in a context where they were recognized as a partner by the government of Pastrana, is comparable with that paramilitary groups were Ralito, but the Uribe government was ambiguous about the status that gave them the self-defense. That is, neither the direction of peace or of war changed with the inclusion or exclusion of the phrase.
But the immediate and disproportionate response from the president Alvaro Uribe has put the issue in the field of ideology and political legitimacy. Uribe spent much effort in his government to banish the term 'conflict' official language, and not simply a delusion, but a vision of politics and war. To Uribe no rebellion possible in a democratic society like Colombian, but crime and terrorism. However, cases like that of Great Britain show that even in established democracies may have violent disagreements, as was the case of the IRA, and with or without rhetorical recognition can even lead to the negotiation without thereby undermining the state.
The idea that there is no conflict inspired his community and state argument underlying the whole policy of democratic security. In the latter, for example, explains the existence of guerrilla groups because of the weakness of the rule and not the friction of interests and ideologies. "Uribe is a XVIII century liberal whose main concern is the construction of state, while Santos is in a more contemporary liberal tradition, which is what has governed us, "says Jorge Giraldo, dean of Humanities at the University Eafit.
Therefore, this issue may end up being a first pulse ideologically between Uribe and Santos. For the former, as a matter of principles which will fight among the most loyal in the bed of the U, who is himself looking for Congress to amend the term the final stretch of the law. But it is not so easy. On Tuesday, Senator Roy Barreras Rapporteur will meet with the caucus to discuss the issue before it is filed the paper, and asked the president to accompany Santos to "socialize" the discussion. Most lawyers in the country have endorsed the inclusion of conflict as a category, the Defense Minister Rodrigo Rivera, spoke out to say they recognize the conflict contributes to the implementation of international humanitarian law and the U.S. ambassador did not give importance to subject.
For Santos, this is not an ideological issue, but political. The president is pragmatic, and if the term puts a clear framework to the universe of victims and facilitates the implementation of the law, then it should be included. Second, tuned to a government with the international community, which had been shocked when the government denied this reality, but at the same time seeking support to wage war both in military and for the consolidation and the humanitarian crisis. Third, Santos allowed to return to using a purely political speech, stripped of McCarthyism, to name a reality as the civil war, which despite having disappeared from official documents for eight years, continues. And whose end will not necessarily by military means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment