Peace in Colombia

In an interview with Conectas, expert discusses the main challenges of the recent peace deal between the government and FARC

065094080087084X0302Y071100F000000000

Following the confirmation of the peace deal signed between the Colombian government and FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) announced on August 24, the country can now begin to rewrite its history after 52 years of civil war.

After reaching a consensus on the terms of the official agreement, which includes reparations for victims, land reform, an end to drug trafficking and the participation of the guerilla group in elections, the two sides agreed to hold a referendum in early October to let the population decide whether to accept the deal.

Given the backdrop of political and social divisions, the research coordinator of the Colombian organization DeJusticia (Center for the Study of Law, Justice and Society), Nélson Camilo Sánchez, analyzes the main points of the agreement that seeks to bring an end to a war that has claimed nearly 250,000 lives.

In an interview with Conectas, Sánchez said that unlike in the past, the current peace process is “the first in which the citizenry will be able to voice its opinion on the terms of the agreement”.

Read the full interview:  

 

Conectas: Which points of the peace deal do you consider most important? Which ones are most problematic?

Nelson Camilo Sánchez:

The peace deal is extensive, multi-thematic and extremely complex. In general terms, I think it has three main virtues. The first is that it makes a notable effort to include different types of issues, with the real intention of ending the armed conflict. Some of them were the cause of the armed revolt, such as territorial inequality and barriers to pluralistic political participation. Others were caused by the conflict itself, such as the use of drug trafficking as a means of financing the war and the violation of human rights. Finally, it addresses matters that need to be resolved to enable the transition from war to peace, such as the processes of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. The second main virtue is that, as an agreement pursuing ‘closure’, it includes not only commitments and benefits for the rebels that have put down their weapons, but also for the authorities that committed serious human rights violations during the conflict. This is the first peace deal in Colombia that seeks to ensure that all those involved are part of the process of accountability. And third, the agreement establishes the obligation to respect international human rights law, international criminal law and, in particular, the role that the victims should play in these processes. While it might not be perfect, it is an agreement that recognizes international law and seeks to make the victims and their rights central to the implementation of the commitments.

C: What do you think about the process of consulting the population? There was a lot of talk about the format it would take (constituent assembly, referendum, etc.). Why was it decided to hold a referendum? Is this model consistent with the guarantee of human rights and with the Colombian Constitution?

N.C.S: This process will also be the first in which the citizenry will be able to voice its opinion on the terms of the deal, unlike the peace processes with guerillas in the 80s and 90s, for example, or with the demobilization of paramilitary groups a decade ago. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding this issue in the country, primarily for two reasons. The first is that some people considered that the referendum would represent a violation of the fundamental right to peace. But the Constitutional Court declared that it would be possible to hold the vote, since it is not asking about the terms of the right to peace, but about whether the people agree with the terms of this specific deal. The second is about how the consultation would be made. Some people suggested that it would be better to set up a constituent assembly, since this would not only lend political legitimacy, but also create a means of carrying out the reforms established in the deal. However, some people considered – and I don’t agree with them – that the Constitution of 1991 is a democratic triumph that needs to be preserved, and that the peace deal could amend the Constitution but not necessarily lead to its elimination. Ultimately, the parties agreed on a compromise. In the referendum, the public will decide whether it accepts this peace process and the terms of the final deal. Then, through a special procedure in Congress, the agreement will be incorporated into Colombian legislation.

C: What would happen if the ‘no’ vote wins?

N.C.S: Legally, we would not be required to go back to war. According to the Constitutional Court, a decision to not approve the deal should not be interpreted as a public mandate in favor of war, but as an obligation to renegotiate the terms. However, it would be politically very difficult to resume the negotiations. This was the best deal possible after more than 5 years of negotiations. It is extremely unlikely that the two sides will negotiate again under these circumstances or that they will agree to different terms than the ones already reached. Because of this, the two sides would most probably decide to return to their strategic positions.

C: What are the main challenges to the implementation of the agreement, if the ‘yes’ vote wins?

N.C.S: Since the deal is multi-thematic and very comprehensive, the challenges are many. Some of the points require serious institutional changes that will need political will and economic resources. For some of them, it will be necessary to change power relations in the regions and confront elites that currently benefit from the distortions in the workings of the rule of law, among other challenges.

C: One of the most important components of the peace deal is the inclusion of the land issue – not as an appendix, but as a key topic of the negotiations. Why was this necessary and what changes could it represent to the guarantee of rights in rural Colombia?

N.C.S: One of the historic platforms of the guerillas has been to combat inequality in the ownership and distribution of land in the country and the enormous disparity in conditions between the rural and the urban population. As such, it is correct to say that one of the main grievances leading to the start of the war was land-related. The conflict made this situation worse, since it was accompanied by different waves of expropriation and forced displacement. This is why a solution to these problems is essential for a lasting and stable peace to be built. The agreement achieves this in several ways, but mainly three. First, through the territorial implementation of the agreement, giving priority to the rural population, in particular the most isolated and excluded. Second, through a comprehensive rural development policy, which includes a land bank that will guarantee peasants access to land, together with a policy of formalizing their land ownership. And third, through the continuation and strengthening of rural justice by Colombia’s ‘land restitution judges’ and the creation of a new ‘agrarian jurisdiction’.