Third Way: Peace and Old Wounds
Tom Williams
After decades of conflict in the jungles, over a quarter of a million dead, and millions displaced, peace appears to be within reach in Colombia finally; however, a small group of Representatives in the U.S. Congress sought to prevent a critical step to putting the past behind and embracing peace. Currently, the Biden administration is considering redesignating a terrorist organization that has laid down arms in order to participate in politics by legitimate means; however, the Biden administration is facing opposition, this time from within its own party.
Background
The Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or FARC, developed in the 1960s as a left-wing, Marxist group of largely rural farm workers exploited by plantation owners. The group now only numbers in the low thousands, however at its height, an estimated 20,000 Colombians were part of the revolutionary group that eventually became an insurgency group in the rural mountainous regions of Colombia.
FARC was designated—for good reason—a terrorist organization in 1997 by the United States for acts of terror such as kidnapping, assassinations, and attacks against politicians and the Colombian military. These acts continued throughout the decades, even as the group fractured into subgroups. The Colombian military—with support from the U.S.—was unable to combat the insurgency that thrived in the mountainous jungles effectively.
This low-grade conflict persisted in Colombia for decades; however, a massive development occurred between the Colombian government and FARC in recent years. In 2016 after secret talks and laying the groundwork, President Juan Miguel Santos announced that in conjunction with the United Nations overseeing the affair, FARC would begin disarming and reintegrating into Colombian society. The process took months, but FARC disarmed—notably turning over more weapons than the UN and the Colombian government expected. Santos, for his efforts, received the Nobel Peace Prize.
With this disarmament and reintegration came with serval caveats, mainly that large-scale symbolic and real trials would take place for FARC members that committed crimes via a special tribunal (similar to S. Africa’s, “Truth and Reconciliation,” trials post-Apartheid) and that FARC would be able to start a political party.
The second aspect and most significant aspect of the current controversy surrounding the push to redesignate the group’s terrorist status surrounds the future of the group. FARC is given the ability to start a political party and compete in elections in Colombia in order to address their cause in the Colombian Congress, which in effect means that the group has moved beyond its roots and now represents a legitimate party effectuating policy with legitimate means.
However, with 150,000 Colombians living in Southern Florida, and a large Latin American exile population in the region, the redesignation push has cut across political lines in Southern Florida as the Biden administration moves to a view of the future of the group.
Both Democrats and Republicans at the state- and national-level representing Southern Florida have expressed serious concern over the redesignation of FARC due to pressure from their constituents. Republicans such as Senator Marco Rubio, and Democrats such as Rep. Charlie Crist, Miami Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, Florida State Senator Annette Tadeo were against the move to redesignate, creating a rare bipartisan alliance on this specific issue—mainly driven by the exile community, and amplified by Miami talk radio.
The exile community in Florida has always held an outsized influence on politics relating to Latin America, whether it be opposition to normalizing relations with Cuba, to the calls to remove Venezuelan president Maduro and replace him with his main opponent Juan Guáido, or in this current case to keep the designation of the terrorist organization intact.
Argument
The argument against redesignating FARC is understandable but flawed. Of course, the group deserved the terrorist group designation throughout the 20th century due to acts that cannot be construed in any other way than terror. With that said, FARC made enormous steps in the past five years to turn toward peace by disarming and disintegrating with relatively few hiccups along the way on their part. This readiness to accept the terms of the peace accord demonstrates that FARC is not only able to maintain peace and close the chapter on its violent past but ready to move forward through legitimate means.
That process was by no means uncontroversial; however, opponents to that process did not, and still do not, in this case, provide satisfactory solutions to ending a decades-long insurgency conflict. Opponents had no practical alternatives because all they had to say was a simple “no,” to all proposals. This inability to provide useful solutions is a byproduct of a stance that is not founded on the current situation but rather marred by the past—a past that is painful but is in need of leaving firmly in the past.
FARC, Colombia, and the Colombian-American community are all understandably raw with emotion over the end of this quasi-civil war that raged in the latter half of the 20th century, but at the end of war, atonement and rebuilding are required. As aforementioned, this peace agreement and framework for the future does not let FARC members off the hook for crimes committed.
As part of the reintegration into society, members are required to account for their crimes and receive a trial (Al Jazeera). Additionally, the U.S. in its redesignation reserves that right, as U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken stated alongside the announcement, “The decision to revoke the designation does not change the posture with regards to any charges or potential charges in the United States against former leaders of the FARC, including for narcotrafficking.” This shift does not provide a perfect system, but it balances accountability with forgiveness, healing, and progress.
Unfortunately, the pushback on the redesignation of FARC is marred by a view toward the past, and an unwillingness to fully account for the repercussions of keeping the designation of terrorist organization has beyond just the words.
At a symbolic level, the designation undermines the steps FARC and the Colombian government made at extreme effort, negates the legitimate political issues FARC stands for, chooses to punish rather than pursue peace, and alienates a political movement. At a real stakes level, the pushback threatened to maintain sanctions, prevent needed USAID funds, and disallow the U.S. to support the peace accord, now in its fifth year.
Additionally, in conjunction with the redesignation, the U.S. placed new sanctions on splinter groups that failed to demobilize with the other 13,000 members of FARC. Those who chose not to demobilize and instead traffic narcotics, such as the group “Segunda Marquetalia,” will still be pursued by authorities and are not protected by the accord.
Conclusion
No proposal of this type will completely ameliorate the decades of pain inside Colombia or the displacement of the Colombians that live in Southern Florida; however, the perspective should be that history must be fully accountable as society moves toward a future free from violence. The pain is real and raw, but this is how conflict is resolved, for better or worse. FARC has legitimate political issues that deserve political redress, and now they have an appropriate outlet. This development should be applauded and hopefully will one day be celebrated inside Colombia as more time passes and the rewards of a peaceful society are realized.
In the U.S., the government's moral responsibility should be to support this monumental effort on behalf of all parties wholly. The U.S. had a hand in prolonging this conflict by supporting overtly and covertly. Now that an ally and a newly minted political party that has left violence behind is calling for redesignation, the U.S. should also have a hopeful eye pointed to the future as well.
