“Keepin’ it Real” is a weekly blog that analyzes news and events in the international system through a realist perspective. In this blog, Babithan Baskararajah discusses Colombia’s path to peace and whether it is realistic to assume or want foreign assistance.
The current Colombian conflict is historically known as La Violencia, which was provoked by the assassination of the popular politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán. Although the Colombians that demanded justice had won, the possibility of peace succeeding was impossible and this was especially due to the lack of accountability, transparency, and reconciliation existing between FARC rebels and the civilians.
When the Colombian peace agreement referendum failed on Oct. 2, it raised questions about why the majority (50.2 per cent) would vote against peace. However, those who voted “no” believed such a peace agreement was letting FARC get away with numerous crimes committed throughout the years of conflict—crimes that Colombians were unable to easily forgive.
The Colombian conflict has killed over 220,000 people in 55 years and left millions of civilians displaced. In addition, FARC is notoriously perceived as untrustworthy and violent to the public for its continuous kidnapping, killing, and drug trafficking within the country’s borders. Articles by CNN, BBC Europe and The Telegraph illuminate some of the backlash this peace treaty is receiving. For instance, those that voted against the referendum were extremely disappointed that the government was merciful towards attributing responsibility for war crimes by making a deal. In this way, those who confess are eligible to avoid prison or serve a relatively short eight-year sentence.
During the negotiation process, President Santos aimed to maintain a bilateral ceasefire and FARC leaders were asked to lay down their weapons until the day of the national referendum. After a surprising rejection, President Santos extended the ceasefire with FARC in an effort to reach a final peace deal by the end of this year. For years, FARC has been fighting over ideology, territory, and political differences. Recently they were forced under the ceasefire to surrender their weapons over to United Nations’ (UN) sponsored monitors. However, this contrasts with whether their continued armed actions can be overridden by further disarmament. Disarmament is highly unrealistic to continue and many fear that history may repeat itself again.
Many suggest that the United States (U.S.) and the international community will provide assistance to address the failed referendum and ongoing peace negotiations. In addition, they suggest that the U.S. will take an active role in reconstructing peaceful institutions through the implementation of security forces and government services.
This is unlikely to happen. For one, U.S. history with peacekeeping or UN mandated missions is scarce—rarely are foot soldiers provided to monitor conflicts on the ground. Furthermore, I strongly believe with President Santos’ approach that the conflict should be dealt with within the regions of Colombia. Assistance will increase dependability and potentially contribute to Colombian instability and insecurity, depending on the hidden interests of partners. This year, President Santos took all means to ensure that the conflict is dealt with between those within the territory rather than intervening countries. President Santos even requested the U.S. remove FARC from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. Despite the failure of the referendum, President Santos provides a good and realistic approach to maximize power and stability within Colombia and to survive independently from other countries.
If you want to learn more about Colombia’s Peace Process, the following websites are helpful to understand it:
