What we do

Gustavo Petro’s “total peace” plan and how it could shape the notion of security in Colombia.

– Article by Angelo Cardona

In his inaugural speech, Petro said, “peace is the meaning of my life, and it is the hope of Colombia” his words resonated in the ears and hearts of an entire nation striving to overcome the grief of war.       

The killing of social leaders, exacerbation of inequality due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and increasing distrust in governmental institutions led the Colombian people to set their faith in former guerrilla fighter Gustavo Petro as the first leftist President of Colombia. Now, he joined a group of rising progressive leaders in Latin America.

Petro’s government will face an enormous challenge in rebuilding trust in the state institutions, which will require a paradigm change in how the Colombian people understand security. 

To this end, he seeks to achieve “total peace” in Colombia to prepare the ground to overcome the country’s six decades of armed conflict. The ambitious plan involves the significant advancement in the implementation of the peace agreementwith the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), resuming peace talks with the National Liberation Army (ELN), establishing dialogues with Colombia’s drug-trafficking militia “Clan del Golfo,” criminal groups, and the FARC dissidents. 

The peace plan comes with substantial challenges that will require the cooperation of a broad range of actors that historically have opposed previous peace agreements, particularly conservative movements. In the face of this, the government is committed to building a “national accord” to find consensus. Despite Petro’s ambitious agenda’s challenges, he is stubbornly committed to it.      

This ambitious peace plan will require a shift in the notion of security that has permeated the country for decades of confrontation. Petro aims to hear those who have not been heard before so that no insurgent group would have to retake weapons to have a say in a country that has suffered the scourge of war for so long due to political, social, and economic exclusion.      

As a former member of Colombia’s extinct M-19 guerrilla group, Petro was in prison in 1985 for illegally possessing weapons. However, his ideology changed when he was released, and he realized that a military revolution wouldn’t lead to a meaningful structural change. After Petro was freed, the M-19 signed a peace treaty with the government in 1990. His experience in the militia, time in prison, and a subsequent peace agreement with the M-19 shaped his current notion of security. 

Before he was sworn into office, he prepared the ground for his “total peace” policy. Petro’s first step was appointing peace facilitator Alvaro Leyva as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Next, Leyva diligently engaged in conversations with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Carlos Faria to reestablish diplomatic ties with Venezuela. After that, a delegation of Colombian government representatives — composed of Chancellor Leyva, Senator Ivan Cepeda, and Colombia’s Commissioner for peace, Danilo Rueda — flew to Havana to meet with National Liberation Army (ELN) representatives to restore peace talks with the rebel group. 

Petro also named Ivan Velasquez as Defense Minister. Lawyer and jurist Velasquez has played a prominent role against corruption in Colombia and Guatemala. He won notability for his investigations as a prosecutor against Pablo Escobar and uncovered the ties between politicians and paramilitary groups in the 90s. In 2007, he went to work for the Supreme Court of Justice and obtained the imprisonment of more than 50 members of congress for their ties with paramilitary groups.  

In 2013, Velasquez was appointed Commissioner of the United Nations International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). His investigations as head of the CICIG led to the resignation and imprisonment of the then-president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, for corruption charges.

Colombia’s security forces have a long history of corruption scandals and human rights abuses. The appointment of Velasquez aimed to rebuild the trust the Colombian people lost in the military establishment, and Petro sent a solid message with the designation — Colombia’s army wouldn’t engage in corruption and human rights abuses during his term.  

Petro’s approach to the military and security will be based on the notion of human security — which seeks to increase freedom from fear and human dignity — instead of getting body counts; success will be measured in reducing deaths and massacres. Petro pledged during his presidential campaign that soldiers and members of the police accused of human rights abuses would stand trial in regular courts rather than military ones.

He has already replaced his military and police commanders. The criteria for selecting them were based on “zero corruption, and zero violation of fundamental rights,” and their priorities will be “the reduction of violence, criminality, and the substantial increase in respect for human rights and civil liberties.” Petro said during a press conference.    

He has also promised to eliminate the riot police, remove compulsory military service, and invest in education for peace and reconciliation across many institutions. However, these significant reforms will require systemic changes that undoubtedly will be challenged by the opposition — represented predominantly by the right-wing Democratic Center Party of Colombia — whose political leaders have questioned Petro’s approach to national security. 

Numerous challenges plague Petro’s “total peace” agenda. Implementing such an ambitious plan will require a lot of practical actions and the commitment not only of his government but also one of his successors, as he’s promised not to seek reelection after his four-year-mandate.

However, his plan has begun to bear some fruit. Colombia’s drug-trafficking militia “Clan del Golfo” already announced a unilateral ceasefire in hopes of engaging in peace negotiations with Petro’s government, which could lead other criminal groups to follow.  

During Petro’s tenure, Colombia will see a different approach to national security. Respect for human rights and dignity will be the measuring criterion, and dialogue could be the primary weapon to deal with guerilla groups. A country that has been fueled with hate and violence for decades will now strive to build a different narrative — one that endures human security.

Colors of Peace – Istgah Orchestra & IPB

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube’s privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Have you ever had a fight or conflict with anyone? Did you reconcile after the fight? What do you think is the color or war? What do you think is the color of peace? Eight children from different international backgrounds give their answers to these simple but profound questions.

In collaboration with the International Peace Bureau, the Istgah Musical Orchestra presents us with this beautiful piece of art, sending to all the world an important and necessary message of peace. May the perspective of children guide our take on conflicts and on how to bring more color to our society.

Istgah Orchestra Manager: Mahdi Norouzi Executive Director: Kimia Bakhtiarian International Affairs: Nazanin Adhami Coordinator: Mahdis Yaghoubnezhad Costume & Set Design: Yasamin Hariri Photographer: Melika Naeiji Question Developer: Golfam Goudarzi (Child Psychologist) Director & Editor: Soroush Q mar C Videographer: Amin Nakhi

More info: https://istgahmusical.com/en/

Report “NATO, Building Global Insecurity” – English Version

(UPDATE): This report, which has been published last month, now has a official english version:

Nato, Building Global Insecurity (english version)Download

On the 25th of June, at the occasion for the Peace Summit Madrid 2022, the Centre Delàs d’Estudis per la Pau, in collaboration with the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the Global Campaign on Military Spending (GCOMS), issued its 53th report under the name “NATO, Building Global Insecurity” (La OTAN, Construyendo Inseguridad Global” in the original) with the coordination of Gabriela Serra and contribution of many authors.

This report on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) presents an updated and detailed reading of military alliances, taking into account the global context of simultaneous crises and the increase of the tensions caused by the invasion of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022.

“NATO’s modus operandi is reflected in its Strategic Concepts, and from the last two approved we can draw some conclusions that help us understand the Alliance’s objectives: on the one hand, it attempts to promote a broad conception of defense, which it makes it possible to greatly expand its scope of action to deal with “new threats”, many of them non-military; There is also an attempt to make submission to the Charter of the United Nations more flexible, situating itself in what has been described as “legal deregulation of war”; Similarly, NATO expands its geographical scope of action beyond what is established by the North Atlantic Treaty, as happened in the case of Afghanistan; Lastly, the democratic deficit with which this strategy is decided, which breaks the most basic rules of parliamentarism, is notable. In June 2021, a new Strategic Concept will be approved in Madrid which, predictably, will focus on reinforcing deterrence and defense, which is equivalent to increasing all military capabilities, whether nuclear, conventional or cyber. It will also include an express reference to the relationship with China, which it considers a “systemic challenge.” In addition, it will state that it will not only respond to armed attacks, but that NATO could intervene militarily against any threat to its security (…)

Therefore, this publication defends the “No to war, no to NATO”, as an amendment to the whole, to a predatory militarism of lives and human resources, of habitats, of economies. peace is not only a hackneyed slogan, but a relationship policy that must be deployed at all levels, from the interpersonal to the interstate, now more than ever”

At the adjunct (annex), from pages 47 to 49, you can find the contribution of Reiner Braun – Executive Director of the International Peace Bureau (IPB) – addressing the Olof Palme Report “Common Security 2022: For our Shared Future”, focusing on how Common Security serves to avoid disasters regarding nuclear armament and militarization. The Common Security report aims to encourage that “in times of acute crisis, there must be those who look forward and give a vision of a better future”, complementing in many ways the words of Centre Delàs’ report.

Click in this link to have access to the full report in Spanish as well, or visit Centre Delàs’ website.­­

After the States Conference on the TPNW and before the NPT Conference – from Vienna to New York

Rarely has a world conference been prepared with so little hope and empathy as this year’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference, which will begin in New York on August 1, 2022 for a period of four weeks.

Hopes for an outcome even remotely resembling an evaluation and implementation of the NPT are nil. Even an initiative for a ban on first use will not be successful, and there is no need to talk about arms control or even disarmament.

The conference will take place in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine, which is contrary to international law, the recurring threat of a possible use of nuclear weapons, the comprehensive modernization of all nuclear weapons in all nuclear-weapon countries, the technological development of nuclear weapons into battlefield weapons (mini nukes) and, more generally, the aggressive geostrategic global confrontations.

Is it conceivable in the face of military and economic wars (both of which go far beyond the Ukraine conflict) that there will be serious negotiations on arms control, nuclear-weapon-free zones, and disarmament? Realistically, this is not the case. 

The actors, especially from the Global South, who could push in the direction of negotiations, arms control and disarmament are unfortunately too politically weak, not coordinated enough, and also still without many of their own initiatives. First approaches, like participation within the context of the TPNW, are not yet a global, independently political role comparable to the role of the non-aligned states in the 60/70s. Only with this will for independence from the power centers and in connection with a world-wide civil society active for disarmament would a peace-oriented political alternative paragraph be at all conceivable.

Instead, we are confronted with the fact that the danger of nuclear war has never been so high and so threatening as it is now. The doomsday clock stands on 100 seconds to midnight and is only one pointed expression of the daily atomic madness – 100 seconds was before the Ukraine war!

The success of the nuclear weapons prohibition conference in Vienna in June, against the will of the nuclear weapon states and the nuclear sharing countries, shows only the beginnings for an alternative nuclear weapons disarmament policy. Yes, it is encouraging that the number of ratifying states is increasing, that the commitment of governments, parliaments and civil societies to the treaty is growing. The concretization of the treaty’s formulations and the emphasis on common ground for future action against the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are certainly also worthy of mention. The political integration of the TPNW into the struggle for a policy of common security is certainly particularly gratifying. 

All this, however, does not yet constitute a geopolitical course towards peace.

This strategic development of humanitarian engagement into an alternative political concept makes it clear that security today can only be achieved together. In this context, nuclear disarmament is a chain link for cooperative action. Only if the political confrontation between NATO and Russia or the U.S. and China is overcome will steps toward nuclear disarmament be possible again. Therefore, measures of dialogue and confidence building are also central to a policy whose long-term outcome is to be a world without nuclear weapons. This is even the officially declared goal of the NATO states. Cooperation is not only central to overcoming the dramatic threat of nuclear war, but is also an indispensable component if the climate catastrophe is still to be averted. At present we are heading with tremendous drama towards the double catastrophe – both nuclear and climatic.

To clarify these connections and to discuss the alternative of common security as a geostrategic alternative, peace groups like the international Peace and Planet network and the International Peace Bureau (IPB), in cooperation with the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s New York Office, are organizing the international conference on July 30th in New York on the theme of “geostrategic disorder”. 

IPB is also represented at the NPT conference with two side events – one on nuclear weapons in Europe and the other on the technological challenges of a new arms race – to underline that the defense against the danger of nuclear war is a central challenge for the worldwide peace movement. This must be about more education and more action to stop the media and political course towards insane further high armament and war. A worldwide social and ecological as well as economic tsunami is the consequence if this policy – specifically, the nuclear armament policy of the P5 and other nuclear powers, including that of the NATO states – is not stopped. 

The NPT conference can therefore perhaps help to put the much-needed global “coalition of reason” on the agenda.  

– Reiner Braun, Executive Director of the IPB

Article written for Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung – New York Office

Berlin, Germany – July, 2022

Month of Action: September 2021 – Leaflet

The peace movements across Europe are coming together for a month of action in September 2021 to demand a safer and more peaceful future. A network of organizations, Nuke Free Europe, wants a nuclear-weapon-free Europe; an end to the stationing of US nuclear weapons in Europe; and we demand that European states sign up to and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Continue reading “Month of Action: September 2021 – Leaflet”

Seminars and international conferences

seminars and international conferencesIPB takes every opportunity to talk about the imbalance between military and social spending and organizes side events, seminars and exhibitions, together with like-minded partner organizations. Since the launch of our programme in 2005 we have organized and participated in a dozens of events in order to build awareness of the linkages between Disarmament and Development. Continue reading “Seminars and international conferences”

Education programmes

UOCIPB has a long history in peace education. In 2012, we are building on this tradition by creating an online course at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC) and their Campus for Peace. The course focuses on Disarmament for Development and aims at training a new generation of advocates. The programme is coordinated by Prof. Alicia Cabezudo, IPB Vice-President. It will run from March 27 to July 27 and will be open to students at the university level. For further information, please visit the UOC website.