This Oct. 18 will mark the first anniversary of the beginning of the peace talks in Havana, Cuba, between the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
The armed conflict between the State, guerrillas and paramilitaries since 1958 has claimed more than 220,000 lives—approximately 80 percent of which were civilians—according to the National Center of Historical Memory in Colombia.
Progress and obstacles
“Never before has a peace process advanced so much,” said the chief negotiator for FARC, Luciano Marín, who goes by the name “Iván Márquez”in March.
In May, negotiators reached an agreement to establish a program of formalization of rural property and employment, to create legal mechanisms to settle land disputes and to form a fund to provide more inclusive access to the land.
Despite previous attempts at negotiations between the government and the guerrillas in the 80s and late 90s, no agreements were reached in regards to specific reforms.
The negotiations are currently facing several challenges.
While the FARC accuses the Colombian government of wanting to sign an “Expedited Peace Agreement” without resolving the issues raised in the negotiating agenda, the government accuses the FARC of delaying negotiations and wanting to impose their political agenda while refusing demands for the group’s disarmament.
Also, ex-president Álvaro Uribe accuses the FARC of having no desire for peace and insists there should be no dialogue until the guerrillas declare a unilateral ceasefire; he accuses the government of “appeasing to terrorism.”
The government in turn emphasizes the need to reach an agreement before the presidential elections in May 2014, given the risk that a new government may decide to terminate the process.
A Gallup poll conducted between Aug. 27 and Sept. 2 revealed that, although 62 percent of the population supports the dialogue, 60 percent believe that the negotiations will not be successful.
Pending dialog topics
Currently, negotiators are discussing what the political participation of the insurgents would be after the end of the conflict.
The FARC have requested special seats in Congress, departmental assemblies and municipal councils—without election.
The government has been willing to create those seats, but the biggest controversy has to do with who will occupy them and what will happen with guerrillas convicted of crimes against humanity.
According to the Attorney General of the Republic Alejandro Ordóñez, currently 218 members of the FARC, including eight members of its Secretariat, face sentences for crimes of this nature. The Constitutional Court has warned they will have to pay with prison sentences.
Moreover, given the fact that Colombia is a member of the International Criminal Court, the tribunal would have jurisdiction to prosecute individuals if the Colombian government chooses not to.
With regard to the victims of the conflict, the FARC acknowledged in a statement that “there has been rawness and pain caused from our ranks,” stressing at the same time that the Colombian justice system has no moral authority to condemn FARC members and international justice could not be imposed over a national peace agreement.
It is for this reason that the FARC insist that any agreement should lead to “a Constituent Assembly as a peace treaty and new social contract.” This option has been rejected by the government, claiming that it would delay the end of the conflict and jeopardize the progressive gains of the 1991 Constitution.
According to Luis Javier Orjuela, professor of Political Science at the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia, the Constitution of 1991 established a comprehensive system of social and political rights, accompanied by a neoliberal economic model and creating a society guided by the “market logic.”
Beyond Havana: national impact of the peace process
Throughout this year, Colombia has experienced numerous peasant protests in virtually all of its territories.
In the marches, farmers call for more government support for specific guilds, question the forced eradication of illicit crops and the government support for large-scale mining; they also demand a change to the free trade agreements with the U.S. and the EU—the economic model mentioned by Orjuela.
For Kristina Lyons, a researcher at the University of California Santa Cruz, the peace talks have created “an opportune time” for social mobilization. The debate on land issues has enhanced the formation of a “peasant political identity,” generating solidarity between the rural and the urban realities of the country.
The demonstrations also show the magnitude and complexity of the political challenges that the country would face after the signing of a peace agreement.
—Translation Alfonso Agirre