LSE Global South Unit
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Early lessons from the Colombian Peace Process.
By Andrés Ucrós Maldonado.
Working Paper No. 1/2016.
ISSN 2057-1461
ABSTRACT.
Colombia has suffered one of the longest internal armed conflicts in the world. This long and
tainted war has been active for over five decades and its magnitude was, and still is greater
than many major internal conflicts around the world. During the last four years the
Colombian government and the FARC-EP guerrillas have been engaged in peace talks with
the aim of putting an end to armed struggle. Throughout this process both parties have
deployed a number of innovative strategies and techniques that are setting new standards in
the field of conflict resolution. These new approaches are now informing developments in
peace-making, peace-building, security, human rights, and international law at the regional
and global levels. The aim of this policy brief is to describe and discuss three emerging lessons
from the on-going peace process: the role of diplomacy; the importance of preparation and
design of the negotiation context and strategy; and the inclusion of victims’ rights as a central
issue in the process.
Key words: Colombia, peace process, diplomacy, strategy, transitional justice, victims.
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
3
INTRODUCTION.
Thirty years ago the Colombian war was a forgotten internal conflict, neglected by the
international community as being complicated, entangled with the transnational cocaine
trade, and rooted in the bygone era of the Cold War. The Colombian conflict was difficult to
understand and politically too sensitive to intervene into in any way that might contribute to
a lasting solution.
During the last four years the Colombian government and the FARC-EP left-wing guerrillas
have been engaged in peace talks with the aim of ending the armed violence. Currently, the
parties have reached unprecedented agreement on four of the six topics of negotiation set at
the beginning of the peace talks in a framework agenda (General Agreement, 2012): a
comprehensive agrarian development policy; political participation; a solution to the problem
of illicit drugs; and victims’ rights and transitional justice. It is the first time in the history of
Colombia that the government and the FARC-EP have reached such agreements. Parties are
now working on the issues of disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) along
with implementation, public consultation, and verification mechanisms. Moreover, as part of
a programme of confidence building measures (CBM), the parties are working together on
small demining projects in the remote rural areas of Antioquia and Meta. Recently, the leaders
of the two sides, President Juan Manuel Santos and Rodrigo Londoño Echeverri (alias
“Timochenko”) jointly announced from Havana an agreement to sign a final peace deal on the
23rd
of March 2016, and to start the DDR process two months thereafter.
During the negotiations both sides deployed a number of innovative strategies and
techniques that are setting new standards in the field of conflict resolution. These new
approaches are already informing debates at the regional and global levels over issues related
to peace-making, peace-building, security, human rights, and international law. Other
countries aiming to end conflict through negotiation and dialogue are studying the
Colombian approach in order to learn lessons, good practices, and also what to avoid both in
the design of and during the negotiations. The aim of this policy brief is to advance the debate
by describing and discussing three of the key lessons that have emerge along the way from the
Colombian peace process: the role of diplomacy; the importance of preparation and design
of the negotiating context; and the inclusion of victims’ rights as a core subject of the
negotiation. I have chosen specifically these three critical elements because they speak directly
to issues faced by other countries in the Global South which stand on the verge of a peace
process: how to manage the international political and legal context, and how to prepare,
develop and deliver a successful peace process so as to end intractable conflicts with millions
of victims.
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
4
During conflict, irregular armies, mainly FARC-EP and ELN guerrillas, waged war on the
State and paramilitary forces throughout most of the country. The Colombian situation is
one of the longest-running internal armed conflicts in the world. As the following figures
suggest, this devastating confrontation has been active for over five decades and its magnitude
was, and still is greater than many major inter-state wars in the world.
• As at the end of 2014, 38 million people around the world had been forced to flee their
homes by armed conflict. Colombia ranks second in the world according to the number of
internally displaced people (IDP), with around 6 million IDPs, only surpassed by Syria with
7.6 million. Iraq holds third place with 3.3 million. The IDP population of Colombia is
equivalent to the whole population of Singapore or Denmark (IDMC, 2015).
• The Colombian government’s reparations programme set up in 2011 has so far registered
7.7 million victims of displacement, murder, torture, sexual violence, disappearance and
kidnapping, and other grave violations of human rights. This tally implies that almost 14%
of the total population has suffered directly from the conflict and consider themselves victims
(Colombia, Unidad de Victimas, 2015).
• Colombia ranks third in the world in terms of landmine victims; only Afghanistan and
Cambodia have more victims of landmines (Colombia, PAICMA, 2015).
• 220,000 killings have been registered during the conflict, 80% of them civilians (Colombia,
Centro de Memoria Historica, 2013). This includes three Presidential candidates, one
Attorney General, one Minister of Justice, 200 judges, 175 Mayors and sixteen Congressmen
who were assassinated during the conflict.
• Colombia has registered 100,000 victims of involuntary ‘disappearance’, a sum equal to all
reported cases under the dictatorships of Argentina, Chile and Brazil combined (Colombia,
Centro de Memoria Historica, 2013).
• 3,000 militants of a single political party, the Unión Patriótica, were killed in a period of ten
years during the internal war (Dudley, 2006).
• The authorities have registered 39,058 kidnappings in the period between 1970 and 2010.
This implies that, during that period, one person was abducted every 12 hours for political or
economic ends (Colombia, Centro de Memoria Historica, Informe Secuestro 2013).
• Governmental authorities and non-governmental organisations together have registered
about 5,000 extrajudicial killings carried out by the military (Human Rights Watch, 2015).
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
5
THE ROLE OF DIPLOMACY AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT.
An important feature of the Colombian peace process is that it has been exclusively led by the
national government (Haspeslagh, 2015); while at the same time interactively engaging third
parties and the international community as a whole. The role played by diplomacy partially
explains why the peace effort is moving forward and achieving success; the international
community as a whole and many leading states, which have become part of the process, have
been a key to progress.
From the beginning of his term in 2010, President Santos recognised that Colombia had to
reboot its foreign policy and rebuild diplomatic ties with the world at large and with the
Latin American region, especially its close neighbours Venezuela and Ecuador. The
government of Alvaro Uribe (2002-2010) had escalated confrontations with other states in
the region, accusing them of harbouring and supporting “terrorists”. At the global level, the
international community had mistrusted the Colombian government because of its poor
record on human rights, corruption, and for some, for its alignment with the Bush
Administration during the first years of the “war on terror”. In early 2010 the international
context was not appropriate to start negotiations to end one of the longest conflicts of the
Western Hemisphere, one heavily influenced by the international drug trade, and one in
which FARC-EP, the Colombian military forces, and various the paramilitaries were all
involved in war international crimes.
President Juan Manuel Santos and his Ministers knew that if a peace agreement were reached,
the outcome would impact many foreign political agendas, such as US relations with Cuba
and Venezuela, the limits of international criminal law, and the global debate over the war on
drugs, among others. This is why Santos has been active and very successful in changing the
negative trend inherited from the past. All nations in South America now fully support the
Colombian peace process, and many countries around the world are ready to contribute to
the implementation and verification of the final agreements on matters ranging from
investment in rural infrastructure, to reintegration of ex-combatants, to victims’ rights.
Diplomatic relations with Venezuela and Ecuador were rebuilt and trust restored to the point
that Venezuela could be accepted as a sponsor of the peace talks. Colombian diplomacy was
strategic enough to enlist and appoint Cuba as the host country and guarantor of the process,
alongside Norway, while keeping the US on board. So far, the USA, UNASUR, the European
Union, Germany, the Vatican, and the United Nations have appointed special envoys to the
process, which suggests a growing interest in the outcome and a commitment to addressing
the challenges thereof. For example, when US Secretary of State John Kerry appointed Bernie
Aronson the US Special Envoy, he stated:
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
6
Another key innovation of the Colombian peace process regarding international involvement
is the participation role of international advisors. Both sides of the table have access to teams
of international experts who can advise them on various matters, as provided by the
framework agreement. This resource mechanism has been available in discussions on political
participation and transitional justice, where international experience has proved invaluable.
International input has played a positive role in bringing lessons and experiences learned
from other peace processes around the world to bear on Colombia’s situation, and offering
the parties a variety of solutions and ideas to the tactical and strategic dilemmas of the talks.
Another important feature of the peace process is the role played by the guarantor countries,
Norway and Cuba, and by the observer countries, Chile and Venezuela. The guarantors’ role
is to ensure that both parties abide by the agreed-upon rules, as trust can wane as negotiations
wear on (Beittel 2013: 27). There are also observers whose role is to clarify the disputed
points in the case of a crisis that may lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations
(Armengol 2013, 6). However, there is no appointed international mediator in the
Colombian process (Gienger 2013). The role of these four countries has been key in settling
disputes during negotiations; building trust between the parties; and solving the many
day-to-day logistical issues.
Arranging a positive and supportive international context has been indispensable to the peace
process because it helped shore up external legitimacy; gave much-needed access to lessons
learnt in other countries; and served as an important indicator of progress for an
often-incredulous public opinion at home. Negotiation of the topics in the framework
agreement, especially those of illicit drugs and transitional justice, will have important
international ramifications. The international ambience set up before and kept in place during
the process will certainly conduce to dealing with them in a constructive and positive way.
PREPARATION, STRUCTURE AND DESIGN.
The Colombian peace talks are an example of preparing and designing a negotiation
adequately to reach the desired endgame. During the exploratory talks, or what is commonly
known in the literature as “talks about talks”, the parties agreed on three features that have
proved crucial for the development of the public phase of the process.
We also recognized that we needed somebody who had the ability to ensure that the United States is
effectively contributing to the process and helping the parties come closer to the peace that they seek.
Needless to say, we wanted someone who knows the region inside out and who has experience in
negotiations like these. So it is with our confidence and the confidence of the Colombian Government,
and the men and women in Colombia who have been working tirelessly and for far too long for an end
to this war, that I am today pleased to announce that Bernie Aronson will serve as the United States
special envoy for the Colombian peace process (United States State Department, 2015).
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
7
First, the government and FARC-EP agreed that the goal of the negotiation was simply to put
an end to armed conflict, rather than to “make peace” in any positive sense. This may sound
obvious, but it is essential to manage internal and external expectations of what a process can
achieve. In past attempts, Colombia governments “sold” peace talks to the public as a
panacea, promising that the peace agreement would instantly bring about development and
other benefits besides the silencing of guns. This proved to be a mistake insofar as adversarial
parties could simply not deliver on this process, damaging the government’s popularity and
credibility and defrauding the public’s expectations. By contrast, the government’s simple
agreement with FARC-EP to limit the desired outcome proved a powerful focal point, such
that from the outset the political will existed to seek common ground. The framework sets an
agenda with the clear objective of ending political violence in order to give way to a
peace-building phase, namely where the agreements will be implemented with the
participation of the whole population on their own territories. The framework agenda, agreed
in the secret phase of the talks, was designed to include only the topics necessary to guarantee
an end to armed conflict and to lay the basis for a separate peace-building phase. The six
topics mentioned above were chosen because both sides agreed that putting these reforms and
mechanisms in place would end political violence and allow peace to flourish in Colombia.
The parties agreed not only on the desired outcome, but also on a shared vision of the
sequencing of the process:
• Phase One – the exploratory secret talks, which lasted around six months;
• Phase Two – the public talks, which were announced at a public event in Oslo, Norway in
October 2012; and
• Phase Three – the beginning of the “transition” and the local implementation of the
agreements (also known as the territorial peace-building stage).
The second feature of the talks was that, against all odds, the government and FARC-EP’s
agreed agenda was clear and concise: it comprised just six topics (viz. five substantive topics
and one procedural point on implementation, verification and endorsement). This evidenced
the will of the parties to reach a concrete outcome in a relevant time-frame by engaging a
finite number of issues. Limiting the agenda proved absolutely essential to organising the
process in Havana. The fixed agenda has been valuable above all for separating the
often-technical talks from the more political deliberations taking place within the
appropriate institutions of Colombian democracy. Of course all six issues are tightly related
to matters off the negotiating table (e.g., agrarian policy, the transitional justice mechanisms
for national military forces, the policy on the war on drugs), but the wording of the agenda
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
8
has been the criteria separating the conversations taking place in Cuba and in Colombia.
The third key feature of the peace process design is the operational rulebook included in the
framework agenda. This regulates issues of confidentiality; the interaction of the parties with
the media during negotiations; the talks’ outreach strategy; the authorised number of
delegates of each party; the creation of participation mechanisms for civil society; and many
other procedural issues that, if not regulated, could easily derail or obstruct the negotiations.
For example, Rule VI states, “A mechanism for jointly communicating progress made by the
Table shall be set up. Discussions held at the Table shall not be made public and an efficient
communications strategy shall be implemented”.
The design and preparation of the Colombian peace process is setting a new standard for
future peace talks around the world. The Colombian case has shown that a well thought-out
process can prove an advantage for both parties. It gives hope that most crises are solvable on
the basis of the rules and mechanisms established in a framework agenda, as these initial
agreements give the whole subsequent negotiation stability by providing a common ground
and a sense of predictability and common purpose.
VICTIM’S RIGHTS, TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND PARTICIPATION.
Victim’s rights and the question of how to deal with the legacy of the past have been neglected
or poorly managed in many peace processes around the world, because of their complexity
and sensitivity. Disputes over how to deal with the grievances of warring parties often prove
to be a deal-breaker. Many negotiations have chosen to leave the issue of victim’s rights to
future political debate, to avoid “contaminating” the process with “insoluble” issues that
might derail it. This stems from a specious contradiction between justice and peace. Past trials
at peace-making have given priority to reaching the peace agreement, regardless of justice,
truth or reparations. Experience has exposed this approach as fundamentally flawed, because
postponing the demands of justice to future generations, and leaving unattended the seeds of
potential conflict, achieves only an unstable and short-lived peace.
The Colombian peace process defies this approach. Both parties have agreed from the start
that victims’ rights must be a distinct and central issue on the agenda. This acknowledgement
responds to the sheer magnitude of human suffering in the country: there are seven million
victims of the various warring parties so far, 80% of whom are civilians. The government and
FARC-EP recognised that an agreement that did not place victims’ rights at its core would be
not only be unlawful, but also immoral, illegitimate and ephemeral. International law as it
stands today provides for justice, truth and reparations to the victims of internationally
recognised crimes. In acknowledgement of the value of the Colombian case, the International
Criminal Court (ICC) is looking closely at it to understand how international criminal law
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
9
might be harmonised with the right of states to pursue peace for their peoples and future
generations. Currently, both parties are aiming for a peace deal that looks to the future but
also recognises and acknowledges what happened in the past. There is a common
understanding that in order to initiate the peace-building phase, not only the parties to the
conflict but also the whole population must face the past in a constructive, reflective and
comprehensive way.
To carry out the principle of prioritising victim’s rights, the parties have created three
mechanisms to empower victims to take their rightful place in the talks. The Colombian
peace process is a world-class example of how victims can participate directly in peace talks.
In past peace processes around the world, victims and their organisations only had a chance
to be involved after an agreement was reached, either participating in truth commissions or
in trials against perpetrators. In the Colombian process, victims have been actively
participating from the outset.
The first mechanism created was a direct channel, via electronic or conventional mail, for
sending proposals to both delegations, so that victims could directly contribute to the drafting
of the agreements. To date, the government and FARC-EP have received 24,475 proposals
regarding victims’ rights issues (Colombia, Office of the High Commissioner, 2015).
The second mechanism was participation in several events in Colombia expressly created for
victims to impact the negotiations in Cuba. The delegations appointed a collegiate third
party, composed of the United Nations, the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, and the
Catholic Church, to organise regional events where victims from all over the country could
deliver their views, expectations and proposals. These events where attended by 3,162 victims
and 4,617 victims’ organisations, from whom the parties received an additional 22,146
proposals (Colombia, Office of the High Commissioner, 2015).
The third mechanism consisted of public hearings in Havana, where victims were invited to
engage directly with both delegations. The sessions took place before and during the
discussion of victims’ rights and transitional justice with the aim of hearing victims in person
tell of their expectations and demands, in hopes that this would enlighten the talks while they
were still on going. In five hearings, sixty victims from different regions, who had suffered
diverse violations of their rights at the hands of many armed actors, were able to confront the
delegations and by their narratives convey their suffering, expectations and needs. This
unprecedented mechanism was pivotal for starting the difficult negotiations about how to
deal with the past in Colombia.
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
10
After a long year of negotiations on the topic of victims’ rights and transitional justice, the
parties agreed three key elements of a broader transitional justice regime. In June 2015 they
agreed the creation of a Truth Commission. On the 23rd
of September 2015 the President of
Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, and the FARC-EP’s Timochenko announced an agreement
to create a Special Jurisdiction for Peace, a mechanism to investigate, prosecute and punish
international crimes. Finally, on the 18th
of October 2015, the delegations announced an
agreement to create a specialised unit (in addition to the CBM mentioned above) to search
for people who disappeared as a result of the conflict, which will start operations after the
peace agreement, is signed.
Victims’ participation has been essential to the delegations’ work and to the peace process as
a whole. The views expressed by victims are currently informing many agreements on the
topic. Putting victims’ rights at the centre of the peace process has been one of the main
contributions of the Colombian peace process.
CONCLUSION.
According to many experts, Colombia is currently the main peace process in the world and a
cynosure of international peace-building. The Colombian case is proof that protracted
internal armed conflict can be addressed through dialogue (Herbolzheimer, 2014). I have
discussed three main contributions that have emerging from the Colombian process: (i) a role
for active diplomacy to enable a respectful international engagement, while at the same time
conserving national ownership of the process; (ii) a robust strategic plan that observes the
difference between negotiating the end of the conflict and building peace, between peace
talks and the peace process; (iii) the commitment to victims’ rights, which has led to a
national and global debate over the possibilities and limits of applying international criminal
law in the context of peace negotiations, and the meaning of reconciliation. Colombia is a
timely reference for a global community standing at the crossroads of ways to address
complex violence in the age of accountability.
The treatment given to diplomacy, the importance of contextual preparation and design, and
the inclusion of victims’ rights as a central issue all evidence that Colombia’s peace process is
setting new standards in many fields and is becoming an exemplar for peace endeavours
around the world. Colombia is developing a new model that other countries, especially in the
Global South, can adopt to satisfy the increasing global demands for accountability, while
also helping those in conflict to achieve a stable and lasting peace.
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
ARMENGOL VICENÇ FISAS (2013) The principles of mediation and the role of third parties in the peace process.
Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre.
BEITTEL (2013) Peace Talks in Colombia. Congressional Research Service. [Online] Available from: www.csr.gov. [Accessed:
10th of October 2015].
DUDLEY STEVEN (2006) Walking Ghosts: Murder and Guerrilla Politics in Colombia. New York, Routledge.
GIENGER VIOLA (2013) Colombian President Santos Seeks Status as ‘Partner, not Cause. United State Institute of Peace.
[Online] Available from:http://www.usip.org/olivebranch/colombian-president-santos-seeks-status-partner-not-cause. [Accessed:
10th of October 2015].
INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT MONITORING CENTRE (2015) Global Overview 2015: People internally displaced by
conflict and violence. IDMC, Oslo, May 2015. [Online] Available from:
http://www.internal-displacement.org/assets/library/Media/201505-Global-Overview-2015/20150506-global-overview-2015-en
.pdf. [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA AND FARC-EP (2012) General Agreement to end the Conflict and Building a Stable and
Lasting Peace. Oslo. [Online] Available from:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/images/events/15-05-12-Colombian-Peace-Event/3-General-Agreement.pdf [Accessed: 10th of
October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA, HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PEACE (2014) Territorial Peace. Boston. [Online]
Available from:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/images/events/15-05-12-Colombian-Peace-Event/4-Territorial-Peace-in-Colombia---High-Commi
sioner-for-Peace.pdf [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (2015) On their watch: Evidence of Senior Army Officers Responsibility for False Positive
Killings in Colombia. New York. [Online] Available from:
https://www.hrw.org/report/2015/06/24/their-watch/evidence-senior-army-officers-responsibility-false-positive-killings.
[Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA, HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PEACE (2013) Transition in Colombia. Bogota.
[Online] Available from:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/images/events/15-05-12-Colombian-Peace-Event/1-Transition-in-Colombia---High-Commissione
r-for-Peace.pdf. [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA, CENTRO DE MEMORIA HISTÓRICA (2013) Una Sociedad Secuestrada. Bogota.
[Online] Available from:
http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/descargas/informes2013/secuestro/sociedad-secuestrada.pdf [Accessed: 10th of
October 2015].
HASPESLAGH, SOPHIE (2015) What next for the peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC?
London. Global South Unit. London School of Economics.
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA. DIRECCIÓN PARA LA ACCIÓN INTEGRAL CONTRA MINAS ANTIPERSONAL
(2015) Datos actualizados. Bogota. [Online] Available from:
http://www.accioncontraminas.gov.co/estadisticas/Paginas/victimas-minas-antipersonal.aspx [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA. CENTRO DE MEMORIA HISTÓRICA (2013) ¡BASTA YA! Colombia: Memorias de
guerra y dignidad. Informe General. Bogotá. [Online] Available from:
http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/micrositios/informeGeneral/ [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
LSE GLOBAL SOUTH UNIT
WORKING PAPER SERIES
Global South Unit
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street. London WC2A 2AE. United Kingdom
Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7446. Email: gsu@lse.ac.uk
www.lse.ac.uk
Working Paper No. 1. 2016.
12
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA. CENTRO DE MEMORIA HISTÓRICA (2013) ¡BASTA YA! Colombia: Memorias de
guerra y dignidad. Informe Desaparición Forzada Bogotá. [Online] Available from:
http://www.centrodememoriahistorica.gov.co/informes/informes-2014/desaparicion-forzada [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA. HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR PEACE (2015) Bogota. [Online] Available from:
http://www.altocomisionadoparalapaz.gov.co/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF COLOMBIA. UNIDAD DE VICTIMAS (2015) General Report on Victims. Bogota. [Online]
Available from: http://www.unidadvictimas.gov.co/index.php/en/home-english. [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. STATE DEPARTMENT (2015) Remarks Announcing the New Special
Envoy for the Colombian Peace Process Bernie Aronson. [Online] Available from:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/02/237688.htm [Accessed: 10th of October 2015].
ABOUT THE AUTHOR.
Andrés Ucrós Maldonado1
London School of Economics
a.ucros-maldonado@lse.ac.uk
1. The author prepared this policy brief in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this paper are the author's own and
do not reflect the view of any institution or Government.