<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="container" class="container font-size5 content-width3">
<div id="reader-header" class="header" style="display: block;"
dir="ltr"> <font size="-2"><a id="reader-domain" class="domain"
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/plan-colombia-permanent-war-and-the-no-vote/">http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/plan-colombia-permanent-war-and-the-no-vote/</a></font>
<h1 id="reader-title">Plan Colombia, Permanent War and the No
Vote</h1>
<div id="reader-credits" class="credits">by <span
class="post_author" itemprop="author"><a
href="http://www.counterpunch.org/author/dradat/"
rel="nofollow">Laura Carlsen</a> - October 20, 2016<br>
</span></div>
</div>
<div class="content">
<div id="moz-reader-content" class="line-height4" dir="ltr"
style="display: block;">
<div id="readability-page-1" class="page"
xml:base="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/plan-colombia-permanent-war-and-the-no-vote/">
<div class="post_content" itemprop="articleBody">
<p>The Colombian people <a
href="http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/19204">voted
NO</a> to peace. Or to be exact, 50.2% of 37% of the
eligible population voted no. In the referendum held
Oct. 2, the majority of voters decided to scuttle four
years of peace talks dedicated to ending 52 years of
bloodshed.</p>
<p>The vote came just days after the <a
href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37477202">celebratory
signing</a> of the agreement, considered exemplary for
achieving a bridge between historic enemies and dealing
broadly with the root causes of the conflict. The rest
of the world was stunned.</p>
<p>Most pundits have begun the post-mortem analysis of the
referendum saying something like “Colombians did not
vote against peace.” They go on to discuss factors
including people’s ignorance of the accords, or their
mistaken belief that after four years it could simply be
renegotiated.</p>
<p>But the fact of the matter is that the NO voters voted
clearly and unambiguously to continue the war. The words
on the ballot read: “Do you accept the final agreement
to terminate the conflict and build a stable and lasting
peace?” It’s almost inconceivable that any population
would vote no on this proposition, but they did.</p>
<p>So why?</p>
<p>Although even former president Alvaro Uribe, the
nation’s lead warmonger, now makes the politically
correct statement that the ultimate goal is peace, the
macho sentiments of total domination and punishment (of
one side), along with a strong dose of Cold War hysteria
(yes, in the 21<sup>st</sup> century) won the day.</p>
<p>The NO promoters knew what they were doing. They were
not promoting an alternative peace. As a 32-year old NO
voter <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/world/colombia-peace-deal-defeat.html?emc=edit_th_20161003&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=62170141">quoted</a> in
the New York Times put it, “If ‘no’ wins, we won’t have
peace, but at least we won’t give the country away to
the guerrillas.”</p>
<p>His statement reflects the patriarchal logic that has
started and perpetuated wars since time immemorial–the
only good enemy is a dead enemy, and if I don’t win,
nobody wins.</p>
<p>At least some NO voters and many of the leaders are
betting on continuing war until they gain by force their
entire military and political agenda–a prospect that,
given the war’s longevity to date could easily be
another half century. Or never.</p>
<p><strong>The Perks of Permanent War</strong></p>
<p>For many NO promoters, including Uribe himself, “never”
could be the best-case scenario. Basking in the
limelight of a political career rebuilt on the ruins of
one of the most complex and progressive peace agreements
in history, Uribe released proposals for revamping the
peace agreement designed to throw a monkey wrench into
any process to salvage peace in Colombia.</p>
<p><a
href="http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2016/10/10/son-viables-las-propuestas-de-uribe-para-lograr-un-acuerdo-de-paz-con-las-farc/">Analysts
stated</a> that Uribe’s wish list is aimed at
“torpedoing the peace accords”. No one expects the FARC
to accept Uribe’s terms, which include being banned from
politics; serving 5-8 year sentences in confinement for
crimes, including drug trafficking; pardoning Colombia’s
security forces for serious crimes, and eliminating the
meticulously negotiated Tribunal for Transitional
Justice.</p>
<p>Huge sectors of the population reject them as well,
since the proposals also would wipe out the parts of the
Peace Accord that regulate the return of stolen lands to
peasant and indigenous communities and seriously hamper
if not strike plans for reparations to victims.</p>
<p>To pretend that everyone wants peace and the only issue
is, how is to ignore the fact that the war benefits many
powerful interests. Those interests will fight to keep
fighting.</p>
<p>On the political front, war assures military control
over a population and justifies authoritarianism and
repression through fear. In general, the most
militarized parts of the country are areas where
peasant, Afro-Colombian and indigenous peoples are
defending their lands and resources from the incursions
of transnational corporations and mega development
projects. Fear and murder are powerful repressive tools.</p>
<p>War is also a huge business. Thanks to U.S. Plan
Colombia and policies that fanned the conflict, Colombia
became the <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/12/21/covert-action-in-colombia/">third
largest recipient</a> of US aid in the world during
the war, behind Israel and Egypt. The budget for
security forces <a
href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/colombia/budget.htm">skyrocketed</a>;
between 2001 and 2005, it grew more than 30% and by 2006
it was double 1990—some $4.48 billion for military and
police.</p>
<p><strong>U.S. Interests</strong></p>
<p>The U.S. government also has a vested interest in
continuing the war. The conflict justified Plan
Colombia, the $10 billion dollar counterinsurgency,
counternarcotics plan that allowed the Pentagon to
establish military presence in Colombia, both physically
and by proxy. With the pretext of the internal conflict,
the U.S. government built up a platform not only for
control in Colombia, but also with regional strike
capacity, as leaked in the <a
href="mailto:http://www.cipamericas.org/wp-content/uploads/wp-post-to-pdf-cache/1/6351.pdf">proposed
agreement</a> to establish seven US military bases.</p>
<p>Plan Colombia and its later incarnations kept U.S.
contracts for weapons, espionage and intelligence
equipment and military and police training flowing to
the most powerful lobbying industries in the nation.
Billions of dollars have been poured into Plan Colombia
and national security investment that ended up in the
pockets of political elite and defense companies. In the
2010-2017 budgets, the <a
href="http://securityassistance.org/latin-america-and-caribbean/data/country/military/country/2010/2017/is_all/">United
States has allocated $</a>2.13 billion in military and
police aid–most of that during the peace talks.</p>
<p>The country was converted into a testing ground for the
latest in counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare
techniques and equipment from the United States. The
blood spilled on its soil feeds the global war machine,
to such an extent that Colombia has been groomed as an
exporter of counterinsurgency and “security” training,
despite its reputation as a gross violator of human
rights and the disastrous humanitarian impact of its
prolonged war. So very powerful interests saw the peace
agreement as a threat. In addition to Uribe followers
who viewed it as soft on the FARC, the war economy of
the nation and its ally, the United States, was at
stake.</p>
<p>In this context, the US government reacted tepidly when
peace was voted down. Bernard Aronson, the special envoy
to the peace talks, <a
href="mailto:https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/colombians-vote-on-historic-peace-agreement-with-farc-rebels/2016/10/02/8ef1a2a2-84b4-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html">expressed
no regret</a> in a press interview after the vote,
stating, “We believe Colombians want peace, but clearly
they are divided about terms of settlement…” The State
Department <a
href="mailto:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/10/262703.htm">limited
its statement</a> to support for Colombian democracy
and further dialogue. After four years of ostensibly
supporting the peace talks, neither mentioned the vote
as a setback.</p>
<p>An <a
href="mailto:http://www.carlisle.army.mil/banner/article.cfm%3Fid=54450">analysis</a> published
by the US Army War College, although it is not an
official document, openly expresses relief at the
continuation of indefinite war in Colombia. Through a
mixture of hawkish arguments and <a
href="mailto:http://www.noticiasrcn.com/especialesrcn/conteo-hombres-farc/">lies</a>,
the analysis recognizes that the country now enters into
a “period of uncertainty”, but notes that this “presents
a strategic situation less grave and more manageable,
than had the accords been approved.”</p>
<p>It goes on to predict that the FARC will likely break
the ceasefire, despite its explicit and public
commitment to respect it even in the absence of the
guarantees provided in the peace agreement. This
position, coming from sources close to the US military,
which has in many senses called the shots in Colombia’s
war since Plan Colombia began in 2000, indicates that
there is a dangerous possibility of a provocation to
further undermine the peace process that has now been
thrown into crisis by the NO vote.</p>
<p>The writers also advise President Santos to retract his
commitment to the ceasefire following the vote. They
note that Santos promised to “not authorize military
operations in the areas where FARC units are located in
order to avoid an incident which breaks the fragile
truce. Yet, not doing so will allow FARC dissidents to
operate with almost complete impunity in these areas.
Indeed, within the new background of uncertainty, such
impunity will increase incentives for FARC units to
continue illicit activity, such as drug trafficking,
since doing so will pose relatively low risks.”</p>
<p><strong>War Engenders More War, Not Peace </strong></p>
<p>Before the NO vote, the U.S. press hailed Plan Colombia
for making peace possible. President Obama, in his
self-congratulatory last speech to the UN <a
href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/20/address-president-obama-71st-session-united-nations-general-assembly">stated</a> we
“helped Colombia end Latin America’s longest war.” The
logic of this bizarre argument went that were it not for
the military debilitation of the guerrilla thanks to the
US-Colombian military alliance, the FARC could never
have been brought to the negotiating table.</p>
<p>The NO vote is the classic example of the fallacy of
that logic. The war fomented by Plan Colombia built up a
mentality that made peace an unacceptable solution for
many. It revealed the fundamental clash of perspectives
between diplomacy and annihilation.</p>
<p>The lesson couldn’t be clearer: War is a terrible
preparation for peace. Peace depends on much more than a
favorable correlation of forces. Peace, at its core, is
a rejection of force as the way to confront differences,
and a search for non-violent solutions to conflict and
conflict prevention.</p>
<p>With U.S. military theorists openly calling for
reopening hostilities, it is a dangerous myth to assume
that at this juncture everyone wants peace and the only
open question is how to do it. Plan Colombia, the
U.S.-sponsored war on drugs and Uribe’s Democratic
Security posit continued militarization. Those who
promote peace and reconciliation in the country must
deal with that mentality head on. To second-guess or
justify NO voters with “they-know-not-what-they-do”
arguments reflects the kind of complacency and
misreading of the public that created this dangerous
debacle in the first place.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that a massive <a
href="mailto:http://www.cipamericas.org/es/archives/19160">campaign
of misinformation</a> and scaremongering played a
role. Voters were bombarded with alarmist messages that
spun out wild scenarios, from a legislative takeover by
the former FARC to a “Chavez-Castro style dictatorship”.
CNN’s footage of the NO celebration showed the crowd
chanting “The NO won, now we won’t have a Cuban
dictatorship”. It didn’t seem to matter that there was
no logical relationship between voting for the peace
agreement and the nation becoming a dictatorship. For
followers of Uribe, who led the massive campaign against
the negotiations and the acceptance of the agreement,
the vote was ideological and personal. It represented
the right against the left, and Uribe against Santos.
For many people stuck in bitter partisan politics, to
vote for peace was to vote in favor of the latter.</p>
<p>It is also likely that many people did not have a clear
understanding of the accords or their implications,
which is a failing of the negotiators and SI (yes)
promoters that left a fatal opening for NO propaganda.
Some voters also apparently believed that four years of
arduous negotiations with the technical support of
scores of international experts and mediators could
simply be reopened and “fixed” to their liking, despite
that the president made it clear there was “no Plan B”.
Some NO voters quoted in the press even expressed dismay
that they had won, believing they were merely casting a
protest vote.</p>
<p>Despite these factors, the NO vote reveals a major
obstacle: Society has been trained over years of
conflict—one of the longest-running internal conflicts
in the world–to acquiesce to war as the only response,
to dehumanize the enemy and overlook the obvious fact
that it takes two sides to sustain hostilities. A
society that believes that the only solution is to drive
the enemy into the ground–even when they are men and
women from your own country and a reflection of serious
social problems, into the ground.</p>
<p>This is the patriarchal mentality that the war industry
thrives on. Plan Colombia has fomented this mentality
since it began. It conflated a war on drugs with a
counterinsurgency war to justify foreign intervention
and broaden the war. The U.S. government knew that
military funding was going directly to paramilitary
groups. A 2010 empirical study demonstrated a measurable
relationship between increases in US security funding
and paramilitary homicides. War propaganda presented the
FARC as the sole culprit, when terrible atrocities were
being committed on both sides.</p>
<p>With the exceptions of Arauca and Norte de Santander,
the departments on Colombia’s borders that have suffered
most in the war voted to end it. They know what it’s
like to feel their houses shaken by bombs, to risk life
and limb walking through minefields, to lose their loved
ones in crossfire. They know that to stop the violence
in their day-to-day lives is far more important than the
political games of how punishment and power are dished
out.</p>
<p>War as a policy is almost always favored by those
farthest from the battlefields.</p>
<p><strong>The Road to Peace</strong></p>
<p>Understanding the very real and perilous obstacles is
not the same as being pessimistic or defeatist at this
point in the Colombian peace—it’s a process. It’s
important not to minimize the enormity of this
setback–President Santos’ Nobel Peace Prize may be
deserved but it’s a sorry consolation prize for having
gotten so close only to be slapped down. But it’s also
important to acknowledge that there is still room to
move forward.</p>
<p>The peace accords opened up a dialogue and allowed the
nation to envision peace. Grassroots organizations are
mobilizing in defense of this vision and the possibility
of a new reality.</p>
<p>This is the hope on the horizon. Since the NO vote, <a
href="http://www.rcnradio.com/nacional/miles-de-indigenas-victimas-y-estudiantes-marcharon-por-la-paz-en-las-principales-ciudades-del-pais/">thousands
have marched</a> to support the peace process in
Bogota and also in Cali and cities across the country.
The marches have awakened and united groups of
indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians, victims, students,
human rights defenders, peasants, women and the LGBT
community in defense of peace.</p>
<p>The international community should openly and actively
support the call for a broad grassroots dialogue for
peace. It must continue to be firm and vigilant, because
there <em>will be</em> a serious attempt to force a
return to the model of military annihilation of the
left-wing guerrillas while leaving in tact rightwing
paramilitaries and other militarist structures.</p>
<p>International organizations committed millions of
dollars to support peace implementation and it must be
clear that those funds will only be released when the
process is back on track. Part of creating adequate
conditions is to deny any new funding to militarism–
including the war on drugs, which acts as a thinly
veiled excuse for militarization.</p>
<p>The NO vote unexpectedly flipped the political
situation back in favor of the rightwing hawks. This
uprising could not only flip it back in favor of peace,
but also create a social movement capable of going
beyond the accords in terms of establishing social
justice and human rights and addressing the enormous
backlog of demands from below.</p>
</div>
<p class="author_description"> <i><strong>Laura Carlsen</strong> is
the director of the <a
href="http://www.cipamericas.org/">Americas Program</a> in
Mexico City and advisor to Just Associates (JASS) .</i>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863.9977
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.freedomarchives.org">www.freedomarchives.org</a>
</div>
</body>
</html>