Review. “Third Party at the Table: Afro-Colombian Women’s Struggle for Peace and Inclusion” by Lisa Davis

CUNY Law School Associate Professor Lisa Davis tackles in her latest article in the Human Rights Law Review what could have been in Colombia’s Peace Accords had it included gender and racial reconciliatory provisions.

Davis contends that the Peace Accords of 2016 were revolutionary not only because they brought about the end of a sixty-year counterinsurgency, but also the progressive provisions that it sought to include. Afro-Colombians, indigenous peoples, women, LBGTQ and gender nonconforming people stood to benefit the most from the Peace Accords. In fact, Afro-Colombian women were at the helm of this effort, placing pressure on all parties to consider the reconciliatory and restorative needs of those most effected by the FARC’s long, violent terror campaign.

Despite its promise, the referendum failed by a narrow margin. Davis attributes this failure to the ideologies and messaging perpetuated by the conservative political elite. In her account, the political right thought that the Peace Accords” “lack of traditional accountability for perpetrators of …crimes against humanity.” Id. at 369. Because of this, she suggests, the political right worried that justice would not be served.  They were not alone in their hesitation, the Accords received backlash from the international community which also wanted more accountability. Id. at 370. To pass the accord and courier favor, the drafters quickly removed the progressive language from the text.

According to Davis, “[j]ustice for Afro-Colombian women is difficult to achieve in a context where violence, discrimination, and historical inequities are still met with impunity.” Id. at 366. For Afro-Colombian women, this was the best effort to create a system of accountability. Afro-Colombian women were thrown a lifeline with the establishment of the Special High Level Body for Ethnic Peoples (Instancia Étnica).  The Instancia “is meant to serve as a first-order consultant on peace implementation in accordance with provisions that protect and promote Afro-Colombian and Indigenous rights, to the Commission for Monitoring, Verifying and Furthering Implementation of the Final Accord (CSIVI),” Id. at 378. Afro-Colombian women, indigenous peoples, and LGBTQ+ were able to leverage the Instancia to include an ethnic, racial, and gender responsive indicators in the accord. Unfortunately, these efforts peaked there as “insignificant funding and lack of political recognition” prevented the Instancia from doing the work needed. In 2018, the CSIVI’s regulatory authority was suspended.

The Final Peace Accords are still an impressive feat, Davis argues. The inclusion of ethnic language is important but is not nearly as progressive as it could have (and should have) been.

This article is a wealth of information about a process, like so many Colombian efforts, that was at the precipice of providing Afro-Colombians and others with the political recognition that they deserve. But again, the intersection of political interests and international human rights agendas impede Afro-Colombians from getting a seat at the table and a slice of the pie. Instead, like before, they are on lookers. These mechanisms that the state erects to pacify disgruntled, politically excluded groups tosses more confusion into a system that is fraught with an excess of incoherent and incohesive policies that do little more but make the political elites and the global community feel good. As violence, often gendered, ravages the Afro-Colombian communities along the coastal region.