In Colombia, peacemakers rally to save a peace deal

After a few former guerrillas declared a return to armed conflict, the response showed the depth of the desire to save a 2016 peace pact.

Reuters
Kelly Martinez, former rebel of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), washes the dishes at a reintegration camp in Tierra Grata, Colombia Aug. 3.

Peace is often defined merely as an absence of war. In Colombia, which three years ago approved a pact to end a half-century of civil war, peace has been a daily activity. It ranges from forgiveness of former fighters who lay down their arms to reparations for the war’s victims. Yet in the past week, after a group of ex-combatants announced a return to armed conflict, the peacemaking has been particularly active.

A chorus of individuals and organizations came forward to counter the call to rearm by a small group of senior commanders from the demobilized Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. The group’s leader, Luciano Marín – better known by his nom de guerre, Iván Márquez – had declared a “new chapter” in the armed struggle for a communist society. Wearing military garb and holding a rifle in a video posted on Aug. 29, he accused the government of “betrayal” for allowing the killing of some 130 ex-rebels.

The killings have indeed been a disappointment as have many unfulfilled promises of the peace pact, which laid out reforms over 15 years. But the advances under the pact are also becoming very visible, such as more land titles for farmers, the presence of ex-FARC leaders in Congress, and a reduction in the production of coca, the principal ingredient in cocaine.

In what may be the strongest rebuke, the former leader of FARC, Rodrigo Londoño, better known as Timochenko, said that 95% of the 13,000 ex-FARC members stand firm with the pact. “Those of us who want peace are many more and we have the obligation not to faint,” he said. He added that the government’s breaches in implementing the pact must not be met with a breach in the peace.

“We cannot spend another 50 years in useless confrontations,” he said. “Future generations would not forgive us.”

The government’s former chief peace negotiator, Humberto de la Calle, called on the well-organized groups of war victims to again rally for peace. They played a crucial role during the negotiations from 2012 to 2016. “We ask Colombians to think about future victims, those we must avoid,” Mr. de la Calle said.

Perhaps the strongest citizen movement to uphold the pact grew out of a discussion on a WhatsApp chatroom to defend the pact. The group, known as Let’s Defend Peace, now has over 30,000 members, from former guerrillas to retired generals. It has led peace marches and petition signings to compel government action.

The group shows “remarkable persistence, creative flair, and refusal to take no for an answer with which – despite every adversity – Colombians pull together to build a better society,” says Lisa Haugaard, executive director of the Washington-based Latin America Working Group.

Much of the enthusiasm to keep the peace comes from the hard work during the negotiations to find a balance between forgiveness and justice for ex-combatants. As John Jairo Hoyos, a member of Congress whose father was killed by FARC, explained recently: “My heart was filled with hatred for more than 10 years.” But during the negotiations, he was invited him to speak to FARC commanders. “We yelled at them, called them names, we cried for hours in that dialogue. They asked for forgiveness and promised to do no more harm. We came out determined to build peace and put aside the past,” he said.

Peace in Colombia is now less of a negative noun about war and more of a positive verb about reconciliation.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.