Colombians are close to bringing to an end the oldest and only remaining armed conflict in the western hemisphere. After more than five years of negotiations with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), we can say that we have reached an irreversible phase that will put an end to more than 50 years of a cruel and costly war.
All of my predecessors over the past five decades attempted to make peace with the FARC, the largest and oldest guerrilla army to have emerged in Latin America. They all failed. So why has this peace process proved successful?
Above all, this has been a well-planned and carefully executed process that began when we achieved certain conditions. First, we had to change the correlation of military forces in favor of the Colombian state. Second, we had to convince the FARC’s leaders that it was in their own personal interest to enter serious negotiations and that they would never achieve their objectives through violence and guerrilla warfare.
Last, but not least, we implemented a radical change in our foreign policy, which led to an improvement in our relations with our neighbors and the rest of the region. This facilitated their support of our initiative and thus the beginning of the peace process.
We started secret negotiations about four years ago to establish a limited and focused agenda and clear rules of procedure (the absence of which was a major stumbling block in previous negotiations) that would allow us — assuming we reach an agreement — to end the conflict. This was the first time that the FARC had agreed to such a process.
The outcome of this phase was a five-point agenda: rural development, political participation, drug trafficking, victims and transitional justice, and lastly the end of the conflict, which includes disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration — commonly known as DDR.
Following the signing of a framework agreement in Oslo, Norway, in October 2012, we began the public phase of negotiations in Cuba. The host country and Norway acted as guarantors, while Venezuela and Chile have accompanied the process. Later on, the US and the EU appointed special envoys to the talks.
From the start, a basic rule of the negotiations has been that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. To date, we have settled all items except DDR. To avoid past mistakes, we studied why previous peace negotiations in Colombia had failed, as well as lessons from peace negotiations elsewhere.
We also selected a group of international advisers with hands-on experience in peacemaking to help us navigate through the difficult waters of this process. I can now say that making peace is much, much more difficult than waging war, and I have done both extensively as Colombia’s minister of defense and now as president.
This peace process is groundbreaking in several ways. We have placed victims — more than 7.5 million in our case — and a comprehensive system to guarantee their rights at the center of the solution to the conflict. We have also agreed to create a special jurisdiction and tribunal to guarantee that those responsible for international war crimes are investigated, judged and condemned as stipulated in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This is the first time that a guerrilla movement has agreed to disarm and be subject to transitional justice.
Peace in Colombia will bring real benefits to a world rife with armed conflicts and longing for a success story. Despite being the country that has paid the highest cost in the war on drugs — a war that has proven impossible to win — we are still the world’s leading exporter of cocaine. This unpalatable fact is due mainly to the guerrillas, who have continued to protect their main source of income.
Peace will change this, because the FARC has agreed to help in the substitution of legal crops for coca production. Without the threat of attack by the guerrillas, our brave soldiers, policemen and civilian eradicators can do their job without the threat of snipers or landmines.
In terms of the environment, the amount of oil spilled into our rivers and oceans by terrorist attacks on our pipelines is calculated to be more than 4 million barrels over the past two decades. That is equivalent to 14 times the volume spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Furthermore, in a country that has the richest biodiversity in the world per square kilometer, close to 4.4 million hectares of rainforest have been destroyed because of the conflict. All this can be stopped — and, I hope, reversed — with the end of the conflict.
That is why we Colombians have been fortunate to count on the support of the region and the world. Today, there is not a single country that does not back our peace process. Proof of this was the resolution submitted to the UN Security Council, which unanimously approved an international mission to verify and monitor DDR.
Despite traditional spoilers, mostly of an internal nature, many of whom oppose the process for political reasons, I am confident that we will put this conflict where it belongs — in the history books. Reshaping the reality around us is our duty to future generations. When we reach an agreement, when we stop killing one another after a half-century of war, we will remove a heavy burden that has stalled our progress and finally enjoy the opportunity to write a new chapter of prosperity and modernity for our country.
Juan Manuel Santos is president of the Republic of Colombia and the winner of the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs