CENPAZ ensayo

By Jorge Andrés Forero-González* 

The question about Integral Rural Reform, the first and fourth points in the peace agreement, retaken a sixty year debate about “development” with specific political, cultural and economics practices(2). Colombia is an especially rural country (3). Cities like Bogotá D.C, with close to ten million people (4) have big rural areas, and in many large, important, and popular neighborhoods, agricultural relationships are common. Expansion of the cities has been impacted by the last few decades of war, with more than 10 million people displaced from the country. These refugees, of course, bring their cultural norms with them to the cities.

The peace agreement describes in Integral Rural Reform the importance of creating new investments to create infrastructure and bring State services to the rural areas, especially in the territories where war has taken place. This new opportunity to build a bridge between the war-torn country and the peaceful country has two strong visions. First, the government is interested in creating situations that attract private sector money to support new investments and new businesses. Second, the agreement describes the importance of making the rural communities and ethnic nations stronger, developing their economies, and making their Lives Plans and vision of future stronger to create a scenario of reconciliation.

This discussion is not new to the history of nations like Colombia; it’s the same throughout Latin America. The colonialist ideas about her future employ the concept of an inferior culture, and political and economic system. Concepts like rich vs poor countries, or developed vs. undeveloped countries determined our vision of past, present, and future. In this concept, our countries, our cultures, and our economies are categorized “inferior” and in permanent comparison with high economic countries, especially west of Europe, North America (not including Mexico), and countries in Asia such as Japan and, more recently, China. The general idea about “development” has a close relationship with the concept of dominant technology and the use of markets to the welfare of some people and the detriment of other people. However, mechanized and monetized economic activities are not superior to many kinds of technologies that many communities or countries around the world use to solve their problems (5) and that have special opportunities to solve big problems like climate warming.

The government of Colombia under Santos (6) understood that the best environment to build legal business in Colombia would be to end the war. For example, the implementation of the peace agreement brings the opportunity to combine public and private investment in more than 170 municipalities (7) where the army conflict took place. These are municipalities that have special economic conditions and natural resources that during the war were impossible to exploit and use for big business. For that, this vision of development is announced with big investment in natural resources extraction such as petroleum, coal or gold, and big agroindustrial activities like the production of african palm and/or soy in large scale in the east of the country. 

In addition, with the recently fiscal reforms and tax reduction, the government of Colombia is sending a message to transnacional private companies to invest in the country (8). This vision of development focuses on large-scale food production, using and imitating models from Brazil, The United States, and the sugar plantations in the south of Colombia, where big agribusiness corporations control the production of food, renting the land and contracting employees that do not have a cultural relationship with the land. In this vision of “development”, the government understands that peace is serving the purpose of the new infrastructure to help to attract more private capital to invest in Colombia. 

In contrast, the communities that are living in the territories that have been more affected by war, understand the vision of the government and the big private sector how the cause of the war. In many of their lands the army conflict was an excuse for displacement, murders, and aggression against human rights. After one sees what happened next, an easy conclusion can be made. After violent displacement, big economic projects, that happen to be government sponsored, came into existence in many of these places (9). Of course the communities and victims of the war also demand new investments and technologies, but in the peacebuilding process, they also say that it is essential to develop and strengthen their Life Plans (10). 

Life Plans are an autonomous process of the communities so they can perform their own regional planning and have their own local government based on the culture and relationships within their territories. There is a special proposal to develop local economies with an emphasis on agriculture, and the protection of sacred places, water, and biodiversity. This vision values local knowledge, and demands the presence of the state within hospitals, schools, universities, and infrastructure for roads and connectivity to develop local economies. 

See for example: Life Plan Proyecto Nasa (Asociación de Cabildos Indígenas de Toribio, Tacueyó y San Francisco) Available in http://www.proyectonasa.org/

Life Plans are connected with global issues such as climate change. For example, agricultural production of local rural communities supply 70% of the food in the world and at the same time are protecting the environment because their farm plots are so small (11). It is easy to understand that in order to survive, the campesinas (agricultural communities), the indigenous nations and the african colombian communities and peoples need to protect their sacred places on lakes and rivers, and in the jungles and mountains, and need to prioritize food production. These type of activities are more far sustainable than mining and the impacts of giant agribusinesses that use pesticides and monoculture (12). 

In comparison, perspectives of countries like Bhutan understand that economic development is recognizing that when people are happy, they are stronger advocates for conserving biodiversity (13). Other examples of this vision of sustainability can be found in the new constitutions of Ecuador (14) and Bolivia (15), that include the right of Mother Earth in a clear message to protect nature, not only to develop business. This new vision helps increase the debate in Colombia to include the protection of the territories, land, culture, and agricultural and ethnic communities .

To see the future, we need to understand the past of the war in Colombia. In the context of two visions of “development”, the new reforms to building peace will be successful if the government of Colombia agrees to strengthen the proposals of the communities while at the same time, creating scenarios of reconciliation. All new investment plans need the true participation and support of the local communities, in addition to making use of and respecting their knowledge and their life plans. This principle, which is written in the peace agreement, has not been applied with the consent of the communities during the first year of implementation, and at the same time, the government has been developing new legislation to strengthen private investment like the ZIDRES (16). The new government of Colombia under Duque should comply with the social demand for peace in Colombia and support the global agenda for giving economic alternatives to the communities in which the war took place.  

The challenge about what kind of “development” and investment the country needs in the peace building process of negotiation and agreement between the government of Colombia and the communities, is a big national dialogue about the economic future in the country. Is its’ vision to deepen natural resources extraction activities and agricultural business giants, or begin to rebuild local economies and protect human, cultural, and natural biodiversity? It is clear that new investment for peace in the territories where the war took place are priorities for reconciliation, and won’t succeed in economic business without the real and concerted participation of the communities. 

Finally, it is important to understand that the war in Colombia didn’t end human rights aggressions: these numbers are still astonishing. Since 2016, almost five hundred social leader have been killed. Overcoming more than 60 years of war is a big process (17). The good news is that with social justice, peace is possible, and the communities in times of war are making alternatives in their territories (18). We can use advanced technology from around the world in Colombia, and overcome our challenges with the help of the international community. Colombia ia a beautiful country, fifty million strong that want a second opportunity on the earth.(19)

* Jorge Andrés Forero-González is from Colombia and studied economics and political science at the National University of Colombia and the University of the Andes. He is working with Indigenous Peoples, the Afro-Colombian community in CENPAZ, and Campesinas agricultural communities in establishing processes for implementing the peace agreement. Currently, he is a Fulbright Scholar in the United States as part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program; 2018 – 2019.

** Editing by Miranda Mosis, MaEd., public teacher and specialist in education. Special Thanks.

By Jorge Andres Forero-Gonzalez*

With more than ten million internal and external people displaced in the last thirty years (1), three hundred thousand deaths, and the forced migration from rural to urban society, it is mandatory to understand that life is sacred in Colombia. The peace process brings hope and the possibility to end the war in the western hemisphere by looking for one real solution for global problems such as drug trafficking. But, there are big risks and potentially bad effects in the implementation process, like the killing of social leaders, the slow process of implementation or the new, conservative government.(2)

However, in the war-torn (or, war-affected) territories, the communities developed inspiring strategies to fight against the murder (or extrajudicial killing) and create collective alternatives of peace to live in their lands. There is the case of the important initiatives of the communities in the country like the Humanitarian Zones and Peace Communities in Chocó and Urabá. In addition, the Indigenous Resguardos (Reservations) (3) and Collective Territories of Black Communities(4), are known in the country as special peace territories symbol. These communities that suffered during the war are the same communities that support the peace treaty and give hope to Colombia and the world(5).

The Peace Agreement of Colombia offers is a big opportunity to address solutions for the structural social and political problems of Colombia.(6) This agreement has 6 points: 1. Integral Rural Reform to create institutions and infrastructure in rural areas where the war took place. 2. Political Participation to open democratic processes that avoid violent solutions. For example, as a product of the agreement the FARC is now a Political Party 3. End of the Conflict, to recuperate more than 20,000 weapons that will be destroyed by the United Nations, took to the ex-guerrilla members for opportunities. 4. Solution to the Drug Problem, the more important point is to find a solution to the global problem, which will reduce demand for cocaine from Colombia. 5. Victims and System of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Guarantees of No repetition to create scenarios of reconciliation and 6. Implementation, Verification, and International Monitoring to be sure that is possible to comply with the agreement.

In terms of the process of implementation of the Peace Agreement that includes special economic programs for the returning of the communities for their territories especially in the points 1 and 5; in Colombia, we do not start without any experiences. One example of how the communities returned to their homes after (or during) the war is the inspiring cases of Humanitarian Zones(7) and Biodiversity Zones(8). These experiences provide many examples of how to build alternatives from the communities to build peace in times of war and are based in the right to the people to live in their territories using the own government in the case of the Indigenous Peoples and Black Communities in Colombia, and the international human rights agreements. . 

The Humanitarian Zones and Biodiversity Zones, according to Peace Brigades International (2011), are defined as:

In contrast, the new conservative government of Colombia that will start in August of 2018 holds a strong position against the Peace Agreement between FARC and the State of Colombia.. This position is explained by the links between the war, the drugs trafficking and the ultra-right position of the ex-president (2002-2010) and the current Senator of Colombia Alvaro Uribe Velez (10). According to newly declassified cables from the State Department of USA the former Colombian Leader Uribe and godfather of the new president, is tied to drug traffickers. (11) In this context, the links are clear between the current administration and the internal armed conflict. This connection the Duque’s position against the implementation of Peace Processes, especially Point 5 of the agreement which calls for investigation and sanctioning of crimes by of all the actors in the war. 

In this context, why is there reason to hope? Initiatives like the Humanitarian and Biodiversity Zones have been working in the more radical context of the war in Colombia at the times of Alvaro Uribe Velez, that included a military doctrine that according to recent research(12), includes “approximately 10,000 civilians were executed by the army between 2002 and 2010 – more than three times the number tallied by human rights groups.” (13) In addition to thinking about the Indigenous Resguardos, which in Colombia are more the 30% of our territory especially at the Amazons, it is important to think about their more than five hundred years of resistance as a symbol of autonomy. Moreover, the Collective Territories of Black Communities, 10% of our country especially in the Pacific areas, is a memory of fighting for liberty and independence in Colombia for more than four hundred years. 

In conclusion, how does one begin to look for conditions to return to the land in the current Peace Agreement? 

First, it is true that with the new government of Colombia creates a difficult environment for the processes of peacebuilding, especially with the current killing of the social leaders and human rights defenders (14). However, if the government of Colombia rends the monopoly of weapons and justice, and gives real guarantees to social leaders and an the communities to return to the land, is possible to build a powerful peacebuilding institutions and infrastructure. 

Second, this infrastructure must be a negotiation and agreement process involving all social actors in Colombia, recover experiences like the Humanitarian Zones and Biodiversity Zones, establishing trust with a society that wants a second opportunity for peace. It is especially important that the new institutions support peacebuilding initiatives of the communities creating real scenarios of reconciliation.

And tree, After sixty years of military conflict, the conditions to return to rural regions of Colombia requires the implementation of the 2016 Peace Agreement, including mediation between the communities and the new government that does not support the process. 

**** Foto: Congress of Mujeres Indigenas CONPI 2016 http://www.conpicolombia.org/2016/08/mujeres-indigenas-tejedoras-de-vida.html