Blog

Leftist rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia patrol a roadway near to San Vicente de Caguan in January 1999. The conflict with the FARC has killed nearly a quarter million people.
JOSE GOMEZ/REUTERS

The 21st-century has been one of the more peaceful epochs in human history. People are bombarded with violent images and tragic news, but this century has borne witness to dramatic peace. Rampant violence defined epochs from Pax Romana to the Middle Ages through the Napoleonic Era.

World Wars and the Cold War marred the 20th-century. In this century, international wars have diminished. And in the shadows, violence has oriented to non-state actors and civil conflicts. The young 21st-century saw the end of two conflicts which had lasted for decades: the Korean War and the Colombian Civil War between FARC, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the government. This piece, in keeping with themes regarding Latin America, will discuss outcomes of the Colombian peace deal.

The Peace Accord in Colombia was signed on November 24th, 2016 and it won incumbent Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos a Nobel Peace Prize. Talks had developed over four years, beginning in Oslo, Norway and Havana, Cuba in 2012. In the short-term, the peace-talks resulted in disarming many FARC members, a decrease in violence, and a more coordinated political system wherein FARC has legitimate representation. More than 12,000 former combatants have pledged to return to society. Businesses such as Coca-Cola and Cemex have agree to hire former insurgents and run re-integation programs. The internal displacement rate has been reduced by a multiple of 30, and casualties have dropped from 3,000 at the beginning of the peace accords, to 10 at the end.

The death toll has climbed to more 120 human rights defenders in 2017 alone.

We can rightfully call this a success. But Colombia’s situation remains touch-and-go at best. When FARC agreed to the deal, other insurgent groups increased their presence, particularly in the countryside. Small groups such as the National Liberation Army (FNL), refused to negotiate with the government and remain active in such areas. Said groups have filled the power vacuum left when the government failed to extend its presence to areas where FARC controlled territory.

The struggle for control has led to conflicts between the smaller groups and the local population. Unfortunately, native, afro-Colombians, and human rights defenders have suffered disproportionately. Consequently, such populations are protesting peace accord details and urging the Colombian government to step in. The death toll has climbed to more 120 human rights defenders in 2017 alone.

The Santos government earned criticism when it failed to bring the peace deal before a plebiscite, and instead presented it to the Colombian Congress.

Another challenge lies in understanding the proposed agrarian reforms. Land rights have been at the heart of the Colombian conflict since the 1950s. FARC often loomed in the jungles so companies could not grab land belonging to indigenous communities. Newly elected president, Ivan Duque Marquez, sees the land restitution part of the Peace Accord as an attempt to bring socialism to Colombia. However, Marquez and his party have opposed the Peace Accord since the start.

Former FARC guerrillas Nasly Rodriguez and Gregory Villarraga – shown at a Bogota art gallery with their baby daughter — are among the many families who have had to adapt to new jobs and lives after the rebel group’s demobilization last year. CARLOS VILLALON/THE GLOBE AND MAIL

Given Venezuela’s turmoil, many rightfully fear that socialism will take Colombia down the same path. Finally, the Santos government earned criticism when it failed to bring the peace deal before a plebiscite, and instead presented it to the Colombian Congress.

The situation in Colombia reminds us that peace is not achieved by signing papers. Rather, it’s earned through sustained hard work, dialogue, and mutual trust. Making peace is a delicate process that requires more than stopping armed conflicts. Creating a sustainable peace requires political will and follow-through, working within existing institutional structures, and coordinating with civil society organizations.

Santos failed to exercise the requisite will and follow-through. He did not promptly increase the State’s presence in conflict zones. Additionally, the government failed to act in the interests of marginalized and vulnerable populations. It failed to provide indigenous and poor, rural farmers with necessary aid. Finally, there was a failure of proper public consultation, which is vital for democracy. Other nations should learn from Colombia’s mistakes, and the next peace process, wherever it occurs, should be a model of inclusivity, transparency, and be approved of by its population. Political will should carry the day from conflict zone to reconstruction.  

Roberto Malta is a Brazilian born, George Mason University student pursuing a B.A. in Global Affairs, with minors in History and Economics.

One of Latin America’s darkest periods began in 1865 — around the time that the American Civil War was drawing to a close — but its wounds still have not healed. The mid-19th century Paraguayan War saw its namesake on one side and a triple alliance of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay on the other. Latin America looked quite different then. It has long been a place in flux politically, economically, and geographically speaking. But, this conflict altered rudimental perceptions of the continent. Its scars in South America run deep.

In 1862, just three years before the start of the war, Solano Lopez became the country’s second president.

In 1865 Argentina was a newly independent nation. It won its independence in an 1810 war with Spain led by Jose de San Martin. Uruguay was part of Argentina, as part of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, which was then conquered by Brazil and became independent in 1824. This, at the conclusion of Brazil and Argentina’s war for it. Brazil gained its independence from Portugal in 1822 but kept its royal family as it became an Empire. It often intervened in the domestic affairs of its South American neighbors.

Paraguay of today versus Paraguay of 150 years ago is a study in contrasts. It became independent from Spain in 1811. It instituted a military junta to control the country. Paraguay developed an economy, arguably becoming the most advanced South America country at the time. It used British support and know-how to develop industry and improve infrastructure. In 1862, just three years before the start of the war, Solano Lopez became the country’s second president.

Wikipedia: Brazilian Soldiers at the end of the war, including Corporal Chico Diabo (sitting down, third from left), who killed Paraguayan dictator Solano Lopez.

Paraguay like its 19th-century industrialized society peers needed access to production inputs, labor, and ports from which it could ship products. As a landlocked country, Paraguay’s only choice to gain access to the sea was to expand. Thus, Lopez started his expansionist plan and in 1865 attacked Brazil and Argentina with great success. The two attacked nations organized a joint war effort, and with Uruguay, created the Triple Alliance. Initially, the commander of their armies was Argentinian President Bartolome Mitre.

Brazil and Argentina annexed considerable portions of Paraguayan territory in the peace treaty following the end of the war.

Wikipedia: Battle of Riachuelo by Victor Meirelles, the turning point of the Paraguayan War

During the war’s first phase Paraguay was on the offensive. In February 1867 Mitre stepped down as the allied commander. He was replaced by Brazilian Army commander Luis Alves de Lima e Silva, aka the Duke of Caxias. Caxias was nominated Brazilian commander in October of the previous year. His first command halted the Brazilian army’s advance. Thereafter, he completely reorganized and restructured the allied military. Consequently, when he restarted the offensive in July 1867, the allied forces won one victory after another. This momentum allowed them to take Asunción, Paraguay’s capital, in January of 1869, defeating the Paraguayan forces. With the war seemingly won, Caxias — who was old and tired — relinquished his command of the allied war effort.

The Triple Alliance governments were unsatisfied and continued the war. They nominated the Count D’Eu, Brazilian Emperor Peter II’s son-in-law, to command their military forces. While Lopez refused to surrender, his resistance didn’t amount to much. With the army depleted, women, children and the wounded were left to fight on. What followed is one of the darkest moments in Brazilian history. Argentina and Uruguay decimated the Paraguayan population and destroyed the country. Brazil and Argentina annexed considerable portions of Paraguayan territory in the peace treaty following the end of the war.

This conflict altered rudimental perceptions of the continent.

The effect on Paraguay cannot be overstated. The most harrowing statistics indicate that 60% of Paraguay’s population, and 90% of its men, fell victim to combat, disease, or starvation. Paraguay was set back decades in its development and industrialization. This lag remains responsible for current economic and social problems.

The war is infrequently discussed outside of South America, but it’s a terrible chapter which reshaped its power balance ever after. Paraguay struggles with criminality, bootleggers, and drug traffickers to this day. It is poorer and less developed than its neighbors. It’s a lesson in the comprehension of a nation’s struggle. Often undermining characteristics result from occurrences decades or even centuries in the past. It is a vital reminder to keep human rights in the fore, and not forget its victims, lest they reoccur. Meanwhile, the wounds are far from healed, Paraguay may never recover fully, and it resurfaces often in relations between the four countries.

Roberto Malta, is a Brazilian born, George Mason University student pursuing a B.A. in Global Affairs, with minors in History and Economics.

There is a growing uneasiness among Brazilians against Bolsonaro, who has expressed nostalgia for Brazil’s military dictatorship [Amanda Perobelli/Reuters]

The country is enduring the worst economic crisis of the 21st century, as well as a political crisis, with many leaders being jailed for corruption.

The astonishing rise of far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro completely changed the political landscape of Brazil. Since 1994 the only parties to win a presidential election had been the Brazilian Social-Democracy party (PSDB), with former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso winning two terms, and the worker’s party (PT), with Luis Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff winning two terms each.

The current president, Michel Temer, took office following Roussef’s impeachment. With his approval in the single digits, it was too low for him to even consider running for president.

Brazil nearly escaped the 2007 recession without a scratch because its economy is based mostly on the export of commodities like soy. However, as prices dropped, the Brazilian economy felt shock-waves. An economy that had been thriving suddenly was no longer. And its people were horrified by the succession of corruption scandals publicized by the media and federal police.

Brazil is hardly immune to processes affecting the rest of the world. This is especially regarding the rise of extremist, right-wing candidates. This has played out in Europe, Asia, and even the United States. Jair Bolsonaro represents the Brazilian iteration of this phenomenon. Bolsonaro, a former Army captain and longtime representative who defends easier access to guns and a tougher stand on criminality, has been known to proclaim that the only good criminal is a dead criminal.

Opposing him in the run-off is Fernando Haddad, former Education Minister and former Sao Paulo mayor who was decisively voted out two years ago. Haddad is a member of PT, which has been involved in corruption scandals. Much of its old guard is jailed, including Lula, or gone turncoat on their colleagues in exchange for reduced sentences. Politically, his proposals are left-leaning and he would continue the social programs started under Cardoso’s government and amplified by Lula, albeit in a worse economic context.

On one side, there is a career politician who pines to return to brutal military dictatorship and makes claims that are dangerous to minorities. On the other side is a young politician intending to apply the same social reforms that worked when the country was economically prosperous.

Parallels can be traced to the American presidential election two years ago. Donald Trump was elected even though he was opposed by the media and never held political office. Bolsonaro is also seen as an outsider. But he has been in politics since he left the Army, and he has little to no accomplishments to show it. Haddad is closer to the figure of Hillary Clinton. He is relatively new to the executive field, but he represents the succession of Lula’s ideals. Lula has been in politics since before the re-democratization of Brazil in 1985.

Most alarmingly, Bolsonaro frequently defends the Brazilian military dictatorship of 1964-1985. He often praises torturers, and he favors minority repression. Brazil is a relatively young and fragile democracy. A shock like this could prove a mortal wound. Poland and Hungary show the effects of extreme-right governments on democracies. In the former, the image of Lech Walesa, one of the leaders of the democratic process in the 1980’s, is constantly attacked. Civil and political rights are suppressed.

Democracy is under attack the world over more than any time since the Cold War. Brazilians can stop it from reaching their country again.

In summary, democracy and its institutions in Brazil are at stake. On one side, there is a career politician who pines to return to brutal military dictatorship. This is someone who makes claims that are dangerous to minorities. On the other side is a young politician intending to apply the same social reforms that worked when the country was economically prosperous. This, while his party is involved in numerous corruption scandals. Paraphrasing Mario Vargas-Llosa, this is like choosing between Cancer and AIDS. However, as humans living in a western society, democracy and human rights should come before all else.

October 28th will see the run-off that pits Bolsonaro against Haddad. The hope is in the next 20 days Haddad will change his plans and appeal to moderate Brazilians. And these Brazilians will accept a worker’s party under a coalition government plan to oppose Bolsonaro’s authoritarianism and populism.

Democracy is under attack the world over more than any time since the Cold War. Brazilians can stop it from reaching their country again. They can opt to preserve its institutions and respect for all of its people. All we can do is hope that they do so.

-Roberto Malta is a Brazilian born George Mason University student pursuing a B.A. in Global Affairs, with minors in History and Economics.