FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Peace Talks Begin in Colombia

According to Colombia’s El Tiempo, 75% of Colombians want a dialogue between the Colombian government and the guerillas.    And, this stands to reason, for Colombia has been devastated by over 50 years of armed conflict which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians (between 50 and 250 thousand of whom were “disappeared”); left over 5 million persons internally displaced (the largest IDP population in the world); and given a pretext for the Colombian government, with the aid of its paramilitary allies, to wipe out progressive organizations, including trade unions, working for social change.  On a grander scale, the Colombian conflict has provided a convenient pretext for U.S. military intervention in that country and the entire region and has been the biggest hurdle to the dream of Latin American integration.

It is therefore welcome and monumental news that the Colombian government yesterday confirmed rumors that it has signed an agreement with the largest guerilla group, the FARC, to commence peace talks, and that it shall include the ELN guerillas in this peace process as well.

Experience has shown that such peace talks are fragile.    Colombia has gone through a number of peace processes, but they have all ended badly thus far.   The most notable failed peace process took place in the 1980’s when the FARC agreed to end the armed insurgency in return for being able to participate in Colombian political life through the Patriotic Union party (UP).   In a great act of treachery, the Colombian military and paramilitary death squads responded to this deal by murdering around 5,000 UP leaders and activists, and the FARC commenced hostilities anew.

Meanwhile, as The Miami Herald reports this morning, both sides of the conflict have made it clear that they will not cease armed conflict during the peace talks; on the contrary, battles between the guerillas and the Colombian military and police have increased in recent months.   More troubling, the main non-violent group calling for peace talks – the Patriotic March – has been increasingly vilified by the Colombian government (quite untruthfully) as FARC supporters, and a number of Patriotic March leaders have been threatened, jailed, killed or disappeared with increasing frequency.   And, just as these peace talks have commenced, and as such attacks against peace activists have escalated, the Colombian government has cut in half the support for the beneficiaries of its government protection program – a program which purports to protect peace and social activists from these very attacks.  In short, there are many reasons to be very cautious in our optimism for these talks.

At the same time, there are reasons for hope.   For its part, the FARC took an important step in the direction of peace earlier this year by renouncing its long-time practice of kidnapping (a tactic of raising money through ransom).   As for the Colombian government, President Santos has exhibited much more openness to peace talks than his predecessor, Alvaro Uribe, and has been much more moderate in his rhetoric about the guerillas and about the Colombian non-violent left as well.   Santos has even begun a land reform program which purports to give back land to Colombians (particularly those of the indigenous and Afro-Colombian community) whose land was seized unlawfully during the conflict.   While it remains to be seen how successful this program will be, and while the program itself has inspired paramilitary groups to violently attack those standing to take back land that the paramilitaries wrongfully seized during the conflict, the overture is an important one for the guerillas whose primary demand over the decades has been meaningful land reform.   Finally, the accelerated growth of the peace movement in Colombia, most notably through the establishment of the Patriotic March, will add critical support to these talks.

As usual, the important wild card is the United States – the financial backer of the Colombian military and the author of Colombia’s anti-insurgency program beginning in 1962.   The only way that the peace process will be successful is for the U.S. to support the process, or, at the very least, get out of the way to allow it to go forward and prosper.   So far, the U.S. has shown no willingness to support peace in Colombia, instead opting to exploit the conflict to retain its last military beachhead in the Latin American region – a region which, much to the chagrin of the U.S., is increasingly radicalizing and turning leftward.   A key factor in the peace process, then, is a strong movement of citizens in the U.S. who will support peaceful actors, such as the Patriotic March, in Colombia, and put political pressure on the U.S. government to allow peace to flourish in Colombia.   This is a momentous opportunity for President Obama to finally earn his Nobel Peace Prize (3 years after the fact) and we must encourage him to seize upon this opportunity.

As a final note, the Cuban government must again be applauded for playing its positive role in this process.   As it has in the past, Cuba hosted the initial talks which led to the commencement of this peace process, and, along with Norway, will continue to host such talks throughout the process.   This tiny island, much vilified by our government, continues to play its positive role in our hemisphere for peace, regional stability and public health.   The shamefulness of the U.S.’s continued blockade of that country grows each day as Cuba outshines the U.S. in terms of its contributions to the world.

Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights attorney living in Pittsburgh and teaches International Human Rights Law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

More articles by:

Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
Patrick Bobilin
Moving the Margins
Alison Barros
Dear White American
Celia Bottger
If Ireland Can Reject Fossil Fuels, Your Town Can Too
Ian Scott Horst
Less Voting, More Revolution
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
We Are Winning
Graham Peebles
Climate Change, Extreme Weather, Destructive Lifestyles
Peter Certo
Trump Snubbed McCain, Then the Media Snubbed the Rest of Us
Mel Gurtov
Saving Democracy
Dan Ritzman
Drilling ANWR: One of Our Last Links to the Wild World is in Danger
Brandon Do
The World and Palestine, Palestine and the World
Negin Owliaei
Toys R Us May be Gone, But Its Workers’ Struggle Continues
Chris Wright
An Updated and Improved Marxism
Daryan Rezazad
Iran and the Doomsday Machine
Patrick Bond
Africa’s Pioneering Marxist Political Economist, Samir Amin (1931-2018)
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail