Dear Friends and Supporters,
I am sending you the following piece in which I try to contextualize one of the many problems that exist in Colombia in relation to [obligatory] military service and the limitations that conscientious objectors face when they try to defend their stance. The judge who handed down my sentence said that to allow the right to conscientious objection would mean the dismemberment and decay of the state and the institutions that legitimately constitute it.

Martin Rodríguez

Achieving Higher Education in Colombia, Impeded by the Military

In Colombia the percentage of youth who reach higher education is very small. This is in part due to the growing influence of the neoliberal model that has made this fundamental right a consumer good, subject to the growing gap between the rich and poor, which has meant that quality education has become a privilege.

Under the current political regime and with the deepening of the armed conflict in the country, access to higher education has encountered another obstacle: the youth population is forced to share the interests of the elite and to defend the political regime in an act of betrayal by the state of the possibility of obtaining higher education. Not even academia itself assumes the autonomy that the constitution grants it, despite its history of being the center for the re-creation and transformation of society through the critique and the reworking of old paradigms. Instead, it submits itself to directions from an illegitimate military stained by corruption and human rights violations.

On May 19, 2006, the Colombian armed forces sent higher education institutions a statement in which they asked for collaboration in fulfilling the 1993 law that establishes obligatory military service for males between 18 and 50. Before this statement, the institutes of higher education only had to inform the military of students’ military service status upon graduation. Now, each new student must resolve the obligations of military service before being admitted, regardless of what the student thinks about being required to serve in order to enroll, or what they think about the political regime that the military defends, or about the legitimacy of the military and in general the state’s forces of coercion that operate throughout the country.

Given this situation, a friend Daniel and I have decided to reclaim our right to conscientious objection and to not be excluded from an education system because of our ethical, moral and conscientious convictions. In this we join many young activists in conscientious objector groups in Medellín and other cities who have had to once more reclaim their right to non-cooperate with the militarism imposed on Colombian society. For us this implies separating ourselves in order to construct a more just society that respects the rights of its people.

After arriving for admissions exams last October 23 and being notified of my admission given my good results on the exams, I went about registering for classes as a political science student at the National University of Colombia. However, there was one requirement in particular that not only bothered me but that I was inclined to disobey because it went against my convictions and way of life, and that was the proof of my military service. I tried to submit a previous declaration of conscientious objection, in which I explained my reasons for not cooperating with the military and listed the ways in which I was willing to serve the country. Nonetheless, the university official rejected my application, saying that I had to comply with the law or that I had to work it out with the national army and not the university.

I later learned that not only was the National University of Colombia enforcing this rule, but that it was a directive from the army to every institution of higher education, and also that various friends of mine who were already studying, as well as new applicants, had the same experience. I therefore decided to request a protection order from a judge in Medellín. The decision of the judge went against me and the arguments that denied my rights are summarized here:

In the first place, in Colombia conscientious objection is neither recognized nor regulated, so the judge is unable to defend an unrecognized right. Although I have my personal convictions, which the judge respects, I also have my obligations to society and my personal preferences are secondary to the general welfare. My right to education is not violated as such, since I voluntarily took the entrance exams and passed them. Not complying with a requirement of admission is my responsibility to resolve and not the university’s.

In the case of my friend Daniel, who also applied for a protection order after completing two semesters at a different university, the judge granted him his right to education since at the time of enrollment he was under the age requirement for military service and the law is more lenient in such cases. However, this means that he will have to complete military service after he finishes his studies.

Looking again at the arguments of the judge denying my request, one notes that, beyond general considerations about the Colombian political situation and its so-called legitimacy, they do not address the question of what a citizen is to do upon making the decision whether or not to support and respect a political regime, or whether or not to comply with a law.

Even if Colombia has not legislated on conscientious objection (although there have been various attempts to do so), Colombia has ratified the various protocols of the UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly that require governments and their judicial systems to respect, protect and prohibit segregation of citizens who for reasons of conscience refuse to participate in the national army, as long as this does not keep them from participating in the construction of society and national identity.

My demands will continue, and I send this statement in the hope that as more people are informed, a public debate will be generated about this issue that limits our youth’s aspirations to contribute to the country and to their families, and to be someone in a context in which every day more civil and human rights violations become more anonymous, with the complicity of every state entity, including the universities.

My next steps are attempting to get the ruling of the judge reversed, and preparing for the possibility to take this case before the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

I thank you so much for your attention and support.

Martin Emilio Rodríguez
Conscientious Objector