By: Eduardo Pizarro
September 5, 2010
Following the brutal murder of 14 police brutality of the police in Doncello (Caquetá) by the FARC's 15th front, led by alias' Wílmer', there have been many reactions.
First, Archbishop Ruben Salazar, president of the Episcopal Conference, said that this "makes us aware of the urgency of the country end the conflict and the way for this to happen there must be dialogue. No sufficient military solutions. " Moreover, the defense minister said that this act of barbarism closed doors, at least for now, a political negotiation.
Who is right? Does the bishop or the minister? Without doubt, Bishop Ruben Salazar expresses a deep desire of all Colombians: the end of armed conflict by way of political negotiation. But that dream began 25 years ago and has become a nightmare. That year, in the main camp of the FARC in La Uribe (Meta), signed the peace agreement with the government of Belisario Betancur. Then there were several attempts: Caracas, Tlaxcala, San Vicente.
And all approaches have ended in a fiasco and an escalation of armed conflict. The reasons for the recurrent failures were manifold, but the most important has been, without doubt, the decision of the FARC to use the peace process to strengthen militarily and politically. As he said at some point Enrique Santos Calderón, the FARC love peace negotiations, but hate peace.
After the long litany of failures in ongoing negotiations with the FARC and the ELN, it is inconceivable to fall back into the trap. I therefore believe that the Minister of Defense is absolutely right.
First, we must never give in to terrorism. Former peace adviser Daniel García-Peña argues that "international analysis of cases in other countries indicate that, on the verge of approaches towards dialogue, the parties to the conflict seek to strengthen military. I think that the FARC itself a possible approach would be interested, but not on any terms, except in a dialogue based on their surrender. "That is, according to García-Peña, despite the pain they cause the deaths of police officers , considered normal for such actions occur, and even show a willingness to negotiate. Do not believe in this argument. The escalation of violence does not correspond to the FARC will create an environment for negotiation, but to try to keep alive a organization that every day languishing in the jungle.
Second, with a history of failed negotiations over 25 years, it is essential radically change the model of peace. In the past he was not required anything to the guerrillas. Even spoke of "open agenda" and, in some cases, negotiations in the midst of confrontation. This negotiation model has generated only frustration. Now that a further process to be viable "before a skeptical public and a country that no longer swallowed whole or yield to terrorism," the guerrilla must show credible gestures his desire for peace.
words, acts like those of Doncello (Caquetá), once opened doors to a frightened public, now closed with an angry slam.
If the FARC wants to build bridges for trading must, first, ceasing altogether criminal actions. Second, should unilaterally release the soldiers, police and civilian hostages. Thirdly, should undertake to respect fully the norms of international humanitarian law, which prohibits anti-personnel mines, hostage taking, abduction and recruitment of children and adolescents. If the FARC does not accept these minimum requirements, give in to fear is to travel roads that are already in the past a resounding failure.
