The peace process that I knew

Javier Trespalacios
Mar 13, 2017
8 min read

Updated: Sep 5

Through life's fortunate circumstances, I had the opportunity to participate in European forums on the peace process in Colombia, events held before the referendum to ratify the peace agreements..

I have not been a Santos supporter, but I consider that Juan Manuel Santos was the presidential candidate best prepared to assume the presidency, thanks to his experience as a minister in multiple portfolios and under different governments. However, I am puzzled that, despite this, his term was not successful.

Regarding the peace process, I was not completely in agreement, as I firmly opposed granting "amnesty" to the FARC terrorists. My indignation increased every time I saw shocking images on television or Facebook, such as the collar bomb, among others. To some extent, I shared some of the negative criticisms that constantly circulated through messaging about the peace process.

In March 2015, I was fortunate to be invited as a "Miranda family" observer to the Forum for Peace in Colombia that took place in the city of Madrid. At this event, there were international experts on conflicts who also served as advisors to Santos' government, contributing to establishing how this peace process should be.

Forum for Peace in Colombia, Madrid (photo: Javier Trespalacios)

The event had a relaxed atmosphere that facilitated conversations with any participant. I had the fortune to listen to representatives of conflict victims, as well as distinguished personalities: Jonathan Powell, British chief negotiator for Northern Ireland; Joaquín Villalobos, former commander of the Salvadoran guerrilla and signatory of El Salvador's peace agreement; Felipe González; Juan Manuel Santos; Judge Baltasar Garzón; others; and Shlomo Ben Ami, academic specialist in peace issues, former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and Public Security, Camp David negotiator, and and author of numerous scholarly publications on the topic.

This event allowed me to discover other nuances of peace by observing what has happened in other parts of the world.

During the event, my thinking began to change as I listened to the various conflict experiences in which these experts had participated. They all concluded their interventions by reflecting on what Colombia would be like after the peace process.

As the forum progressed, I began to have a loving feeling for the peace process. My eyes sparkled, I began to feel comfortable, and I felt admiration for Juan Manuel Santos and his good idea of seeking great advisors. For a second, I dreamed of a future in which Colombia would be a Norway or a Switzerland, and Colombians would be advisors for the next conflicts in the world, carrying in their chest that Colombia achieved the best peace process of all time.

The socialization of the peace process through these world experts made me perceive the peace process in Colombia as a true work of art.

The event featured excellent coffee, a detail that always invites one to extend their stay. I had scheduled work meetings with General Naranjo and Minister Iragorri to present sustainable development projects in Colombia for the post-conflict period. I informally conversed with Mr. Villalobos about my interest in using sustainable development as a framework for land restitution, a topic I barely understood, but which shaped the conversation with what had happened in El Salvador. I also exchanged words with Mr. Santos, who was leading this peace process, as well as with his son. At the end of the event, I found myself face-to-face with Shlomo Ben Ami, and we had a brief conversation. He suggested we move to one side, as all the dignitaries were about to leave, and security would ask us to withdraw.

Javier Trespalacios and Shlomo Ben Ami in Madrid (photo: Javier Trespalacios)

Former minister Ben Ami began to explain to me what peace was as if I were a preschool student. Then, the professor proceeded to provide me with more details and defined everything as if it were a differential equation, "touching my engineer's fiber." In a strange but pleasant accent, he told me, "Javier, all the eyes of the world are on this peace process, because from it we expect to obtain a methodology that will help solve other conflicts on the planet." I said to myself, "Wow! That was one of my conclusions from the forum. What more could I expect?" My love for the process grew even more.

Mr. Ben Ami mentioned that achieving peace is more complicated because it tends to divide nations, while war tends to unite them. He emphasized this point using various expressions. Although everyone desires peace, it is not something obtained for free; it always carries a cost. Often, it is unpleasant to see former guerrillas occupying positions in Congress. In all peace processes carried out in the world, guerrilla groups eventually enter politics, as that is the final objective: changing bullets for votes.

After Shlomo explained everything he could tell me, I felt confident enough to ask: "What happens with justice, the guerrilla leaders, and the victims?" We have all talked about the victims, as they are the central focus of this conflict. It has also caught my attention that victims seem to be much more understanding than the general public opinion towards the guerrillas. It is important to understand that the guerrillas will not voluntarily surrender to be sent tied up to the United States, although this idea may be attractive to many. This is where we must seek a complicated middle path that will not please everyone. It is as simple as "if you want the full weight of justice, you will not have peace" - this is the great dilemma, and I am not the only one who poses it; experts who have worked on these issues agree that the Transitional Justice that will be applied in Colombia could serve as a model for other conflicts.

"Javier," please imagine for a moment that you are in Mr. De la Calle's position. I have dedicated my life to negotiating with terrorists, and at a negotiating table, there is always another counterpart. The objective is to reach a peace agreement, but Mr. De la Calle's position is extremely complicated, as he has had to make extraordinarily difficult decisions. At the negotiating table, "there is give and take," and in the end, it is necessary to reach an optimal result that represents the best that can be obtained. Here, we are not determining Timochenko's future - that is insignificant, that is a tilde in Colombia's history. As you heard at the forum, the focus is on Colombia's future as a great power in the economic and international sphere. We seek to end Colombia's image as a violent society, related to drug trafficking, and a country that nobody wanted to open their doors to. We must focus on what will happen after this peace process.

He firmly explained to me that in Colombia, there will be no amnesty. In the last century, more than 500 cases of amnesty have been recorded. A close example we have in Spain, where they went from a bloody dictatorship to a total amnesty law, allowing some to become presidents of the government without facing justice. In Colombia's case, it is exemplary - amnesty is not contemplated, and the integration of all involved is sought.

In the end, we exchanged business cards and took a photo together. Since then, I have delved deeper into this distinguished expert, his background, and experience in conflict negotiations and peace processes.

I did not ask Mr. Ben Ami about the atrocious crimes committed by the guerrilla, since another great expert, like Baltasar Garzón, also an advisor to the peace process, had already addressed this topic in his presentation. Garzón reiterated that there will be no impunity and emphasized that there is a precedent with the Justice and Peace Law, where the penalty is not limited solely to deprivation of liberty; alternatives are sought that can be accepted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Additionally, he stressed that victims play a crucial role in the judicial process. Judge Garzón mentioned that for the ICC, Bogotá, Havana, and the international community, it is clear that there will be no impunity. He insisted that justice is not the enemy of peace, highlighting the existence of tools at both international and national levels that are acceptable in a peace process like this. These mechanisms not only focus on deprivation of liberty, but also include restitution, reintegration, and reparation to victims, along with the repair of justice through truth. It is an integral penalty, and in case of non-compliance, there are severe sanctions. It is important to understand that this is not a process of impunity and peace. In Colombia, transitional justice will be implemented between conflict and peace, in which there will be no impunity.

I was lucky to attend this type of event where, hand in hand with experts on peace processes from around the world, I was able to understand what has happened outside of Colombia. The peace process that I knew allowed me to understand a more advanced concept of what peace means. In my opinion, "from me, by me," one of the government's great errors was not socializing the issue.

To understand peace, it is useful to remember the common saying: "war unites countries, peace divides them". An example that illustrates this, similar to that of Juan Manuel Santos —who as Defense Minister led decisive military operations against the FARC—, is the case of Ehud Barak. This Israeli national hero, who became the most decorated soldier in the State of Israel, reached the position of Prime Minister precisely because of his military achievements. However, when Barak sought a peace process with the PLO, led by Yasser Arafat, the political wear was such that he ended up being repudiated by the Israeli people; paradoxically, what he was seeking was peace.

The above bears similarity to what occurred during the peace process in Colombia, where Santos seemed to depend publicly on the harmful actions carried out by the FARC. For example, when the FARC carried out attacks on oil pipelines, the ecologists who supported the process ended up hating it due to the ecological damage caused. Actions like these wore down Santos' image.

Another element that presented itself was the government's exclusive attention to the peace process, neglecting other equally important responsibilities in different areas.

In my opinion, one of Santos' great errors was the total lack of socialization of the peace process, leaving Álvaro Uribe with all the space to widely discredit it. When the government tried to make known "The peace process that I knew," it was already too late.

To conclude, in my personal opinion, "from me, by me," former president Juan Manuel Santos deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. His dedication to achieving a peace agreement in one of the oldest conflicts, who remained standing despite multiple setbacks. He spent all his political capital and demonstrated solid leadership by surrounding himself with experts to elaborate on the best peace process. However, it is important to note that, regarding his presidential mandate, I do not have positive opinions.

In the end, today, I believe we have not learned from history, as we continue repeating the same patterns. We must consider the benefits of a peace process, which can be difficult to perceive when it comes to what has not happened, such as the approximately 2,000 lives that have not been lost in this period and the suffering that has been avoided for those families. We make the mistake of thinking that the conflict remains the same when a guerrilla military act occurs, but the reality is different. We must examine the statistics of victims and displaced persons and value the advances that have been achieved.

It is important to remember that the elimination of FARC's number one, Alfonso Cano, and that of Mono Jojoy occurred during Santos' government. These events are proof that demonstrate he was not handing over the country to those terrorists.

Today, I don't know where "The peace process that I knew" is.

Orbe, March 2017