President Santos’s Peace: More Than a Signature on Paper

By: Ariella Roitman

When military general Jorge Enrique Mora wrote “While Santos enjoys his Nobel Peace Prize, us Colombians are living with the consequences,” what had already become overall dissatisfaction with the result of the Colombian peace negotiations quickly became a direct critique of ex-president Juan Manuel Santos. 

Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016 following his efforts to end a 50-year conflict that left 262,000 dead and more than 5 million internally displaced. With an emphasis on comprehensive rural reform, ex-combatant political participation, reduction in the production of illicit drugs, and victim compensation, the peace agreements marked a transitional moment in national reparation. Yet five years following the signing of the peace treaty, it has been made evident that advances are being made at a snail’s pace. This begs the question: Was Santos’ Nobel Peace Prize rewarded prematurely? 

Of primary importance is the lagging advancement of victim reparation in the county— a promise that convinced victims to vote “yes” for peace during the 2016 referendum. Although popular consensus led to a vote against peace (skewed by less affected yet densely populated cities), communities hit hardest by guerrilla violence showed overwhelming support for the peace process. The community of Bojayá, located in the poorest department in the country, Chocó, has had a long history of violent encounters with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Colombia’s largest guerrilla group, and members of the paramilitary. In 2002, this largely Afro-American population recorded one of the worst massacres in Colombian history. Then, in 2016, the community topped the list of highest number of votes for peace, with 96% voting “yes.” The story of Bojayá paints the picture of reality for Colombians: internal displacement, violence, and a government whose negligence is hidden under false promises of peace. 

Significant reforms included in the peace accords were Territoriality Focused Development Programs, designed to increase state presence which had been historically weak in rural areas. A transformation of the Colombian countryside would seek to address conflict and farmers’ continual production of drugs and, if successful, would bring much-needed peace to vulnerable communities. But with a budget that accounts for 85.4% of the accord’s 15-year implementation costs, government spending has come to a standstill. Until now, only 15.1% of the victimized population has been indemnified while victims still await the arrival of the peace accord’s idealized reforms. 

As hard-hit communities continue to live with the consequences of the violent conflict, guerrilla soldiers responsible for killing thousands are receiving governmental aid for their return to civil society. In July 2021, the Colombian government announced an increase in monetary compensation to ex-FARC members.  “We accompany the ex-combatant population with […] new opportunities to strengthen ties of conviviality and reconciliation,” stated the Agency of Reincorporation and Normalization, an organization instilled by the government as part of the peace accords. Not only have ex-guerrilla members been granted impunity from the law, but those guilty of crimes against humanity are also receiving free education and monetary compensation— all financed by the national government. Meanwhile, families of victims of the Bojayá massacre are still burying their loved ones 17 years after their unjust massacre. 

In 2016, international praise for Santos’s reward was not shortcoming. Nancy Lindborg, president of the United States Institute of Peace, applauded the Nobel Committee’s decision to award Santos as consistent and commendable, arguing that “This sustained American backing helped Colombians reach a peace agreement that will increase stability in the region, reduce the flow of narcotics to the U.S. and allow Colombians to rebuild their lives.” Nevertheless, expected outcomes have strayed far from reality. 

5 years after the signing of the peace treaty, Colombia continues to be besieged by violence. Massacres have increased by 175% between 2018 and 2020. 310 murders of social leaders have made 2020 the most violent year for human rights advocates. Rural communities run the risk of reverting back to levels of violence that existed before the signing of the peace agreements. Yet it seems as though “peace” as defined by ex-president Santos involves a disproportionate willingness to surrender the needs of millions of civilians to a couple of guerrilla members sitting at a round table in La Habana; a weak and immoral resolution to say the least. 

Thorbjorn Jagland—a member of the Nobel Committee— claims that the Nobel Peace Prize has been increasingly awarded as an “encouragement,” or a nudge to persevere among a scarcity of peace. Nevertheless, the naïvety of Jagland’s arguments that “we have to award those who are trying” underscores the true nature of politics, driven primarily by desired power and wealth. Santos’s incentives reached a critical turning point following the acceptance of his award—a reality that has become increasingly evident for skeptical Colombians and hopeful foreigners alike. The prize, rather than acting as the “nudge” to persevere among a scarcity of peace, was contrarily received by Santos as a job well done. 

International analysis of a domestic affair such as Colombia’s civil war can be unsurprisingly inaccurate. While the United States makes a decision to remove the FARC from its List of Foreign Terrorist groups, a new army of guerilla men, made up by dissidents of the FARC, is beginning to take prominence in Colombia. Here lies the danger of an international award such as the Nobel Peace Prize: what may be seen as a step in the right direction from abroad may just be what was needed to incentivize more resistance towards an increasingly powerful government. The Nobel’s international prominence—although previously successful in awarding individuals who have contributed to global peace and diplomacy—has not proven to be compatible with Colombia’s efforts to combat a characteristically national conflict. 

It is easy to praise Juan Manuel Santos for his “heroic” efforts to bring long-lasting peace, but a 300-page delineation of peace advancements has no significance if simply left to theory. A necessary top-down approach would assure proper delivery of policy outcomes, but Santos’s lack of political presence has deepened the incompetence of an already divided and consequently corrupt political system. For the past five years, Santos’s primary role has been to burden his political successors with the difficult task of employing his visionary reforms, all the while receiving the benefits of having only stepped foot on the long road to peace in Colombia. 

---

Ariella Roitman (ariellaroitman@gwu.edu) is a sophomore at George Washington University double majoring in international affairs and journalism.

The Global Anti-Democratic Structure of Food: A Call for Food Sovereignty and Agroecology

By: Kelsey Kotts

Global governance structures and international organizations’ development initiatives ought to shift away from programs and policies that focus on solving world hunger by solely emphasizing the eradication of food insecurity worldwide. Rather, in solving global hunger- especially in the Global South- policy and development objectives should shift towards an emphasis on food democracy, agroecology, and food sovereignty. A move away from food security initiatives towards more equitable and sustainable goals for food sovereignty inherently critiques the global trade system’s dominance and control of LDCs. Advocating for food sovereignty and the democratization of food production and distribution is vital for not only ending world hunger but for giving the power and control of food back to the people. 

Urbanization did not just move people physically away from farming and agricultural practices. It, more importantly, moved people away from both the knowledge and the power over their localized food production and distribution of goods. The historical decline in world populations directly involved in agriculture, as well as the overall decline in both developed and underdeveloped states’ agricultural populations, has moved the concentration of power over food into the hands of a few multinational agribusinesses. One example of the extreme concentration of power over food is the U.S.’s largest privately held company, Cargill, which accounts for “nearly half of the world’s global grain production” (The Centralization of Food Systems and Political Power). 

(Graphics received from: The Centralization of Food Systems and Political Power)

Because food is extremely centralized, food security initiatives and development programs cannot fully address the global power dynamics at play in the agricultural trade sector. Securing access to food does not guarantee that people will have sustainable, equitable means to access food for themselves without having to rely on Global North aid or structural development programs. Caroline Webb writing for Transformation argues that “efforts towards developing global ‘food security’ have promoted the consolidation of food production in agribusiness and the liberalization of agricultural trade.” The legacy of the Green Revolution over 50 years ago- with its implementation of large-scale agricultural production technologies- continues to impact small farmers, the biodiversity of crop production, land erosion, soil nutrient depletion and has significantly transferred power away from people in their control of food. Calls for food security do not address the anti-democratic structure of food, nor how the consolidation of natural resources is the driving factor of poor health, hunger, and the root of global poverty (Webb). It is only in the relinquishment of privatized natural resources from these massive, multinational agribusinesses and the establishment of global food sovereignty that the democratization of food can occur, and the eradication of hunger can be actualized. 

One proposal that could democratize global food systems is the concept of food sovereignty. Food sovereignty is simply defined as “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems” (Nyéléni 2007). The concept dates back to the mid-90s, but was first brought to the international stage in Mali in 2007, when a collective effort of both individuals and organizations came together to host the first Forum for Food Sovereignty.  This forum is a direct example of people, particularly those living in rural communities, demanding more democratic, sovereign control over their food and calling out the problematic global system’s structure that lends vulnerable populations in the Global South to be dependent on transnational companies and the international market rather than reliant on their own localized communities in securing food. An especially pressing matter that transcends the anti-democratic critiques of the systems today was brought up throughout the forum when discussing the impending climate crisis, and the implications unsustainable agricultural practices are having on LDCs’. 

The capitalist-driven, industrialized, large-scale production of agriculture has greatly contributed to the climate crisis and the exploitation of sovereign resources in the Global South. A lasting impact of the Green Revolution and its technologies- particularly chemicals- is the degradation of the land’s ability to adapt and naturally recover, as well as human-caused environmental events such as flooding, droughts, and downstream pollution. Reports estimate that “65% of soils on agricultural lands in Africa have become degraded since the middle of the 20th century” (UCL Democratising Food) and that climate change is increasing the frequency of events like flooding and droughts happening worldwide. An important aspect of climate justice that could be better addressed with the implementation of food sovereignty concerns the global power dynamics at play between LDCs and the hegemonic countries that operate these multinational agricultural businesses. The result of foreign control over LDCs’ food is driving the climate crisis further, and the harm falls on those with little to no control over their resources or food production. Therefore, advocating for food sovereignty will result in a more agroecological approach to how food operates and will make a more equitable, communal, and sustainable use of the land and indigenous resources. Communal agriculture can help bring climate justice to marginalized communities while ensuring they have control and access to food simultaneously. 

The democratic control and participation of people over their food supply and production has had success in the past. In Burkina Faso, where localized, democratic participation across 125 villages addressed topics like water retention and soil health, there were optimistic results in improving the livelihood of people living in the relatively impoverished nation. The localized focus on the environment improved water retention and aided soil health by an astonishing “increase between 40% and 300% compared to earlier methods” (UCL Democratising Food). Agroecology’s emphasis on the consideration of local environmental conditions in combination with the restructuring of the global market to allow for the sovereign control of food can address many socioeconomic issues ranging from indigenous rights to poverty to the eradication of hunger overall. 

---

Kelsey Kotts (kkotts@gwu.edu) is a student at The George Washington University, Majoring in International Affairs and Africana Studies with a concentration in Conflict Resolution.

Hidden Motives: The Corruption of American Nation-Building

Summary

As government officials cycle in and out of the public and private sectors while promoting personal interests, private-sector companies are the unquestioned winners in the process of American foreign nation-building, and the rest of the US and the occupied country lose. The US should no longer participate in extensive nation-building due to the infiltration of immense systemic corruption.

---

In the sixteen cases of United States nation-building activities since 1900, all but four have been an utter failure as seen through a traditional strategic military lens. As demonstrated throughout recent history, effective state institutions develop from the inherent social structure, culture, and belief system of a nation. Therefore, attempts by outsiders to impose their preferred form of government on other nations are bound to be futile, as the underlying culture of the people can seldom be radically altered. This begs the question of why the United States continues to engage in nation-building, and what are its motives, if not the installation of a peaceful, democratic, and sustainable government? 

While democratization and national security may appear to be noble causes for foreign intervention, nation-building in practice can be considered neo imperial economic exploitation. Building the government and infrastructure of a foreign nation can enable the US to gain immense power and influence in the region, as well as to profit greatly. Democratization and national security are widely publicized as the grounds for American nation-building, but in reality serve as the justifications for its true motives, power, influence, and war profiteering. As government officials cycle in and out of the public and private sectors while promoting personal interests, private-sector companies are the unquestioned winners in this process, and the rest of the US and the occupied country lose. The US should no longer participate in extensive nation-building due to the infiltration of immense systemic corruption. This is not to say that we as a nation do not have a responsibility to intervene under certain circumstances. 

One key example of American war profiteering through nation-building is when the US military gave highly lucrative, exclusive, “no bid” contracts to the then largest-ever construction entity, RMK-BRJ, which included Raymond International, Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, and J.A. Jones Construction, for infrastructure development in Vietnam. In response, representative Donald H. Rumsfeld called for the investigation of what he claimed to be illegal contracts, as well as the relationship between the companies working in Vietnam and the Johnson administration, in particular Brown & Root’s extensive campaign contributions. These politically charged contracts were to become the norm, as is seen consistently throughout the US tenure in Afghanistan and Iraq.

According to President Biden, “our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation-building… Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.” Nation-building is much more than just an ideological mission. The United States had become deeply entrenched in lucrative nation-building contracts with private sector companies, as demonstrated through the Brown & Root controversy in Vietnam, which inevitably resulted in immense political pressure on administrations from these entities. While the US military withdrawal from Afghanistan led to the Taliban’s shockingly quick return to power, many military and corporate actors would consider the conflict a success. Former Air Force fighter pilot John Boyd explained, “people say the Pentagon does not have a strategy… they are wrong. The Pentagon does have a strategy. It is ‘Don’t interrupt the money flow, add to it.’” The majority of the approximately $5 trillion spent on the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have been transferred to military contractors, whose workers outnumbered soldiers in Afghanistanthree to one.

Regarding the American invasion of Iraq, similar to Vietnam, the individuals and companies with the closest connections to government officials benefited from the large amount of money flowing into Iraq. Halliburton, whose ex-CEO was then-Vice President Dick Cheney, started building tent cities outside of Iraq before combat was terminated. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary that profited greatly in Vietnam, also signed contracts to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure. When Congress began investigating nation-building financial deals, the Bush administration quickly attempted to distance itself from any connections to war profiteering or corruption. Iraqi nation-building was not driven by humanitarian motives any more than was the American presence in Vietnam forty years ago; it was an unjustified war that was sustained by ideologues and war profiteers. 

Peter Galbraith, a former US diplomat, simultaneously acted as an unpaid advisor to the Kurds during Iraqi constitution building negotiations, as well as a representative of the Norwegian oil company DNO. Interviews with many former government and business officials, along with legal records, reveal that Galbraith received rights to a $100 million stake in at least one Iraqi oil field in 2004 after helping to negotiate a contract for DNO to drill in Kurdistan. Given that Galbraith was instrumental in crafting the constitutional provisions that enriched himself, this major conflict of interestexacerbated Iraqi fears of American interference with the sole motive of controlling oil reserves, and the Iraqi government held the belief that Galbraith’s role in the negotiations and all oil contracts signed by the Kurdish government were illegal.

Exacerbating the Iraq war profiteering corruption was then Vice President Dick Cheney’s continued involvement with his former company, Halliburton. In the words of John Kerry, "While Dick Cheney claims that he has gotten rid of all of his financial interests in Halliburton, he's actually received $2 million in bonuses and deferred compensation from his former company since taking office in 2001.” Halliburton, an oil services and engineering company, won a $5 billion contract in 2001 to provide logistical support for troops in the Middle East. In March 2003, Kellogg Brown & Root was awarded a $7 billion “no bid” contract to restore and operate Iraqi oil wells. Cheney’s glaring conflict of interest is yet another example of the ease through which singular companies and officials can maximize their wealth through foreign nation-building.

American nation-building is not a humanitarian effort, but a corrupt, powerhouse, private-sector industry. It should be noted that when the United States first became involved in foreign nation-building, its efforts were for the purpose of defending its core security and economic interests, not for building a democracy. However, democratization is now voiced as one of the principal goals of many American nation-building activities. While Western democracy may work for the United States, that does not mean it is the most effective option for other nations with distinct cultures and histories. The United States’ nation-building attempts have created deep-seated resentment among foreign populations, as the US has essentially acted as a quasi-colonial ruler through its interference in local affairs. Unilateral nation-building enables extensive corruption in government contracts, and therefore the United States should only engage in multilateral humanitarian aid through regulated international institutions. The United States should discontinue its nation-building efforts, separate from necessary military intervention. Although the United States still holds an immense responsibility to prevent atrocities across the globe and ensure national security, it is imperative that we halt the harmful process of nation-building just for the sake of upholding the interests of unscrupulous, revolving-door war profiteers. 

Sydney Blair is a sophomore at the George Washington University majoring in International Affairs. Contact: sydneyblair@gwu.edu