"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." -Nelson Mandela
Since October 2013 the government of Colombia and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) have been in conversations in Havana, Cuba discussing the possibility of signing agreements that would bring peace to the country.
The agreements are made up of six parts:
1) Land Reform
2) Political Participation
3) Disarmament
4) Illicit Drugs
5) Rights of the Victims
6) Peace Deal Implimentation
The two parties have already agreed on the first two parts, but it is necessary that they agree on all six in order for the agreements to be officially signed and put into place.
This is not the first time that peace talks have taken place; there have been several other occasions in which dialogue happened between the government and groups outside the margin of the law, but they have always failed due to neither side being able to actually listen to the other and having not being interested in negotiating.
This time there are a variety of opinions around the talks: some people are more hopeful. This is the first time that the FARC has recognized that there exist victims as a result of their actions. There is also a change in vocabulary used; for example instead of asking the group to “turn in” their weapons, they are asking them to “leave” their weapons. This change leaves a lot of questions around what will happen to all of the arms that are in the hands of these groups, but it also makes it more likely that the group will agree to the terms.
Some people are not convinced of the likelihood that anything will change if the agreements are signed. One friend told me that the talks are just an excuse for the president to look good and even if they are signed nothing will change here in the communities where it actually matters.
And he has a good point: signing the agreements is one thing, putting them into action will be the hard part. How will the agreements be implemented? Who will make sure that they are implemented? The possibility of the implementation of these accords is the reason why this political season was so intense: whoever is in power now will determine how the agreements are interpreted and how they are implemented. Unfortunately, the political system depends more on the money the politicians can give their constituents to be elected than what they can actually do to fight for their rights and best interests in the government. Ideally, the agreements should be interpreted by the people that they directly affect: the people of the countryside, the people who lived in fear of members of armed groups coming into their towns, their homes- the people of Colombia.
And there are people who don’t want the agreements to be implemented, who do not want peace in Colombia. War is great business; there are groups of people making money off of the conflict. From this point of view, peace would mean less money and less power, and therefore not something that they are interested in.
However, as a wise academic told our group in Bogota, there will always be conflict and there will always be the transformation of one set of conflicts into other conflicts, but this does not mean that resolution should not be the goal.
And right now it seems like resolution of these 50+ years of conflict, at least on paper, is close. But Colombia is known to have beautifully written laws (check out the constitution which names peace as a right) and not a good track record of implementation. Here’s to hoping that this time Colombia can find a way to bring what is decided in Havana to Libertad.
Information thanks to the wise and knowledgeable people in Bogota, Sincelejo, and Libertad who took the time to explain the process and their ideas about the peace talks.
Check out more information at www.mesadeconversaciones.com.co
The two parties have already agreed on the first two parts, but it is necessary that they agree on all six in order for the agreements to be officially signed and put into place.
This is not the first time that peace talks have taken place; there have been several other occasions in which dialogue happened between the government and groups outside the margin of the law, but they have always failed due to neither side being able to actually listen to the other and having not being interested in negotiating.
This time there are a variety of opinions around the talks: some people are more hopeful. This is the first time that the FARC has recognized that there exist victims as a result of their actions. There is also a change in vocabulary used; for example instead of asking the group to “turn in” their weapons, they are asking them to “leave” their weapons. This change leaves a lot of questions around what will happen to all of the arms that are in the hands of these groups, but it also makes it more likely that the group will agree to the terms.
Some people are not convinced of the likelihood that anything will change if the agreements are signed. One friend told me that the talks are just an excuse for the president to look good and even if they are signed nothing will change here in the communities where it actually matters.
And he has a good point: signing the agreements is one thing, putting them into action will be the hard part. How will the agreements be implemented? Who will make sure that they are implemented? The possibility of the implementation of these accords is the reason why this political season was so intense: whoever is in power now will determine how the agreements are interpreted and how they are implemented. Unfortunately, the political system depends more on the money the politicians can give their constituents to be elected than what they can actually do to fight for their rights and best interests in the government. Ideally, the agreements should be interpreted by the people that they directly affect: the people of the countryside, the people who lived in fear of members of armed groups coming into their towns, their homes- the people of Colombia.
And there are people who don’t want the agreements to be implemented, who do not want peace in Colombia. War is great business; there are groups of people making money off of the conflict. From this point of view, peace would mean less money and less power, and therefore not something that they are interested in.
However, as a wise academic told our group in Bogota, there will always be conflict and there will always be the transformation of one set of conflicts into other conflicts, but this does not mean that resolution should not be the goal.
And right now it seems like resolution of these 50+ years of conflict, at least on paper, is close. But Colombia is known to have beautifully written laws (check out the constitution which names peace as a right) and not a good track record of implementation. Here’s to hoping that this time Colombia can find a way to bring what is decided in Havana to Libertad.
Information thanks to the wise and knowledgeable people in Bogota, Sincelejo, and Libertad who took the time to explain the process and their ideas about the peace talks.
Check out more information at www.mesadeconversaciones.com.co
No comments:
Post a Comment