Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Making space for peace : international protective accompaniment in Colombia (2007-2009) Koopman, Sara 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2012_fall_koopman_sara.pdf [ 32.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0072823.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0072823-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0072823-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0072823-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0072823-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0072823-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0072823-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0072823-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0072823.ris

Full Text

Attachment inserted November 1, 2013:  The fieldwork for this dissertation was done between November 2007 and March 2009, and unless otherwise specified the conditions mentioned here refer to that time period. The situation in Colombia has changed considerably since then, as have the operating procedures of many of these organizations. The reader is asked not to assume that the specifics mentioned about these organizations are still in effect today.  Nevertheless, errors were made in the description of the work of some organizations and to ensure the safety of the work today, at their request blackouts were made to this online version to correct specifics about their work that they felt could affect their reputation in ways that would put their work in jeopardy.  The following blackouts were made:  Chapter 6: assessments as to the relative professionalism of each group were deleted throughout. Page 164: details about the training, length of stay, and pay of Red accompaniers was deleted. Page 170: details about the number of PASC accompaniers, their length of service, and their mode of operation have been deleted. Page 173: mention of changes in IPO was deleted. Page 173: reference to pay, length of stay, director, and national origins of IPO volunteers was deleted Page 173: reference to a director, and to political affiliations of IPO volunteers was deleted. Page 175: mention of groups that did not wear uniforms was deleted. Page 176: reference to IPO volunteers paying their way was deleted.  a  Page 177 and 190: mention of the legal status of accompaniers in Colombia was deleted. Page 178 and 184-5: mention of disagreements between accompaniment organizations related to levels of professionalism and understandings of non-partisanship was deleted. Page 187: mention of groups that did not have such an explicit policy was deleted. Page 188: mention of a group doing work in the fields was deleted. Page 199: mention and analysis of the logos of the Red and PASC was deleted. Page 202: the word significant was deleted. Page 204-5: mention of an incident where the protocol of an organization was analyzed as less professional was deleted. Page 251: mention of accompaniers being deported was deleted. Page 269: the location of an incident was deleted. Page 289: reference to the interactions with the army was deleted. Page 291-2: mention of PASC discussions about their understandings of privilege was deleted. Page 297: mention of the nature of the use of PASC uniforms was deleted.  The organization PASC asked that the following clarifications be made about their work: PASC accompaniers receive a formal three-month training that involves four workbooks of reading and assignments, three intensive weekends, and personalized follow-up. That training process is described at http://www.pasc.ca/en/content/accompaniment#2.3. The Spanish skill level of all potential volunteers is assessed before training. PASC accompaniers stay in Colombia for a minimum of three months. PASC wears uniforms or not depending on the requests of those they are accompanying. The English version of the current PASC logo, adopted in 2008, is shown in figure A below, and, like others, is also in the shape of an eye. PASC accompaniers sometimes b  participate in some of the events of those they accompany as a part of an exchange of ideas between movements, and when events are more internal and that is not appropriate they may observe, or not participate in any way. The list in table 7 of organizations that PASC directly accompanied in 2010 is missing the following: four field teams of the Comisión Interecclesial de Justicia y Paz Ecumenical (Commission for Justice and Peace) in the regions of Bajo Atrato, Cauca, Valle, and Putumayo, Comité de solidaridad con los presos políticos, nacional (the National Committee in Solidarity with Political Prisoners), FEDEAGROMISBOL, Federacion Agrominera del Sur de Bolivar (Federation of small miners/farmers in the Southern part of the Department of Bolivar), and CISCA, Comité de Integración Social (Committee for Social Integration) in Catatumbo, Norte de Santander. The mentioned communities should be listed as the communities of the ‘Consejo Mayor’ (high council) in the region of Bajo Atrato, Chocó. The larger list of organizations that they currently accompany is available on their site, www.pasc.ca. PASC regularly meets with various Colombian authorities and the Canadian embassy.  From 2009 through 2012 PASC established the project, “Our Solidarity: a territory to decolonize”, to deepen their discussions and understandings. They held workshops on this topic with more than 50 organizations. The project culminated in the publication of a book on the topic, discussing their experience in depth, as well as a workbook for facilitators with 12 activities for discussing these issues. These are available at decolo.pasc.ca. They are currently in French, but are in the process of being translated into Spanish and English.  c  figure A: current PASC logo IPO asked that the following clarifications be made about their work: IPO provided stipends to volunteers who stayed for six months or longer, generally around $250 USD a month after their third month. Volunteers for 3 months or longer were compensated for almost all of their expenses in the field but did not receive a stipend. Volunteers for less than 3 months covered all of their own expenses. All volunteers were asked to give a one-time contribution of about $50 USD for housing. Catalonia and Denmark were the nodes that sent the most volunteers. Volunteers had to attend a weekend-long training in Europe to be considered. Once they arrived in Colombia they had 3-5 days of intensive training, in addition to being in a sort of "apprentice" mode in the field for at least their first 3 accompaniments. IPO always used photo identification cards in the field. They were printed in house, and had the name of the organization, a photo of the volunteer, a signature from the legal representative of the organization, the NIT of the organization (equivalent to 501c3 status in the US), and other information. They were generally proactive about presenting these to authorities in the field.  Witness for Peace notes that some of the details of their early history around the world in chapter two are inexact. For a more complete and accurate history see my forthcoming article in the  d  Annals of the Association of American Geographers, entitled The place(s) of international protective accompaniment: the travels of a peace tactic.  The organization Red de Hermandad asked that the following clarifications be made about their work: The Network of Brotherhood and Solidarity with Colombia - RedHer - is a space for organizing amongst independent Colombian and international organizations and collectives who share common principles of international political solidarity. The RedHer facilitates mutual aid and enrichment of resistance experiences for groups from Europe, North America, Argentina, and Colombia. RedHer is committed to a negotiated political solution to the social, armed conflict and operates on two thematic axes: Fighting against impunity and repression, and defending natural resources, with the goal of complete justice and the respect of sovereignty and culture. The Red Europea (the name stayed though organizations from the Americas joined later) is composed of committees, collectives and organizations of local activists, and Colombian migrants. They organize tours of Colombian social movement spokespersons in their country to raise awareness of the Colombian conflict as a way to denounce systemic and global injustice. Each group has their own campaigns and they coordinate for common actions or campaigns. Examples of the initiatives implemented by REDHER in the past include: an International Opinion Tribunal in Barrancabermeja, Montreal and Toronto (1999); Public Popular Hearing on Coca Cola in Atlanta, Brussels, and Bogota (2002); Campaign against Nestlé (since 2003); the Colombian chapter of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal process (2005-2008); and the international campaign against BP (since 2005).  e  MAKING SPACE FOR PEACE: INTERNATIONAL ACCOMPANIMENT IN COLOMBIA (2007-2009)  by SARA KOOPMAN  B.A., Swarthmore College, 1993 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2005  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Geography) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2012 © Sara Koopman, 2012  i  Abstract International protective accompaniment is a strategy used in conflict zones which puts people who are less at risk literally next to people under threat because of their work for peace and justice. Thousands of human rights workers, grassroots organizations, and communities have been protected in this way. The term accompaniment was first used for this work by Peace Brigades International (PBI), which sent the first international team to Guatemala in 1983. There are now international accompaniers working with 24 organizations in ten countries. Colombia is the country with the largest number of international groups, with twelve. Accompaniment in Colombia is widely used to protect small farmers resisting or returning from being displaced by paramilitaries tied to large agribusiness. These campesinos are organized in what are often called ‘peace communities’. I spent 15 months in Colombia (2007 – 2009) holding ongoing conversations with accompaniers about how accompaniment works, or to use Peace Brigades’ slogan, how it ‘makes space for peace.’ Paradoxically accompaniers use the fact that their lives ‘count’ more (because of passport/economic/racial privilege), to build a world where everyone’s lives ‘count’, where it matters when a small farmer is killed in the Colombian jungle. I was hoping that accompaniment was using privilege in such a way that it could ‘use it up’, that is, that it could dismantle the systems that make some lives count more. I did not find that, but I argue that accompaniment can wear down the structures that grant privilege unequally – but it can also reinforce those, depending on how it is done. It is easier for accompaniers to fall into colonial patterns that make some lives worth more than others when they understand themselves as nonpartisan civilian peacekeepers, rather than emphasizing building and activating chains of solidarity to make accompaniment work. It is also easier to fall into those traps when accompaniers see space as abstract and elide how race and other privileges shape their work. To change structures of domination, accompaniment needs not only to leverage difference, but also simultaneously engage in building connections across difference and distance, through chains of solidarity.  ii  Preface  Ethics approval for this research was received from the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research Ethics Board on September 12, 2007, Certificate number H07-01916.  A version of the discussion of geopolitics in Chapter 9, the conclusion, has been published as  Koopman, S. “Alter-geopolitics: Other securities are happening,” Geoforum 42, no. 3 (June 2011): 274-284.  A portion of chapter 5 has been published as  Koopman, S. “Let’s take peace to pieces,” Political Geography 30, no. 4 (May 2011): 193-194.  iii  Table of Contents  Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures............................................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiv Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xviii Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Defining international protective accompaniment...................................................................... 5 Other terms for protective accompaniment................................................................................. 7 Where I write from.................................................................................................................... 10 Thinking with accompaniers..................................................................................................... 13 Why I write ............................................................................................................................... 17 Overview................................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 2: The place(s) of accompaniment.............................................................................. 24 Christian roots........................................................................................................................... 26 Beginnings ................................................................................................................................ 30 “Invading” Nicaragua with Witness (1983 - ) .......................................................................... 35 Brigading in Guatemala (1983 - ) ............................................................................................. 38 Returning with refugees across Central America (1989 – 1999).............................................. 40 Christian Peacemakers search for a place................................................................................. 43 Haiti (1993 – 2000)................................................................................................................... 45 North America (1992 -) ............................................................................................................ 47 Mexico (1994 - ) ....................................................................................................................... 49 iv  Occupied Palestinian territory (1989 – 1992, 1995 - ).............................................................. 51 Asia (1989 - ) ............................................................................................................................ 55 Iraq (1990 - 1991, 2002 - )........................................................................................................ 58 Other places accompaniment was tried..................................................................................... 64 Africa (2011 – 2013)................................................................................................................ 66 Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 70 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 74 Chapter 3: Why Colombia? ....................................................................................................... 77 Armed conflict and political violence....................................................................................... 79 Land .......................................................................................................................................... 81 The history of the US role and the guerillas ............................................................................. 86 The history of the US role and the paramilitaries ..................................................................... 89 Land and the armed actors today .............................................................................................. 92 The US in Colombia today ....................................................................................................... 98 The peace community of San José de Apartadó ..................................................................... 106 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 117 Chapter 4: The impact of racialization................................................................................... 121 ‘Racial’ categories in Colombia.............................................................................................. 122 Regional ‘races’ ...................................................................................................................... 127 The ‘Colombian race’ ............................................................................................................. 130 Changing imaginaries ............................................................................................................. 134 ‘Race’ at war ........................................................................................................................... 135 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................. 139 Chapter 5: What kind of peace?.............................................................................................. 141 Positive and negative .............................................................................................................. 142 Accompaniers’ understandings of peace ............................................................................... 148 The history of peacekeeping ................................................................................................... 152 Accompaniment is not peacekeeping...................................................................................... 155 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 158 Chapter 6: The professionalism of accompaniment .............................................................. 160 Professionalism of accompaniment organizations in Colombia............................................. 162 Elements of professionalism ................................................................................................... 174 v  Understandings of solidarity ................................................................................................... 179 The meanings, and danger, of ‘non-partisanship’................................................................... 182 Working together .................................................................................................................... 187 Skill exchange......................................................................................................................... 191 Negotiating intimacy............................................................................................................... 194 Visual presentation.................................................................................................................. 197 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 199 Chapter 7: Making space ......................................................................................................... 206 Diagramming accompaniment ................................................................................................ 208 Shaping space on an accompaniment ..................................................................................... 219 Playing the part ....................................................................................................................... 229 Representations of accompaniers and ‘space’ in cyberspace ................................................. 232 Spatial metaphors used to explain how accompaniment works.............................................. 234 Chains of solidarity ................................................................................................................. 238 Networks of solidarity............................................................................................................. 242 Not an actor-network, not a convergence space ..................................................................... 243 Diagramming chains ............................................................................................................... 248 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 253 Chapter 8: Wearing whiteness................................................................................................. 256 Brown faces with blue passports............................................................................................. 258 One more link on the chain..................................................................................................... 263 The meaning of ‘international’ ............................................................................................... 265 Discomfort with whiteness ..................................................................................................... 267 Privilege in the literature on accompaniment ......................................................................... 271 Public statements on privilege ................................................................................................ 287 Standing out ............................................................................................................................ 293 Lending, giving back and giving up privilege ........................................................................ 306 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................. 309 Chapter 9: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 313 Definitions of geopolitics........................................................................................................ 316 Accompaniment as an alternative geopolitics......................................................................... 323 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 325 vi  Future research........................................................................................................................ 333 Making space for peace .......................................................................................................... 336 References.................................................................................................................................. 338 Appendix A: Accompaniment internationally ....................................................................... 366 Table 1: International accompaniment organizations (past and present)............................... 366 Table 2: Countries where international accompaniment is being done as of October 2011... 370 Table 3: Countries where international accompaniment has been done in the past ............... 372 Table 4: International accompaniment organizations (past and present) with country information.............................................................................................................................. 373 Table 5: Timeline of international accompaniment (by organization start date)................... 378 Appendix B: Accompaniment in Colombia............................................................................ 379 Table 6: Timeline of when international accompaniment organizations began working in Colombia................................................................................................................................. 379 Table 7: International accompaniment organizations working in Colombia, as of November 2010......................................................................................................................................... 380 Table 8: Organizations working with the Red de Solidaridad................................................ 382 Table 9: Colombian groups receiving accompaniment, organized by Colombian organization,with links (Red groups listed separately in table 8).......................................... 385 Table 10: Colombian groups receiving accompaniment, organized by international organization............................................................................................................................. 388  vii  List of Tables  Table 1: International accompaniment organizations (past and present)................................... 366 Table 2: Countries where international accompaniment is being done as of October 2011....... 370 Table 3: Countries where international accompaniment has been done in the past ................... 372 Table 4: International accompaniment organizations (past and present) with country information ..................................................................................................................................................... 373 Table 5: Timeline of international accompaniment (by organization start date)....................... 378 Table 6: Timeline of when international accompaniment organizations began working in Colombia..................................................................................................................................... 379 Table 7: International accompaniment organizations working in Colombia, as of November 2010............................................................................................................................................. 380 Table 8: Organizations working with the Red de Solidaridad.................................................... 382 Table 9: Colombian groups receiving accompaniment, organized by Colombian organization,with links (Red groups listed separately in table 8).............................................. 385 Table 10: Colombian groups receiving accompaniment, organized by international organization ..................................................................................................................................................... 388  viii  List of Figures Figure 1: Where international accompaniment is and has been practiced map by Eric Leinberger, © UBC Geography, by permission ............................................................................................... 25 Figure 2: Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner photos from FBI missing poster, in the public domain.......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3: More than 150 US Christians hold a peace vigil with residents of Jalapa at the edge of their town, July 1983. © Ed Griffin Nolan, by permission........................................................... 37 Figure 4: The Nonviolent Peaceforce team in Mundri, Sudan. The white woman on the top left, Tiffany Easthom, is the country director. © Nonviolent Peaceforce, by permission ................... 67 Figure 5: Map of planned US bases. Map by FOR at www.forcolombia.org ©FOR, used by permission. .................................................................................................................................. 101 Figure 6: Location of San José. Map by Eric Leinberger  UBC Geography, used by permission ..................................................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 7: Area where bodies were found, PBI accompanier in white t-shirt. Photo taken by author in 2008. ............................................................................................................................ 112 Figure 8: Luis Eduardo Guerra speaking in front of the School of the Americas, November 2001, © Linda Panetta, by permission....................................................................................... 113 Figure 9: Anonymous Mexican 'castas' painting from the eighteenth century, now at the National Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico City, Mexico, image in the public domain...... 124 Figure 10: Topographic map of Colombia by Sadalmelik, creative commons, available at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Colombia_Topography.png............................................. 127 Figure 11: Galtung's triangle of violences, © Bernadette Muthien, by permission.................... 143 Figure 12: ‘Facebook march for peace’ in February 2008, photo by author. ............................. 144 Figure 13: March 6th 2008 MOVICE march, photo by author. ................................................. 145 Figure 14: MOVICE march on March 6th, 2008. Flag around head of both actors dressed in white, visible only on second actor. photo by author ............................................................... 146 Figure 15: Mind map drawn during PBI workshop. ................................................................... 148 Figure 16: Mind map drawn during SweFOR workshop............................................................ 150 ix  Figure 17: "Solidarity Forever" image by Rini Templeton, www.riniart.org, creative commons. ..................................................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 18: CPT delegation members pray on the tarmac in Barrancabermeja, September 23, 2005 (banner: YES to development, self-management and life, NO to gringo dollars for arms and fumigation), creative commons. ................................................................................................. 168 Figure 19: PBI and CPT accompanier (with red hat) try to stay to the sidelines of march, photo by the author. .............................................................................................................................. 190 Figure 20: Logo of the Red de Hermandad, by permission........................................................ 197 Figure 21: Logo of Witness for Peace, by permission................................................................ 198 Figure 23: Photo from PBI’s Colombia website showing PBI accompaniers in San José wearing logo on back, by permission. ...................................................................................................... 198 Figure 25: Logo of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, by permission. ....................................... 199 Figure 22: Logo of the International Peace Observatory, by permission. ................................. 198 Figure 24: Logo of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, by permission. ...................................... 198 Figure 26: Logo of the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, by permission...................................... 199 Figure 27: Diagram of various relationships between society and space, drawn in PBI workshop on February 19, 2009, photo by author....................................................................................... 206 Figure 28: Diagram of various relationships between society and space, and role of accompaniers, drawn at FOR workshop, photo by author.......................................................... 208 Figure 29: Mahony and Eguren's diagram of the aggressor’s space for repressive action, © Kumarian Press, by permission................................................................................................... 209 Figure 30: Mahony and Eguren's diagram of each actor's political space, © Kumarian Press, by permission. .................................................................................................................................. 209 Figure 31: Mahony and Eguren's diagram of the accompanied actor's political space, © Kumarian Press, by permission................................................................................................... 210 Figure 32: Mahony and Eguren's diagram entitled “Aggresor’s Repressive Space: Reality and Perception”, © Kumarian Press, by permission......................................................................... 211 Figure 33: Mahony and Eguren’s diagram entitled “Activist’s Political Space: Reality and Perception”, © Kumarian Press, by permission.......................................................................... 211 Figure 34: Mahony and Eguren's diagram entitled “Activist’s Political Space & Effect of Accompaniment”, © Kumarian Press, by permission. ............................................................... 211 x  Figure 35: Mahony and Eguren's diagram entitled “Aggressor’s Repressive Space & Effect of Accompaniment”, © Kumarian Press, by permission. ............................................................... 212 Figure 36: Relational space, by author. ...................................................................................... 214 Figure 37: Abstract space by author ........................................................................................... 214 Figure 38: Space as shaped by and shaping practices, productions and performances of space, by author. ......................................................................................................................................... 219 Figure 39: FOR house in San José (with FOR accompanier wearing uniform), photo by author. ..................................................................................................................................................... 226 Figure 40: Photo from IPO website, www.peaceobservatory.org, by permission...................... 229 Figure 41: Mahony’s diagram of how accompaniment works, appears only in Mahony’s Side by Side brochure, © Kumarian Press, by permission. ..................................................................... 248 Figure 42: My diagram of how accompaniment works spatially, by author. ............................. 251 Figure 43: PBI accompanier in front of sign at entrance of San José. The sign lists the peace community’s principles, photo by author. .................................................................................. 256 Figure 44: Chicana accompanier and Colombian born US citizen co-director of FOR get a tour of the new cacao seed (chocolate) roasting plant in the peace community of San José, photo by author. ......................................................................................................................................... 294 Figure 45: Wearing CPT delegate vests: Sylvia Morrison, CPT anti-racism coordinator based in Toronto Canada on the left, author in middle, Colombian Mennonite delegate on the right, photo by Stewart Vieresinga, by permission. ....................................................................................... 297 Figure 46: CPT delegate vest on the left, staff vest in multiple languages on the right, photo by author. ......................................................................................................................................... 298 Figure 47: IPO accompanier, photo from IPO website, www.peaceobservatory.org, by permission. .................................................................................................................................. 298 Figure 48: Community member carrying FOR flag, racialized accompanier walking directly behind, wearing FOR t-shirt, photo by Zara Zimbardo, by permission...................................... 300 Figure 49: Who stands out more, the tall 'white' delegate or the racialized accompanier with an FOR t-shirt? Photo by author...................................................................................................... 301 Figure 50: Shirts get dirty fast and are often covered by bags and backpacks. FOR accompanier in the rear, author in front, wearing FOR t-shirt, photo by Zara Zimbardo, by permission. ..... 302 Figure 51: The Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation uniform, with "international observer" across the top of vest, photo by author. ...................................................................................... 304 xi  List of Abbreviations AUC  Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, United Self-defense Forces of Colombia  BACRIM  bandas criminales, criminal gangs  BTS  Maritimes Breaking the Silence  Carea  Cadena para un Retorno Acompañado, Chain for an Accompanied Return  CG  Collectif Guatemala  CJ  Cry for Justice Coalition  CPT  Christian Peacemaker Teams  EAPPI  Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel  ELN  Ejercito de Liberación Nacional – National Liberation Army  FARC  Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia - Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia  FOR  Fellowship of Reconciliation  GSN  Guatemala Solidarity Network  IAP  International Action for Peace  ICW  International Checkpoint Watch  IPO  International Peace Observatory  xii  IPT  Iraq Peace Teams  ISM  International Solidarity Movement  IWPS  International Women's Peace Service  MPT  Michigan Peace Teams  MW  Mideast Witness  NISGUA  Network in Solidarity with Guatemala  NP  Nonviolent Peaceforce  OD  Operation Dove  PAGQ  Projet Accompagnement Guatemala - Quebec  PASC  Projet Accompagnement Solidarite Colombia  PBI  Peace Brigades International  PPF  Presbyterian Peace Fellowship  PW  Peace Watch  Quixote  Quixote Center  Red  Red de Hermandad y Solidaridad - Solidarity and Sistering Network  SiPaz  International Service for Peace  SweFOR  Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation  Voices  Voices in the Wilderness  WFP  Witness for Peace xiii  Acknowledgements My lifelong gratitude to my adviser, Derek Gregory, who got me excited about geography in the first place, for sticking with me and being so supportive through such a long process - but especially for continually challenging me to see my work, and the world, in new ways. I also could not have made it without such a great committee. Many thanks to Philippe LeBillon for regularly checking in with me, Gerry Pratt for being a voice of sanity early on, and Pilar RiañoAlcalá for being such a great reality check throughout, especially when she met with me in Bogotá. Thank you too to Pilar for arranging for a home for me at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at UBC. I am so grateful for all of the community and support I received at the Liu, it was a wonderful place to write. Thanks to my Liu office mates Marie Eve and Eun Yeung in particular. The Geography department at UBC has also been a great community to be a part of, and I’m particularly grateful to the main office staff. Many thanks also to geography undergrad Daniel Lai for doing transcriptions for me, and likewise to Carolina Rudas for being a fantastic bilingual transcriber.  Most of all of course I thank all of the accompaniers who thought these issues through with me. I am most especially indebted to Suzanna Collerd. I doubt she knew when she signed up to be my housemate just how much she would end up talking about all of this! I am so grateful, not just for the insights and great jokes, but for creating such a warm welcoming home with me. Many thanks to all of the amazing accompaniers who talked these issues and ideas through with me: Sanna, Alison, Emily, Nikki, Claire, Lara, Pep, Rachel, Mayra, Moira, Camila, Chris, xiv  Danny, AJ, Chris, Janice, Gilberto, Ricardo, Geroid, Dan, Andrew, Chris, Sarah, Susana, Stewart, Nina, Karin, Paulina, Lari, Emma, Carlos, Mattias, Emilio, Cesar, Gustavo, Marisabel, Oceane, Nina L, Eva, Marie, John, Kevin, Francesca, Sylvain, Julia, Gerrit, Pascal, Tania, Tania, Kath, Jess, Paul, Michele, Nils, Laura, Kim, Sarah, Sandra, and Sarah. I look forward to presenting this version of this research to them and continuing the process of thinking these issues through with them towards the publication of a book version.  Thank you to many others who were not accompaniers but thought these things through with me and offered important insights: Germán Plata, Juan Mario Díaz, Sylvia Morrison, Carlos Rosero, Vanessa Kritzer, George Lakey, Forrest Hylton, Mario Murillo, Jaime Torres Melo, Zara Zimbardo, and Sandra Alvarez. For helping with the details in chapter three, thanks to Sara Joseph, Kathryn Anderson, Marina Pages, Lisa Maracani, Rory, and Bianca Bauer. Thanks to Wes, Diana, and Lara for reading drafts of chapters.  I originally intended to include the activism of the Ruta Pacifica de Mujeres (Women’s Peaceful Way) in this dissertation. It ended up being too much, but I hope that I can come back to that work and collaborate with them in the future. I’m grateful to have had the chance to be on the Ruta’s caravan and see their amazing meeting dynamics. A huge thank you to all of the women of the Ruta, especially Martha, Piedad, Esperanza, Marina and Alejandra.  I have presented versions of this dissertation at various conferences and am grateful for all the feedback and ideas I have gotten that way. Geography is a wonderful discipline to be in. I am so grateful for the mentoring, support and friendship from senior geographers whose work is such an inspiration to me. Many thanks to Jo Sharp, Rachel Pain, Paul Routledge, Paul Chatterton,  xv  and Kiran Asher. I have also gotten amazing support from my geography compañeras Jen Gieseking, Marion Traub-Werner, and Diana Ojeda. Gracias mujeres!  I am also grateful to have loving and supportive friends who are neither geographers nor accompaniers! I can’t imagine what living in Bogotá would have been like without Maite and Andrea, who were family for me, and brought me into theirs. Their regular love and support kept me somewhat sane during some very stressful times. I am particularly awed and grateful for their fiscal respaldo in the huge hurdle of apartment renting. Having that space in so many ways made this dissertation what it is.  Karen Rosenberg I’m not sure if I should thank or blame for getting me back to academia, but I certainly thank her for keeping me in and supporting me through it. I am also so thankful for Itrath’s ongoing support and biting humor. Gracias Mariano for knowing just when I needed to be dragged out of the house (and for helping me move house and in so many other ways being family to me). Thank you to Amy for always being there to turn to for understanding and love.  I am deeply grateful to all of my funders. I received a Dissertation Fellowship from the American Association of University Women, a graduate student scholarship from Antipode, A Radical Journal of Geography, a Dissertation Research Grant from SSHRC (Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council), a Dissertation Enhancement Award from the Political Geography Specialty Group of the American Association of Geographers, a University Graduate Fellowship from UBC, and research assistantships from Pilar Riaño and Derek Gregory. I am blessed to have five parents and I thank all of them for their financial support, especially my dad and Helen for providing regular funding over three lean years. My entire  xvi  family has also been an important source of not only material but also crucial emotional support throughout this process. Thank you all so much, mamá (treats provider extraordinaire), Tedd, Rita, and papá, and special thanks to Helen for talking these issues through with me so many times and being an inspiring example of how one can do social change from inside academia.  xvii  Dedication  dedicated to Lahe, Terry and Ingrid  xviii  Chapter 1: Introduction 'Interestingly, geography ... can actually make a serious claim to be the ‘queen of the peace sciences’ — not out of our innocence, but rather out of our guilt. It is the quintessential war science.' – William Bunge 1 Geography has been internationally associated with war and violence since its inception. Geographers have long offered advice to ‘the prince’, and justification to the ‘Great Powers’ for their colonial exploits.2 It is only recently that this connection between geography and war has received critical attention, both in historiography of the discipline and the way in which geographical knowledge is intimately involved in the conduct of war, from geopolitics through to tactics.3  Given that the discipline of geography has long been used for and tied to war, it might seem odd to turn to it to as a way to study peacebuilding. But the discipline of geography is not, as O Tuathail puts it, "beholden to battlefields" - even though it has been shaped  1  William Bunge, Nuclear War Atlas, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Blackwell Publishers, 1988).  2  Anne Godlewska and Neil Smith, Geography and Empire (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1994); see Felix Driver, Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration and Empire (Wiley-Blackwell, 2001). 3  D. R. Stoddart, “Geography and War:: The ‘New Geography’ and the ‘New Army’ in England, 1899-1914,” Political Geography 11, no. 1 (1992): 87–99; M. Heffernan, “Geography, Cartography and Military Intelligence: The Royal Geographical Society and the First World War,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 21, no. 3 (1996): 504–533; Trevor Barnes and Matthew Farish, “Between Regions: Science, Militarism, and American Geography from World War to Cold War,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, no. 4 (December 2006): 807–826, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00516.x; Gearóid Ó Tuathail, “Battlefield,” in Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Human Geography, ed. John Agnew and David Livingstone (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011).  1  by them.4 I run the risks of using the ‘master’s tool’ of geography to think about peacemaking because peace is inherently spatial.5 Peace is shaped by the space in which it is made, as it too shapes that space. It makes a difference if peace is made through a network, a hierarchy, or in closed rooms. If we imagine peace as something delivered by men in suits in a negotiation room, we may not see a role for ourselves to play.  Over the years there have been various calls for geographers to do more work on peace.6 The argument has been taken up again recently, with a new twist. Megoran has argued that critical geopolitics has been indirectly supporting just war theory, and called for geographers to commit to nonviolence.7 He later called for geographers to study ways to promote peace, or what he calls ‘pacific geopolitics’.8 Most recently he has called for geographers not simply to study but to commit to building peace.9 Inwood and Tyner have also recently issued another aspirational call for geographers to commit to a ‘propeace agenda’ (which according to them is “not necessarily peaceful”). They call for 4  Ó Tuathail, “Battlefield,” 478.  5  “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”Audre Lorde, Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches (Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia: Crossing Press, 2007). 6  For an overview of works in geography on peace, see Virginie Mamadouh, “Geography and War, Geographers and Peace,” The Geography of War and Peace: From Death Camps to Diplomats (2005): 26–60. 7  Nick Megoran, “Militarism, Realism, Just War, or Nonviolence? Critical Geopolitics and the Problem of Normativity,” Geopolitics 13, no. 3 (2008): 473–497. 8  Nick Megoran, “Towards a Geography of Peace: Pacific Geopolitics and Evangelical Christian Crusade Apologies,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, no. 3 (2010): 382– 398 These calls have generally been more aspirational than an analysis of peacebuilding, but in this article Megoran looked at the Reconciliation Walk of Christians apologizing for the crusades. 9  Nick Megoran, “War and Peace? An Agenda for Peace Research and Practice in Geography,” Political Geography 30, no. 4 (May 2011): 178–189, doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2010.12.003; My commentary on that article was published as Sara Koopman, “Let’s Take Peace to Pieces,” Political Geography 30, no. 4 (May 2011): 193–194, doi:16/j.polgeo.2011.04.013.  2  geographers to commit to a pro-peace pedagogy that challenges narratives that legitimate killing and inequality and discusses social injustices.10  There are many ways to work for peace, and these include critiques of the workings of war, as well as research, and pedagogy, on rights and justice. Geographers do not need to put peace front and center in their work, much less commit to pacificism - or even activism, to be building peace. Indeed studying peace does not necessarily build it. In the past 25 years there have been three edited collections of geographies of war and peace. These collections have generally not defined peace and have implied that peace is simply the absence of war.11 This pattern was repeated by the recent special issue on Geographies of Peace and Armed Conflict of the Annals of the Association of American Geographers.12 This sort of vague definition of peace can lead to a misuse of ‘peace’ to promote deeply conservative views and an entrenchment of unequal global power relations.  ‘Peace’ as an abstract is widely used to justify war. It is also often used to promote a neoliberal agenda that links peace to a certain form of capitalist development (i.e. a ‘liberal peace’). Not defining peace makes it susceptible to this misuse. Goetschel and  10  Joshua Inwood and James Tyner, “Geography’s Pro-Peace Agenda: An Unfinished Project,” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10, no. 3 (January 2012): 446, 449, 451. 11  David Pepper and Alan Jenkins, The Geography of Peace and War (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1985); Nurit Kliot and Stanley Waterman, The Political Geography of Conflict and Peace (London: Belhaven Press, 1991); Colin Flint, The Geography of War and Peace: From Death Camps to Diplomats / Edited by Colin Flint. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 12  99: 5, December 2009, edited by Audrey Kobayashi  3  Hagman argue for re-politicizing the term by facing the “thorny question of what peace means for different social groups in a particular place and time.”13 To unsettle peace by exposing how it is both portrayed as well as practiced differently is not just an intellectual exercise but an integral part of creating peace itself. Peace is always situated – it is made in some way but also some where for some people. Peace is not the same everywhere anymore than war is. When peace is portrayed as a mythical singular it can become so abstract as to seem unobtainable. Or it can become so unspecified that it is open to manipulation by politicians and attached to violent situations of pacification. Peace is located and spatial, practical and material – and as such, necessarily plural. Peace is not a static thing, nor an endpoint, but a socio-spatial relation that is always made and made again.14  There are two ways forward as a critical geographer. One is rigorous engagement with the philosophical, political, and ethical critiques of the idea of a liberal peace. The second is a sustained engagement with substantive practices of peacebuilding and peacekeeping. The advantage of doing the latter is that unlike the first it is more sensitive to the different forms that peace takes in different places, and to that extent recognizes multiple geographies and spaces for peace(s) – even though much of this work to date has focused on formalized practices of peacekeeping through military operations and their  13  Laurent Goetschel and Tobias Hagmann, “Civilian Peacebuilding: Peace by Bureaucratic Means?,” Conflict, Security & Development 9, no. 1 (2009): 64, doi:10.1080/14678800802704911. 14  John Agnew, “Killing for Cause? Geographies of War and Peace,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99, no. 5 (2009): 1054 – 1059.  4  intersection with critical discourses on security and development.15 There has been little critical engagement, in or out of geography, with the quotidian nonmilitarized practices of peacebuilding, at least framed as such.16  This dissertation takes the second path and looks at peacebuilding practices as enacted and understood by international accompaniers in Colombia. My aim in doing this research was to understand how accompaniment ‘works’ (i.e., how it is that it provides protection for and strengthens local work for peace) and the role that privilege plays in that. My hope was to offer insights that might help accompaniers to both do their work more effectively and use privilege with more clarity. Let me begin by clarifying what I mean by accompaniment.  Defining international protective accompaniment The term acompañamiento (accompaniment) is commonly used by Colombians to refer to all sorts of ‘walking with.’ It is used to refer to walking to the store with a friend,  15  Paul Higate and Marsha Henry, Insecure Spaces: Peacekeeping in Liberia, Kosovo and Haiti (London: Zed Books, 2009); Paul Higate, “Peacekeepers, Masculinities, and Sexual Exploitation,” Men and Masculinities 10, no. 1 (July 1, 2007): 99–119, doi:10.1177/1097184X06291896; Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2007); Mark R. Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security (London: Zed Books, 2001); Michael Dillon and Julian Reid, The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live, New edition (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009); Oliver P. Richmond, The Transformation of Peace (Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); Sherene H. Razack, Dark Threats and White Knights: The Somalia Affair, Peacekeeping, and the New Imperialism (Toronto, ON,Canada: University of Toronto Press, 2004). 16  Though see Jenna M Loyd, “‘Peace Is Our Only Shelter’: Questioning Domesticities of Militarization and White Privilege,” Antipode 43, no. 3 (June 1, 2011): 845–873, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00822.x; Jenna M Loyd, “‘War Is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things’,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space (2009), doi:10.1068/d12107.  5  visiting a remote rural community in a hot conflict zone, and supporting that community from afar by making phone calls when they are under threat. Catholic missions visit remote communities, often on a week-long horse or canoe ride through an area, to offer mass, baptisms and weddings - and this too is called acompañamiento. Psychologists may go to offer workshops on healing from trauma, and this is also called acompañamiento.  What are called missions (or sometimes commissions) of human rights workers visit remote communities in groups to collect testimony about abuses for legal claims and this as well is called acompañamiento.17 This use of the term accompaniment is not limited to Colombia. In one of the only articles in geography to use the term accompaniment Pratt uses the term to describe this sort of short term one time trip in the Philippines, where local human rights workers were able to go and collect testimony because of the presence of internationals that had come on a short trip for that purpose.18 Similarly in Colombia human rights workers are often only able to make these trips with an international accompanier along. In this case it is often said that an accompanier (international) is accompanying the accompanier (the Colombian human rights worker).  The word accompany comes from the root ‘companion’, which can mean mate, friend, or intimate partner. Companion is translated into Spanish as compañero, but that word is broader, as it can mean comrade in struggle, work colleague, or intimate companion. In  17  When groups of internationals go to conflict zones for short term visits in Colombia these are generally in English called “delegations”. 18  G. Pratt, “International Accompaniment and Witnessing State Violence in the Philippines,” Antipode 40, no. 5 (2008): 751–779.  6  English we are less likely to say “I’ll accompany you” and more likely to say “I’ll keep you company.” Yet in the Anglo world we are also less likely to do this – not only for running errands but, for example, after someone has lost a loved one we are more likely to think they will want time alone than making sure they always have someone keeping them company. In this dissertation I am focusing on those who do unarmed accompaniment as civilians which aims to provide some protection to an unarmed civilian19 person, organization or community at risk because of their work for peace and justice - in a country that is not the accompaniers’ own, and for medium- to long-term periods, that is, from three months to several years. I examine organizations that do a broad range of activities that they call accompaniment, from living full time in a community to visiting an organization intermittently.  Other terms for protective accompaniment Other terms that are also used for what I am calling here protective accompaniment are: civilian peacekeeping, third-party nonviolent intervention, humanitarian protection, peace team, peace force, and peace army. Those who use the term accompaniment may also call it nonviolent or unarmed accompaniment. Some groups distinguish between political, physical and technical accompaniment. Many accompaniment groups also call themselves ‘human rights observers.’  Most protective accompaniers seem to agree that one term which does not adequately describe their work, but which is perhaps the most widely used in the mainstream media,  19  I do not interrogate the category of ‘civilian’ in this dissertation, but hope to in future research (see discussion in chapter nine).  7  is ‘human shield.’ The media use of this term for accompaniers is a conflation and confusion, because the term is also and more commonly used to refer to those who have not chosen this role, i.e. civilians used by armed actors as a buffer. For example, in response to the NATO bombing of Libya in May 2011, Qaddafi decreed that telephone company workers would camp out with their families at key telecommunications network sites.20 Aside from the question of choice, the term ‘shields’ also implies accompaniers are standing in front of the accompanied rather than walking beside them, in companionship.21  Weber and Moser-Puangsuwan use the term ‘nonviolent intervention across borders’, which includes a wide variety of actions, from material aid deliveries to Cuba by Pastors for Peace to the Cyprus Resettlement Project funding homebuilding. The typology used in their book divides these actions into: 22  •  local nonviolent actions and campaigns (to support struggle in another country),  •  mobilization actions (to draw attention to an international grievance such as nuclear disarmament),  •  nonviolent humanitarian assistance (in contexts where others will not provide it),  •  nonviolent reconciliation and development,  20  “Libyan Officials Threaten to Use ‘Human Shields’ to Thwart NATO Bombings,” New York Times, May 17, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/world/africa/17libya.html?_r=3&hp. 21  I write more about the implications of this and other metaphors for accompaniment in chapter seven. 22  Robert Burrowes, “Cross-border Nonviolent Intervention: A Typology,” in Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders: A Recurrent Vision, ed. Thomas Weber and Yeshua MoserPuangsuwan (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 45–69.  8  •  nonviolent witness and accompaniment,  •  nonviolent intercession (simply to be present in a violent zone, e.g. the Sahara Protest Team which tried to stop nuclear testing),  •  nonviolent solidarity (to be present in a zone of violence to highlight the suffering it is causing local people and generate solidarity for them),  •  nonviolent interposition (standing between conflicting parties), and  •  nonviolent invasion (invading a violent space to lower the risk of violence, e.g. 3,000 Indian satyagrahis crossing into Goa in 1955 to support the nationalist movement there).  International accompaniment in Colombia has at times participated in all of the first seven of these actions, making it a broader activity than portrayed in this typology.  A similar term is ‘third-party nonviolent intervention,’ which is used by several writers from the US and in the literature of some accompaniment organizations.23 I never heard an accompanier in Colombia use the term. Gene Sharp gestured to this term in his landmark book highlighting different forms of nonviolent action, where he refers to “the possibility of third-party action in the form of international nonviolent intervention”.24 The term is most explicitly defined in the Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) training handbook developed by Hunter and Lakey, where they offer a typology of four techniques:  23  Ivan Boothe and Lee Smithey, “Privilege, Empowerment, and Nonviolent Intervention,” Peace & Change 32, no. 1 (2007): 39–61; Daniel Hunter and George Lakey, Opening Space for Democracy: Third-Party Nonviolent Intervention Training Curriculum (Philadelphia: Training for Change, 2004); Victoria L. Henderson, “Citizenship in the Line of Fire: Protective Accompaniment, Proxy Citizenship, and Pathways for Transnational Solidarity in Guatemala,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 99, no. 5 (2009): 969–976, doi:10.1080/00045600903253403 The organizations include FOR, PBI, CPT, MPT and NP, though particularly in that of the later and only occasionally by the others (see acronyms listed on p. xiii). 24  Gene Sharp, Dynamics of Nonviolent Action (Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1985), 664.  9  observation and monitoring, accompaniment, interposition and presence.25 Again, accompaniers engage in most of these activities. Most accompaniers describe being witnesses, or observers if you will, as essential to their role as accompaniers. Interposition is generally different than accompaniment and better describes how peacekeeping is traditionally imagined – as standing between two armed parties. The concept of presence is too vague (creating a ‘shift of energy’) to be useful, though it could certainly be argued that accompaniers are a ‘presence.’  There are problems with each of these other terms, but I elect to use the term accompaniment primarily because it is the term that was most widely used in Colombia. It is also the term that this technique was born with, as it grew out of the Latin American tradition of informal social accompaniment, as described above. I describe the history of the beginnings of international protective accompaniment in chapter two.  Where I write from For more than 20 years I have been an activist in the US and Canada in what is often simply called the “solidarity movement,” which is to say the movement that works in solidarity with Latin American movements for peace and justice and to end US militarism in Latin America. I was involved in the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, set up a sister university relationship in the early 1990s between Swarthmore College and the Universidad de Centro America in San Salvador, served as a staff organizer in the mid 1990s for the Seattle Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES),  25  Hunter and Lakey, Opening Space for Democracy.  10  have been involved in various Colombia solidarity groups, and have been a core organizer of the vigil to close the US Army’s School of the Americas for the past 11 years.26 Through that activism I had met and worked on campaigns and conferences with activists from several accompaniment groups, including Witness for Peace, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Peace Brigades and Christian Peacemaker Teams. I had collaborated with Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), one of the accompaniment groups, as both a volunteer Spanish translator (written) and interpreter (oral).  Coming to this research with this activist experience meant that I not only had many contacts in different accompaniment organizations, but also more importantly that it was easier for me to build trust with accompaniers. I see accompaniment as part of the larger solidarity movement - my movement, my people as it were. This work ‘speaks to me’ and I speak its ‘language’. I also speak Spanish fluently, having lived in Colombia as a small child and worked as a professional Spanish interpreter since 1994. Yet even more useful to this research was my experience with the way solidarity movements talk and think things through. My activist history was crucial for my ability to have access, trust, and understanding with accompaniers.  I was also an ‘insider’ by being from the US – though this made me in some senses an ‘outsider’ in Colombia, it did help me to build connections with other ‘expats.’ It would have had very different conversations were I Colombian, or, say, Bolivian. Being a younger white woman also made a huge difference in who I spoke to and how. It made it 26  The School was officially renamed the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security and Cooperation, but the movement continues to call it the School of the Americas, as do many in armies across the Americas.  11  much easier for me to build connection with the many other young white women who do accompaniment.27 It inevitably also shaped what the Latina accompaniers from the US said to me about race. I was an insider then in several ways, but I was not and have never been an accompanier myself, and in that sense I write as a sympathetic outsider.  I come to this research as a Quaker, having been raised to believe in “the peace testimony.” The Quaker testimonies are not about literally speaking, as in telling a narrative, but rather letting one’s life speak.28 I have spent my life working for peace and justice in various ways. I did come close to ‘putting my life on the line’ as an accompanier for Peace Brigades in Colombia, but after completing the training in 2002 I was told that I was not a good fit because I was too emotional about the conflict, from having lived there as a child and having many close family friends who were affected. I also wondered if my Colombian accent in Spanish was part of the decision. It all left me asking who is a good fit, why, and then how it is that accompaniment works. And so, still wanting to support the project of accompaniment, I ended up writing a dissertation about it.  I came to this work more as an activist than an academic, though I am now both and this research has been part of my process of putting the hyphen between the two. There is no one clear way to be an activist-academic, or what some call an ‘engaged scholar’ or scholar-activist. I have been engaged in the debates in the discipline about what it means 27  For more on why there are so many white women in the solidarity movement see Sara Koopman, “Imperialism Within: Can the Master’s Tools Bring Down Empire,” ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 7 (2008): 283–307. 28  The five Quaker testimonies, which could also be considered lived values, are Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community and Equality.  12  to be an activist-academic. I was one of the founders of the Activist Geographers Grouping, which organized sessions and gatherings from 2005 – 2009 at the annual meeting of the American Association of Geographers, and in 2008 I organized both a panel and a workshop entitled “What’s Activist?” (in response to the ‘What’s Left?’ debate in geography).29 What was clear from those discussions was that there is no one way to do activist scholarship, and that it is rarely, if ever, easy.30 I have been inspired by the ways that Paul Routledge31 and Paul Chatterton32 have combined their own activist involvement in social movements with their academic work, and was influenced by Laura Pulido’s ‘letter to potential Scholar/Activists,’ which I read in 2006 as I was formulating this project.33 My approach is perhaps most shaped by the seminar I took with Linda Tuhiwai Smith in 2005, which gave me the confidence to do collective thinking with fellow activists in much the same way I had done before entering graduate school.34  Thinking with accompaniers 29  Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift, “What’s Left? Just the Future.,” Antipode. 37, no. 2 (2005): 220–238; Neil Smith, “Neo-Critical Geography, Or, The Flat Pluralist World of Business Class,” Antipode 37, no. 5 (November 1, 2005): 887–899, 30  For a review of recent academic-activism by geographers see Nick Blomley, “The spaces of critical geography,” Progress in Human Geography 32, no. 2 (April 1, 2008): 285–293. 31  see, for example, Paul Routledge, “Toward a relational ethics of struggle: embodiment, affinity and affect,” in Contemporary anarchist studies: an introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy, ed. Randall Amster (London: Taylor & Francis, 2009). 32  Paul Chatterton, “Demand the Possible: Journeys in Changing our World as a Public ActivistScholar,” Antipode 40, no. 3 (June 1, 2008): 421–427. 33  It was later published as Pulido, “FAQS: Frequently (Un)Asked Questions on Being a Scholar/Activist,” in Engaging contradictions: theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship, ed. Charles R. Hale (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008) This volume is an excellent resource for ways to be an activist-academic. 34  Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed Books, 1999).  13  In the solidarity movement much of that sort of thinking happens online in listserves. In CISPES in particular I was used to the tradition of regularly circulating short position papers about changes we might make as a group that were then discussed. That was the method I used for my M.A., which was based on an online discussion with other white women at the heart of the movement to close the School of the Americas. Yet many of the discussions about where we are going as a movement and as organizations and the way we do our work, particularly discussions about privilege and oppression, happen much more informally in offline social spaces. They happen among friends, in homes, at parties, on walks, and over the phone. Sometimes time gets more formally set aside to step back as a group and think about these things at conferences or retreats. Often we call these ‘workshops’ and one person presents some ideas and exercises to get us thinking together. These were the two main methods I used for this PhD research.  I was in Colombia from November 2007 to March 2009, mostly based in Bogotá though I also went on trips to several regions of the country where accompaniers work.35 I was fortunate to have and develop good friends who were accompaniers who cared about issues of privilege and accompaniment and were interested in talking about them regularly. I also shared an apartment with a housemate who was a former Christian Peacemaker Teams accompanier and we were able to host many dinners and parties to 35  In November 2007 I went on a Ruta Pacifica de Mujeres (Women’s Peaceful Way) several day cross-country caravan to the border with Ecuador, with many action stops along the way. Several accompaniers from Peace Brigades and Christian Peacemaker Teams were also along. In February 2008 I went to the peace community of San José with FOR, and went back there in August of 2008. In December 2008 I spent two weeks in Barrancabermeja with the Christian Peacemaker Teams, where I also led a workshop, and went on a trip to Micoahumado, one of the ‘humanitarian zone’ communities that they accompany. I went to the Chocó in January 2009, where I led the workshop with the Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation.  14  which many accompaniers came. Many accompaniers coming through Bogotá also stayed at our place, and some of these conversations were had in pajamas at the breakfast table. I ended up having ongoing informal conversations with a regular circle of eight but a total of 20 accompaniers. I often made notes on a little pad while we talked and kept a daily journal with more detailed notes and thoughts on those conversations.  Eventually those conversations helped me shape the eight workshops that I held with six different accompaniment organizations, with a total of 35 participants. I also did twelve somewhat more formal audio-recorded one-on-one conversations with some accompaniers, based on a loose set of open-ended questions to get us started. These tended to be with accompaniers that I did not have the opportunity to talk to on a regular basis so I wanted to be sure to talk with them somewhat more systematically. I also read all of the reports and discussions in the websites, newsletters, public emails and blogs by accompaniment organizations and accompaniers in Colombia from mid 2007 through to the end of 2010.36  I told accompaniers that I was not ‘studying’ them, but that I wanted to think with them how accompaniment works, and how space and privilege are part of that process. We did collective thinking about these questions, yet there was certainly no consensus. This dissertation is a product of collaborative reflection, but it is of necessity my own interpretation and development of those exchanges. I imagine that the conversations themselves are the research ‘product’ that accompaniers will find most useful, but I also 36  Links to all sites and blogs are on my own blog www.decolonizingsolidarity.blogspot.com which is the only site on the web to aggregate links to all accompaniment organizations.  15  intend to return this dissertation to both the accompaniers who did this thinking with me and those now with those organizations, both in its complete form and in a short summary well laid out as a pamphlet with graphics. I have also written a short report of it for the Fellowship of Reconciliation magazine, and hope to do the same for other accompaniment organization newsletters. This dissertation will be embargoed from going online for a year while I check with every individual quoted and all organizations described that there is nothing they want removed for safety reasons. But I also hope to get more detailed feedback and have further discussions with them that will shape the final form this research takes. My involvement will not end there. I am committed to a lifetime of activism with the solidarity movement and will continue to think with others in the movement, particularly accompaniers, about these issues for many years to come.37 It is my hope that this dissertation is only a beginning, and that my future research on these issues can be more fully collaborative. I am inspired by the long-term collaborations of geographers Richa Nagar, Geraldine Pratt, and Caitlin Cahill.38  This research does not engage with how accompanied Colombian activists understand accompaniment to work. When I initially asked some of them about accompaniment they were effusive about its importance and effectiveness. These responses seemed highly  37  For example, in the future I hope to do a regular annual online survey of accompaniment organizations around the world as there is no clear documentation of who all is doing accompaniment where, and I will work with a group of accompaniers to decide what information to collect and how. 38  Richa Nagar and Frah Ali, “Collaboration Across Borders: Moving Beyond Positionality,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 24, no. 3 (2003): 356–372; G. Pratt, “Collaborating across our differences,” Gender, Place & Culture 9, no. 2 (2002): 195–200; Caitlin Cahill, “Defying gravity? raising consciousness through collective research,” Children’s Geographies 2, no. 2 (2004): 273–286.  16  shaped by my being from the US, and by being introduced to these activists by accompaniers themselves. Perhaps if I had been able to live in the peace community of San José for an extended period of time I would have been able to build a more independent connection with community members, which seemed necessary for more critical collaborative thinking. During my time in Colombia there was regularly combat very near the community, and given that I did not have the protections that accompaniers themselves relied on, I did not feel safe staying in the community for an extended period. In the future I hope to do joint research with Colombian academics with long standing relationships with different accompanied peace communities where they lead discussions with those communities about their understandings of accompaniment, and then I come in and do follow-up workshops with them. I believe we would have very different conversations.  Why I write This research is both a personal and a political project. I lived in Colombia as a small child because my father was doing research there as an epidemiologist. When we moved back to Seattle I spent a good deal of time in the Latino community, but always had to explain how I was a white girl with a Colombian accent. Living across worlds made me aware of race and class and passport privileges from an early age. As I struggled to find my place I also made the connection to US policies early on, for when I was twelve Salvadoran refugees entered sanctuary in our Quaker Meeting. I have worked in various ways since to use my own position to change US policy and build more and different  17  North-South connections, including many years as a professional interpreter and translator.  I came back to academia in part because of my frustration that solidarity organizing often does not ‘walk the talk,’ and has trouble ‘being the change’ we want to see in the world. It is hard to work together across gulfs of distance and difference without falling into old colonial patterns. After many discussions with other activists about these issues I came back to the academy looking for tools - for ways to decolonize solidarity.  My MA research looked for answers in the heart of the movement to close the US Army’s School of the America (a training camp for Latin American military officers). Many of those involved in the movement are white middle class women like me, and I turned specifically to those who had ‘crossed the line’ onto the base in an act of civil disobedience. Based on an online discussion with these women I argued that the ‘good helper’ role, which has historically consolidated the power of Empire, is also being used by many solidarity activists against empire. Yet I argued that this is a toxic colonial tool that in fact reinforces the systems of domination that prop up empire, and argued for greater clarity about motivations and roles as a way to decolonize solidarity work.39  My present research on accompaniment is a continuation of my search for ways to decolonize international solidarity work. This time I am not looking at motivations, though much of that thinking on the good helper role is relevant to accompaniers. I  39  Koopman, “Imperialism Within.”  18  turned to accompaniment because it is the solidarity tactic that most explicitly uses inequalities based on colonial histories. Paradoxically, it uses the fact some lives ‘count more’ to try to build a world where everyone’s life ‘counts’. As such accompaniers have a privileged standpoint, or way in, to thinking about these issues that affect all NorthSouth solidarity activism (and for that matter, also impact North-South humanitarian and development efforts). This is a reworking of Sandra Harding’s ‘standpoint theory.’40 She argues that the oppressed have a clearer insight into the workings of oppression. I believe that those privileged people who use their privilege in ways that do not follow the norm also have a useful perspective.  I undertook this research as a way of strengthening solidarity and accompaniment by supporting, engaging with, and developing conversations that some in the movement were already having. But movements have a vested interest in presenting their work as coherent,41 so it is perhaps not surprising that accompaniers rarely talk publicly about the paradox of accompaniment using privilege to work for a world with equality - though some were certainly talking regularly amongst themselves, about issues of race in particular, before I started talking with them. Given that accompaniment so openly uses inequalities I began this research looking for ways that geopolitical/racial privileges can be used against the very systems that grant them. I had hopes of finding ways that accompaniers were dismantling systems of domination even as they used them. I am  40  Sandra Harding, The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies (New York; London: Routledge, 2003). 41  Winifred Tate, Counting the Dead: The Culture and Politics of Human Rights Activism in Colombia (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2007), 26.  19  afraid this undoing is incredibly hard to do and I did not find quite what I expected, yet I will end this dissertation arguing for a way that I have come to understand that some accompaniers are, if not dismantling, at least wearing down structures of inequality. These arguments are relevant not only to those interested in making accompaniment more effective, but for those interested in the increasing the impact of international solidarity organizing more generally.  Overview There is a dramatic case from Colombia of a death squad coming in the night when Peace Brigades International (PBI) was there. Bodo Von Borries, from Belgium, was one of the accompaniers. He was there with another accompanier from Spain.42 It was in Barrancabermeja, on December 23, 1997 and the two were spending the night in the home of Colombian human rights worker Mario Calixto because he had received serious threats. Two armed men came to the door in the night, saying they were going to kill Mario. When the accompaniers stepped forward and said ‘we are internationals and we are here with him,’ the armed men left. Scenarios like this are extremely rare.43 The aim of accompaniment is to ensure that armed actors will already know that the accompaniers are present, and so will not even knock on the door. But as Mahony puts it, we have no  42  Velcrow Ripper, In the Company of Fear (video), 1999.  43  Though in another dramatic incident in Colombia Nico Udu-gama was serving as an accompanier with the International Peace Observatory in a small town when they heard that the army had gone in to a small farm, dressed up the farmer as a guerilla, and were going to kill him. This appears to be common practice in Colombia, to improve “kill counts”, and has recently been exposed and become a scandal. When Nico and his partner got to the farm the army had a knife to the farmer’s neck, but because of the internationals let him go free. “Revolution Live.”  20  way of knowing how many times they choose not to knock on the door – and I would add, we have no way of knowing why they chose not to knock.44  So let me clarify that I do not examine whether accompaniment works, because there is no way to fully know if an accompanied Colombian was not attacked because of the accompanier’s presence or because of a myriad of other factors, ranging from the weather to the love life of the local paramilitary leader. Given that those accompanied regularly state that they believe they are alive because of accompaniment, and that more and more Colombian groups request international accompaniment - far more than currently receive it - I assume that it generally does work, at least in Colombia. Instead the research question that has guided this dissertation is how does accompaniment work.  In chapter two I provide a global geography of international accompaniment. I review where and when it has been done to begin to offer a sense of how it works. I review the precedents for it, how it began, and where, when and how it developed around the world. After setting this broader context, I turn to the context of accompaniment in Colombia. I highlight three aspects of the conflict that make accompaniment work particularly well there. In chapter three I focus on land grabs and US involvement. Many of those accompanied are resisting displacement, as well as returning to their stolen lands – and both are particularly spatial forms of resistance that can be more easily supported through the physical presence of accompaniers than, say, a hunger strike. US involvement is important for understanding the workings of accompaniment because it offers  44  “Peaceful Strategies for Protecting Human Rights Defenders,” Peace Talks (radio program), June 25, 2010.  21  accompaniers the leverage that they use to pressure Colombian decision makers to protect those they are accompanying. The third aspect of the conflict that makes accompaniment work well in Colombia is that it is campesinos in racialized regions that are being displaced, and accompaniers generally stand out in these regions as being ‘out of place.’ In chapter four I describe these dynamics of racialization in Colombia and the idealization of whiteness that shapes how accompaniers are seen.  In chapter five I turn to the peace part of ‘making space for peace’ and ask what peace means in general, in the Colombian context, to the groups that are accompanied, and to accompaniers. I also argue against the characterization of accompaniment as ‘civilian peacekeeping.’ Chapter six both continues to outline the context of accompaniment in Colombia, and begins the discussion of how it works. I present the different groups doing accompaniment, their levels of professionalism, and the debates about doing accompaniment as nonpartisan or as openly in solidarity. I argue here that accompaniment is most effective when it is both professional, and openly engaged in solidarity.  Having presented the context of accompaniment in Colombia, I then turn to how accompaniment works. The slogan of PBI is “making space for peace”, yet there is little clarity amongst accompaniers as to what space is and how it is ‘made’. Chapter seven is largely based on workshops I held with accompaniment organizations to bring theories of space as a relation into conversation with accompaniers’ experiences and understandings of how they ‘make space for peace’. This chapter describes accompaniers’ practices, productions and performances of space. In chapter eight I look 22  at how accompaniment works racially. One of the ways the accompanied who are resisting displacement are able to ‘stay in place’ is through the solidarity of accompaniers who, when they walk with them in these places, are ‘out of place’. Depending on how this is done it can either reinforce or wear down systems of privilege.  I end, in chapter nine, by looking at how accompaniment can be understood as doing an alternative sort of geopolitics. This is where I found the most hope for accompaniment wearing down structures of domination that make some lives count more than others. But I also review the various ways, discussed in the last four chapters, that accompaniment can fall into colonial patterns and reinforce those structures. I also offer a more in depth summary of my arguments in each chapter than in this brief overview, and point to directions for future research.  23  Chapter 2: The place(s) of accompaniment  This chapter is an attempt to sketch both the roots of accompaniment and then where and when actual international accompaniment has been done around the world, along with the limited information available about how it has been done.45 Again, I am defining international protective accompaniment as actions taken by unarmed civilians to protect other unarmed civilian individuals, organizations or communities under threat for their work for peace and justice, in a country that is not the accompaniers own, by physically (as well as in other ways) being with them (either full time or off and on) for three months or more.46 I offer this look at accompaniment across time and place not simply as a survey but as a way in to the puzzle of how it works – since this is so intimately tied to both where and when it is used. I end by looking at trends that stand out across different accompaniment projects and I point to which of these I see continuing in future projects. In this chapter I do not assume that accompaniment generally does work, that is that it effectively provides protection and strengthens local peace work, as I do for  45  The most recent such review is now ten years old. See Thomas Weber, “A History of Nonviolent Interposition and Accompaniment,” in Nonviolent intervention across borders: a recurrent vision, ed. Y. Moser-Puangsuwan and Thomas Weber (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 16–41. 46  I will briefly mention here domestic accompaniment attempts by US groups in the US, because they are relevant to the growth of two of the international accompaniment groups (CPT and MPT), but this chapter is primarily a review of international accompaniment and does not look at other domestic accompaniment done around the world, such as that by Colombians of Colombians. Here I will consider accompaniment by settlers of aboriginal communities in North America to be international.  24  Figure 1: Where international accompaniment is and has been practiced map by Eric Leinberger, © UBC Geography, by permission  25  accompaniment in Colombia. As will become clear in the story I tell in this chapter, this has certainly not always been the case around the world.  As can be seen in the map above (figure one) and tables one through four (see appendix A), accompaniment has primarily been used in Latin America. This would be much clearer on the map without the distortion of large countries with few accompaniers (e.g. Indonesia and Sudan). It would also be clearer in a cartogram that reflected the number of accompaniers in each country over however many years, but those numbers have not been made public by accompaniment groups.47 The other data lacking from this map is what countries accompaniers come from, something I hope to trace in future research. But perhaps the most important limitation to any cartographic representation is the implicit assumption that accompaniment has been done in the same way across these countries. As I hope to make clear in this chapter, it has not been.  Christian roots Though there were other precedents, which I review below, accompaniment began in Central America and came out of the broader US movement in solidarity with Central America. In the 1980s there were internal wars in Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador - and the US government was involved in funding and providing military training in all three. The solidarity movement aimed to stop US involvement and support Central American peace and justice movements. It was by no means limited to church groups,  47  In future research I hope to establish relationships and a collaborative research team that would be able to regularly survey groups for these numbers. I did make initial email inquiries but most groups seemed either not to have this information or to be uncomfortable sharing it.  26  but the Christian left played a leading role, as it continues to in the now broadened Latin America solidarity movement.48  Much of this Christian solidarity organizing began with and was rooted in the longstanding Christian practice of sanctuary. Thousands of Salvadorans and Guatemalans were fleeing the conflict in their countries and coming to the US. When they applied for asylum they were repeatedly denied, for to grant asylum would imply recognizing that the US was funding their persecutors. To avoid deportation many turned to churches for help.49 There is a longstanding US tradition, based on the division between church and state but also a much older English tradition, of the government not entering churches. Refugees avoided deportation by moving into church basements. Many churchgoers then heard their stories and were moved to take other action to end US support for the persecutors of the refugees and became a key base for the broader solidarity movement. My own involvement in solidarity work began this way when Sandra, Sergio and their daughter Natalia arrived from El Salvador as refugees to our Quaker Meeting in Seattle the mid 1980s.  Salvadorans and Guatemalans working against repression and for justice inside their countries also turned to the church. Though the church was generally conservative, there were individual priests, nuns and eventually even an Archbishop who were moved by both the suffering and the calls of the liberation theology movement, which was 48  The broader movement now includes solidarity with Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia – though Colombia is the only South American country with international accompaniers. 49  For a study of the sanctuary movement in the US see Hilary Cunningham, God and Caesar at the Rio Grande: Sanctuary and the Politics of Religion (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1995).  27  burgeoning in the 1970s and early 1980s.50 Many of these church leaders were murdered for their work against state repression, most famously Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980 and seven Jesuit priest professors in 1989, both in El Salvador. This made a deep impact on many Catholics in the US who were interested in justice, as did the 1980 murder of three US nuns and a lay worker doing mission work with the poor in El Salvador.51 It is worth noting that in the late 1950s every Catholic diocese in the US was asked to send at least 10 percent of its clergy to Latin America.52 Thousands went and many worked there with those struggling against dictatorships. One such priest was Father Roy Bourgeois, who did mission work in Peru and was tortured there for his work with the poor. Back in the US he was moved by the attack on Romero and then the Jesuits to protest the School of the Americas, a US army training camp for Latin American military officers, including those involved in those murders.53 Father Roy’s protest grew into a large vigil held annually since 1990 in front of the School on the anniversary of the murder of the Jesuits. This three-day event has become the key gathering of a broad range of solidarity groups  50  For a discussion of the more theological roots of Christian solidarity activism see John Sobrino and Juan Hernandez-Pico, Theology of Christian Solidarity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985); Mark Stelzer, The Kingdom of God, Communion, and Solidarity: An Introduction to the Ecclesiology of Jon Sobrino (Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag, 2009); Stephen J. Pope, Hope & Solidarity: Jon Sobrino’s Challenge to Christian Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008); Kathryn Anderson, Weaving Relationships: Canada-Guatemala Solidarity (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2003). 51  For a description written at the time of attacks on priests in Latin America that was widely read by activists in the US see Penny Lernoux, Cry of the People (New York, NY: Penguin (NonClassics), 1991). 52  Margaret Swedish and Marie Dennis, Like Grains Of Wheat: A Spirituality Of Solidarity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), xv. 53  James Hodge and Linda Cooper, Disturbing the peace: the story of Roy Bourgeois and the movement to close the School of the Americas (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004).  28  and continues to be heavily attended and led by Christian activists, with many Catholic universities busing in students.54  Christian activists have and continue to play an important role in shaping accompaniment.55 The first group to do accompaniment in its current form was the Christian group Witness for Peace. Today the organization with the most accompaniers seems to be Peace Brigades, which is not religious (though many of the early PBI accompaniers were Quakers),56 but Christian Peacemaker Teams seems to be the next largest group.57 I am unsure about the relative size of other accompaniment teams around the world because this information is not made available by most accompaniment  54  Sara Koopman, “Cutting Through Topologies: Crossing Lines at the School of the Americas,” Antipode 40, no. 5 (2008): 825–847; I have long been involved in organizing this vigil, for my analysis of the movement see Koopman, “Imperialism Within.” 55  For more on the relationship between Christianity and the solidarity movement more broadly see Sharon Erickson Nepstad, Convictions of the soul: religion, culture, and agency in the Central America solidarity movement (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004); Sharon Erickson Nepstad, “Oppositional Consciousness Among the Privileged: Remaking Religion in the Central America Solidarity Movement,” Critical Sociology, (July 1, 2007): 661 –688 vol. 33:; Sharon Erickson Nepstad, “The Role of the Church in International Peacebuilding: Lessons from the USCentral America Solidarity Movement,” Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 1, no. 3 (December 15, 2009): 20–34. 56  Liam Mahony and Enrique Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards: International Accompaniment for the Protection of Human Rights (West Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press, 1997). 57  Though Catholics are heavily involved in the solidarity movement in general, accompaniers are more likely to be Mennonite, Brethren or Quakers, the historic peace churches which, notably, do not have a history of mission work in Latin America. (Evangelical Quakers did mission work in Bolivia, but accompaniers have been unprogrammed (silent) Quakers). There was however one member of the Catholic Worker movement serving with CPT while I was in Colombia.  29  organizations.58 The role of Christian activists has also shaped where accompaniment has been done given their ties to the Latin American church.  Beginnings Mahony and Eguren argue that the modern idea of what they call a “nongovernmental international protective presence” goes back to the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863. As they put it, the ICRC was “the first NGO to convince warring nations to honor the moral and symbolic force of an outside neutral party.”59 Various early proposals and attempts by Europeans are more often mentioned as precedents by accompaniers, though none of these came to fruition. The first and most cited was the 1931 proposal by British pastor Maude Roydon to the League of Nations to send a “nonviolent army” of volunteers to stop the war between Japan and China in Manchuria. A thousand volunteers were recruited, and some of these eventually went to Palestine for a couple of years, though their effort ended with WWII.  60  When they offer a history of accompaniment many writers mention the Shanti Sena (peace army), an idea conceived by Mahatma Gandhi and realized in 1950, shortly after his death. By 1959 there were some 1,000 Sainiks (peace soldiers) throughout India, the 58  I have included throughout the chapter the information that I was able to access through web sites and email inquiries. In future research I hope to do an annual survey of accompaniment groups to collect more quantitative data. 59  Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards, 3.  60  Civilian Peacekeeping: A Barely Tapped Resource (Belm-Vehrte, Germany: Sozio Publishing, 2009), 10; Hunter and Lakey, Opening Space for Democracy, 274; Thomas Weber, “From Maude Royden’s Peace Army to the Gulf Peace Team: An Assessment of Unarmed Interpositionary Peace Forces,” Journal of Peace Research 30, no. 1 (February 1993): 17 Weber gives no more information about the volunteers who went to Palestine and I have found no further details on this initial effort.  30  largest such force deployed to date. They primarily responded to riot situations in India. Martin Luther King Jr. attended the Shanti Sena’s official inauguration that year. The Shanti Sena was strongest in the late 1960s and early 1970s but internal conflicts led to its demise in 1974.61 It engaged in a small effort in Cyprus, but its work was primarily domestic. Interestingly Vinoba, one of the leaders of the movement, said that “the citizens of a country which maintains an army have no right to conduct satyagraha62 in another country”, arguing that their passport power ultimately relied on military power.63 Another leader, Narayan Desai, would later become one of the founders of Peace Brigades.  In the 1950s there was a growth of international nonviolent interposition actions on bombing ranges which, though different in style, could be seen as precedents to accompaniment. In 1957 the first protest was held at the US nuclear bombing range in the Nevada desert, which would grow into a large peace camp that lasted through 1994 and involved 37,488 protesters and 15,740 arrests.64 In 1958 Quaker Albert Bigelow sailed his ship The Golden Rule into US hydrogen bomb testing areas in the Pacific.65 In 1959 the international Sahara Protest Team attempted to stand in the nuclear French test  61  Hunter and Lakey, Opening Space for Democracy, 273; Thomas Weber, Gandhi’s Peace Army: The Shanti Sena and Unarmed Peacekeeping (Syracuse University Press, 1996); Weber, “From Maude Royden’s Peace Army to the Gulf Peace Team.” 62  Satyagraha is widely understood to mean nonviolent action. It is a Sanskrit term that Gandhi used to mean “clinging to truth” (Sanskrit). For a fuller history and definition of the term see http://www.mettacenter.org/definitions/satyagraha 63  Tandon, cited by Weber, “A History of Nonviolent Interposition and Accompaniment,” 35.  64  “Peace Camp 25/Nevada Nuclear Test Site: April 2011”, n.d., http://peacecampnts.blogspot.com/2011_04_01_archive.html (accessed January 13, 2012). 65  Weber, “A History of Nonviolent Interposition and Accompaniment,” 22.  31  site.66 Greenpeace got its start when Quakers from Vancouver attempted to do this sort of action in Amchitka in 1971.  In 1960 at the meeting of War Resisters International67 in Gandhigram, India, plans were made to establish a World Peace Brigade, and the founding conference was held in 1961 in Beirut, Lebanon with 55 delegates representing 13 countries. They attempted to carry out three projects, a march in Northern Rhodesia, the Everyman II voyage to Leningrad, and the Delhi to Peking Friendship March. None of these was fully realized, leading to the demise of the organization in 1963.68 Several of those involved in the World Peace Brigade would later participate in the founding conference of Peace Brigades International in 1981. In 1968 an English group called Non-Violent Action in Vietnam attempted to stand in target areas in North Vietnam but the team of 26 were not able to cross from Cambodia into Vietnam.69  Most reviews of the historical precedents to protective accompaniment overlook the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign in the US.70 Although Freedom Summer was domestic, and  66  April Carter and Moser-Puangsuwan, “The Sahara Protest Team,” in Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders: A Recurrent Vision (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press, 2000). 67  “About WRI | War Resisters’ International”, n.d., http://wri-irg.org/network/about_wri (accessed January 25, 2012) War Resisters’ International is an international network of groups that “exists to promote nonviolent action against the causes of war, and to support and connect people around the world who refuse to take part in war or the preparation of war,” also known as conscientious objectors. 68  The details of these projects are described by Weber, “A History of Nonviolent Interposition and Accompaniment,” 29–34. 69  Ibid., 36 Weber also describes various other proposals made in the 1950s and 1960s that never came to any sort of fruition. 70  Though Coy does briefly mention it Patrick Coy, “Cooperative Accompaniment and Peace Brigades International in Sri Lanka,” in Transnational social movements and global politics, ed.  32  not called accompaniment, the idea was that the more than one thousand white volunteers (mostly Northern college students) would work alongside black volunteers and together they would be more able to register black voters in Mississippi in the summer of 1964.71 The effort was organized by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, which was led by black activists. Though not all involved would frame it this way, the idea was that the white Northerners would ‘accompany’ local black activists as they went around together signing up voters. However having whites along may have enraged racists rather than served as protection. Within ten days James Chaney (who was black), and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner (who were white), were lynched (see figure two). By the end of the summer, another activist was killed, four were seriously wounded, and a great many were beaten and arrested.  Jackie Smith, Charles Chatfield, and Ron Pagnucco (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1997), 79 –100; and Mahoney and Eguren briefly mention Freedom Riders, white activists in the U.S. in the 1960s who rode next to black activists on segregated buses, see Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards, 3. 71  This was not the first case of white Northern activists supporting black organizing in the South, for example New York Jewish communists were supporting black workers’ strikes in the 1930s, but it was certainly the largest and best-known effort.  33  Figure 2: Andrew Goodman, James Cheney, and Michael Schwerner photos from FBI missing poster, in the public domain  Perhaps Freedom Summer is not cited as a precedent by accompaniers because it did not seem to ‘work’, in the sense that it did not seem to offer much protection to the black civil rights workers who were still attacked. Yet it certainly ‘worked’, much as accompaniment can, in that it strengthened the organizing campaign by generating far more publicity and attention from those in power. In a recent documentary about the ongoing search for justice in the case,72 black activists talked about their resentment that the deaths of Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner attracted so much attention when James Cheney, and the several black civil rights workers who had been murdered in previous years, received so little. Even today their deaths seem to carry more weight in the popular imagination, and the mainstream Hollywood movie Mississippi Burning was made about the incident.73 Even in death, their lives continue to ‘count’ more, much as do the lives of accompaniers.74  Mahony and Eguren argue that the concept established by the ICRC of the “deterring effect of international moral pressure” was further developed in the 1960s and 1970s by Amnesty International as it involved “everyday citizens in direct pressure campaigns” and that accompaniment takes that one step further, making the pressure more immediate  72  Micki Dickoff and Tony Pagano, Neshoba: The Price of Freedom., documentary, 2010, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1337155/ (accessed September 27, 2010). 73  Alan Parker, Mississippi Burning (MGM (Video & DVD), 1989).  74  As I described in the introduction and will come back to throughout this dissertation, the paradox of accompaniment is that it uses the fact that some lives ‘count’ more to try to build a world where everyone’s life ‘counts.’  34  by being physically present with the threatened person.75 They argue that the growing human rights movement in the 1970s and 1980s fed into early accompaniment groups. I would add that the tactic of urgent alerts and a flood of letters popularized by Amnesty International is a key part of how accompaniment works. This has been made easier by email and now web based ‘quick click’ action alert software such as Salsa.76  “Invading” Nicaragua with Witness (1983 - ) It was twenty years after Freedom Summer that international accompaniment was first attempted in a form something like that being done today. Mahony and Eguren are correct to argue that accompaniment, though influenced by the precedents above, was born out of the Central America solidarity movement in the US - but accompaniment began when and where and how it did not only because of the strength of that solidarity movement, but also because of the geopolitical moment (conjuncture).  In the early 1980s President Reagan argued that the ‘communist’ Sandinistas in Nicaragua threatened national security, and, ludicrously, that they were only a two-day march from Texas.77 Many were skeptical and one of the first campaigns of the Central America solidarity movement was to persuade Congress to pass a bill in 1982 that  75  Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards, 3.  76  The other technological advance that has made accompaniment easier has been increasing cell phone coverage and smaller and cheaper satellite phones. Cheaper airplane flights over the last twenty years have also made travel more accessible. 77  Speech on July 23, 1986, available in full at “Remarks at a Campaign Fundraiser for William Clements in Dallas, Texas”, n.d., http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/072386a.htm (accessed January 13, 2012).  35  stopped US funding of the Contra rebels who were fighting the Sandinistas. But the Reagan administration was not stopped. Under Reagan’s direct authorization, the CIA mined Nicaragua’s main harbor, and then, in what came to be known as the ‘Iran-Contra scandal’, sold arms to Iran, which was then under an arms embargo, so as to fund the Contras. Although this was not exposed until 1986, it was clear that the war in Nicaragua continued with US support. And so solidarity organizing continued, and also turned to new tactics.  In April 1983 a delegation from the Carolina Interfaith Taskforce on Central America went on a ‘fact finding tour’ to Nicaragua. When they heard that a village near the border was under attack by Contras based in Honduras they boarded their bus at 4 am and drove for six hours to see for themselves. When they got there the town was still burning, but the shelling had stopped. When they asked why the bombing had stopped the answer was ‘because you’re here,’ and the townspeople asked them to stay.78 They did not stay, but the request made such an impact on them that on the bus ride back they devised a plan to return with an ‘invasion’ of 1,000 US Christians (note that this is the same number of volunteers that Freedom Summer had). A large group went back to Jalapa in July 1983 (see figure three below).  78  Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards, 4; Ed Griffin-Nolan, “Witness for Peace,” in Nonviolent intervention across borders: a recurrent vision, ed. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan and Thomas Olesen (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 279–304; Ed Griffin-Nolan, Witness for Peace: A Story of Resistance, 1st ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991).  36  Figure 3: More than 150 US Christians hold a peace vigil 79 with residents of Jalapa at the edge of their town, July 1983. © Ed Griffin Nolan, by permission  By October of 1983 that dream materialized as the organization Witness for Peace. It began with a structure, maintained today, of a few people based in the country long term who host and guide many more who come for two-week trips. At first these were called ‘rotating vigilers,’ and the four long termers held a candlelight vigil every night in the Jalapa town square and protests at the US embassy weekly. That same October the US invaded Granada, and many in Witness for Peace feel that their presence in Nicaragua helped deter a similar invasion there. Their organizing certainly helped to end US aid to the Contras. Although there were never 1,000 there at once, over the next seven years nearly four thousand people went to Nicaragua with Witness.80 Griffin-Nolan argues that  79  Griffin-Nolan, “Witness for Peace” unnumbered photo pages, used by kind permission.  80  Ibid., 295.  37  the presence of so many US citizens in Nicaragua may have done more to deter a US invasion than to stop Contra attacks.81  Witness continues to have a team in Nicaragua today. They went on to establish a permanent presence in Guatemala in 1990, which lasted through 1993, and in Cuba in 1999, which lasted until 2005 when the US revoked their travel license.82 Though they no longer have a permanent presence in Cuba they continue to organize short-term delegations there. Witness established a team in Mexico in 1998 and a team in Colombia in 2000. They continue to work in both countries. In the past they have also led delegations to Haiti and Chiapas, and are now going to Honduras, Venezuela and Bolivia. Over their 27-year history the permanent teams have hosted and led trips for tens of thousands of short-term delegates. As of November 2010 they have 12 permanent team members, serving in Nicaragua, Mexico and Colombia.83  Brigading in Guatemala (1983 - ) Peace Brigades International (PBI) started at around the same time as Witness for Peace. The idea for PBI was established at a conference held at a Quaker retreat centre on Grindstone Island in Ontario, Canada in 1981 that was attended by ten men involved in various other peace groups.84 At a second meeting in the Netherlands in 1982 they  81  Griffin-Nolan, “Witness for Peace.”  82  Sara Joseph (2010) personal communication  83  Sara Joseph (2010) personal communication  84  I have not found any histories of the group that mention it, but the name seems to make reference to the international brigades that fought in the Spanish civil war in the 1930s, and may  38  decided to investigate possibilities of work in Central America, Sri Lanka, Namibia, Pakistan and the Middle East.85 Their first work on the ground was done in coordination with Witness and involved a short-term presence in Nicaragua in September 1983, until Witness got their team there in October. Peace Brigades then moved on to establish a permanent team in Guatemala later that year, where the US was also involved in military funding and training, in this case the Guatemalan military.86  When they first arrived in Guatemala it was unclear what PBI would do. It seems that it was a few Guatemalan mothers of the disappeared themselves, who were just beginning to meet each other and work together, who first suggested that PBI ‘accompany’ them on a visit to Archbishop Peñados to ask for his support. This first instance of accompaniment by PBI points to the various roles accompaniment plays, because clearly the women did not need to be protected from the Archbishop, but PBI’s presence served as a symbol of international support and legitimacy. The Archbishop refused to help the mothers (Archbishop Romero had recently been killed in El Salvador after publicly supporting the Mothers of the Disappeared there), so PBI offered their house instead as a safe space where they could meet. They accepted the invitation and while meeting at the PBI house founded the Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo (GAM, Mutual Support Group), and soon hundreds were coming to the meetings. In March 1985 two of the leaders of GAM were brutally tortured and murdered, one along with her brother and two year old son. It was  also have been inspired by the Venceremos work brigades of US citizens going to Cuba to break the blockade , which were strong in the 1970s (and continue today). 85  Kathleen Kern, In Harm’s Way: A History of Christian Peacemaker Teams (Cambridge, U.K.: Lutterworth Press, 2009), 4. 86  US military support was cut by Carter in 1977 but millions continued to flow in covert aid.  39  clear that the other leaders were next. It was in this context that PBI started ‘escorting’ – accompanying the surviving leaders around the clock. The drama of those early days of accompaniment are described in detail by Mahony and Eguren.87 In 2001 Peace Brigades was nominated for the Nobel peace prize for this work.  The term and concept of accompaniment then, as I understand it, grew organically out of Latin American experience. When the first activists from Peace Brigades went to Guatemala to see what they could do they had a much wider set of activities in mind, but the mothers of the disappeared said that the most useful thing PBI could do was to accompany them as they made the rounds to offices searching for their missing children.88 It is quite common in Latin America to go along with a friend or family member who has to do a long bureaucratic errand (which are common and as mundane as paying the electricity bill, which generally has to be done in person and may require going to two offices), and to take the time waiting in line as a chance to chat. Of course, in a human rights context having someone with privilege along also helps to give you the courage to go to the military base and ask for your son in the first place and is likely to keep you safer and get you more attention when you arrive.  Returning with refugees across Central America (1989 – 1999) In the 1980s the US government was also heavily involved in funding a war in nearby El Salvador, and in 1987 PBI established a second team there, which operated until 1992. Salvadorans who had fled into exile in Honduras began organized group returns in 1989, 87  Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards.  88  “Peaceful Strategies for Protecting Human Rights Defenders.”  40  which continued through 1992 and helped to create pressure for an accord. A wide variety of solidarity groups in the US provided informal accompaniment to this process. The umbrella group that coordinated much of this work was called Going Home.89 PBI expanded from Guatemala and established a team in El Salvador which operated from 1987 to 1992.  Guatemalan refugees, inspired by Salvadorans, began organized returns from refugee camps in Mexico in 1992, after signing of an accord between refugees and the Guatemalan government on October 8, 1992, which outlined the conditions of return. These included the right to have international accompaniment.90 This led to a burgeoning of accompaniment groups in Guatemala in the early and mid 1990s, many focused on accompanying Guatemalan refugees returning to the country from camps in Mexico.91  Witness for Peace was one of the first organizations to do this work. Starting in 1990 they had a permanent presence in both the refugee camps and then also in returned communities in Guatemala.92 There were close to twenty different accompaniment  89  Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, “A short history of grassroots initiatives in unarmed peacekeeping,” Peace News, no. 2391 (June 1995): unnumbered. 90  Erin K. Baines, “International Accompaniment: The Role of ‘Project A of Canada’ in the Return of Guatemalan Refugees,” in Building Peace and Democracy in post-Conflict Societies, ed. A.L. Griffiths (Halifax, NS: Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University, 1998), 141. 91  For a review of accompaniment organizations serving in Guatemala in 1995 see Barry Levitt, “Theorizing Accompaniment,” in Journeys of Fear: Refugee Return and National Transformation in Guatemala, ed. Lisa North and Alan Simmons (McGill-Queens University Press, 2000), http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LjnYNTwGvQn2YrCT3s3YnMJysC6g2L30 qJ16JrDQG9mvDJhZLk0K!-1679437133!1680139891?docId=89005454 (accessed January 29, 2010). 92  “Witness for Peace : Mission and History”, n.d., http://www.witnessforpeace.org/section.php?id=89 (accessed November 12, 2010).  41  groups in Guatemala by 1998.93 Many of these seem to have been quite small and short lived, and there were also for a time a great number of ‘sueltos’, or unaffiliated accompaniers. The group Foro Internacional (Denmark) was unique in that accompaniers qualified for government unemployment benefits, and as such was the largest group, but had very little coordination.94 Projet Accompagnement, based in Canada, also received government funds through the Canadian International Development Agency, though most of its funding came from churches. It functioned from 1992 to 1999.95 They had had 140 Canadian accompaniers whose average stay was three months, though some stayed up to eight.96 Most of the various accompaniment projects operating in Guatemala in the mid 1990s seem to have had short to medium-term accompaniers.  Peace accords were signed in Guatemala at the end of 1996, but violence continues, particularly against those who are pressing legal cases against the perpetrators of the violence, as well as increasingly against those disputing natural resource extraction. International accompaniment also continues in Guatemala, and the various groups there formed a coordinating body, Acoguate, in 2000. As of 2010 their website lists eight  93  Baines, “International Accompaniment: The Role of ‘Project A of Canada’ in the Return of Guatemalan Refugees,” 152. 94  For a detailed history of “Project A” see Anderson, Weaving Relationships see also discussion in ; Barry Levitt, “Theorizing Accompaniment,” in Journeys of Fear: Refugee Return and National Transformation in Guatemala, ed. Lisa North and Alan Simmons (Montreal, QC: McGill-Queens University Press, 2000), 237–254; Baines, “International Accompaniment: The Role of ‘Project A of Canada’ in the Return of Guatemalan Refugees.” 95  Though the work really began with an exploratory trip in 1988 organized by the Atlantic Regional Solidarity Network that Project Accompaniment came out of. Personal email from Kathryn Anderson, March 12, 2011 96  For a history of Project Accompaniment see Anderson, Weaving Relationships, 98.  42  different groups: Swefor (Sweden), NISGUA (US), Carea (Germany), Collectif Guatemala (France), Maritimes Breaking the Silence (Canada), Peace Watch (Switzerland), and Project Accompagnement (Quebec, Canada).97 The UK based Guatemala Solidarity Network also participates.98 Some 12 to 20 accompaniers serve at a time across those groups. PBI closed down their Guatemala team in 1999, after the peace accords were signed, but reopened it in April of 2003 because of ongoing violence.99 They currently have ten volunteers there protecting 14 organizations,100 but do not belong to the coordinating committee.  Christian Peacemakers search for a place Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) also got started in the mid 1980s, around the same time as Witness and PBI. In 1984 Ron Snider gave the keynote address at the Mennonite World Conference and made a passionate argument for establishing a peacemaking ‘army’ that would be prepared to ‘die by the thousands’, for “unless we are prepared to pay the cost of peacemaking, we have no right to claim the label or preach the  97  “La Coordinación de Acompañamiento Internacional en Guatemala”, n.d., http://acoguate.blogspot.com/ (accessed November 4, 2010). 98  “International Accompaniment Project | Guatemala Solidarity Network”, n.d., http://www.guatemalasolidarity.org.uk/?q=content/international-accompaniment-project (accessed November 4, 2010). 99  “Peace Brigades Canada: Our History”, n.d., http://www.pbicanada.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=169&Itemid=165&lan g=en (accessed November 8, 2010). 100  “Field Projects: PBI”, n.d., http://www.peacebrigades.org/field-projects/ (accessed November 8, 2010).  43  message.”101 He held up Witness for Peace as an example but grandiosely suggested that the historic peace churches102 together develop a force of 100,000 people.  This call mobilized a group of 100, largely Mennonites, to found CPT in 1986 at a meeting in Chicago.103 They later brought in the Brethren and then the Quaker historic peace churches, and eventually also got the sponsorship of peace wings of other churches, that is, groups organizing inside other Christian churches for peace.104 When CPT started it took them some time to get organized and figure out where to go and what to do. Gene Stoltzfus, who had been on the delegation to Nicaragua that led to the founding of Witness for Peace, was hired in 1988 as the first staff person, based in the US. He served as director from 1987 to 2004.105 In 1990 CPT organized a vigil at a Minuteman nuclear missile silo in North Dakota, in the US.106 In 1990 it also sent its first short term delegations to Iraq to try and prevent the first Gulf War, and shortly after to the Oka reserve in Quebec where the Mohawk nation was in a standoff with the  101  Kathleen Kern, “Christian Peacemaker Teams,” in Nonviolent intervention across borders: A recurrent vision (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 175. 102  Quaker, Brethren and Mennonite (including the Amish): Christian churches founded on a belief in Christian pacifism and which advocate conscientious objection to military service. For more on the Mennonite peace tradition see Cynthia Sampson and John Paul Lederach, eds., From the Ground up: Mennonite Contributions to International Peacebuilding (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). 103  For a history of CPT see Kern, In Harm’s Way; Tricia Gates Brown, Getting In The Way: Stories From Christian Peacemaker Teams (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 2005). 104  Today these include the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, the Catholic Basilians, Every Church a Peace Church, On Earth Peace, and the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship. “History | Christian Peacemaker Teams”, n.d., http://cpt.org/about/history (accessed September 29, 2010). 105  At first serving as a volunteer. Kern, In Harm’s Way.  106  Ibid., 12.  44  provincial police.107 In 1991 they took a delegation to Israel, occupied Palestinian territory, and Jordan.108 In 1992 they wanted to send a delegation to Los Angeles after the Rodney King riots, but were unable to respond quickly – which then moved them to organize trained ‘reservists’ who could be on call.109  Haiti (1993 – 2000) The first CPT accompaniers to stay for longer than a few weeks went to Haiti in 1993 through the coalition Cry for Justice,110 which PBI and Witness were also a part of along with over a dozen other organizations, including the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Cry for Justice sent 75 short-term (two week stints) volunteers to six different towns, but CPTers stayed for longer.111  The geopolitical conjuncture in 1993, when accompaniment began in Haiti, was quite complicated - and again the US was involved militarily. Aristide took office as president of Haiti in February of 1991, as the first president to be elected democratically. He survived a coup attempt even before taking office, but was then deposed by US trained army officers in September of that year and forced into exile. His supporters in the country suffered severe persecution. Murders ran into the thousands and human rights  107  Kern, “Christian Peacemaker Teams,” 177.  108  Kern, In Harm’s Way, 13.  109  Ibid., 15.  110  for more on this effort see Ed Kinane, “Cry for Justice in Haiti, Fall 1993,” in Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders: A Recurrent Vision, ed. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan and Thomas Weber (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 207– 234. 111  “Peace Brigades Canada: Our History.”  45  abuses were rampant, led by CIA informant Emmanuel Constant who formed the FRAPH paramilitaries. Aristide was scheduled to return to Haiti in late October of 1993, and it was in this context, to help open space for his return, that accompaniment began. Yet on October 11 there was a FRAPH ‘demonstration’ on the docks, and the US ship with 200 Canadian and US military that was meant to pave the way for his return, turned around. Aristide did not return until October 1994, as a result of a US invasion.112  The Cry for Justice coalition lasted for only ten weeks at the end of 1993, but CPT continued on in Haiti through 1997.113 After the US invasion in 1994 their work turned to intervening with and monitoring the US military, which caused some dissent on the team.114 Witness for Peace had permanent staff there through from 1993 through 1996, and sent delegations from 1992 through 2000.115 In 1995 PBI also began protective accompaniment in Haiti, as well as offering training programs in nonviolent conflict resolution, and support to local mediators. The PBI team closed in 2000 when it was assessed that local groups could carry out their work without protection.116 It seems there was a lull around then, but violence continued in the following years – yet accompaniment has not returned as it did to Guatemala. Perhaps the nature of the violence and the changed geopolitical conjuncture made it less likely to be effective at  112  Kinane, “Cry for Justice in Haiti, Fall 1993.”  113  Kern, In Harm’s Way.  114  Ibid., 43.  115 116  Sarah Joseph, personal communication, February 14, 2011 “Peace Brigades Canada: Our History.”  46  providing protection, but it may also be influenced by accompaniment organizations having very few Creole speakers to draw on.117  North America (1992 -) Around the same time that CPT carried out their first accompaniment in Haiti, they were also experimenting with accompaniment in the United States. A short ‘project in urban peacemaking’ was attempted in Washington DC from 1994 – 1995. Kern’s history of this work strangely elides the dynamic of the Columbia Heights neighborhood they were in being largely black and CPTers being overwhelmingly white, as well as DC residents being disenfranchised of the vote.  118  CPTers in DC did community organizing to shut  down a crack house and set up safe Halloween trick-or-treating and a community safety patrol. The project ended because Wes Hare, the primary organizer, was no longer able to commute from his home in Richmond, VA. Others had mostly come for short-term stints. Hare later organized a similar smaller project in Richmond that officially lasted from 1997 to 1999.119 In Kern’s analysis of these projects she argues that they did not last because those who had signed up for CPT wanted to work as ‘unarmed soldiers’ rather than as community organizers. CPT was clearly still trying to sort out who they were and what they were doing, as well as where to do it.  117  This is repeatedly mentioned by Kinane and Kern. Kinane, “Cry for Justice in Haiti, Fall 1993”; Kern, In Harm’s Way. 118  Kern, In Harm’s Way.  119  Ibid., 84.  47  PBI had actually already been doing work in North America, of a different sort, for several years. In 1992 PBI established a North American project after the confrontation between Mohawk warriors and the Canadian army in Quebec, Canada. It was not intended to be accompaniment, but rather supported local dialogue and reconciliation, trained local human rights monitors, and provided anti-racism education. That project was closed in 1999 because of a lack of a funding.120  Around that time, in 1999, CPT shifted to a different sort of accompaniment in North America, this time on aboriginal territory explicitly as ‘internationals’ on what they recognized as sovereign aboriginal land. Though CPT had discussed doing this work throughout the 1990s, it moved forward after a member of the Dakota Nation visited the CPT team in Hebron and asked why they were going around the world to address issues of land confiscation when it was happening to so much closer to their home – and then sent a request for accompaniment at a Dakota encampment on La Framboise island in South Dakota, which was at risk of confiscation. CPT accompanied that camp from April through October of 1999, when the federal government agreed not to transfer the lands.121  The next spring CPT responded to another invitation from the Esgenoopetitij Nation in New Brunswick, which was struggling to assert its fishing rights and facing considerable violence from settler fishers and from the Canadian Department of Fisheries, including boat ramming and line cutting. That accompaniment continued through 2002, when the Esgenoopetitij Nation signed an agreement with Fisheries. In 2002 the  120  “Peace Brigades Canada: Our History.”  121  Kern, In Harm’s Way, 300 – 306.  48  Asubpeeschoseewagong Nation in Ontario began a blockade to prevent clear cutting on their territory and asked CPT for support. CPT accompanied various blockades there in the summers of 2002 and 2003.122 The blockades continue through 2011 and CPT has visited on delegations and supported them by issuing action alerts, but because the initial fear of violence passed, has not done ongoing physical accompaniment. CPT has gone on to do short term physical accompaniments with several other First Nations in North America, and to organize delegations to educate settlers about aboriginal struggles for justice.123 The Michigan Peace Team also does short-term physical accompaniments on aboriginal territory in North America and has since 1996 when they were requested to do so by the Keewenaw Bay Indian Community in Baraga, Michigan.124  Mexico (1994 - ) The International Service for Peace (SiPaz) is a coalition of over 50 civil organizations and religious groups from across the Americas and Europe, but predominantly from the US, that formed after the Zapatista uprising of January 1994 in Chiapas, Mexico.125 It aims to protect and promote those nonviolently working for social change in the midst of the ongoing armed conflict in Chiapas. As conflict has turned violent in the Mexican  122  Kern, In Harm’s Way.  123  “Aboriginal Justice | Christian Peacemaker Teams”, n.d., http://cpt.org/work/aboriginal_justice (accessed November 24, 2010). 124  They consider that to be international work, but they also do what they call “domestic accompaniment”. They have been “invited to reduce violence” at events like LGBT parades, the protests during the 2008 Republican National Convention, and during violence following sporting events, and at hate group rallies. Until now most of their domestic work has been "event based." 125  “SIPAZ - International Service for Peace / Servicio Internacional para la Paz”, n.d., http://www.sipaz.org/ (accessed November 9, 2010).  49  states of Oaxaca and Guerrero the team now also does periodic visits to those regions. As of 2010 the team has on average 6 or 7 accompaniers.126 Two SiPaz members run their own separate accompaniment teams, Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation, which also has teams in Colombia and Guatemala, has four accompaniers in Mexico and Carea (Germany) has others.127 PBI started working in Chiapas, Mexico as part of the SiPaz coalition in 1995, but established its own Mexico team in 2001,128 with a team in Guerrero, and later a smaller team in Oaxaca.129 As of 2010 they have thirteen volunteers on the Mexico team.130 Witness for peace has four and has been there since 1998.  In December of 1997 45 members of the Mayan pacifist protestant Christian group Las Abejas (the bees) were massacred at the Acteal refugee camp in Chiapas by state supported paramilitaries. CPT had begun taking delegation to Chiapas in 1995, and one delegation had met with las Abejas that very December, shortly before the massacre, and found deep connections in their faith-based approaches to peace work. CPT established a team in mid 1998131 and were with the Abejas through the end of 2001, when it was decided that overt physical violence had diminished in Chiapas132 and they had received  126  Marina Pages (2010) personal communication  127  Their website does not specify how many and they have not responded to emails.  128  Lisa Maracani, PBI Mexico project coordinator, Nov. 9, 2010, personal communication  129  “Mexico Project history: PBI”, n.d., http://www.pbi-mexico.org/los-proyectos/pbi-mexico/sobrepbi-meacutexico/historia-del-proyecto/?L=1%3FL%3D1 (accessed November 8, 2010). 130  Rory (support@mypbi.net), November 29, 2010, personal communication  131  Witness for Peace started their team in Mexico around the same time, likewise moved by the Acteal massacre. 132 (  They recognized that economic violence continued, as it had in Haiti, but felt they were not set up to address this effectively. Kern, In Harm’s Way, 271 This has been an ongoing question  50  an urgent invitation to work in Colombia. The Chiapas CPT team in particular did many public worship actions, such as public fasting in front of a military base. They did many of these on their own, not alongside the Abejas. As a result they had ongoing conflicts with SiPaz around their different understandings of how to do accompaniment.133  Occupied Palestinian territory (1989 – 1992, 1995 - ) In 1989 PBI had a short lived project in occupied Palestinian territory.134 Accompaniment was tried there again in 1990 by a US group called Mideast Witness, which received support from Witness for Peace. That group folded in 1992 for lack of funding and volunteers.135 In 1995 CPT set up their first full long-term team in Hebron. They got there a year after a massacre of 29 people in a mosque by a settler, and just as Israeli troops were pulling out but not removing violent settlers.136 The original proposal was to stay for five months – but the team remains there as of 2011.137  They had other short  lived satellite teams, one in Beit Jala in 2000, in Beit Ummar in 2002 and another in  amongst accompaniers, particularly as physical and economic violence become ever more intertwined. 133  For more on this see Kern, In Harm’s Way; Paul Neufeld Weaver, “Restoring the Balance: Peace Teams and Violence Reduction in Chiapas, Mexico” (dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: University of St. Thomas, 2002). 134  Moser-Puangsuwan, “A short history of grassroots initiatives in unarmed peacekeeping” Israelis were doing solidarity work and presence in Palestine before this, but again, I am looking here at international accompaniers. 135  Ibid.  136  Kern, In Harm’s Way, 99.  137  For more on CPT in Palestine see Kathleen Kern, As Resident Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Pub, 2010); Jerry Levin, West Bank diary: Middle East violence as reported by a former American hostage (Pasadena, CA: Hope Publishing House, 2005).  51  Jerusalem in 2002. In 2004 CPT established a permanent second team in the village of At-Tuwani, in the southern Hebron hills.138  Though CPT started accompaniment in Hebron in 1995, it was not until beginning of the 2000s that a number of other organizations joined them in doing accompaniment in occupied Palestinian territory. Again this seems to have been shaped by the geopolitical conjuncture. There was an increase in violence that began at the end of September 2000 after Sharon’s visit to the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount compound – the last in long list of affronts which sparked the ‘second intifada.’139  Starting in 2001 CPT hosted short-term delegations to Hebron from various other peace groups around the world, and after one such visit the World Council of Churches established the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) in 2002, which was at first organized by a CPT reservist on the CPT model.140 That same year the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was founded by two Palestinians and a US activist as a Palestinian led organization that calls for civilians from around the world to stand with Palestinians non-violently resisting the Israeli military. Both EAPPI and ISM continue that work, primarily using what I would call short-term accompaniers (3 months for EAPPI, ISM does not seem to require a minimum  138  Kern, In Harm’s Way.  139  Ibid., 141; For more context see Derek Gregory, The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004). 140  Kern, In Harm’s Way, 177. “EAPPI Overview”, n.d., http://www.eappi.org/en/about/overview.html (accessed October 4, 2010).  52  stay and considers those who stay more than 2 months to be ‘long termers’).141 The number of ISM accompaniers serving at a time varies greatly. In November 2010 EAPPI had their 36th group serving, made up of 26 accompaniers from eleven countries (Australia, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and the US). They also have sending organizations in Canada, France, Ireland, New Zealand and Poland.142 During their service they rotate between different sites, which makes relationship building harder, but exposes them to more situations. These rotations include work in Jerusalem with Israeli peace groups. They make a strong commitment to doing report backs and organizing events when they go home. They were nominated for the Nobel peace prize in 2004.  The International Women’s Peace Service began their work in the village of Haris, on the West Bank, in 2002. In 2010 they moved to the village of Deir Istiya, also on the West Bank.143 They currently have 21 long term volunteers, who commit to a minimum of three years and take turns "on the ground" serving in the house in the West Bank. They aim to have four in the house at all times, staying three months each. This has been difficult to maintain, so they have had between one and six of these women staying in the house between a month and about a year at a time. They also have short-term volunteers, who stay between 3 weeks and six months. Many serve more than once. They also organize mixed gender delegations from the UK and the German speaking countries to  141  “Join Us in Palestine | International Solidarity Movement”, n.d., http://palsolidarity.org/join (accessed June 6, 2011). 142  “EAPPI: Sending organizations”, n.d., http://www.eappi.org/en/about/sending.html (accessed November 12, 2010). 143  “IWPS Background”, n.d., http://iwps.info/?page_id=629 (accessed October 4, 2010).  53  accompany farmers during the olive harvest. These delegations stay for two weeks. Including these delegates they have had more than 300 serve.  The Michigan Peace Team (MPT) has been sending members to the West Bank (Palestine) since 1991, and have had an almost year round presence there since 2001. They currently have between 2 and 12 accompaniers at a time in the West Bank.144 At around the same time that the MPT began a year round presence in occupied Palestinian territory the International Checkpoint Watch was formed and served in Palestine, though it was a short lived effort in 2001 and 2002.145 Given the necessary brevity of this review of global accompaniment efforts I will not include here the various Israeli solidarity and accompaniment efforts in occupied Palestinian territory. The work of groups like B’Tselem and Israeli women’s Machsom (checkpoint) Watch,146 also founded in 2001, is certainly a form of accompaniment, but here I will not consider it to be ‘international.’  It is in Palestine that accompaniers have suffered the most, and harshest, direct attacks, including the deaths of Rachel Corrie (US, 2003), Tom Hurndall (UK, 2004), and major  144  They have also, as they put it, “placed peacekeepers for violence reduction projects in Bosnia, Chiapas, Haiti, the West Bank, Iraq, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Algonquin Reservation (Canada), Juarez (Mexico), and with the Western Shoshone people.” Those all seem to have been more short-term projects. They have had over 150 volunteers serve, generally for between three weeks and three months at a time. “MPT Peace Team Reports: Palestine/Israel: About MPT & Teams”, n.d., http://mptinpalestine.blogspot.com/p/about-mpt-teams.html (accessed November 5, 2010). 145  “International Checkpoint Watch - ICW”, n.d., http://www.canadazone.com/icw/mission.htm (accessed October 4, 2010). 146  “MachsomWatch”, n.d., http://www.machsomwatch.org/en (accessed October 4, 2010); “B’Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories”, n.d., http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp (accessed October 4, 2010).  54  injuries, including serious brain damage (Tristan Anderson, US, 2009). Israel does not seem to respond much to international pressure. This surely has something to do with huge, and apparently almost entirely unconditional, US support of the Israeli military. This is shaped by the large pro-Israel lobby and constituency in the US that is unlike that for any other country.  Asia (1989 - ) Accompaniment in Sri Lanka was done by Peace Brigades from 1989 to 1998. This was their fourth location, after having worked briefly in Nicaragua, then Guatemala and El Salvador. As such it was the first place that accompaniment was practiced outside of Latin America and the Caribbean, though accompaniment was also getting off to a slow start in Palestine in 1989. It was also the first place to receive international accompaniers that had no ongoing international solidarity movement support, and the first where the US did not play a significant role in the military conflict. Yet PBI felt they were still able to effectively offer protection and stayed in Sri Lanka through 1998, when the government insisted on censoring their human rights reports.147 The Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP0 chose Sri Lanka as their first location and began doing accompaniment there in 2003, and have continued there past the official cessation of armed conflict in 2009.  The Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) was founded in 2002 at an event in Surajkund, India with attendees from 49 countries. The organizing for it was begun by David Hartsough and Mel Duncan, who each brought similar proposals for such an organization to the  147  “Peace Brigades Canada: Our History.”  55  1999 Hague Appeal for Peace (a 10,000 strong peace conference).148 They have always dreamed big for this organization, and aim for it to be much larger than existing organizations, with more official recognition and funding. They have always paid accompaniers a living wage and distinguish themselves as a professional and permanent force (as opposed to most accompaniers who serve as volunteers with a minimal stipend, generally for a set term). They aim to have a mix of what they call ‘peacekeepers’ from both the global North and South, though they do not speak or write much about how this changes the dynamics of their work, an issue I will come back to in chapter eight.  It was not until a decade later that accompaniment was practiced in another Asian country. Accompaniment in East Timor in 1999 was a short lived effort by the Italian group Operation Dove, presumably timed around the referendum held that year on independence from Indonesia, for which UN military peacekeepers were also deployed. That same year PBI began accompaniment in West Timor (the other half of the island of Timor, also controlled by Indonesia) at the request of the National Human Rights Commission. That office was closed in 2008 after a joint decision with the human rights workers who were being accompanied that their organizations were now stronger and safer.149 They continued, however, to work in other parts of Indonesia (Papua, Aceh, and Jakarta) until that team was closed at the end of 2010.  148  “How It All Began | Nonviolent Peaceforce”, n.d., http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/about/history (accessed November 8, 2010). 149  “Peace Brigades Canada: Our History.”  56  It was in 2005, six years after beginning that work in West Timor and then other parts of Indonesia, that PBI opened another new team (and they have launched no other team since). Their 2005 expansion was into Nepal, where they currently have 14 volunteers.150 The conflict in Nepal heated up that year as the king dismissed the government and used executive power to increase conflict with the armed Maoist movement. PBI’s presence there is ongoing and as of 2010 they have nine accompaniers on the team.  What is  striking about these teams in Asia is that US and European complicity in the violence is much less direct, and there is no broader solidarity movement in North America or Europe focused on supporting groups working for justice and peace in these countries.  The same is not true of the next team in Asia, established in 2007 in Mindanao, a disputed region in the Philippines, a former US colony. US troops have been involved in the conflict since 2002.151 One of NP’s accompaniers in Mindanao, Umar Jaleel, (a person of color from India) was kidnapped by rebels and held from February to June of 2009.152 In late 2009 the Nonviolent Peaceforce joined the civilian protection component of the International Monitoring Team (with armed peacekeepers from Malaysia, Brunei, Japan, and Libya), which was established to monitor the peace agreement between the  150  Rory (2010) personal communication  151  Ryan Rosauro, “Clarify US role in Mindanao war--MILF - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos,” Inquirer Global, September 2, 2009, http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20090902-223185/Clarify-US-role-inMindanao-war--MILF (accessed October 25, 2011); Jojo Malig, “WikiLeaks cables: US forces directly involved in Mindanao terror hunt |,” ABS-CBN News, September 14, 2011, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/09/14/11/wikileaks-cables-us-forces-directly-involvedmindanao-terror-hunt (accessed October 25, 2011). 152  “Jaleel,” Nonviolent Peaceforce - Jaleel, n.d., http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/en/Jaleel2009 (accessed December 1, 2009).  57  Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The other organizations working as part of the agreed on ‘civilian protection component’ are the International Committee of the Red Cross and Mindanao People’s Caucus. This is the first time that accompaniers have had their role officially recognized by both armed actors in a conflict.  Iraq (1990 - 1991, 2002 - ) Several attempts have been made in Iraq to have an international peace presence of some sort, none of which seem to quite qualify as protective accompaniment, but which I will review here because CPT has been heavily involved. Just before the first Gulf War, in November 1990, Christian Peacemaker Teams sent a delegation which met with the ‘hostages’ – foreigners that were not being allowed to leave the country - and convinced the government to release those with medical conditions. For the next two months (November 1990 to January 1991) an ad-hoc group of 73 people from 15 countries calling themselves the Gulf Peace Team established a ‘peace camp’ outside Baghdad to try and stop the bombing that began after the UN deadline of January 16. They did not have a deterrent effect and evacuated soon after the bombing began.153 I do not consider this sort of interposition between armed parties to be protective accompaniment154 – particularly since they were not working with or located near any civil society  153  Robert Burrowes, “The Persian Gulf War and the Gulf Peace Team,” in Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders, ed. Thomas Weber and Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 305–318. 154  For more on the difference between interposition and accompaniment see the discussion of terms in the introduction.  58  organization or social resource but simply camped out in the desert.155 It is interesting that this high drama did pull together what seems to have been the most multi-national team to date.156  Between the first and second Gulf War, Iraq was crippled by sanctions, and the US organization Voices in the Wilderness sent over 70 delegations carrying food and medicine, beginning in 1996.157 CPT began sending delegations in 2002, as Bush’s rhetoric against Iraq ramped up after the September 11, 2001 attacks.158 As US bombing loomed, the two organizations formed the ‘Iraq Peace Team’, which put US citizens in Iraq from September 2002 through the March bombing.159 Within hours of the March  155 (  There was then a short lived, and failed, effort at a similar sort of interposition in Croatia in 1993 called Mir Sada. For an account of this see Christine Schweitzer, “Mir Sada: The Story of a Nonviolent Intervention that Failed,” in Nonviolent intervention across borders: a recurrent vision, ed. Thomas Weber and Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, ). 2000), 269–278. This turned into the Balkan Peace Team, which was in Croatia from 1994 to 2001, but doing peacebuilding activities other than accompaniment. See Dave Bekkering, “Balkan peace Team Internation in Croatia: Otvorene Oci (Open Eyes),” in Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders: A Recurrent Vision, ed. Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan and Thomas Weber (Honolulu, HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000), 191–206; “Balkan Peace Team”, n.d., http://www.peacebrigades.org/archive/bpt.html (accessed November 9, 2010) In 1994 PBI also opened the Balkans project, which did peace building work but not protective accompaniment. That project closed in 2001 for lack of resources. ; For other actions over the years which are related to but not themselves accompaniment see the edited collection Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan and Thomas Weber, eds., Nonviolent Intervention Across Borders (Honolulu, ). HI: Spark M. Matsunaga Institute for Peace, University of Hawaii, 2000). 156  Moser-Puangsuwan, “A short history of grassroots initiatives in unarmed peacekeeping.”  157  “Voices in the Wilderness: Voices in the Wilderness: A Brief History (1996-2005)”, n.d., http://vitw.org/archives/317 (accessed November 25, 2010). 158  On January 6, 2003 one of the CPT delegates, George Weaver, was killed in a car accident. Kern, In Harm’s Way. 159  As they put it on their website: “We will live among the Iraqi people during any aggression directed at them, including continued economic sanctions. We will use our presence and nonviolent actions to witness, understand and expose the situation of both the civilian population of Iraq and highlight the importance of facilities such as water purification plants that are critical to  59  20th beginning of the bombing CPT members were reporting live from Baghdad on Canadian television, and continued to do media work for the few days that they had phone lines. Other team members served as voluntary human shields at a water plant where they camped out with a banner saying “to bomb this site is a war crime”. All team members left Baghdad for Amman by April 1st, but CPTers returned on April 16th.  CPT would go on to stay through 2005, focusing on documenting abuses by US forces. In November and December of 2003 they actually handed flyers out to US soldiers encouraging them not to obey orders to abuse Iraqis.160 They went on to focus on detainee issues, with family members looking for loved ones at Abu-Ghraib and other prisons – which sounds much like the work that Peace Brigades initially did with family members of the disappeared in Guatemala, though the US army was not running the prisons in Guatemala. Indeed Iraq is the only place accompaniment has been attempted where the US was an outright occupying force. Like the early work in Guatemala, the family members were not yet organized – but unlike Guatemala, they were too fearful to begin to organize or gather, and CPT’s work continued to be with individual families, and often seemed to involve CPT going on their own to the prisons or to US forces to ask for information about missing family members, in a way that looked a bit more like social  daily life. We will report on our experiences in Iraq through this website, our support teams, and all who will listen. Iraq Peace Team is not affiliated with Human Shield projects. Though we hope to remain in Iraq in the event of an attack, we don't consider ourselves “human shields." IPT exists to stand in solidarity with the peoples of Iraq. Voices in the Wilderness refuses to incorporate military language or ideas to describe the peace witness of IPT members.” In 2003 Voices in the Wilderness was fined $20,000 by the US government for breaking the embargo. They refused to pay it and closed the organization. Many of the activists then formed the organization Voices for Creative Nonviolence, which has focused on civil disobedience in the US rather than going to Iraq. 160  Kern, In Harm’s Way, 430.  60  work than accompaniment. Indeed Kern reports that families began directing their anger toward the team when they could find no trace of their family members.161 In Guatemala the army hassled the accompaniers a good bit, even bombing the PBI house,162 but still cared about their international image enough to respond to the pressure that was then generated and not do more. The guerillas in Guatemala may not have attacked accompaniers because having more international witnesses may have served them, since the vast majority of human rights abuses were being committed by the army. In Iraq CPT was not trying to influence the (weak) Iraqi government and army’s compliance with international humanitarian law as much as the actions of the occupying US army itself. The US does not seem to care particularly about international pressure (lonely UN votes on the Cuba embargo or the Israeli occupation being only one sign of this). US Congress does, in some measure, respond to pressure from constituents - but CPT was not generating enough of this to have much of an impact, though they established an ‘adopt a detainee’ program and had over a thousand people write the government about the situation of particular detainees in Iraq.163 The weak movement in the US against the Iraq war was more focused on getting troops out than on improving their treatment of detainees during occupation – so the CPT team could not rely on a larger movement that to generate pressure, like the Central America solidarity movement that did so much work around Guatemala in the 1980s and early 1990s, or even the current movement in the US to end military aid and involvement in Colombia. CPT’s documentation of  161  Ibid., 435.  162  Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards, 107–8.  163  Kern, In Harm’s Way.  61  detainee abuse did, however, get a good deal of attention after the Abu-Grahib prisoner abuse photos hit the press in the spring of 2004. This was certainly human rights work, though not protective accompaniment. Rather the opposite, Kern reports that Iraqi human rights workers actually asked CPT to leave in 2004, saying that their presence would endanger Iraqi’s they worked with.164 CPT did leave, but only briefly. In early 2005 they came back to help train an Iraqi group calling themselves the Muslim Peacemaker Team.165  The Abu Grahib photos, along with the US army’s assault on Fallujah in 2004, increased anger against internationals, and many aid workers were kidnapped and some killed in 2004. The armed insurgencies in Iraq, one of whom ultimately kidnapped four CPTers in November of 2005, did not seem distinguish CPT’s work as different, or as a positive force.166 The only one to be executed was the US citizen. Surely this is no coincidence.167 What is perhaps surprising is that the Canadians and the British citizen, whose countries are close allies of the US, were not. Perhaps all of the photos that were circulated of the kidnapped CPTers opposing the occupation of Palestine made a difference. That work certainly inspired the many statements by Muslim leaders asking  164  Ibid., 441.  165  “Muslim Peacemaker Teams - Working for peace and human rights in Iraq”, n.d., http://www.mpt-iraq.org/ (accessed November 25, 2010). 166  For a good review of the incident see Peter Nyers, “In solitary, in solidarity: Detainees, hostages and contesting the anti-policy of detention,” European journal of cultural studies 11, no. 3 (2008): 333–349. 167  For more on how race and citizenship played out in this incident see Gada Mahrouse, “The Compelling Story of the White/Western Activist in the War Zone: Examining Race, Neutrality, and Exceptionalism in Citizen Journalism,” Canadian Journal of Communication 34, no. 4 (2009): 659–674.  62  for their release, including, astoundingly, one signed together by Hamas, Fatah, and the Popular Front. Ultimately this was not what led to their release. It seems that British military intelligence somehow got through to one of the kidnappers. Given that he led them to the site it appears that a ransom may have been paid, though that was never made public. Ironically the kidnappers’ public demand was that the US release Iraqi detainees, precisely what the CPTers had also been pressuring for.168 No Iraqi detainees were publicly released as a result of either the kidnapping or CPT organizing.169  CPT, surprisingly, chose to send another team back to Iraq in late 2006, after the kidnapping – though since then they have been based in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. Their work there is now focused on “accompanying displaced persons home by living in conflicted border regions and documenting human rights violations against civilian populations.”170 Soon after they went back to Iraq CPTers were again kidnapped. On January 27, 2007 Will Van Wagenen and Peggy Gish, along with an Iraqi partner and an interpreter were taken captive. Gish and the interpreter were released after two days. Van Wagenen and the Iraqi partner were held for a week, until Feb. 4th. This second kidnapping was kept low profile. There was only one print story, in the local Salt Lake  168  Kern, In Harm’s Way.  169  Tricia Gates Brown, 118 Days: Christian Peacemaker Teams Held Hostage in Iraq (Telford, PA: Cascadia Pub. House, 2009); James Loney, Captivity: 118 Days in Iraq and the Struggle for a World Without War (Toronto, ON,Canada: Knopf Canada, 2011); Peggy Gish, Iraq: a journey of hope and peace (Waterloo, ON: Herald Press, 2004); For more on CPT in Iraq see Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, To Baghdad and Beyond: How I Got Born Again in Babylon (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2005). 170  “Iraq Project | Christian Peacemaker Teams”, n.d., http://cpt.org/work/iraq (accessed November 13, 2010).  63  city paper (where Van Wagenen is from).171 Perhaps a condition of the release was that there would be no media coverage. Peggy did send an email to CPT supporters on March 9th, 2007 saying that she and Will had been “abducted briefly” and that “We know that the suffering and daily threat of violence Iraqis face have been so much greater than anything we have experienced. We don't want our struggles to detract attention from their story.” I was intrigued by this, since most accompaniment seems to try to do precisely the opposite, use the experiences of accompaniers to bring attention to their partners. CPT chose to stay on and continues working in Kurdistan as of 2011. PBI, in a spring 2006 newsletter, said they have chosen not to work in Iraq because the armed groups there are not unified, do not have a single strategy, and are undeterred by criticism when internationals are harmed.  Other places accompaniment was tried CPT sent exploratory delegations to Chechnya in 1995-96 but decided not to pursue it because of a lack of US involvement and limited language skills. They explored work in Bosnia in 1996, but found that their goal of accompanying refugees home was not feasible at that time. CPT sent various delegations to Puerto Rico to participate in the campaign of civil disobedience against the US bombing rage on Vieques island in 2000 and 2003, but chose not to make it a permanent team because they did not have enough people to staff it. In 2002 CPT sent an exploratory delegation to Afghanistan, but again Kern reports that it did not materialize because they were unable to find people willing to  171  Todd Hollingshead, “Former BYU student safely home after Iraq kidnappers release him,” The Salt Lake Tribune, February 17, 2007.  64  staff it in what would have been extremely difficult conditions. CPT also did seasonal summer work on the US-Mexico border in the Arizona desert with the organization No More Deaths, staffing emergency assistance camps from 2004 to 2007. Other groups have not been as public with information about locations that they explored but did not pursue, though PBI does say they considered Namibia and Pakistan.172  Operation Dove (Operazione Colomba)173 is an Italian accompaniment group that grew out of the Pope John XXIII community, a Catholic international lay association. It is open to “believers and non-believers alike who wish to experience within their lives the power of non-violence as the sole means by which to obtain lasting peace founded upon justice and truth”. Over 1000 volunteers have served with Operation Dove since 1992. ‘White helmets’ (an Italian term for conscientious objectors to obligatory military service) can, under Italian law, do their alternative civil service with Operation Dove.174 This is the only such government sanction of accompaniment as an alternative to military service that I know of. Most of their projects have been short lived. They first went to Yugoslavia in 1992, then Sierra Leone (1997), Kosovo and Albania (1998-1999), East Timor (1999), Chiapas in Mexico (1998-2002), Chechnya (2000-2001), the Democratic Republic of Congo (2001), Israel/Palestine (since 2002), and Uganda (2005-2006). They have been in Colombia since 2009.  172  Kern, In Harm’s Way, 4.  173  “Operazione Colomba - Home”, n.d., http://www.operazionecolomba.com/ (accessed November 12, 2010). 174  “Our projects: Operation Dove”, n.d., http://www.operationdove.org/?page_id=35 (accessed November 4, 2010).  65  Africa (2011 – 2013) Though Africa has a good deal of military peacekeeping (there are currently far and away more UN peacekeeping forces in Africa than on any other continent, as well as regional peacekeeping forces),175 it has only very recently had international protective accompaniment, though several exploratory short-term efforts have been made. The only ongoing effort to establish a team seems to be that of the Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP), who were invited by two Sudanese organizations to collaborate to build Sudanese-led violence prevention teams. They established a 50 person team for the South Sudan independence referendum in 2011.176 They set up several months before the referendum and will stay on through the transition. They expect to staff a team there for a total of two years. It is unclear from their materials what their local to internationals ratio is, but as you can see in their photo (see figure four) they are a primarily black team (something their web site does not discuss). I will come back to issues of race and accompaniment in chapter eight.  175  For a full table of all UN and non-UN military peacekeeping deployments see International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2010 (London: Taylor and Francis, 2010) updated annually. 176  For more on the NP in Sudan, and their funding by the Belgian government, see  http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/sudans-north-south-border-role-civilian-peacekeepers  66  Figure 4: The Nonviolent Peaceforce team in Mundri, Sudan. 177 The white woman on the top left, Tiffany Easthom, is the country director. © Nonviolent Peaceforce, by permission  Peace Brigades sent an exploratory team to Chad in 1994, but did not establish a permanent presence.178 Again, Operation Dove had teams in Uganda 2005-2006 – it appears from their site that they were not permanently there but did ongoing visits. It is unclear why they did not continue. They also list having been in Sierra Leone (1997), and the Democratic Republic of Congo (2001). They do not give more information on their site, but it appears these were also short-term efforts. Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) did three exploratory delegations to the Great Lakes Region in Africa from 20052008, visiting Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It seems that they chose  177  http://www.nonviolentpeaceforce.org/fieldwork/all-projects/sudan-project  178  Moser-Puangsuwan, “A short history of grassroots initiatives in unarmed peacekeeping.”  67  not to establish a project both because of lack of funding and because it seemed that the armed actors in those regions did not appear to be responsive to international pressure. As CPTer Nils Dybvig put it in an online discussion about accompaniment hosted by New Tactics, “The fear of outside scrutiny leading to international sanction is one of the things that makes unarmed accompaniment effective in the areas that it’s used. In a sense, this is another way that the world community’s neglect of African issues is playing itself out; given the context of neglect armed actors don’t believe the international community will pay attention to their abuses even with the presence of international accompaniers, so accompaniment as a tactic can’t be as effective.”179 Boothe points out in that same discussion that accompaniment would not have worked in Rwanda because perpetrators of the violence were purposely targeting westerners in order to scare off outside intervention.180 Hutu soldiers rounded up ten Belgian peacekeepers and killed and mutilated them, which did indeed lead to Belgian withdrawal.181  Liam Mahony contributed to that same online discussion with a radically different interpretation, writing, “I found that the political dynamics that logically justify  179  “New Tactics | Unarmed Accompaniment”, n.d., http://www.newtactics.org/en/blog/newtactics/unarmed-accompaniment#comment-598 (accessed November 8, 2010) Though in fact the UN did impose sanctions on Libya in 1992; Liberia in 1992 and 2001; Somalia in 1992; parts of Angola in 1993, 1997 and 1998; Rwanda in 1994; Sudan in 1996, Sierra Leone in 1997; Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2000; and parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from July 2003. ; A. Vines, “Monitoring UN sanctions in Africa: the role of panels of experts,” in Verification Yearbook (London: VERTIC, 2003) That US citizen Dybvig did not know of these sanctions is perhaps telling. . 180  This was of course also a problem in Iraq, and is why international accompaniers do not work in areas of Colombia under control of the guerillas, who have in the past targeted internationals for kidnapping. 181  Paul Neufeld Weaver, “Restoring the Balance: Peace Teams and Violence Reduction in Chiapas, Mexico” (dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: University of St. Thomas, 2002), 117.  68  accompaniment as an effective tool were as evident in the African countries I looked at as they were in Latin America or Asia.” He does not specify, either here or in the Proactive Presence booklet he references,182 what those dynamics are. It seems to me that a key dynamic is US involvement in a conflict that a solidarity movement in the US can then leverage to respond to crises. Mahony does not seem to have these ways that accompaniment works in mind when he describes the informal accompaniment that he sees as happening in Africa:  “indirect or un-deliberate forms of accompaniment are being carried out all the time by people and organizations who are not explicitly using this terminology, not based in organizations with a mission to protect or deal with human rights, or often doing accompaniment as a by-product of carrying out a different mission. … humanitarian and development organizations, for instance, often have an international component of their presence and visits to communities facing threats, and through this, although they do not claim to be offering any protection, the implicit protective value of the presence may often have the same impact. Similarly, the presence of international missionaries, UN agencies, journalists, individual solidarity activists, etc. can all have this impact through presence. So if we tried to count up the number of organizations who are doing accompaniment unconsciously or non-publicly - in Africa and elsewhere - the number would be far greater than the few organizations that consciously and rigorously use the tactic.183 I am intrigued by this idea that a great many humanitarian and development workers are, in a sense, serving informally as accompaniers.184 Yet their numbers would still be  182  Liam Mahony, Proactive Presence: Field strategies for civilian protection (Geneva, Switzerland: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, 2006). 183  “New Tactics | Unarmed Accompaniment.”  184  He discusses how development and humanitarian organizations can more consciously do so in Mahony, Proactive Presence: Field strategies for civilian protection.  69  dwarfed by UN peacekeeping, both in Africa and worldwide185 - which is likewise dwarfed by worldwide military expenditures.186 To quote the UN’s own site, “The budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1 July 2010-30 June 2011 is about $7.83 billion. By way of comparison, this is less than half of one per cent of world military expenditures in 2009. The estimated cost of all UN Peacekeeping operations from 1948 to June 2010 amounts to about $69 billion”187 - which is equivalent to what the US spent in 96 days fighting in Iraq.188  Trends I have been unable to compile an overall number of protective accompaniers or total budgets as little information is available, but the countries in which they are working, in order from greatest number of accompaniers active in June 2011 to least (by my best guess according to online information) are:  • • • • • • • •  Colombia, Palestine, Guatemala, Sudan Sri Lanka, Philippines (Mindanao), Mexico, Nepal,  185  Again, for annual UN peacekeeping statistics see International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance 2010. 186  Neufeld Weaver, “Restoring the Balance: Peace Teams and Violence Reduction in Chiapas, Mexico,” 32. 187  “Financing peacekeeping. United Nations Peacekeeping”, n.d., http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/financing.shtml (accessed January 13, 2012). 188  “National Priorities Project”, n.d., http://nationalpriorities.org/ (accessed October 25, 2011).  70  • • • •  Iraq (Kurdistan), Nicaragua, Honduras, and Canada (First Nations territory).  A list of what organizations are accompanying in each country is provided in tables one and two (Appendix A). As detailed in table three (Appendix A), other countries where accompaniment has been done in the past but is not currently being done are El Salvador, Haiti, East Timor, Chechnya, and the Balkans (though again, what was done in the Balkans was not quite accompaniment).  A list of organizations that have done and are now doing international protective accompaniment is provided in table four (Appendix A). Countries that have had more than two different international organizations practicing accompaniment are Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Palestine. Those that have only had one or two are First Nations territory in North America, Honduras, Nicaragua, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Philippines (Mindanao) and Sudan (see map, figure one). Though Colombia did not receive a team until 1991, it is now the country with the largest number of international groups with twelve, including several that are only in Colombia and thus not included here. I outline the history and work of those groups in chapter six.  It has been hard to find information on how many actual accompaniers were at each site and when, but it seems that the largest group of accompaniers were in Guatemala in the late 1980s and early 1990s, then Chiapas in the mid 1990s, then Colombia starting in the late 1990s, and in the last five years a growing number have been in Palestine (see tables one, two and three in Appendix A). In the last year two new small accompaniment 71  projects were begun in Honduras. These are all countries in conflict, at times when the conflict has been particularly “hot” – but they are also, notably, countries where, and generally when, the US was a major player in the conflict. Accompaniment groups rarely talk explicitly about this, though Neufeld, a CPT reservist, wrote in his dissertation that, “CPT chooses to intervene in conflicts where the US and/or Canadian governments are at least an indirect actor. This accentuates the power of the CPT intervention.” I believe that it is much more than simply a matter of accentuating but actually a key part of how accompaniment works. Accompaniers have again and again worked to protect the accompanied from state and parastate actors who receive support from the US, and sometimes from Europe and Canada. This means that accompaniers, who tend to be from those countries, have some leverage – they are able to pressure their own governments to pressure the client governments (and in some cases to pressure those governments to then pressure paramilitary actors). This is a more direct and effective pressure than the general international pressure to follow human rights norms that writers on accompaniment often refer to.189 Again, there is no clear data but it seems that overall most accompaniers are from the US, followed by Western Europe, then Canada (see appendix A). PBI has ‘country groups’ that recruit and support accompaniers in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US.190  189  e.g. Coy, “Cooperative Accompaniment and Peace Brigades International in Sri Lanka,” 90.  190  “Become a volunteer: PBI”, n.d., http://www.pbi-colombia.org/los-proyectos/pbicolombia/voluntarios/?L=1 (accessed February 24, 2011).  72  Accompaniment continues to be connected to solidarity movements working to end US militarism in Latin America. Yet it has also expanded beyond this. Accompaniment, in much smaller numbers, is now being done in countries like Nepal and Sudan, which have no solidarity movements in the US or Europe, and where the US does not play a key role in the conflict.191 There accompaniment is done on a civilian peacekeeper (rather than solidarity movement) model. Given patterns of displacement it is much less likely that someone from the US will have previously met, and been inspired, by a refugee from Nepal than one from Guatemala. These countries are also much further from the US and require a much more expensive plane ticket and lengthy trip, a barrier for many volunteers (this also makes it less likely they will have gone previously on a two week ‘delegation’ that inspires them to make the longer term commitment of accompaniment). Given that these are countries with what linguists call ‘languages of lesser diffusion’, it is also less likely that accompaniers from North America or Europe will speak, say, Timorese than Spanish, and have been drawn to make personal connections through language practice. This also generally requires the accompaniment organization to provide language training.  This move away from Latin America began in 1989, with Sri Lanka and Palestine, but really took off in 1999 and 2000, with East Timor and Indonesia. It could also be considered part of a rising trend at the time of NGO-ization or professionalization of  191  The latter cannot be said of Indonesia or East Timor, but the US there does not play as large a role in the conflict as they do in the Latin American countries.  73  activism.192 The premise of accompaniment is that there will be an international response not only if something happens to the accompanier, but if something happens to the accompanied and the accompanier sees it. In most accompaniment that response comes from solidarity movement supporters who receive urgent action emails and make calls and write letters. More and more however PBI and others, particularly it seems in countries outside of Latin America, rely instead on a response from embassy officials and supportive politicians, or as Coy puts it ‘policy elites’ that they meet with regularly and cultivate ‘insider status’ with.193 I come back to this issue in more detail in chapter six.  Conclusion More recently started accompaniment efforts have been moving away from accompaniment’s Christian, solidarity movement, and Latin American roots. They have also moved away from conflicts strongly shaped by US involvement and are not necessarily going in at particularly ‘hot’ geopolitical conjunctures. Yet my sense is that of accompaniers in the field today around the world, the majority are still in Latin America (see Appendix A). Again this is hard to verify without hard numbers for accompaniers with each organization, something I hope to address in future research. It is also hard to say whether most accompaniers today are part of the solidarity movement, as this seems to be understood to mean different things by different organizations (see my discussion of this debate in chapter six). Some of the largest accompaniment organizations operating today have Christian ties (CPT, WFP and EAPPI – smaller 192  INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2009). 193  Coy, “Cooperative Accompaniment and Peace Brigades International in Sri Lanka,” 94.  74  Christian groups are FOR, SweFOR, OD and PPF), though not all accompaniers with those groups identify as Christian. FOR and SweFOR in particular often operate as secular organizations day to day in Colombia, but have a strong base of support amongst ecumenical religious activists in the US and Sweden.  More recently launched accompaniment projects, such as those in Asia and those of the Nonviolent Peaceforce (NP) in general, rely on a nonpartisan model rather than on solidarity movement support, a difference I will look at more closely in chapter six. Though the NP presents itself as able to go anywhere, I foresee accompaniment continuing to be done primarily in those countries where the US in particular, and to some extent Europe, plays a key role in the conflict. Given that accompaniment relies on pressure from solidarity networks, it will be most effective in those countries where it has that sort of leverage. Accompaniment does not necessarily have to be in Latin America nor have Christian ties to work, but I do believe that it is most effective when it is done in countries where the US in particular is supporting one of the armed actors in the conflict, and when it is part of a broader solidarity movement. Of course there are other factors that shape accompaniments ability to ‘work’ (i.e., provide protection and support), such as being in a country with a language that is widely spoken in the US and Europe. The other factor that appears time and again in the brief sketches in this chapter is the geopolitical conjuncture in which accompaniers act (so not just where but when).  As I said at the start of this chapter, I do not assume that accompaniment was effective at providing protection and support in all of the countries described here. Accompaniment has been particularly under attack in Iraq and Palestine. I mentioned here only murder, 75  serious injury and kidnapping of accompaniers (all in those two places, with the exception of one kidnapping in Mindanao), but accompaniers have also faced a series of arrests and deportations around the world.194 Yet the latter attacks do not necessarily mean that accompaniment was not ‘working’. To further explore the question of how accompaniment works requires a closer look at how it is being done. I do this for accompaniment in Colombia, the country that currently has the largest number of international accompaniment groups. But first I turn, in the next two chapters, to a review of the Colombian context, highlighting three aspects of it that make accompaniment particularly effective there – land grabs, US involvement, and racialization. Only one of these came to light in the stories in this chapter, but I suspect that all three might be found to be relevant to how accompaniment works in other countries if those cases were looked at more closely.  194  Many of these are detailed in Mahony and Eguren, Unarmed Bodyguards.  76  Chapter 3: Why Colombia?  Colombia is the country with the largest number of international protective accompaniment organizations, and yet still there are many more communities and organizations requesting accompaniment. Accompaniment is widely perceived as effective protection by Colombians that are accompanied and those that request accompaniment. In the last chapter I looked at factors that have helped accompaniment ‘work’ across time and place. I now turn more specifically to factors of the Colombian conflict that shape how accompaniment ‘works’ well there: land grabs and US involvement. The third major factor of the Colombian context that shapes how accompaniment works is racialization, which intersects with issues of land, but which I will describe separately in the next chapter. I do not mean to imply that these three factors alone explain the conflict, which is much more complicated than that, or even that they are the three most important factors in the conflict.195 Instead I focus on these three  195  For a review of different analyses of the violence in Colombia see Fernán E. González, Ingrid Johanna Bolívar, and Teófilo Vázquez, Violencia política en Colombia: de la nación fragmentada a la construcción del estado (Bogotá, Colombia: CINEP, Centro de Investigación y Educación Popular, 2003); For other useful analyses of the conflict in Spanish see Daniel Pécaut, Guerra contra la sociedad (Bogotá, Colombia: Espasa, 2001); Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Relaciones IEPRI, Instituto de Estudios Politicos y Relaciones Internacionales, Nuestra guerra sin nombre: transformaciones del conflicto en Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia: Editorial Norma, 2006); Alejandro Reyes Posada and Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Geografía de la guerra: un estudio de la Universidad Nacional; [investigación de Alejandro Reyes Posada]. (Bogotá, Colombia: Multirevistas Editores, S.A., 1999); In English see Nazih Richani, Systems of violence: the political economy of war and peace in Colombia (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002); Forrest Hylton, Evil Hour in Colombia (London; New York: Verso, 2006); Virginia Marie Bouvier, Colombia: building peace in a time of war (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2009); Charles W. Bergquist, Ricardo  77  as the factors of the conflict that most shape how it is that accompaniment ‘works’ in Colombia.196 I start this chapter by describing the basic parameters of the armed conflict in Colombia – that is, who is fighting who. To explain some of what they are fighting about, I then turn to the history of land grabs and violence in Colombia. I then describe the history of US involvement, looking first at the US’s role in the formation of the guerillas, and then in the formation of the paramilitaries. This leads me to a review of the current state of struggles over land and the armed actors, and then a look at US involvement in the conflict today. I conclude by pointing to how land grabs and US involvement shape how accompaniment works in Colombia. In essence, resistance to land grabs is particularly spatial and lends itself well to accompaniment, and US involvement gives accompaniers the leverage that they use to generate pressure on the Colombian state to protect those they are accompanying by pressuring the US state to pressure the Colombian state. I describe how this is done day to day and through chains of solidarity in more detail in chapter seven. Here I detail the US involvement that provides that leverage. Again, this chapter is a highly selective account of the Colombian conflict limited to those factors that account for international accompaniment. The context of the conflict is much wider and involves much more complicated internal political and economic dynamics.  Peñaranda, and Gonzalo Sánchez G, Violence in Colombia, 1990-2000: waging war and negotiating peace (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001). 196  Though this chapter will offer some sense of it indirectly, my aim here is not to discuss why those Colombians who are accompanied are under attack. That is a different and complicated story that has not only to do with land, but also with an ideology that painted anyone who worked for social justice as communist and a guerilla sympathizer. The guerillas’ discourse of ‘combining all forms of struggle’ also made such attacks worse.  78  Armed conflict and political violence During my fieldwork in Colombia (2007 – 2009) there were a number of ‘armed actors’ involved in a conflict that reached back to the middle of the twentieth century. This conflict has changed over time and is variable across space. Establishing its parameters is difficult because it is so dynamic, and particularly because it is not one actor fighting another but involves multiple actors who have had different alliances across time and region, as well as varied relations to the state and its armed forces and national police. It is a classic case of ‘late modern war’ in which you have the advanced military of the state confronting and occassionally collaborating with non-state actors in a conflict with no clearly defined beginning or end in time or space.197 The political roots of the conflict lie in struggles over land and resources. Those struggles have frequently taken the form of armed conflict as a result of limited democratic space and the repressive response of the Colombian state and its auxiliaries.  To characterize the war in Colombia as a conflict between right and left is an oversimplification, but in broad strokes the armed actors are the leftist FARC guerillas (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), the leftist ELN guerillas (Ejército de Liberación Nacional – National Liberation Army), the Colombian armed forces, the Colombian national police, and the right-wing paramilitaries. Many of the paramilitaries were previously grouped in the AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia – United Colombian Self-defense Forces) but 197  By “late modern war” Gregory is referring to both what are called “new wars” (over there) and the Revolution in Military Affairs (over here). For an analysis of the relationship between these two and the changing dynamics of war see Derek Gregory, “War and peace,” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, no. 2 (April 2010): 154–186.  79  officially demobilized in 2005. Yet many paramilitaries still exist and there is disagreement as to how new these are, and whether they are now simply criminal gangs or still have political aims. They are sometimes called BACRIM, short for bandas criminals, criminal gangs, and sometimes neoparamilitaries. In broad strokes the guerillas are fighting against both the state forces and the paramilitaries, who collaborate to different degrees. But the picture is actually much messier. The state has, to different degrees, worked to distance itself from the paramilitaries – and in some areas the guerillas and the paramilitaries have actually been found to be collaborating to traffic drugs.  As is the nature of late modern war, thousands of unarmed actors have been killed. It is hard to get reliable numbers for deaths, especially when many are disappeared and when it can be dangerous to report your loved ones as dead. Statistics like this are of course used as part of the contest over truth, and are anything but neutral abstractions.198 The number seems to be hugely more than were killed in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala, or any other war in the Americas – though very rarely is a number actually put on it. The Indigenous Association of Cauca, one of the strongest indigenous groups in the country, does give a number, saying that over a million people have been killed. They count 600,000 between 1947 and 1955, a period known as 'La Violencia', 100,000 between 1956 and 1988, and then some 200,000 deaths between 1989 and 2007.199 Other groups  198  Tate, Counting the Dead; Diane M. Nelson, “Reckoning the after/math of war in Guatemala,” Anthropological Theory 10, no. 1–2 (March 1, 2010): 87 –95. 199  “Asociación de Cabildos de Indígenas Norte del Cauca - ACIN”, n.d., http://www.nasaacin.org/ (accessed February 8, 2011).  80  give higher numbers for the most recent period.200 The Colombian government does not, at least publicly, track overall deaths due to the conflict.  Land The dynamics of the Colombian conflict vary across time and space, and I spoke to accompaniers working in various regions around the country. Yet there are some general characteristics that stand out. What is most fought over in the Colombian conflict is control over land. The numbers of people violently expelled from their lands (largely by paramilitaries) took off in the mid 1980s and has continued to grow. From the mid 1980s through to 2009 in Colombia around one in 10 people had to flee their homes, communities, and land - over 4 million in total.201 More than 80% of those were displaced after 2000 (when Colombian army’s Plan Colombia began), and 98% were displaced from rural areas - which is to say it is the rural poor whose land is being taken.202 Entire regions have been turned into “landscapes of fear.”203  200  “Banco de Datos de Derechos Humanos y Violencia Política - Cinep”, n.d., http://www.nocheyniebla.org/ (accessed February 8, 2011). 201  “CODHES: Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento”, n.d., http://www.codhes.org/ (accessed February 8, 2011); CSPPDF: Comisión de Seguimiento a la Política Pública sobre Desplazamiento Forzado., Magnitud del despolo y abandono forzado de bienes de la Población Desplazada en Colombia: III Encuesta Nacional de la Comisión de Seguimiento a la Pólitica Pública sobre el Desplazamiento Forzado (Bogotá, Colombia: Centro de Investigaciones para el Desarrollo de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, n.d.). 202 s  Most are internally displaced, which is to say that they flee to another part of Colombia, though some with more resources flee to other countries, primarily across the border to Ecuador, and next to formal asylum in Canada. Diana Arango and Annalise Romoser, Closer to Home: A Critical Analysis of Colombia’s Proposed Land Law (Baltimore, MD and Bogotá, Colombia: U.S. Office on Colombia, Lutheran World Relief and IndePaz, February 25, 2011), http://www.usofficeoncolombia.org/ (accessed February 26, 2011) For the experiences of these  81  By the 1980s land distribution in Colombia was already one of the most unequal in the world, and it has continued to get far worse. From the colonial period through to today political conflicts have turned around control over land for economic activities.204 Colombia started exporting coffee in 1870, United Fruit started exporting bananas in 1900, and barbed wire made its first appearance around that time, expanding and enclosing ranch lands. LeGrand argues that these activities pushed more people to the ‘frontiers’, starting a long running cycle where settlers (colonos) would clear and cultivate the land, but were followed a decade or so later by men with resources who used various methods to push them off their small plots (which they often had no legal title to) and consolidate them into larger private properties.205 This cycle of displacement has been repeated again and again over the years as ‘frontier’ land has taken on new value when ‘new’ commercial crops emerge, or other natural resources are found or become more valuable.  LeGrande’s argument has been widely cited and taken up by other analysts of violence in Colombia. González, Bolívar and Vásquez call it a phenomena of ‘permanent campesino colonization’ stretching back to colonial times, and emphasize that those  forced migrants see ; Pilar Riaño and Marta Villa, eds., Poniendo Tierra de Por Medio (Medellin: Corporacion Region, 2008). 203  Ulrich Oslender, “Another History of Violence: The Production of ‘Geographies of Terror’ in Colombia’s Pacific Coast Region,” Latin American Perspectives 35, no. 5 (September 1, 2008): 79; Ulrich Oslender, “Spaces of Terror and Fear on Colombia’s Pacific Coast,” in Violent geographies: fear, terror, and political violence, ed. Derek Gregory and Allan Pred (NY: Routledge, 2007), 111. 204  Ulrich Oslender, “Violence in development: the logic of forced displacement on Colombia’s Pacific coast,” Development in Practice 17, no. 6 (2007): 757. 205  Catherine LeGrand, “The Colombian crisis in historical perspective,” Canadian journal of Latin American and Caribbean studies 28, no. 55–56 (2003): 3.  82  peripheral colonization zones were racialized and had less socio-economic control by elites and the church. As the structures of power, control, and concentration of land ownership moved in to those zones, campesinos were repeatedly pushed out. Though this process started early, they argue that in the middle of the twentieth century more than half of Colombia was still a ‘frontier zone’, and that over time the areas most disputed between armed actors have been these zones.206  The trends have varied by region, but LeGrande argues that in general terms in the 1970s the new crop was marijuana, in the 1980s and 1990s it was coca leaf for cocaine, in 2000s it was oil palm for biodiesel.207 In the late 1980 there were significant new discoveries of oil and coal and new oil discoveries in particular have continued.208 In the last few years as the price of gold has taken off, so too have gold mines– such that many are said to be turning from drug trafficking to gold mining.209 Small plots and mines are being taken and consolidated into larger holdings.210 There are regional and temporal  206  González, Bolívar, and Vázquez, Violencia política en Colombia, 260–265, 315–318 They also present a nuanced argument about which of these zones have been dominated by guerillas, which by paramilitaries, and how and why each has been moving towards the others’ zones. 207  Given the difficulty of getting crops to market across the mountains on the few roads, which frequently wash out under heavy rains, crops that are light and of high value have often been the only profitable option in remote areas. 208  Catherine LeGrand, “The Roots and Evolution of Conflict in Colombia” (presented at the Colombia, the Conflicts and Beyond, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, April 19, 2009) US citizens are the major consumers of all of these commodities. 209  Heather Walsh, “Gold Eclipses Cocaine as Rebels Tap Colombian Mining Wealth,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 14, 2011, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/10/14/bloomberg_articlesLSYNAC6KLVS5.DTL (accessed October 18, 2011). 210  This is facilitated by the new mining code passed in the mid 1990s, which also drastically reduced royalties to the state down to 0.4% on subsoil resources, and was designed with the help of CIDA, the Canadian Institute for Development Assistance. Michael O Tuathail, “The  83  variations,211 but in broad strokes this is an ongoing cycle of accumulation through dispossession.212 This development model is made possible by, and relies on, violence.213  These land grabs have aggravated an already extremely unequal division of wealth in Colombia. In 2009 the UNDP ranked Colombia as the 6th most unequal country in the world after Angola, Haiti, Botswana, Comoros and Namibia.214 Land concentration in Colombia is striking and, again, is one of the worst in the world.  According to the  UNDP in 2011, Colombia's GINI coefficient for land is 0.85. 215 The top 1% now own 52% of the land. Worse still, they do not use it well. A recent World Bank report talks about the ‘ganaderización’ (cattleization) of the country. Some 41 million hectares that were before used to grow crops are now used to rear 21 million cows (at an average of Converging Paths of Social movements” (presented at the Colombia: The Conflicts and Beyond, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, April 19, 2009). 211  For a carefully documented examination of violence and land grabs in the coastal Caribbean region of Colombia over a period of 20 years see Donny Meertens and Absalón Machado, La tierra en disputa: memorias del despojo y resistencias campesinas en la Costa Caribe 1960-2010 (Bogotá, Colombia: Grupo de Memoria Histórica de la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación, 2010), http://memoriahistorica-cnrr.org.co/s-informes/informe-12/ (accessed December 27, 2011); For an analysis of these dynamics on the Pacific coast see Arturo Escobar, Territories of difference: place, movements, life, redes (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008). 212  Harvey argues for using this term rather than Marx’s “primitive” or “original” accumulation since it is ongoing. See his chapter explaining this concept in David Harvey, The New Imperialism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005). In that book however Harvey does not emphasize the role of violence in carrying out acts of dispossession. Instead he writes of how the dispossession will create resistance that will then be met with repression, p. 208. 213  Oslender, “Violence in development”; Oslender, “Another History of Violence.”  214  Sebastian Castaneda, “Land, Colombia’s natural resource curse,” Colombia Reports, October 28, 2009, http://colombiareports.com/opinion/117-cantonese-arepas/6609-land-colombiasnatural-resource-curse.html (accessed December 20, 2011). 215  The GINI coefficient for land is a measure of land concentration that ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 is total equality Informe Nacional de Desarrollo Humano 2011: Colombia rural, razones por la esperanza (UNDP Colombia, 2011), http://pnudcolombia.org/indh2011/ (accessed December 20, 2011).  84  about two hectares per cow).216 But food crops are also being replaced by oil palm plantations, under a development model promoted by the US.217  This is an ongoing massive counter-land reform. Displacement is not a side effect of the armed conflict - the conflict turns around the theft of land and resources. Oslender argues that “displacement must be understood as a development strategy” and that terror is its tool.218 This dispossession has further concentrated land and wealth over the last twenty years, in what was already one of the most land and income unequal countries in the world.219 An ongoing detailed survey estimates that 6.65 million hectares have been lost through force from 1980 through July 2010, without including collectively owned indigenous and Afro-Colombian territories.220 But those communities have been the worst hit, as this displacement has been heavily racialized.221 Serje calls this “territorial pacification” and argues that they are hardest hit because the territories of these  216  Nazih Richani, “The World Bank Development Report and the Colombian Conflict,” NACLA Report on the Americas, November 21, 2011, https://nacla.org/blog/2011/11/21/world-bankdevelopment-report-and-colombian-conflict (accessed December 20, 2011) Oil palm for biodiesel was also aggresively promoted by President Uribe and the Colombian elite are heavily involved in the project. Again, I focus here on those factors of the conflict that shape the power of accompaniment, rather than other factors such as the role played by national elites. 217  Teo Ballvé, “The Dark Side of Plan Colombia,” The Nation, June 15, 2009, http://www.thenation.com/article/dark-side-plan-colombia (accessed November 1, 2010). 218  Oslender, “Violence in development,” 759.  219  The annual World Bank Gini index of inequality can be found at gapminder, http://www.gapminder.org/data/. The UN calculates the Gini slightly differently, and it is at http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/160.html . Though it is difficult to collect reliable data in a war zone, these measures all point to a history of extreme inequality 220  “CODHES - Comisión de seguimiento a la política pública sobre desplazamiento forzado”, n.d., http://www.codhes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=52 (accessed November 1, 2010). 221  Mario Murillo, Colombia and the United States: War, Unrest, and Destabilization (New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, 2003), 175.  85  communities are the last bastion of untapped natural resources.222 This displacement continues, despite the supposed demobilization of paramilitaries.  It is largely those communities that are resisting this displacement, or were pushed off but went back to their lands, or the human rights groups that support them, that are protected by international accompaniers. Accompaniers’ ability to deter such attacks has a good deal to do with the ‘special role’ of the US in Colombia. The paramilitaries of course do not say that they exist to violently steal land. They claim to be fighting the guerillas. So before describing the evolution of the paramilitaries, let me step back and tell the story of the guerillas, intertwined with the history of US involvement.  The history of the US role and the guerillas In 1903 the US, angered by Colombian refusal to build a canal in what is now Panama, brought a war ship near the coast and urged elites in that region to claim independence from Colombia. The US then immediately recognized Panama as an independent country and signed the canal treaty with them instead.223 This generated anti-US sentiment in Colombia, which continued for years and mixed with other frustrations.  The first major strike in Colombia was in 1924 against the US Tropical Oil company. The next was the 1928 strike against the US corporation United Fruit (now Chiquita),  222  Margarita Rosa. Serje de la Ossa, “Iron Maiden Landscapes: The Geopolitics of Colombia’s Territorial Conquest,” trans. Ashley. Caja et al., South Central Review 24, no. 1 (2007): 37–55. 223  US involvement actually began earlier, the first of 20 US military invasions of the isthmus was in 1856. For more history of the US role and how Panama was separated from Colombia see the book by FOR Colombia program co-director John Lindsay-Poland, Emperors in the jungle: the hidden history of the U.S. in Panama (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2003).  86  which resulted in the massacre that García Márquez’s drew on for his novel One Hundred Years of Solitude.224 Organizing for workers’ rights and land reform continued to rise in the 1930s and 1940s, coming to a head with the presidential campaign of Gaitán, who was murdered in 1948. After his murder insurrections broke out in cities and rural areas across the country, and were savagely suppressed for threatening not only government authority but also racial hierarchies and property rights. Years of repressive violence followed, in part as a reaction to the radical thrust of ‘Gaitanismo’,225 but also tied to the pushing of small scale coffee farmers off their land by large coffee producers.226 The fighting in the late 1940s and 1950s is called simply ‘la violencia’, and scholars and commentators disagree as to whether the current conflict began then, or in the 1960s with the formal formation of the guerillas, or in the 1980s with the formation of the paramilitaries and the increase in levels of violence.  State repression in the 1950s was aided by the US. By the 1950s Colombia was one of the top recipients of US military aid and training in the Americas.227 It was also one of the first places to receive US Peace Corps volunteers in the mid 1950s. It was the only Latin American nation to send troops, including a frigate, to fight with the US in the  224  Michael Taussig, Law in a Lawless Land: Diary of a Limpieza in Colombia (Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press, 2005), 193. 225  The organizing in the 1930s and 1940s is described well in English by Hylton, Evil Hour in Colombia, 31–49; For a fuller analysis of the dynamics of the period known as “la violencia” see Mary Roldán, Blood and fire (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2002). 226  Tate, Counting the Dead, 38.  227  Russell Crandall, Driven by drugs (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2008), 20–21; By 1967 US military aid to Colombia had reached 160 million, the largest amount for any Latin American nation prior to the El Salvador aid in the 1980s. Doug Stokes, America’s Other War: Terrorizing Colombia (London: Zed Books, 2005), 74.  87  Korean War in the 1950s. Colombian veterans of that war then directed state terror back home.228 Stokes argues that it was the first country in Latin America to adopt US counterinsurgency measures, before there really was an armed insurgency to counter.229 What there was were peasant colonos, settlers who had been pushed to the ‘frontier’ by violence, who had organized for self-defense against the ongoing state attacks into what came to be known as ‘independent peasant republics’.230 These colonos were influenced by the Colombian communist party, but were not organized together as any sort of insurgency.231 In 1955 the Colombian state started using napalm against these areas.232 Aerial bombing continued through the 1960s. It was another Korean war veteran, with US advisers supervising from a nearby base, who in 1966 led the assault on the largest such zone, Marquetalia in 1966. The FARC guerillas consider this attack to have led to their founding that year by those who escaped (fleeing to the next ‘frontier’ – distant rural areas with virtually no state presence).233 Since its founding, equitable access to land has  228  For example, a battalion that had recently returned from Korea massacred 1500 peasants outside of El Líbano in 1952. Hylton, Evil Hour in Colombia, 40–42. 229  Stokes, America’s Other War, 5.  230  Today’s peace communities do not talk about the connection but could be seen as a similar move, though they are not armed. 231  LeGrand, “The Colombian crisis in historical perspective,” 8.  232  Greg Grandin, Empire’s workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the rise of the new imperialism (New York, NY: Holt Paperbacks, 2007), 98. 233  Hylton, Evil Hour in Colombia, 56; LeGrand, “The Colombian crisis in historical perspective,” 8; This makes them the oldest currently active guerilla group in the world. For an overview of the history of the FARC see Garry Leech, The FARC: The Longest Insurgency (London: Zed Books, 2011).  88  been one of the central demands of the FARC.234 It is also the central demand of the smaller guerilla group operating in Colombia today, the ELN.  The history of the US role and the paramilitaries The origin of the paramilitaries is also entwined with US involvement. It is no secret that the US has trained and funded death squads across the Americas, or that US training manuals advocated their use.235 Publicly the US responded in the early 1960s to the growth of rebel movements across the Americas (and the Cuban revolution in 1959) with Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress program, which ostensibly promoted democracy. But at the same time the US was involved in training death squads and supporting coups in Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina and Chile from 1964 to 1976.236 As part of that same push in 1962 “General William Yarborough, for example, advised the Colombian government to set up irregular units trained to, “execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents.” As Grandin puts it, this is “as good a description of a death squad as any.”237 The Colombian government did indeed at that  234  Castaneda, “Land, Colombia’s natural resource curse.”  235  Stokes, America’s Other War, 60, 76. There is considerable evidence that the CIA, DEA, the Israeli Defense Force (close to the US), and US military contractors have armed and trained Colombian paramilitaries, particularly those around mining and energy mega-projects. See also the description of repeated exposure of this support in Francisco Ramirez Cuellar, The Profits of Extermination: Big Mining in Colombia (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2005), 67–71; and details in Jasmin Hristov, Blood and Capital: The Paramilitarization of Colombia, Ohio University research in international studies, Latin America studies series no. 48 (Athens: Ohio University Press; Between the Lines, 2009), 60–63. 236  Grandin, Empire’s workshop, 47–48.  237  Yarborough had just come back from Vietnam, and there was a good deal of traffic of personnel and tactics at the time back and forth from Latin America and Vietnam. Grandin argues that it was in Colombia that the US did its first pre-Vietnam experiment with scorched earth – that  89  time openly establish legal paramilitaries.238 In 1965 decree 2298 was passed, and converted into law 48 in 1968, which remained in effect until 1989, authorizing the executive branch to create ‘civil patrols’.239 Despite this legal beginning in the 1960s, the academic literature on paramilitaries in Colombia often places them as beginning in the 1980s and rarely mentions early links to the US.240  Paramilitary violence did take off in the 1980s. The first formal peace negotiations began between the FARC and the government in 1982. They signed a ceasefire in 1984 and many members of the FARC were inspired to lay down arms and enter electoral politics. They formed the Unión Patriótica in 1985 - and won 5% of the votes in the 1986 national election. In 1988, when local elections were held for the first time, they won 16 mayoral races, including several in the area around the San José peace  is razing villages and setting up “strategic hamlets” (a sort of opposite to “peace communities.”). Ibid., 96–98. 238  Of course there is far more to the changing phenomena of paramilitarism than US influence or links to the Colombia state, which is no monolith. Here I emphasize the US role as US involvement in the conflict is what accompaniers leverage to generate pressure from the US on the Colombian state to then pressure the paramilitaries, a process I detail in chapter *. For a full history and analysis of the paramilitaries see Gustavo Duncan, Los señores de la guerra: de paramilitares, mafiosos y autodefensas en Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia: Planeta, 2006). 239  Hristov, Blood and Capital, 62 argues that General Landazabal, another veteran of the Korean war, was one of those primarily responsible for their creation and incorporation into the military system. 240  For a review of the literature and the various takes on paramilitarism see Edwin Cruz Rodríguez, “Los Estudios Sobre El Paramilitarismo En Colombia,” Análisis Político 20, no. 60 (May 2007): 117–134; Human rights groups are more likely to talk about this as the first phase of paramilitarism, see for example Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo, “CONSOLIDACIÓN PARAMILITAR E IMPUNIDAD EN COLOMBIA”, March 14, 2006, http://www.colectivodeabogados.org/CONSOLIDACION-PARAMILITAR-E (accessed December 27, 2011) which goes back to death squads of “la violencia” in the 1940s and 1950s and ties their systematization to influence from the US, and Yarborough in particular, in the 1960s.  90  community.241 This modest success won them a landslide of repression. Nearly every candidate they ran was killed, along with many other party activists. Over 3000 in all were assassinated within 10 years – almost all killed by paramilitaries.242  In the mid 1980s the cocaine trade soared and drug traffickers had money they needed to ‘clean.’ Many invested in land, becoming owners of large cattle ranches.243 They and other landed elites also invested in ‘security’ for these ranches, ostensibly from the guerillas, and turned the previously existing paramilitaries into a much larger beast. The US continued to surreptitiously provide support and training, often through Israeli Defense Force trainers, most notoriously Yair Klein.244  In the mid 1990s the paramilitaries became more unified and coordinated, many of them through the loose confederation AUC (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, United Selfdefense forces of Colombia).245 Paramilitary activity and power increased in the 1990s and López argues that they increased their presence in resistance to the democratic reforms of the new Constitution (passed in 1991) as a way to maintain the power of  241  Stokes, America’s Other War, 76; Hylton, Evil Hour in Colombia, 77; Lesley Gill, The School of the Americas: military training and political violence in the Americas (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004); Grandin, Empire’s workshop. 242  For a full account, including the ongoing struggle for justice, see Ivan Cepeda Castro, “Colombia - Genocidio a Union Patriotica: GENOCIDIO POLÍTICO: EL CASO DE LA UNIÓN PATRIÓTICA”, n.d., http://www.desaparecidos.org/colombia/fmcepeda/genocidioup/cepeda.html#sdfootnote2sym (accessed November 1, 2010). 243  LeGrand, “The Colombian crisis in historical perspective,” 12.  244  Geoff Simons, Colombia: A Brutal History (London, Beirut: Saqi Books, 2004), 213; Teresa Welsh, “Yair Klein claims he was paid by Colombian military,” Colombia Reports, November 24, 2010, http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/13080-yair-klein-claims-he-was-paid-bycolombian-army.html (accessed October 18, 2011). 245  Hylton, Evil Hour in Colombia.  91  Colombian elites.246 Romero makes a similar argument but places the resistance as coming earlier, as many of those with economic and political power turned against the very spectre of such reforms that was raised by both the local elections of mayors established in 1986 and the peace negotiations with smaller guerilla groups (which then led to the Constitutional Assembly).247 He points out that cold war fear and rhetoric was high then, in the region and from the US, which was heavily involved in wars in Central America at the time (the major FMLN offensive in El Salvador was in 1989).248 Reyes Posada highlights regional differences amongst the paramilitaries and offers a detailed account of different paramilitary structures and land grab tactics by region.249  Land and the armed actors today In the 1980s the FARC still had some popular support, primarily in rural areas, but they were increasingly delegitimized in the 1990s as they increased kidnappings (between 1997 and 2001 they kidnapped 3343 civilians, and the ELN 3412) and turned to other disreputable tactics, such as the use of gas cylinder bombs that are likely to kill civilians. Paradoxically their numbers grew even as their support dropped, for their finances 246  Leon, “‘Por fin entendí el iceberg de la parapolítica’: entrevista con Claudia López” Paramilitarism had another brief period of legality. In 1994 law 365 legalized “private security forces” known as the “CONVIVIR” (an acronym of a word meaning 'live together'), which were widely condemned for participating in human rights abuses and whose powers were legally restricted by the Constitution court in 1997. . 247  Mauricio Romero, “Democratización política y contra reforma paramilitar en Colombia,” in Violencias y estrategias colectivas en la región andina: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela, ed. Eric Lair and Gonzalo Sánchez G (Bogotá, Colombia: Editorial Norma, 2004), 337–376. 248  Ibid., 351.  249  Alejandro Reyes Posada, Guerreros y campesinos: el despojo de la tierra en Colombia (Bogotá, Colombia: Grupo Editorial Norma, 2009); Regional differences are also emphasized by Cruz Rodríguez, “Los Estudios Sobre El Paramilitarismo En Colombia.”  92  improved.250 It happened that the remote areas where they had fled to turned o