Exclusive interview with Sergio Caramagna for the e-zine "Americas Forum"
The Peace process in Colombia: Supporting a Sustainable Process

By Janelle Conaway and Luiz Coimbra

Janelle Conaway: In the past few months, the OAS has joined the process of ceasefire and disarmament of illegally armed groups in Colombia. The director of the mission, to aid the peace process in Colombia, is Sergio Caramagna and he is here with us.

Mr. Caramagna, at what phase is the peace process in Colombia and what role does the OAS play in this process?

Sergio Caramagna: The peace process began with the demobilization of two linked groups, referred to in Colombia as self-defense forces. One is the “Cacique Nutibara” in the city of Medellín, and the other, the peasant self-defense forces of Ortega in the Cauca Mountains in Cajibío. An agreement between the government of Colombia and the Secretary General of the OAS has allowed the OAS to take part in these demobilizations. The OAS has been there since January of this year, throughout the reintegration process, especially in Medellín, where approximately 860 demobilized paramilitaries are in the process of reintegration, in compliance with the law and the burdens of monitoring that represent their return to civil life.

J.C.: We all know that the situation in Colombia is rather complex due to the long history of internal conflict, drug trafficking and other problems. After spending a couple months in the country, perhaps you would be able to give us an idea of some of the challenges and problems that may lie ahead.

S.C.: To me it seems very important that they have initiated a peace process which is directed at all of the groups, illegally armed groups, as they are called in Colombia. To me this is of the greatest importance because it is in agreement with the fundamental desire of the OAS to foster peace in all countries. It also falls within President Uribe and the Colombian government’s politics of democratic security, which is producing powerful results. I also believe that this is an opportunity to demonstrate that this is a new OAS, a committed OAS, an OAS that does not avoid problems, but rather an OAS that takes part and intervenes in them with much respect for domestic processes but also with a great determination to collaborate and to tell the Colombians that we are with them, we are united with them. They are not alone and although the situation is difficult and complex as you have just said, they should be able to find the solutions within Colombia and we are ready to help them find these solutions.

J.C.: Why is it important to have this international help if the problem and the solutions have to come from the Colombians?

S.C.: Because there is a series of doubts and concerns regarding this process. Many thought that they could have had positive results from steps taken in the past with the guerillas and, unfortunately, for the Colombians and for all of us who feel the same about Colombia, these mediations failed. It was a failure, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t persevere and continue working on it. For the paramilitaries, also known as self-defense forces, international support is necessary. It is important that the international community understands and comprehends that perhaps the demobilization of these groups represents a first step, a breakthrough, a way in, the key to the process that will later spread to the rest of the armed groups. We might remember that one of the excuses and some of the reasons that the guerrilla groups refused to demobilize was the existence of those described as paramilitaries, whom they considered to be threats. In that way, there are even ambassadors and volunteers who believe the success of the process with the self-defense forces will subsequently pave the way for peace. We know that it is complex process, that it is difficult, that it is facing serious difficulties and concerns because they are mixing some difficult and complex interests, but it is really necessary to support them. It is worth the effort and besides, what is important is that the vast majority of Colombians support this process. It is not a subjective concern of who is speaking, but rather it is the result of measuring a state of opinion of the Colombian people in specific relation to the process with the paramilitaries.

J.C.: Mr. Caramanga, you were responsible for a similar inspection process in Nicaragua a couple years ago. Tell us a bit about how this process functioned and what one can learn from this experience.

S.C.: Well, to be frank and fair, I am a student of this process. Remember that the contexts, time and circumstances are very different. Nicaragua was the first peace process after the Cold War. It paid the price and we paid the price of inexperience, having to pave our own path because we didn’t have previous experience, but I had an advantage. Santiago Murray was in charge of the Nicaraguan peace process before I arrived. Santiago Murray is a civil servant with much experience in the OAS; luckily he still works with the organization and he opened doors for understanding and participating in the process. I believe the Nicaraguan experience inspired the Secretary General to appoint us in Colombia and I was really pleased because the process in Nicaragua not only consisted of disarmament, demobilization and reinsertion, the first phase and part of the process, but also the most difficult phase, helping during the reinsertion efforts. Those involved in the violence, the confrontation, the hate and the distrust worked very hard to acquire a peaceful and humanitarian life, to obtain a job and find peaceful solutions to the struggles. That was an amazing, unforgettable experience and because of that my detachment from Nicaragua it is only on a professional level but not on a affectionate and personal level.

Luiz Coimbra: The Nicaraguan peace process was much more advanced whereas the Colombian peace process is just beginning. Does this mean that you will have to approach the work in a different manner?

S.C.: It is possible; however, we should not say that this stage of the peace process is just the beginning. The Colombians, the Colombian institutions, the civil society organizations and the communities have extensive experience in the fields of pacification and conflict resolution. And so, we were telling the ambassadors of the Permanent Council that the our first task is to recognize this experience, learn from the experience of the Colombians, and recognize that both unofficial and official institutions, the church and the inspection commissions, are very experienced in several areas. We have seen it; we have been in contact with them and we are thinking of deepening our relationship with them. The Colombians have a lot of experience; the aid of the international community has been a positive sign, a proof that the process is legitimate, valid and worth the effort to continue. In Nicaragua we reached the point where it was time for demobilization of the Nicaraguan resistance, but we had been involved in the previous electoral process, which resulted in demobilization. So the monitoring of the entire Nicaraguan process through all the years began with the electoral process and continued through demobilization, reinsertion, and the consolidation of peace. The experiences are not extrapolated; each town is generating its own experiences. If there are certain criteria and certain lessons that can help the Colombians it is that they consider them useful, but the truth is that we are working hard, we recently began working in the country and above all we are learning and listening.

L.C.: In Colombia the peace process was also started by the paramilitaries. Do you think that the process will continue to include the guerrilla groups as well?

S.C.: I believe the mandate is well structured and is of the utmost importance. The mandate indicates that we have to work with all the illegally armed groups. This is very important, because we are going to avoid suffering the cost that we suffered in the nineties when we concentrated on monitoring only one aspect of the conflict. These experiences, from the nineties, taught us and hopefully will help us to overcome some of the problems inevitable in such mechanisms and proceedings. In this sense I am backed by the mandate and its extent and by the shield that the mandate has in relation to the themes of the Inter-American Commission with respect to the monitoring that the Permanent Council of the OAS would like to have. With regard to monitoring the mandate, the ambassadors of the Permanent Council proved today, through their tri-monthly reports that they would like to monitor the issue much more closely. I would even like to invite them to Colombia so they can see first-hand what the OAS is doing in terms of pacification; this would be best.

J.C.: Let’s talk a bit about the topic of human rights. Many groups in civil society and some countries are concerned about the respect for human rights within the peace process. What is the mission doing to guarantee such respect?

S.C.: The mission is listening attentively to the warnings and the issues raised by human rights groups. They have to complete a duty; a duty that they pursue diligently, and I’d like to say to human rights institutions that the mission has always been open and transparent and will continue to be so. We have received members of recognized international institutions and we have been speaking with the Colombian ombudsman, as well, and with all related human rights entities. I think it is their role; they should play it upfront and should understand that the processes of peace have to stay within a balanced framework because peace and justice are at stake. This balance is developed only through the decision that the Colombians want to take. A decision that sometimes is costly, that sometimes is difficult in the peace process, but one that is important to make. They are familiar with the cost of peace and we are ready to talk about the general criteria in reference to justice and reparation of victims. We are ready to handle these general criteria and to also put them into action but the cards are in their hands and the bet is in the hands of the Colombians. Today they are having in-depth discussions about a new law concerning alternative punishment, a law which has provoked intense debate among members of society. There are institutions that function, there is a state of law that functions and we have confidence in the state of law and in the intelligence of the Colombians. We don’t have any reason to get ahead of ourselves by worrying about the end result. I think that exaggerating the subject of human rights and to say today that the process isn’t valid and it is going to violate human rights is a simplistic analysis.

J.C.: The Permanent Council of the OAS insisted as part of the mandate that the Inter-American Commission of Human rights be involved. How will you work with the Commission in this process?

S.C.: First, I am thrilled that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is advising us in this aspect. We have already met with the President, Mr. Santiago Canton (Executive Secretary of the Commission) and his team. Because there aren’t any precedents in these types of tasks with the Inter-American Commission, we have already agreed to establish and search for similar understandings of a mechanism that preserves the independence of total action of the Inter-American Commission and that allows us as well to advise about risks and situations in which the development of the agreements of the processes of peace are forgotten.

J.C.: Within a few weeks you will be returning to Colombia. What are the next steps to be taken?

S.C.: The next steps should be to continue efforts to get an office, a space where the mission in Colombia can function in Bogotá, and also to pursue the possibility of continuing to seek support to have offices in the regions. Why? Because the Colombian conflict like most conflicts is best understood in the regions. This communication, observation and relationship with the profound nature of the conflict are how one can work in the best manner. So all our attention and efforts are going to be given to the building and strengthening of the mission as well as to the appointment of people who will assist us in the mission, professionals who are committed to the Colombian people and to the OAS.

L.C.: After your first presentation before the Permanent Council of the OAS, many ambassadors not only praised the mission, but also insisted that it was specifically technical and stressed the word “technical”. What are the limits of a technical mission and what is the scope of it?

S.C.: The mandate is extensive. It is all-inclusive and it is complete. The mandate must be carried out in the midst of the development of a peace process, and probably, and I only say probably, it will be necessary to talk with the members of the Permanent Council or with the Secretary General, when possible about the need to adopt it. There can’t be a mandate that absolutely secures a mission without the mandate needing to be appropriate for the dynamics and the reality of that process. I believe that we are given the conditions for this to be so, but when it is said that the mission is technical, I could say that we are not going to have a demobilization, we are not going to have support with the criteria and with the experience that we might gain in having a demilitarization as transparent as possible, like the procedure of disarmament in which we already have experienced. In the 90’s and the years before we assisted an innumerable quantity of demobilizations and destruction of arms, and the best method for us to adapt to in this sense, to the general criteria that have a rehabilitative effect, to put a great effort afterwards in the submission of arms where few people reside, because many will go only for the picture when the arms are turned in and after they’ll leave and the fundamental effort of the peace is the day after the handover of arms and the work with the demobilized and with the communities begins. This is basically technical support; we are not executing this, the institutions are. In relation to the subject of the communities they are a substantive part of the mandate that is the reinforcing of confidence and establishing mechanisms of security in the communities. The Central-American experience is also very valuable. We know that where justice isn’t present things are quite complicated and Colombia perhaps is the extreme case, but in the Central-American processes where there is little justice, there are all types of arbitrations and violence and justice is possible as well, managing it and developing it along with the communities affected by the conflict. Nicaragua is an extraordinary example of this. Justice, respect for human rights, the peaceful resolution to conflicts and the gaining of confidence in the state institutions are important because definitively, the analysts, the scholars, and those who have studied these processes from the beginning say that the absence of the state, the absence of basic mechanisms of institutionalism are factors which have contributed to the descent into incredible and brutal violence as well as derived other types of atrocities. So the reestablishment of the institutions in these zones, as well is technical work, not of the OAS, it will be done by Colombian institutions at their own pace and we are going to help them. Technical aid, as I understand it, means that while the OAS will play an active role in the process, the role of the Columbians will be central to establishing and maintaining peace. The sustainability of the process is if it is done a la Colombiana, and I don’t want to say that disparagingly because some have used it disparagingly. I have a great respect for the Colombians, for their intelligence and for their institutions and I believe that if this is done in seriousness and a la Colombiana like the majority of the Colombians want and dream, the process will be viable and sustainable.

J.C.: Thank you Mr. Caramanga, we wish you the best in the upcoming months

S.C.: Thank you.