WAR is always more evident than peace; the confrontations are for the most part more clear and sharp. Peace on the other hand, in most situations, appears diffused and imperfect. We could say that peace is a form of coexistence in society marked by an absence of war.

At the end of 2016, a peace treaty was signed in Colombia, Latin America, between the Colombian government and FARC-EP (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejercito del pueblo), an armed group that has been in confrontation with the institutions of the state for more than 55 years, resulting in more than seven million victims from across the entire spectrum of the country, including close to three million displaced from their lands and enough dead to populate a city.

The conflict is difficult to explain because like many similar conflicts across the world, its origins can be traced to multiple causes. Initially, the protest involved a small group of peasants who unitedly struggled against the violent reprisal by the government when they claimed their ancestral right to lands from which rich feudal oligarchs had dispossessed them.

After many ups and downs and several decades of fighting, this war as all wars do, degenerated into a cruel conflict where the earlier, relatively clear demarcation of the two contending sides had become so widespread such that it consumed a large proportion of civil society in rural Columbia.

Kidnappings, drug trafficking, enrolment of children taken brutally from their families, the strategy of indiscriminate bombing on both sides, reckless mining of the countryside by both paramilitary forces and dogmatic communist guerrillas eventually came to define the conflict.

The war was not restricted to the rural countryside; it came close to and on a few occasions also affected those in the big towns (70% of the Colombian population). But for the most part it took place in the fields and mountains far away, further dividing the country into two different worlds – the modern city and the rural, peasant countryside.

 

In the early years of the current century, an agreement was reached between the Colombian government of Alvaro Uribe and the right wing paramilitary forces, as has been the case earlier involving many other guerrilla movements. But the new deal signed with FARC is the most significant given the history of the conflict and the disproportionate impact that it has had on the nation, ended up creating deep and lasting divisions in the republic, leaving behind a long trace of death, wounded, widows, kidnapped, massacred, and an entire population rootless and saddened.

In addition to accomplishing a negotiated accord, the Colombian government decided to ask the country’s population to vote in an open referendum, to give it the necessary legitimacy and provide it with majority support in the form of a mandate. This referendum took place in the middle of the second half of 2016, following the signing of the agreement. In an amazing and unexpected result, a slim majority of 50.3% voted against it, thereby rejecting the accord.

The government and FARC, after more than six years of careful negotiations in Havana, Cuba, once again engaged themselves in a process of renegotiation. They held meetings with the opposition in order to include the different suggestions, positive and negative, advanced by representatives of the ‘no’ vote, giving birth to what they called the ‘New Agreement’. The new agreement was presented to the Congress for approval and is now being implemented. Nonetheless, because of all of this conflicted history and much more, the struggle to save the peace will be tough given the divisions that have emerged as a result of the referendum. The opposition has found it hard to let go and many political forces are using the controversy to their own political advantage.

What is it that the two forces (pro and against the agreement) now claim? The opponents of the accord claim that the transitional justice is too soft and insufficient. They advocate tougher sanctions against FARC leaders, claiming that the war could have and should have been won, and pitch their appeal mostly to those in the cities that fear a Venezuelaization of Colombia. They do not agree that FARC should be encouraged to participate politically, in effect changing bullets for votes, and deem the concessions made to them as being too generous.

 

As for the Colombians who were pro-agreement, i.e. the other 49.7%, believe that laying down arms for political participation is the right way forward. They backed an amnesty for the lower ranks of the guerrillas and advocate a softer transitional justice model followed by comprehensive land reforms that would give land to the displaced and put an end to the country’s long history of rural conflict.

The Congress has now taken a decision and the agreement stands. The price of its implementation will be high and all Colombians, whether in the fields or in the cities, will have to contribute in order to make it a success. In other words, there is a difference of opinion between those that demand a ‘hand for a hand’, and those who think that this is the time to forgive so as to mark a new beginning, trusting that a better future could be created in which all Colombians can live in harmony.

 

It is interesting, but should come as no surprise, that those in the fields, mountains and jungles, who have lived and suffered as a result of the conflict are more ready to open their arms to the old FARC members and give them an opportunity to achieve their goals through democratic participation. Why is this? It may be because the people who have directly suffered due to the war are more open and interested to seize the opportunity that peace offers, rather than seek satisfaction in revenge or the defeat of the opponent. But this is not the only reason. They have suffered the horrors and dislocations caused by war and know well that it is not a clear and simple conflict between good and evil. People are aware that hate begets hate and that both sides commit horrors in the end. They want a different future for their children and would accept those who made them suffer provided that they know how to honestly pronounce one simple word: pardon.

No one is naïve. Colombia (in the fields or in the cities) for the most part is a democratic nation. It believes in a free society and a regulated and socially responsible enterprise system. They know that FARC, as a political group, as they were as a guerrilla force, will challenge the existing system. The people will be happy to give them a chance to prove their ideas, but not before they pronounce honestly that magic word, of eschewing violence. It is now their decision. If pride and arrogance prevail, their march into social and political acceptance will only be an uphill one. Should they genuinely want to turn the page, they have to honestly open their hearts and say it publicly, as many times as necessary – from deep within, and without any ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’.

The same goes for all the other participants in the conflict. This is an opportunity to unify the nation. All those who committed excesses or participated directly or indirectly in the conflict, should say again and again: pardon me, pardon us. The alternative road is one of revenge that would only result in more war and more wounding of the soul. FARC, the paramilitary, military, militia, and financial backers – all of them are at a crossroad. And they must make a choice.

 

Personally, I believe that this is a unique opportunity, even if we feel that nothing seems to be fair. It is a chance to begin anew, and those who have suffered more are showing us the way – the victims on whom this entire imperfect process is centred.

But if we do go ahead with accepting an apology, we must say sorry with more than mere words. It has to be a deep and genuine feeling. It has to come from conviction and a generous heart. It is not a naïve move; it is a demonstration of humanity. And it is not a new war on equivalences. It cannot be: ‘I will say it only if you say it first!’ It is not a contest of vanity or ego or of political convenience. People, even the simplest ones, recognize when this is the case and that it will backfire against those who use such a sacred word to hide behind false pretensions. It is about all of us being Colombians. About paving the way based on genuine and honest trust. This is not the time to play games based on naivety or ingenuity.

The other way will only end up with an ongoing carrousel of war, hate and revenge. Yes, politics will be hard, difficult and confrontational. But providing satisfaction to the victims should be a common human goal that transcends political ideals or the desire for revenge. One cannot use words, a feeling of such significance, for political purposes. It is just too low and humanity will read it as that when it sees it.

 

To demand a general amnesty can give rise to the unifying force that we all have inside us. It must come out clean, without any ill-intentions. It must ring true, because as humans we all feel the same satisfaction when a newborn arrives on this earth, with the first smile of a child. At the end of the day we are all communitarian human beings and it is in our nature to live together in peace and harmony.

However, it is harder to construct than to destroy, to unite than to divide. Yes, it takes longer and often we do not see the results in our lifetime. But it always brings greater satisfaction and peace of mind. All of that is happening now in Colombia. But all participants, including FARC, should ask for forgiveness from their victims in a clear and unambiguous way. All of them must rely on the power of this magic feeling that can be expressed in one single word. Not to do it would be disastrous, and a silent war in the mind will continue. And to be deceitful by using only words mired in self-interest instead of honest actions would be disastrous too. All of society must embrace this moment with the certainty that an eye for an eye approach will only bring more excess, injustice and pain.

Society as a whole should for a while forget the colour of their political flags and act as a conglomerate of human beings, trusting that words and true feelings help healing faster than continued pain and revenge, if they are pronounced with honesty, and with the understanding that good begets good and that revenge only sours the soul making life miserable. One who has the strength to say to society or to a victim, pardon me, is no coward. He is a free man, for he will find forgiveness!