[ad_1]
As a strategy of the government of the President of the United States, Donald Trump, to achieve his reelection, former President Ernesto Samper described the decision to include Cuba in the list of countries that do not cooperate to attack international terrorism.
The measure of EE. USA It was taken, among other reasons, for the protection that the island has provided to the leaders of the Eln, requested in extradition by Colombia.
For Samper, “everyone knows” that Cuba is not a sponsor of international terrorism, and the US decision, on the other hand, affects the peace approaches that existed between the National Government and that guerrilla.
“For a long time, Cuba made the decision not only to reject terrorism, but not to participate in activities that could be considered contrary to the interests of the countries,” Samper told EL TIEMPO.
What is your opinion that the United States considers Cuba a country that does not cooperate against terrorism?
It was an expected decision, because it is part of a reelectionist strategy by President Donald Trump, to antagonize Cuba and Venezuela to the extent that he has political friends who are enemies of those two countries within the United States. That was something he had been waiting for a long time. I think that – contrary to what the Colombian government thinks, that it was an endorsement of the decision to request the extradition of the ELN negotiators – what happened was that the United States used Colombia and the extradition request to justify the inclusion of Cuba in the list of terrorist countries.
(It may interest you: “The United States gives Colombia a boost”: Miguel Ceballos)
Do you think that the ELN issue has caused noise between Colombia and Cuba?
For some time there have been differences between Colombia and Cuba because the Colombian State, thus the government at the time was not that of Duque but that of Santos, signed protocols with Cuba and with Norway -which are protected internationally-, by Through which the guarantor countries of the Havana peace agreements promised that, in case the negotiations did not prosper, they would return the negotiators who were at the Havana table to their places of origin. Requiring Cuba or Norway to break that commitment at this time, would practically put all the agreements that are currently being negotiated in jeopardy, would remain in the air and subject to that interim.
In other words, Colombia should not be unaware of these protocols?
What the Colombian government has done is a reckless act, which, in my opinion, seriously compromises the country’s international credibility, because it is the ignorance, in serious matters, of agreements that were signed by the Colombian State, thus in that At the moment the president was Santos, just as President Duque is now. That is why I do not understand the happiness of the war commissioner -because it is not peace but war-, Mr. (Miguel) Ceballos, to claim the decision of the United States as a triumph when at bottom it is a shame for the country, which Thus he begins to present himself as an international bully.
The Eln guerrilla continues to make a presence in some parts of the country.
For you, does this episode remove the possibilities of rapprochement between the Government and the ELN?
Of course. Basically it is a breakdown in the negotiations. The government of President Duque, instead of making a decision about continuing with the dialogues, when a bilateral ceasefire had already been negotiated between the government of Santos and the ELN, which would have served the country greatly in the current circumstances, has kept the negotiating table with the ELN in limbo. But with the decision taken by the United States and the expression of joy of the National Government to claim this as a triumph, it is clear that we are returning to 10 years ago, when the action of the guerrillas was considered to be terrorist, that it was necessary to fight militarily and that there was no possibility of recognizing their political status to negotiate with them. What the Government has done, basically, is to return the actors of the ELN to a treatment of terrorists, to combat them militarily and, somehow, it is closing, behind, the door of any negotiation.
And what do you think of this situation?
I sincerely regret it, because the logical continuation of the process was to end in some agreements with the ELN. That there are acts of war? Precisely for this, peace agreements are made, to end wars. That there were attacks and others ?, it is true, as there were with the Farc, but precisely for that the negotiating table opens: so that there is an initial commitment to humanize the conflict while negotiating peace. I really think it is a regrettable episode in Colombia’s international politics, because we have renounced guiding principles that we have been credibly preaching in the world.
(Read: For welcoming Eln, Cuba enters the list of countries that support terrorism)
To what do you attribute that the Duque government is unaware of those protocols that had been signed in the past administration?
In the interest of rendering a service to the United States government that it has an apology to put Cuba, free of charge, in the condition of terrorist country. For the rest, all the lists and certifications that the United States makes on topics such as human rights, the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking are lists of friends and enemies. At bottom they are not objective lists, but political ones, like those of the Inquisition. What really worries is that the Colombian government has somehow lent itself to this strategy to end up involving Cuba in terrorist activities.
That there are acts of war? Precisely for this, peace agreements are made, to end wars.
Do you believe that Cuba is truly involved in terrorist activities?
Everyone knows that they are not carrying out terrorist activities. Their actions have to do with sending doctors, medical missions and professionals. Cuba has long made the decision to not only reject terrorism, but not to participate in activities that could be considered contrary to the interests of the countries.
You say that Miguel Ceballos is not a commissioner of peace but of war, why?
Because he has been systematically sabotaging any possibility of upholding the Havana accords or advancing the ELN accords. He has dedicated himself to the persecution of the Farc’s assets, to removing people from the lists. In the case of the ELN, it has harassed them, demanding that they commit themselves – to reactivate the negotiations – to what would precisely be the subject of the negotiations. It has been a calamity. If that’s the peace commissioner, I can’t imagine what a war commissioner would be like.
Shouldn’t ending the terrorist actions and freeing the kidnapped, as the Government has asked the ELN, should not be a minimum to reactivate the dialogues?
This was how it was raised in Quito. When Juan Camilo Restrepo, government delegate, was president of the commission, humanitarian minimums were defined. There was a recognition of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and a rejection of behaviors such as the recruitment of minors, kidnappings and environmental damage, among others, that were provided for in a humanitarian agreement, which was the first thing that could have been done in a bilateral ceasefire. If there had been on the part of the government of President Duque the minimum political will to advance in these negotiations, the bilateral ceasefire, which had been agreed when the Santos government ended, and later the humanitarian agreements, which would have allowed , while the corresponding negotiations were taking place, removing the innocent civilian population from all these behaviors, which, of course, were absolutely unacceptable to both the ELN and the Armed Forces. But all these problems that we are confronting at the moment have to do with the lack of political will of the Duque government, not only in order not to move forward with the negotiations with the ELN, but also in the possibilities of a process, which remained, to my judgment, very battered after the declarations of war on Wednesday. Equally, to sustain the agreements with the Farc, and this is what at this moment can explain why they continue assassinating the social leaders, that what they are doing is asking them to comply with the Havana accords.
Had there been minimal political will on the part of President Duque’s government to advance in these negotiations, the bilateral ceasefire could have been signed
Many people in Colombia think that the ELN has no will for peace, what do you think?
The only way to find out if it exists or not is for them to sit at the table, for the government to put their conditions ahead of them and for the ELN to do the same in terms of humanizing the conflict. The mistake that was made between the Government and the FARC in the past process was that one and the other rejected the possibility of humanizing the conflict with the absolutely strange argument that they did not want to humanize the conflict, but to end it. That is true, but while the conflict is over, what is used and recommended internationally is that the parties agree to a minimum of humanitarian respect. That is what the Government and the ELN should have sat down to agree for two years, instead of maintaining this situation of having them in limbo, and now the additional complication of trying to force Cuba and Norway to fail as guarantors of the peace accords. What would the peace processes be if, at the request of one of the parties, those on one side of the table can be imprisoned and handed over to the counterpart for trial and punishment if they could not agree.
For you, what would be the formula to return to the rapprochement between the Government and the ELN and achieve the complete peace that many demand?
The will of the President of the Republic. If the President has a will for peace, let him expressly say so, that he somehow make the decisions that are needed to reactivate the table and not continue in this situation, which is already wreaking havoc on Colombia’s international credibility.
JUAN FRANCISCO VALBUENA G.
POLITICAL DRAFTING
