Channels, Fall 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 3 • Number 1 Page 51 Colombian government and FARC decided that the main objective was the ending of armed conflict, significantly narrowing their objectives from previous attempts at peace. At this time, they also decided the peace process would contain three phases: preparation, conflict termination, and conflict transformation. Additionally, they decided upon six substantive issues, which were as follows: rural development, political participation, illicit crops, victims, conflict termination, and the implementation of the eventual peace process. This pre-negotiation stage, which took place in secret, resulted in the 2012 Global Agreement for the Termination of the Armed Conflict, providing the framework for the entire peace process. Additionally, during this stage, the two parties agreed on the schedule for the negotiations—the sessions in Havana would last eleven days and would be followed by short periods intended for internal consultations and preparations for the next round. They also agreed to release a joint statement providing updates on the peace process after each round (Herbolzheimer, 2016). In many ways, the framework for the Colombian peace process was innovative. For example, it distinguished between conflict termination and transformation. The negotiators realized that their role, realistically, was to end the conflict. The broader peace-building process would occur only after the conflict ended and would include every Colombian (Herbolzheimer, 2016). The framework was not the only innovative part of the Colombian peace process. Building upon previous peace process, including the Northern Irish peace process, Colombia was able to contribute various innovations to peacebuilding. For example, the Colombian peace process widely utilized international advisers. Each party had access to a team of international experts. Furthermore, the Colombian peace process was the first peace process to put victims’ rights front and center. In fact, they devised three mechanisms to do so. First, was the creation of channels allowing victims to send proposals to both delegations electronically or through conventional mail. Second, through the help of the United Nations, the Catholic Church, and the Universidad Nacional, they created forums to allow victims to express their views. Third, victims were invited to public hearings in Havana where they could engage with both delegations (Maldonado, 2017). In “What the Colombian Peace Process is Teaching the Word,” Maldonado, a member of the Colombian government’s delegation to Havana, said the following: 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 be advantageous to both parties. Most crises can be solved on the basis of the rules and mechanisms established in the framework agenda, because this initial agreement gives stability and provides a common ground and a sense of predictability to the whole negotiation (Maldonado, 2017). This quote shows the importance of having a good framework for a peace process. Both Northern Ireland and Colombia benefited from having a clear roadmap for their peace processes; the framework helped the negotiators understand exactly what they needed to accomplish. The Northern Irish peace process benefited from the three-strand framework as it acknowledged the interconnectedness of the people of British Isles. In the same way,