No to the Colombian Referendum and Lessons from the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize

Despite the failure of the Colombian peace referendum on October 3, the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Juan Manuel Santos, the President of Colombia. The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that the reason for this selection was his efforts to end over half a century of civil war in Colombia. The 52-year war between the government and the military on one side and the armed rebels known as FARC on the other resulted in the deaths of 220,000 people from both sides and left about six million Colombians homeless in a country with a population of around 48 million. The social base of one side consisted of large landowners and supporters, while the other side included impoverished peasants. Mr. Santos, upon receiving the award on Friday, noted that he accepted the prize not on his behalf but on behalf of all Colombians, especially the victims of the 50-year war. Ms. Kaci Coleman Five, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, stated that the risk of the peace process in Colombia facing obstacles is real, but added that the majority's opposition in the referendum does not mean the death of the peace process. According to her, the referendum was not a vote for or against peace. Meanwhile, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, also stated that Colombia has come a long way on the path to peace and should not allow any setbacks. What is the impact of this award on the peace process in Colombia? What can the Middle East and Iranians learn from this event? I discussed these questions with three guests on this week's program "Perspectives": Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner in London; Kazem Kordvani, a sociologist and former secretary of the Iranian Writers' Association, and Reza Ghorishi, a professor of political economy at Stockton University in New Jersey. Ms. Ebadi, what impact will this year's Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Juan Manuel Santos have on the peace process in Colombia? I ask this because he has been a decades-long advocate of suppressing the FARC guerrillas and is one side of the conflict, while the other side is only mentioned in the margins of this award. Shirin Ebadi: One of my regrets is that why this award was given only to one side, while the other side should have shared in this honor. Nevertheless, considering that this president had the wisdom to put the peace agreement to a referendum and ask the people for their opinion, it was a very interesting democratic political move. Unfortunately, he lost with a very small vote. I hope this award helps the students who are currently protesting in the streets of Colombia in favor of peace and calling for the signing of the peace agreement, and increases international attention and people's interest in peace so that once again in a future referendum, people vote in favor of the peace agreement. Let us not forget that some may escape from the negotiations and commit violent and terrorist acts. But if we want peace, we must take a step back when one side lays down its arms and says it surrenders. Otherwise, if one side is to achieve all its demands, the other side will naturally fight until the last moment, and peace will never be established. Therefore, in my opinion, this award greatly assists this perspective in the peace process. Mr. Kordvani, the awarding of this year's Nobel Peace Prize to the President of Colombia surprised many, as on Monday, following the failure of the peace agreement in the referendum the previous Sunday, a historian told Reuters that the Colombian peace agreement no longer had any chance of winning the award and predicted that even the main architects of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the 5+1 countries would receive the award this year. Why do you think such predictions did not come true and the award was given to the symbol of the Colombian peace process? Kazem Kordvani: In my opinion, this symbol you mentioned goes beyond Colombia itself. First of all, Latin America has a long history in both liberation struggles and wars, as well as in terrorism and armed struggle, and in the field of drug trafficking; all these elements have always been associated with armed conflict, killing, displacement, and migration. I believe that historically (and even in recent decades), Latin America has, in a sense, been a symbol of war, whether liberation wars or wars in the fields of drugs and terrorism, without wanting to equate them fundamentally. Therefore, I think this is very important, and from another aspect, the role that North America traditionally wanted to play in this matter has been taken over by the peace processes in countries like Cuba and Venezuela. When we gather all these elements, I believe that the symbol of this award and the symbol of peace encompasses much more than Colombia and even more than Latin America. A global message can be extracted from this award. Mr. Ghorishi, the beginning of the efforts to establish peace between the Colombian government and the leftist FARC guerrillas dates back nearly four years, supported by Raul Castro in Cuba and the Obama administration in the United States. What led both sides to finally see their interests in ceasing hostilities and moving towards a peace referendum, and why did they fail in the referendum? Reza Ghorishi: These negotiations have always been ongoing. Even the previous president, who had very hardline positions against FARC and peace, had secret communication channels through Cuba and Venezuela. This has always been the case, and Santos, who was once the Minister of Defense, initially said there was no news. Even when Mr. [Alvaro] Uribe [the former Colombian president] said there was no news of negotiations, it turned out that there was. Essentially, the era of guerrilla tactics and armed struggle has long since ended. Not only in Latin America but in many other places as well. In some places, it continues, of course. But as society grows and the structure of society changes, support for armed tactics and armed struggle decreases, and political solutions become more prevalent, as Ms. Ebadi mentioned. Negotiation and interaction towards peace are becoming more common. This is one side of the issue. In the structure of the government and its decision-making, does any difference arise? And which one takes precedence? Reza Ghorishi: Certainly. The dominant power and government usually have to take the first step. No matter how much the other side wants, it cannot happen until the government decides. It was rightly pointed out that this agreement goes far beyond the issue of resolving Colombia's crisis. I would add that this agreement itself is much more than peace and the end of armed struggle. The first clause of this agreement is a kind of land reform. The main problem in Colombia and Latin America has been that a very small minority, for example, three percent, owns forty or fifty percent of the land. Ms. Ebadi, after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003, especially after being forced to leave Iran temporarily, you had more opportunities to study international legal political disputes and observe them closely. What is the significance of the timing of the beginning of the peace process between the Colombian government and FARC? Why has the ceasefire been achieved at this specific time? Shirin Ebadi: I traveled to Colombia twice and had numerous meetings with lawyers, human rights defenders, journalists, and feminists there, as well as with landowners who had lost their lands. This process is very long. While both sides have been fighting for years, fortunately, they both realized the futility of this war. In the negotiations I had with both citizens and the government, I found that there is a real desire and wisdom between both sides that at some point, it must end. This is destroying the country. Peace negotiations have been underway for several years. The desire for peace has also existed for years. Only one important point in this matter is that some insist on the implementation of justice. This raises a perennial legal debate: Is peace prior to justice or is justice prior to peace? In my opinion, in a situation where one side lays down its arms and raises its hands, it is better to compromise a little on justice to achieve peace. We saw another example of this in South Africa. After the black people won and colored people came to power, and the white people accepted it, Nelson Mandela led a movement based on forgiveness. They said, whatever happened has happened; from now on, we will try not to repeat it. Fortunately, the same thing is happening in Colombia. In my opinion, this award helps this process. Additionally, I want to announce that to support this award and support this president, who had the courage to sign the agreement, most Nobel Peace Prize winners will gather in Bogota from February 2 to 5 for our annual meeting this year in honor of this award. Mr. Kordvani, the conflict between FARC and the Colombian government is sometimes referred to as the last ideological violent enmity between a government and rebels in a Latin American country. A region that, as you said, burned in the fire of right and left hatred in the second half of the twentieth century. To what extent has the collapse of the former Soviet Union contributed to the cooling of this hatred in the region, and to what extent the actions of peace activists? ... What has been the formula and mechanism for sworn enemies to come to the negotiating table in Latin America? Kazem Kordvani: We must pay attention to internal events. The process of reconciling two conflicting factions, if you want the truth, can be traced back to the mid-1950s and early 1960s, including the first three European countries: Greece, Portugal, and Spain, and then the significant changes that occurred in the East, excluding Romania. A series of events that took place in the former Soviet Union, the former German Democratic Republic, and Hungary led to a peaceful change of government, not a regime. Then, in Latin America, the events in Chile and Argentina, along with this global and Latin American backing, are part of a global trend. The reality is that ... the right and left in these countries, despite all their differences and injustices, have come to the conclusion that issues cannot be resolved with guns and fire. They must sit down and ... resolve issues peacefully. In my opinion, on one hand, since the 1960s, a trend of resolving societal and global problems peacefully has been evident (wars are, of course, another discussion), and on the other hand, internal dynamics and the rationality that people exhibit within the country are very decisive. Of course, Latin America itself and the resolution of problems in several other Latin American countries are always important. A positive example of negotiation and the peace process has been both against the Colombian government and FARC. Mr. Ghorishi, the academic study of conflict resolution in political science, international relations, and sociology has been around for over four decades. If conflict resolution is a good equivalent for the English term, in Arabic and Persian, if not in political science, the term for resolving disputes has existed for centuries. What can a comparative look at ending conflicts, resolving disputes, and political disputes in South America, Africa, and Asia, as mentioned, teach the Middle East? Reza Ghorishi: There is a theory in political science that says if one side of a dispute takes a harder stance, the other side is forced to take a harder stance as well. They have no choice. No matter how else they play, they lose. If both sides take milder positions, there is a possibility of compromise. We see this in the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis; when the higher side, meaning Israel, took softer positions, it seemed that the relationship was much closer. Now, when the hardliners came to power, and Mr. Shamir and Mr. Netanyahu came to power, the positions of Hamas became more popular instead of Mahmoud Abbas's. It has always been like this. In the case of Iran, it is somewhat the same. Even before the revolution, as long as the opposition to the Shah's regime was non-violent, the government's response was not the same as after the armed struggle. The Islamic Republic regime is the same. Whenever the opposition has become more radicalized, the regime has also responded with more repression. Although I always hold the regimes responsible, I consider the dominant regimes and governments to be the main culprits. But the reaction of the other side also has an impact. An example that is interesting for us is the positions that the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan has recently taken, which is contrary to what it should be. If I have time later in this roundtable, I will explain. But to summarize, both sides must want to negotiate, and progress cannot be made with just one side, especially the weaker side. Mr. Ghorishi went a step further from my question about the Middle East and focused on Iran itself, which is my next question for each of you as a conclusion. Ms. Ebadi, there was a time when Iranians paid a lot of attention to the events in Latin America and South America. From the number of books that were translated on political and economic issues to literature and more. A part of this literary aspect remains, but among the public, the level of attention paid to Latin America is no longer what it was in the 40s, 50s, and even 60s in Iran. This attention was present both among the government and the opposition, both during the Shah's era and after the revolution. What can Iranians learn today from this Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the President of Colombia? Shirin Ebadi: I believe in political matters that learning from experience is essential.