PEACE is a yearning for everyone, but in Colombia it has been elusive, someone always sabotages it, fails to fulfill it. When it is achieved, another cycle of violence and/or new forms of confrontation reappear.
There are countless peace pacts since the 19th century with: Exhibitions, amnesties, armistices, pardons, truces, constitutional reforms, demobilizations, etc. We even longed for PEACE since before our territory was transformed from a Viceroyalty to a Republican-State. That is why the war of independence was carried out, to expel the Spanish, achieve freedom and have PEACE.
The purpose of President Gustavo Petro is to achieve peace that since 2016 could not be properly implemented due to obstructions, and to attract other actors who did not attend.
His intention is laudable, but the Peace Commissioner, Danilo Rueda, the delegates and those in charge of the process must help him, adjust the methodology and the various procedures so that this multiple peace trial can prosper, due to the dissimilar armed actors summoned and the various procedures that are required to advance the dialogues in all the selected sites, at least 10 sites of the regional constellation within the complex geography of violence.
Mr. Carlos Ruiz Massieu himself, Head of the United Nations verification mission in Colombia, does not know how to proceed to verify a multiple bilateral ceasefire.
This is clear from his ambiguous responses to the newspaper El Espectador published on January 11, 2023, invoking decrees and resorting to his sudden intuition to imagine how a logistics that he does not know will operate because he has not studied the history of this country to understand the idiosyncrasies of violent actors and the specificities of violent regions.
I think that the great obstacle to advancing with the ELN is that nothing can be parallel or simultaneous with the other armed actors that are trying to make La Paz total (FARC dissidents, FARC deserters, and criminal gangs). Negotiation with the ELN regarding the other armed groups. Neither parallel nor total peace.
The rhythms of negotiation with each armed actor, political actors/in the exercise of the rebellion, and common criminals, the rhythms are and will be different: They are non-approvable armed actors who are not going to demobilize in unison either because they have different origins and claims. The Peace that each of these actors seeks (if they sincerely approach the dialogues), has different interests. Total Peace is the ideal, but it does not exist and will not exist as long as drug trafficking exists as a cauldron that fuels conflicts.
La Paz with the ELN, being the most complex and fragmented group, is the most possible because it is a guerrilla of political origin that, despite the factions or commandos, retains some political cohesion.
So the setbacks that this bifurcated peace process is going to have, on the one hand with political rebels and common criminals, on the other hand, these setbacks are going to cloud public opinion the clarity of the negotiations that are advanced at the table with the THE N.
That is why it is necessary to separate what happens with other tables, public opinion is going to be confused and others are going to overturn the stage to detract from the progress.
I reiterate, La Paz can be achieved with the ELN because it is the historic moment for them to rejoin after 58 years of confrontation (1964/2023).
The ELN’s rejection of the announcement of a bilateral ceasefire can be explained by two aspects. First, there was a misunderstanding about the reciprocity of the national government, which the ELN itself requested when they declared the unilateral ceasefire at the end of the year, then the President announced the bilateral ceasefire as if it had been agreed at the negotiating table that had been going on for three weeks. meetings. That announcement was a presidential award.
Second, the fact of announcing the bilateral cessation including other armed groups, in the same Twitter message, this shows that the ELN only wants a separate treatment of the peace process, and not mixed, with those they do not consider related. Multiple PEACE can be attempted, but separate procedures are required. The dialog table is separate but the treatment cannot be confused.
The ELN must understand the good will of the national government to be consistent with the management of the rhythms and times of the talks, this is vital, if the decisions to reach an agreement or get closer are delayed, other war-torn intentions can be crossed, to damage or divert agreements, as has historically happened.
In general terms, the confrontations between the guerrillas and the governments that move or energize the State in a determined period, have had various causes; the internal or civil wars that have occurred have ended due to the triumph of one of the parties, due to the agreement on the differences discussed within a peace process, with the mediation of third-party guarantors.
And the stages of violence due to breaches or unfinished reforms have been restarted without attending to the essentials on rural property and issues of social justice.
During confrontations or violent encounters, the use of weapons is carried out to subdue each other, achieve objectives, to advance in warfare, each party believing they are right, some to defend the established right, others to obtain the right. new claimed right, according to Norberto Bobbio’s exposition, but the way to communicate within the war has been everywhere: deadly fire.
That is why the law of nations and the law of war were created, which lead to International Humanitarian Law: To humanize conflicts and try to resolve them. At the same time, the fire of the weapons is used as a form of gradual deterrence, so that the parties change their attitude, give in or agree.
War is an undesirable reality, but it unfolds that way. Once a peace process has started, the ceasefire is important at a certain moment in the middle of the talks, to demonstrate willingness and good intention to end the conflict because continuing to attack causes more damage and creates cracks that lead to distancing or, breaking the conversations.
Within the nuclear arms race the deterrence is different. It consists of having more destructive capacity by building nuclear weapons in a country so that another country respects its sovereignty, independence, so that they do not interfere with its autonomy, do not attack, and these nuclear weapons are stored, paradoxically not to be totally destroyed. There is no permanent fire but open or veiled threats, so that the devastating attack does not take place.
Faced with a developing war like Russia’s against Ukraine, an invasion programmed to annex a territory with geopolitical interest, and faced with the intervention of the United States and the European Union, which have not directly intervened by sending troops, If they have intervened by issuing sanctions and sending weapons, the nuclear threats are latent and nuclear tension exists.
The Christmas ceasefire was not complied with by any of the parties because there is no peace process because the claims are irreconcilable, Russia has been reluctant to engage in dialogue and third party diplomats, through international organizations have failed until now.
Master in Political Science from the Javeriana University, PhD in Latin American Politics, National University (UNED) of Madrid Spain
Comments