|
Civilians Pay Highest Price in Colombian Conflict The escalation of the fighting and the stalled peace process led by President Andrés Pastrana has led to an increasing polarization of public opinion. Jorge Rojas, an activist in Paz Colombia, a pro-peace NGO, argues that "the debate in Colombia is between two opposing tendencies: those who support a solution by force, and those who favor a political and negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict." In general, three points of view seem to predominate among the government, political groups and the public at large. The first, held for the most part by certain business interests-livestock farmers, for example-criticizes the guerrillas' free run of the territories ceded to them by the government and the wave of violence in rural areas. Proponents of this position demand an armed solution to the conflict and have asked, among other things, for the creation of national militias. The second point of view is the one held by the establishment, favoring the path of political negotiation. As he launched the Common Front for Peace and Against Violence-a political proposal that seeks support for the peace process from the Liberal, Conservative and independent parties-President Pastrana emphasized that "the time has come to agree on a settlement." His words were an effort to restart the stalled peace talks by introducing a more pluralist and participatory tone to the negotiations. Finally, thousands of Colombians subscribe to a third position, one that rejects the criminal acts perpetrated by the guerrilla and paramilitary forces against the civilian population. Recently, a large protest march in Bogotá called for a 100-day truce. "Escalate peace and freeze the war," the demonstrators' signs demanded. The fighting and the violation of human rights in Colombia have reached unprecedented levels. People are understandably losing patience with talks that have dragged on for two years without being able to claim a single concrete result. "For the ordinary citizen, the costs are too high and the results too precarious," noted a recent editorial in the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo. President Pastrana will find it increasingly difficult to come up with strategies that can overcome widespread public incredulity and distrust in the entire negotiating process. According to official government statistics, paramilitary forces carried out 194 massacres in the last year and more than 1500 people were the victims of kidnapping. In addition, clashes between the paramilitaries and guerrillas have turned many of the country's rural areas into bloodbaths. Just a few weeks ago, a bomb planted by FARC guerrillas in the town of Granada, Antioquia (125 miles northwest of Bogotá) killed 29 people. According to the guerrillas, the attack was meant as a "lesson" to punish townspeople alleged to have supported the paramilitary forces. Public Ombudsman Eduardo Cifuentes called this type of massacre "clear proof of the way the conflict has degenerated to affect not only civilians, but also the poorest segments of the population." Some analysts argue that the war in Colombia cannot end without strengthening and modernizing the military. But just as important is the need for the country's elites (political, economic and social) to release their hold on power and allow more pluralism, participation and transparency. The Colombian public is almost overwhelmingly cynical about the peace process. People feel trapped and intimidated by the violence, and some see the peace process itself as encouraging this situation by allowing the guerrillas to defy government authority in the zones under their control. As Anders Kompass, a UN human rights official, has pointed out, "it is the civilian population that is paying the highest price in this conflict." See: www.colnodo.org/colombiapaz/iniciativa.htm
|