Report: Sixth Conversatorio on the Colombian Peace Talks, London, 14 April 2014

Sixth Conversatorio on the Colombian Peace Talks

London, 14 April 2014

PDF available here.

Are Colombians ready for a peace process? This was the question which the 30 people who participated in the sixth conversatorio on the peace talks, on 31 March 2014, were left with. Analysis was provided by former student leader and Colombian writer – now Senior Lecturer at Birkbeck (University of London) – Oscar Guardiola-Rivera, with Andrei Gómez-Suárez (Researcher, Universities of Sussex and Oxford) moderating. To try to answer this question, the conversation between the participants went beyond an analysis of the circumstances of the ups-and-downs of Colombian electoral politics.

The starting point is to recognise that many people are deeply committed to peace. However, many Colombians are outraged at the behaviour of the guerrilla, and the Colombian government has not succeeded in persuading them of the legitimacy to negotiate. This demonstrates the validity of asking whether Colombians are ready for a peace process; but besides, four important events throughout 2014 so far reveal the many tensions that exist:

  1. The revelations about the monitoring of the government’s negotiating team and certain members of the State by some members of the Army;
  2. The dismissal of the mayor of Bogotá Gustavo Petro;
  3. The results of recent parliamentary elections which elected the Congress which will have to implement the peace accords; and
  4. The debate about ownership of rural land in Colombia and illicit crops, which involves confronting the current model of economic development and the traditional concept of private property.

Petro’s dismissal begs the questions whether what we are experiencing is history is repeating itself, thus justifying the violence from the institutionalised extreme right which caricatures the Colombian left as a “Castro-Chavismo” pawn. Consequently, the implementation of a potential peace deal with the FARC requires (1) recognising that the Colombian right exists; (2) that it is neither marginalised nor controlled, bearing in mind the evidence that suggests that sectors of the extreme right exercise power over the Colombian army; and (3) that the war has corrupted Colombian national institutions, making it necessary to reform and purify them.

The decision of Inspector General (Procurador) against the Mayor of Bogotá that resulted in his dismissal has been interpreted by many sectors as an attack on popular will. In this context the left’s poor participation in the recent elections has been noted (the abstention rate in Bogotá surpassed 65%). It will be hard to convince certain sectors of the left that the negotiations in Havana are the gateway to a democratic peace, while elements still exist in State institutions, for whom a political left with real possibilities of gaining power, has to cease to exist, by hook or by crook.

The left’s poor results in the last elections, however, show the importance of creating a coalition between centre-left parties and those on the democratic right who are working on issues of environmental justice, food security and climate change, among others. This is a must for effective implementation of any peace agreements.

Caution was expressed that the peace talks could continue to lack legitimacy insofar as they remain in the hands of exclusively military-economic elites without accommodating Afro-Colombian, indigenous and small-farmer participation.

Nevertheless, it is important to recognise the steps forward; for example, the joint statement at the end of round 22 of the negotiations, according to which the negotiators have “made substantial advances towards agreement about illicit drugs”, demonstrates that the parties are in one mind when it comes to re-evaluating the military approach to a social problem, which needs to be addressed on a global scale through to the local. Furthermore, the decision of President Santos to revive the National Peace Council, the declaration of intent to create a Truth Commission after an agreement is signed, and the debate about a model of transitional justice, manifest the willingness to establish State policy of peace.

Thus, there are three major challenges on the background of the current rounds of negotiation:

  1. Security, the fundamental basis to build confidence and secure adherence to the agreements;
  2. Justice, which should guarantee respect for human rights and strengthen the rule of law;
  3. Democratic civilian participation, where civil society may feel it has an active role in peacebuilding.

In conclusion, it is not easy to establish if Colombian society is prepared to accompany the peace process. Consequently it is necessary to generate and strengthen spaces for dialogue so that civil society actors may contribute to the construction of peace, by establishing alternative initiatives. International accompaniment and national support are the keys to success. Additionally, while the negotiating teams agree how to bring the armed conflict to an end, it is necessary to work on implementing structural reforms.

Advertisements

Report on The Colombian Peace Process: A Roundtable. Centre for Latin American Studies University of Cambridge, 11 November 2013

The Colombian Peace Process: A Roundtable

 Centre for Latin American Studies

University of Cambridge

11 November 2013

After a year of negotiations the Government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have reached an agreement on two of a six point agenda to end the armed conflict in Colombia. The scepticism of many Colombians contrasts with unprecedented achievements in more than 30 years of dialogue between FARC and different Colombian administrations. The optimism of some political analysts about reaching a point of no return in the peace process can be jeopardised by the lack of national and particularly, regional ownership of the process. This mixed picture contains challenges not only for Colombian policy makers but also for the role that the international community should play in order to contribute to build long-lasting and legitimate peace in Colombia. 

Bearing this context in mind, a group of scholars were invited to discuss the prospects for peace in Colombia. Panelists included: the former British Ambassador in Colombia, John Dew; Andrei Gómez (University of Oxford); Clara Sandoval (University of Essex); Par Engstrom (Institute of the Americas, University College London); Roddy Brett (University of St Andrews), Nick Morgan (Newcastle University), and Grace Livingstone (University of Cambridge), who chaired the roundtable. These notes contain the main ideas expressed during the event.

  1. After five decades of armed conflict in Colombia and several failed attempts to find a political solution to the conflict, a peace agreement between the Government and the FARC guerrillas, experts agreed, might be feasible. It was also acknowledged that even if the peace process has been going on for over a year now, discussions to get there have been going on for several years.
  2. Although the importance of the peace process cannot be underestimated, it is necessary to remember that this is just a peace process with one of the armed actors in the Colombian conflict, an actor that is in a weak position, at least politically and militarily.
  3. Some speakers discussed that, although these negotiations are crucial for the future of the country, the conflict with the FARC is only one of Colombia’s manifold problems. There are a wide range of deep-rooted issues in Colombia that have to be faced, such as strengthening democratic politics and the rule of law, designing policies to reduce poverty and income inequality, planning a meaningful agrarian reform, improving security, promoting infrastructure and implementing further reforms to ensure Colombia’s economic growth.
  4. The majority of the experts also noted that both parties (the Government and the FARC) are under great pressure to conclude the talks before the 2014 presidential election, given that former President Uribe is one of the fiercest enemies of the peace process. Additionally, the pressure of reaching an agreement might have a negative impact in the way key points are discussed. In particular, all the experts showed their concern in relation to the fifth point of the agenda, related to victims.
  5. Some of the participants considered other reasons that confirm the importance of moving on with the peace talks. For instance, they indicated that there are very important trade related goals shaping the process (to facilitate foreign direct investment in the country). Other speakers pointed out that President Santos wants to change the image of Colombia outside the country.
  6. The outcome of the negotiations will have to take due account of international standards binding Colombia, particularly in the area of accountability, given the possibility that the International Criminal Court could exercise jurisdiction over the situation in Colombia while looking at cases such as those of the falsos positivos. In this regard, while it is clear that the event at Cambridge was about the peace process, various references were made by all the participants in relation to the obligations of Colombia to act with due diligence in the investigation of members of the military forces and others who could be implicated in conflict related violations of human rights as well as of humanitarian law.
  7. There was general consensus at the roundtable that if a peace agreement is signed, it would be mainly about ‘negative peace’. Santos has already stated that, for example, the agreement will not touch private property and the fact that the Victims and Land Restitution Law is about restitution and not about land reform, shows that both the peace process and the transitional justice process are not aiming at structural change in Colombia.
  8. Even if the ongoing peace talks in Havana only aspire to achieve ‘negative peace’, all the experts recognized that there is a window of opportunity to incorporate the root causes of the conflict in the peace talks in order to move towards a long-lasting peace.
  9. The experts who were discussing specific cases noted that the process in Havana is not perceived as important by the people living in the regions. They do not have a lot of information about the process and if they are concerned about it, it is for different reasons, such as how this process would affect current trading relations in the region or change labour markets.
  10. From a victims’ perspective, the process was criticized by several speakers as failing to allow the participation of victims. They made explicit reference to the complex procedure that needs to be completed in order to participate in the process. They also expressed concern about the lack of direct mechanisms to participate or to identify how the input from others than those negotiating in Havana is taken into consideration. Local ownership of the peace process was noted to be a crucial element for the successful implementation of transitional justice mechanisms in a post-conflict scenario.
  11. The support of Chile, Venezuela, Norway and Cuba was regarded as highly positive and helpful for the negotiations in order to move towards a legitimate peace.
  12. The role of the US in relation to the peace process was also noted and contrasted with  its previous role during the negotiations under the Pastrana administration. The US stand on the peace process would be central to guarantee the implementation of an eventual agreement, but also to deal effectively with drug trafficking.
  13. From a maximalist approach, the Santos-FARC peace talks could be seen as a means to solve the real problems of Colombia, whereas from a minimalist position they are seen as the way to end the armed conflict between the parties. So far, the negotiation teams are still trapped between these two approaches. Nevertheless, they have moved a long way since the negotiations started. Reaching an agreement may not bring structural transformations. However, it will constitute a window of opportunity for further change.
  14. The international community could play a fundamental role in helping Colombia to face the huge challenges that the implementation of a peace agreement will bring and to achieve a sustainable and long-lasting peace.

Report: Fourth Conversatorio on the Colombian Peace Talks

Fourth Conversatorio on the Colombian Peace Talks

 London, 30 November 2013

 “Political participation: Small step or giant leap?”

Available as PDF here.

When the 16th round of negotiations began there was a general view that the talks were stagnating. Now that this round finished with an agreement on the second point of the agenda there is a renewed optimism about the negotiations. In the conversatorio, held on 22 September at Canning House with the participation of four Colombians, eight British citizens, guest speaker Henry Robinson (founder member of Against Violent Extremism network) and facilitated by Andrei Gomez-Suarez (researcher at Oxford and Sussex), we discussed how relevant and important this new agreement is for the future of the talks in particular in relation with illegal drug trafficking, next point in the agenda.

Political Participation

The full details of the agreement have not yet been made public. However, based on the experience of other peace negotiations, it would be safe to say that the current state of the negotiations in the Havana is very positive. The suggestion of a comprehensive security system for the exercise of politics is very important to protect the FARC from attacks by paramilitaries after demobilisation.

How significant is the agreement on political participation?

The recent agreement is so significant that optimists argue that there is no turning back on the road to peace. The FARC have decided to give up the armed struggle and come to an agreement with the government on how to use politics to fight for their goals. The agreement is also central in the run-up to the National Congress elections in March and the Presidential elections in May 2014. Álvaro Uribe, the most vocal critic of the negotiations, is now trapped in his anti-negotiation stance while public opinion has swung in the negotiators’ favour and the popularity of Santos has risen.

Colombian Defence Minister’s role

Minister Pinzón often expresses positions which are contrary to those expressed by Santos and this seems to undermine the unity of the national government, but these statements do represent the views of a large right-wing sector of the state. Therefore it seems like Pinzón is playing the useful role of ‘bad cop’ in counter position to the role of Santos as ‘good cop’ during the negotiations.

The Peace Process and the war on drugs

The next point on the peace agenda is a solution to the problem of illegal drugs. It was suggested that President Santos’s two main goals are to end the armed conflict with the FARC and to fundamentally change the war on drugs. The war on drugs is a global affair and recent signs of change include the legalisation of marijuana in Uruguay and the US states of Colorado and Washington, and the report by the Organisation of American States suggesting alternatives to the failed war. Santos is one of the two current Presidents to advocate for change in the war on drugs and Colombia remains a huge producer of cocaine as well as an important hub for the transport of many illegal substances. Therefore the decisions on how to handle the drug routes and coca plantations controlled by the FARC could be a very significant part of the changing global context. However, it is worth remembering that some units and members of the security forces, paramilitary groups, and criminal gangs are heavily involved in production and/or trafficking so this is a problem which permeates both parties participating in the negotiations.

The role of Simon Trinidad and the USA

Some people view Simon Trinidad as a future political leader of the FARC and as an important figure to negotiate the problem of illegal drugs. The FARC have consistently demanded that he be released from the US prison where he is held. If this were the case, would FARC respond with a definitive unilateral cease fire? What effect would this have on Colombian public opinion? However, the US is the main proponent of the war on drugs and it is not clear whether is unwilling to change its stance. In the next couple of weeks Santos will meet Obama. Will he be able to secure convincing support from the US while the issue of drugs is being negotiated? Will he discuss the issue of Simon Trinidad and an alternative to the war on drugs?

Peace versus Justice

Peace is not just a piece of paper. It’s about reintegrating former armed actors who have committed crimes into communities to ensure that the cycle of violence does not reignite. Without justice and reconciliation, there will be no lasting peace. But what kind of justice is appropriate? It is unlikely that the FARC are prepared to give up the armed struggle to go to prison. Moreover, the criminal justice system focuses on whether a crime has been committed and this is often unsatisfactory for victims because they have specific questions about what actually happened. Therefore maybe truth commissions could be a substitute for formal justice. But are victims prepared to accept alternative forms of punishment for the people who have killed their loved ones?

Overall, participants considered that although the agreement on political participation is a milestone in the peace processes, serious challenges remain: first, to solve a puzzle that balances truth, justice, and peace and second to articulate a Colombian solution to criminality by tacking into an alternative approach to the war on drugs.

www.bacupblog.wordpress.com

www.canninghouse.org

www.plataformacol.com

www.rodeemoseldialogo.com

Report: Third Conversatorio on the Colombian Peace Process,

Third Conversatorio on the Colombian Peace Process
London October 24, 2013

PDF available here.

This discussion group was the third in a series of five roundtables that aim to analyze the development of each of the rounds of peace talks between the Colombian government and the FARC. Jenny Pearce, Professor of Latin American Politics and Director of the International Centre for Participation Studies, was the guest speaker and Andrei Gomez-Suarez, associate researcher at the University of Oxford, moderated the discussion. About 35 Colombians and foreigners participated in the roundtable.

Contextualization

The 15th round of negotiations began with FARC’s report, which threatened to ‘break confidentiality’ of the negotiations. Although the information provided was limited to what was already known, it confirmed the tensions between the parties. The 15th round ended in October and showed that the process was very fragile; public opinion was more skeptical than before and it was the first round which came to an end without a joint statement.

The Pause: a national discussion that never got to the table

After noting that the issue of a possible ‘pause’ in the negotiations arose outside Havana and that a sector of civil society, such as Colombians for Peace, reacted positively by suggesting that the pause should be accompanied with a unilateral ceasefire and the delivery by the FARC of maps showing the location of landmines, the audience discussed potential advantages and disadvantages.

Four advantages were identified: a pause could (1) give a second air to the process, (2) enable to make a balance on what has been achieved, (3) increase civil society involvement, and (4) separate the peace process from electoral politics.

However, three disadvantages came to the fore: (1) the enemies of the peace process will represent the pause as a failure, (2) the process may lose legitimacy in the public eye, and (3) there is a risk of losing the already limited pace that has been achieved in a year of talks.

The conclusion was that the pause in itself is not good or bad, what is important is to determine under what conditions it will take place.

The achievements of the peace process

According to Jenny Pearce, at first reaching an agreement on rural development seemed to be the largest difficulty; however, political participation has proved a major challenge because it has opened the question about the model of political system that Colombians want. This is a profound questioning of power in Colombia. Nonetheless, several achievements were highlighted:

  • The agreement on Comprehensive Agrarian Development policy. On the one hand, this point is fundamental to build a country with less social imbalances. On the other hand, it has made possible to disentangle social protest in rural areas from the actions of guerrilla groups. As a result, the government had to accept the existence of the agrarian problem and negotiate with the peasant leaders.
  • The FARC have had to modify their political vision and display a more inclusive politics. Evidence of this is in the launch of the website: http://www.mujerfariana.co/ in which women reclaim their political and revolutionary identity.

These achievements are accompanied by several challenges:

  • Unequal political conditions; the FARC does not have spaces in which to discuss their proposals.
  • The tension between wanting to open the debate to the public by the FARC and wanting to keep it in Havana by the government.
  • The difficulties of dialogue between the urban middle class and the FARC.
  • Different interpretations of paramilitary apparatus / Bacrim.
  • Criticism by the FARC that the government takes unilateral decisions and by the government that the FARC talks too much.
  • The support for the process and President Santos has declined even amongst sectors, such as entrepreneurs, who previously supported the negotiations.

Public Opinion

The government has not developed a strategy to build an informed public opinion. This has enabled enemies of the peace process to take advantage of the idea, common amongst the urban middle class, that most human rights violators are the FARC’s responsibility. As a result, an adverse environment for negotiations has been created.

A new foundation of national identity

Andrei Gomez-Suarez noted the importance of revisiting previous narrow national identity building processes. Participants noted that the current negotiations are an opportunity to create a new foundation of national identity that finally integrates and accepts difference.

The cost of peace

It was discussed that only if hostilities were to end Colombia’s GDP would grow by 1% (excluding the increase in foreign direct investment and new service markets within the country); however, elites must contribute financially to expand state presence and hence ensure general welfare in Colombia.

Finally, the importance of shielding the process showing the dynamics of social reconstruction that have emerged and the possibilities for economic development was emphasized.

Third Conversatorio de Paz, 24 October, 5.45-8pm, Canning House, London

The third in a series of 5 seminars to discuss each round of peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC (August-December 2013).

PDF version available here.

The participants will have the opportunity to draw up a report from each discussion to be published on the webpages of the sponsors.

Structure of the conversatorios:

Introduction and presentations (30 minutes) Discussion and questions (45 minutes)

Conclusions and selection of points to be drafted into report (15 minutes) Tea and coffee reception (30 minutes)

Moderator: Andrei Gomez Suarez (Sussex University)

Guest speaker: Jenny Pearce (University of Bradford)

Date:        24 October 2013

Time:        5:45-8pm

Venue:      Canning House, 14 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8PS

This event is principally for Colombians. Space is limited: please register beforehand. Before registering it is recommended to read the conversatorio’s detailed programme

 http://is.gd/CDP_prog_en