By Raul Cienfuegos
There has been much discussion in Colombia about the "peace" dialogue between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP) and the government.
After decades of unsuccessfully trying to wipe out left-wing insurgents in Latin American militarily, "peace treaties" seem to have become US imperialism's preferred tool.
In El Salvador, the 10-year war between left-wing insurgents and the government was settled by a peace agreement under which the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front guerillas handed in their weapons. The FMLN's conditions were that the official armed forces be halved, the new police force contain at least 25% former guerillas, agrarian and electoral reforms be implemented and an economic forum be established which included representatives from all sectors of Salvadoran society.
The reduction of the armed forces and the formation of the new police force were the only parts of the treaty that were implemented. The agrarian, electoral and economic reforms were never taken seriously by the government and soon after members of the FMLN handed in their weapons, a significant number of them were gunned down by the military.
In Guatemala, the 35-year conflict was formally ended when the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity insurgents handed in their weapons after the government agreed to even more progressive reforms than in El Salvador. However, the conditions of the treaty where ignored by the government.
In both countries, the social conflict continued despite the peace accords. The only difference was that while the governments continued to wage war against their people, the popular movements had given up their means of protection.
Colombia is much larger and more populated than these Central American countries, and the FARC-EP is a much stronger force than the former insurgents in El Salvador and Guatemala. Nevertheless, parallels can be drawn with these countries' peace processes.
In 1984, the FARC-EP signed a cease-fire with the government and began to form a legal political party, Patriotic Union (UP). When the UP began to gain popularity, 4000 of its members were killed.
Then, in 1990, the M19 guerillas handed in their weapons, only to be killed, exiled or bought off.
When I was in Colombia in May, Manuel Marulanda Velez, head of the FARC-EP, told me: "When a rebel force hands in its weapons and a fascist government that has been in power for a long time remains in power, the leaders and owners of that country only have to worry about not laughing to death.
"Keeping our weapons and our camps in the mountains is the only way to guarantee that the conditions of a cease-fire are met. There will be no demobilisation of our forces."
After its earlier experiences, the FARC-EP is sceptical about a peace agreement, or even a cease-fire. It points out that of the 100,000 killings in Colombia last year, fewer than 3000 resulted from direct conflict between the military and the guerillas. A cease-fire between the army and the guerillas does not, therefore, mean automatic peace.
The FARC-EP continues to hold discussions with the government in an attempt to get its 12-point plan implemented. The plan includes the disarming or combating of the right-wing paramilitaries, the building of schools and hospitals, freedom of the press, job creation, an end to United States intervention, a prisoner exchange and a program of crop substitution to end farmers' dependence on narcotics dollars.
Once these conditions begin to be implemented, FARC-EP says, there will be grounds for a cease-fire, but at present the government shows no intention of implementing them.
The FARC-EP's negotiators have been greatly annoyed by the government's attitude to the negotiations. Instead of discussing the conditions for social justice raised by the FARC-EP, the government negotiators persistently hint at the grave danger the FARC-EP could face if the US increases its intervention.
It seems clear to the FARC-EP that the government is trying to force it into a peace agreement in which opposition to the government is rendered ineffective and the people are left at the mercy of the death squads.
The Colombian government's latest tactic has been to endorse a mass rally for peace on October 24. The rally was advertised months in advance on all the main television and radio stations and was promoted as an impartial march for peace. However, its demands, under the slogan "No more!", included an immediate cease-fire. The rally also demanded an end to the targeting of civilians in the conflict.
Several million people attended. Government supporters carried banners condemning the guerillas and the guerillas' supporters carried banners criticising the military and paramilitaries.
All the main television stations covered the march as a "demonstration against the guerillas' policy of kidnapping and extorting the rich". The government also tried to use the demonstration to gain leverage at the negotiation table.
In the liberated zones controlled by the FARC-EP, rallies were also held under the slogan "No more!". However, these protests demanded: no more hunger, no more death squads, no more corruption, no more US intervention.
FARC-EP speakers at these rallies recalled that in the early 1980s there were many mass protests, involving hundreds of thousands of people, in support of the anti-government guerillas. The organisers of these protests were killed or are still in prison.
The speakers also used the opportunity to counter the anti-guerilla, pro-elite propaganda by explaining that the FARC-EP guerillas fund themselves by imposing a tax on all large businesses in Colombia, just as the government imposes its taxes. And, just like the government, they said, the FARC-EP takes into custody those who do not pay.