Sescily Coney
Prof. Jason Foley
GST 6320
13 December 2018
Colombia: A Case Study
Introduction
The purpose of this case study is to understand the reasons for, the theories and motivation behind, and lessons learned from the Colombian conflict. This case study seeks to explore the social, political, and economic factors that have historically and presently contributed to the conflict. Additionally, this case study aims to find an explanation as to why the conflict in Colombia persists. The first part of the case study will address the background of Colombia, its political and economic story, and the social climate of Colombia. The second part of the case study will discuss the approaches that Colombia and the international community have taken to cease or end the conflict. The last part of the study will focus on the lessons learned from Colombia’s perspective as well as how the handling of the conflict can influence policy changes abroad.
Background
Colombia is a country with a great history. Inhabited by indigenous peoples since 12,000 BCE, it was colonized by the Spanish in the mid-16th century . It is a sovereign state that shares a border with Venezuela, Panama, Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador . Because of its shared borders, history of colonization and slavery, Colombia is ethnically and linguistically rich. Its culture spans from descendants of forced African labor, European immigration and settlement, and the lasting legacy of the indigenous peoples. Colombia is Latin America’s fourth largest economy by gross domestic product ( International Monetary Fund, 2015). Colombia is also currently the fastest growing information technology industry in the world (Azo Optics, 2013).
In 1920, armed conflict in Colombia began with agrarian disputes over the Sumapaz and Tequendama regions (Cadavid, n.d.). Agrarian disputes usually involve the ideology that rural communities are superior to urban areas and that independent farmers are superior to the paid worker (Barth, 2001). Essentially, agrarian ideals see farming as a tool to shape social values while also viewing a simpler rural life as superior to the complicated city life. With these values in mind, farmers and citizens of rural Colombia began to fight over ownership of coffee lands. This outbreak of conflict led to political liberals and conservatives taking sides and getting involved in the conflict, which worsen it. In 1930, there was a fall of the Conservative Party from government and rise of the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party took over the presidency (Bailey, 1967).
In 1948, Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a Liberal Party politician and leader of the populist in Colombia, was assassinated by Juan Roa Sierra, a Communist believer (United Fruit Historical Society, n.d.). This assassination prompted El Bogotazo, a 10-hour massive riot that left much of downtown Bogota destroyed and over 4,000 people dead and 450 wounded (United Fruit Historical Society, n.d.). This struggle for power between the Conservative and Liberal Parties led to a period of history in Colombia known as La Violencia (United Fruit Historical Society, n.d.).
La Violencia, or The Violence in English, was a ten-year civil war that occurred between the Liberal and Conservative Parties (Bailey, 1967). This war was fought mainly in Colombia’s countryside. Peasant-to-peasant violence was provoked as Conservative-supporting peasants were encouraged by politicians and police to seize the homes of Liberal Party-supporting peasants (Livingstone, 2004). The conflict caused millions of Colombian citizens to abandon their homes and property. The news and other media outlets failed to cover the events accurately because they feared retaliation and revenge attacks. Victims were dissuaded from pressing charges against their perpetrators due to lack of civil authority and lack of public order. Religious sects were heavily involved in La Violencia. It was reported that the Catholic Church supported the Conservative Party. With the majority of Colombians being of the Catholic faith, this was a severe blow to the civil war outbreak. Several priests were accused of openly encouraging the murder of the political opposition during masses. Because of the decade-long La Violencia, there were no Liberal Party candidates for any major position during the 1950 elections.
By 1953, most of the armed groups demobilized due to an amnesty agreement that was signed by General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. Most of the prominent guerrilla leaders also signed the deal. However, some guerrilla groups did not surrender to the government. Instead, they formed criminal groups. Civilian rule was restored with moderate Conservatives and Liberals when Rojas was removed from power in 1957. There was a push to create a bipartisan coalition known as the National Front.
While there was a push for unity, some former Liberals and active Communist groups continued operating in Colombia’s rural areas. This has created the Colombian conflict that is still going on today as paramilitary groups face off with the Colombian government. One of them was the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia in English. FARC was created following attacks on peasant communities by Colombian army units loyal to the National Front, the same bipartisan establishment that sought to establish peace between both political groups (Wolf, n.d.). These attacks continued throughout the early 1960s as the Colombian army thought the peasant communities were enclaves for bandits and Communists. With this in mind, FARC was created. The goal of FARC was the redistribution of land that would benefit poor peasant farmers, establish a Communist state, and promote a political line of agrarianism and anti-imperialism. The operations of FARC were funded by kidnap and ransom, extortion and taxation of economic activity, illegal mining, and the creation, distribution, and imposition of illicit drugs (McDermott, 2012). It is estimated that 12% of all killings of civilians in the Colombian conflict were committed by FARC (Vieira, 2008).
FARC became the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party. FARC was considered a violent non-state actor (Manwaring, 2008). Because of their intense acts, FARC has been classified as a terrorist organization in Colombia, Canada, Chile, and the United States. Some countries, namely Venezuela, do not consider them a terrorist organization and instead recognize them as a legitimate army (Goncalves, 2014).
Additionally, while some nations and citizens of Colombia harp on FARC’s violent tactics, others hail them for their civil actions. FARC has been able to provide limited social services in the rural areas they occupy. Some of those services include education, infrastructure works, and healthcare (Leech, 2013). FARC was the oldest and largest insurgent group in Colombia and one of the world’s richest guerrilla groups (United Nations, n.d.).
At the same time FARC was created, the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional (ELN), or the National Liberation Army in English, was founded. In 1964, the ELN was formed by Colombian rebels inspired by Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra (Stanford University, 2015). Roman Catholic priests and others who were followers of Liberation Theology and Marxist-Leninist ideals led the ELN (Stanford University, 2015). They openly criticized the grossly unequal distribution of income among Colombia’s social classes. They sought to create a Christian and communist state which would resolve the socioeconomic problems of poverty, political corruption and political exclusion that many Colombians faced (Craig, 2000). The ELN was mostly an outgrowth of university unrest, which included not only Catholic radicals but students and left-wing intellectuals who hoped to replicate Fidel Castro’s communist revolution (Wolf, University Violence, 7).
Like FARC, the ELN had a reputation for ransom kidnappings and attacks. It was funded by businesses and taxing middle-class civilians (Human Rights Watch, 2008). If these taxes were not paid, the ELN would take hostages and use them as leverage. Despite working with FARC on a few endeavors, the ELN was not a military branch of any political party and did not appear to participate in the creation or sale of narcotics. In all, both groups had similar ideologies and tactics. Both the ELN and FARC were deemed terrorist organizations for their activities.
The clash between the ELN, FARC, and the Colombian army continued for decades many years following their creation. Other smaller guerrilla and paramilitary groups formed, but FARC and the ELN dominated. In 2016, FARC and the Colombian government have signed a peace deal and ceasefire (Partlow, 2016).
Approaches
Colombia has sought to create peace in their nation. The nation has decided to establish the Special Jurisdiction for Peace. This entity will investigate and prosecute serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law that occurred during the armed conflict. It will be used to satisfy victims’ right to justice (Todos Por Un Nuevo País, n.d.). The Special Unit for the Search of Missing Persons would also be created to search for missing people who were deemed missing during and due to the conflict (International Commission on Missing Persons, 2017). Additionally, there was a discussion of a peace deal. In 2016, the Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos stated that a peace deal with FARC would end the conflict with the organization of earlier talks were successfully concluded (Partlow, 2016). In October 2016, the Colombian public rejected the deal. In November of the same year, the Colombian government and FARC signed a revised peace deal (Partlow, 2016). Congress and the Senate approved. This peace deal marked the first time that the Western Hemisphere became entirely free of active armed conflicts since the European nations began colonizing the Americas.
The United States has been incredibly involved in the Colombian conflict. It was the United States who encouraged the Colombian government to use the military to attack militias in rural Colombia (Murillo, 2004). The United States believed this to be their way of fighting against communism. Interestingly, in 1962 in a secret report, General William P. Yarborough, the commander General of the Special Warfare Center, encouraged the creation and deployment of a paramilitary force to commit sabotage and terrorist acts against communists (Chomsky, 2000). The first paramilitary groups were organized following recommendations made by United States military counterinsurgency advisers who were sent to Colombia during the Cold War to combat leftist political activists and armed guerrilla groups (Gillin, 2015). United States intervention in the Colombian conflict by way of multinational corporations have continued to recent times. Chiquita Brand International was fined $25 million as part of a settlement with the United States Justice Department for having ties to paramilitary groups (Gillin, 2015). In 2013, it was revealed that a covert CIA program was created to provide the Colombian government with intelligence and GPS guidance systems (Priest, 2013). In 2015, it was revealed that DEA agents were participating in drug cartel funded sex parties with prostitutes (Horwitz, 2015). Agents were provided with expensive gifts, money, and weapons from drug cartel members.
Lessons Learned
There are quite a few lessons that can be learned from the Colombian conflict. For one, a country should never underestimate the intelligence of its lower-class citizens and their ability to mobilize. As stated before, FARC was created by and for the protection of peasants and their interests. The agrarian ideology and simpler lifestyle were deemed superior and the FARC was very successful in defending themselves against the Colombian army. If the government had listened to the thoughts and concerns of peasants, maybe FARC would not have come to be.
Secondly, governments should learn that religious institutions have the ear of the community. The ELN was led by Roman Catholic priests. Their religious doctrines and ideas as civilians led to the establishment of a powerful and well-versed military group. It appears that although they did participate in ransoms and kidnappings, they chose to steer away from drug trafficking. Whether that was for moral reasons
Lastly, the United States should understand what the conflict is involving before they offer their assistance. The United States’ intervention into the Colombian conflict could be seen as a tarnishing of its reputation, especially by having its agents indulging in criminal activity.
Conclusion
A vivacious and culturally rich nation, Colombia has been plagued with terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and drug trafficking. Poverty, political corruption, violence, lack of access, and socioeconomic discrimination led to the creation of the ELN and FARC, two major armed groups in Colombia. Their tactics were extreme and their ways of being funded exposed not only the corruption within its borders but also the corruption of the United States. While there has been a peace agreement in 2016, the issues that the ELN and FARC stood to oppose still stand.
Endnote