A flame of hope in Colombia’s long war
and analyze the peace negotiations that have been underway in Colombia for many months, as well as the recent setback for the talks—and explain why they could be vital for the country's social movements. Gabriel is a member of the Movement for Peace in Colombia (MPC) and the International Socialist Organization. Juan Carlos is an author, lecturer and commentator for media outlets around the world.
FOR ITS complexity, number of victims and duration, the social and armed conflict in Colombia can be described as a war like no other.
The bloody confrontation involves guerrillas, drug cartels, a small and corrupt elite, the government, foreign and local corporations, local and foreign mass media, the military-industrial complex and, of course, the wrong foreign policies of foreign countries. That is the reason for its complexity--because we are in the middle of a game with many economic, political, social and strategic interests.
The number of victims can illustrate the high density of the confrontation. Just since 1984, CODHES and the Harvard Kennedy School Carr Center for Human Rights Policy have reported more than 6 million victims murdered, wounded and displaced.
There is no historical certainty about when the conflict began. Even a "commission" created by the Colombian government and the armed insurgent group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP) to explain the origins couldn't agree on when this started. What the majority of the 12 analysts did agree on was that it was the responsibility of the Colombian state.
After the frustrated approaches in La Uribe (1984), Caracas (1991), Tlaxcala (1992) and San Vicente del Caguan (1999), we are cautiously optimistic on the new peace talks in Havana, Cuba.
Never before today has progress been so tangible: The government and the FARC-EP have reached partial agreement on three of the five key questions: land reform, political participation for ex-rebels and an end to the illegal drug trade.
Both parties have announced an agreement to remove land mines from the battlefield and soon began implementing it in the field. President Barack Obama appointed Bernie Aronson as the first envoy to participate in the Colombian peace talks. It is by far the most mature of the various negotiations attempted with the guerrillas.
Recent attacks against the FARC-EP have produced anxiety in Colombia. The people of the South American country have high hopes that current peace talks in Havana would have a happy ending.
The talks had their best moment on January 15 when Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos matched a similar gesture by the FARC-EP and agreed to stop military actions. This period of calm ended in mid-April when the FARC attacked the army killing 11 soldiers in circumstances that are still a point of contention. The Colombian government stopped the ceasefire, and since then, the Army has intensified hostilities.
Recently, the army killed 36 rebel members in less than five days. After the first attack, the FARC-EP lifted its ceasefire and resumed hostilities. The subsequent round of combat between guerrillas and the government has caused the displacement of at least 350 civilians.
Colombians now fear another failure on the quest for peace. If one were to judge by the history of the insurgent group, a failure of these round of talks will mean another decade of all-out war, a strategy that has not given either side a definitive victory.
THE ARMED conflict has not prevented the Colombian government from pursuing neoliberal policies that are a direct attack on the Colombian working class. Instead, the endless combat has provided it with an excuse for the systematic persecution of social movements that attempt to challenge the push towards an extractivist economy.
The left should advocate for a negotiated solution to this war that has lasted by decades. Only then will most communities be able to build the social networks needed to develop mass movements capable of fighting back the attacks on their standards of living and political rights.
Our hopes for an agreement must be balanced by our analysis of how the two parts will react during the current crises. We now venture an analysis of the current situation and attempt to understand what may happen in the near future. "The Evolution of Cooperation," a study by Robert Axelrod that describes the emergence of cooperation between competing parties, may shed light on what is to come.
A cold analysis of a conflict will lead to the conclusion that both sides will carry out retaliatory actions when attacked. Negotiations between opponents make sense only if each side is able to cause harm to the other. If that were not the case, the stronger party would not engage in negotiations at all and would attempt full extermination. For that reason, we should expect some type of retaliation in the coming days, as both sides try to demonstrate their capacity to do harm.
However, if the parties have a real intention of cooperating, they will engage in attacks that successively de-escalate the confrontation. As an example, after the May 21 attack, the FARC-EP retaliated by verbally lifting the ceasefire while not really engaging in military action.
The symbolic measure should have been enough for the Army to reduce hostilities. Unfortunately, the Colombian army persisted in attacks and is forcing the FARC towards stronger actions. For now, public opinion is condemning the siege, but that may change if the guerrillas overreact.
One should judge the coming days not by the absence of attacks but by the trend those attacks indicate. A progressive de-escalation will be a more appropriate signal of the interest that both parties have in the peace process. It is on this basis that the success of a settlement should be expected.
Our role as external observers to the quagmire should be to demand an immediate bilateral ceasefire. Bilateral ceasefires bring their own set of challenges, such as verification and enforcement on each side.
Nevertheless, while a cold-headed analysis could help us understand what messages the two sides of the conflict are trying to send to each other (and to understand the dynamics of the conflict), our humanity should identify with the real casualties of both armed sides and the peasantry that is trapped in the war between them.
On May 25, FARC negotiator "Pablo Catatumbo" indicated that despite lifting the ceasefire, the FARC-EP will push ahead with the peace process. We should understand that the coming days will bring more attacks and be ready to defend the peace process despite them. At the same time, we should demand a bilateral ceasefire to reduce the number of casualties in this senseless war. But the hope for peace remains!
