Home of Parrish W. Jones

Peace Communities: Hope in a Time of War

By Parrish W. Jones, Ph.D.
June, 2004
©2004. All rights reserved.

 “'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace.”—Jeremiah 6: 14

Politics in Colombia is much like the politics of Israel in Jeremiah’s day. All sides talk peace. Yet, the governments of Colombia and the U.S., the rebel forces, and others see no means to the end of peace that does not include weapons, violence and massive human and environmental suffering.

There are, however, exceptions to the general rule. While visiting Colombia with the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, we heard the testimony of two representatives of one of the Peace Community of San Jose of Apartadó speak about their experiment in claiming peace for themselves.

In the mountains of Urabá there are several such communities. The one with which we spoke consisted of 23 villages, only four of which had never been displaced, and 1,306 people. Their motivation was that they were tired of war and wanted to build for peace.

It was no easy task according to Maria, a weathered and wizened older woman, and Hidalgo, a young and gentle man. The government denied there were any armed actors in the area. They had a difficult time getting Non-governmental Organizations to recognize the problem because when representatives came to visit in their special cars, the paramilitaries disappeared. Finally, they got them to take public transport to the village. Then they saw the paramilitaries.

With the help of the bishop of the Roman Catholic Bishop, they developed a plan for the community and then enlisted the help of the Red Cross and other NGO’s. The community then negotiated for recognition of their status as a peace community and a promise of protection of that status by the government. Finally, on March 27, 1997 the community was declared an official peace community.

What does that mean? Most simply it means that the area they inhabit is off limits to armed actors: The Auto-defenses of Colombia (AUC), the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Army of National Liberation (ELN), or the Army and National Police of Colombia. The difficult part is in building the peace community because, in the midst of so much violence and following the deaths and abuses the villagers suffered, the instinct for revenge is hard to overcome.

The community leadership had to do a lot of education and community organizing to make the plan work. As Maria explained, they have to educate the parents constantly in ways to educate their children so that the community can remain peaceful. Despite their special status, members are systematically killed by AUC or government forces—the only armed actors in the area since the People’s Liberation Army demobilized a decade ago.

A major focus of the education is learning how to stay out of the conflict, to remain within the community. Not a small task since the community sprawls across the mountains and valleys. They achieve this by farming and gleaning the forest only in groups; by sharing all work and leadership responsibilities; and by working with the youth who are most likely to be drawn into conflict.
The community teaches some simple but very important principles:

1. Never carry arms or belong to armed groups.
2. Common work within the community to build or repair facilities and to plant and harvest food. Group work is a means of protection since farming has to be done away from the village. It is also a way of building community and assuring that all that is necessary for a good life gets done. Since the community has never received any governmental services, it is the civil authority that builds and maintains roads and public buildings. Since all work is done in groups, all the production is shared among the members. Nobody is left alone, so widows, single persons, and orphans work together for common support, protection, and nurture.
3. Refrain from the use of alcohol. This principle is purely defensive so that the police or military will not be given an excuse to enter the community to deal with drunken disturbances.
4. Neutrality towards all armed actors. This principle has also led to withdrawal from the judicial system that usually fails them. The notable exception was Colombia’s Constitutional Court Decision T- 230 of  2004 that ordered the protection of San Jose, following a protective resolution of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights.

Despite their commitments, peace is elusive. They cry for peace, but armed conflict surrounds them. Since declaring themselves a peace community, 168 persons from the community have been murdered by armed groups. They suffer constant intimidation and pressure. They have asked for appropriations they deserve from the government, but the money is sent to the military with whom they will not interact instead of to civil authorities. Then the government says they do not accept the help sent them.

In Colombia neutrality is dangerous. As the Uribe government has taken a more and more fascist approach, neutrality is condemned as complicity with the rebel forces (FARC and ELN). In fact, just days after we left Urabá, President Uribe went to the region and in a meeting with security leaders declared that NGOs and foreign persons in the region are obstructing justice. This statement is not unlike Uribe’s outburst last September charging that human rights workers are terrorists. By refusing to interact with “security forces” the Peace communities fall under this most recent threat that includes the threat of criminal charges and imprisonment.

The peace community is no utopia. Their lives are constantly under threat as is the existence of the community. Hidalgo says that without constant international accompaniment by Peace Brigades International, Nuns, and Fellowship of Reconciliation, he is sure that the AUC or the army would destroy the community and displace them. “The army and AUC do not want to make America mad.”

Yet, these experiments, now in their sixth year, hold out great hope. They model to the world that humans can stand for peace in a world consumed by war. They also show us that peace and security are not equivalents. Peace can be a dangerous vocation, perhaps more dangerous than war-making in a world that honors the warrior hero over the peace hero, economic powerbrokers over a social economy, and oppressive political power over cooperative decision making. That is why the peace community may be a much bigger threat to the governing authorities than any of the armed rebels.