By Diego Stacey, EL PAIS, March 4, 2025
(Translated by Eunice Gibson, CSN Volunteer Translator)
“Total Peace”, the Gustavo Petro administration’s effort to negotiate simultaneously with all the illegal groups in Colombia, is passing through a complicated moment. The violence by the ELN in Catatumbo, the expansion of the Clan del Golfo, and the surge of the more and more evasive dissidents of the now-defunct FARC are reducing the President’s maneuvering room to obtain agreements like the one signed in 2016. During his visit to Bogotá, the European Union’s Special Envoy for Peace in Colombia, Adrianus Koetsenruiter (Low Countries, age 70) analyzes the impact of the violence now being experienced in the country, and argues that they should continue the negotiations without abandoning military pressure.
Question: You have arrived in Colombia at a very difficult time for “total peace”, the initiative that the European Union has supported fully. Is that policy in danger?
Answer: There are many difficulties. At the beginning of the year, we saw that explosion of violence in Catatumbo, with different groups fighting each other, which makes the government’s intervention more complicated. We also see that President Petro’s administration is having a lot of changes and that doesn’t facilitate the process that needs attention, action, and a permanent structure. At the same time, my long experience in Colombia tells me that it’s a phase and we have to get through it. We strongly believe in this country and we’re continuing to cooperate because the problem of the illegal economies also affects our countries.
Question: The most recent report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights points out that one of the greatest challenges for peace is the “lack of coordination” between the Ministries. Do you agree with that diagnosis?
Answer: That’s an internal question for every country, and we can’t tell them that we think that they should continue with one Minister forever. What we need is to have the certainty that there’s a will to keep on with the peace process. Sure, there are a lot of changes, and we have had internal dialogs. But we can’t say that there’s a lack of stability, because we have no opinion on those matters.
Question: The fragmentation of the large groups makes the dialogs more difficult, and not all of the fragments have shown an interest in peace. Which should the government try to reach?
Answer: It’s true that it’s much harder when there are one or two large groups that cover the entire country. The solution we see is to get closer to the countryside, to look for things to be done that will control more areas, and try to get them to change their position. That’s where factors like economic investment are vital. Even though they are fragmented, all the negotiations have to continue. There is no alternative.
Question: What should be done with groups like the ELN that are going more and more off the road?
Answer: The ELN has not shown any willingness to move forward (about peace). But there’s always a need for dialog and we have to look for that in one way or another. I understand that the history shows there were advances and then immediate backtracking, and I know that generates a lot of frustration, especially for those who were taking part in the negotiations. Channels always have to be open; sometimes you have to wait, and other times, create the conditions. That’s the way the global experience in conflict resolution works.
Question: The government has been turning to offense with the escalation of the violence. What’s your opinion on military pressure to weaken the criminal organizations?
Answer: That’s one of the cruelest things in existence. Last year I was talking with the mothers in Putumayo who are losing their children to forced recruitment, and it’s dramatic. Protection of civilians is priority No. 1. There the government has an enormous responsibility. Those cases are also caused by a lack of opportunity. Young people don’t see a future for themselves in the legal economy and they fall into that trap because they promise them quick success. They don’t have any alternative. That’s really, really, tough.
Question: The suspension of U.S.A.I.D. funds leaves an enormous gap for the peace-related projects. With the economic absence of the United States, can the E.U. take up the slack and expand its cooperation in Colombia?
Answer: No. I think the United States isn’t going to abandon everything, because that’s not in their interest. They are major partners in the war on drugs and the illegal economies. I understand that President Petro has said that he could finance certain activities, and Colombia is not a poor country like some of those in Africa. There is wealth here and an effort can be made. If this country can’t take on all these responsibilities, we will be like a partner, and we can always do analysis, but at that time, we will need our funds, and we will have our own priorities.
Question: Next year there will be two very important events: the signing of the 2016 Peace Agreement will mark a decade, and there will also be a change of administrations. What should be Petro’s peace focus in the home stretch of his term?
Answer: There are three interlocking themes: security, justice, and economic investment (which includes things like education and public services). Those are essential for the improvement of living conditions. Anybody that wants to win the elections will have to demonstrate the ability to combat the violence, which is the country’s evil right now.
Question: The focuses of every administration are very different, as we have seen with Petro, Santos, or Uribe—What must be kept in mind by this country’s next President?
Answer: The problem isn’t going to go away with the arrival of a new administration. Whoever wins will have a very important charge, to see that everybody can live with security and economic opportunity and with respect for the Rule of Law. Any administration has to have that as their objective, and I don’t think there’s anybody that would want to marginalize a good part of the country. Anybody that wants to be the leader of the country can’t just focus on the military struggle, because the dialog is very important. But neither can they only concentrate on social action without confronting the violent forces of the armed groups.
Question: You were Ambassador to Colombia 20 years ago (2003-2007). What’s it like to come back after so much time?
Answer: The country has changed a great deal. It’s much richer and it has advanced to a global level. At that time, it suffered greatly from Andrés Pastrana’s failed attempt at negotiation and then came Álvaro Uribe’s “iron fist”. I think all of that was necessary for the process that ended in 2016. Colombia can be very proud of achieving a peace of such dimensions. Of course there are many challenges, and we have to be working every day. I’m an optimist, but I’m not naïve.