THE ARDUOUS PATH TOWARD PEACE IN COLOMBIA

The role of development cooperation is key to progress in the Peace process and finally reach an agreement that can find greater acceptance

Author: Erika Rodríguez Pinzón 

The path toward peace in Colombia is not being a smooth process and it is hardly surprising: we cannot resolve a more than half a century long-standing conflict with a simple procedure. Peace, if we wish to make it sustainable and lasting, requires a deep knowledge of the reasons that have led to the conflict. Even more, the peace reached by means of agreements implies finding a consensus in the way in which key elements such as confrontation, victims, or adversaries are perceived, supposing an extremely complicated process of rapprochement and dialogue.

Regarding the Colombian case, this process has lasted 6 years: 2 years in which he has been implemented in a private way and 4 years in an open manner. A complex agreement has been drawn from this process, which at the same time has been considered by the Kroc Institute[1] as “the most comprehensive” of the 34 accords concluded in the world since 1989.

Indeed, the disapproval of the agreement by 50.23% of the citizens, expressed through the plebiscite organized by the government, highlights this complexity.

However, despite the impasse created by the lack of citizens’ endorsement, the renegotiation of the Agreement aimed to include and satisfy the expectations of its detractors relies on the document written in La Habana by the Discussion Table. Fortunately for Colombia, and in contrast to what had previously happened, the process has not been considered as broken. Instead, all the actors implied, including detractors, have decided to support the dialogue as the only way to end the war.

That said, along the negotiations as well as in the next future and in the long run, the role of international community and cooperation has remained essential to make the peace reality in the country. Till now, international community has performed at three different levels. At a first level the facilitator countries, Cuba and Norway which made possible the negotiations. At a second level the same Cuba and Norway that became guarantors of the process, along with Venezuela and Chile. And at a third level we find all these countries and international organisms that have showed their support as the peace process was being consolidated.

Before the results obtained by the plebiscite, the international community has continued to assume a determining role, offering a definitive support to the government’s efforts. The Nobel Peace Prize granted to President Santos is part of this backing, but the most important role has been played by the United Nations which has kept a voice for the ceasefire. It is important to stress that this part is essential to avoid, in such a tense situation, armed actions that could jeopardize the efforts of dialogue and to enable the situation of the guerrilla troops. Another important aspect, from the political point of view, has been to ensure the availability of post-conflict funds by the different donors.

Thus, the role of the international community is required as a political, economic and technical support. Even if the features of the first and second aspects have already been defined, the third still has to be consolidated, in part because it depends on the Final Agreement but also because it will only have a sense if the government’s institutions take over the leadership of the actors’ coordination.

Colombia will need support to implement the agrarian transformation, to reform its drugs’ policy, to assist the victims and guarantee the exercise of transitional justice, especially to strengthen the reinsertion of guerilla fighters.

These missions not only require resources but also seizing the national and international experience. In practice it is necessary to apply quality and sustainability criteria, especially to develop a coordination system determining the strategic lines, the division of functions and geographical presences and standardizing procedures of relation with local and national institutions.

It is true that the Peace Agreement establishes, in a very general measure, non-governmental organization that will support each of the issues related to the implementation. But the government is the only one able to ensure that the post-conflict won’t become an orchestra without score strengthening the socio-economic inequality and the irregular implementation of public policies in the country. In this context, the post-agreement and post-conflict period will be a litmus test for the actual system of development cooperation, not only based on solidarity but also on the correct articulation of the aid receptors’ needs with the donors’ capacities.

This Post has been drafted for the Blog http://www.societygov.org/

[1] Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame.