Petro, the first left-wing president of Colombia, predicted a global crisis due to the “stagnation” of activity and what he called the “gas war” in Europe, after the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

“The United States is practically ruining all the economies of the world”, he launched during a meeting with authorities and communities in the town of Turbo (northwest).

According to Petro, the countries are threatened by recession and “the high interest rate” set by the US Federal Reserve (FED), which attracts “capital from South American countries.”

“In the United States, decisions are made to protect themselves, sometimes without thinking about what will happen through their measures. The economy of Latin American nations is being emptied (…) Our currencies are all falling, not just the Colombian peso”, he added.

Inflation is hitting the economies of the world, mainly those of poor and developing countries.

In the United States, the Federal Reserve (FED) has increased the reference rates to face the rise in prices in a range between 3-3.25%.

As a result, the Colombian debt in dollars could skyrocket and at the same time a capital flight could take place due to the prospect of investors of a higher profit.

In Colombia, the green ticket is quoted at 4,700 pesos per dollar, a figure never seen before. So far this year, the Colombian currency has depreciated by 16% against the dollar, according to estimates by several analysts.

President Petro called on the governments of the region to “establish a common agenda to defend Latin America from the global crisis that is coming.”

(Taken from El Comercio)

Faced with this new situation, the members of the ELN peace delegation that remained in Cuba withdrew from the national territory, in compliance with an agreement between the National Government of Colombia and the ELN, and the guarantors of Norway, Venezuela and Cuba.

As is known, on January 18, 2019, the Government of Colombia publicly announced the decision to conclude the peace talks between the Colombian government and the ELN, which had been taking place in Havana, Cuba, at the request of the then President Juan Manuel Santos, of the ELN and other international actors.

From that very moment, Cuba appealed to the Government of Colombia and the ELN, so that they adopt the pertinent actions that would allow applying the entitled “Protocol Established in Case of Breakdown of the Negotiation of Peace Dialogues Colombian Government-ELN”, signed in the framework of the peace negotiations by the Government of Colombia, the ELN and the guarantor countries on April 5, 2016.

Said protocol establishes that “if the peace talks break down, the countries and the parties will have 15 days from their announcement to plan and specify the return to Colombia of the representative members of the ELN delegation.”

Forty-five months have passed since the time the agreement should have been fulfilled.

Regarding the permanence in Cuba of the ELN peace delegation, the previous Colombian government developed hostile actions against Cuba, through the ungrateful and politically motivated manipulation of the Cuban contribution to peace in Colombia and ignored the rupture protocol, frankly abandonment and breaking of the commitments acquired by that State with six other signatory nations.

The actions of the previous government of Colombia, in collusion with anti-Cuban sectors in the United States, provided the pretexts for the purposes of the Trump Government to intensify the economic, financial and commercial blockade against Cuba and the illegitimate designation of Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism that causes enormous costs and serious humanitarian consequences for the Cuban people.

Cuba acted in strict adherence to its status as guarantor and alternative venue, in an impartial, responsible, professional and discreet manner, in the interest of a political solution to the conflict in Colombia to achieve the peace that its people long for.

With the application of the rupture protocol, what was agreed between the parties and with the guarantors is fulfilled and it is confirmed that the position of principles and in adherence to international law adopted by Cuba was correct.

Likewise, Cuba supports the announcement made today in Caracas by representatives of the Government of Colombia and the ELN, in the presence of the guarantors of Venezuela, Norway, Cuba and special guests, that the talks table will be reinstated in the coming weeks.

Cuba reiterates its decision to carry out this process in the strictest respect for the consent and specific agreements reached between the Government of Colombia and the ELN based on official requests received from them.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cuba reiterates that Cuba will continue to support and contribute, together with the guarantor countries, to the negotiations with the ELN, which it sees as an opportunity and reiterates its deep conviction that the Colombian people deserve peace. and find the ways to reach it.

On his Twitter account, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla ratified the Minrex statement.

Representatives of the Colombian government and members of the so-called Central General Staff of the extinct FARC-EP dissidents, held an exploratory meeting to assess the return to peace talks.

In a joint statement they detailed that the exploratory meeting took place in the department of Caquetá with the accompaniment of the representative of the UN Verification Mission in Colombia and another from the Norwegian government.

According to the document, they expressed the willingness and need for these dialogues to be set by a bilateral ceasefire, whose execution must be verified.

The High Commissioner for Peace, Danilo Rueda, explained at the meeting the concept of President Gustavo Petro’s Total Peace policy, its constitutional and legal framework, and its territorial approach, the criteria for building trust, as well as the dialogue presuppositions.

“A central issue in the government’s response to Total Peace is the binding substantial citizen demands and the rights that must be guaranteed to transition to the Social and Environmental State of Law,” the text states.

For their part, the delegates of the insurgency presented their initial proposals to advance this objective and put an end to the internal conflict in the country. Among them, they pointed out that Total Peace for the FARC EP means the eradication of the causes that generate the social and armed conflict.

They determined in the meeting that a first step for a second rapprochement should be the declaration, as soon as possible, of a bilateral ceasefire agreed by the parties, thus avoiding more pain in the Colombian family and added that for the start of dialogue they will be consulted. all its structures.

Finally, they stressed the importance of the participation of neutral third parties as a guarantee in the dialogues.

The parties agreed to sign a confidential protocol to guarantee a meeting of the commanders of the Central General Staff of the FARC-EP.

“We believe that, as never before, in the history of our country, the conditions are being created to leave decades of fratricidal violence behind forever,” concluded the statement signed by High Commissioner Danilo Rueda and members of the guerrilla: Calarcá Córdoba , Alonso 45, Ermes Tovar and Erika Castro.

“The dialogue begins,” Petro wrote on his Twitter profile, a phrase that he accompanied with two photos and that attest to the meeting of the delegations to advance the Total Peace policy, a transversal axis to all his government programs to achieve change. In colombia.

(With information from Prensa Latina)

However, this position of honoring its word and its status as a guarantor country has generated very serious problems for Havana, caused by the disloyalty of the Duque government and by the hatred of Trump and his friends, who did not rest until they managed to get Cuba was included again in the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, from which the Obama administration had removed it in 2015.

This inclusion has brought serious survival problems to the inhabitants of the island, derived from the inhumane economic restrictions that result from the condition of being considered “sponsors of terrorism”.

All of this has generated strong migratory pressure from many Cubans seeking to leave, especially to the United States, which could turn that country into a boomerang.

More than 20 months have passed since Biden took office and stated that his government was going to review that status as a “sponsor of terrorism” country, with which Cuba has been unfairly classified since when the Trump government, with only a few days left to After finishing his administration, he included it in that macabre list with the argument that giving shelter to the ELN was proof that it was sponsoring terrorists.

But since then, Biden has done little to ease the situation for the Cubans. And nothing that he has moved to remove Cuba from the list.

Now, when the Petro government has asked that of Havana to continue hosting the talks with the ELN and other countries have offered to collaborate with the process, the Biden government does not have a single argument for not taking the steps necessary in order to immediately remove Cuba from the gloomy list.

Already the pressure for Biden to act in this regard is growing. In fact, more than 10,000 people have signed an open letter addressed to President Biden asking him to reverse the measure imposed by Trump and restore Obama’s policy towards the island.

“His policies with respect to Cuba, which have been more aligned with those of Trump than with those of Obama, are affecting the well-being of the Cuban people and go against the will of the majority of Americans. We urge – the letter adds – that you immediately make an important change in policy and remove Cuba from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism”.

The Colombian foreign minister, Álvaro Leyva Durán, had also made the same request when, a few days after taking office, he traveled to Havana to resume talks with the ELN.

So it is time for President Biden to stop dwelling on the matter and act.

Two great friends left this week: former minister Jaime García Parra, whom she loved since she was a child, and doctor Rafael Carrillo, an extraordinary human being. Peace in the graves of him. And a very close hug for his families.

The Colombian-Venezuelan border was closed to vehicular traffic since 2015, a policy maintained and reinforced by former Colombian President Iván Duque since 2018.

According to the Venezuelan head of state, “we are taking firm steps for a progressive, productive and happy opening of the 2,229 kilometers of border with Colombia.”

Maduro celebrated that for Venezuela, what he called “a gigantic market of 45 million inhabitants” will be opened in Colombia, to which Caracas, in full economic recovery, will be able to present its export offer that has grown, he said.

According to the Venezuelan president, Colombia “has high-quality products that Venezuela has always bought, distributed and consumed, and now, four years later, we are still producing, and we have a very good export offer for the people of Colombia.”

Venezuela and Colombia advance towards the restitution of commercial exchange

“We are going to the progressive, productive and happy opening of the 2,229 kilometers of border with Colombia. We are working in technical commissions to guarantee mobility.” detailed the @NicolasMaduro pic.twitter.com/olS4eEfff7

– Presidential Press (@PresidentialVen) August 31, 2022

The Venezuelan president invited investors from Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia to come and work the land: “We are going to make good agreements and produce food to export to Colombia, to the Middle East.”

In addition, the new Colombian ambassador to Venezuela, Armando Benedetti, confirmed that the petrochemical company Monómeros, which is owned by Venezuela and is located in Barranquilla, Colombia, will be managed by the board of directors appointed by President Nicolás Maduro, after more than three years controlled by a former opposition deputy.

According to the Bogotá ambassador, Nicolás Maduro is the president recognized by Colombian President Gustavo Petro, unlike his predecessor, Iván Duque, who identified another person.

(With information from Telesur)

No defense of humanity is worth much if it is only an illusion – without territory, simply “good intentions.” Territories are not only geography, they are history and have “sense,” tastes and smells… generated by the class struggle that inhabits all social relations and all emotional and symbolic planes. Human rights cannot be invoked in isolation from the territory under consideration and the semantic tensions of the “natives.” Where everything is corruption, humiliation and contempt for the peoples, the discourse of human rights is simply parlor talk or bureaucratic deception – despite the historical significance and value of the Charter of Human Rights as a tool to oppose the fascist Nazi project lying in wait at the time of its birth on December 10, 1948.

Wherever the aberrations and deprivations imposed by the national bourgeoisie bear down on native peoples, wherever fierce police, military and ideological harassment of the indigenous and peasant population is used to usurp their land, their identity and dignity… talk of human rights is paradoxically only enemy propaganda and bourgeois ideology. Territory weighs on meaning. Where workers are victims of triple extortion by employers, tax collectors and unions, where salaries weigh down on them like an alienating coffin, in which life goes by and time is consumed, in exchange for paltry wages and obscene inflation, to speak of human rights is simply grotesque, if it does not offer real instruments of concrete transformation, instead of escapist illusions. It is reality that determines awareness of human rights. Semantics in crisis.

Let us not succumb to the idealistic temptations of a Declaration of Human Rights without its “feet on the ground” and the semantics of reality. Because there is no return from ridicule. It is useless to build temples or give sermons, with pretentious fanaticism, about rights that mean nothing or which, in any case, reflect someone else’s thinking and serve as enemy ideology to defeat our hopes, struggles and programs of revolutionary transformation.

And it is essential that the entire Declaration of Human Rights be reviewed from a perspective and scrutiny that challenges the individualistic character of rights, contrasting it with their inescapable social and by definition political character. It is an obligatory debate, a pending historical subject, with decades passing in search of territorial semiotic consonance, that is, geosemiotics, in which the critical power of human rights in territories is made visible and the need for a revolutionary humanist Charter becomes apparent, one capable of revolutionizing humanism. Under these conditions, it is essential that all analyses of the issue include, in detail, the universe of semantic repercussions of any postulate which assumes to serve all human beings, address all their historical problems and the urgent need for transformative praxis.

In this context, geosemiotics means the theoretical-practical effort to characterize the complex, diverse and dynamic network of dialectical meaning, the general laws of its development, in each territory. The complex, and not infrequently interconnected, network of meanings with which the daily class behavior of peoples is organized, its philosophical foundations and its moral and ethical expressions. With the basic assumption that all action is preceded by a series of notions about reality, and what an idea implies for the future, geosemiotics is rooted in the need to also locally characterize the modes of production of meaning and the relations of production of meaning, in the concrete conditions in which they develop. This is not an esoteric effort making semiotics, and its role as an instrument in combatting the ideology of the dominant class, even more incomprehensible. On the contrary, it is a question of enriching the instruments of action, of scientific praxis, to facilitate their impact on the concrete realities of peoples.

All necessary tasks in the daily struggle for the emancipation of meaning have, in the Charter of Human Rights, a challenge of critical urgency that is the responsibility of all who, in a multidisciplinary fashion, presume to contribute to orienting emancipatory struggles in opposition to humanism in dogmatic, mechanistic or schematic forms, struggles directed toward resolving not only the human problems of our time but also the idea of a right separated from the critical principle of social justice.

Thus, initiatives to revolutionize humanism and confront the semantic framework of human rights with a political framework of social justice – yet to be constructed – assume new meaning. It is clear that where all human hardship is exacerbated and locked in dead ends, the very notion of the human, the very idea of justice, lose meaning. In any case, this is the dream of the ideology of the ruling class, to strip us of every notion and every humanist practice that could provide concrete direction, whether in the field of philosophy or at the sites where immediate praxis is most urgently needed. The sense of the meaningless.

To revolutionize the Charter of Human Rights is no longer a utopian idea, at a time when the pandemic has laid bare the bourgeois cruelty that hoards vaccines to the tune of the market and capitalist cruelty. To revolutionize humanism implies producing tools that consistently present the face of our astonished peoples who watch, with despair and rage, the postponement of their right to vaccines; who watch the delay of their right to education, to nutrition, to work, to housing and to emancipated culture. The right to “live by living and not surviving” in the immoral conditions in which one “lives” under capitalism. To revolutionize the humanism of human rights implies fighting philanthropic illusionism with a program of concrete action against class-divided societies where the inhumanity of the dominant mode of production and alienating relations of production reign, with all their meanings. Their ways and means.

(Taken from Granma)

“Cuba has been patient and prudent. We hope that, at some point, the will to achieve peace, the legitimate interest and self-determination of the Colombian people, reason and good sense will prevail,” stated the Cuban Foreign Ministry (Minrex) in a recent statement, clarifying the facts surrounding information the Cuban Embassy in Colombia’s received – the veracity of which could not be evaluated – regarding a supposed military attack by the ELN’s Eastern War Front, to be carried out in coming days in the city of Bogota.

Minrex specifies that the ELN (National Liberation Army) Peace Delegation in Havana was immediately advised, and expressed total ignorance of the situation, reiterating that it had no involvement in the military decisions or operations of the organization.

Faced with information of this nature, involving a possible event that could put the lives of innocent people at risk, the Cuban Ambassador in Colombia, José Luis Ponce, was immediately instructed and requested, on Saturday, February 6, at 7:49 pm, an interview with Colombian Foreign Minister Claudia Blum, or a designated official, to convey sensitive, urgent information about a possible attack in Colombia.

At 8:39 pm, contact was made with Deputy Chancellor Francisco Echeverry, although due to the fact that he was outside the capital, the information was conveyed only via telephone, for which he expressed his gratitude. During the call, despite Cuba’s manifest interest in holding a meeting immediately, Echeverry scheduled a meeting for the two on Monday, February 8, at 10:00 am.

By decision of Colombian authorities, the meeting finally took place at 5:15 pm on Monday, when the Cuban Ambassador delivered to the Deputy Chancellor a memorandum containing the information that had been sent to our embassy.

The Cuban Foreign Ministry points out, “We then observed with surprise that a security matter, of the greatest sensitivity, treated with the utmost discretion and urgency by our country, was immediately made available to the media. Twenty-five minutes after Cuba delivered the memorandum, the Colombian press was using the information and publishing a copy of the document itself.”

On Thursday, February 11, at 6:30 pm, our ambassador in Bogota was finally received by the Colombian Foreign Minister and other high-ranking officials of the Colombian state. Three days earlier, on February 8 at 8:00 pm, the High Commissioner for Peace, in a statement to the press, had used this sensitive information, a security issue, as a pretext to attack Cuba based on false assumptions, with the usual hostility and focus that only aggravate the differences between the two governments and damage the participation of international actors in the peace process.

Cuba does not know whether Colombian authorities proceeded to conduct any investigation, quickly discarded the information, or were already aware of it.

The Cuban position on the Colombian government’s demand that members of the ELN Peace Delegation who remain in Havana be extradited, under the responsibility of the Colombian state, has been established and reported in private and also through official, public channels. Cuba will rigorously fulfill its obligation, as a guarantor and the venue of the Peace Talks, to guarantee the safe return of the ELN Peace Delegation, established in the Protocol of Rupture during the negotiations, agreed upon and signed by the Colombian state and the ELN, along with six states, on April 5, 2016. As the Colombian government is aware, this position has broad support from the international community, which has made direct contact with the Colombian government calling for its implementation.

Constantly demanding that Cuba violate the signed agreement is a violation of international law. “Our country will maintain unchanged its rigorous and discreet action, firmly adhering to principles and demonstrated over decades of participation in peace efforts in Colombia. We reaffirm our willingness and commitment to continue cooperating with sectors committed to the search for a negotiated resolution of the Colombian armed conflict to achieve peace,” reads the Minrex statement, published February 13.

This document reiterates Cuba’s concern regarding Colombian authorities’ non-compliance and unilateral attempts to modify the Peace Agreement with the FARC-EP, as well as the growing number of murders and massacres of former guerrilla members, social leaders and human rights defenders in Colombia.

(Taken from Granma)

Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba

The Embassy of Cuba in Colombia received information -whose credibility could not be assessed- in relation to an alleged military attack by the Oriental War Front of the ELN that would take place in the course of the next few days in Bogotá.

The ELN’s Peace Delegation in Havana was immediately advised of said information.  The ELN’s Peace Delegation claimed it was completely unaware of it and provided reiterated assurances that it had absolutely no involvement in the military decisions or operations of the organization.

Given the nature of such information, related to a possible action that might jeopardize the life of innocent persons, the Cuban ambassador, José Luis Ponce, immediately received instructions.  Consequently, he requested, on Saturday, February 6, at 07:49 p.m., a meeting with the Colombian Foreign Minister, Claudia Blum, or any designated official to convey this sensitive and urgent information about a possible attack in Colombia.

At 08:39 p.m., the Cuban ambassador managed to contact Deputy Foreign Minister Francisco Echeverry, but since he was out of the capital he could only received advance information by phone, which he appreciated.  During that phone call, despite our express interest in having a meeting immediately, the Deputy Foreign Minister scheduled a meeting with the Cuban ambassador for Monday, February 8, at 10:00 a.m.

The meeting, due to a decision adopted by the Colombian authorities, was finally held at 05:15 pm on that same Monday, during which the Cuban ambassador handed over to the Deputy Foreign Minister a Memorandum that contained the information that had been spontaneously relayed to our embassy.

At that moment we realized, to our surprise, that a highly sensitive security issue, which was dealt with utmost discretion and urgency by our country, had been immediately disclosed to the media. Twenty five minutes after Cuba had submitted the Memorandum, the Colombian media was already using the information and had published a copy of the very document.

On Thursday, February 11, at 06:30 p.m., our ambassador in Bogotá was finally received by the Foreign Minister and other high officials of the Colombian government.

Three days before, on February 8, at 08:00 a.m. the High Commissioner for Peace, in a press release, had used this sensitive information about a security issue as a pretext to attack Cuba based on mendacious allegations, with the usual hostility and approach that only tend to kindle the differences between both governments and hamper the participation of international actors in the peace process.

Cuba ignores whether the Colombian authorities proceeded to carry out any investigation; quickly disregarded the information or already knew about it.

Cuba’s stand regarding the Colombian government demands that Cuba extradites the ELN’s Peace Delegation members who remain in Havana, of which Colombia is responsible, has been established and informed in private and also through official and public channels.

Cuba will strictly abide by its obligation, as Guarantor and venue of the Peace Dialogue, to guarantee the safe return of the ELN’s Peace Delegation, as established under the Breakup Protocol of said negotiations that was agreed upon and signed by the Colombian government, the ELN and six other States on April 5, 2016. As the Colombian government is aware of, such stand enjoys the broadest support from the international community, which has engaged in direct negotiations with the Colombian government in favor of its implementation.

Cuba is being continuously challenged to violate the agreements that were signed, and that is contrary to International Law.

Our country will invariably uphold a rigorous and discreet behavior, firmly adhering to principles, as has been demonstrated after decades of participating in efforts to bring peace to Colombia.  We reaffirm our willingness and commitment to continue cooperating with those sectors that are committed to find a negotiated solution to the Colombian armed conflict in order to achieve peace.

In this regard, we reiterate our concerns over non-compliance and unilateral attempts to modify the Peace Agreements signed with FARC-EP, as well as the increasing number of murders and massacres of ex guerrilla members, social leaders and human rights defenders in Colombia.

Cuba has been patient and prudent.  We expect that, at some point, the will for peace; the legitimate interests and free determination of the Colombian people as well as good sense and reason shall prevail.

Havana, February 13, 2021.

Iván Cepeda Castro is a man of principle who has dreams and takes action for the good of his country, as a citizen and a political leader.

As a House Representative (2010-2014) and Senator (2014-2018 and 2018-2022) for the Alternative Democratic Pole, he served between 2012 and 2016 as the facilitator of peace talks between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC-EP) and held a similar responsibility in the dialogue between the Colombian executive and the National Liberation Army (ELN) between 2014 and 2018.

His opinions acquire special relevance in an effort to understand more deeply a number of issues related to the peace process in his nation. He kindly responded to Granma’s questions on current Colombian politics, of notable regional and global interest, taking as a starting point his assessment of Cuba’s role during the talks between his country’s executive and the FARC-EP.

“In each and every circumstance, Cuba’s role was fundamental, decisive, and indispensable, because it created the necessary environment and context for the talks. A role that was especially cautious, respectful at all times of the Colombian state and its government and, of course, also of FARC-EP the delegation. The role of guarantor has been carried out with scrupulous care to avoid crossing the line and beginning to intervene in the talks, attempt to guide them, or deny the independence that each of the parties must have.

“Cuba’s work as guarantor was impeccable, both in contributing to the solution of problems inherent to the talks, facilitating the dialogue, fundamentally the rapprochements at the most difficult moments of the debate that took place at the negotiating table; as well as at the most critical moments, when events outside the talks, the dynamics of the confrontation that continued in the country and another series of issues, such as the fierce opposition of sectors that were not supportive of the dialogue, arose in Colombia.

“In all those tense moments, in all those moments of difficulty in which the talks were in serious danger, Cuba’s work and that of Norway was decisive; both teams of guarantors were focused, precisely, on seeking to resolve the problems. This has also been the case in the implementation of the agreement, in which Cuba – along with Norway and also the United Nations Verification Mission – has played a central role.”

More recently, Cuba also played the role of guarantor in the peace dialogue between the Colombian government and the ELN. What is your opinion of Cuba’s role in this process?

-Cuba has also been fundamental in the dialogue process that has taken place in relation to the ELN. A process which has allowed, for the first time in the history of rapprochement with the ELN, the establishment of a negotiations agenda and beginning the development of points on that agenda.

Unfortunately, the current Colombian government has not shown an attitude congruent with such an effort. It has ignored the role of Cuba as a guarantor country in this context, ignoring the Rupture Protocol that had been adopted and denying, not only the specific role of Cuba as a guarantor country, but also the role of guarantors in general in any peace process.

The attitude of the Colombian government toward these talks, and toward the specific episode regarding this protocol, is an attack, an aggression against the principle of legality of peace talks in any circumstance.

Additionally, some voices in the current Colombian government have launched a series of hostile actions against Cuba

-The government has not only ignored the debt of recognition and gratitude Colombia owes Cuba, given its contribution to the peace process but has also taken an openly hostile attitude toward Cuba’s role in the international arena and, in particular, with regard to peace in Colombia.

This is part of a conception of international relations that this government has developed, totally spineless, absolutely subordinated to the interests of a radical and extremist sector of the White House policy-makers today and that fundamentally obeys the electoral dynamics and the debts that Donald Trump has with a Republican political sector in the state of Florida.

This is what, unfortunately, has led Colombia to assume the sad role of a kind of battering ram in support of U.S. policy toward Cuba, Venezuela and the region in general.

In this sense, among the latest events in your country is the arrival on Colombian soil of the U.S. Security Force Assistance Brigade.

-Colombia has become the platform and the laboratory of the current U.S. government’s aggression policy toward countries in the region. It is evident that it is serving as the lead government in the policy of aggression toward Venezuela and Cuba. We are now witnessing what is called military intervention” by invitation,” that is, the presence of an elite brigade of the U.S. Army Southern Command in our territory, which could easily lead to an international confrontation of a multinational nature, in which not only would Colombia and the U.S. military forces be involved against Venezuela, but also, eventually, in a confrontation with other world powers such as China and Russia. It is clear that this policy is highly dangerous and the current Colombian government is participating in its implementation.

You and other legislators questioned the work of the High Commissioner for Peace, Miguel Ceballos during a Political Control hearing in the Senate’s Second Committee, at the beginning of June. Can you give us more details on this Congressional hearing?

-We argued in the Political Control debate that High Commissioner Miguel Ceballos has radically transformed the responsibility he has in the government. He should be the official in charge of peace policy and we see that all his efforts have been directed precisely in the opposite direction: in generating obstacles, difficulties and problems to make implementation of the signed Peace Agreement practically impossible and also in preventing the establishment of a peace process with the ELN and, within that arena, of course, contributing to the aggression against Cuba. In particular, having actively promoted, as he himself acknowledges, the inclusion of Cuba on the list of those designated by the United States as countries that do not cooperate in fighting terrorism.

On 15 June, you and other Congress members also issued a statement welcoming the decision of the Iván Duque administration to maintain and consolidate diplomatic relations with Cuba?

-It is very positive that, in statements made by government officials, the status of Cuba as a guarantor country has been reaffirmed, but we consider this to be insufficient. The problem created by the lack of knowledge of the ELN talks Rupture Protocol must be resolved. So the Political Control work, which we exercise as Congress members, will continue and we will take other actions to ensure that the Colombian government meets its commitments, in an integral, full manner.

What actions could the government of Iván Duque undertake in support of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace?

-The only salvation, the only way for the current government to right the country’s course, after the erratic and unfortunate leadership we have suffered these last two years, is to move toward a serious peace policy, which includes the full implementation of the Peace Agreement, the resumption of talks with the ELN and the promotion of a radically different international policy, oriented toward cooperation, integration and the objective of making our region a Zone of Peace.

(Source: Granma)

Nonetheless, millions of his compatriots associate De La Calle with a transcendental goal for their country, longed for by generations: peace in Colombia.

De La Calle was head of the negotiating team, reprsenting the Juan Manuel Santos government, in the Peace Process with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (farc-ep), from 2012 until the 2016 signing of the General Agreement for the End of the Conflict and the Construction of a Stable and Lasting Peace in Colombia, in Havana.

To hear his views on Cuba’s work in facilitating the peace talks, the current political situation in his country, and latest developments in relations between the two nations, Granma spoke with Humberto de La Calle , the man who affirmed on the memorable date of August 24, 2016, “The best way to win the war was by sitting down to talk about peace.”

-How would you describe Cuba’s role during your country’s peace process?

-The role of the Cuban government was extraordinarily important. It was one of the necessary ingredients for the success of the Agreement. I would like to highlight the work of the diplomats and officials who accompanied the two delegations. This work was carried with the greatest professionalism.

Cuba fully understood its role as guarantor, in association with Norway, in a direct negotiation between the parties. In this sense, it was absolutely neutral, precisely as expected. The two guarantors provided security for both parties and we afforded them broad confidence, that we handled with skill and discretion. In my first visit as head of the delegation with then President Raul Castro, he made that position clear: “You can count on Cuba’s full support, but from our side there will be no deviations or interference.” And I must also highlight the generosity of our hosts during that long period, as well as the affection of the Cuban people, who spared no efforts to make our stay more pleasant.

-The fourth implementation report from the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, presented last June 16, states that, through November of 2019, more than half of the Peace Agreement was in its initial phase of implementation. What is the reason for this?

-Progress has been made in the area of reintegrating former combatants. But the current Colombian government and prominent leaders of the governing party have reiterated that their work is focused on attending to what they call “grassroots guerrillas.” This generates a bias that has led to structural issues, like a road map for Colombia, that go beyond the Havana agreements, which, frankly, are frozen.

A genuine comprehensive rural reform remains a pending task, as is political reform. As for transitional justice, it is no secret that the government has inadequately presented its objections, which fortunately, failed. I firmly believe that it is a mistake to set aside the Agreement that meant the cessation of a conflict that lasted more than half a century.

-It is also alarming that, thus far, more than 200 former farc-ep combatants have been killed since the signing of the Peace Agreement. How will violence in your country be overcome?

-Complying with the Agreement in its entirety is the best recipe. In the case of illicit crops, for example, voluntary substitution generates a more sustainable impact. The use of force leaves the door open for the replanting of coca, as the United Nations points out in its reports.

I am careful with words. The death of social leaders and people who have been involved in the crime of rebellion is not entirely new. The government cannot be held accountable as if it had inaugurated this hecatomb. But the uncertainty created about the Agreement has contributed to this alarming figure, to which the death of other leaders must be added. Such is the case, for example, of human rights defenders.

-The Peace Talks between the Colombian government and the National Liberation Army (eln), were being held in Havana, until their conclusion by decision of President Ivan Duque. What is your opinion of Cuba’s role as guarantor in these negotiations?

-I was not personally involved in those negotiations, but I have the perception that Cuba acted with the same rigor that it exhibited during the talks with the Farc.

-How do you assess the decision of the current Colombian government to ignore the Rupture Protocol, signed within the framework of the peace negotiations by the Colombian government, the eln and the guarantor countries?

-A big mistake. The protocols of rupture are millenary. There would be no possibility of dialogue if they were not signed and respected. The government took the wrong path and created a problem that has become a dead end. And it is not just Cuba, because Norway as guarantor and other countries also agreed to these protocols.

Beyond the legal format, this Protocol does not play an insignificant role. It is a legal and moral commitment of the Colombian state. The argument that it was signed by the previous government has no validity whatsoever.

-In 2019 Colombia also modified its historical position of support for the Resolution that every year the United Nations General Assembly approves demanding the end of the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States…

-A foreign policy error. The blockade violates elementary principles of respect for human dignity.

-Likewise, the Colombian government’s High Commissioner for Peace, Miguel Ceballos Arevalo, declared in reference to the inclusion of Cuba on the U.S. list of countries that allegedly do not cooperate in combatting terrorism, that the decision of the State Department was an “endorsement” of the government of Colombia and its “insistent request” that Cuba hand over members of the eln peace delegation.

-That statement was indeed made. Later, in a (Congressional) political control debate, the Colombian government asserted that it had not discussed the issue with the U.S government. But the fact is that the Commissioner understood that the U.S. decision reflected support for Colombia and its request in violation of the Rupture Protocol. A very serious move. To generate or applaud this decision is equivalent to condemning Cuba for keeping its word. Because, furthermore, it is no secret that Cuba has collaborated with several Colombian governments in the search for an end to the conflict. At this point, there is no way to demonstrate any Cuban action meant to promote terrorism on our soil.

-The government of Iván Duque recently announced the decision to maintain and consolidate diplomatic relations with Cuba?

-Well, that’s how it should be. Colombia, long ago, adopted an open approach in its foreign relations. Now we see a different attitude toward Cuba that isolates us from the regional scene and that constitutes, moreover, an act of ingratitude toward a country that has worked hard for the end of the armed conflict. Let us hope that these words become a reality and that we manage to overcome the issue of the Protocol in order to recover the atmosphere of mutual solidarity that has been very useful to us.

-Several Colombian Congress members, last June 15, urged that the government “explicitly reiterate its commitment to the role of Cuba as a guarantor country in the process of implementing the Peace Agreement.” Do you support this statement?

-Absolutely.

-From your experience, what suggestions can you make to any negotiating team participating in a Peace Process?

-Be clear that what is signed is to be fulfilled, regardless of subsequent political vicissitudes. The negotiator is the voice of the President, who as head of state has authority in the matter, commits the Colombian state.

-Finally, how would you describe the current situation in Colombia?

-It is difficult, because of the pandemic. Thus far, the figures have been good, but there are concerns about the social effects on the population, as the blow to the economy and employment has been very hard.

I hope that Colombians understand that one way to assist the weakest is to comply with the Agreement in those areas that are indicated as being most impacted. The battle against the pandemic is complementary to the Agreement, not a contradiction, at least in what it says about territorial development provisions. Otherwise, there is a harsh political confrontation. I hope that we will manage to overcome the epidemic in order to understand that reconciliation is imperative if we want a better country.

(Source: Granma)