When the peace effort began, the outlook seemed surprisingly bouyant. Negotiators for the government and the rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, had the backing of American and European diplomats, who had worried that the conflict would spiral out of control. But with just one year left before Mr. Pastrana leaves office, the peace effort has lurched to a near standstill.

And while foreign governments continue publicly to support the talks, former negotiators and Western diplomats familiar with the discussions say there is virtually no chance that a significant agreement will be reached before a new president takes office next August.

Jan Egeland, the United Nations special envoy here and a mediator trusted on both sides, warned in an interview that the situation "worries me profoundly," and that the conflict "could become much worse if the fragile peace process crumbles."

"As I speak to guerrilla commanders and army generals," said Mr. Egeland, who has taken part in peace talks around the world, "there now seems to be a new belief in military solutions, which means that people believe they can bring peace by going to war. That is one of the historic errors."

It is not clear why the peace effort has stumbled so badly. The reasons run from decades-old distrust to the difficulties inherent in discussions between governing capitalists and Marxist guerrillas.

The FARC is criticized for delays while using a large sanctuary in the south, ceded by the government to lure them into talks, to prepare attacks and hold kidnap victims. And because there is no cease-fire, the discussions have been carried out in the midst of expanding warfare.

The numbingly slow pace of negotiations has been worsened by missteps, disorganization and a lack of financing in the government office responsible for negotiating, said former negotiators and diplomats who have taken part in the discussions.

"There has been too much improvisation," said Senator Samuel Moreno, who has served on a board of government officials that has supported the peace effort. "The negotiating teams have been weak, and a team that is weak, that does not represent the country and that has a low profile cannot negotiate."

Participants said government representatives often arrived in rebel- held territory without being properly briefed. The first group of negotiators who met with the FARC rebels in 1999 did not even meet among themselves beforehand, said a negotiator in that group. Three other teams of negotiators have followed, the latest appointed on July 31.

"We never received an idea of what methodology we were to use, the style, what the government wanted, what the agenda should be," said the negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity. "This shows the lack of seriousness within this government toward a negotiation with a subversive group that is the most serious I know."

In some cases, documents produced by officials, peace experts and academics as blueprints for talks never got to the negotiators, said a Western diplomat close to the talks.

Also, the office overseeing negotiations, the High Commissioner for Peace, lacks a staff of consultants on the finer points of negotiations.

"Normally, you want to have a machinery of people pursuing drafts, which you go over sentence by sentence," said another Western diplomat close to the talks.

The high commissioner's office has been so haphazard, said two Western diplomats, that it failed to respond recently to an American offer of $4 million worth of computer equipment and other assistance. Much of the money has since been parceled out elsewhere.

Camilo Gómez, the government's lead negotiator, could not be reached for comment.

"Opportunities to push the peace process forward are lost and lose strength when teams of negotiators and consultants are not alert, to take advantage of opportunities, to make alternative proposals," said Fernando Cepeda, a former minister here and member of a foundation that advises the government on peace issues.

Participants in the peace effort said negotiators rarely met the president. A member of the third team of negotiators, which was replaced last month, recalled meeting with Mr. Pastrana only twice. He also said Mr. Gómez had operated independently from his team as they traveled to the rebel-held region.

"The president had his meeting with Camilo Gómez, but unfortunately in the last three months Camilo Gómez disconnected from us, too," said Luis Guillermo Giraldo, who was on a negotiating team replaced last month. "He didn't go to our reunions at the peace table in Caguán," he said, adding that "he traveled there, but he would have separate meetings with individual commanders" of the rebels.

María Emma Mejía, a negotiator who met with the FARC in early 1999, said members of that first team often lacked confidence, allowing the FARC to take the initiative.

"The government did not have confidence in all of us," Ms. Mejía said. "So there was no chain of command or a list of criteria between the government and negotiators."

But even critics of the government's handling of negotiations, like Ms. Mejía, give credit to the president and Mr. Gómez for drawing international support and participation to Colombia's peace effort.

"President Pastrana has shown more personal courage and stamina in pursuing his quest for peace than I've seen perhaps anywhere else," Mr. Egeland said.

Most diplomats and negotiators also describe Mr. Gómez's efforts as tireless, giving him credit for advancing talks with the FARC further than any previous administration.

Daniel García Peña, the lead negotiator in the administration that preceded Mr. Pastrana's, said one important accomplishment was that an agenda had been set and that international law was being discussed.

But critics said the discussions often deviated from the agenda, as negotiators debated concerns of the day, whether a rebel kidnapping or the latest massacre by right-wing paramilitary militiamen.

"You had a process that became increasingly listless and increasingly ineffective, due to turnovers, due to their losing confidence," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs in Washington, which has closely followed the peace effort. "We're now left with the dust of a vigorous policy that had prospects; it has clearly been pulverized and lacks any credibility."

Source: New York Times (NY)
Author: Juan Forero
Published: August 27, 2001
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/

Related Articles & Web Site:

Colombia Drug War News
http://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htm

U.S. Officials Weigh Colombia's Aid Needs
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10718.shtml

U.S. Delegation To Support Colombia
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10691.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

d
d
d
d

[ Post Comment ]

We should be deathly afraid of all these brushfire wars. It is relatively unlikely that anyone will take on Amerika directly soon, unless Dubya continues to pick fights with China. However, all these little regional conflicts threaten to blow up at any time, aided and abetted by the multinational corporations whose lifeblood is the filthy lucre that accrues from foreign arms sales. If the local combatants can only produce bows and arrows, it is the height of folly to give them automatic weapons, tanks, bazookas, warplanes and all the other dangerous toys we export.

[ Post Comment ]

http://www.narconews.com/forerostory1.html

[ Post Comment ]