Experience of Binational Dialogue – , 2007 – 2009

Final Report The Carter Center strives to relieve suffering by advancing peace and health worldwide; it seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and protect and promote human rights worldwide. Experience of Binational Dialogue

Ecuador – Colombia, 2007 – 2009

Final Report

One Copenhill 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 (404) 420-5188 Fax (404) 420-5196 www.cartercenter.org The Carter Center

Contents

Foreword ...... iv Sixth Meeting: Review of Group’s Progress, Executive Summary ...... v Bogotá, May 2009...... 22 Acknowledgments ...... vii Binational Dialogue Group, June–October 2009...... 23 List of Abbreviations ...... 1 Carter Center Conducts Third Mediation, Dialogue Process and Colombo – Ecuadorian April–August 2009 ...... 24 Relations, 2007–2009 ...... 2 Final Road to Full Relations...... 27 Background...... 2 The Binational Dialogue Group in the First Meeting: Initiate Conversation, Words of its Members ...... 29 Atlanta, November 2007...... 4 Adrián Bonilla...... 29 Second Meeting: Spirit of Joint Enterprise, , February 2008...... 6 Antonio Navarro Wolff...... 31 Angostura Events Cause Diplomatic Crisis, Augusto Ramírez Ocampo...... 34 March 2008 ...... 7 Dolores Padilla...... 38 President Carter Conducts First Mediation Francisco Carrión Mena ...... 40 Exercise, March–April 2008 ...... 8 Gonzalo Ruiz Alvarez ...... 42 Third Meeting: New Level of Openness, Grace Jaramillo...... 47 Bogotá, April 2008 ...... 11 Luz María Sierra...... 50 Fourth Meeting of the Binational Dialogue Guillermo Rivera...... 52 Group, Atlanta, May 2008...... 13 Luis Carlos President Carter Conducts Second Villegas Echeverri...... 53 Mediation Exercise, May–June 2008...... 13 Manuel Chiriboga Vega...... 54 Binational Dialogue Group Meets with the Presidents, June 2008...... 15 Margarita Carranco...... 57 Initiatives of the Binational Dialogue Patricia Estupiñán...... 60 Group in Civil Society, June–October 2008. . . 15 Pedro Velasco...... 62 Fifth Meeting: Political Analysis, Ricardo Ávila...... 64 Quito, November 2008...... 18 Ricardo Estrada...... 66 Initiatives on the Common Border, Sandra Suárez...... 70 February 2009...... 19 Socorro Ramírez...... 72 BDG Meets with President , Alfredo Negrete...... 74 Quito, March 2009...... 20 Andrés Valdivieso...... 77 Visit by President Carter to Ecuador, Galo Mora...... 79 Quito, April 2009...... 21 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Selection of Articles, Interviews, and Impact on the Context...... 104 Press Notes by the Members of the Final Words...... 107 Binational Dialogue Group ...... 81 Appendix: Time Line ...... 109 Uribe in Montecristi...... 81 Appendix B: Initial Project Framework . . . 118 Mandatory Courtesy Toward Colombia. . . . .82 Appendix C: Communication Between Correa Is Not Chávez’s Pawn...... 83 Diez and Foreign Minister Araujo ...... 120 Our Relations with Colombia...... 84 Appendix D: Final Agreement The Border Will Be Threatened Again. . . . . 85 on Small Steps ...... 121 The Return to Political Ethics...... 87 Appendix E: Final Document on Signals . . .122 Thank You, Mr . Carter...... 90 Appendix F: Declaration on Good Signs Between Ecuador – Colombia Relations ...... 125 Colombia and Ecuador...... 91 Appendix G: Conclusions from Shooting Ourselves in the Foot...... 92 the Third Binational Dialogue Round Ecuador – Colombia ...... 126 An Imperative Reconciliation...... 93 Appendix H: Press Release, June 6, 2008 . . .127 The Country to the North ...... 94 Appendix I: Press Release, June 27, 2008 . . 128 Hope for the President to Remain Silent. . . . .95 Appendix J: Agreements Reached Deaf and Blind...... 96 During the Meeting in Quito ...... 129 Binational Tension...... 97 Appendix K: Sixth Meeting of the Drums of Peace...... 98 Binational Dialogue Group ...... 131 Contributions of the Binational Dialogue Group: Appendix L: Modificatons to Road Map . . . 133 Brief Final Thoughts ...... 100 Appendix M: Joint Communiqué Contributions of the Experience Ecuador – Colombia ...... 134 on a Personal Level ...... 100 Contributions of the Experience on a Group Level...... 102

iii The Carter Center

Foreword

he Carter Center was privileged to work with in 1994 in the Bambito dialogue process in Panama a distinguished group of citizens from Ecuador and the property disputes dialogues in Nicaragua in Tand Colombia in an experiment to improve 1993–94. As well, The Carter Center participated in understanding between the two countries. Our goal the Community of Practice for Democratic Dialogue was to help mitigate growing tensions between citi- initiated by the UNDP’s Regional Bureau for Latin zens on both sides of the border and to focus on the America and the Caribbean in 2000 and hosted one positive ties that bind the two countries. of those meetings. Finally, The Carter Center and When Ecuador severed diplomatic relations with UNDP worked together with the Organization of Colombia on March 3, 2008, just days before our American States in the Tripartite Working Group on third planned meeting of the Binational Dialogue from 2002–2004. Group, we thought the exercise would be imperiled. We also benefited from the financial support of The group mobilized, however, and some of its mem- the Andean Development Corporation and the wise bers played an invaluable role in advising my personal counsel of its president, Enrique García. communication with President Correa and President We are pleased to present this report in the wake Uribe in an attempt to repair relations. Over the of the announcement on Nov. 26, 2010, that both course of the next year, the dialogue group worked governments have agreed to re-establish full diplo- tirelessly, not only for the re-establishment of diplo- matic relations. We hope that the personal insights matic relations but for collaborative efforts for devel- gained and shared by the members of the Binational opment and security of the border region. Dialogue Group continue to nourish the relationship We created the Ecuador – Colombia Binational between the people of Colombia and Ecuador. Dialogue Group in collaboration with the United Nations Development Program, building on a long- standing relationship between the UNDP and The Carter Center. The two organizations collaborated

Former U.S. President Founder of The Carter Center

iv The Carter Center

Executive Summary

he Binational Dialogue Group was a diplo- The BDG was formed according to the mode macy initiative from civil society, organized of diplomacy known as Track 1.5 (governmental Tby The Carter Center and the United Nations diplomacy is termed Track 1 and citizen diplomacy Development Program. The goal of the group was to or diplomacy of civil society organizations is termed contribute to improved relations between Colombia Track 2). This designation implies that the group and Ecuador by promoting a positive agenda. conducts its activities in an independent, autonomous As with many relationships between neighboring manner but also in association — and in direct con- countries, the bilateral relation between Ecuador and tact — with both governments. Therefore, in order to Colombia undergoes frequent ups and downs. In 2007 join the group, members could not hold official politi- the national security policy of President Álvaro Uribe cal office at that time. Group members called upon and instances of fumigation with glyphosate conduct- to serve in public office had to yield their position ed by the Colombian government in regions border- to another individual. Because this was a “diplomacy ing Ecuador to eradicate coca crops produced growing 1.5” initiative, it was well-known to the foreign min- tensions between the two countries. In addition to istries of both countries from the outset and to both this, the influx of Colombian emigrants into Ecuador presidents as well, and it met with their approval. (appreciably, due to the violence that Colombia was The group held six two-day meetings between suffering) and the differing political orientations November 2007 and May 2009: two in Atlanta, of President Rafael Correa and President Uribe (), two in Quito (Ecuador), and two in contributed to the straining of binational relations Bogotá (Colombia). Former U.S. President Jimmy even further. Carter participated in two of these meetings. BDG The BDG initiative involved gathering a group of members had the opportunity to meet with President 20 individuals to influence public opinion and con- Uribe on one occasion and with President Correa tribute to public policymaking in both nations. These on another. After May 2009 national groups kept individuals were associated with political and academ- in contact, and the exchanges among members ic circles, the business sector, civil society organiza- from both countries continued in support of strength- tions, and the media. They were invited to share their ening the ties and the improvement of relations opinions and perspectives on binational relations among neighbors. in a friendly, relaxed, informal atmosphere with the Following the group’s second meeting, relations idea that, later on, all of them would influence their between the two countries took an abrupt turn as a respective areas of action. Thus, the initiative may be result of the incursion of Colombian military forces described as the creation of a binational network of into Ecuadorian territory to bomb a FARC camp individuals with the capacity to wield positive influ- in the town of Angostura on March 1, 2008. This ence on relations between the two countries. The episode culminated, two days later, in a severing of selection of group members was considered a crucial diplomatic relations, which shook the binational matter. In doing so, special attention was paid to the relationship at all levels. This shift led the BDG to leadership, influence, and ideological diversity of the rethink its original objectives and to slightly modify members. It was also deemed important that there be its activities, which continued nonetheless. representatives of the provinces or departments with- Among other tangible achievements attributable to in the group from both sides of the common border. BDG activities, newspapers and magazines from both

v The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia nations invited columnists and opinion leaders of Section 2 compiles the testimonies of BDG their neighboring countries to work together. As members from both nations. The testimonies were a result, the binational agenda (which had focused written after the fact expressly for this publication. earlier on security issues) ostensibly broadened to BDG members concur overall that, despite the prox- include matters of cultural cooperation, cross-border imity and historic ties between the two nations, development, etc. Moreover, members produced a there is profound, widespread ignorance regarding television documentary dealing with the subject of the situations in the respective neighboring country. the binational relations from a positive perspective Moreover, they underscore the value, opportunity, and aired it in both countries. Other members orga- and usefulness of the initiative and how important nized a meeting that gathered political authorities and it was for them to hear “the other version” of history representatives from the cross-border communities, and to “put themselves in the shoes of the other.” departments, and civil society organizations to dis- Many express that the dynamics created in the group cuss the border situation. Members of the BDG also and the results obtained exceeded their initial expec- contributed to the development of binational cultural tations, and they stress that its effect extends in time and academic activities. beyond the group’s formal existence. In this context, in tandem with and independently Section 3 collects a selection of articles written by of BDG activities but with the advice of some of its BDG members and published in the two countries’ members, The Carter Center undertook a series of various print media to address issues relevant to bilat- actions that led to a lowering of tensions and drew eral relations and often to deal with BDG activities the political positions of both nations closer together. directly or indirectly. Some of these articles were These activities were discreet, did not reach public also published in the print media of the neighboring opinion, and included mediation by President Carter. country. The efforts of The Carter Center and the mandate Section 4 presents some tentative conclusions of the Organization of American States to devise about the scope and impact of the initiative. confidence-building mechanisms resulted in Ecuador The publication also includes a series of documen- and Colombia announcing the re-establishment of tary appendices dealing with BDG activities and the diplomatic relations at the level of chargé d’affaires in mediation and rapprochement efforts made by The November 2009. Carter Center in the context of the diplomatic crisis Section 1 of this publication presents a summary of following the events in Angostura. BDG activities and the parallel mediation initiatives carried out by The Carter Center in the diplomatic crisis between the two countries.

vi The Carter Center

Acknowledgments

he life and soul of the Ecuador-Colombia Socorro Ramírez, professor of the Institute of Political Binational Dialogue Group come from its Studies and International Relations at the National Tmembers, a group of dedicated and experi- University of Colombia and an expert on Colombia- enced citizens from each country committed to learn Ecuador relations; Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, for- from one another and to disseminate that knowledge mer foreign minister and director of the Institute of to improve the relations between the two societies, Human Rights and International Relations at the especially the lives of those in the border zone. Universidad Javeriana; Guillermo Rivera, legisla- The members included, for at least some por- tive representative for the border department of tion of the project, from Ecuador: Adrián Bonilla, Putumayo; Sandra Suárez, former minister of environ- director of the Latin American Faculty of Social ment, housing, and land development and former Sciences (FLACSO); Francisco Carrión Mena, for- presidential high counselor for Plan Colombia; Luz mer foreign minister; Ricardo Estrada, executive María Sierra, chief of editing at Revista Semana; director of the Corporation for Promoting Exports and Luis Carlos Villegas, president of the National and Investments; Galo Mora, presidential adviser; Business Association of Colombia. Alfredo Negrete, deputy director of the newspaper The group would not have been created with- El Comercio; Dolores Padilla, former legislative out the insight and support of two key individuals. representative and candidate for vice president; Conversations in May 2007 between René Mauricio Gonzalo Ruiz, news director for the television net- Valdés, then U.N. Development Program (UNDP) work Gamavisión; Andrés Valdivieso, adviser to the resident representative in Ecuador, and Francisco Ministry of Government; José Valencia, former direc- Diez, then Carter Center senior adviser based in Latin tor of Participación Ciudadana and coordinator of the America, identified the tensions building between International Relations Program at FLACSO; Grace Ecuador and Colombia over complex interactions at Jaramillo, director of the International Relations the border, including the environmental effects of Program, FLACSO; Patricia Estupiñán, general edi- Colombia’s fumigation policy, the presence of the tor of Revista Vistazo; Margarita Carranco, presi- FARC guerrillas across the border, and the displace- dent of the Ecuadorian Association of Women in ment of Colombians affected by violence resulting in Municipal Government and second vice president a large number of refugees in Ecuador. of the Municipal Council of the Quito Metropolitan They believed and convinced Dr. Jennifer McCoy, District; Manuel Chiriboga Vega, director of the director of the Carter Center’s Americas Program, Foreign Trade Observatory and former chief negotia- that conflicting perceptions and interpretations about tor of the Free Trade Agreement between Ecuador realities at the border and within each country would and the United States; and Pedro Velasco, former lead to an escalation of the conflict and negatively mayor of Tulcán. impact the ability of each government to attain its From Colombia, the members included: Ricardo own goals of strengthening democracy and economic Ávila, director of Portafolio; Angelino Garzón, gov- well-being within its society. ernor of Valle del Cauca; Claudia Gurisatti, director The Carter Center and UNDP agreed to cosponsor of the program “La Noche” on the RCN televi- the dialogue group under the auspices of a regional sion network; Antonio Navarro Wolff, governor cooperation framework agreement signed by then- of the border department of Nariño; Rafael Nieto director of the Regional Bureau for Latin America Loaiza, former vice minister of justice and journalist; and the Caribbean Rebeca Grynspan and former U.S.

vii The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

President Jimmy Carter in mid-2007. The Carter Undersecretary Victor Rico, in establishing confi- Center and UNDP jointly sponsored four meetings dence-building measures and contributing to the re- of the dialogue group in 2007 and 2008. The Carter establishment of diplomatic relations. Center then joined with the Andean Development This report, which focuses not only on the evolu- Corporation (CAF) to co-sponsor another two meet- tion of the Binational Dialogue Group but also the ings of the group in 2009. efforts of President Carter to facilitate communica- The Carter Center would like to thank the col- tion between President Correa and President Uribe laboration of UNDP resident representatives René to eventually re-establish diplomatic relations, has Mauricio Valdés in Ecuador and Bruno Mora in benefited from the efforts of many people. Initial Colombia, and their teams, during this project. drafts were written by Francisco Diez and Cecile The support of CAF President Enrique García and Mouly; Jennifer McCoy and Camila Lanusse edited Director Juan Pablo Guerrero was invaluable to the and updated the report; many members of the dia- continuation of the project. logue group contributed their own reflections; Sarah We also benefit from the evaluation and separate Bellamy translated the report into English, and report produced by the UNDP’s Democratic Dialogue Rodrigo Soto edited the Spanish version; and Karin Regional Project that identifies useful lessons for any- Andersson managed the production of the report. one involved in dialogue processes. Finally, The Carter Center acknowledges its staff The Center acknowledges the important role and field representatives without whom the project of the Organization of American States, and par- would not have been possible: Francisco Diez, Kelly ticularly Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza and McBride, Andrea Durango, and Cecile Mouly.

viii The Carter Center

List of Abbreviations

AEDEP Association of Publication Editors of ICC The International Criminal Court Ecuador IDB The Inter-American Development ALBA Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Bank Our America IEPRI Institute of Political Studies and AMUME Ecuadorian Association of Women in International Relations at the Municipal Government National University of Colombia ANDI National Business Association of M-19 The Colombia OAS Organization of American States APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation OBANPEX Andes Monitoring Center for Foreign BDG Binational Dialogue Group Policy CAF Andean Development Corporation ONUSAL Observation Mission of the United CAN Andean Community of Nations Nations in El Salvador COPIAF Commission on Border Issues and PDA The Alternative Democratic Pole Colombo – Venezuelan Integration PRDD Democratic Dialogue Regional CORPEI Corporation for Promoting Exports Project and Investments RCN Broadcast network Radio Cadena EU European Union Nacional FARC Revolutionary Armed Forces of U.N. United Nations Colombia UNASUR The Union of South American FLACSO Latin American School of Social Nations Sciences UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner FLACSONET The Andean Virtual Network for for Refugees the Latin American School of Social UNDP United Nations Development Communication Program FNPI Foundation for New Journalism ZIF Border Integration Zone FTA Free Trade Agreement Fundamedios Andean Foundation for Media Observation and Studies

1 The Carter Center

Dialogue Process and Colombo – Ecuadorian Relations, 2007–2009

his report reviews the history of the country’s internal problems, however. These internal Ecuador – Colombia Binational Dialogue issues surpass geographic borders and create tensions TGroup from the group’s inception in mid-2007 that in turn increase the probability of crisis between through its closing meeting in Bogotá in May 2009,1 the two countries. Additionally, the efforts that had as well as some of the additional actions taken by the been under way to promote social, economic, and members of the group after its formal existence had environmental development were accompanied by an concluded. In parallel fashion, the report describes increasing displacement of Colombian refugees into the mediation efforts of for- Ecuador. These migratory mer U.S. President Jimmy flows intensified in 2000 Carter and The Carter because of Colombian inter- Center from the beginning Today, relations between Ecuador nal conflict, with a resulting of the diplomatic crisis socioeconomic impact in between these two coun- and Colombia cannot be understood Ecuador. The official efforts tries, which occurred in without recognizing that their dynamic to control illegal activities March 2008, through the is determined by two distinct visions of at the border were running partial re-establishment of their security agendas . For Colombia, parallel with the incur- relations with the exchange sions of the guerrilla groups, of chargés d’affaires in its internal conflict extends beyond its such as the FARC, into September 2009. borders, whereas Ecuador has maintained Ecuadoran territory in pur- the position of not getting involved in the suit of supplies and rest. Background internal problems of its northern neighbor . Today, relations between Ecuador and Colombia The binational politi- cannot be understood with- cal relationship between out recognizing that their Ecuador and Colombia has dynamic is determined by unfolded over a backdrop of highs and lows. Two two distinct visions of their security agendas. For nations that share an extensive common border of Colombia, its internal conflict extends beyond its 586 kilometers have watched their story shift between borders, whereas Ecuador has maintained the position engagement and disengagement over their shared of not getting involved in the internal problems of its objectives and internal problems that cross their geo- northern neighbor. graphic boundaries. Their status as neighbors and their shared lan- guage and culture have fostered commercial, cultural, economic, and social ties between the peoples of Colombia and Ecuador. The two countries were the leading actors behind the creation of the first border 1 A visual outline of all the historical events from this period can be integration zone under the Andean Community of found in Appendix A of this publication, under the title “Time Line.” Nations in the 1990s. Opportunities for integration The time line was put together by the Regional Project of the Democratic Dialogue of the UNDP, and it was updated and completed by Carter have not been immune to contamination by each Center staff.

2 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The differing perspectives on how to address border real risk, although they did not predict the eventual security issues had caused tension between Quito and break in relations. Bogotá in the past. For example, tensions rose in 2005 After several conversations, The Carter Center and when representatives of the Ecuadoran government UNDP defined the characteristics of the project, and demanded that Colombia suspend use of glyphosate the Center drafted a summary document designed to in fumigations in its southern departments until they offer an initial outline of the exercise3. Prior to begin- could determine the chemical’s effects on the health ning to contact potential members, they shared the of people living in the Ecuadoran provinces bordering idea with both governments and received explicit the Colombian departments Nariño and Putumayo, approval from both foreign ministers. Parallel to the where the coca plant is grown.2 In mid-2007, selection process for potential candidates to join the Colombia decided to increase manual coca eradica- group, the organizers held high-level informal meet- tion to reduce its use of glyphosate. Relations between ings with both governments — not to request their Quito and Bogotá experienced a moment of calm; authorization but to make sure that neither of them signs of tension began to reappear, however, related would feel uncomfortable with the final composition not only to the fumigation issue but also reflecting a of the group. new political context. Ultimately 20 citizens, male and female, from the Following the inauguration of President Rafael two countries agreed to join the initiative. They had Correa in January 2007, Plan Colombia — the a high level of leadership, were ideologically diverse, Colombian security and development plan, begun in and were committed to dialogue. Two specific per- 2000 — was met by a proposal from the new govern- sonal criteria were sought: that they had direct access ment in its neighbor to the south. The administra- to the highest levels of government (but not respon- tion of President Correa launched its own security sibility for political decision-making in their country) agenda via Plan Ecuador for the Northern Border. and/or that they had the ability to influence public Plan Ecuador is an action plan to promote eco- opinion in their country. nomic and social development for the Ecuadoran The organizing institutions proposed that these border population. Its launch in April 2007 before a citizens commit to participating in four meetings. watchful international community — including The Each meeting would last for two full days. The first Carter Center — created anticipation that the new would take place in mid-November 2007 at the Ecuadoran government would try to respond in a new Carter Center headquarters in Atlanta. Each member way to the security policy of its northern neighbor. received from President Carter a personal letter of It was in this context that The Carter Center and invitation to this meeting. The other three meetings the United Nations Development Program began to would be held in Quito, in Bogotá, and finally in explore the idea of promoting a binational dialogue initiative. The dialogue aimed to establish a creative forum for citizens without governmental responsibility and to promote understanding between the societies and an agenda of cooperation between their govern- ments that would allow them to jointly address their serious problems. Given the ideological background 2 In January 2006 the Colombian government agreed to respect a fumiga- and the characteristics of both governments, it was tion buffer zone extending 10 kilometers from the border; 11 months later Colombia resumed spraying with glyphosate and Ecuador announced that clear to the leadership of both organizations that an it would file with The Hague tribunal a complaint against its neighbor. increase in tension between the two countries was a A few days later, on Jan. 9, 2007, Ecuador presented in the OAS a com- plaint against Colombia for its fumigations at the border. 3 Included as Appendix B.

3 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Atlanta once again. and coordinator of the International Relations One objective of the process was to create a bal- Program at FLACSO) anced, open, and safe environment for interaction From the Colombian side: between the citizens of both countries. This space • Ricardo Ávila (director of the magazine would allow them to explore the state of bilateral Portafolio) relations and to propose initiatives to make con- • Angelino Garzón (governor of Valle del Cauca) structive changes to them. It was planned that each • Claudia Gurisatti (director of the program “La member of the group could carry out concrete actions Noche” on the television channel Radio Cadena within his or her own sphere of action and influence. Nacional [RCN]) In addition, the intention was to help inform the • Antonio Navarro Wolff (governor of the border decision-making of the governments, without com- department of Nariño) mitting them to anything. • Rafael Nieto Loaiza (former vice The purpose was to open up minister of justice and journalist) a space that had not previously • Socorro Ramírez (professor of existed in bilateral relations. The the Institute of Political Studies space would be noncommittal and The purpose was to open up a and International Relations outside the public eye, but poten- space that had not previously at the National University of tially it could be useful for explor- existed in bilateral relations . Colombia and an expert on the ing and developing initiatives Colombia – Ecuador subject) that would contribute to mutual • Augusto Ramírez Ocampo (for- understanding, to the production mer foreign minister and director of mutually positive public images, of the Institute of Human Rights and to the promotion of coordinated policies. and International Relations at the Universidad Javeriana) The initial group comprised the following4: • Guillermo Rivera (legislative representative for From the Ecuadoran side: the border department of Putumayo) • Adrián Bonilla (director of the Latin American • Sandra Suárez (former minister of environment, School of Social Sciences [FLACSO]) housing, and land development and former presi- •Francisco Carrión Mena (former foreign minister, dential high counselor for Plan Colombia) • Ricardo Estrada (executive director of the • Luz María Sierra (chief of editing at the newspa- Corporation for Promoting Exports and per Revista Semana) Investments [CORPEI]) • Luis Carlos Villegas (president of the National • Galo Mora (presidential adviser) Business Association of Colombia) • Alfredo Negrete (deputy director of the newspa- per El Comercio) First Meeting: Initiate Conversation, • Dolores Padilla (former legislative representative Atlanta, November 2007 and candidate for vice president) • Gonzalo Ruiz (news director for the television The first meeting of the Binational Dialogue Group network Gamavisión) began under the leadership of President Carter in • Andrés Valdivieso (adviser to the Ministry of November 2007 at the Carter Center headquarters Government) • José Valencia (former director of the NGO 4 In alphabetical order from each country. The Colombian group had 11 members, after Dr. Luis Carlos Villegas, one of the first invited to partici- Participación Ciudadana [Citizen Participation] pate, was able to arrive during only the latter part of the first meeting. He decided to personally finance his participation from that point on.

4 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia in Atlanta. The facilitators from the Center and the of reliable information. UNDP focused on providing a safe space so that the • Role of other countries: members of the group could present their points of The decisive influence of the United States on view, which in many cases were in direct opposition Colombia’s views on security and drug trafficking. with one another. Differences. Publication of controversial statements The purpose of this first meeting was to encourage by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Poor iden- the individuals to define themselves as a group and tification of shared strategic partners (Asia-Pacific to initiate conversation about their differences based Economic Cooperation, Amazónicos, European on mutual respect and honesty, with the character- Union, etc.) istics of a truly productive dialogue. As the meeting Opportunities or Areas of Possibility to Diversify developed and the different national perspectives and Desecuritize the Binational Agenda were expressed, emotions, opinions and perceptions surfaced, sometimes in open confrontation and some- • Mechanisms for dialogue and communication: times in harmony. All the participants spoke from the – Promote specific mechanisms for dialogue and standpoint of the country they represented, and all cooperation between the presidents, mid-level listened to the other members. From these conversa- officials, local and regional governments, as well tions, the facilitators extracted a list of obstacles and as actors from civil society (business owners, opportunities for the bilateral relationship that was unions, churches, academic institutions, etc.). reviewed and polished and that served as the meet- – Increase group members’ ability to influence their ing’s concrete result: respective governments, as well as public opinion, at the local, binational, and international levels. Areas of Concern and Differences – Identify proposals for nongovernmental actions • Distorted images and mutual lack of understanding: that the group can promote. Lack of efficient channels for handling problems as – Connect social actors and leaders outside the they arise. Ideology becoming involved in address- governments. ing certain issues. The role of the media and opin- – Generate cultural events. ion makers (xenophobic images). – Generate items in the media and work with opin- • Security and drug trafficking: ion makers to change perceptions. Different conceptualization, different foci, and • Binational cooperation and commerce: different scenarios. Lack of comprehension of – Highlight existing binational agreement on issues the efforts being made and of the internal operat- concerning the international agenda. ing dynamics. Insufficient information. Lack of – Highlight smooth institutional cooperation on trustworthy or effective communication channels. judicial and police matters. Increasing money-laundering activity. Absence – Identify new world markets to explore together. of mutual recognition and lack of coordination – Identify joint investments and opportunities for of actions. infrastructure development. • Situation of abandonment of the binational – Incorporate entrepreneurs/investors from both border: countries. Lack of development. Growth of the illegal econ- • Development and integration on the border: omy. Insufficient presence of the national govern- – Obtain trustworthy, firsthand information by ment. involving local actors. Bring together representa- • Refugees and migrants: tives from the three border provinces of Ecuador Reasons, costs and dynamics of migration. Lack of and the two border departments of Colombia. understanding of a complex phenomenon and lack – Generate sources and information that will be

5 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

accepted by both parties (e.g., create a common Chiriboga Vega, director of the Foreign Trade “census”; share statistics on migration; create Observatory and former chief negotiator of the Free human development indexes for the border zone Trade Agreement between Ecuador and the United in both countries; replicate on the Colombian States, were invited to join the group. They both side the study that the Ecuadoran U.N. system accepted. completed on the Ecuadoran side). At the meeting in Atlanta, the group agreed to – Identify and promote joint national and bination- hold the second meeting in Quito Feb. 1–2, 2008. al projects for economic development, promotion After the first meeting, the facilitators began to use of human rights, and protection of the environ- e-mail to circulate a proposal for focusing the energy ment (develop a “positive agenda,” review the of the second meeting on the items on the “posi- ZIF, etc.). tive agenda” between the two countries. The group • Binational agreements between the governments members enthusiastically supported the idea, with the (recover and evaluate what already exists): shared sense that there was a positive outlook for rela- – Agreement on the border integration zone. tions between their two countries. Identify other binational/government instruments for coordinated action. Second Meeting: Spirit of Joint – Seek opportunities for strengthening institutions Enterprise, Quito, February 2008 in both countries. As previously agreed, group members reunited in – Launch joint actions that demonstrate political February 2008. This time they met in Quito, in an will and can serve as signals to advance on bina- environment marked by the cordial relations between tional agreements. the two neighboring countries. The environment offered by The Carter Center The mood of the second meeting was com- and the two intense days shared in Atlanta were the pletely different from the earlier meeting in Atlanta. point of departure for an individual process of com- Confidence had been established between the BDG prehension and openness for each member of the members, and their comprehension of each other’s group. In the following months, various participants realities — as well as their understanding of the per- published editorials and opinion pieces on bilateral ceptions they had of one another — began to improve. relations in a variety of media outlets and shared the As part of the meeting, a visit to the border between experiences and knowledge they had gained with peo- the two countries had been planned and organized ple in their respective governments. In late November by UNDP-UNHCR. Weather conditions in Quito 2007, Álvaro Uribe was the only foreign president forced the cancellation of the flight to Sucumbíos, who attended the opening ceremonies of Ecuador’s however. Instead of the border visit, a United Nations Constituent Assembly. High Commissioner for Refugees official who had In December, José Valencia was appointed as significant experience with the border zone offered a Ecuador’s vice minister of foreign relations, which presentation on the situation of Colombian migrants forced him to step down from the Binational Dialogue in Ecuador, and a representative from the Foreign 5 Group. At the proposal of the Ecuadoran members Ministry of each country presented official positions of the group and following the same consultation pro- cess with the government, new members were added. Margarita Carranco, president of the Ecuadoran Association of Women in Municipal Government and second vice president of the Municipal Council 5 The group included “advisers” who had no decision-making ability, such of the Quito Metropolitan District, and Manuel as Galo Mora or Andrés Valdivieso, but not sitting officials who would be committing the government when they spoke.

6 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

toward the border zone.6 This focus on a shared real- in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.9 After ity fostered a spirit of joint enterprise. The group the meeting, Secretary-General of the Organization generated a substantial amount of ideas and identified of American States José Miguel Insulza traveled to concrete initiatives to improve relations between the Quito and Bogotá as part of a Good Offices Mission, two countries. At the end of the meeting, participants which he headed.10 In each city, he met with the agreed to hold the next round of binational dialogue members of the Binational Dialogue Group, who in early April in Bogotá. shared their evaluation of the Shortly after the Quito situation with him. Many of meeting, two Ecuadoran the initiatives supported by members withdrew from the the secretary-general coincid- Binational Dialogue Group: While the members of the group ed with the recommendations Alfredo Negrete, for profes- presented by the group. sional reasons and Galo worked to activate their plans for the Because of the delicate Mora, after being named min- “positive agenda,” tensions between situation between the two ister of culture. the Colombian and Ecuadorian countries, the third bination- governments suffered an escalation that al meeting was postponed. Angostura Events Some Ecuadoran members would lead to a major diplomatic crisis . Cause Diplomatic of the BDG felt it was unac- Crisis, March 2008 ceptable even to think about going to the “aggressor” A month after the meeting in country, and communication Quito, and while froze even within the group. In light of this situa- the members of the group worked to activate their tion, The Carter Center arranged for national group plans for the “positive agenda,” tensions between meetings in each country and a trip to Quito so that the Colombian and Ecuadoran governments suffered an escalation that would lead to a major diplomatic crisis. The Colombian government’s military operation 6 Ambassador Jaime Barberis, deputy secretary of national sovereignty and border relations in the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ecuador, and against a clandestine base camp of the Revolutionary Ambassador Ricardo Montenegro, director of territorial sovereignty in the Armed Forces of Colombia on Ecuadoran territory Ministry of Foreign Relations of Colombia. in the locality of Angostura on March 1, 2008, had a 7 During the attack the FARC second in command, “Raúl Reyes,” was killed. Twenty-five other people who were present in the guerrilla base negative impact on the two countries’ bilateral rela- camp also died as the attack occurred, including one Ecuadorian citizen. 7 tions. The Ecuadoran government viewed the armed 8 The considered the incursion to be an act of incursion as an attack on its territory. Bogotá justified aggression on his territory and ordered a military investigation. The day 8 after the events in Angostura, the Ecuadorian government demanded a its actions as being in its own “legitimate defense.” “formal apology” from Colombia, compensation for damages, and a prom- Two days after the event, diplomatic relations ise that attacks by the Colombian armed forces on Ecuadorian territory would not be repeated. Bogotá’s response was that it had not violated the between the two countries were severed. In this con- principle of sovereignty, and it justified its actions as being in its own text, some of the group members began to communi- “legitimate defense.” The Colombian government announced that it had found information proving there were “ties” between Ecuadorian govern- cate informally to assess the seriousness of the situa- ment officials and the FARC. The countries withdrew their ambassadors, tion and its possible consequences. and Ecuador ordered a mobilization of troops to the border. The diplomatic crisis was addressed with urgency 9 On March 7, 2008, during the summit of the Río Group, Colombia issued an apology in writing and promised not to violate the sovereignty and efficiency by the Latin American presidents dur- of other countries again. ing the summit of the Río Group, which took place 10 The OAS Good Offices Mission was in Ecuador and Colombia from March 9, 2008 through March 12, 2008.

7 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

three Colombian delegates could speak with their der and to combat guerrillas and drug trafficking. Ecuadoran counterparts11; it also arranged a meet- 2. Order that no more documents will be leaked to ing with Ecuadoran Foreign Minister María Isabel the press by the Colombian government about the Salvador and her vice minister (and former BDG computers that allegedly belonged to Reyes, as well member), José Valencia. as no more statements by Colombian government The meeting gave the Colombian members a bet- officials about information that has not been veri- ter understanding of the impact of the events on fied according to due process. Ecuador’s society and government, and it allowed the 3. Turn in to the Ecuadoran government, as it agreed Ecuadoran members to overcome their reservations to do at the summit of the Río Group, the infor- about going to Bogotá. After their conversations, the mation contained on the computers seized by the decision was made to reschedule the third binational Colombian forces during the incursion on March 1, meeting for April 23 – 24, 2008. 2008. 4. Commit to adopting the necessary measures to President Carter Conducts First protect the binational border, with Colombian Mediation Exercise, March–April 2008 military and police forces exercising the greatest control to prevent the passage of irregular groups The fact that the Binational Dialogue Group initia- and goods or organized crime into Ecuador. tive was created in constant consultation and com- 5. Express Colombia’s willingness to recognize the munication with the governments of Colombia and damages owed to the relatives of the Ecuadoran Ecuador — as well as amid open channels among the citizen Aisalia, who was killed in the March 1 highest levels of government, the group members, and bombing during the incursion onto Ecuadoran ter- Carter Center officials — provided the political room ritory, which violated the sovereignty and territo- and legitimacy for President Carter to attempt to rial integrity of Ecuador. mediate between the two countries. To address the diplomatic crisis, President Carter In a conversation with President Uribe, President contacted President Correa and President Uribe by Carter explored Uribe’s reactions to the proposal phone to evaluate the situation with each of them and found that he was considerably open to them. and offer them any assistance they required from the So Carter proposed that the Carter Center staff con- space created by the BDG. tinue to work on the subject with Uribe’s foreign During the conversation between President Carter minister, Fernando Araujo. President Uribe accepted, and President Correa, which took place in late and Foreign Minister Araujo got in touch with Dr. March, the latter directly stated his interest in hav- McCoy. They agreed to arrange for Francisco Diez ing Carter communicate points of vital importance to travel to Bogotá on March 31, 2008. This move for Ecuador to President Uribe. Presidents Correa was the beginning of the first confidential mediation and Carter agreed that Foreign Minister Salvador exercise conducted by The Carter Center to encour- would send Jennifer McCoy, director of the Americas age the re-establishment of diplomatic relations Program at The Carter Center in Atlanta, a docu- between the two countries. The Center’s negotiations ment with five concise points, after which President Carter would call President Uribe. The five points that Ecuador proposed to the Colombian government were: 1. Recognize Ecuador’s efforts made to control its bor- 11 Antonio Navarro Wolff, Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, and Socorro Ramírez were the delegates.

8 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia began after regional opinion was signaled in the OAS response” announced by Correa, however. They meeting of foreign ministers, which made a public agreed that it was virtually certain that a dispute statement, at Ecuador’s request, about the Angostura would be filed against Colombia in the International bombing and paved the way for negotiations under Criminal Court in The Hague for the fumigations at the good offices of the OAS secretary-general or other the border. Indeed, this announcement came at mid- third parties. day on March 31, 2008. It changed the setting for Working from The Carter Center, McCoy and negotiations. After consulting with Ramírez Ocampo Diez planned a series of talks for Diaz with both gov- and Villegas, Diez opted to propose a confidence- ernments (“shuttle diplomacy”). The first visit would building exercise. Before traveling to Quito on the be with Foreign Minister Araujo to explore the pos- same day, he drafted a proposal and sent it to Foreign sibilities for Colombia to satisfy the requirements Minister Araujo, who promised to offer his response Ecuador had expressed in its five-point document. promptly. Diaz later scheduled a trip to Quito to meet with Among other relevant points of the proposal,12 it the foreign minister and, if possible, with President called for agreeing to a “truce on negative or inflam- Correa. If the talks were productive, he would plan matory public statements about the other country” for another trip to Bogotá to meet with President Uribe. 10 days and giving “a chance to the informal, unof- The first step was to send identical letters to both for- ficial, and discreet efforts of The Carter Center with eign ministers in order to establish a common frame- the support of the Binational Dialogue Group” as well work for the negotiations. as forming a working group with four members of the Diez consulted with Colombian BDG members binational group — two Ecuadorans plus Villegas and Augusto Ramírez Ocampo and Luis Carlos Villegas, Ocampo from Colombia — so that during those 10 before and after his meetings with the Colombian days they can work productively with Vice Foreign government, given the diplomatic experience of the Minister Valencia and Vice Foreign Minister Reyes former and the closeness to President Uribe of the lat- in order to identify small steps and possible signals ter. Diez was also in constant contact with Francisco for both governments to build confidence, along with Carrión Mena and Adrián Bonilla on the Ecuadoran the essential conditions for re-establishing diplomatic side. The counsel and guidance of the BDG members, relations.” This effort could complement the formal as well as their active participation in the exercise negotiations through the OAS to build confidence on that followed, proved exceptionally valuable. the security issues between the two countries. On March 29, 2008, during his weekly Saturday Meeting with Foreign Minister María Isabel radio broadcast, President Correa announced that Salvador, April 1, 2008 Ecuador was preparing a “severe response” for Colombia. Aware that the conditions for starting Minutes before the start of the meeting with Foreign negotiations looked, to say the least, menacing, Diez Minister Salvador in Quito, Foreign Minister Araujo arrived in Colombia on March 30 for his meeting called Diez to convey his support for the exercise. with Foreign Minister Araujo. The conversation with the minister and her vice

Meeting with Foreign Minister Fernando Araujo, March 31, 2008 Diez’s conversation with Foreign Minister Araujo was positive, frank, and open. They explored the points Ecuador had raised. The foreign minister warned that 12 The proposal he sent is attached as Appendix C. everything could change depending on the “severe

9 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia foreign minister (a former member of the BDG), José counterpart was not positive, and the meeting lasted Valencia, lasted for almost two hours and was enor- longer than expected. At President Uribe’s request, mously helpful for understanding the complexity of and in order to meet his agenda, the conversation was the conflict from the Ecuadoran side. At the end, she interrupted for a little over an hour and then contin- agreed to let Diez present to President Correa the pro- ued for another two hours. posed exercise, which was defined as “small steps to Again, the lessons about the Colombian context rebuild confidence” and had already received approval from the BDG sessions, as well as the recommenda- from Colombia. Valencia offered Diez useful advice tions of Villegas and Ramírez Ocampo, were essential on how to approach the core concerns for Ecuador to understanding the concerns and priorities of the and for President Correa, who met with Diez and the president and securing his agreement for the proposed Ecuadoran foreign minister in the . exercise. Finally, with a small modification, Uribe gave his approval of the document and the exercise it Meeting with President Rafael Correa, proposed to carry out.13 The text proposed an agree- April 1, 2008 ment that “there will not be negative public state- The meeting with President Correa lasted longer than ments” by high-ranking officials in both governments expected and helped establish a strong sense of empa- for 10 days (beginning April 4) and that during this thy. Much of what had been learned in the dialogue period an informal, unofficial, and discreet negotiat- with the members of the BDG seemed to be focused ing effort by The Carter Center and the Binational on the perceptions and positions of the president, Dialogue Group would begin. while his view of the internal lacked the comprehension that had been achieved Writing the Signals for Confidence Building, through interaction with members of the group. Still, April 4–6, 2008 President Correa went beyond expressing his support Immediately after the meetings with the officials, the for pursuing the proposed exercise; upon learning that process of drafting the signals for confidence building Diez would be returning to Colombia and would be began. The binational team identified the “signals” seeing President Uribe, Correa also insisted that his that could be sent successively between the govern- desire to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, to ments over the coming day. This took place in two maintain a fluid dialogue between the presidents, and steps: first, at the Foreign Ministry in Bogotá with to maintain the best relations for the benefit of their Colombian Vice Foreign Minister Camilo Reyes and peoples be conveyed by Diez. the active collaboration of Augusto Ramírez Ocampo; After the meeting with Foreign Minister Salvador, second, at the FLACSO headquarters in Quito, with Diez wrote up the document containing the planned Ecuadoran Vice Foreign Minister José Valencia and methodology for carrying out the “small steps.” This the active participation of Adrián Bonilla. The time document included the involvement of four members line was worked on in great detail, and both sides of the BDG working together with the vice foreign approved the result.14 As was planned in the agree- ministers of both countries to identify signals that ment, President Carter called both presidents and could be simultaneously sent to build confidence. confirmed that they would fulfill their commitment.

Meeting with President Álvaro Uribe, The Failure of the Initiative April 3, 2008 During the week of April 7 both governments meticu- Once in Bogotá, Foreign Minister Araujo met with Diez in the presidential palace. Presidential adviser

Jorge Mario Eastman was also present. President 13 The final version is attached as Appendix D. Uribe’s reaction to the message from his Ecuadoran

10 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

lously fulfilled the commitments they assumed in the The meeting was the setting for a profound and sin- “signals” document, with Augusto Ramírez Ocampo cere exchange of the emotions and perceptions of in Colombia and Adrián Bonilla in Ecuador provid- group members. The group itself changed during this ing support to their respective vice foreign ministers meeting; the members reached a level of openness and monitoring the process. Unfortunately, during and comprehension of one another’s perspectives that President Correa’s trip to , the Colombian was powerful enough to foster internal changes in ambassador (who was unaware of the agreement) each of the participants. responded to some statements by the Ecuadoran The Ecuadorans explained the depth of the wound president, who then repeated his criticisms of the left by decades of territorial conflict concerning the Colombian government on television, unleashing border with and how much the concepts of a wave of official statements and aggressive public territorial integrity and respect for sovereignty and comments that tossed out the national dignity mattered to window everything that had them — hence the extent of been accomplished. the impact of the events of In order to preserve the The third group meeting took place in March 1, 2008. confidentiality that The Bogotá, April 26 – 29, 2008, in the The Colombian group, Carter Center had promised middle of the diplomatic crisis . The whose members represented to maintain, and given that a wide range of ideological its name was mentioned in meeting was the setting for a profound perspectives, explained to various articles, the Center and sincere exchange of the emotions their Ecuadoran counterparts released a press statement in and perceptions of group members . the drama of the violence order to draw the matter to a The group itself changed during this that has been perpetrated in 15 close. The statement clari- meeting; the members reached a level their country for more than fied the Carter Center’s role four decades by illegal armed as a facilitator as well as the of openness and comprehension of groups. They went on to desire of both governments to one another’s perspectives that was describe the effects, at all lev- continue receiving its assis- powerful enough to foster internal els of Colombian society, of tance. In order to contribute changes in each of the participants . living in a climate of insecu- to the efforts subsequently rity and fear throughout their promoted by the OAS, the daily lives, hence the impor- information about the Carter tance of the struggle against Center’s negotiations was passed on to the secretary- the FARC and how much it means for Colombia to general of the OAS once both countries felt it was achieve security. appropriate. It was in this context that the third In addition, as part of the activities that took round of dialogue for the BDG was scheduled to take place in the meeting, the group shared a lunch with place a few days later. Colombian Foreign Minister Araujo and a breakfast with the Colombian Senate’s Commission for Peace. Third Meeting: New Level of Openness, Bogotá, April 2008 The third group meeting took place in Bogotá, April 26 – 29, 2008, in the middle of the diplomatic crisis. 14 Included as Appendix E. 15 Included as Appendix F.

11 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Participants in the fourth round of binational dialogue between Colombia and Ecuador, which took place in Atlanta in May 2008, included the following (named from back to front): Michael Brown (UNDP – Ecuador); Angelino Garzón; Hrair Balian (director, Carter Center Conflict Resolution Program); Dolores Padilla; Luis Carlos Villegas; Bruno Moro (U.N. resident coordinator – Colombia); Luz María Sierra; Ricardo Ávila; Guillermo Rivera; Gonzalo Ruiz; Francisco Carrión Mena; Claudia Gurisatti; Rafael Nieto Loaiza; Graciela Tapia (UNDP – DDRP); Oscar Sánchez (UNDP – Colombia); Kelly McBride (Carter Center, Ecuador); Francisco Diez (Carter Center representative, Latin America); Carlos Vergara (UNDPA); Ricardo Estrada; Augusto Ramírez Ocampo; Antonio Navarro Wolff; Socorro Ramírez; Andrea Durango (Carter Center Americas Program associate); President Carter; José Miguel Insulza (OAS secretary-general); Jennifer McCoy (director, Carter Center Americas Program).

12 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The most useful aspect of the official meetings was which the group members developed a plan of action an extended working session with the presidential of concrete initiatives designed to strengthen ties adviser on government communications, Jorge Mario between the two countries. They proposed a deadline Eastman, who listened to the group members atten- for the collection of supporting signatures from lead- tively and responded with sensitive clarity and detail ers and for sending the letter to the presidents.17 The to all of the questions about the security policy of the group also requested meetings with both executives Colombian government. and high-ranking officials in each government. They The BDG decided in this meeting to exert its decided to produce a binational documentary to be influence through a formal gesture, by composing a broadcast on television that would reflect the process letter addressed to both presidents urging them to of understanding that the members of the BDG had restore diplomatic relations. The members committed experienced during the dialogue process.18 In addi- to collecting signatures from prominent individuals tion, they proposed to organize academic forums and from both countries to support this petition over the promote binational events with different sectors of coming month before the fourth meeting scheduled to the population. take place in Atlanta in late May 2008.16 In the realm of bilateral relations between During this third meeting, the UNDP’s Democratic Colombia and Ecuador, the OAS had been continu- Dialogue Regional Project conducted an evaluation ing its good offices negotiations, and the vice foreign of the BDG initiative by surveying the members of ministers of both countries had continued working the group. The evaluation revealed a high level of discreetly, finding solutions to some of the prob- support for continuing with the dialogue process over lems related to security on the shared border. Based the long term. The BDG members agreed on the pos- on this, President Carter included the question of sibility of planning an agenda of concrete items for whether the Ecuadoran government would consider a second phase of work after the fourth round of dia- the possibility of re-establishing relations “at the logue, which was scheduled to take place in Atlanta a level of chargé d’affaires” in the discussion points for month later. President Correa.

Fourth Meeting of the Binational President Carter Conducts Second Dialogue Group, Atlanta, May 2008 Mediation Exercise, May–June 2008 The fourth binational dialogue meeting took place in The communication between former President Carter Atlanta May 23 – 24, 2008. José Miguel Insulza (secre- and the Ecuadoran president took place near the tary-general of the OAS), Rebeca Grynspan (regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean for the UNDP), and President Carter were in attendance. Before this meeting, President Carter considered the escalation of aggressive public statements between representatives of both governments and placed a 16 The summary of the conclusions from the third round are included call to President Correa to explicitly ask if he still as Appendix G, including the agreed-upon wording of the letter to the supported the Binational Dialogue Group’s work to presidents. improve binational relations and to get his perspec- 17 In the end, they collected 290 signatures, and the letter was presented tive on the conflict. to both presidents on June 3 and 4, 2008. 18 In September 2009, in Atlanta, the Colombian journalist Claudia President Correa’s positive responses about the Gurisatti and Ecuadorian member Manuel Chiriboga completed the BDG paved the way for a new round of dialogue, in planned documentary, which included portions of an extensive interview of President Carter.

13 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia beginning of the BDG meeting. To everyone’s sur- The Carter Center was in charge of contacting the prise, President Carter reported that President Correa Colombian government. Columbia agreed to move had responded that he was ready to re-establish rela- forward with the initiative as Ecuador had requested. tions at the level of chargé d’affaires. Because the After various texts suggested and revised by Foreign conversation was in English, it seemed possible that Minister Salvador in Ecuador and presidential adviser there had been some confusion over terms, and there- Jorge Mario Eastman in Colombia, they established fore, it was decided that it would be best to confirm the final content for the three press statements on this. José Miguel Insulza encouraged The Carter June 5, 2008.19 Center to verify Ecuador’s decision, conveying his On June 6, 2008, press statements were released at hope that it was so. 10 a.m., noon, and 2 p.m. GMT-5. Early that morn- When Foreign Minister Salvador was contacted by ing, Dr. McCoy called the OAS secretary-general to phone, she responded that she was not fully apprised share the good news. When she was unable to reach on the matter. A new trip to Quito on May 28 was him, she left a voice mail and sent him the state- scheduled for Diez. Meanwhile, The Carter Center ments via e-mail. That day, Insulza also released a and the BDG decided to hold two additional bina- statement celebrating the decision and stating that tional meetings of the Dialogue Group in Quito and the OAS would facilitate the negotiations with his Bogotá during the coming months. personal representative and the vice foreign ministers. Once in Quito, Diez joined Foreign Minister In effect, the OAS would implement the exchange of Salvador in a meeting with President Correa. formal diplomatic communications that would make President Correa confirmed that he had told the decision go into effect. President Carter that his government was ready to New Frustrations re-establish diplomatic relations with Colombia at the level of chargé d’affaires. He stressed that this step On June 23, 2008, the Argentinean newspaper Página would have to be arranged with complete confiden- 12 published an interview with President Correa that tiality until it was finalized and that it should take produced a negative reaction in Colombia. Although place after the OAS General Assembly which was set the foreign ministries had prepared diplomatic notes, to take place in Medellín, Colombia, June 1–3, 2008. Colombia informed the OAS that it had decided to They agreed that the decision would be presented “delay” the process of exchanging them. When he was as a response to a plea by President Carter. There informed of Colombia’s decision, President Correa would be three public statements on June 6, in the responded that if that was their position, Ecuador was following order: (a) a statement from The Carter definitively done with the process of re-establishing Center announcing that both leaders had conveyed relations, at least until the neighboring country had to President Carter their willingness to re-establish a “serious” government. On June 24 President Carter diplomatic relations at the level of chargé d’affaires spoke with President Correa by telephone, during “immediately and without preconditions”; (b) a state- which the latter expressed his anger and unease with ment from Colombia, confirming its decision; (c) a Colombia. Just days earlier, The Carter Center had statement from Ecuador also confirming its decision managed to confirm a meeting between the BDG along the same lines.

19 The statements are included as Appendix H.

14 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia and President Uribe for June 25 in Bogotá and with ment’s position on their dialogue project via a meet- President Correa June 26 in Quito. During his con- ing between The Carter Center and their president. versation with President Carter, the Ecuadoran presi- Finally, also on June 26, Diez met with President dent confirmed his willingness to receive the BDG Correa and gave him a detailed description of the and conveyed his support for the Center’s continued membership and purpose of the Binational Dialogue attempts to find a way to bring the governments Group. Diez emphasized the difference between the closer together. citizen-level efforts of the group and the media- tion exercises of The Carter Center and the OAS. Binational Dialogue Group Meets President Correa stated his support for the initiatives with the Presidents, June 2008 promoted by the Binational Dialogue Group and sug- gested arranging a lunch between him and its mem- As scheduled in the plan of action agreed upon by the bers to repair the situation. He also authorized work- BDG members during their first meeting in Atlanta, ing sessions between the Ecuadoran group members a meeting took place June 25 in Bogotá between the and three of his ministers. members of the group and President Uribe. The meet- At the same time, President Uribe sent a letter ing started with some tension, but it ended on a very to The Carter Center to thank it for its negotiat- good note. The president expressed his willingness to ing effort and urge it to continue efforts to re- move forward with re-establishing diplomatic rela- establish relations. The new foreign minister, Jaime tions with Ecuador. The group drafted a press release Bermúdez, also conveyed his positive views of the that conveyed President Uribe’s support for its efforts, Dialogue Group and his interest in meeting with the which was presented at the end of the meeting at the Colombian group members. Palacio de Nariño. The next day the group traveled On June 27, based on the statements made by the to Quito to meet with President Correa as scheduled. Ecuadoran government, The Carter Center issued a Unfortunately, due to a mistake by his secretary, press release announcing that its efforts to facilitate it was not on his agenda. Only hours before, the negotiations between the governments were over and Ecuadoran president had announced that diplomatic confirming its willingness to continue working at the relations would be suspended indefinitely. civil society level.20 On Thursday, June 26, after a tense wait, President Correa met with the BDG, out of obligation due to Initiatives of the Binational the group’s presence in Quito. The group was met with a resounding no to its plea for the re-establish- Dialogue Group in Civil Society, ment of diplomatic relations. President Correa repeat- June–October 2008 ed his opinion of Colombia and President Uribe, and The group’s extra-official role as a facilitator of rela- he rejected the notion of any dialogue effort between tions between Ecuador and Colombia at the civil the two governments. He asked The Carter Center society level became evident through different initia- to desist its mediation efforts. Some of the Ecuadoran tives that were promoted or collaborated on by the members felt, upon meeting this reaction, that their members of the BDG. After the fourth round efforts — including issues other than diplomatic rela- of dialogue in Atlanta, the members of the BDG tions — were not supported by their president. When worked to increase the visibility of the many positive evaluating the situation created by the failed meeting with President Correa, the Ecuadoran group members agreed on the need to clarify the Ecuadoran govern-

20 Attached as Appendix I.

15 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia aspects of the relations between the two countries. age focusing on the messages of brotherhood. These include: • The BDG members reserved space in the • On June 12, 2008, four members of the group Colombian newspaper El Tiempo and in the participated as panelists at a binational meeting Ecuadoran magazine Criterios for columns called “The Future of Commercial Relations in by journalists from the neighboring country. the Current Circumstances, Ecuador – Colombia,” Unfortunately, the initiative failed due to a lack of organized by the Colombo – Ecuadoran Chamber of articles. Industry and Commerce, in Bogotá. • In a parallel fashion, some of the group mem- • Another four members of the group (two bers collaborated on the first binational meeting Ecuadorans and two Colombians) took advantage of between media directors and editors. The event was a soccer match between the two countries’ national organized by the Spanish American Foundation teams (on June 18, 2008) to promote a message of for New Journalism (Fundación Nuevo Periodismo brotherhood. From the stands, they displayed a flag Iberoamericano) and the Andean Foundation that read “Ecuador and Colombia a single flag.” The for Media Observation and Studies (Fundación Colombian players came onto the field wearing t Andina para la Observación y Estudio de Medios, raditional hats that they gave to the Ecuadoran Fundamedios). It was held in Quito in June 2008. players. The game received substantial media cover-

Members of the Binational Dialogue Group participated in the “Colombia-Ecuador: Building Bridges” initiative, held in Pasto, Colombia in February 2009. Pictured are (left to right): Guillermo Rivera, Dolores Padilla, Socorro Ramírez, and Adrián Bonilla.

16 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Additional members of the Binational Dialogue Group who participated in the “Colombia-Ecuador: Building Bridges” initiative, held in Pasto, Colombia, in February 2009: Nariño Governor Antonio Narvarro Wolff, Colombian Minister of Foreign Relations Jaime Bermúdez, and Victor Rico of the OAS.

• On Aug. 20, 2008, three women from the cuss the different paths it might take for continuing group participated as panelists in the first into the future. Colombo – Ecuadoran Meeting of Business Women, These meetings yielded many conclusions and organized by the Women’s Foundation of Colombia lessons. They included the importance of making a and held in Bogotá. clear distinction between the role of the Binational • In September 2008, a binational academic forum Dialogue Group and the role of the mediation by the was organized in Quito under the auspices of the OAS and President Carter. The possibilities available OAS, FLACSO, and UNDP. Two Ecuadoran mem- to the group for focusing its efforts on initiatives that bers of the group actively participated in its organi- would contribute to a positive agenda, both through zation, and three members interacted as panelists or activities at the civil society level and by presenting moderators. proposals to the governments, were highlighted. During October 2008, as part of the group’s initia- During this period, The Carter Center also per- tive, the Ecuadoran members met with the minister formed an evaluation of the process to determine of defense, Javier Ponce (Oct. 1); the minister of for- members’ desire to continue as part of the group and eign relations, María Isabel Salvador (Oct. 16); and their ideas for moving forward with each group to dis- with the minister for the coordination of internal and external security, Gustavo Larrea (Oct. 16). During

17 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Patricia Estupiñán (general editor of the magazine Vistazo). The selection of the new members was based on the following criteria: access to President Correa, ability to represent the border, and experience in the field of journalism.

Fifth Meeting: Political Analysis, Quito, November 2008 The date of the fifth binational dialogue meeting was determined by the invitation President Correa had offered during his conversation with Francisco Diez in August. The members of the group arrived in Quito A street banner in Pasto, Colombia, promotes the “Colombia- Nov. 6 and 7, 2008, but at the last minute the lunch Ecuador: Building Bridges” initiative. was canceled by the president’s secretary. Despite these circumstances, the group carried these meetings, the Ecuadoran members listened on with the meeting and had an exhaustive discus- to what the government officials had planned on sion about the political situation in the countries. binational issues, learned their perceptions regarding During the meeting they analyzed the increasingly the role of the BDG, and shared ideas and proposals distant possibility of restoring diplomatic relations for the positive agenda. Around the same time, the and the impacts of the approaching electoral period Colombian group members met with Foreign Minister in Ecuador, given that the new constitution, passed in Jaime Bermúdez (Oct. 22). September, ordered the convocation of general elec- During the different meetings between the mem- tions in April 2009.21 bers of the BDG and the aforementioned authori- In November 2008, diplomatic relations between ties, several relevant conclusions emerged about the the countries continued to be broken. In October, group’s future course. One was that the group could play an important role in strengthening and develop- ing the relations between Ecuador and Colombia at the level of civil society. They distinguished between the items on the positive agenda that depend on the national governments and items that could be resolved or addressed through civil society. They also stressed the importance of clearly differentiat- ing between the citizen nature of the group and the mediation efforts put forth by other institutions, such as The Carter Center and the OAS, on the relations between the two countries. In order to balance and reinforce the makeup of the Ecuadoran group, the members decided to incor- porate three new members after October 2008: Grace Jaramillo (academic coordinator of the International Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter talks with Ricardo Relations Program at FLACSO and columnist for El Estrada and Socorro Ramírez members of the Binational Comercio), Pedro Velasco (mayor of Tulcán), and Dialogue Group in Quito, Ecuador, in April 2009.

18 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

President Uribe declined to participate in the Initiatives on the Common Border, Extraordinary Summit of the CAN in Ecuador February 2009 because of his belief that conditions were not appro- priate for him to attend. The verbal sparring match The end of 2008 came with an entrenchment of posi- between the presidents continued. The Ecuadoran tions, aggravated by confrontational statements and government threatened to restrict the entry of measures such as the reinstatement of the require- Colombian citizens into the country. ment for Colombian citizens to present a criminal The group reviewed its plan of action to continue background check (pasado judicial) to enter Ecuador. to develop strategies and coordinate efforts in diverse In this context, the BDG started a new initiative areas, but with the awareness at the civil society level in that the political situation February 2009. Under the and the evident frostiness of auspices of the OAS and the relations represented signifi- UNDP, the BDG members cant obstacles to its goals. The group reviewed its plan of action Antonio Navarro Wolff, governor of the Colombian Despite this understanding, to continue to develop strategies and the group worked to iden- department of Nariño, and tify activities that could be coordinate efforts in diverse areas, but Socorro Ramírez,a professor explored between November with the awareness that the political at the National University 2008 and May 2009. For situation and the evident frostiness of of Colombia, organized a each initiative, the group relations represented significant obstacles binational forum. It was called “Ecuador – Colombia: designated responsible to its goals . Despite this understanding, people from each country.22 Building Bridges. Policies of Group members agreed to the group worked to identify activities Peace and Development for hold the last planned meet- that could be explored . the Border” and was held in ing in May 2009 in Bogotá Pasto, the capital of Nariño, and to evaluate the next in February 2009. steps based on the circum- Seven members of the stances at that time. BDG participated in the At the same time, a multidisciplinary team from forum as presenters or moderators. It registered 507 the UNDP’s Regional Democratic Dialogue Project participants; 32 percent of the participants were began an evaluation of the binational dialogue initia- Ecuadorans (including ordinary citizens but also tive in hopes of finding lessons that could be applied mayors, representatives of civil society, and academ- to similar processes and of assessing the possibility of ics). No governor or representative of the Ecuadoran continuing to support the group through a new phase national government attended, however, as the gov- of work. ernment had instructed its officials not to participate in the forum. Apart from citizens and representatives from civil society and academia from the Colombian side, the minister of foreign relations, the deputy sec-

21 The constitution that was approved via referendum in September 2008 in Ecuador ordered the convocation of general elections that would take place on April 26, 2009. 22 The conclusions and the plan of action are included as Appendix J

19 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Members of the Binational Dialogue Group pictured with President Carter (center) in Quito, Ecuador, in April 2009 (left to right): Michael Brown (UNDP – Ecuador); Francisco Carrión Mena; Ricardo Ávila; José Manuel Hermida (UNDP resident representative – Ecuador); Dolores Padilla; Claudia Gurisatti; John Hardman (Carter Center president); Patricia Estupiñán; Andrés Valdivieso; President Jimmy Carter; Ricardo Estrada; Grace Jaramillo; Gonzalo Ruiz; Socorro Ramírez; Francisco Diez (Carter Center representative, Latin America); Adrián Bonilla; Cècile Mouly (Carter Center, Ecuador); Jairo Tiúsaba (CAF); Verónica Guzmán (Carter Center, Ecuador).

retary on Sovereignty and border development, and a agreement with his counterpart in the Colombian representative of social services were in attendance. city of Ipiales, just across the border. The Andean The participants, who represented the border Community of Nations and the European Union sup- region, conveyed their concern over the grave ported the agreement, which represented a substantial negative impact that the breakdown in diplomatic step toward implementing the first binational border relations had had on development in the border integration project for the shared management of region and on the lives of its inhabitants. The forum solid waste. received a substantial amount of media coverage, and several members of the group were interviewed. BDG Meets with President Rafael The presentations, discussions, and conclusions were Correa, Quito, March 2009 collected in a publication supported by the OAS, Finally, after discreet negotiations by The Carter UNDP, and the National University of Colombia Center, the members of the Binational Dialogue under the direction of Socorro Ramírez.23 Group had lunch at the Palacio de Carondelet with At the same time, Navarro Wolff started a public Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa March 19, 2009. campaign in Pasto designed to bolster the sense of Dr. Jennifer McCoy, of The Carter Center, traveled brotherhood between the peoples of Colombia and from Atlanta for the meeting. The group members Ecuador. The program distributed decals and hanging signs bearing the message, “Colombia — Ecuador: The Same Identity.” 23 “Colombia – Ecuador Construyendo puentes, políticas de paz y desar- Also in February, Pedro Velasco, a member of rollo para la frontera,” edited by Socorro Ramírez, Bogotá: National the BDG and the mayor of the northern Ecuadoran University of Colombia, Organization of American States (OAS), United city of Tulcán, signed a transborder cooperation Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2009. 20 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia presented the role of the BDG and what it had worked on up to that point. They exchanged perspec- tives with him on the situation between the two countries, focus- ing in particular on the difficult situation for the border population. The principal topics of conver- sation were the development of the border integration zone and a request to selectively waive the background check requirement for Colombians attempting to enter Ecuador. With respect to the first topic, President Correa gave his blessing to any proposal designed to improve living conditions along the border; with respect to the President Rafael Correa met with representatives of The Carter Center in Quito, second, he promised to review the Ecuador in April 2009 (left to right): Francisco Diez (Carter Center representative, measure for certain areas. Latin America); John Hardman (Carter Center president); President Rafael Correa; The fundamental point was that Ann Malherbe; Mrs. Rosalynn Carter; Jennifer McCoy (director, Carter Center the group felt that the Ecuadoran Americas Program). government had once again recog- nized the legitimacy of their role. The Ecuadoran and Colombian governments had been unable to overcome their bilateral crisis, and Visit by President Carter to Ecuador, tensions persisted. In a statement released at the end Quito, April 2009 of January 2009, the Ecuadoran government reiter- ated that it would not restore diplomatic relations A month after the BDG’s lunch with President until Colombia had made reparations for damage Correa and immediately following the Ecuadoran caused by the March 1, 2008, attack on a FARC election on April 26, former U.S. President Jimmy camp located on Ecuadoran territory and had fulfilled Carter and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, along the five preconditions that Ecuador had presented to with Dr. McCoy, visited Ecuador. In addition to the Colombian government (modified from the first meeting with various officials, they met with the conditions that were transmitted in April 2008). The members of the Binational Dialogue Group, including preconditions read as follows: some of the Colombian members who came to Quito. 1. To disavow and end its campaign to link Ecuador Almost a year earlier, President Carter had planned a and its government to the FARC; trip to four countries in the region where The Carter 2. To commit to maintaining an effective military Center has established offices or programs. That itin- presence in the border region; erary had not included Colombia, but before embark- 3. To execute the delivery of the requested informa- ing on the trip, President Carter placed a call to tion about the incursion on March 1; President Uribe, who confirmed his desire to attempt a new reconciliation with Ecuador.

21 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

During the sixth meeting of the Binational Dialogue Group in Bogotá, Colombia, in May 2009, members participated in a plenary working session. Pictured are (from left to right): Luis Carlos Villegas; Margarita Carranco; Guillermo Rivera; Francisco Carrión Mena; Socorro Ramírez; Gonzalo Ruiz; Graciela Tapia (UNDP – DDRP); Florencia Ruiz Morosini (UNDP rapporteur); Claudia Gurisatti; Adrián Bonilla; Rafael Nieto Loaiza; Dolores Padilla; Ricardo Ávila; Luz María Sierra; Grace Jaramillo; Augusto Ramírez Ocampo.

4. To execute the delivery of the requested informa- President Carter met with Fander Falconí, the tion about the computers found in Angostura; and new Ecuadoran foreign minister, who was emphatic 5. To make a contribution to the UNHCR from in saying that any move with Colombia should be Colombia, in relation to the refugees. decided by President Correa. He then asked the sec- Following the Ecuadoran government’s statement, retary of President Correa to set aside 15 minutes of Bogotá conveyed its interest in re-establishing rela- the meeting already planned with President Carter tions, and it announced that it was strengthening its and his staff, so that Carter and Correa could speak military presence in the border region. No further privately. In that time, Correa started the conversa- movement was made toward restoring relations, how- tion about Colombia and accepted Carter’s offer to ever. invite both foreign ministers to meet with him infor- During the meeting between the members of the mally in Atlanta. President Carter subsequently called group and President Carter, conversation focused on President Uribe, who also accepted the invitation to possible strategies for improving relations between send his foreign minister to Atlanta. Ecuador and Colombia in the current situation. Everyone emphasized the value of the group and Sixth Meeting: Review of Group’s urged President Carter to persevere in his efforts to Progress, Bogotá, May 2009 reconcile the two governments. In addition, BDG The sixth binational dialogue meeting took place in members stated their intention to conclude the Bogotá May 12–13, 2009. Its principal objective was group’s first phase of work with the binational meet- to analyze the progress of the group from its inception ing in Bogotá, slated to take place in the next few by identifying lessons, systematizing the processes, weeks, and to assess the possibility of continuing work into a second phase. 22 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia and assessing the possibility of continuing work in a In keeping with the decision of the BDG to con- second phase. tinue its efforts, various initiatives that would have The Democratic Dialogue Regional Project team influence at different levels, as well as achieve wider from the UNDP presented the preliminary results of public exposure, were explored. A press statement was the participant evaluation process that it had started also developed.24 in November 2008. These preliminary conclusions stood out: Binational Dialogue Group, • Wide agreement on the belief that the events of June – October 2009 March 1, 2008, changed — if not its objectives — at The formal existence of the BDG, with the support least the “strategy” of the BDG. of The Carter Center, came to an end during the • The lesson of the value of final dialogue round in May seeing things through the 2009. Thereafter, the efforts of eyes of others, which saved members in pursuit of opportu- the progress that the BDG nities for improving relations made. The sixth binational dialogue meeting between their two countries • Consensus that the group took place in Bogotá May 12–13, were dependent on individual helped mitigate the esca- and collective initiative. lation of crisis at crucial 2009 . Its principal objective was to With the support of some of moments and that the analyze the progress of the group from the Ecuadoran and Colombian group’s previous history its inception by identifying lessons, members and under the lead- helped them to confront systematizing the processes, and ership of Antonio Navarro the challenge. assessing the possibility of continuing Wolff as the governor of • Although diplomatic rela- Nariño, on Sept. 8, 2009, a tions were not restored, the work in a second phase . meeting was held in the city of group’s negotiation efforts Pasto, in southern Colombia, were influential at the gov- between the governor and the ernment level. It empha- new mayor of Tulcán. At that meeting — which was sized to the Colombian authorities that the back- attended by delegates from The Carter Center — both and-forth exchange of press statements increased authorities agreed to arrange a meeting for local tensions. It emphasized with the Ecuadoran govern- authorities from Nariño and Carchi, which came to ment the negative effect that the break in diplo- fruition two weeks later in Rumichaca, Ecuador. matic relations had on border development and the At the same time, Colombian journalist Claudia difficulties created by the requirement of a nota- Gurisatti and BDG member Manuel Chiriboga trav- rized criminal background check. eled to Atlanta to complete the binational docu- • The creation of academic spaces where involved mentary on Ecuador and Colombia, an activity the actors convened to discuss different issues that BDG had planned, and to conduct an interview with affect binational relations. President Carter. BDG member Ricardo Ávila was • The “role of preventing escalation” that a group also part of the initiative, and he attended in order like this can play, since their relationships allow its to complete his own interview with President Carter, members to jump into action at crucial junctures. • The importance of differentiating between govern- ment relations and relationships between peoples.

24 The summary of the conclusions and the text of the press statement are included as Appendix K.

23 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia which was published in the newspaper El Tiempo. by a breakfast with just the Colombian delegation. During the interviews, issues such as the relations Afterward, the remainder of the morning was spent between Ecuador and Colombia, President Carter’s in a joint session. Around midday, President Carter perspectives on relations between the United States asked for a recess so that he could draft a proposal for and the Andean region in regard to the new admin- an agreement. Both delegations reviewed the proposal istration of President Barack Obama, and the region’s over lunch, and once they returned to the meeting geopolitical dynamics were addressed. room, they reached an agreement on the text. The The binational documentary was broadcast on foreign ministers exchanged private phone numbers. the Colombian television program “La Noche” in They established that the agreement could be con- late September 2009. A few days later, excerpts were sidered only after receiving the approval of President broadcast in a special program on Ecuador – Colombia Correa and President Uribe. Over the subsequent relations on the Ecuadoran news network Ecuavisa. days, several phone calls were made, during which The documentary’s goal was to discuss the differences they partially modified the text, until they finally and similarities between the views of the Ecuadoran reached a consensus on June 2, which included re- and Colombian peoples on issues that affect the establishing relations at the level of chargé d’affaires. relationship between their countries. It also related At the request of the two foreign ministers, on the story of the Binational Dialogue Group and how June 25 The Carter Center presented a “road map” that experience had influenced the perceptions of for moving forward in implementing the agreement the members regarding common problems and inter- that had been reached in the previous days, which ests. Finally, it included the opinion and advice of included the following steps: (a) in the coming weeks, President Carter to the presidents of Colombia and until the details of a comprehensive agreement could Ecuador, encouraging these two neighbors to re-estab- be ironed out, both the presidents and other high- lish diplomatic relations. ranking government officials would refrain from After the group’s final round of dialogue, the making negative comments about the other country Carter Center staff collected the testimonies of each and its policies; (b) the establishment of different of the members about the experience they had shared mechanisms for addressing specific issues such as secu- since November 2007. Their experiences and lessons rity and criminal activity, border development, and are presented in the next section. sensitive information; (c) the preparation of docu- ments for the exchange of diplomatic correspondence Carter Center Conducts Third and designation of diplomatic representatives; and (d) Mediation, April–August 2009 arranging for a meeting of the foreign ministers dur- ing the first week of August. (e) The release of a joint After the meeting between President Carter and press statement that would describe the agreements President Correa on April 28, the governments that had been reached. agreed that both of the foreign ministers would work These steps were taken in the geopolitical con- at an informal, discreet meeting in Atlanta to explore text characterized by Ecuador joining ALBA and the options for reconciliation May 21 – 22, 2009. A few commencement of negotiations between Colombia days before the meeting, The Carter Center sent both and the United States for a new military coopera- foreign ministers a document called the “Framework tion agreement that would allow the United States to for Work” in order to establish a safe common ground continue to use Colombia’s military bases as part of and explain how President Carter’s facilitation would the effort to combat drug trafficking. The latter devel- work. opments had increased the tension among Bogotá, The meeting in Atlanta began with a dinner Caracas, and Quito. with the Ecuadoran delegation and was followed

24 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

New Complications A New Effort to Finish the Agreement The third mediation exercise fell victim to new com- Falconí’s gesture was interpreted as a sign that bilat- plications that increased mistrust between Bogotá eral relations between the countries were taking a and Quito. The Carter Center had presented the road turn for the better. During a meeting of the Andean map to both parties; at the same time, however, a new Community of Nations in the last week of July, cycle of conflict began between the two governments. Foreign Ministers Falconí and Bermúdez privately The attorney general of Ecuador announced that the resumed talks. The Carter Center had drafted a new former Colombian minister of defense, Juan Manuel version of the road map proposed in June so that it Santos, would face criminal charges in the province could serve as a basis for direct talks between the of Sucumbíos.25 In Colombia, a group of attorneys ministers.29 Among other points, the draft called for (independent from the government) the ratification of the validity of the submitted to the attorney gen- points in the agreement reached on eral charges against the Ecuadoran June 2, 2009, and the formation of president and the former minister binational working commissions to of security, Gustavo Larrea, which finalize details of agreements relat- accused him of maintaining ties to The increase in tension gave ing to previously proposed issues.30 the FARC. At the same time the way to a series of unfriendly For its part, Colombia had sent media was broadcasting a video of a gestures between the two a positive message to Ecuador. A leader of the FARC, Jorge Briceño, group of 11 Ecuadoran soldiers, in alias Mono Jojoy, in which he governments, which brought civilian clothing, were captured by claimed that the guerrilla group had trade relations into the military authorities on Colombian made financial contributions to the diplomatic conflict . territory in the border department electoral campaign of the Ecuadoran of Putumayo. The soldiers were president.26 returned to the Ecuadoran military The increase in tension gave way authorities, as specified by the bilat- to a series of unfriendly gestures eral Security Agreement (Cartilla de between the two governments, which brought trade Seguridad). Meanwhile, the CAN had issued a resolu- relations into the diplomatic conflict. In July 2009 tion that reduced many of Ecuador’s economic restric- the Ecuadoran government imposed economic restric- tions on Colombian products. tions against the importation of various Colombian products. The Colombian government filed a com- 25 On June 29, 2009, a judge in Sucumbíos ordered the arrest of the for- plaint with the CAN and informally suspended the mer Colombian minister of defense, Juan Manuel Santos, on accusations of coordinating and ordering the March 1, 2008, attack on the FARC base transportation of Ecuadoran goods across the common camp in Angostura, where an Ecuadorian citizen was killed. border. 26 Once again, the allegations involved officials in the Ecuadorian gov- On July 29, 2009, just days before the start of ernment, particularly former Coordinating Minister of Security Gustavo Larrea. Rafael Correa’s new presidential term,27 Gustavo 27 As the Constituent Assembly had ordered, in April 2009 general elec- Jalkh, the minister of government, submitted excerpts tions were held. President Rafael Correa was re-elected, this time to begin from the presumed diary of “Raúl Reyes” to the his first mandate under the new constitutional regime. attorney general, in which the FARC second in com- 28 The Colombian authorities had submitted a copy of the manuscript to the Ecuadorian government. The act was perceived as an opportunity mand claimed to have been betrayed by officials in for the Ecuadorian government to distance itself from the officials under President Correa’s administration who were involved suspicion for their ties to the Colombian guerrillas. in/linked to drug trafficking.28 Foreign Minister 29 Attached as Appendix L. Falconí turned over the document to the OAS. 30 Security and Control of Criminal Activity, Border Development and Refugees, Other Pending Issues.

25 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

On Aug. 10, the day President Correa was sworn in Minister Bermúdez on Aug. 14. The presence of to office, Francisco Diez arrived in Quito before trav- Diez served as a channel of communication between eling on to Bogotá. During his stay in the Ecuadoran authorities in both governments that were attempting capital, Diez dedicated a great deal of time to explor- to translate their good intentions into actions. ing the status of the previous mediation efforts and On Aug. 14, during the closing ceremony of to pushing for negotiations between the two govern- the General Assembly of the National Business ments. He also met with the Ecuadoran members of Association of Colombia, President Uribe announced the BDG to gauge their perceptions of the political his government’s willingness to initiate dialogue to re- situation. establish relations between Also on Aug. 10, the his country and Ecuador meeting of the UNASUR and, once again, issued presidents took place in a public apology to the Quito without President Ecuadoran government for Uribe. The principal President Uribe announced his the events in Angostura. topic was the negotiations government’s willingness to initiate The Ecuadoran response between Colombia and the dialogue to re-establish relations between came the next day. During United States over the use his weekly radio address on of Colombia’s military bases his country and Ecuador and, once again, Aug. 15, President Correa by the United States mili- issued a public apology to the Ecuadorian accepted the apology of tary. President Correa, along government for the events in Angostura . the Colombian president with Venezuelan President The Ecuadorian response came the next and confirmed that he was Hugo Chávez, was vocally day . During his weekly radio address on ready for talks to restore critical of these negotiations. diplomatic relations, on the The officials present decided Aug . 15, President Correa accepted the condition that Colombia to discuss the issue further apology of the Colombian president and fulfill the following com- and arranged another meet- confirmed that he was ready for talks to mitments: delivery of video ing — one they hoped the restore diplomatic relations . footage of the Angostura Colombian president would bombing, delivery of the attend — set to take place hard drives of the comput- in late August in Bariloche, ers found in the FARC . base camp, and cessation of Despite the events surrounding the UNASUR its attempts to link the Ecuadoran government with meeting, the officials from both governments men- the FARC. tioned to Diez the willingness of President Correa and One week later, Bermúdez and Falconí held President Uribe to move forward with the re-estab- another meeting as part of the XIV Extraordinary lishment of relations between the two nations, as well Meeting of the CAN’s Andean Council of Ministers as their interest in working with their counterparts. of Foreign Relations in Lima, as the extraordinary In Quito, Diez met with Minister of Defense Javier UNASUR meeting drew near. Formal rapprochement Ponce, Minister of Security Miguel Carvajal, and with between the foreign ministers became more evident Marco Albuja, an adviser to Foreign Minister Falconí. after the meeting of the presidents at UNASUR, in Once in Bogotá, Diez met with President Uribe’s Bariloche, Argentina. Despite the tense nature of a adviser Jorge Mario Eastman; the new Colombian meeting whose focal point was Colombian security minister of defense, Gabriel Silva; and Foreign policy, the foreign ministers of Colombia and Ecuador

26 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

announced their willingness to begin dialogue over of three commissions to address pertinent binational the next few days. The proposed setting was the issues: General Assembly of the United Nations, which 1. Commission on Security and Control of both ministers planned to attend, in New York in Criminal Activity September 2009. 2. Commission on Border Development The Colombian government sent another positive 3. Commission on Sensitive Issues signal: President Uribe asked Antonio Navarro Wolff, governor of Nariño and member of the BDG, to serve The foreign ministers requested that The Carter as a mediator between Colombia and the Ecuadoran Center and the OAS facilitate the third commission. government to re-establish relations between Quito It would address such issues as the judicial process and Bogotá. Although he was unable to serve as against former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, mediator, at every opportunity Navarro Wolff used the details relating to the information about the political, social, and border platforms to maintain a March 1, 2008, attack on the FARC base camp in channel of communication between the two govern- Angostura, and the content of the hard drives of the ments, in pursuit of a relationship of brotherhood and personal computers found there. A time line was also collaboration between the nations. established for future meetings of the commissions. The first two commissions were set to meet on Final Road to Full Relations different dates during the rest of October; for the dia- logue on the sensitive issues, another foreign-minis- The first formal meeting between Ministers Falconí ter-level meeting was planned for Nov. 3. and Bermúdez took place in New York during the To the dismay of the foreign ministers and other 64th Ordinary General Assembly of the United authorities, the next steps were briefly interrupted by Nations, in the third week of September 2009. In that a resurgent tension between the two countries. The time, the foreign ministers released a joint statement meetings of the first two commissions were postponed in which they acknowledged the beginning of a pro- following an extradition request by an Ecuadoran cess of direct dialogue aimed at achieving a normal- judge in the border town of Sucumbíos for former ization of diplomatic relations between the countries; Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos concrete commitments for the next steps, the recog- and other military officials, including the commander nition of some conditions proposed by both sides, and of the Colombian military forces, General Freddy a formal petition for the involvement of The Carter Padilla, along with other lower-ranking officials.32 Center and the OAS as facilitators to address the The commitment of the two governments to sensitive issues of contention between Ecuador and restablish relations was made evident by the efforts 31 Colombia. The statement’s different points captured of Foreign Ministers Falconí and Bermúdez to avoid the spirit of the agreement that had been facilitated postponing the dialogue scheduled for Nov. 3, how- by President Carter in June 2009. On Oct. 8, 2009, the second formal meeting between the foreign ministers and delegations of offi- cials from both governments took place in the border city of Ipiales, Colombia. The meeting’s objective was 31 Included as Appendix M. to move forward the process of re-establishing dip- 32 The first meeting of the Commission on Security and Control of Criminal Activity was scheduled to take place in the Ecuadorian city of lomatic relations. Also in attendance were the OAS Ibarra, in northern Ecuador. During that time, plans were also made to secretary-general, José Miguel Insulza, and a represen- reactivate the Binational Border Commission (Combifron). Combifron is a mechanism for studying security issues that comprises security authorities tative from The Carter Center, Dr. Jennifer McCoy. from Ecuador and Colombia. The Colombian authorities had indicated that there were not sufficient guarantees to allow their military delegates They discussed the steps forward and the formation to travel to Ecuador; given the extradition requests.

27 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia ever. In fact, the Nov. 3 dialogue was when they The electoral period in Colombia in 2010 delayed addressed the sensitive issues that allowed them to the process of resolving the issues in the Sensitive continue on their course. Issues Commission until after the inauguration of During the Nov. 3 meeting in Cotacachi, facili- Juan Manuel Santos in August 2010. Leading up to tated by Insulza and McCoy, the two foreign min- the inauguration, members of the BDG facilitated isters announced their plans to appoint the chargés meetings of Vice President-elect Garzón and the d’affaires by Nov. 15 and to re-establish Combifron designated foreign minister, Maria Angela Holguin, (the Binational Border Commission). Both of these in Ecuador. On Aug. 7, President Correa attended commitments were fulfilled. Andrés Terán of Ecuador the inauguration, and President Santos delivered and Ricardo Montenegro of Colombia assumed their some of the requested information to him personally. posts in Bogotá and Quito, respectively, which ful- Subsequent meetings of the two foreign ministers filled the commitment to re-establish relations at the resolved the remaining outstanding issues and on level of chargé d’affaires, as had originally been agreed Nov. 26, 2010, the two countries announced the full upon in June 2008 and reiterated during the meeting re-establishment of relations. in May 2009 in Atlanta.

28 The Carter Center

The Binational Dialogue Group in the Words of its Members *

did what it had to do but that its success was pre- Adrián Bonilla vented by the position of the Ecuadorian government, An Enriching Experience which was perfectly clear. In the Binational Dialogue Group, we took the y experience with the Binational Dialogue initiative to do whatever we could to help both coun- Group was enriching for a variety of reasons. M tries to learn more about Ecuador and Colombia and All of us — and me in particular — were able to bet- to spread this information to the public. As a member ter understand the circumstances that can produce of the group, and in my field, I became involved in a real dialogue and to have direct contact with people multitude of public initiatives that who had vastly different and deeply took place in Ecuador and Colombia rooted beliefs about the differences to bring the countries closer togeth- between Ecuador and Colombia. It er. Given that FLACSO was the allowed us to learn about the per- The experience allowed academic institution represented in spectives of different Colombian us to learn about the the group from the Ecuadorian side, sectors on what was happening in perspectives of different I participated in various academic Ecuador and to establish that in Colombian sectors on what and public events of every kind. Colombia very little was known was happening in Ecuador For example, in September 2008, about Ecuador and its foreign policy. FLACSO organized a binational It also provided us with a better and to establish that in academic forum in conjunction with idea of how decisions are made in Colombia very little was the OAS and the UNDP. Although Ecuador and Colombia. This pro- known about Ecuador and the Binational Dialogue Group duction of firsthand knowledge was its foreign policy . itself did not organize the event, the one of the most satisfying aspects. group’s vision guided the exercise. The experience left me with a In addition, various members of the wealth of knowledge. group contributed to the forum’s organization and I believe that the group was inhibited by its inabil- participated in it as well. ity — as with all of the institutions and people inter- Members of the group contributed to the bina- ested in improving relations between Ecuador and tional dialogue from their different fields. Personally, Colombia — to influence the Ecuadorian government I believe I contributed a specialized, systematic, and in particular, which was the government with which analytical perspective on foreign policy. I also believe we, the Ecuadorians, had to work. The group’s ability I contributed credible information. One of the most to publicize various issues was significant, however. I important results of the group’s efforts was placing don’t believe that the group was able to accomplish important issues for relations between Ecuador and very much in light of the government’s entrenched Colombia onto the public agenda. The Binational position, which proved rigid and inflexible despite all Dialogue Group also produced a lot of information manner of gestures from within the country, outside that could be systematized for use in future negotiat- the country, civil society, etc. I believe that the group ing exercises within Ecuador and especially outside the country. * Through May 2009.

29 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

I do not believe anything could have been model that takes this into account. Ecuador’s foreign improved about this exercise, except perhaps our ini- policy toward Colombia cannot be explained using tial analysis, as members of the group, that we shared the rational models from political science. I believe at the beginning and our assumption that a resolution you have to apply a perspective that emphasizes the between Ecuador and Colombia was possible. When influence of ideology on beliefs rather than a simply the group was formed, the events of March 1, 2008, emotional perspective. had yet to take place, along with the break in dip- Thinking about the future, I believe it would be a lomatic relations between the two countries. We all waste to dissolve the Binational Dialogue Group, as assumed, and it was not an error of the groups, that a it has accumulated so much experience and knowl- rapprochement was possible between both countries. edge that can be systematized. There are also many Ultimately, rapprochement was not possible despite activities that have already been organized. There is the interventions of the group, representatives of The a network in place. The group will probably need to Carter Center, gestures by the OAS, and resolutions be renewed and extended to include more of society. by the Río Group. The failure went much deeper Maybe the group will abandon the effort to influ- than the capacities of the Binational Dialogue Group, ence government policies as one of its central objec- if this can be called a “failure.” It seems to me that tives. It seems to me that the group should continue within the Ecuadorian government, the position to exist and in some way pursue the initiatives that adopted was to be impermeable to the influence of The Carter Center can sponsor. The group should be anyone who would change its decision. maintained as a forum for reconciliation and media- Ecuador’s policies toward Colombia are entrenched tion. That is its nature. in a series of ideological principles that are difficult Adrián Bonilla is director of the Latin American School of Social to move beyond. I believe they are based on values, Sciences in Ecuador (FLACSO) and an expert on international principles, beliefs, and assumptions. To accurately relations and United States policy in Latin America and the analyze Ecuador’s position, you would need to use a Andean region. He was an adviser on political matters in the Ecuadorian ministry of defense.

30 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

have been too careless in their handling of Ecuador’s Antonio Navarro Wolff opinion of Colombia. Ten years ago, Colombians The Weight of the Colombian were respected — I would even say admired — in Conflict Ecuador, whereas today they are viewed with some discomfort. There is a certain element of resentment y experience as a member of the Binational by the Ecuadorian public because the Colombian MDialogue Group allowed me to better under- people and government have treated the Ecuadorian stand the Ecuadorian people. It was deeply rewarding people with disdain and a lack of concern. Now, we to have the chance to meet such a diverse group of are all suffering the consequences. Ecuadorians. The Colombians and Ecuadorians are I contributed to the group a vision of binational very close and, at the same time, very distant. I live relations along the border. This was my main con- along the border, and I know more about Ecuador tribution. I also contributed a more precise vision than your average Colombian. Even though I went of what they think in Ecuador about Colombia and in with a general idea, however, I learned more about about what happens in Colombia. I also believe that how Colombia was seen in Ecuador. This exchange it was useful from the other perspective to show with the other members of the group really enriched the members of the group how Ecuador is seen by me. It was a stimulating and interesting experience. It Colombia. Another contribution I made was an was highly valuable to meet other people in the flesh analysis of the Colombian armed conflict. I believe and establish direct, personal relationships with other it is important for the Ecuadorian people to under- members of the Binational Dialogue Group. It was stand this conflict. This is an undertaking that is truly valuable, for example, to have a chance to meet just beginning. I believe it is utterly crucial for the a former foreign minister of Ecuador, share experi- people who are capable of influencing public opinion ences with him, and understand him. This type of in Ecuador to understand the history and the logic of exchange was extremely important for both sides and the Colombian armed conflict because that conflict is for me personally. affecting bilateral relations in a very significant way. From my perspective, the overall experience was Before you can cure a patient, you have to properly very good. The only element missing at the beginning diagnose him. I believe that Ecuador has misdiag- was the lack of representation of a regional govern- nosed the Colombian armed conflict. At times I ment official from the Ecuadorian side of the border. feel that even in Colombia we don’t understand the The inclusion of the mayor of Tulcán, Pedro Velasco, conflict we are living through. It is not surprising was a positive step in this sense, but it would have that our neighbors would have trouble understand- been better to include him from the beginning. It ing it. I believe if there is anything left to do, cor- is also a bit sad that we were not able to realize our recting that lapse would be it. I have personal and hope of seeing diplomatic relations restored between direct experience of the Colombian armed conflict. I the two countries. understand it very well. Sharing this knowledge with Of everything we did, what I enjoyed most was the Ecuadorian public is worth the effort to continue. welcoming so many Ecuadorians in Pasto and encoun- I also played an influential role in two initiatives, tering such warm affection for Colombia on the including the binational forum in Pasto that took other side of the border. At the same time, Nariño’s place in February. affection for Ecuador is still there as well. If relations One of the results of the binational forum in Pasto between the two countries could have been resumed was promoting relations between civil society orga- along the border, relations never would have been nizations along both sides of the border. It allowed broken off in the first place. I do have to recognize initiatives that were already under way to continue one thing: The Colombian people and government developing, such as relations among indigenous 31 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia peoples on both sides of the border, among nongov- folklore. The influence of Colombian music is signifi- ernmental organizations, among universities, etc. The cant; schools and colleges in Ecuador use it for their University of Nariño took on a commitment to open musical presentations and dances. This episode made a campus in Ecuador. It is not good that they know me believe that the people of the border have the more about Ecuador at the National University of best binational relations. Colombia in Bogotá than at the University of Nariño. Each member of the group tried to make his or The universities in Ecuador should make the same her own contribution. As with anything, one should commitment. This forum also provided continuity for do what one can, what is at hand. For example, I the relationships between local governments both in met with the Nariño Chamber of Commerce, the the Sierra region and along the coast. There are proj- National Federation of Merchants, universities, ects that should continue to develop, such as creating labor unions, and small-business owners. I proposed a binational fishing school. There are also projects that they participate in a campaign to reinforce the being coordinated between the mayors of Ipiales and brotherhood between the Colombian and Ecuadorian Tulcán. Many different initiatives people. We had some stickers that are in the interests of the bor- made that are still visible in some der populations should be extended. window displays in Pasto that said Another contribution of mine There is a strong friendship “Ecuador – Colombia: A Single could have been my direct relation- between both peoples along Identity.” This is in part a reflec- ship with President Correa. The tion of what people feel and also the last time that I saw him was at a the border . reality of the situation at the border. public event in the city of Tulcán. At certain times people cross the There we discussed our personal border to make purchases (such as relationship and the political simi- when the exchange rate favors it), larities we have between what I believe and what he and at other times it is the opposite. For many years it believes as the president of Ecuador in general terms. was cheaper to buy things in Ecuador; now it’s cheap- We also reiterated the differences we have over how er for Ecuadorians to buy things in Colombia. Now, the situation with Colombia should be managed. as I understand it, the business owners in Colombia Something very important came out of this event in have to welcome their Ecuadorian customers, and this Tulcán. There was a major parade in the streets, led sticker serves as a simple but direct sign of welcome to by President Correa. The people of Tulcán showed the Ecuadorian people. a great deal of solidarity with Colombia. There were Right now I am working with major vendors in the tons of banners that said “Ecuador and Colombia Nariño zone to invite journalists from Ecuador to visit united always.” There is a strong friendship between the Andean part of Nariño and observe how safe the both peoples along the border. situation is. While the situation in some Colombian President Correa has always said that his problem zones is dangerous, in others it simply isn’t. Thus, we is not with the Colombian people but with the cur- would like to see Ecuadorian journalists who shape rent government of Colombia, but it was significant public opinion spread the news that traveling to Pasto for him to have a direct personal experience with the or Ipiales by land is not dangerous. Groups of jour- affection for Colombia along Ecuador’s border and nalists have already traveled to Nariño on numerous with Colombia’s cultural influence. When the differ- past occasions. Along these lines, I believe there is a ent schools started to march — the president watched strong counterpart as well. The people in the unions five or six schools march before he had to go — all of of Ibarra spoke with me and complained that they see the students in the parade danced and presented dif- fewer tourists now from Colombia coming to Ibarra. ferent things associated with Colombian music and Why is that? The chief explanation is the complex- 32 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia ity of the requirements for entry imposed by the diplomatic relations between Colombia and Ecuador Ecuadorian government. The Colombian tourists who was a direct result of the ideas and personal action used to visit Ecuador during December, Easter week, of President Carter. I hope that he will not lose his or July and August are no longer coming. They prefer constructive, positive attitude toward these issues. to travel to other destinations. The notarized criminal While the work accomplished by the Organization background check requirements only complicate the of American States has been important, the role of process further. Tourists with smaller means are not President Carter and his relationships with President especially concerned with the exchange rate on the Uribe and President Correa were crucial in advancing dollar. Your average, everyday person is not going toward and coming so close to the re-establishment to put himself or herself through all of those hoops. of diplomatic relations. This demonstrates the strong Ultimately the result is fewer Colombians traveling to focus on relationships between presidents that we Ecuador. For people in the northern part of Ecuador, have in Latin America. These relationships are too as well as for us, it would be better if these restrictions presidential for my taste, but this is the reality, and were lifted. the truth is that personal relationships between presi- Thinking about the future, I believe that all pro- dents play a very important role. cesses must have a beginning and an end. We need Antonio Navarro Wolff is governor of the department of to find causes in common to take up. Even though Nariño, Colombia. He was a candidate for the Polo Democrático the Binational Dialogue Group will not continue Alternativo in the presidential elections of May 2006. He was formally, I believe that relationships have been estab- president of the national constituent assembly that wrote the lished between its members that will last throughout political constitution in 1991. He has served as the minister of health (1990), candidate for the presidency (1994), mayor of the years. Finally, I would like to thank President Pasto (1995–1997), congressional representative (1998–2002), Carter for continuing to work with such vitality. The and senator (2002–2006) for Bogotá. best chance there has been all year for re-establishing

33 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

These events helped us resist the explosive fallout Augusto Ramírez Ocampo from the bombardment of the Raúl Reyes camp. It From Skepticism to Conviction was very difficult to listen to the official statement by the president of Ecuador, read by the foreign minister, articipating in a group that was so diverse and harshly announcing the formal termination of dip- also so accomplished in different fields was a very P lomatic relations with Colombia and paralyzing the interesting exercise. It was a real pleasure to get to few positive steps we had achieved up to that point. know both the Ecuadorian members as well as the Despite this episode, the Ecuadorian members of the Colombian members whom I had known less inti- Binational Dialogue Group, with admirable courage, mately in the past. I had a chance to learn about all agreed to attend the next binational meeting that of their abilities and potential. was scheduled to occur in Bogotá. Before this meet- The first meeting of the Binational Dialogue ing, three Colombian members of the group, Antonio Group in Atlanta was very important. There was an Navarro Wolff, Socorro Ramírez and I, had traveled adjustment period for the whole process, and, above to Quito to assess the impact of the events of March all, it produced a needed catharsis for all of the par- 1 on the process we had been attempting. With the ticipants present, as each of us quickly expressed our Bogotá meeting scheduled for March or April, we met differences and disagreements, especially in relation with the other Colombian members of the group in to the official policies as seen from each country’s Bogotá to evaluate the consequences of the events of point of view. There were positions that were totally March 1 for the work we had committed to by accept- opposed to each other and positions that were shared ing the invitation of former U.S. President Jimmy unanimously by all the members from each country. Carter and his organization. We reached the conclu- This culminated in a difficult climax, one that wasn’t sion that it was essential to sound out the situation always pleasant, but it was necessary for us to truly before organizing a new binational meeting, which experience catharsis. It allowed us to express ourselves could turn out to be extremely difficult if we did sincerely and come to understand one another as well not first establish that there was a desire to reunite as to realize that the group absolutely had to reach in another meeting. During this meeting, the group some agreements before being able to function. asked that Socorro Ramírez, Antonio Navarro Wolff, What occurred in the next binational dialogue and I make a quick trip to Quito in order to find out meeting in Quito was entirely different. We had the positions of the Ecuadorian members and explain established an environment suited to understanding our perceptions of the situation as Colombians. and tranquility. In a way, this environment set us on Once we arrived in Quito, we met with the a course of working together with the goal of reach- Ecuadorian members of the Binational Dialogue ing agreements and making contributions from each Group. We also had informal meetings with the for- of our countries to promote greater understanding eign minister and an official from the Ecuadorian of one another. This was before the tragic events of government who had been a member of the group at March 1, 2008, had occurred, so we were able to take one time. Unfortunately, we arrived at the worst pos- on concrete issues, such as the situation of refugees sible time because, shortly afterward, an urgent note and displaced persons. We also met with two key arrived from the Colombian president’s office with a Ecuadorian ministers, the Ecuadorian foreign minister resoundingly strong response from President Uribe to and the coordinating minister for internal and exter- the public declarations made by President Correa in nal security, which gave us a fuller understanding of a press conference in Mexico, and that led to a pub- the thinking of the Ecuadorian government on some lic verbal incident between the Colombian ambas- of these controversial issues. sador in Mexico and President Correa. This episode only intensified the mood. Even so, with various 34 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Ecuadorian members of the group accompanying us to between the Colombian foreign minister and an these meetings, we moved past the situation, and the adviser of the president of Ecuador. These meetings trip turned out to be very useful. allowed us to go further in depth on extremely sensi- Just after our trip to Quito, President Uribe him- tive issues such as the Colombian armed conflict and self called me from Cartagena, where he had just the impressions of the Ecuadorian members on the finished speaking with the Colombian ambassador to situation. I believe that this discussion allowed the Mexico, who had just given him a rundown of what exercise to continue. It was very difficult to antici- had happened with President Correa. It struck me as pate all of these events. In a way, it was a miracle a comedy of errors. First of all, the foreign minister that the meetings in Atlanta and Quito took place had not considered it pertinent — although certainly before March 1, 2008. Thanks to the path laid out in with some reason — to instruct our ambassadors with these meetings, we were able to overcome the seri- respect to the Colombian govern- ous incident of March 1, which ment’s decision not to respond in demonstrated that we had already any way to any public statements achieved, at least for the moment, or private insults that could be The press routinely asked a substantial level of trust between directed against the Colombian various group members about the members from each country. government. Let’s remember that I believe that the policy we one of the first decisions that the international issues, and so, as adopted toward the press for Ecuadorian and Colombian mem- members of the group, we were the meetings of the Binational bers agreed upon was to attempt in an advantageous position to Dialogue Group was very impor- to persuade our presidents to stop express our opinions, attempt tant, especially when it came making negative public state- to desensationalize public to public statements. The press ments about one another. From routinely asked various group that point on, we were working to opinion, and raise awareness members about international ensure that all public statements among journalists and editors . issues, and so, as members of the be made by the foreign ministries. group, we were in an advantageous That effort suffered from President position to express our opinions, Correa’s statements and the immediate reaction of attempt to desensationalize public opinion, and the Colombian ambassador, who was taken by sur- raise awareness among journalists and editors. This prise by the Ecuadorian press and obviously acted effort was an important one on both sides thanks to on instinct. A little blame also fell on the general the journalists who formed a part of the Binational instructions offered to the Colombian diplomatic Dialogue Group — who also acted with exceptional corps in the exterior to defend Colombian dignity. I loyalty, given that none of them leaked a single believe that these explanations and my account of the story — and the other members, who continued to trip that I had completed a day earlier to President work toward the long-term project of encouraging Uribe proved very useful. The trip kept me fully calmness and explaining events thoroughly in the informed of all of the up-to-the-minute develop- hope of preventing their further escalation. ments, and it allowed me to present President Uribe My years of experience with international with a storyline about what had happened and, at the issues — in particular, my work as an international same time, to make some suggestions to him, after he official with the United Nations and the Organization opened the door for me to offer them. of American States — helped me to understand the I believe it was thanks to all of that effort that the issues we discussed in the Binational Dialogue Group. Bogotá meeting followed the same course as the one In particular, through the roles I played in Haiti and in Quito. This time there were conciliatory gestures later in El Salvador as a special representative of 35 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia the secretary-general of the United Nations and as things and to understand the other party’s reasons. the chief of the Observation Mission of the United This interesting experience of more than a year with Nations in El Salvador, where negotiations between the Binational Dialogue Group allowed me to confirm the Salvadoran government and guerrillas were prac- these lessons. tically my principal task, I learned a great deal about It also strikes me that we were learning as we went the need to negotiate and about various negotiation along because, initially, we were unclear and our goals techniques. This experience served me well in con- were not specific. A fundamental issue that came up tributing to the group. during the course of the exercise was the formal break At the same time, the fact that I had been a for- in diplomatic relations and the need to restore them, eign minister helped me, given that in the Colombian which became a part of the Binational Dialogue Foreign Ministry there is a great deal of respect for Group’s agenda and became one of its most important individuals who have served as foreign minister. Each purposes. All of the members of the group felt that foreign minister who takes on the position periodi- the disruption of diplomatic relations was a problem cally consults with the group of former foreign minis- and that their re-establishment should continue to ters. This allowed the Binational Dialogue Group to be an important objective for the group; that is, we have direct access to the decisions of the Colombian should strive to persuade both governments, help government. I wasn’t the only one with direct access them, and incentivize them to re-establish diplomatic to the Colombian government, however. Other mem- relations. bers, for example, had very comfortable relationships I remained deeply committed to the discussion with the president of the republic. I had personal in the last binational dialogue meeting in Bogotá. relationships with some executive officials who had There was disagreement over whether the Binational access to the issue of relations between Colombia and Dialogue Group should end or continue with less Ecuador, including some former colleagues. These intensity and, if so, what its goals should be. I believe types of relationships allowed me to contribute at this discussion was very useful, and it allowed us to particularly delicate moments, because I had direct begin what we have termed “the second phase of the access to the Colombian foreign policymakers. This process” in better conditions than we started the first access was especially helpful for a mission as difficult one, because this time we have clearly defined our and intelligently designed as the one undertaken by objectives. I now agree completely with each of the the Carter Center’s representative in Latin America, points that we agreed upon at the meeting, that is, Francisco Diez, in his pendulum diplomacy between the need for the Binational Dialogue Group to con- Quito – Bogotá and Bogotá – Quito, which allowed tinue working on the following issues: us to design the so-called baby steps with the goal of • First, exert influence at the government level (in reducing the harshest effects of the break in diplomat- particular, to encourage the re-establishment of dip- ic relations little by little. It helped to make things a lomatic relations); little easier and allowed Diez to play a transcendental • Second, continue working to influence public opin- role. ion to improve relations between the two countries; My previous experiences with dialogue processes • Third, continue pursuing actions that have already taught me how to deal with positive and negative been planned (for example, the second binational episodes. As a result, even in moments of extreme meeting for media directors and editors that was tension, I could apply some of my lessons from experi- planned for or the binational entrepreneur ence, such as the need to always treat the other party meeting) and continue with the admirable efforts of with respect and to accept the fact that neither party the academic members of the Binational Dialogue has a monopoly on the truth. If you come to a nego- Group; tiating table, you have to come ready to give on some 36 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

• Fourth, stimulate the interest of the international the Río Group meeting in the Dominican Republic, community in the so-called Border Integration diplomatic relations were re-established between Zone (in Ecuador, we have made a lot of progress Colombia and Venezuela, and between Colombia thanks to the support of the UNDP and Ecuador’s and Nicaragua. These Latin American mechanisms government) and promote the idea of calling are very important for the situation in which we together in New York or Washington the United find ourselves. Nations, the Inter-American Development Bank, Now the Binational Dialogue Group should decide the CAF, and the OAS to propose a major project who will be invited to the second phase of the to be mirrored on both sides of the border. This process, in pursuit of the determined objectives. project could be implemented without diplomatic It strikes me that everyone involved is in the best relations being established — although the ideal position to continue or withdraw, based on their scenario is to re-establish them — to avoid wast- immediate needs. I also suppose that individuals ing time and to be able to develop the Border who do not continue, or ones who do, will con- Integration Zone independently of fractured politi- tinue to offer friendly support to the efforts they cal relationships. I believe this project is possible, made with the support of The Carter Center and especially in a situation like the current one, when to the people who may replace them. I was some- the interest of the international community should what skeptical at the beginning, and I left utterly be at its height. It is important to remove this issue convinced of the need for the group to continue from the fray of confrontation and politics and to operating, even beyond what was agreed upon in promote development in the three border zones the binational meeting in Bogotá. that we have throughout the 650 kilometers of the border. Doing so would also allow us to support the Augusto Ramírez Ocampo is director of the Institute of Human Rights and International Relations at the Universidad Javeriana process of moving past the Colombian bombing of in Bogotá and external adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Angostura. The other thing is to take advantage Relations. He was mayor of Bogotá, minister of foreign rela- of some of the recently created forums in Latin tions, minister of development, and a member of the national constituent assembly. He was also a special representative to the America to ensure that the region remains involved secretary-general of the United Nations in El Salvador and the in the process, as it was in the OAS meeting and Observation Mission of the United Nations in El Salvador. He the meeting in the Dominican Republic, which led was director of the UNDP’s regional office for Latin America and to a solution of a very serious situation. Thanks to the Caribbean.

37 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

compromise,33” is what holds the greatest potential for Dolores Padilla offering concrete responses and sustainable alterna- Between Ecuador and Colombia: tives for the situation along our border. The People The Awá, Cofán, and Pasto peoples reclaim the recognition of the unified nature of their territory; the any things cross the border: products, contra- mayors find themselves engaged in common projects Mband, glyphosate, and violence but also affec- to resolve their common problems; entrepreneurs sus- tions, perceptions, relationships between family and tain an important flow of relationships; independent friends, between legal and illegal businesses, between fishermen on both sides of the Mataje River demand needs and shared dreams. On the other side of the a joint training facility; the civic forces from Ipiales river and the bridge, life takes on a pace that makes and Tulcán proclaim that we have a common destiny us one people. in the streets. This is how “the community” grows. When the Regarding that common destiny, the president of people recognize the same vulnerabilities and scarci- the Women’s Federation of Lago Agrio and the sec- ties, when identities and feel- retary of the Amazonian Front ings of belonging materialize told us in an interview: in collective action as the only We are coordinating with tool for resisting the absence of The action of the national the Colombian sisters, and we the state, basic services, and the governments and institutions has say that we have only an imagi- protection of basic rights, soli- become essential at different levels nary border, although at the darity emerges to replace loneli- and degrees . But it will be the national level, they call us the ness but also as an alternative social networks, the consciousness cuckoos of Colombia, but we way to exchange information among women have had good about different ways of living, of their actors, and the influence coordination. In November mechanisms for subsistence, of the local governments that will of 2007 we had a binational conflicts, and displaced persons. determine the future . meeting at the Rumichaca While the international Bridge, where we had more businesses of drugs and armed than 10,000 women, and it was conflict continue to inflict their very emotional to see how Ecuador and Colombia are multiple, painful consequences on the Colombian ter- perceived, when the reality is different; as a result, ritory, they also cross the border. this helped us and strengthened our bonds with our In the last decade, Ecuador has received hundreds Colombian sisters. We have a very good relationship. of thousands of displaced Colombians from the war The Binational Dialogue Group identified an that ravages our brother country. The lack of under- opportunity for a binational development plan to standing of the conflict blurs the names, and hence serve as a major instrument for improving the capaci- people are classified: “legals” and “illegals,” “refugees,” and “denieds.” On many occasions, we spoke with refugee associations, and they all indicated that in the midst of all of their challenges, the one source of support they could count on was the warm reception offered by the people of Ecuador. This social capital, understood as “the capacity for collective action that people develop over a foun- 33 A concept further developed by N. Lechner in the article “How will we rebuild us (Cómo reconstruir el nosotros?)” in the magazine Foro dation of social trust and norms of reciprocity and Social, Bogotá, 2007.

38 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia ties and strengths in the border zone between the two and Bogotá. We knew to highlight the importance countries, as long as it is developed and executed and validity of tolerance and respect for democratic with the participation of the people, their direct values, but we also recognized the need to bring the representatives, and the social and political actors basic principles of honor and dignity with us to the involved in the area. negotiating table. The three borders that unite us have a rich social, The people of the group transformed this process cultural, and political diversity; at the same time into a testimony of their patriotism and effectiveness they confront many complexities. The action of the in crucial moments of confrontation and crisis. The national governments and institutions has become situation forced us first to persist as a team and sec- essential at different levels and degrees. But it will be ond to expand our views and understanding, which the social networks, the consciousness of their actors, allowed us to return and rejoin the rest of society and, and the influence of the local governments that will through this dialogue, renew hope. determine the future. A former deputy in the Ecuadorian congress, Dolores Padilla has written Without a doubt, the experience has created widely on topics such as gender, children and adolescents, and education. She has been involved in social projects and alternative development. knowledge. The Binational Dialogue Group allowed She has expertise in facilitating dialogue processes and negotiating con- us to know, and re-create in depth, the realities flicts. She founded the NGOs Eve of the Apple (Eva de la Manzana), the Institute of Family Studies (Instituto de Estudios Familiares), and the and tensions that make us neighbors. We learned Center for Support and Information for Women (Centro de Información to appreciate the elements that we share and the y Apoyo a la Mujer). In 2004 she was a candidate for vice president of the distance between the perceptions found in Quito republic with León Roldós Aguilera.

39 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

members were able to understand the other country’s Francisco Carrión Mena reasoning and needs and came to value the opportu- Understanding the Other nities presented by bilateral relations. Side’s Reality One of the greatest achievements, if not the great- est, is the knowledge and understanding we gained n the Carter Center’s initiative, under the about the other’s reality. Perhaps coming in wrapped Oauspices of the United Nations Development up in our own reality, we had not stopped to under- Program, the Binational Dialogue Group between stand what was happening on the other side of the Ecuador and Colombia was established in 2007, made border. The Binational Dialogue Group offered us this up of male and female citizens from the two countries precious and essential opportunity. Through our dis- who were interested in promoting closer relations cussions and conversations — some more formal than between both societies. The cho- others, but all of them frank — we sen members were ideologically learned much about the dramatic diverse and had backgrounds in and difficult Colombian reality: widely different spheres of public Group members were able about violence entrenched as a action, but we shared a commit- to understand the other fixture of everyday life, about a ment to embracing a dynamic of country’s reasoning and people yearning to be free of such frank and purposeful dialogue based brutality. We learned, too, about on the perspective that it would be needs and came to value the the effects that this situation has mutually beneficial. We decided to opportunities presented by created for Ecuadorian society, participate in this forum with the bilateral relations . removed and uninformed about objective of improving our under- what was happening on the other standing of the other side’s perspec- side of the border. tive and to approach the enterprise The members of the Binational with a civic-minded, open, and well-intentioned Dialogue Group were also able to spread to the pub- outlook. lic and various official institutions, in our respective The circumstances under which this initiative was professional spheres and fields of influence, the expe- born were not ideal in terms of bilateral relations, riences we had and the importance of using dialogue despite the fact that historically these two countries to resolve the differences between our governments, had been able to build close and constructive ties. which are, ultimately, the parties responsible for From the beginning of the decade, relations between resolving them. There was no shortage of academic Colombia and Ecuador started to deteriorate due to forums, news, and public opinion articles promoted the impact of the Colombian conflict on Ecuador, by the Binational Dialogue Group in both countries and gradually this distance grew to be more and more to debate the situation from perspectives that went apparent. It is perhaps for this reason that the imple- beyond the government line. Special recognition is mentation of a dialogue process like this proved nec- deserved for the participation of social actors in the essary and opportune. border zones, because they are most directly affected After a year and a half in progress, after six bina- by their conflict-ridden environment and most com- tional meetings, and after numerous national meet- mitted to resolving it. ings, the exercise undertaken by the Binational We know that exercises such as the one led by Dialogue Group has had overwhelmingly positive the Binational Dialogue Group are long-term proj- results in terms of the objectives for which it was cre- ects that will face setbacks, even grave ones like the ated. After the first round of catharsis and identifying events of March 1, 2008, but I believe that we must the problems confronted by both countries, group persevere for these environments because they are 40 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia needed to foster understanding between people above contribute, as citizens, to the project and to the paral- the moment’s political fray. For the rest, I believe that lel understanding that needs to be taken on by our experiences such as this one provide personal and governments. human enrichment that only benefits our countries by Francisco Carrión Mena is general coordinator of the Andes bringing them closer. Monitoring Center for Foreign Policy in FLACSO. A career A great deal of recognition is owed to The Carter diplomat, he served as minister of foreign relations (2005–2007), Center and its team, who have encouraged the ambassador to (2000–2005), and a member of the commis- members of the Binational Dialogue Group with sion negotiating peace with Peru from 1996 to 1998. He writes a daily column in El Comercio in Quito. dedication and determination to sustain our desire to

41 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

of the ruling regime in Ecuador, and that if my name Gonzalo Ruiz Alvarez would be an obstacle to achieving the project’s high Defeating Prejudices, goals, I would abstain from participation. Building Bridges That’s how, after some consultations, I was informed that there was no problem with any aspect n the last three months of 2007, I received a phone of my participation, and I learned the names of some Icall from Kelly McBride, the Carter Center’s repre- of the other Ecuadorian members who had decided sentative in Ecuador, who wanted to speak with me to join this good will initiative that would require us about an initiative that could be both an interesting to follow a precise agenda of four meetings between experience on the personal level and an important November 2007 and May 2008. contribution on the public level. The first meeting was in Atlanta, the city in the We met at a hotel in Quito for breakfast and south of the United States where The Carter Center she pitched the idea to me: The Carter Center, is headquartered. In the United States, presidents whose initiatives on political dialogue were widely retire with a fund to help establish their own libraries known in the region, was building a framework, with and centers for study. The Democrat and former U.S. assistance from the United Nations Development President Jimmy Carter wanted his center to fulfill a Program — which had implemented a series of proj- special purpose: He sought support and private dona- ects in Ecuador to provide assistance to Colombian tions and extended his sphere of action to different refugees displaced by the civil war in their coun- countries in which he enjoyed recognition. Every day, try — for the constitution of a binational dialogue the Carter Center’s efforts in the spheres of health group consisting of Ecuadorians and Colombians. and strengthening democracy have earned universal Kelly told me that this would be an interdisciplin- recognition. The Center also houses a museum with ary group from both countries to discuss and propose all of the documents from President Carter’s presiden- issues of common interest for both societies to build a tial term, photographs of major world events in which positive agenda for their countries. The group includ- he was involved as president of the United States ed diplomats, academics, political actors, local leaders (the Torrijos – Carter agreements, the Camp David from the border area, and people with close personal Accords for peace in the Middle East), countless per- relationships to both sitting governments — who had sonal mementos, a replica of the Oval Office, and a some access to power without themselves serving as gift shop that sells items that commemorate his presi- government officials. In addition, it would include a dency. There are two large auditoriums, offices, and group of journalists from different media outlets. showrooms that display the most precious out of the One of the central objectives — after we got to hundreds of collected items that are received by the know each other on a personal level and were able president of one of the most influential countries in to express and address our concerns — was to serve the world. All of this is surrounded by an exuberant as a positive influence for creating a situation of natural garden crisscrossed by different walking paths, understanding and peace between the citizens of both some birds, and even a pond with different multicol- nations. ored fish. Needless to say, in this environment your In addition, the organizers of the group presented mind functions more clearly, ideas flow, and they are us with a premise: that the group members would nourished by the sense of calm and good vibrations. be approved by the governments to encourage flex- This is where we arrived in late November 2007. ibility for the group’s initiatives. When I learned of The meetings got under way with the majority of the this requirement, I immediately warned that in my participants present. In the Ecuadorian case, we could endeavors as an opinion journalist, I had maintained say that all of us knew each other through our profes- a critical stance that was respectful but independent sional fields and that our level of internal dialogue, 42 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia despite our different perspectives, was smooth. We The notion that we are blessed or condemned to noticed the same thing about the Colombian group, share hundreds of kilometers of border between our despite our naturally differing interpretations of the nations had to be incorporated into the picture, along situation we were addressing. with all of the potential aspects that could be used to Certainly we will not forget the frank, harsh state- the benefit of citizens in both nations. ments made during the first hours of the meeting. The Once we had overcome these prejudices, after furrowed brows in response to the confrontational openly bringing our resentments and distrust to the statements of the other attendees and the expressive dialogue table — without any airbrushing and some- exchange of opinions produced what one of the mem- times without even tact — we began to suggest con- bers called our “initial catharsis.” It was like unleash- structive proposals that would pave the way for future ing the distrust and distant, sometimes simplistic posi- progress, and we contributed to an atmosphere that tions brought to the negotiating table by the group encouraged the exchange of our most hopeful and with the stereotypes and prejudices that are also a deepest opinions. part of the human condition. The opening remarks by President Carter, his Reviewing the published materials on this bilateral serene voice, and his decision to bet on this endeavor relationship — many of which were composed by or served as the wisdom that guided our actions in the contributed to by group members Socorro Ramírez project we undertook at that moment, with the con- and Adrián Bonilla and even the Ecuadorian Foreign viction of having just opened the gates to unleash Ministry under the management of Francisco Carrión the first heated discussion in the multidisciplinary Mena, another active participant in the group — some Binational Dialogue Group. of the most pronounced prejudices are clearly Next we arrived at the second meeting in Quito, observed. The conscious or unconscious association a meeting marked by optimism and good intentions. of Colombians with criminal activity was repeated After an exhaustive initial review of the political without restraint by official sources — especially the events that had taken place in each country and a police and the mass media in their generalizations. brilliant presentation of facts and statistics on the It was a common idea that flourished even in the economic and trade situation — as well as a fantas- academic publications analyzed. The Colombians, for tic presentation on the situation of the refugees and their part, viewed Ecuadorians over their shoulder, displaced persons offered by the office of the United with a certain disparaging attitude, and denoted them Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, which their “little brothers to the south.” In addition, in manages an impressive agenda in Ecuador — we Colombia there is the idea that Ecuador understands defined a set of next steps. Cultural projects and neither the intensity of Colombia’s internal conflict meetings with communities, publication exchange nor the impact that the destruction caused by kid- through different media outlets so that the public napping, guerrilla groups, drug trafficking, and other in each country could hear about the other side’s forms of violence has had on society. little-understood reality, and other interesting initia- These stereotypes were a departure from the offi- tives helped to untangle the mess of concerns that cial discourse that spoke of two nations like brothers dominated the first meeting in Atlanta — prior to the with a common origin and history in search of shared catharsis — to put concrete issues on the table and prosperity. And they took a stronger and stronger add action to the positive agenda. Everything ran hold. Identifying these stereotypes was a problem smoothly. that a group of this nature could actually take on and The Colombian military attack on the FARC attempt to help overcome, without losing sight of the encampment — an irregular, illegal, and armed immense potential for a culture with the same roots, force — in Angostura, on Ecuadorian territory, an fertile trade opportunities, and a shared future. attack that resulted in the death of “Raúl Reyes,” the 43 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia second in command of the guerilla group, forced the Ecuador and the profound reactions it brings up for Ecuadorian government to reject the incursion and Ecuadorians when it is referenced. led to the termination of formal diplomatic relations I think, in whatever particular way, each of us between the two countries. As of March 1, 2008, the learned to understand, respect, and appreciate the efforts to promote the positive agenda seemed dead in other side’s reasons for what they were — which is their tracks, and the possible future meetings of the the only possible path for a productive dialogue and group seemed uncertain. mutual understanding. Only our determination and conviction to accom- We arrived once more in Atlanta toward the end plish with a renewed sense of optimism the goals that of May 2008. Also in attendance was the Chilean brought us together in the first place allowed the secretary-general of the Organization of American group to continue its course. It should be recognized States, José Miguel Insulza, who after the Colombian that, once the uncertainty around what happened attack on Angostura had used his good offices (good, during the March 1 bombing attack on this occasion) to try to bring on the “Reyes” camp in Ecuador both country’s governments closer had been overcome, the small mis- together. His analysis of the situa- sions of group members to engage Only our determination and tion was relevant, and once again with the other country’s members, the hours of collective reflection and the postponement — as opposed conviction to accomplish were productive, but without a to suspension — of the upcoming with a renewed sense of doubt the highlight came when meeting planned for Bogotá saved optimism the goals that President Carter told us that he the situation. At first we were con- brought us together in the had spoken with the commanders cerned; then we felt free of obliga- first place allowed the group in chief of Ecuador and Colombia tion; but ultimately we reaffirmed and that their reactions indicated the urgency and legitimacy of unof- to continue its course . their openness to a possible re-estab- ficial enterprises such as this one to lishment of relations between their serve as forums for mature reflection countries. and integrity in which to vent about our differences This is how the group came to decide to extend as civil members of society, express our concerns, and its mandate in pursuit of creating the right atmo- establish shared steps for the future. sphere for relaunching its objectives. At that point, The meeting in Santa Fe de Bogotá, which was there was even more urgency than there had been in almost postponed, was very intense. In addition to the beginning: Re-establishing diplomatic relations hearing the perspectives and points of view of differ- between the two nations became a necessary first step ent ground-level actors in Colombian society and its for completing any other initiative, as always with the political establishment, we watched an expert pre- modest, low-profile approach to the group and the sentation by our fellow group member, the governor individual actions of its members. of Nariño, Antonio Navarro Wolff, a former member The group held two good will meetings with of the M-19 guerilla forces who signed a peace agree- President Álvaro Uribe and President Rafael Correa. ment with the government of Virgilio Barco. During The good impression left in the first meeting was this presentation, Antonio offered us a brilliant les- steamrolled by the abrupt conclusion of the second. son on the ongoing violence in Colombia, its root It seemed that, once again, things were precipitated causes, and the current situation of the FARC, which by sources of tension between the two nations, whose illuminated the situation for everyone present. Once heads of state have nursed wounds from bitter verbal again, and after many hours of shared dialogue, we injuries after the bombardment in Angostura. established the deeper meaning of sovereignty for 44 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The group postponed its next meetings and decid- to accept the reasons presented by the other side. ed that it would only meet in late November 2008 in I sincerely believe that I contributed, beyond the Quito and in May 2009 in Bogotá. collective decision to maintain a low public profile for The presence of President Carter in Ecuador, a day the group, by encouraging academic and public opin- after the re-election of Rafael Correa, had opened ion circles to think about our rich common history, the door to another possible reconciliation, but this our shared culture, and the history that unites us and appearance had more to do with good will and collec- to understand the differences that need to be over- tive hopes than with the serious possibility of a diplo- come with good will, whether they are deeply rooted matic rapprochement between the two countries. or of the moment. A joint document that would conclude the first I believe that some issues still need to be settled. phase and express the expectations for future phases Their solutions lie in diplomacy and in the hands was ready to be finished. of the political institutions of our nations; sooner With the first phase concluded, other items on the or later those institutions should follow the path to political and legal agenda of both countries overshad- direct, frank dialogue in order to first re-establish owed the issue. diplomatic relations and build trust — trust that will A judge in Sucumbíos decided to prosecute for- allow us to meet face to face, clearly express our dis- mer Colombian Minister of Defense Juan Manuel tinct perceptions, and seriously examine the major Santos for murder, based on the events in Angostura. points of disagreement — to find solutions for the In reply, a group of attorneys requested a trial in common benefit of our nations. the International Criminal Court for the president One pending issue that requires teamwork and of Ecuador, Rafael Correa. They also called for the should not be delayed is the situation involving prosecution on drug-trafficking charges of former our citizens along the border. With their cultural Ecuadorian Minister Gustavo Larrea, who had met exchange, commercial transactions, and authentic with “Raúl Reyes,” and Deputy Secretary Ignacio expressions of sympathy and brotherhood, they could Chauvín, who had admitted to visiting the FARC teach a lesson to the national governments and to base camp for humanitarian reasons. society at large about how to build a civilized rela- As one might imagine, these episodes renewed ten- tionship that fosters development. sion between the countries. Their relationship dete- The struggle against our common enemies — pov- riorated even further with an increase in the hostile erty, drug trafficking, violence, and unemploy- tone of public statements. ment — should show us how to walk a course together Based on the political agenda of both governments, in search of a better life. along with the strong personalities of both leaders, The daily political agenda of the central govern- neither party currently seems interested in improving ments should not prevent this bilateral relationship relations between their countries, much less re-estab- from being flexible, respectful, and of the first order, lishing diplomatic relations. both in our diplomatic corps and in our high-level Colombia is Ecuador’s second-largest trading part- political institutions. ner, but the lack of established customs arrangements Our problems with our neighbors are always an does not paint a hopeful picture for the improvement easy decoy to distract us from our own real internal of trade relations; in fact it is likely to complicate problems. There is always an election around the them even further. corner that justifies the pretext for a confrontation. When we came together to begin the process of Above all, however, we will always need to overcome the Binational Dialogue Group, we brought along our these small-minded issues in pursuit of the friendly prejudices and doubts, but we rose above our own lim- relationship demanded by our common history. ited perspectives to take a sincere look and ultimately Everything has a beginning and an end. The hours 45 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

of discussion, joint initiatives, and exchange of per- Thanks to everyone, especially The Carter Center, spectives between the members of the Binational President Carter, and the UNDP, who invited me Dialogue Group provided an enriching intellectual to this opportunity to meet these individuals of such experience and a genuine learning experience, with intellect, men and women of state, intelligent and a sincere attempt to understand the reasons of the well-trained, whom I will admire for the rest of my other side and overcome our natural human tendency life and who gave me an opportunity to learn some- to act as if we alone know the absolute truth and the thing new about myself. immanent premises with which human beings tend to Gonzalo Ruiz is director of the magazine Criterios, from the confront any difficulty. Quito Chamber of Commerce. He is academic coordinator for the Knowing and appreciating the talent and intel- journalism program at the Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial ligence of my fellow group members, my compatriots, del Ecuador and interviewer for the news program “La Palabra” and my Colombian brothers have taught me a great on the networks Canal Uno and Radio Sonorama. He is a daily columnist for El Comercio of Quito and a member of its editorial deal, but it leaves me with the frustration, as it does board. He was founder and director of the radio channel Solar, many other members, of not being able to fulfill the Sociedad Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión (Latin American goal of re-establishing diplomatic relations as we Radio Broadcasting Society). He has served as a reporter, pro- ducer, and anchor on television news programs on the networks dreamed of doing. Now new winds and newer, fresher Ecuavisa, Gamavisión, and Telecentro. He has provided special initiatives will come that — I am sure — we will coverage on stories in various countries around the world. watch from a close distance to support, celebrate, and strengthen.

46 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

central area of focus for the new president’s foreign Grace Jaramillo policy. By then, relations were practically comatose. The Power of Dialogue For this reason, when the creation of the Binational Dialogue Group was proposed in February 2007, it or a long while, relations between Ecuador and struck me as a great opportunity to establish a base- Colombia have not gone well. The conditions F line over which to talk directly about our problems, under which Plan Colombia was applied along its examine the discordant perspectives between the two border to the south made friction inevitable. The countries, and, above all, to discuss ways to bring this pressure from the military activity against the FARC understanding to the public. forced thousands of Colombians to seek refuge in I did not participate in the group’s opening session, Ecuador in search of safety. This migration was not which took place in Atlanta at the headquarters of accompanied by any neighborly support policy, The Carter Center in October 2007. I only followed through which the Colombian government might the issue from a distance, always predicting that the have helped obtain international cooperation for the group members would have good fortune as they tack- refugees or paid for the costs of humanitarian aid. In led this initiative that presented an enormous chal- addition to the wave of migrants, there was the issue lenge and numerous difficulties from the very begin- of aerial glyphosate and Cosmo-Flux fumigations that ning. Then came the events in Angostura, that fateful caused harmful health effects, routinely reported by day of March 1, 2008, when a FARC base camp, the residents of downwind areas along the border, located on Ecuadorian territory, was bombed and later from Esmeraldas to Sucumbíos. attacked by the Colombian army’s regular forces. That Colombia was not brought to the negotiating day completely rearranged the scenery in an already table to discuss these issues until 2005, the year that difficult bilateral relationship, in effect changing the the government of Lucio Gutiérrez was deposed by a status to a nonrelationship. popular revolution in Quito and a transitional regime The Ecuadorian side, of which I am a part, was in had been installed in the Carondelet palace. The a very difficult situation. First, the fact that a coun- fact that the issues with Colombia turned into one of try that is supposed to be our brother, our neighbor, the rallying points in that revolution was an undeni- could attack our territory at any time without hesita- able sign that the state of the binational relationship tion aroused an old fundamental suspicion. What had reached the limit at which the conditions of were the limits of Colombia’s military strategy? What democratic stability become aggravated by the lack happened to the concepts of sovereignty, respect, and of solutions to the issue. Among the many things trust, the basic principles that form the foundation that the so-called outlaw’s rebellion brought to light for relationships between nation states? Beyond that, was a rejection of the way that the administration of the entire incident at Angostura was a demonstra- Lucio Gutiérrez had managed its foreign policy and tion of Colombia’s condescension toward Ecuador; in particular the way it had neglected issues of seri- that is, Ecuador is always subordinated to Colombia’s ous importance for the general public and the poorest needs, interests, and time constraints. A few days groups along the border, such as the refugee situation after the military assault, a moral assault was launched and the health-damaging aerial spraying. in the form of more accusations about the supposedly The transition regime and its different foreign incestuous relationship between the government of ministers, Antonio Parra Gil and Francisco Carrión Ecuador and the FARC guerrillas. The juxtaposition Mena, started a debate that had not existed in the of events and Colombia’s accusations only stoked the past. When President Rafael Correa took office, how- fires of distrust and separation. Since then, nothing ever, the issue gained momentum, and the arguments has been the same. At the same time, however, some- about the aerial fumigations and refugees became a one has to make something from the ashes that used 47 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

to be the relationship between the two countries — a together in agreement on certain issues: peace, good rebuilding undertaken this time not by the diplomatic will between neighboring nations, the need to pre- representatives on each side but instead by individu- vent any further deterioration, and the conviction als and social groups that want to attempt to at least that without the close involvement of civil soci- sustain the good will that once existed between the ety, the political and governing class will continue two countries. to focus on their differences, on what separates us The Binational Dialogue Group brought together instead of what unites us. This was always my belief. individuals with a strong desire to keep the ties International relations have radically changed since between the two countries alive and, if possible, the 19th century. In the past, 90 percent of what re-establish the broken relations. After several happened with diplomacy, war, or peace depended failed meetings with differ- entirely on the commanders in ent Ecuadorian and Colombian chief and their administrations. authorities and a failed lunch with Now, in the age of globalization; President Correa, the group began democracy; and free, open, and to question its own role, work, and engaged societies, international real possibilities of being able to Without the close involvement relations are a multilateral game in achieve anything — even a peace- of civil society, the political and which the governments determine ful setting. governing class will continue 10 percent of the issues, if that. I joined during the middle to focus on their differences, As a result, after diplomatic rela- of this redefinition period. In tions were terminated on March September 2008 I was invited to on what separates us instead of 3, 2008, the many other types of participate, along with two other what unites us . relationships between the coun- new additions to the Ecuadorian tries — trade, economic, finan- side: Pedro Velasco, the mayor of cial, social, tourism-related, and Tulcán, and Patricia Estupiñán, local — continued to function, and the editor of the magazine Vistazo sometimes even to strengthen, as and a resident of Guayaquil. The happened in Tulcán. There, sev- three of us were full of energy and ideas to bring to eral proposals for joint waste management agreements the group. We believed strongly in the role that civil with the neighboring municipality of Ipiales were put society should play in pressuring the government to into effect. take action to protect the interests of the weak and in The work of the Binational Dialogue Group has supporting the government when its own diplomatic taught me that no door is ever closed — even the peo- channels have failed or faltered. ple who are considered to have the most radical views To me, the Binational Dialogue Group is composed on the situation between Ecuador and Colombia of individuals of good will who sought to understand are willing to mend fences for individuals who need the perspective of the other side, other state, other things to change. This is what transpired during the people and attempted to find ways — sometimes cre- lunch to which the group was invited by President ative and visionary ways — to establish a common Rafael Correa on March 19, 2009. That was the point agenda through which we could find understanding at which I felt that collaborative efforts yield better and develop something out of the agreements we results. Two hours before the lunch, the group met already have. to discuss what we wanted to accomplish during the It’s true that the majority of us had different expec- lunch, but mostly we discussed what our attitude tations. Some of us had truly ambitious expectations; would be. We all agreed that, above all, we needed others were more modest. In all cases, we could come 48 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia to arrive willing to listen. Then we decided that we constructive dialogues that have not found a natural would focus on the most urgent of our common prob- forum and that need support in getting established or, lems that were likely to be acceptable, as a fact of the in this case, re-established. The group came to under- dialogue process, for both parties. stand, during my time as a member, that it was much The lunch was very positive. We heard what the more fruitful to mend small fences with good will and president of Ecuador wanted to say, and one by one, take advantage of any forum for generating peaceful we presented our concerns, always drawing attention dialogues, rather than establishing major strategies to the local or border-level aspects that needed to be that, without the will of the political leaders, are resolved, leaving the matter of diplomatic relations to destined for failure. We also learned that dialogue is the side. This approach stimulated the interest of the the only path for understanding any process of grow- Ecuadorian president, who asked us for more informa- ing apart as grave and wide-reaching as the one that tion on these topics but also indicated that any and affected Ecuador and Colombia. all local initiatives geared toward development would Maybe this understanding can lead to a second be welcomed and that he was in no way opposed to phase in which the real, everyday stewards of this the local governments advancing binational projects. binational relationship can reclaim their leadership Only this affirmation validated our many months of of its course. After all, they are the ones — the ones work, because with a presidential blessing for these who live with the consequences of the violence in types of projects, many people along the border stand Colombia, with drug trafficking, every day, but who to benefit from that cooperation. The president’s also live around the commercial, social, and cultural encouragement legitimized the participation of local exchange every day — who want to build bridges both governments and active community organizations to with the central and local governments and hope to alleviate the living conditions of the poorest residents experience a better life because of them. along each side of the border. This experience and Grace Jaramillo is coordinator of the International Relations the interactions that followed allowed us to have Program of the Latin American School of Social Sciences based renewed hope and also forced us to recognize that it in Ecuador (FLACSO). A professor – researcher, degree coordina- is better to tackle smaller obstacles to understanding tor for trade and foreign policy, and the project coordinator for FLACSONET (Andean Virtual Network for the Latin American between the two countries before tackling larger ones. School of Social Communication — FLACSO Ecuador), she also The governments are responsible for handling and writes a daily column in El Comercio of Quito. From 2003 to developing strategies to resolve the major and minor 2006 she was an associate professor at the Universidad Andina issues that can damage or extinguish the relationship. Simón Bolívar. From 2004 to 2006 she was an adviser for the development of the founding project for the Andean Parliament’s From that point on, we viewed the Binational Andean Institute on Biodiversity. She has conducted research, Dialogue Group as a catalyst for different processes or consulted on projects, and overseen publications. as a type of communication channel for establishing

49 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

cal members regarding what the group could really Luz María Sierra achieve. As I saw it, neither the interests of either An Oxygen Tank for a president nor their personal temperaments were likely Critical Situation to favor a solution. From a media standpoint, in the structure of the have to confess that, as a journalist, I agreed to join BDG there were two positive outcomes and two nega- Ithe Binational Dialogue Group in large part out of tive ones. We could not achieve two of the initiatives curiosity. I have always liked experiments, and the that we proposed: a joint documentary broadcast Carter Center’s proposal to make such a particular on two television networks in each country and a selection of different people from each of the two workshop for journalists from both countries. In both countries held a great deal of interest for me. cases, from what I understand, we encountered prob- The exercise itself was also interesting. It makes lems of a logistical nature. a lot of sense to bring together As far as the positive out- influential people from eco- comes, it was abundantly clear nomic, central and local govern- that the editorials and columns ment, and media circles and ask The most surprising thing, in published by members of the them to brainstorm ways to pre- group facilitated the creation vent the ties between two coun- the beginning, was realizing how completely uninformed the of a foundation for building the tries from becoming destroyed in public’s understanding. Without a difficult political situation. members of each group were a positive environment, it would The most surprising thing, about the other country . And the have been very difficult to reach in the beginning, was realizing most satisfying thing was to watch an agreement. For example, how completely uninformed the how, over the course of time, in the magazine Semana, we members of each group were published some articles on about the other country. And after explanations and moments the subject, in particular a the most satisfying thing was of insight, we wound up speaking profile of Ecuador’s President to watch how, over the course almost the same language . Rafael Correa on which many of time, after explanations and Ecuadorian members of the moments of insight, we wound BDG collaborated. I believe that up speaking almost the same revealing the different layers of language. a public figure of his stature to This lack of knowledge of what was happening in show Colombian readers that, among other things, he the other country as the two countries have points of is more than an unconditional ally of President Hugo friction between them is complicated and can lead Chávez, as he has been painted, will also help create to tragedy if, for some reason, small irritations are an environment for reconciliation. aggravated further, as had been happening between My skepticism started to crack a little with the Colombia and Ecuador. projects at the border led by several of my compan- And if our lack of awareness — we who were sup- ions from the BDG, and it was shattered further when posedly well-informed and qualified to have dialogue I realized that the existence of a group like this, in the with our counterparts — was this extensive, what kind diplomatic arena, can serve as an oxygen tank when of notions were floating around in the public con- all other normal courses of dialogue are failing. sciousness of the other side? It could be a disaster. And the most important thing of all: I have no The journalist’s mindset, which others would call doubt that the reflections by some of the members shortsightedness, made me one of the most skepti- of the group who have interactions with the Foreign 50 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Ministry, at least in the Colombian case, were fun- in their own fields. And I was delighted to see the damental in making the government understand the Carter Center’s sincere commitment to encouraging a strategic error it had been committing in not tak- positive relationship between our countries. ing all of the necessary steps to make peace with its Luz María Sierra is general editor of the magazine Semana. Ecuadorian neighbor. She was the director of editing for the newspaper El Tiempo. For me this was an enriching experience. I gained She has also served as an editor on judicial and international many tools for my professional life, most importantly issues for the same publication. She was Cabinet director in the a thorough analysis of our relationship with Ecuador. Foreign Ministry and a communications adviser for the Ministry of Education. She has also worked for the newspaper El Mundo It was an honor to share the experience of the group of Medellín, the Presidential Advisory Council for Medellín, and with all of my counterparts, all brave individuals the Javieriana and Andes universities.

51 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

the activities in Bogotá and Quito were important, Guillermo Rivera the binational reality is located at the border, and I The Binational Relationship Is Alive believe we should have spent more time working in at the Border that environment. I believe that the Binational Dialogue Group believe that the group’s most substantial contribu- should have continued working just to promote the Ition was the mutual understanding of each coun- return of diplomatic relations beginning at the border, try’s reality that we all gained in in its three different zones, with our particular fields of influence. organized civil society and local It let us call attention to the other authorities. country’s situation and endeavor Although the activities in I believe that the event in to contribute to the reconstruction Pasto was very important. Later, of this binational relationship in Bogotá and Quito were the meetings with President Uribe a framework of understanding and important, the binational and President Correa, despite the collaboration. reality is located at the border, discrepancies and tense moments, I believe that my main contri- helped us to understand that bution to the Binational Dialogue and I believe we should have spent more time working in rebuilding this binational relation- Group was knowledge of the ship will be a task that requires border reality in my department, that environment . more than just the will of the gov- Putumayo, which is different from ernments in Bogotá and Quito. that of the department of Nariño. I think that in the Binational Guillermo Rivera is a congressional rep- resentative from the department of Putumayo. He belongs to the Forum in Pasto, which took place in February 2009, first permanent constitutional committee and is also a member of everyone noted the clear necessity of considering the the Peace Commission. In July 2006 he was elected by the Partido Amazonian portion of the border as something sepa- Liberal political party as their representative in the Chamber rate from the Andean and Pacific portions. of Representatives. He is an attorney from the Universidad Externado de Colombia, and he has degrees in civil law, political I think that the group would have benefited from science, and international relations. more direct activity along the border. Although

52 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

the “small steps” in the beginning and later in the dis- Luis Carlos creet efforts to re-establish diplomatic relations. We Villegas Echeverri did not achieve concrete results in the area of bilat- eral relations, which is a real shame, but our message The Message Has Been Sent to the governments, that there are citizens on each have a great impression of those months I spent side working together for the good of their nations, Iparticipating in the Binational Dialogue Group. has been sent to the highest levels. I believe this work The interdisciplinary contact was can help to avoid new crises in the future. the most educational aspect of the What things could have been experience, especially when you con- improved about the process? Perhaps sider that, by the end of the exercise, we should examine whether the way everyone wound up agreeing on the we announced it was appropriate, transcendence of the bilateral rela- Colombians and given the sensitivities of our most dis- tionship and the urgency of re-estab- Ecuadorians are not tinguished negotiators, who are both lishing diplomatic dialogue. It gave similar: We are the same! permanently campaigning. me great satisfaction to be a part of Thinking about the future, I developing our mutual understanding, believe that the Binational Dialogue especially when we started on such Group should be capable of being bad terms. We would have benefited immediately reactivated in any future from more of a presence by President Carter, especial- crisis. It would also be good for us to meet periodically ly in Colombia. And I would have liked a little more to bring everyone back up to date. creativity and to see us try out new processes beyond Luis Carlos Villegas Echeverri is president of the National the somewhat stiff method used by the UNDP. Business Association of Colombia, which includes the major As I said in Atlanta, I learned that Colombians players in the Colombian business world. He was a senator and governor of the department of Risaralda. He was president of the and Ecuadorians are not similar: We are the same! Financial Corporation of Western South America, the National I hope I helped convey to my fellow members that, Labor Council, the Business Association Europe – Latin America, although the economic relationship between the the Andean Industrial Council, and the board of directors of two countries is very important, even in the midst of the Fund for the Reconstruction and Social Development of the Coffee-producing Region. major crises, it must be left alone. It was important to have the opportunity to partic- ipate in significant initiatives such as what we called

53 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

was the way the Binational Dialogue Group was able Manuel Chiriboga Vega to create a series of multiplier effects on other activi- The Multiplier Effect ties: It created new dynamics in the border zones through dialogue with local authorities, academic s a member of the Binational Dialogue Group, exchanges, etc. Just yesterday I was in Ipiales with a the fundamental lesson I took from this experi- A Colombian group member, Antonio Navarro Wolff, ence was demonstrating, once again, that a group who is the governor of Nariño. We were discussing comprising individuals from diverse countries can how we could collaborate on a project that would find ways to resolve members’ common problems. provide agricultural support to small farmers in the Our group included participants from Colombia and south of the Nariño department. That is to say, even Ecuador from various fields: busi- beyond the activities the group itself ness, politics, grassroots activism, completed, those activities had a academia, journalism, and others. multiplying effect into other activi- Despite our disparate backgrounds, The group knew to ties. we were able to initiate a dialogue I hope that the initiative I have and, from that foundation, come to approach these difficult with Antonio Navarro Wolff comes a better understanding of the other’s moments from a place to fruition during the next months. point of view: the other country, the of understanding and We already have a plan of action. other sector, the other perspective. discover a way out of them The Nariño department — and espe- When we started, the group members cially its southern zone — has similar had very different views of the state by trying to positively characteristics to the northern sierra of the relationship between Ecuador influence relations between of Ecuador. There is a great deal of and Colombia. In the end we the two countries . continuity in terms of culture, agro- achieved a much fuller comprehen- ecology, agrarian structures, climate. sion of the other’s views and even Nariño is a zone with small produc- came to share many views in com- ers, and it has mountainous areas. Like many areas mon. On this foundation, we were better able to grasp with these characteristics, economic activity is dif- the nature of the conflict between our two countries ficult there. and design strategies to improve our relations. For quite some time, Antonio Navarro Wolff has The circumstances could have been better. sought ways to stimulate the rural economy of this Actually, they had never been worse, and they region of Nariño, and as a result, here in Ecuador we seemed to grow more difficult, more complex, and have had an extremely interesting experience in orga- ever more faceted each day. The group knew to nizing rural production for export markets for things approach these difficult moments from a place of like broccoli. While there are some larger farmers understanding and discover a way out of them by try- involved in this activity, there are also smaller farm- ing to positively influence relations between the two ers involved who have less than a hectare of land. countries. In summary, some of the group’s greatest Thanks to organization, some training, and some contributions were its promotion of dialogue, its abil- empowerment and with the right support systems, ity to exert influence, and its perseverance. many small Ecuadorian producers have successfully This dialogue experience allowed me to better emerged from difficult situations. We are evaluating understand the other side’s perspective and the nature to what extent this experience with linking up small of the conflict between our countries and, thus, to producers with larger trade dynamics can be repli- spread this knowledge and understanding to a wider cated in Nariño. During that visit to Ipiales (June audience. Another important result of this experience 2009), I was joined by a friend who was familiar with 54 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

this Ecuadorian experience. We met with Antonio further. In addition, the group had the flexibility to Navarro Wolff, with a technical team, with local adjust its strategy and to attempt to influence our authorities from Ipiales, and with farmers, as well governments. as with journalists — some 30 or 40 people in all. I believe there are some general lessons and reflec- In addition to reviewing this experience, we had an tions that can be taken from our experience. The first interesting discussion, and we established a working is on the nature of the group itself. Overall, the com- agenda for the future. In a few weeks, some technical position, characteristics, and diversity of the group experts from Ecuador will return to Nariño to evalu- constituted an important achievement. I don’t think ate how things have gone there and the possibility we always fully considered how close we wanted cer- for providing support. We want to see whether it’s tain members of the groups to be with their respective possible to interest some of the major producers there governments, however, because such relationships to invest in the project and promote synergy in that obviously create a different dynamic. For example, if region. Finally, what really interested both Antonio the group discusses an issue on the agenda for both Navarro Wolff and me was not only to have a success governments, the participation of the members who with this project in this zone but to demonstrate that are close to them can slant an otherwise independent together we could accomplish truly significant things. discussion. Second, although I do believe that we had Another interesting aspect of the binational dia- successes in terms of the agenda and the relevance of logue initiative was how we were able to come togeth- many of the activities that evolved from the dialogue, er as an Ecuadorian group and interact as one with there were other things that we could have done but the Colombian group, at the same time that both ultimately did not. This also has to do with the public groups came together in the encompassing Binational profile of the group members. We were all busy peo- Dialogue Group. That was a very satisfying achieve- ple, but we should have thought more about which of ment for me. I believe I contributed some lessons on the actions we pursued would be the most effective. Ecuador’s political situation to the group — on its Third, I think we should reflect on the public profile political and economic context and on the nature and of the Binational Dialogue Group and its influence on characteristics of our government. I also contributed public opinion. I don’t have a definitive position on some elements on the subjects of economics, com- the subject, but in retrospect I wonder if some more merce, and trade as well as how to maintain economic public gestures at certain junctures, and, in particular, and other relations in the midst of a political conflict. in the time before the bombing in Angostura, could I contributed on many practical levels as well, such have had larger repercussions. I wonder if we had as the recent experience working on the border that called more attention to the conflict and the need I related here or through my column in one of the to establish channels for dialogue and avoid making country’s most important publications, El Universo. unilateral decisions before the bombing, we could In my column, every once in a while, I have been have averted such a complete deterioration of bilat- able to comment on the Ecuador – Colombia situation eral relations. Fourth, we should have thought more and to try to influence public opinion. about a communications strategy. It’s not that we Although one could get the impression that we didn’t manage to publish articles, editorials, and other have failed, because, instead of overall improve- materials, but I’m talking about something more pur- ment in the relations between these two countries, poseful, like the creation of a set of communication they now lack even formal diplomatic relations, the objectives. Many of these reflections are a posteriori; reasons for this situation fell far outside the scope of course when we started the group, none of us imag- of our control or influence. In this difficult context, ined that the situation would get so bad. It’s always however, by keeping this dialogue mechanism open, easier to see these things after the fact. we helped to keep the conflict from escalating any 55 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Finally, given that we successfully formed this I believe that maintaining the Binational Dialogue Binational Dialogue Group in which we all shared a Group is essential. I hope we will find the ways and commitment to the cause, I hope that we can contin- means to make it so. It would not have to be the same ue to work to improve the relationship between our group with the same members and the same strategies. countries. Maybe we will incorporate some new mem- It could be a group with new people and new ideas, bers; perhaps some of us want to continue, while oth- but it would be a shame to abandon this initiative, ers do not. In any case, it’s undeniable that we have because I think it has so much potential. unfinished business. The issue is far from resolved. I I truly hope that we persevere in our efforts. These have moments of optimism when I see the Ecuadorian initiatives need catalysts, but they also need accom- Minister of Health and the Colombian Minister of panying support. I hope that The Carter Center and Social Protection meeting at the border to collaborate former U.S. President Jimmy Carter continue to feel on how to address the H1N1 flu or that the ambas- that this is an issue in need of attention, because they sadors from Ecuador and Colombia can discuss the can contribute not only to the reestablishment of dip- future of the Andean Community of Nations without lomatic relations between Ecuador and Colombia, but incident. I also have moments of pessimism, how- to a new kind of binational pact that can expand the ever; I fear that the current situation will persist and understanding between these two countries, societies, that the disruption of diplomatic relations will last and governments. for a long time. From our perspective as Ecuadorians, Manuel Chiriboga Vega is director of the Observatory on Foreign we have not yet finished digesting what happened Trade. He was subsecretary of commerce and integration in the in Angostura, and I believe that the country will Ministry of Industry, Commerce, Integration, and Fishing and need some form of compensation — not necessarily was the chief negotiator of the Free Trade Agreement between in economic terms so much as political ones. In this Ecuador and the United States; he managed the negotiating on agricultural subjects. He also served as vice minister of agriculture. uncertain context for the future of bilateral relations,

56 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

At first I wondered what I would say to the other Margarita Carranco members of the Binational Dialogue Group — some The Contributions of Women of whom I would have never imagined that I would one day be seated with at the same table. So, when I eing selected as a member of the Binational began to speak up with my own identity, in my own Dialogue Group was a big deal for me. “Wow!” B way, based on my own experiences, it was significant was my reaction to the invitation to become a part for the others to take my contributions seriously. This of this process, and even more so when I learned that experience was very empowering for me. It allowed the distinguished other participants approved me to me to position my organization, the Ecuadorian join. Although I am an accomplished woman who Association of Women in Municipal Government, recognizes her strengths, I was honored to be consid- and the municipality of Quito to take part in actions ered and to be able to contribute to this binational related to the issues of migration and refugees. dialogue between Ecuador and Colombia. I believe that the path we followed was the right On a personal level, this experience was a moment one. In the middle of this dialogue process, we were of enormous growth, because although I have been surprised by the incidents of March 1, 2008, and were involved in participation and dialogue processes thrown into an even more challenging situation. at a national level, I had not been involved on an When that happened, we didn’t know how to act. international level. Learning a culture of dialogue We also learned from our first lunch with President with Colombian men and women and navigating Rafael Correa and the second, which was even better. communications between different cultures have This was how we learned: in moments of crisis and been very valuable experiences. I was able to meet challenge. We learned about the conflict between interesting people from Colombia and Ecuador and two complicated personalities like those of President build, strengthen, and support participation and dia- Álvaro Uribe and President Correa. I believe it was logue from my own experiences. I learned so much. I good for us in that sense. We also had failures, but brought things and I took things away. I think it was failing is good. We were in the middle of a crisis, but crucial to hear about the feelings and perceptions of that crisis enabled us to grow. Probably the most dif- Ecuador from a Colombian point of view. In the same ficult aspect of this experience was that the schedules way, the Colombian members learned about our per- of all of the members were difficult to manage, and we ceptions of them. I believe that was a lesson for the were not always able to find mutually agreeable times. entire group. Opening up about these different per- Communication via e-mail can also be dominated by ceptions led to a far more interesting dialogue — far the members who are most familiar with communicat- more frank and far more fruitful. In addition, it was ing that way. truly enlightening to discover that, despite being so I believe that my principal contributions to the ini- close and sharing a common border, we do not all tiative have been in four areas. First, I brought a local think alike. government perspective, because none of the other Another important aspect was learning to value Ecuadorian members had that background. For this ourselves as Ecuadorians, because Colombia has reason, we later involved the mayor of Tulcán, Pedro always viewed Ecuador as a “little” thing and we have Velasco. I brought a local government approach to viewed Colombia with envy. This experience allowed conflict and to the need for dialogue and reconcilia- us to engage on the same level without considering tion between the two countries. the territorial dimensions or accomplishments of each Second, based on my national leadership posi- country. It also allowed us to recognize the processes tion with the Ecuadorian Association of Women in led by different actors, from Colombia and from Municipal Government, I was invited to a binational Ecuador. meeting for women in Bogotá. My contributions 57 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia were valuable for Ecuadorian women and Colombian pate or in the discussion of any contemporary issue. women. That is how we came up with the idea of Thanks to my participation, other members could forming a similar group of women in Ecuador to orga- reflect on gender issues and the interests of women. nize another binational meeting. The participation of women in the Binational Third, I have strong management abilities, which Dialogue Group increased to the point where we are enabled me to play an important role on the issue almost on an equal footing. of women, mostly Colombians, who were being sold One of the most striking memories I have is the as slaves and were working at a Quito establishment meeting we had with President Uribe. Ideologically called the Doll House. When this story came out, speaking, I have a different perspective than President I immediately thought to contact the governor of Uribe: I’m from the left, and President Uribe is from Nariño, Antonio Navarro Wolff, and the mayor of the right. When you open up a dialogue, however, Tulcán, Pedro Velasco, both ideological labels should fade of whom also belonged to the and be supplanted by the Binational Dialogue Group. greater goal of having a posi- I hoped that they, from their It is interesting how the binational tive meeting and being able to positions near the border, have an exchange. Someone could help me ensure that any relationships that have been suggested that I should pres- Colombian women who had established thanks to the experience ent a gift from the Ecuadorian been victimized could return of the Binational Dialogue Group members of the Binational safely to their country and trust can be applied to other issues that Dialogue Group to President that they would be protected. Uribe. I was unsure how I Pedro Velasco immediately go beyond mere dialogue to the should handle it. I had no idea responded to me and contacted protection of rights . how President Uribe would the mayor of Ipiales. I also got react because I had no idea responses from the ombuds- what his personality was like. man, the Colombian foreign When he entered the meeting, minister, etc. I personally contacted the Colombian he was on the defensive; he came in making demands Foreign Ministry and received an immediate response. … I thought that he might close off the dialogue from Later, the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry contacted the the get-go, but when they started to give me signals to Colombian Foreign Ministry. All of these authorities offer the gift to President Uribe, I stood up and said, responded and, based on that, formed a binational “Look, Mr. President, we’ve brought you a memento.” network for fighting to prevent the slave trade. It When President Uribe saw the rocking horse, he was is interesting how the binational relationships that mesmerized and told me, “Please don’t do this to me, have been established thanks to the experience of the don’t do this to me …” because it awakened his softer Binational Dialogue Group can be applied to other side. He withdrew from the defensive posture of his issues that go beyond mere dialogue to the protection masculine side to a sweeter, softer position because of rights. I believe that the credibility my organiza- what a gift can do is bestow a bit of happiness on a tion gained from this incident was important and person, especially when it’s a gift they like, like that also demonstrated the relevance of the Binational rocking horse. At that point he was caught off guard, Dialogue Group for other issues. and I believe that afterward the dialogue had a differ- Fourth, I brought a focus on gender to the bina- ent tone. tional dialogue initiative. I believe it is important With respect to the future, there are different posi- to discuss and socialize the topic of gender and the tions among the members of the Binational Dialogue perspective of women in any forum in which I partici- Group. Some of us think that the binational dialogue 58 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia process needs to continue, and others do not. I some- needed most in the future is the presence of individu- times think it should draw to a close, but at other als who work at national-level institutions so that moments, I think it would be a shame to waste all of these processes are also in contact with the national the experience and expertise we already have to start government’s plans. Our proposals as a group would over with another group. A new group would take face fewer hang-ups, because none of our proposals at least a year to become cohesive, and it would be a would have to be disentangled from active national year without concrete results. On the other hand, I or local plans. That’s why it is important for the believe that everyone has a cycle and that this cycle Binational Dialogue Group to include people who should end to make way for new processes. I believe work on the binational level or on the border. I also that in a new phase for this process, we could increase think it would be a shame to go without more direct the participants and include new people without representation of different organizations with experi- starting from square one. For example, we could have ence working on the border so that the group’s pro- half of the members of the current group and the posals can be less general and more concrete. At the other half new members. This would allow us to eval- border, there are established organizations without uate the past processes, exchange experiences, and their own voice. Maybe with representatives from incorporate the lessons of the previous experience. both sides of the border, from strong and established In particular, we should try to include young leaders. organizations there, we can make even greater contri- Young people sometimes do not understand why we butions. have borders. They would bring new dynamics, new Margarita Carranco is president of the Ecuadorian Association of ideas, and new proposals. So I believe that the ideal Women in Municipal Government. She was a councilor and sec- scenario would be a balance between younger leaders ond vice president in the metropolitan district of Quito. She has a and ones not so young to enjoy the best combination doctorate in education and is an expert on gender and the human rights of women. She has a master’s degree in political systems of experience with youth. I also believe we should and legal reforms. She served as director of the Projects Unit for maintain the representation of business, media, civil the Political Coordination of Ecuadorian Women. society, and local government sectors. Maybe what is

59 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

is, I put myself in the other’s shoes and understood Patricia Estupiñán why, for Colombians — especially after what occurred The Role of Empathy in Angostura — the Ecuadorian position was so dif- ficult to comprehend. At the same time, I think that articipating in the Binational Dialogue Group for for us as Ecuadorians, who felt offended, reaching almost eight months was an extremely gratify- P this understanding was a major step forward, because ing experience. It was especially interesting to attend when you understand the perspective of the other meetings in Colombia and Ecuador and to meet side, you can find things in common on which to Ecuadorian officials in a different aspect — not as a move forward. journalist but as an individual open to hearing dif- At the beginning, I thought that the ferent perspectives before forming her own. I was Ecuador – Colombia issue was solely a problem of also delighted to meet former U.S. President Jimmy presidential personalities, but later Carter, who is one of my idols. I came to understand it as a much When he was finishing the last wider conflict. I also became aware part of his presidency of the of the lives of the people along United States, I was complet- the border whose lives seemed ing my doctorate there, in a When you understand the far removed from my own. I was Republican state. Because I had perspective of the other side, not conscious of the problems major expectations, I was very those people have to deal with as disappointed when he lost re- you can find things in common a consequence of the disruption election. After all, he contributed on which to move forward . of diplomatic relations. At the to the process of Latin America same time, my contribution to changing from dictatorships to the group was to spread the idea democratic governments. Since that there are many efforts under then, I have felt a special sense way in many areas, but if those efforts are not made of gratitude toward him, and it was very emotional visible to a public audience, they cannot become for me to have a chance to get to know a person of internalized by the people. My role then was to sug- such special significance from my days as a univer- gest to the other members that the press could be the sity student. For that reason, I decided to write an mechanism for drawing attention to these activities. article about President Carter for Vistazo magazine. I Although the publication of books about the issues thought I was in a good position to raise the public’s tied to relations between Colombia and Ecuador is a awareness of what The Carter Center does and what fantastic initiative, at the end of the day, the informa- it has been organizing in the Binational Dialogue tion those books have to offer remains within a small Group to attempt to improve relations between circle of academics and intellectuals. It does not reach Colombia and Ecuador. the masses, who are unaware of what is happening The Binational Dialogue Group was composed unless we make it visible through the mass media. of members from many different fields. As a result, In dialogue processes, sometimes there is a lot of we were able to examine relations between Ecuador dialogue and not a lot of concrete results. In some and Colombia from almost every angle — not just ways, it would have been better if we could have from a political angle, which is what we journalists come up with some more concrete steps. I think we are normally concerned with, but also from a civil put forth a great effort for the border projects, but in society angle and a border population angle. This other areas, such as the meeting for business leaders experience equipped me with a wider perspective on or the meeting for journalists we wanted to promote, the problem and allowed me to feel empathy; that we fell short. In addition, I would have enjoyed seeing 60 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia more of the other proposed projects by the Binational to understand how difficult the problem of violence is Dialogue Group reach a happy ending; precisely in Colombia. This mutual understanding was a major because there are still so many differences between advance, because from now on — at least in all of my the two countries, however, that didn’t happen. For work — I will always have this wider perspective in example, I would have liked to see put into practice mind instead of a one-sided national perspective. the idea for reporters from Ecuador and Colombia to Maybe the future of the Binational Dialogue Group visit both sides of the border to tell human stories and will require new blood and new ideas but have the raise consciousness of these issues at the highest lev- same basic principles. Maybe it should retain the els, so that decision-makers might reflect on how to individuals who have been the most active so that resolve the termination of diplomatic relations. it doesn’t turn into two totally different groups. At Another initiative I participated in was attempting the same time, new people should be incorporated to establish a relationship between media outlets in to bring new life to the group and to allow this dia- Ecuador and Colombia that would publish collabora- logue practice to influence wider and wider spheres of tive works by Ecuadorian journalists in Colombian action. publications and vice versa. Unfortunately, due to the Finally, for me the group’s most important con- sensitivity of the situation and the tense relationship tribution was to raise a warning flag signifying that that exists between the government and the press in society believes in dialogue, that civil society is aware Ecuador, in Ecuador we could not find the same open- these two neighboring countries, with their long com- ness to Colombian voices as we found in Colombia mon history and so many serious shared problems for Ecuadorian voices. along their common border, need every element at The first surprise for me with respect to the topic of their disposal to overcome their troubles and find Ecuador – Colombia relations was a meeting between resolution. It has been like a banner that tells our media directors and editors from Colombia and governments, “Try to solve this problem because the Ecuador in which I participated in June 2008. There, people who are being affected are the peoples along among all the participants, we realized that we had the border!” certain mirror-image perceptions, in the sense that Patricia Estupiñán is a journalist with a master’s degrees in politi- the Ecuadorians thought that the Colombians didn’t cal science and philosophy, with a concentration in international understand us and vice versa. Thanks to this initia- law, comparative politics, and political philosophy. Since 1985 tive, we became open to the knowledge that there she has worked with Vistazo magazine, where she has served as director of editing and the general managing editor since 1991. were other perspectives. I also felt that Colombia She has been awarded four Jorge Mantilla prizes and, in 2000, has always treated Ecuador as its little brother. Both received second place for the Ortega and Gasset prize for informa- through this initiative with media directors and edi- tive coverage of the banking crisis. She has been a correspondent tors and through the Binational Dialogue Group, the for Business Latin America, the Chicago Tribune, and the Poder magazine. She has conducted in-depth interviews with the presi- Colombians came to understand this feeling as well dents and vice presidents of Ecuador as well as with the presidents as the need to stop treating Ecuadorians like younger of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, , , and brothers. At the same time, we as Ecuadorians came Venezuela and with the secretary-generals of the OAS.

61 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

daily experiences, and the roots from which we have Pedro Velasco grown, originating from the Pasto nation that lived The Heirs of the Pasto Nation on this land, converted into a single family with strong ties of kinship and blood relationship that t was deeply satisfying to be included as part of made us indivisible. It has allowed us to reveal the the Binational Dialogue Group. I have so many I Ipiales and Tulcán identities to the world as peoples reasons. This border region, despite good neighborly who are strong, honest, hard-working, loyal, and relationships and a sense of brotherhood maintained tolerant. It allowed us to show how we have passed for centuries, has been excluded from development through history as brother peoples, how we have prac- processes at the national and international level. ticed mutual collaboration; how we have integrated We have an opportunity to learn about the history and exchanged our cultural, technical, and adminis- of border regions in Latin America and around the trative experiences; what projects we have completed world, their successful practices, together; what basic human ser- threats they encountered, and vices works we have shared; and the visions they can bring to life, how we have managed to resolve thus capitalizing on the strengths our common problems and meet and protecting against the weak- This border region, despite good our common needs. I was defini- nesses in each situation. We neighborly relationships and a tively able to bring to light the have the opportunity to establish singularity of the inhabitants new friendships and important sense of brotherhood maintained of the Andean border between contacts with representatives of for centuries, has been excluded Ecuador and Colombia and of various institutions and countries from development processes at the their initiatives for moving for- around the world and to learn national and international level . ward and continuing to improve about processes that have been and transform this binational implemented along other borders. border. The Binational Dialogue Frequent meetings, annual Group organized by The Carter operating plans, technical assistance, internships for Center gave us a forum to clarify, propose, and imag- municipal officials and professionals, suitability of the ine solutions that would improve the daily lives of our planned agenda, autonomy in the execution stage, citizens and preserve peace and friendship between active participation from local actors — all of these the people along the border. Based on the foundation are essential tools suited to streamlining the process. of the activities and analyses conducted by experts Once the binational dialogue groups have been revi- and other actors native to those zones, we can make talized, they should be empowered by the population, more efficient economic, technical, cultural, and because we all have a responsibility to be part of the social investments to help achieve greater results solution instead of the problem, in a collaborative and benefits for the population, within parameters effort involving local, national, and international that prioritize the practice of full democracy and full institutions, such as The Carter Center. Our people respect for the human being. For this effort to con- will be the ones responsible for (and the protago- tinue on its own, we need a better communication nists of) whatever happens in our environment, that dynamic and a more active presence by its members binational strip of land in which we fight for a better and organizers. world. We are good neighbors, and we are proud to This window of opportunity has enabled us to call it home. bring to light the reality of our municipalities in the I have personally looked on with optimism at the north of Ecuador and the south of Colombia — our commitment of these citizens with such great under- 62 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia standing of the Ecuadorian – Colombian and Latin and manages, pursuing an objective that will bring us American reality. Their objective has been to con- closer to a vision we have imagined in our strategic tribute ideas and actions to identify and apply practi- development plans. Doing so will contribute to mak- cal solutions that encourage positive improvement in ing this Ecuadorian – Colombian border a zone of relations between these two Latin American coun- peace, joy, convergence, and progress and to achiev- tries, with other continents, and especially with our ing the full satisfaction of living in liberty, equality, neighbors. The challenge is to transform these borders and social justice. into bonds of unity, bridges of friendliness, and dry Pedro Velasco is an attorney and has a doctorate in jurispru- ports through which friendly hands and hearts can dence. As of 2000 he has served as the mayor of the canton of pass. Tulcán. Has been the secretary-general and director of procure- I hope that the Binational Dialogue Group will ment for the Carchi Provincial Council. He has also served in make a thorough technical assessment, completing honorary posts such as representative of the Carchi Electoral Tribunal, president of the Carchi Law School, and the representa- concrete projects of many varieties that it designs tive of the municipalities on the director’s board of the National Bank, among others.

63 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

For my part, I believe that practicing journalism Ricardo Ávila has taught me to be pragmatic and helped me try to A Highly Effective Informal Network discourage the tendency — which sometimes takes hold in this kind of group — of talking and talking he Binational Dialogue Group played an impor- without reaching any concrete results. Time gets tant role in helping to knock down many of T away from you in conversation if you don’t make an the myths and false beliefs we had. It allowed us to effort to be precise and to speak in practical terms. gain knowledge on the subject of relations between I believe I helped guide the discussions in a more Colombia and Ecuador, a subject that we all believed concrete direction. As a journalist, I also knew a lot we knew well but about which we actually knew very of information, but overall the most important thing little. I believe we came out better informed and more was the richness of the varied contributions offered by aware of our own ignorance than before. It is a shame the combination of people who formed the Binational that we never made it to the border. I would have Dialogue Group. The group included people with liked to see something about the land. As I see it, the different professional opinions. The saving grace was most useful moments of the binational dialogue initia- that the sum was so much greater than its parts. tive were the moments in which we discussed con- As a journalist, I have been able to contribute to crete issues, whether it was because of the presence of the editorials on Ecuador in El Tiempo for more than an external speaker or because one of the group mem- a year and a half. The knowledge I acquired as a result bers, with expertise on a particular subject, took a of participating in the Binational Dialogue Group moment to share specialized knowledge. These kinds helped prepare me to write about relations between of speeches provided the other members, especially these two countries and to contribute to establishing the members from the other country, with a new per- the editorial position on the subject for the largest spective on the circumstances particular to Colombia publication in Colombia. Thanks to this, the editori- or to Ecuador. It was very useful. als we published reflect far more layered opinions I also found very interesting the way this process than they would have if I hadn’t been exposed to was able to repair the mutual lack of trust between this knowledge. In addition to that, I wrote an article these two countries. Even though the reality of the about Colombia and Ecuador for the Ecuadorian conflict between Colombia and Ecuador was much magazine Criterios, and I secured column space in worse than what anyone had expected, the Binational El Tiempo for Ecuadorian columnists. Unfortunately Dialogue Group was not broken and in fact had we couldn’t take advantage of that space because we even greater cohesion than anyone had hoped. That couldn’t get organized. The idea was for someone in proved to be a very important test. Ecuador to take charge of coordinating and deliver- My experience as a member of the Binational ing the articles by the Ecuadorian columnists, but the Dialogue Group made me more aware of the situa- work never materialized. The offer of space has not tion of Colombian refugees and also made me realize expired; we just need to find a way to get organized everything that Ecuador has done to try to attend and secure columns. to them. It also helped me understand the nuances Processes like this one have their own dynamic. there can be within a government and to move past The Binational Dialogue Group acquired a per- the habit of generalizing, which is so easy to do about sonality all its own and functioned well. Looking government positions. Another important element back, I suppose there was more rotation among the has been the establishment of contacts. This process Ecuadorian members than the Colombian members. is fundamental to developing a network that, despite Although such shifts were impossible to predict when its informal nature, can play an important part in the group was formed, I would have liked to see a lit- keeping the binational dialogue alive.

64 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia tle more stability in this sense. All in all, the exercise wouldn’t be good for a group of the same people to was very productive, however. persist over an extended period of time: It is essen- Now the Binational Dialogue Group has reached tial to open the circle. Right now we are about 10 a point where it needs to end. The members of the Colombians and 10 Ecuadorians who have learned group have to conclude their work with a sense of so much more about our own countries as well as our satisfaction and pride for what neighbor, but the ideal scenario is they have done. The process itself for this group to continue expand- should continue with new people, ing with new members who know however. It is also important to more about other aspects of each share this experience because it I hope it could even be side. provides such an interesting model. replicated in other countries Ricardo Ávila is director of Portafolio, a I hope it could even be replicated and regions, adapted to their widely circulated publication on econom- in other countries and regions, own particular characteristics! ics and business in Colombia. A trained adapted to their own particular economist, with postgraduate studies characteristics! The objectives at the University of Pittsburgh, he has served in different positions in the public of the first phase of work for the sectors such as the president’s economic Binational Dialogue Group have been achieved. Now counselors, the economic vice minister of the Foreign Ministry, I think the best thing would be for the process to the private secretary of the president of the republic, and the Cabinet chief for the office of the secretary-general of the OAS continue with different participants who are replaced in Washington, D.C. As a journalist, he has served as the director at certain intervals. These processes earn credibility of Cambio magazine and as an editorial adviser for Semana maga- from the fact that they have a beginning and end. It zine, in addition to contributing to other publications.

65 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

creating a better environment for that re-establish- Ricardo Estrada ment. At certain times, the purpose of the Binational Putting Yourself in the Dialogue Group was misunderstood; the Ecuadorian Other’s Shoes members faced questions about what they were doing, specifically on one of the Ecuadorian president’s he binational dialogue process in which we par- weekly Saturday radio broadcasts. Our purpose was Tticipated didn’t just yield practical results; it also always to help strengthen relations between Ecuador brought mutual enrichment to all of the members of and Colombia; we started our labor before the termi- the Binational Dialogue Group and a new background nation of diplomatic relations, and we had no pre- of experiences and knowledge to our daily lives. It tense of mediating. allowed us to gain new opinions and knowledge that Having the opportunity to speak with both presi- can be useful for other dialogue processes as well as dents allowed us to deliver messages from a civil in each of our distinct professional fields. It was an society standpoint. I think that the presidents took opportunity for me to share a dialogue forum with those messages into account and, in one way or important figures from Ecuador and Colombia. While another, helped discourage further escalation of the I had previously known some of the Ecuadorian mem- antagonism between the two governments. It does bers and Luis Carlos Villegas of Colombia, it was an not frustrate me that diplomatic relations have not enriching experience getting to know the other mem- been re-established, because the issue is an extremely bers from both countries. serious one for both parties. Each country has posi- We were called on to participate in a binational tions that need to be respected. The process of the dialogue process to attempt to strengthen relations Binational Dialogue Group taught us to put ourselves between Ecuador and Colombia at a time when the in the shoes of other people and understand their way countries still maintained formal diplomatic relations of thinking and the reasons they have for accepting or between them. When they ask me to participate in not accepting a situation. This understanding worked an initiative, I accept if I think I can add something to bring our positions closer. If we compare the first of value; at the same time, I hope that accepting and the last meetings that we held with the entire will allow me to grow and learn new ways of think- group, there was a change in mentality and much less ing about and seeing things. In this case, I feel very distance between our positions. satisfied because my participation in the Binational In the first meetings, you would have thought we Dialogue Group exposed me to — and opened my would never be able to put ourselves in the other’s mind to — other points of view than the perspec- shoes, but time passed and we realized it wasn’t so dif- tive I had as a citizen of Ecuador. I learned to really ficult. There were very open-minded people who were see the position of Colombia and to understand why committed to the dialogue. The support of The Carter and possibly how we could try to reach an agreement Center and the UNDP was also essential. They were that would help improve relations between these two permanent guides that helped orient the dialogue countries and re-establish their formal diplomatic process. Thanks to them, the Binational Dialogue relations. Group was able to keep working past the original date I am happy to say that I formed friendships with that its members had committed to and even beyond all of the members of the group, and I feel that our the second phase that was planned, which shows the efforts were worth it. I believe that, at their core, our commitment felt by the members to make sure the efforts helped bring our two countries closer on many dialogue process isn’t cut off. I don’t believe that any levels. The fundamental reason for our work was of this would have been possible without the support never the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, of The Carter Center and the UNDP. I hope that even though what we did may have contributed to both organizations will continue to support the group, 66 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia at least until the re-establishment of diplomatic rela- take place at the wrong time. The idea is still there, tions between the two countries. however, and the initiative could be reactivated For a dialogue process like this to yield results, each whenever it seems appropriate. of the participants must have different or particular Meanwhile, I also took advantage of the close views on what is happening within his or her country relationships I have with a few members of the and outside it. In this sense, I noticed that within the Ecuadorian government to let them know about group, none of the Ecuadorian members started out what the Binational Dialogue Group was doing and with any views on foreign trade or investments from to discuss with them the issues affecting the situa- a business perspective. Thus, I felt I would be able to tion between Ecuador and Colombia. On some occa- contribute to the group in that area. I could spread sions, I spoke with the minister of foreign relations these views and attempt to strengthen the commer- to touch on the subject of relations between Ecuador cial and investment relations between our countries and Colombia and see how they might be improved. I or at least to discourage any further deterioration also tried to increase the openness of the Ecuadorian from the run-ins that occurred at the beginning with government to this issue and to engage in dialogue these governments, which is unfortunately exactly with the group. I did the same thing with the general what happened after the events on March 1, 2008. In secretary of public administration and communica- summary, I decided to participate in the Binational tion and other ministers with whom I had contact. Dialogue Group because I knew that I could contrib- I kept them up to date with what the Binational ute a perspective different from the rest of the group Dialogue Group was doing and asked that they find and, at the same time, could be personally enriched some way or another to share this information with by their different perspectives. Learning about the the president. I couldn’t really say what the results of variety of perspectives wasn’t important only for my those conversations were, but I suppose that the more participation in the group; it was also part of my people in the circles of the president and the minister job as the executive director of the Corporation for of foreign relations who have talked to them about Promoting Exports and Investments, because it falls the subject, the better the chances we would have on me to lobby at the government level, business of softening the position of the Ecuadorian govern- level, international level, etc. This experience was ment and of leading it to a better understanding of truly valuable both personally and professionally. the Colombian government’s position and eventual As far as my contributions to the Binational reconciliation. Dialogue Group, I participated in two specific initia- Another important initiative I participated in with tives related to the business aspect. In June 2008, members of the Binational Dialogue Group was col- the Colombo – Ecuadorian Chamber of Industry and lecting signatures for a letter petitioning both presi- Commerce invited me and some other group members dents to open up to reconciliation. This was not an to participate in a forum on the future of the com- easy feat. After receiving some signals indicating that mercial relationships between the two countries. This this communication would not be frowned upon by forum was not limited to participants who were well the two presidents, we decided to submit the letter versed in the business side of it and included some to them in early June 2008. The signatories included group members who had a more political perspective the members of the group and other influential on the matter and/or were there to comment. Later, people from both countries. This initiative reflected toward the end of 2008, the group secured support a legitimate interest on the part of Ecuadorian and from The Carter Center and the CAF to organize a Colombian civil society to protect each country’s best process of developing agreements between business interests and express their concern over the situa- actors from both countries. This initiative never came tion between the two countries. It was a sensible and to fruition because we realized that it was going to 67 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia respectful request. I think the initiative should have in our meetings, but it’s something that should be been taken seriously by both presidents. considered when beginning a dialogue process: that There have been other important initiatives not all of the participants will be able to attend every related to border integration and the events that meeting and that you should always try to meet that have been organized along the border. Although I did crucial minimum. not directly participate in these initiatives, I think As I mentioned earlier, the diversity of the mem- that they were extremely valuable. From a practical bers selected for this initiative — with their different standpoint, they may have been the most important professional backgrounds and fields — was a positive activities of the whole exercise. The academic confer- thing because it exposed all of us to different perspec- ences have also been valuable because they provided tives. I understand that the names of the members of a forum for exchanging information. the Binational Dialogue Group were submitted to the Overall, I took part in all of respective governments by The the discussions that occurred Carter Center. I have the impres- within the group, and I never held sion that, in some ways, they had back when I felt that I needed to There will always be times more freedom with the Colombian contribute something. I contrib- when not everyone can be side than the Ecuadorian side. uted my own perspective, while present because of other Given that this was a civil society always respecting the ways of initiative, I’m not sure whether thinking of the other members. obligations that can’t be that process should have taken The Ecuadorian members did not postponed . The important place. On one hand, it’s good that always share the same positions. thing is to always reach the this type of consultation exists Although I tried to participate minimum critical mass . along with an open door to the in all meetings of the Binational government for the group. On the Dialogue Group, including the other hand, I don’t know that it national and binational ones, it is was necessary, because the most unfortunate that I had to miss some of them because I valuable aspect of the whole process was former U.S. was out of the country or had meetings with the gov- President Jimmy Carter, who had direct access to ernment that I couldn’t postpone. I wish that both governments. Without wanting to discredit any- I had been able to dedicate as much time to this one, I think that without President Carter at its head, process as I wanted to. If I had been able to partici- this initiative probably would have yielded far fewer pate in all of the meetings, maybe I could have con- results. He is a man of great courage who is recognized tributed a little more to the process. It is important to around the world and appreciated here by both presi- keep in mind how our schedules affect these kinds of dents. I believe that any dialogue process organized by processes. There will always be times when not every- The Carter Center with President Carter’s participa- one can be present because of other obligations that tion will always have better results than any process can’t be postponed. The important thing is to always without the participation of someone of his political reach the minimum critical mass. For example, for a stature and international reputation. group of 10 Ecuadorian members and 10 Colombian The efforts of the Binational Dialogue Group members, it’s obvious that a meeting with fewer with the participation of President Carter — although than five Ecuadorians and Colombians would not from a distance — have merit and will be justified at reach the critical mass needed for a binational dia- least until the point when Ecuador and Colombia logue. Similarly, to have an effective meeting on the re-establish diplomatic relations. Once their diplo- national level, we would need at least five members. matic relations are restored, it will be easier to find I believe that we always reached the critical mass the appropriate channels for any problems. This 68 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia doesn’t mean that the group couldn’t continue work- important for the initiative to continue with the sup- ing, but its focus would need to change after the port of The Carter Center because it offers so much restoration of diplomatic relations. I believe it is added value. As long as we continue as a group, we important for The Carter Center to stay involved at will always maintain this dialogue, and our govern- least until negotiations resume. If there are financing ments will always be aware of the existence of this problems preventing the group from continuing to binational group that remains committed to improv- operate with the support of The Carter Center, we ing relations between these two countries and bring- will see what we can do to secure funding. We could ing their peoples closer together. meet less frequently and use technology to do more Ricardo Estrada is executive director of the Corporation for things online. While we should continue to meet a Promoting Exports and Investments. He has served as the vice certain number of times per year during the second president and general manager of the Electrical Company of phase, we could also maintain a dialogue through Ecuador in Guayaquil (1984–1992), executive president of the Internet and videoconferencing. As I see it, it is Petroecuador (1992–1993), and executive president and/or gen- eral manager of 13 companies in the Piana Group (1993–1997).

69 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Uribe’s government. My participation in the group Sandra Suárez was objective, however. My principal interest was in Beyond the Government’s Vision contributing to the group and sharing the particular information I had, such as the programs for fight- s a member of the Binational Dialogue Group, ing illegal crops, for which it was my responsibility my greatest satisfaction has been to have an A to develop alternative methods to replace the illegal open dialogue with people who share good judgment crops. I did so without the passion or the formal role and analytical abilities for evaluating situations, of defending the Colombian government, because I as well as to receive new information. This effort understood that this was not the role that I should was a very constructive one, both within the set of play. The objective of our participation in the Colombian members and the Binational Dialogue Binational Dialogue Group was not to debate for or Group as a whole. We addressed many pressing issues against the governments and wind up with polariza- affecting bilateral relations between Colombia and tion but rather was to build up dia- Ecuador. This exercise could even logue and understanding. I believe be replicated in other bilateral that this was my approach for the situations. On a personal level, entire time, and I hope that I con- the initiative gave me a chance Through the group, we tributed something in that sense. to compare views with people of found a mechanism for Being in the private sector, I different ideological leanings from understanding and developed had fewer opportunities to get Ecuador and Colombia and of dif- a complete methodology . involved in specific projects ferent professional experiences and We also demonstrated that targeted toward improving rela- fields. This experience was very tions between Colombia and enriching because it stimulated the it was possible to conduct Ecuador. I participated in some inclusion of new elements in our a constructive dialogue and concrete activities, however, analysis that expanded our knowl- formulate a common agenda . such as the binational forum for edge and encouraged us to interact Colombo – Ecuadorian women that much more comfortably. was organized by the Women’s I imagine that the group’s contributions were use- Foundation of Colombia. I participated as a panel- ful for tackling the tough issues affecting relations ist in the forum. It was a very interesting initiative between Colombia and Ecuador. Through the group, in which businesswomen from both countries shared we found a mechanism for understanding and devel- their experiences and analysis. I also had a few con- oped a complete methodology. We also demonstrated versations with both of the foreign ministers and that it was possible to conduct a constructive dialogue even with President Uribe about the importance of and formulate a common agenda. This was made clear supporting initiatives such as the Binational Dialogue not only by the methodology but also by the attitude Group. These activities were the ones I was most of the members of the Binational Dialogue Group. At involved in. At the same time, my companions took a time when the re-establishment of diplomatic rela- part in other activities. Some of them, for example, tions between the two countries is so urgent, we at used their influence on public opinion by publishing least made advances in terms of dialogue and under- articles or columns — especially the journalists in the standing. This experience generated many more ele- group or the members involved in academic studies. ments to work on. My professional activities kept me from participat- I have worked in the Colombian government ing in this way, but I was able to get involved in the for years. I have worked closely with and agreed other activities that I just described. with many of the programs and policies of President

70 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Being able to converse with the foreign policy deci- the group members are people who will continue to sion-makers was a great thing. I kept them informed have relevance to the public sphere in both countries. of the role of the Binational Dialogue Group and our In this sense, the members of the group will always vision. We also had meetings with both presidents, serve as a resource that can be tapped at the right which was very satisfying. We took those oppor- time and rearticulated, because they shared a com- tunities to explain the potential and limits of the mon experience and a path to understanding. I think Binational Dialogue Group to both governments. I that the Binational Dialogue Group should continue believe the group can make clear contributions to to meet, but it should be more involved in specific improving relations between the two countries. It projects, especially ones in the border zone. The could have had more relevance in public, however, group is undeniably a resource for the governments of by adopting a constructive, objective posture of rais- both countries — not just for ways to bring Colombia ing interest and making contributions. It could have and Ecuador closer together but also for other process- called more attention to the positive aspects of bilat- es. The members of the Binational Dialogue Group eral relations rather than keeping such a low profile. constitute a team of committed and interested people I think that the process was well-thought-out and with many complementary strengths and different well-executed. The methodologies we used were perspectives. The group is a very important resource well-suited, as was the time management, which let that will be relevant in the future. us process information. If anything could have been Finally, I would like to express my gratitude for the improved, I would definitely emphasize the need to interest, commitment, and masterly organization of focus more on public opinion and have more visibil- The Carter Center and the United Nations in this ity. This is something that should be reconsidered and process. I think it was so important for organizations analyzed. I believe that we were overly cautious with such as The Carter Center and the United Nations the group’s image. I think it could have been useful to have so much interest and willingness to keep for the Binational Dialogue Group to be visible in this process moving forward. Their facilitation was both countries, employing constructive and purpose- extremely professional, and the entire team offered ful language and staying out of all of the fights and great analysis and effort. This experience has been a controversies. It could have served as a moderating process of enriching and sharpening all of the skills force, calling for calmness, analysis, meetings, and the and capacities of the members of the Binational path of diplomacy for resolving problems. I believe Dialogue Group, but it was also a great contribution there is a lesson there for future opportunities. that will last beyond the present moment and will As far as the configuration of the group and the persist through time. selection of its members, I think they were well-done. Sandra Suárez is director of public affairs for a multinational The participants are people with different political pharmaceutical company in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. She ideologies and inclinations who have been involved served as a high presidential adviser for Plan Colombia; the min- in a wide range of activities. All of us have served ister of environment, health, and land development; and high presidential counselor for negotiating international agreements in as leaders in our countries over processes in distinct charge of the Free Trade Agreements between Colombia and the fields, including politics, journalism, and business. So, United States.

71 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

the situation with us, and we established a plan of Socorro Ramírez action for strengthening the positive ties between Thinking About What We Share by the two countries. This plan included initiatives such Recognizing Our Differences as exchanging lists of columnists with periodicals in both countries, organizing binational meetings rom its inception in late 2007, with the support of between different sectors of the population along with FThe Carter Center and the UNDP, the Binational academic forums, filming a binational documentary, Dialogue Group has been a plural forum that has etc. With this ambitious plan, we realized we would involved citizens from both sides with a high level of need to organize two additional rounds of dialogue, in influence in government or on public opinion, a cer- Quito and Bogotá, to conclude the exercise. tain perspective on the other country, and, above all, As could be predicted, the question of normalizing the disposition to commit to a dialogue. These found- diplomatic relations guided the BDG’s efforts, starting ing characteristics have been present throughout the with the collection of signatures from both countries different stages that the BDG has passed through. to petition the presidents to reinstate diplomatic rela- The first phase, from November 2007 to February tions. Members of the BDG also wrote proposals for 2008, was centered on the presen- small steps for the governments tation of each national perspective toward reconciliation. We went that, despite the different nuances to meetings with President Uribe on each side, was fundamentally The BDG has completed a on June 25 and President Correa oriented toward explicitly stat- productive effort to influence on June 26 with the objective of ing the realities, perceptions, and asking them to return to the agree- needs of each side. The meeting in society and public opinion in each country as well as the ments they made with President Atlanta in November 2007 was an Carter to progressively reinstate inevitable and necessary “cathar- governments and members of formal relations. The national sis,” with the few attempts at con- the international community meetings with government minis- nection mostly stimulated by the interested in the Colombo- ters were held with the same pur- female members of the BDG, by Ecuadorian problem . pose in mind. former U.S. President Jimmy Carter Upon evaluating our work, the and his foundation’s staff, as well as meetings in Quito and Bogotá by the UNDP. By the meeting in demonstrate how, despite the fact Quito in February 2008, we could explore a binational that the established plan of action had not been ful- agenda full of initiatives designed to promote greater filled as planned (although not by way of negligence), mutual understanding and positive ties between us. the members of the BDG had successfully created The second phase was marked by the events of dynamics in the planned spirit: supporting events for March 1, 2008, which, rather than precipitating chambers of commerce, women, journalists, academ- a split, strengthened the BDG. At the meeting in ics, and local border authorities and communities; Bogotá in April 2008, both sides made a significant and publishing hundreds of articles or interviews or effort to understand each other’s realities and national opinion pieces in which the members of the BDG sensitivities as well as the updated role of the group tried to expand and improve mutual understanding, in the new context created by the disruption of diplo- emphasize the importance of dialogue, and highlight matic relations. The meeting in Atlanta in May 2008, the many things our nations share in common as a with the secretary-general of the OAS and President starting point for evaluating our differences. Carter, differentiated the good offices of those two In summary, the BDG has completed a produc- figures from the role of the BDG. They analyzed

72 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia tive effort to influence society and public opinion in friends and colleagues with whom I had shared earlier each country as well as the governments and mem- activities and projects, which strengthened friend- bers of the international community interested in ships and enriched my perspective on national and the Colombo – Ecuadorian problem. It has helped to binational issues. multiply the number of meetings between different Socorro Ramírez has been a professor and researcher at the sectors in both countries and the number of articles Institute of Political Studies and International Relations at the or programs in the mass media — all of which are National University of Colombia since 1993. She has worked directed toward improving mutual understanding and in the masters program for Caribbean studies at the San Andrés comprehension of the circumstances in each country branch of the National University since 2000. She has served as coordinator in Colombia of the Colombia – Venezuela Academic and of binational relations. In addition, it attempted Group since 1998 and been a member of the Presidential to offer proposals for the governments to help them Commission on Border Issues and Colombo – Venezuelan normalize and strengthen our relations and to develop Integration since 2000. She created the Colombia – Ecuador Program at the National University of Colombia. Currently, she the border zones and surrounding areas. For me, this is serving as a member of the Foreign Policy Mission. has also been a rich reunion with the Ecuadorian

73 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

than the experiences of the people most affected. I am Alfredo Negrete talking about the people who live in the border zone, An Effort Worth Continuing about academic groups, etc. My impression is that my experience as a member of the Binational Dialogue participated in the Binational Dialogue Group only Group was shared by many others, who probably during its first meetings: the binational meeting in I learned much more as the process continued. I would Atlanta, the preparatory meetings in Quito, and final- say that The Carter Center, living up to its widely ly the binational meeting in Quito. After that, I had respected reputation, organized an enormously valu- to separate from the group. Despite not being able to able experience. We discovered that the people of continue with the initiative, it struck me as a truly two countries can come together among themselves. extraordinary experience. The binational meeting in With Peru, our differences were historical, legal, and Atlanta, which was attended by former U.S. President territorial. This is a problem of political perceptions Jimmy Carter, was complex and difficult. It was all and of the lack of tolerance that characterizes govern- worthwhile, however. The Carter ments in Latin America in general. Center provided us with tools for In the Binational Dialogue dialogue, negotiation, and finding Group, we had great discipline, common ground. Unlike what usual- Unlike what usually which is essential for international ly happens with a country’s internal happens with a country’s negotiations. The exchange could policies, in the realm of internation- be frank and tense, but in a produc- al relations, it’s not just the results internal policies, in the tive way. I have heard many other that count but also your methods realm of international members describe the experience of and your peaceful approach. In this relations, it’s not just the the Atlanta meeting as a catharsis: case, one of the most outstanding results that count but also We purged. This was important achievements is that, thanks to this because it established a foundation effort, we Ecuadorians got to know your methods and your for the binational meeting in Quito. the Colombians and the Colombians peaceful approach . In this second meeting, we made got to know us. We discovered that a great deal of progress because we we had disagreements and preju- grasped that — beyond the most dices, but we also found that we could agree on some serious problem, violence — the problems between of the many points we had in common. If only this Ecuador and Colombia were caused by diverse and conduct by the members of the Binational Dialogue unrelated causes. We did not appreciate the coexis- Group could be transferred into the official govern- tence that goes on in the border communities that are ment realm! not divided by a line. They share the same environ- When I joined the group, I thought that I knew ment and the same rivers; they have the same needs a lot because I had worked in the Ecuadorian press, and suffer from the same dangers. I also think that, in as well as with the Peruvian press, in the negotia- addition to trying to normalize diplomatic relations tions during and after the conflict between Ecuador between these two states, the governments should and Peru. I learned many new things, however. I also be made aware that there are many more things discovered that, at least on the part of Ecuadorians, we can do that have not been done yet, that there are we should have known much more about Colombia. efforts being made in different places, and that this We did not understand the diversity, intensity, and should be remedied sooner rather than later, regard- complexity of Colombia’s painful history, because we less of the political problems between the two govern- were used to focusing on the headlines from the inter- ments. national news or on official public statements rather

74 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

All of the countries in Latin America, includ- chronology, well-established time lines, or interna- ing our own, as Colombia’s historical neighbor and tional assistance, which must be precise, concrete, brother, want to see peace in that country. Its people and nonbureaucratic. Our binational working agendas have suffered enough, have bled enough. We should with Colombia should be intense, despite whatever already be planning for the future. Because someday differences may exist between our governments. The peace will happen, because peace is part of the ratio- Carter Center is in the right position to help support nality of human communities, and we have to ask the resolution of the problems between Ecuador and what will happen when we demilitarize the genera- Colombia and to achieve binational integration for tions that have been born amid guns and continue these two peoples, who have everything in common. to live with guns, to use guns? Many Colombians The media has not been able to duplicate what have lived through violence since their adolescence it learned from a conflict that was even more com- or childhood. When peace comes, these people will plex than the current one with Colombia: the case have to adjust to a new living environment, and both of our conflict with Peru. In that situation, the Ecuador and Colombia should think about what will media on both sides reached a deeper understand- happen when we try to reintegrate between 10,000 ing of each country, respecting one another’s values and 15,000 Colombians who have been living noth- and laying the groundwork for the strong relation- ing but violence. ships that still exist. This has not happened with the We must continue this binational dialogue exercise Colombian media. I believe that relations between that has been led by The Carter Center. Although it the Ecuadorian and Colombian journalists have been has been many months since I left the group, I have concentrated between Quito and Bogotá rather than closely followed it, and I believe it should go on. We encompassing the diversity of the media in each need to take advantage of the resource we have in the country. My impression is that the journalists are participation of an international figure of President afraid there would be no common ground and there Carter’s stature. He was only recently in Ecuador, is not enough political dialogue in either country. and he showed himself to be a man who is political, Maybe the media are always limited in what they can peaceful, fair, and has great international vision. do because their positions cannot go past the dictates My experience as a member of the Binational of national security measures. Dialogue Group allowed me to share ideas with the A major setback for this process was what trans- newspaper where I have worked for eight years, El pired with the bombing of Angostura. This incident Comercio. Along with another member of the group, unleashed a political chain reaction between the two Gonzalo Ruiz — who is also on the editorial board countries, but at the same time, it forced different at El Comercio — I promoted an editorial debate. I social actors to recognize Colombia in a different way believe that the dialogues we had within the editorial and to realize that Colombia’s territory does not end board and with the other directors in that medium in Bogotá, just like Ecuador’s territory doesn’t end in have helped bring a little change to the dynamics of Quito. Add to this all of the problems that have come the topic and have removed it from the purely politi- up afterward — complex political problems for each of cal environment in which it was framed and from these countries — and the consequences of the global which it was never going to escape. economic crisis with its potential effects on society. There should be a binational or international effort The people of Colombia and Ecuador should draw to provide support to the border zones that are endan- their own conclusions about these events. The recent gered on both sides. Without it, we will be facilitat- events in the Peruvian Andes, with more than 40 ing more violence. The Ecuadorian and Colombian victims of the violence between indigenous communi- peoples have just begun to understand each other: We ties and Peru’s armed forces, demand our attention didn’t have a plan for binational integration’s stages, because there are so many common characteristics 75 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia among the Andean peoples; we have the same idio- tional integration. At the same time, it can capital- syncrasies, and we tend to respond to the same cul- ize on its international prestige as a second tactic for tural shifts. The Andean countries should be in the encouraging Ecuador and Colombia to change their best position to truly and effectively mend their past positions and begin to reconcile with the objective wounds for the good of their peoples. of restoring different levels of diplomatic relations. It concerns me that The Carter Center has been These kinds of relationships cannot be re-established mostly on its own in this initiative, despite the sup- overnight. It is a slower process. I believe that this port and cooperation it received from the United is the right path to it. Before we can begin to build Nations. The international and regional communities binational scenarios that bestow peace and well-being should support this effort to improve its effectiveness for all, we first need to return to normal. and soften these harsh political stances. What The Alfredo Negrete is executive director of the Association of Carter Center organized was not just an exercise of Publication Editors of Ecuador. He was the deputy director of the good will — it was much more: It was an experience newspaper El Comercio. He served as the opinion editor for the that should serve as a model for dialogue, understand- newspaper El Universo and the regional director of the television ing, honesty, and transparency in Latin America. network Ecuavisa. He worked in the governments of presidents Oswaldo Hurtado Larrea and Gustavo Noboa. Through the Binational Dialogue Group, The Carter Center has a clear agenda for promoting bina-

76 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Another gift from the experience was my understand- Andrés Valdivieso ing of the Colombian perspective, which is clearly The Group’s Role Is Not to Mediate different from the Ecuadorian view. This knowledge allowed me to better understand how our binational y experience as a member of the problems might be resolved and how we can approach Ecuador – Colombia Binational Dialogue Group M them together. Once we understand the root problem, surpassed my initial expectations. At the beginning, we can begin to make plans about the future. I did not believe that the group would be relevant Drawing on past experiences and wisdom, every or capable of influencing anything or would even member contributed something to the Binational come together, but what happened demonstrated the Dialogue Group. I was able to offer my opinion on its opposite. During the first binational meeting we had a own merits, clarifying that it was neither an official catharsis. As Colombians and Ecuadorians, we spoke opinion nor a representation of the position of the our minds and our hearts. Once that had passed, the Ecuadorian government. I was also able to share infor- relationships between the members of the group start- mation about some of the events and situations that ed to relax more and more. We began to understand we discussed. Based on my experiences, job, and train- and grasp why the people of Colombia and Ecuador ing, I offered opinions that were sometimes supported had seen the same situation in different ways: what by others and sometimes not. The debate of ideas unites us and what divides us. This exercise caused me and exchange of opinions in the Binational Dialogue to experience an interesting sense of personal growth Group were truly enriching. At the same time, I had that allowed me to better understand the problems a hand in these initiatives that led to a fuller under- in our relationship and their sources. At the same standing of the facts of the situation. In Ecuador time, this experience served me well from a profes- and Colombia, the foreign policy decisions lie in the sional standpoint. When I joined the group, I worked hands of the president of the republic, who manages in the Ministry of Government; later I moved on to his foreign policy through his foreign minister and the Ministry for Coordinating Internal and External different official institutions. I believe that on some Security. In both cases I was able to bring my expe- occasions, I helped promote some initiatives simply rience and the lessons I took away to each level of by offering my opinion, however. In the Ministry for government to which I had access and offered some Coordinating Internal and External Security, I was suggestions on how we might, eventually, improve responsible for coordinating advisers and directed the our relations with Colombia (once they have come to ministry’s involvement in the Ecuador – Colombia understand our own position, of course). relationship. Unlike the Ministry of Foreign The first things that come to mind in terms of Relations, the Ministry for Coordinating Internal and what I took away from the experience are related External Security only provides counsel specific to to human and personal relationships. On an inter- the relationship between Ecuador and Colombia. My personal level, I established strong friendships with experience as a member of the Binational Dialogue the other Ecuadorian members — some of whom I Group was very useful in government settings — with had known previously but not necessarily on a close the minister, in the ministry department, and in personal level — and with the Colombian members, Cabinet security meetings. Although I couldn’t always none of whom I had met until joining the group. All achieve what I proposed, especially when the neces- of the members have admirable personal qualities and sary conditions were not in place on either side, I was diverse life experiences; we were able to establish a able to offer suggestions on how to improve relations wonderful dynamic. As an individual, I found it deep- between both countries. ly satisfying to share my own perceptions and under- standing of relations between Ecuador and Colombia.

77 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Overall, the binational dialogue experience was ence — through different editorials, press releases, highly valuable, but we made the mistake of see- articles, television programs, forums, and seminars in ing ourselves as mediators of the conflict between different cities in Ecuador and Colombia — it can play Ecuador and Colombia. If nothing else, we sent this an important role in bringing countries closer togeth- impression at the wrong time. While the group has er and promoting greater integration. now absorbed this lesson and understands that it I believe that the Binational Dialogue Group needs to avoid this impression of playing a mediator’s should continue its efforts but not necessarily with role, it does have significant potential as a facilitator. the same members. Someone within the group sug- In the different fields in which they are engaged, the gested that we could involve other actors in the group members can have a direct or indirect influ- future. It strikes me as a wonderful idea that at the ence on the relationship between these two countries moment, there are between 10 and 12 of us on each to bring them closer or at the very side but one day there could be 200 least to discourage any further dete- of us. Of course this would require rioration. resources, support, etc., but we Until diplomatic relations are The binational dialogue have to think ambitiously. I believe re-established between the two that the more people who can par- countries, the group can help by experience was highly ticipate in this type of experience, maintaining the flexibility of other valuable, but we made the the more valuable it becomes. relationships, on the civil society mistake of seeing ourselves I hope funding exists so that level or between local governments. as mediators of the conflict the group, with the support of The It can promote initiatives such between Ecuador and Carter Center and other institu- as the academic conferences or tions such as the United Nations, forums for local governments from Colombia . If nothing else, can continue to work toward its both countries like the ones the we sent this impression at the initiatives that have proven so group organized. These initiatives wrong time . valuable for me as a person, as a make an impact in the sense that professional, and for my country. I they support greater understanding think that just before the end of its between both countries. first phase, the group got the presi- I believe that we should promote understand- dents of the two countries to understand its purpose. ing among Colombians of why Ecuador’s perspec- That is vital. It is an accomplishment that could be tive is what it is and also among Ecuadorians of why wasted if the group disappears, and it is an accom- Colombia sees things as it does. That is the path to plishment that could be built upon by the next group a middle ground where our different perspectives can that receives a favorable reaction from both govern- come together. ments. I would like to see the Binational Dialogue In conclusion, I would say that these types of Group help facilitate the Latin American and South initiatives should continue, and I thank President American integration we want so dearly. One of Carter, The Carter Center, the United Nations, and the greatest obstacles to Latin American integration all of the people who made this initiative possible. right now is the lack of formal diplomatic relations Andrés Valdivieso is an attorney with experience in negotiation, between Ecuador and Colombia. Until these rela- alternative conflict resolution, and mediation methods in the tions are restored, South American integration will public and private sector. He was an adviser to the former minis- be very difficult and will take much longer. Given ter for the coordination of internal and external security, Gustavo Larrea. the Binational Dialogue Group’s areas of influ-

78 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Unfortunately, the Binational Dialogue Group Galo Mora dealt with a difficult hand from reality. Neither Socializing Through Art The Carter Center nor the group members had the and Culture power to change the situation that came down on us. I believe that the group could not effect radical hen I participated in the Binational Dialogue changes in the public’s perceptions because we were WGroup, the first thing that affected me was the not in a position to manipulate the reality that sur- growing, supportive, and brotherly interest of former rounded us. All the same, in terms of initiative, I U.S. President Jimmy Carter in getting involved with believe that the efforts put forth by the Binational an issue that in theory should have been far removed Dialogue Group have been the most coherent possi- from his peaceful situation. His decision to look ble. Instead of intensifying the confrontation, through beyond his peaceful life, to get involved in complex this binational dialogue mechanism, we attempted to and serious conflicts — like the Colombian armed discuss our problems as a group and reach agreements conflict that led to the violation of Ecuadorian sover- between our country’s opinion-makers. eignty on March 1, 2008 — deserves recognition from For me, this experience of a few months with the everyone. President Carter’s dedication to democ- Binational Dialogue Group has had a profoundly racy is what brought us to this binational dialogue human component. On a personal level, I felt a initiative. So, the first recognition I want to offer, brotherhood within the group, and that is very impor- beyond anything about the relationship between tant. We need to be supportive, not neglect Nariño Ecuador – Colombia, is to President Carter and The and Espejo, and not forget two groups of people who Carter Center. are similar. We have to think about borders the way I believe that this experience of the Binational Neil Armstrong saw them from the moon in 1969: Dialogue Group has brought us many lessons. In the as if they don’t exist. Borders are an imposition of first meeting that took place in Atlanta, we encoun- politics and geopolitics. At the same time, they are tered intense contradictions between the members now irreversible in the majority of the world. One of from the two countries. After two or three days in my dear friends — a Jewish Austrian doctor who was the meeting, however, we also discovered hidden exiled in 1936 — used to tell me that “geography is friendships and affinities that were deeply human. For more exact than history in defining borders.” It’s true. example, I discovered a great deal of literary talent However, even if these physical borders have been among different Colombian members. I also think long determined and will be difficult to modify with that this initiative has contributed to strengthen- our political efforts today, the brotherhood between ing the image of Latin American brotherhood that our peoples extends far beyond the lines of the border. has been at the breaking point on several occasions. Unfortunately, because I was appointed minister Another lesson I took from this dialogue was the need of culture, I was able to participate in the Binational to avoid wars that are absurd, anachronistic for the Dialogue Group only through Feb. 20, 2008. Upon 21st century, and that pit brother against brother. becoming minister, I had to leave this forum of such Overall, I would highlight three points to summarize creativity, reflection, and talent. As a result, I could this experience: first, my admiration for President be present in only the first meetings of the group. Carter; second, the achievement of finding great In those meetings, I proposed that art and culture affinity and empathy between the Ecuadorian mem- provided mediums where we could find fundamental bers and the Colombian members of the group; and points of unity. I am not sure whether the group was third, the collective will of the group to avoid getting able to pursue any initiatives in this area. From what bogged down in differences and instead focusing on I have learned in following the group’s activities, I everything that unites us. have watched with great optimism as it coordinated 79 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia academic activities. It is always frustrating to have to environment for peace building. It is very important leave a forum so rich in ideas and so crucial for peace. to permanently maintain this forum for meeting and When I joined the Binational Dialogue Group, reflection with the incorporation of other social, I worked in the government but I did not represent political, and academic actors from each country. the government, considering that on They could expand the participation foreign relations, the only govern- to other sectors, such as the border ment representatives are the presi- authorities and institutions with a dent and the foreign minister. What Right now, the major specific stake in these zones. I am I contributed, then, was a better also convinced that we should not understanding of the effort put forth challenge is maintaining forget about art and culture as areas by The Carter Center. For example, and legitimizing the of common ground between the two in preparation for the most recent binational dialogue forum countries. visit to Ecuador by President Carter, as an environment for Finally, I want to express my deep just as in preparation for the previous peace building . gratitude for this initiative promoted meeting between President Correa by President Carter and The Carter and the members of the Binational Center, because there are no second- Dialogue Group, I was able to offer ary interests behind it; it is transpar- some information so that the government would have ent and real, as the life of Jimmy Carter has been. a better understanding of the nature of this supportive Galo Mora was private secretary for President of the Republic effort. of Ecuador Rafael Correa. He served as the minister of culture Right now, the major challenge is maintaining (2008–2009), director of speeches, and a cultural adviser and legitimizing the binational dialogue forum as an (2007–2008). He is a writer, composer, musician, and anthropologist.

80 The Carter Center

Selection of Articles, Interviews, and Press Notes by the Members of the Binational Dialogue Group

tarian exchange for the FARC’s hostages, but I prefer Uribe in Montecristi to concentrate on another idea that I see as more By Francisco Carrión Mena probable or is at least what I would like to believe: that the Colombian President wanted to offer a ges- mid all of the festivities happening in honor ture of support to Ecuador by accompanying President of the opening ceremonies of the Constituent A Correa as he rolls out the first major political proposal Assembly in Montecristi, I believe there is one event of his administration. that has not been fully recognized — except to com- It stands out that Uribe has come to Ecuador in ment that he did not wear the traditional regional the midst of this strained situation. Our country sombrero or that he didn’t receive the proper standard should appreciate this attitude and return it in some of treatment: the presence of President Álvaro Uribe fashion to help restore the level of at the inaugural ceremony. importance that should correspond After extending invitations to all to the relations between our two of the presidents in South America countries and is the level that their and much speculation over the The Colombian President peoples, through civil society, insis- attendance of some of them, par- wanted to offer a gesture tently demand. ticularly Hugo Chávez and Alan of support to Ecuador by Without retreating from the firm García, the only and probably least accompanying President positions Ecuador has in its diver- expected attendee was the president Correa as he rolls out the gences with Colombia, this gesture of Colombia. could encourage the recommitment Why do I say the least expected? first major political proposal to using direct dialogue for all of the Well, the tensions that have unfor- of his administration . issues on the agenda, including the tunately been affecting the relations most difficult ones, with frankness between Colombia and Ecuador and pragmatism, to reach a solu- for some time now are well known — especially over tion or at least a path to one. I am not certain but recent weeks, in light of some incidents at the border I do hope that in Montecristi, despite the fact that and the heated exchange of public statements by the it wasn’t the perfect moment for it, there was some countries’ ministers of Defense — due to the scant exchange of ideas between the two presidents on how respect that Colombia traditionally pays its neigh- to clear the impasses between them. I also hope that bor to the south and the known political differences Uribe’s symbolic visit will be followed by other dem- between President Uribe and President Rafael Correa. onstrations, next time more concrete, to address the How should we interpret Uribe’s presence in legitimate complaints that Ecuador has been raising Montecristi? We could speculate on various hypoth- in the areas of reparations for the Ecuadorians affect- eses, such as the idea that the eventual meeting with ed by violence, aerial glyphosate fumigations, security Chávez would have provided an opportunity to dia- at the border, and the respect for our sovereignty. All logue with the Venezuelan leader about the “impasse” in the name of reclaiming the ideal path for essential produced between their governments as a result of his normalization: direct dialogue. withdrawal from negotiating on behalf of the humani- — El Comercio, Quito, December 8, 2007 81 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

In this context, we have passed through a chapter Mandatory Courtesy that has harmed the people and the government of Toward Colombia Colombia, a chapter that we should try to put an end to in the interest of our positive and growing By Alfredo Negrete relationship. I’m referring to the practice of declaring n these years since it initiated the economic that Ecuador shares a border not with the Colombian Imilitary plan that it signed on to with the United government but with the FARC, which clashes with States, we have learned a great deal about the our official position on the neighboring conflict. In Republic of Colombia, its inhab- essence, Ecuador has made it itants and its governments. apparent in numerous different Throughout this forced process ways that its only negotiating we have had numerous disagree- partner is the Colombian gov- ments and annoyances, such In this context, we have passed ernment. At the same time, we as the instances of glyphosate through a chapter that has have explicitly refrained from classifying the irregular group fumigations near our territory, harmed the people and the the cost of our preventive mili- known as FARC as “belliger- tary defense and — for reasons government of Colombia, a ent,” which is instigating a cruel of humanitarian support — of chapter that we should try to put conflict with the government providing for numerous groups an end to in the interest of our and the people in that country. of Colombian refugees and dis- positive and growing relationship . Under these conditions, knowing placed persons. that, according to the standards We have also seen many of political science, territory is positive things that demonstrate a constitutive part of the state, the intertwined lifestyles of the border communi- as are the population, author- ties, however, as well as a diplomatic agenda that is ity, and sovereignty, we cannot afford to commit this becoming reality, as we will see in the next meeting contradiction in our public statements. of the Binational Commission in April or the formal Ecuador and Colombia have a long way to go, and meeting between the foreign ministers of both coun- although our many difficulties will not disappear, the tries on the Rumichaca Bridge in May. All of this is intensity of our historical relationship should lead to a part of the strategy to form a Border Integration Zone binational development process with mutual benefits. under the auspices of the Andean Community, which — El Comercio, Quito, February 9, 2008 is planning to implement a Binational Development Plan on both sides of the border.

82 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

For example, when Chávez decides to serve as the Correa Is Not foreign minister of the FARC, Correa, although he Chávez’s Pawn doesn’t call them terrorists, is unafraid to point out that many of their actions fit that bill and does not By Rafael Nieto Loaiza hesitate to “completely reject the acts they commit ecent events have shown us just how many dif- in Colombia.” While the lieutenant colonel urges Rferences distinguish Hugo Chávez from Rafael them to cease acting belligerently, the Ecuadorian Correa, despite the fact that they are in agreement president explicitly states that they will never do so. on some issues. The left in Latin America is a varied While Chávez suggests the integration of military group that includes devout forces through ALBA, Ecuador democrats, pluralists, and fiscal responds that it would rather not conservatives, as well as sectari- embark on that adventure. It’s ans, radicals, and those inclined Why not encourage a major obvious that Quito is making a to employ violence to achieve meeting between the presidents and concerted, systematic effort to distinguish itself from Caracas. their ends. The same thing is their Cabinets, like the one held true around here. If here we Someone will tell me that, have Lucho and Angelino, between Ecuador and Peru after despite all this, Correa chimed then Lula is over there, all with their small border war, in which in and echoed Chávez in stat- the same background in labor we resolve the bulk of our problems ing that Ecuador’s northern unions, popular support, and and decisively promote the positive border is with the FARC. It was an unacceptable flippancy, commitment to democracy. If agenda between us? here we have Tabaré Vásquez, to be sure, first committed by with a solid professional back- Wellington Sandoval, his min- ground and old ties to the ister of Defense, but it was a Tupamaro guerillas, there we have Navarro Wolff. reflection of the belief about our southern neighbors While Chile practices socialism and orthodox free that is held in certain sectors of the government, that market economics, we also have leftist economists Colombia does not have a sufficient military presence with an impeccable command of their field, such as at the border, rather than a direct attempt to offend Kalmanovitz. And of course, if beyond our borders us. Moreover, recent exchanges with high-level we recognize larger-than-life personalities like Daniel Ecuadorian officials lead me to believe that Correa Ortega and Evo Morales with about as much sophisti- does not realize the indignation these statements stir cation as cavemen, we have our own versions here as up for Colombians and that if he had been aware of well. that he would have refrained from making them. But back to my original point. I said that the This ignorance, which is frequently a result of the executives of Ecuador and Venezuela are very differ- prejudices and stereotypes held by groups on the Latin ent. And these differences, beyond their vastly dif- American left toward the violence in Colombia as ferent personal backgrounds — Correa has a pair of well as Uribe’s government, is ultimately more evi- master’s degrees and a doctorate and speaks several dence that it is essential for us to roll out a strategy languages; Chávez is a military golpista and is coarse, for promoting understanding with our neighbor to the self-taught, and inclined toward using the language south. In Quito they recognize how much Uribe him- of violence — begin to show themselves in the two self has done, considering that he was the only head countries’ treatment of Colombia. of state to attend the opening ceremonies of Ecuador’s constituent assembly and the personal call he made to Correa after his unfortunate statements on the border 83 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia region. But our diplomacy cannot afford to rely solely on defense and sit around until there are fires to put Our Relations out. with Colombia In this case, we need to rebuild the relationship between the two countries and work together proac- By Manuel Chiriboga Vega tively. The areas of conflict almost all boil down to ur relations with Colombia could be described matters of security. Some of them are relatively easy Oas profoundly interrelated. Thousands of to resolve (we have almost double the active military Colombian citizens live in our country, escaping personnel in the zone compared to Ecuador, and in the problems of insecurity or simply seeking alterna- Quito they do not realize it). And now that Bogotá tive work opportunities. Many of them have become has decided to strengthen the manual eradication actively integrated in our families and neighborhoods; program, it should be possible to reach a gentleman’s some of them have started prosperous businesses agreement to refrain from fumigating in the 10-km that provide work to many Ecuadorians; others are zone requested by our neighbors (Colombia can’t capable professionals, in fields from journalism to commit to this in writing, because that would imply business management; a good number have joined that there are conditions in place outside of Colombia groups and associations in civil society. There are also for advancing in the fight against criminal activ- Ecuadorians on the other side of the border, as you ity). Others, such as the stereotype of Colombians as see when you visit any artisan market in Colombia criminals, will require the media to abandon its use of and encounter Otavaleño craftsmen offering their the caricature. Perhaps the most difficult issue will be products. Ecuadorian investors have started ventures Ecuador’s reluctance to participate in joint operations in metalworking or nutritional products. There is also to address criminal activity along the border, even an active exchange in education. though the coordination route would open up some They also represent an important trade partner for possibilities that have not been sufficiently explored. Ecuador, actually the second most important, and To conclude, Correa is not Chávez’s pawn. Uribe we are the third most important for Colombia. Our knows this. Why not encourage a major meeting exports in 2007 were on the order of 650 million dol- between the presidents and their Cabinets, like the lars, and they sold us some 1.1 billion dollars in goods. one held between Ecuador and Peru after their small The products we imported included chemical, paper, border war, in which we resolve the bulk of our plastic, vehicular, and nutritional products. For our problems and decisively promote the positive agenda part we sold them nutritional products such as rice between us? and corn, vehicles, footwear, tuna fish, and cookware, — Semana magazine, February 16, 2008 among others. These figures fail to encompass the entirety of the commercial activity that takes place at the border, with goods such as gasoline cylinders or agricultural products crossing under the radar, and little by little across the two senses of the border. Despite all this, our political relations with Colombia over the past few years have been plagued with difficulties. In large part, this is because the Colombian government spent a long time committing abuses under the mantle of its fight against subversive activity: fumigations in the border zone that affected rural and indigenous Ecuadorians; Colombian mili-

84 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia tary actions that crossed over the border and caused deaths, injuries, and material damages; reduced sup- The Border Will Be port for our country’s efforts to take in Colombian Threatened Again refugees; or its military presence along the border. It’s also certain that for a long time Ecuador has been Interview with Adrián Bonilla excessively condescending. uito and Bogotá have turned down the volume, When the current government tried to address Qbut the root issues that divide them are not these things, proposing a relationship with Colombia resolved, warns expert Adrián Bonilla. And he argues based on mutual respect — with no fumigations, that the United States was the biggest loser because no military operations that cross the border or that of its inability to exert an influence in the crisis. require our involvement in Colombia’s internal con- Hugo Chávez, Álvaro Uribe and Rafael Correa flict — it was very poorly received by our neighboring shared a hug and declared the end of the crisis that countrymen. But I think that the clear message that held the region in suspense for all of last week. But was sent by the president and other Ecuadorian dip- despite their words of good will, the wounds are still lomatic actors was overall understood by Colombia. very much open and we still don’t know what is likely There are a lot of positive signals in this sense: sus- to happen from here. Adrián Bonilla, an analyst pension of the fumigations along the border, President and the director of FLACSO in Ecuador, spoke with Uribe’s attendance at the inauguration of the con- Página 12 by phone and ruled that the United States stituent assembly, support for the UNHCR for its was the biggest loser of the crisis. “All of the coun- activities in Ecuador or the most recent public state- tries in the Rio Group acted deliberately to impede or ments by the commanding officer of the Colombian limit its presence,” he explained. Armed Forces, which recognized the effort put forth by Ecuador, in the aftermath of the death of two What did Friday’s agreement mean? Ecuadorian soldiers in an explosion of military materi- – It meant that the crisis is over, but not the underly- als that were obviously from the northern side of the ing conflict. Basically it ended the tension produced border. as a result of the Colombian attack on Ecuadorian Ecuador has also made some positive gestures, territory, but it did not create any type of procedure, such as keeping its distance from the subject of the whether international or bilateral, that would ensure Venezuelan – Nicaraguan military agreement or its that the border will not be a threat on their respec- clear opposition to recognizing the FARC as a bel- tive security agendas. The international community ligerent force. While recognizing the unavoidable has failed to produce any mechanism to ensure a differences that the two presidents will certainly face solution if this situation presents itself again, and it on many issues, however, we need their relationship is clear that this type of incident could be repeated to grow to a higher level. This should include their at any time. promotion of the Border Integration Zone as well as How can the relationship with Colombia be rebuilt periodic meetings between their ministries on vari- after everything that has happened? ous subjects, while seeking a more balanced trade relationship and using greater care with their words. – On the security issues I don’t believe that will be Saying that we share a border with the FARC irritates possible for now, except with the intervention of Colombia; aligning ourselves geopolitically under- one or more outside parties, whether the OAS or a mines the country. group of countries that can monitor, observe, and — El Universo, Quito, February 18, 2008 guarantee the conduct of both countries at the bor- der. – And beyond security …

85 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

– The principal problem that Ecuador has with there acted deliberately to impede or limit its pres- Colombia is that they both have distinct visions of ence. The United States came out losing because their security agendas. Colombia feels that the con- it was unable to play any part in the resolution and flict goes beyond its borders, and Ecuador feels it is because it was never called upon to do so. an internal problem exclusive to Colombia. And the winners? Where does the rest of the region stand now that – Undoubtedly they are the three protagonists of this the crisis has been deactivated? story. The Venezuelan president achieved a kind of – The Ecuadorian conflict crys- political resurrection in the wake tallized a diverse range of of the political hits he suffered positions in a region that has on the international scene in late different agendas, priorities, The principal problem that 2007. Uribe also came out with and policies. But it didn’t reach Ecuador has with Colombia a very good standing. Despite the levels of polarization that the fact that he was implic- we saw during the Cold War. is that they both have distinct itly censured by the majority of What we have is a group of visions of their security agendas . countries, the crisis concluded countries that identify with Colombia feels that the conflict with impunity with respect to American interests, and others goes beyond its borders, and the specific instance of violence. that prefer to distance them- And Ecuador, because despite its Ecuador feels it is an internal selves from those interests. small size relative to Colombia, it There is no confrontation or problem exclusive to Colombia . has achieved a favorable interna- “collision.” tional environment for protect- ing the security of its territory. Didn’t the crisis accentuate that division? Despite the participation of heavyweights such – It could have, but I still believe that this isn’t a as Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, and Argentina, confrontation; it’s different points of view. We’re President Correa was able to preserve his leading not facing two distinct political blocs; it’s simply a role in the process. Has he consolidated his heterogeneous environment. The map of the region leadership in the region? is just far more diverse than it was in the Cold War – The president’s image has been strengthened, that’s era, that’s all. a certainty. His personality is very interesting for the rest of the world, and thanks to his firm posi- Who were the winners and losers of this conflict? tion in the final days he was able to neutralize his – The loser, if you can call it that, is the United image as Venezuela’s lesser ally. However, if any- States. It could not play the role that it has tended thing was clear after the crisis, it was that he is an to play in past crises. The forum used for the ulti- ally of Chávez. That’s why I say that the Venezuelan mate resolution was not the OAS, where it has a government was one of the winners. The crisis, and strong presence, but the Rio Group, which they especially its resolution, allowed it to escape from are specifically not a part of. All of the countries the ostracism it seemed to be trapped by. — Página 12, Buenos Aires, March 10, 2008

86 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

dential campaign in 1976. The years have worn a The Return to slight curve in his back, but they have only further Political Ethics solidified the pillars of his personality: humility and dedication to moral and ethical principles. In an By Patricia Estupiñán de Burbano interview with Time magazine, he said that he felt merican historians were less than kind in their “a kinship with Jefferson, with his humility. George Aassessment of the administration of their 39th Washington was almost worshiped as a deity when president, Jimmy Carter: high inflation and a geo- he left the White House. Jefferson tried to downplay political loss in Iran, with the humiliation of the the exaltation of the president above and beyond the kidnapping of embassy officials in Teheran and a average citizen. I was ridiculed to some degree because failed military rescue. However, as a former president, I carried my own bag, always, even when I was presi- he has earned the highest marks from all sources: dent.” This humility is reflected in his actions: He lis- through The Carter Center he has been the great- tens to his fellow negotiators attentively, demonstrat- est ambassador for the values that made his country ing a genuine desire to learn about where and how to so celebrated — the defense of freedom, democracy, help. During his speech at the FLACSO conference, peace, and solidarity — and for which he won the he made the following analysis about the process of Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. social change going on in Ecuador: In effect, since he lost his reelection campaign to “We believe that if this country can build solid Ronald Reagan in 1981, Jimmy Carter has not missed and independent institutions, it will more easily cre- a single day at his frenetic pace of public service. ate a common destiny and shared identity. Of course Together with his wife Rosalynn he founded The no one can come in from the outside to tell the Carter Center in 1982, dedicated to “waging peace Ecuadorian people what they should and should not and alleviating human suffering.” His peace-waging do. The nature, profile and quality of the institutions efforts have resulted in some of these most impres- being built is the sole decision and responsibility of sive accomplishments: the mediation of conflicts in the Ecuadorian people.” Bosnia and Haiti, support for electoral processes in He added that democratic institutions are not more than 70 countries, and the permanently engaged “simply bodies of law” but are instead built through defense of political prisoners and human rights. In the ethical actions of the men and women who terms of the alleviation of human suffering, he has involve themselves in public service. He stressed the completed a tenacious and successful effort to elimi- importance of sincere democratic conduct by political nate the Guinea worm in 90 percent of the affected representatives “because their actions are a model for populations, ones without access to potable water in social behavior.” Being a warrior on behalf of moral various African countries; efforts to combat elephan- and ethical principles is not always well understood. tiasis and river blindness in populations in Guatemala His position on the need to create a Palestinian and Ecuador; campaigns to eradicate malaria and the state or suspending the embargo on has meant study of alternatives to cure other poverty-related a separation from even fellow party members as he afflictions, thanks to an agreement with the pres- describes in his book “We Can Have Peace in the tigious Emory University, the most recognized in Holy Land” (“Podemos Alcanzar la Paz en la Tierra Georgia, the state in which The Carter Center is Santa”), published in 2009. “What’s wrong is wrong,” located. he sustains, while mentioning that he was born and At 84 years of age, he is completely lucid, and raised in Georgia. maintains the smile that could advertise tooth paste, “My family was the only white family in my com- for which he was so admired starting from his presi- munity and all of my childhood friends were black, but ... they did not have equal rights. In 1970, when 87 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

I was sworn in as governor of the state of Georgia, are suffering from the presence of a violent group when Martin Luther King had started the path, I of criminals that trade in drugs and call themselves said that the time had come to end racial discrimina- “revolutionaries,” but I hope that both Ecuador and tion. Three weeks later I was on the cover of Time Colombia will promptly reestablish diplomatic rela- magazine as an unknown Southern governor, simply tions in a way that will be acceptable to both coun- because of those statements.” tries.” As president, Carter was an impassioned advocate He agrees that politics and the world have changed of human rights and democracy. “The United States dramatically over the past decades: did not invent human rights; human rights invented “The revolution in communications and the abil- the United States. The United States got involved ity to access boundless information in real time has with every dictator on the planet that would protect had a profound impact on the practices of politics. its North American business interests against com- In the beginning it seemed that politics as we know munist threats. This was especially true in Latin it could be replaced by marketing and propaganda America.” As a result of his efforts, the political map machines, and today there are still some who believe of the region went through a 180-degree transforma- this. However, while the role of political parties as tion. He watched as many dictatorships were replaced a source for transmitting information and mediating by civil governments, and he finished collecting the between leaders and voters has been severely weak- necessary signatures for the treaty to return the canal ened, media outlets that are solid, independent and to the people of Panama. unbiased can generate a decisive political impact. At He observes with satisfaction that there have been the same time, we can build a better society and make significant advances in the region, even though he it more difficult to hide arbitrariness, dishonesty and believes there is still a long way to go. bad faith.” “Human rights were the foundation of my foreign For Carter, we are living through a rebirth of pub- policy during my administration. Political rights have lic ethics and morality. Recalling the words of his been accepted by everyone. However, civil rights grade school teacher, Julia Coleman, he concludes: are not consistently protected: discrimination still “We should adjust to the changing times, but stand exists in many of these countries, especially against behind our unchangeable values. It is impossible to indigenous and African American peoples, and not build institutions, strengthen democracy or promote everyone has equal access to justice. The region has a the public good without respect for moral values. long way to go in order to guarantee economic, social Historically, in order to survive, a leader must put and cultural rights, which are equally important. Civil the community’s interests above his or her own; be rights protect the citizens from abuses by others or by honest, compassionate for those who are in need and the government. Social, economic and cultural rights work to resolve disagreements. constitute the principal obligation of governments. “In conclusion, to address the challenges of the They should provide their citizens with a decent, new historic cycle we are facing today, we need to peaceful life and this peace should prevail not just in recover our ethics and values, give a new quality to each country, but across the entire continent. our dialogue, strengthen our shared vision and devel- “I agree with President Obama on his decision op our ability to work together, within nations and to initiate a new relationship with Cuba and I hope between nations. Working together we will succeed, that other conflicts such as the one between Ecuador divided we will fail.” and Colombia will also be resolved. Without dia- logue, change is not possible. I know that Ecuador’s national dignity was hurt by the Colombian incursion at Angostura and also that the people of Colombia 88 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Change is possible. policy will benefit the poor and working families Excerpts from President Carter’s conference at the and not the rich.” Latin American School of Social Sciences: • “Consistency and perseverance in democratic con- • “When I became President, there were only two duct are the best way to preserve these institutions.” democracies in South America, and one in Central • “Today, Latin America has one of the lowest tax America. In Argentina, and Chile, and Peru, and burdens in the world and relies on regressive sales Brazil, and — I could go down a long list — Ecuador, taxes. At the same time Latin America has the , ; they highest regional average of were all dictatorships. Now inequality in the world. These they’re democracies and the two facts are inextricably people have a new awareness linked. To make progress on of their own basic rights.” We need to recover our ethics and inequality requires a more pro- • “I am happy to see the values, give a new quality to our gressive tax system. strong will of the people of dialogue, strengthen our shared • “Those with more resources Ecuador for putting an end vision and develop our ability to work will be more willing to share those resources if they know to the decades of instability together, within nations and between and chaos using democratic the resources will be used means, such as elections and nations . Working together we will effectively and efficiently, the promotion of human succeed, divided we will fail . have some certainty that rights. It gives me great sat- the agreed-upon rules will isfaction to know that the be respected rather than rights of women to partici- arbitrarily changed and can pate in politics are especially protected.” participate in the decisions • “Some months ago, before the elections in the on revenue-sharing.” U.S., I was interviewed by a journalist from Great • “We believe that if this country can build solid Britain, who asked me what I would do if I was the and independent institutions, it will more easily future president of the United States to change the create a common destiny and shared identity. image of America around the world in the first 100 The nature, profile and quality of the institutions days. And my response to him was that it can be being built is the sole decision and responsibility changed in the first ten minutes, which got a laugh of the Ecuadorian people.” from the audience. I added that in my inaugural With the support of The Carter Center and address I would say that while I’m president, we the United Nations, two years ago the Binational will never torture another person; we will never Dialogue Group was formed, composed of Colombian launch an attack on another nation unless our own and Ecuadorian citizens from different fields, to work security is directly threatened; we will be a leader in toward greater understanding of the situations in both addressing the issue of climate change and our tax countries. — Vistazo Magazine, Guayaquil, May 30, 2008

89 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Ecuador, glyphosate sprayings, and frequent diplo- Thank You, Mr. Carter matic misunderstandings, Carter took the initiative to By Francisco Carrión Mena promote reconciliation between the parties through actors in civil society, under the auspices of the U.N. here are some who say that he wasn’t a great and with the agreement of their governments, to president of the United States, but almost every- T achieve greater understanding. one agrees that he has been the best former president And when we were presented with Colombia’s that country has ever had. In effect, Jimmy Carter illegal, illegitimate, armed incursion at Angostura ended his administration on bad terms and was not and the breakdown in diplomatic relations, Carter reelected despite his truly admirable conduct on cer- acted quickly and decisively. He tain international issues such made several direct telephone as arranging the return of the calls to presidents Correa and Panama Canal through the Uribe to persuade them to take Torrijos – Carter agreements When relations between Ecuador the first step toward normal- and the achievement of peace and Colombia became even tenser izing their bilateral relations. between Israel and Egypt with due to the conflicts at their border He stood behind his word and the Camp David Accords. But provoked by irregular armed his reputation, acting wisely and from the time he left the White politically. He didn’t waste time House, in January 1981, Carter incursions into Ecuador, glyphosate with bureaucratic formalities, dedicated all of his effort and sprayings, and frequent diplomatic knowing that the problem, apart his reputation to helping to misunderstandings, Carter took the from the violation of a principle resolve conflicts, consolidate initiative to promote reconciliation of international law, was also democracy, and defend human between the parties through political. And he secured the rights around the world. With reestablishment of diplomatic these objectives, he founded actors in civil society, under the relations. The Carter Center, headquar- auspices of the U .N . and with the Carter’s leadership revealed tered in Atlanta, as the organiz- agreement of their governments, to the slowness of the OAS. His ing actor behind his initiatives. achieve greater understanding . actions were more fruitful than His work has been successful those of that stiff organization, and renowned worldwide. In which missed a grand opportu- 2002 he won the Nobel Peace nity to reclaim the leadership it should wield on issues Prize for his contributions to understanding between of peace and security in the region. human beings and for his active participation in This is a good start. Now it is up to the two gov- humanitarian causes. His prestige has continued to ernments to make an effort so that, after making grow over the years, and his presence as a media- reparations on this case and recognizing their respec- tor has been sought in many international conflicts. tive realities, they reestablish old mechanisms or cre- Carter is now the voice of moral authority for his ate new ones to normalize their relations based on great country, which has been so diminished over the their commitment to mutual respect and compliance past few years. with the standards of international law. But for the When relations between Ecuador and Colombia moment, Ecuador and Colombia should say, “Thanks, became even tenser due to the conflicts at their Mr. Carter!” border provoked by irregular armed incursions into — El Comercio, Quito, June 14, 2008

90 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

solved before the events of March 1, 2008, such as Good Signs Between the process of border integration, while also address- Colombia and Ecuador ing the security agendas of both countries with an open and constructive approach. For Colombia, it will By Guillermo Rivera continue to be important to secure a commitment to he comments by the foreign ministers of cooperate in the fight against the FARC, while for TColombia and Ecuador about taking steps Ecuador it will continue to be important to ensure toward the reestablishment of diplomatic relations that Colombia will live up to its commitment to not between their countries have been stimulating. While cross the border of its neighbor to the south. Colombia doubted some of How will we reach agree- the Ecuadorian government’s ment on security concerns? posture toward the FARC, Colombia needs to come up with a Colombia should take the initiative but should modify Ecuador expressed its own persuasive, diplomatic and intelligent concerns over what it consid- its discourse, as the one it ers to be a violation of the strategy to achieve the region’s forced across our borders is sovereignty of its territory. wholehearted support for its fight against the same one it has expressed Colombia, for legitimate the FARC . Ecuador should be the top within them. In effect, the Colombian government has reasons, wants to defeat the priority of such a strategy, first of all FARC and demands the repeatedly expressed that the cooperation of its neigh- because right now there is a receptive democratic security policy bors; Ecuador, for its part, environment for it and second of all must be established to defeat has come to view respect for because its cooperation is absolutely all illegal armed organizations its territory as a matter of necessary for the total success of its that are active in its national territory, and the majority national honor since its past democratic security policy . territorial conflict with Peru. of Colombians support that Despite the legitimacy of idea. But assuming that the the complaints made by each government, neither citizens of other nations, one will benefit from keeping its diplomatic relations whether they’re neighbors or not, should fully support frozen. For one thing, it would be a shame to let the that notion without them living through Colombia’s FARC come between these democratically elected reality is just wishful thinking neighboring governments, whose peoples have a com- Colombia needs to come up with a persuasive, mon history and a fluid trade relationship. diplomatic and intelligent strategy to achieve the The diplomatic relations between governments are region’s wholehearted support for its fight against the borne out of the need for the citizens of one country FARC. Ecuador should be the top priority of such a to interact with those from another country, and this strategy, first of all because right now there is a recep- need is even stronger when the countries are neigh- tive environment for it and second of all because its bors. Therefore, binational relations can’t depend on cooperation is absolutely necessary for the total suc- the whims, arrogance, or pride of whoever is in office. cess of its democratic security policy. This isn’t to say that there is no room for legitimate This is how the reestablishment of binational rela- differences — on the contrary, those are normal — but tions has become, for the Colombian government, international law is full of instruments for resolving an immense obstacle to its goal of achieving effec- them. tive cooperation with our neighboring country to the Now the major challenge is reopening binational south. relations and readdressing the issues that were unre- — El Periódico, Bogotá, June 21, 2008 91 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

tions with Colombia is affecting the sovereignty Shooting Ourselves in of the people who live in Imbabura, in Carchi, in the Foot Esmeraldas, and Sucumbíos, to start with. It directly affects all of the tradespeople and entrepreneurs who By Grace Jaramillo do business with Colombia, and it’s keeping in wait- espite the fact that the week in politics has put ing all of the entrepreneurs who were involved in or Dout fires on all fronts for the government, we planning investments to generate work related to the need to reflect (I would prefer the term reconsider) Colombian market. This is the sovereignty that we on what we are and aren’t doing with this country’s should be defending. The Angostura incident was met international relations. A year and a half of govern- by diplomatic and moral condemnation of Colombia ment and we are still without a clear, directional in almost every forum on the continent. What more foreign policy, in which we all know where we’re do we want? That international relations should be going and why. Some would say this can be found in some kind of medieval duel over a lady’s handker- the National Development Plan, which had a chapter chief? Shouldn’t we look for mechanisms to work on foreign policy; others would say that this govern- together even though we can’t stand the Colombian ment’s foreign policy is the defense of our sovereignty. government? Colombia bears a lot of responsibility, However, the events of this week have shown us that but we will have to make our own mea culpa. neither of those options is the case. But we have the same problem with trade issues: First, sovereignty means responsibility for a territo- We’re always in limbo with the CAN – European rial space and for the community of people who live Union negotiations; we align ourselves with within it. Sovereignty means defending the interests without real incentive, and now we adopt the Return of society as a whole against the external and also Directive — which affects illegal immigrants — as a defending its own democratic construction, according good pretext for threatening, rather than using this to its pace and its needs. At least these are the con- directive as a negotiating point. Once again, Ecuador cepts that we discuss in the classes on sovereignty, in fails to understand the world and its place within a sense simpler, and yet also more difficult to achieve it. To have sovereignty, you have to negotiate, with than the old absolute concepts of the Westphalian effectiveness and professionalism. And negotiating era. Sovereignty cannot be defended with sover- does not mean coming in with immovable positions, eignty — it is defended because there are people inside but rather resolving problems, entering into the world who have built a common way of life, and if we can’t rather than leaving it, and doing so without a chip understand this, we’ve lost our way. on your shoulders. The greatest risk for sovereignty is Second, when sovereignty is everything, it winds that we stop negotiating or, better said, that we have up meaning nothing … nothing that really changes such low self esteem that we end up shooting our- anyone’s life for the better. And now if we address selves in the foot. the key issues: Not reestablishing diplomatic rela- — El Comercio, Quito, June 28, 2008

92 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

positive steps. This shift can be seen in the decisions An Imperative Uribe announced on January 25 in Pasto, in response Reconciliation to the petition of the Advisory Commission and the requests of the Ecuadorian government. In addition to By Socorro Ramírez the 27,000 members of the armed forces already pres- n addition to restricting imports, a month after it ent at the border, in Nariño a Unified Command of Irevived the requirement of a criminal background the South and a permanent brigade of the Army will check for Colombians, the Ecuadorian government be established. opted to add on the need to Uribe also brought other initia- have it notarized before the tives to Pasto, such as the invest- Foreign Ministry. ment fund to help stimulate the It is absurd to think that bleak situation in Nariño and multiplying the requirements for Colombia and Ecuador will Putumayo after the fall of the persons passing legally across the benefit from the normalization of pyramids. And the minister of border would reduce the flow of relations . More than ever, each Defense heard out the protests of the Cofán indigenous people crime. That’s why, rather than country will have to remember addressing the problem of crime, over the installation of a military this measure and the unfortu- that for the sake of its own unit so close to their community. nate support of the minister of security it will need stable and Development, social empower- Government seem to insist on prosperous neighbors . ment, and a presence beyond the fingering Colombia as the only military will allow the state to source of Ecuador’s problems. turn around the situation at the The Colombian foreign min- border. ister called the measure an act of “discriminatory, At the start of President Correa’s third year and stigmatizing, and even xenophobic treatment,” in in the middle of a new electoral campaign, the response to which the Ecuadorian counterpart reiter- Ecuadorian government has had its sphere of action ated the idea that, in order to reestablish relations, diminish due to the world economic crisis, the drop both parties must overcome what Ecuador perceives in petroleum prices, the reduction of revenue, and the as an attempt to “undermine Ecuador.” She added problems caused by the dollarization of currency in that she “hoped that the concern of the Colombian its country. All of this, in addition to social protests, government and its Advisory Commission would problems with its economic policy, and commitments translate into concrete actions.” assumed in the new constitution, will demand that This refers to the petition made by the Advisory Ecuador adopt an open and proactive attitude to Commission to the Colombian government to renew address the range of its complex problems. An agree- efforts to reestablish relations with Ecuador, and also ment with Colombia would be beneficial. to President Uribe’s choice of words on January 23 Colombia and Ecuador will benefit from the nor- when he said: “It would be wonderful if we could take malization of relations. More than ever, each country steps to rebuild these relations.” will have to remember that for the sake of its own The government of Colombia is beginning to show security it will need stable and prosperous neighbors. signs of wanting to move past public statement to — El Espectador, Bogotá, January 27, 2009

93 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

to express their demands, which are as simple and The Country to straightforward as one can imagine: community proj- the North ects to collect shells, binational training on tradition- al fishing, a joint agreement for managing solid waste, By Grace Jaramillo the removal of the background check requirement his country that’s on the other side of the so that entrepreneurs can sell guinea pigs in Ecuador TMataje river, of San Miguel or Putumayo, that and bring tomatoes to Colombia, and binational tour- also shares borders with ism development projects, Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, so that the routes can be Panama, and even more shared. During the parade in Carchi on Colombian terri- countries, cannot be reduced Sometimes as Ecuadorians we forget to “Uribismo,” to its demo- tory you could barely notice cratic security policy, or its that this Colombia exists, and we any differences — the same war against the FARC. confuse it with President Uribe, drug houses, the same gardens, It is a country that, trafficking, and even with violence itself . and the same poverty. The list of requests from despite everything it has Sometimes we must seem the same way, weathered, continues to these modest people — side fight, continues making even though it isn’t so . We have even by side — who only want to endless pleas for its kidnap- forgotten that there is a civil society live in peace and have work ping victims, and continues in Colombia, a society that is capable to do, will never end. That insisting to everyone — to of getting organized, debating, and same Monday, we learned of two new tragedies in Pasto: the guerrillas, the paramili- protesting things that it feels are unjust . taries, the assassins — on its Seven indigenous Awás right to live in peace and from the Colombian side without violence. They are had been murdered by the a people who have struggled FARC, and a candidate for to survive the deaths of their loved ones, to their mayor, from the same side, had been murdered by international shame. paid assassins, perhaps associated with the paramili- Sometimes as Ecuadorians we forget that this taries. The Colombian conflict in its full dimensions: Colombia exists, and we confuse it with President The statistics might horrify us, but they don’t move Uribe, drug trafficking, and even with violence itself. our conscience. Sometimes we must seem the same way, even though It is crystal clear that the government’s position is it isn’t so. We have even forgotten that there is a civil not to reestablish diplomatic relations, but the people society in Colombia, a society that is capable of get- no longer agree. Maybe now is the time to talk, to ting organized, debating, and protesting things that it understand one another, even if it’s only about the feels are unjust. minimum shared agenda. This week, for example, a forum was held in Pasto The people who live along the northern border that was organized not by the central government but and on the Colombian side — in the midst of poverty, rather by the National University of Colombia, by the danger, and abandonment — are also a part of our mayor’s office of Pasto, and by the governor’s office sovereignty. And if we have to give some ground, on of Nariño, which is led by former militant member of both sides, so that they can have a better life, it will the M-19 Antonio Navarro Wolff. During the forum, be well worth it. dozens of inhabitants of the border zone attended — El Comercio, Quito, February 15, 2009

94 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

We see fewer and fewer paths to diplomatic solu- Hope for the President to tions and, without renouncing them altogether, the Remain Silent country should become deeply familiar with Ecuador’s intentions to judicialize our bilateral relations and By Augusto Ramírez Ocampo prepare itself to respond within the same channels, few weeks ago, President Rafael Correa warned as is its legitimate right in applying the U.N.’s resolu- A that diplomatic relations would wind up being tions against terrorism, along with many decisions by settled in the legal forums in the OAS and by other subre- which he had already initiated gional organizations. a claim over the fumigations at On the issue of commercial aggression, Colombia has an the border. We should continue exploring other These actions flared up from obligation to address them the indictment issued by a judge forums for international diplomacy, through the appropriate insti- in Sucumbíos against former including the mediation of such tutions within the Andean minister Juan Manuel Santos figures as former U .S . President Community of Nations and the and the resulting petition for a Jimmy Carter or some distinguished World Trade Organization. We should continue explor- “blue” notice by Interpol, which European leaders who would surely caused for the first time a strong ing other forums for interna- and justified reaction by the be disposed to support any effort to tional diplomacy, including state. normalize our relations . the mediation of such figures Now, the Attorney General as former U.S. President Jimmy of Ecuador has asked Interpol Carter or some distinguished for a “red” notice on Dr. Santos, European leaders who would to lead to his arrest anywhere around the world. surely be disposed to support any effort to normalize To these acts of judicial belligerence we can add our relations. the serious commercial decision, in violation of all And finally: We can only hope that Mr. President Andean norms, of imposing exorbitant customs stan- will stay quiet. dards on 1,460 products, only for Colombia. — El Tiempo, Bogotá, July 12, 2009

95 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

and the costs of protecting thousands of refugees. On Deaf and Blind the other side we have Colombia’s conviction that By Patricia Estupiñán de Burbano Ecuador has been blind to offer asylum to irregular groups that are engaged in a war against Colombia. he prison order for Colombian Minister of Talking about the differences between reality and Defense Juan Manuel Santos and the tit-for-tat T perception is useless because perceptions are the real- response by a group of attorneys from Bogotá to pros- ity of whoever perceives them. To untangle this giant ecute former Minister Gustavo Larrea and President knot, both perspectives have to be changed. Rafael Correa added fuel to the fire of the deteriorat- Unfortunately, the passage of time has only ed political relations between these two governments deepened the wounds. Given that we share a bor- and confirmed that, at least der of almost 600 kilometers, for the time being, diplomatic there should be major citizen reconciliation will remain an demands to reestablish rela- uphill battle. tions. However, given that the Throughout a year and a Given that we share a border affected people are those along half without relations, there of almost 600 kilometers, there the border who lack political has been no shortage of efforts should be major citizen demands to weight in both countries, this such as the summit of the pressure has not materialized. Rio Group in the Dominican reestablish relations . However, given It would have been different Republic or the good offices of that the affected people are those if the rupture had damaged OAS Secretary General José along the border who lack political trade relations, but Colombia Miguel Insulza and of former weight in both countries, this increased its exports to Ecuador U.S. President Jimmy Carter pressure has not materialized . by 19 percent in comparison to to overcome the impasse. the previous year, and Ecuador The positions have proven increased its by seven percent. inflexible, however, and the The damage affected tour- demands for reestablishing dia- ism, from which the border provinces benefit. In the logue mutually unacceptable. It is also likely that the past year 30 percent fewer Colombians came to visit, personalities of the two presidents, Rafael Correa and deterred by the new, costly and bureaucratic require- Álvaro Uribe, have also played a part in this deterio- ments of a notarized criminal background check. ration. Furthermore, there have been other lesions that were Although ideologically speaking Correa and Uribe painful for the border populations: More than 50 are on opposite shores, they could be twins in terms of binational projects are behind schedule. their obstinacy and inflexibility. The roots of the con- Paradoxically the biggest winners of the conflict flict go much deeper than the incident at Angostura, are the elements that both Correa and Uribe struggle however, which merely served as a trigger. against: the irregular groups and drug trafficking. A On one side we have years of Colombian deafness porous border, without contact between the govern- to Ecuador’s complaints over the ecological damage ments, is a paradise for such elements. The best exam- produced by the aerial fumigation with glyphosate ple was the series of reports broadcast on Ecuavisa

96 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia in which the FARC broadcast its slogans with con- tagious music to both Colombians and Ecuadorians. Binational Tension On the other side, the number of hectares of coca in By Gonzalo Ruiz Álvarez Colombia grew from 70,000 to 99,000 in this period, he state of relations between Ecuador and and in Ecuador the amount of confiscated material Colombia — between their governments — has rose from 25 tons to 30 tons. The thorniest issue, T been better. The escalation of verbal barbs and ten- though, is evidence that the country is allowing the sion has brought us to a seemingly worrisome point. illegal drug-trafficking networks to carve out a so- As if the verbal tension weren’t potent enough, called Pacific Route. The coastal provinces of the the geopolitical map of the region has been contami- North are suffering from its havoc. nated by new elements: the announcement of military Esmeraldas is a good example. This should be the agreements between the United States and Colombia most powerful reason for returning to cooperation and on several air bases, and the belligerent and anti- reestablishing our relations. The tentacles of terrorism imperialist railings of the ineffable Hugo Chávez. and drug trafficking are so powerful that, even with Bellicose winds, war drums and other shrill gestures the collaboration of allied governments, they cannot played into the deteriorating discourse, stopped just be controlled — just look at Mexico and the United in time by the successful intervention of the Brazilian States. As long as our governments aren’t talking, president, Lula da Silva, supported by the wisdom these lawbreakers are in paradise. and balance offered by Cristina Fernández and Father — Vistazo magazine, Guayaquil, July 18, 2009 Lugo, just when the golpista leader of Venezuela’s lust for stardom threatened to steal the show at the UNASUR summit. As I see it, there is an open com- petition for leadership in the region that was drawn forth in that forum. The Colombian bases will be dis- cussed only in Álvaro Uribe’s presence and to ensure that there are no remaining loose ends; Obama will be invited as well, although it will be difficult for him to attend the summit in Bariloche. In the heated context of the map of northern South America, and beyond the tensions that have arisen between Caracas and Bogotá, Quito plays a special role. The incidents leading up to the release of the video by the man known under the alias “Mono Jojoy,” in which he alleges his financial support for the campaign of candidate Rafael Correa, the official

97 The Carter Center

submission of a copy of that video to the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry and the surrender of the diary of the Drums of Peace person behind the alias “Raúl Reyes,” handled by the By Francisco Carrión Mena Ministry of Government or the Ecuadorian attorney t’s encouraging to hear the recent exchange of general, have reached a level of investigation where public statements by presidents Correa and Uribe those implicated and suspected once belonged to the I on their commitment to fostering conditions for highest levels of government: Gustavo Larrea and the normalization of relations between Ecuador and Ignacio Chauvin. Colombia. After the repetitions of “forgive us” offered In Colombian public opinion the perception by the Colombian head of state for the bombing of couldn’t be any worse, and on the international stage Angostura, a few days later the we have a lot to lose in terms of disposition of his Ecuadorian our image, judging by what has counterpart to seeking channels been published in the global press. for dialogue followed. Consistent The issue of relations with with these presidential state- Colombia will continue to have Lowering the tone of the verbal ments, the foreign ministers of other important angles. The sparring match and avoiding both countries have shared a cor- imposition of customs proce- any possibility of a military dial first meeting in Lima. Sound dures causes an impact on the the drums of peace! habitually fruitful trade relations confrontation is an urgent How do we put this reciprocal between the two nations, espe- priority for both peoples . good will into action? Ecuador cially between the inhabitants of was attacked and various prin- the border zone, who earn their ciples of international law were living off of that dynamic. This violated — after which Colombia could hurt Ecuadorian exports through an appreciable asked for forgiveness in the Rio Group, and the region reduction in sources of employment. The measure offered us its unequivocal support — which gave would cause the review of slightly more than 680 of Ecuador the legitimate right to make, as it had already the 1,347 initial shipments, according to the analysis done with confidence, certain demands. Colombia and decision of the Andean Community. should and can fulfill them and, moreover, some are Some 84 percent of Ecuadorians think that the already on their way to being fulfilled. These demands government should do something to improve relations are: (1) Increase the military presence on its southern with Colombia and think that the two nations’ diplo- border, a decision that President Uribe has already matic issues are affecting them, according to a recent poll by Perfiles de Opinión. Cedatos calls the break in relations a negative aspect, among several others, of the current administration. Lowering the tone of the verbal sparring match and avoiding any possibility of a military confronta- tion is an urgent priority for both peoples. — El Comercio, Quito, August 13, 2009

98 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia announced. (2) Cease linking Ecuadorian authori- it will be sufficient to repair our bilateral relations. ties with the FARC, which will entail a serious but Direct dialogue between the parties is otherwise feasible commitment on the part of the Colombian the best way of understanding each other. Some of government. (3) Allocate the mediators have been resources for the refugees in worn down, which is why the Ecuador, which is Colombia’s best alternative is bilateral obligation and can be han- negotiation. We are mature dled through the establish- Direct dialogue between the parties is enough and we know each ment of a suitable mecha- otherwise the best way of understanding other well enough to talk face nism. (4) Make reparations each other . Some of the mediators have to face. These conversations for the bombing — and also been worn down, which is why the have to be reserved. The for the incidents in previous greatest enemy of diplomatic years — which requires politi- best alternative is bilateral negotiation . efforts is the microphone. cal will, but the amounts are We are mature enough and we know The heads of state have not too great. (5) Turn over each other well enough to talk face already indicated their politi- information on the Angostura to face . These conversations have to cal will to reach an agree- operation, which is the most ment; now we must allow difficult requirement to fulfill, be reserved . The greatest enemy of the foreign ministers to work but Ecuador has a legitimate diplomatic efforts is the microphone . discreetly. And another right to ask for it. thing: we should not com- To air the issues we could mit, at least publicly, to any create a technical-military deadlines for seeing results, commission. Our demands obviously also include but if we act with enough speed to match the pace of proposals by Colombia that consider its reality, above Colombia’s internal politics, in terms of its elections, all on the positive agenda: border integration, trade, they won’t trap us. cooperation, etc. If we can put together that package, — El Comercio, Quito, August 22, 2009

99 The Carter Center

Contributions of the Binational Dialogue Group: Brief Final Thoughts

n the following pages, the contributions of the izing the contributions indicated by group members in Binational Dialogue Group during its first phase their testimonies and conversations with The Carter Iof work (from September 2007 to May 2009) will Center. be systematized, as identified by members in the tes- timonies and reflections included in this publication. Contributions of the Experience on a To simplify the analysis of these contributions, we Personal Level separated them into three different levels of impact: Members of the Binational Dialogue Group shared (1) individual, (2) group, and (3) context. some common sentiments on the personal/individual By doing so, we hope to demonstrate how an ini- benefits of the experience, with emphasis on five tiative, such as the Ecuador – Colombia Binational areas in particular: Dialogue Group, can contribute to improving and strengthening relations between two countries and Catharsis produce positive effects in other areas that, indirectly, Many group members considered that an essential support the same objective. part of the process was the “catharsis.” Being able to We should remember speak with openness and to the initial objectives that be heard enabled them to members of the Binational overcome barriers and move Dialogue Group proposed Many group members considered that past perceptions that had when they met for the first prevented them from under- time in Atlanta in 2007: an essential part of the process was the “catharsis .” Being able to speak with standing their counterparts “To contribute to improv- from the other country. This ing and strengthening rela- openness and to be heard enabled them transformation allowed them tions between both coun- to overcome barriers and move past to move toward a more pro- tries.” perceptions that had prevented them ductive dialogue and a bet- “To try to influence within from understanding their counterparts ter understanding of other our spheres of activity and perspectives. For example, the scope of our abilities in from the other country . catharsis led to a better order to promote the com- understanding of the impor- mon objective and to expand tance of respect for national the possibilities for joint sovereignty to many Ecuadorians as well as the deep cooperation, where concrete opportunities to do desire of many Colombians to see an end to the so exist.” decades of violence they have endured. It is no easy task to determine the impact that the initiative has had on improving or strengthen- Capacity for Listening and Understanding ing relations between the two countries or on trying The methodology used during the process encouraged to influence different environments, as other factors the development of the listening and understanding should also be taken into consideration. Recognizing skills of the group members, which allowed everyone this difficulty, we present below an attempt at system- to take full advantage of the exchanges with, and

100 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia contributions of, each member. This forum for bina- The Satisfaction of Working for a Just Cause tional dialogue gave the group members the opportu- In general, the members expressed a sense of satisfac- nity to consider the issues from different perspectives tion from working toward a cause that they consid- and expand their own views to take these diverse ered just and worthwhile. This feeling served as a points of view into account. During the group’s source of motivation for the group, even in difficult discussions, members examined relations between moments.34 It was satisfying to reach agreements and Ecuador and Colombia, not only politically and diplo- arrive at mutual understandings, despite different matically but also in terms of the perspective of civil national policies. Gradually, members of the group society and the daily lives of people living along the gained confidence in the process, appreciating the border. The exercise allowed each member to walk a dialogue, methodology, and results more with each mile in another’s shoes and consider new parameters. meeting. Many members stated that, from the outset, they could never have Learning imagined that the results yielded Group members acquired a great deal would reach as far as they did. For The atmosphere of respect of knowledge on relations between example, group member Ricardo and esteem maintained Ecuador and Colombia as well as Estrada reminded us that at the on the internal situation of each beginning of the exercise, it was throughout the process country. A substantial portion of this hard to imagine being able to think facilitated the building of knowledge was provided directly, from the other side’s perspective, relationships based on trust and shared, by members of the group. but by the end it was not so dif- and allowed the members Valuable sources of knowledge included meetings with representa- ficult. According to Estrada, there to express and enrich was a change in mentality, and their tives of each government and with positions were brought much closer themselves . representatives of organizations from the beginning to the end of involved in issues linked with bina- the group’s first phase of work. tional relations, the participation of members in initiatives in this realm, Respect and Empowerment and the writings and analysis of some members. The The atmosphere of respect and esteem maintained initiative also allowed group members to better under- throughout the process facilitated the building of rela- stand the processes of foreign policy decision-making tionships based on trust and allowed the members to in each country as well as the reality at the border. express and enrich themselves. All had the opportu- Another learning opportunity came from expo- nity to be heard and to participate in sincere dialogue, sure to, and the chance to interact with, people with in which their contributions were valued. so much career experience and/or many important Some group members experienced personal responsibilities in their respective fields. These indi- transformation or empowerment, whereas others viduals included other group members and figures experienced a deeper connection with the dialogue values and methods they had previously learned (see Augusto Ramírez Ocampo’s testimony as an example). Designed as a flexible and creative environment, the Binational Dialogue Group offered each of its mem- bers the opportunity to develop different strengths and focus on issues of their particular interest (gender, 34 See the testimony of Gonzalo Ruiz. development, culture, etc).

101 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

from the two governments. Interacting with both of the border populations or insecurity. This allowed presidents and some of their ministers was an impor- group members to collectively focus on a more com- tant milestone.35 prehensive agenda that included such issues as border Members did not exclusively apply this knowledge development, binational mechanisms for assistance and experience within the context of the Binational to refugees, and the ability of the media to promote Dialogue Group. They also made use of these con- solidarity between peoples. tributions in their personal and professional lives.36 Synergies and Joint Actions In particular, some adopted and applied the dialogue methodologies in other circumstances, while others The mutual comprehension achieved by group mem- used their acquired knowledge or newfound networks bers facilitated the joint search for consensus-based to address binational issues in their professional fields. proposals to improve relations between both govern- ments and societies. As a product Contributions of the of the last three binational dialogue Experience on a Group meetings in the first phase of work, Level the group developed a joint agenda The group dynamic of binational initiatives that it com- At the group level, the principal prioritized the collective mitted to try to promote. To keep contributions of the experience cen- interest over the individual track of each of these initiatives, at tered on: (1) collective energy and interests of each member . least one member from each nation common agenda, (2) synergy and was nominated to take charge of an jointly promoted actions, and (3) initiative. Some of the initiatives, building trust and relationships. such as the letters to both presidents and the binational academic forums, Collective Energy and the Common Agenda took place during the first phase of work, whereas Throughout the first phase of work, a collective others were left pending due to the political context dynamic developed that resulted in greater motiva- or other circumstances. In the second binational dia- tion and determination for the group. As the phase logue meeting in Bogotá, which concluded the first concluded, the group reflected extensively on whether phase of work, the group committed to examining it was useful and opportune to begin a second phase initiatives it had not been able to implement before of work. Although some members initially felt that beginning its next phase of work. the initiative should not be extended, in discussions At the same time, the members found common the group concluded that its accumulated experience ground despite different perspectives on, and solutions should not go to waste and that it should find a way to, difficult circumstances. In this way, they were able to expand the initiative to include new people and to better evaluate the impact of potential actions sectors from Ecuador and Colombia. There was agree- and adjust strategies for their attempts to improve ment on the importance of persevering in spite of the or at the least prevent further deterioration of rela- difficulties and beginning a new phase, which kept in tions between the two countries. This exchange of mind the lessons learned from the first phase. The group dynamic prioritized the collective inter- est over the individual interests of each member. As the group went along, the members began to increas- 35 See the testimonies of Grace Jaramillo, Guillermo Rivera, Ricardo ingly appreciate areas of agreement and the need to Estrada, and Sandra Suárez. work together in order to tackle their common prob- 36 See the testimonies of Pedro Velasco, Ricardo Estrada, Antonio lems, such as the difficult socio-economic conditions Navarro, Margarita Carranco, and Andrés Valdivieso.

102 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Members of the Binational Dialogue Group at the sixth meeting in Bogotá, Colombia, in May 2009. Pictured are (from left to right): Ricardo Ávila; Patricia Estupiñán; Gonzalo Ruiz; Claudia Gurisatti; Pedro Velasco; Augusto Ramírez Ocampo; Jennifer McCoy (director, Carter Center Americas Program); Antonio Navarro Wolff; Margarita Carranco; Francisco Diez (Carter Center representative, Latin America); Grace Jaramillo; Manuel Chiriboga Vega; Socorro Ramírez; Adrián Bonilla; Francisco Carrión Mena; Dolores Padilla; Cécile Mouly (Carter Center, Ecuador).

perspectives and ideas helped the group act prudently ficult of moments as well as the cooperation between and find new approaches. This does not mean that group members to move the binational initiatives for- the members weren’t free to take whatever action ward and the constant exchange of information and they deemed appropriate in a given situation but that contacts. The group’s solidarity and maturity were they had an opportunity to discuss collective strate- demonstrated by its ability to move past the events gies for handling difficult situations and to share their of March 1, 2008, and work toward the improvement perspectives. The exchange of opinion was often of relations.38 Various members have agreed that the accompanied by group reflections on mistakes and group could probably never have weathered the rup- successes,37 which helped the group draw lessons for the future.

Building Trust and Relationships Gradually the ties between the members of the Binational Dialogue Group were strengthened, and an environment of trust was established. This was 37 See the testimony of Margarita Carranco. evident in the supportive manner with which the 38 For Ricardo Ávila, the fact that the Binational Dialogue Group did not dissolve and was able to maintain its cohesion, despite the challenging members treated their counterparts in the most dif- circumstances, was an important milestone. 103 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

ture caused by these events without the earlier rounds new elements that encouraged a more comprehensive of dialogue in Atlanta and Quito. It was this shared perspective when approaching the topic. The group experience that motivated some of the members to disseminated a great deal of information and analysis keep in touch with their counterparts, to compare on the Ecuador-Colombia issue through editorials their perceptions of the situation, and to come up and articles published by members and through initia- with ways out of it.39 tives assumed by each member (e.g., participation in The relationships established with representatives forums, meetings with government representatives, from different fields also encouraged a complementar- etc). At the same time, the group served as an infor- ity of perspectives and combined mal space where members could effort.40 Various members com- discuss key issues that affected mented that the network estab- binational relations, because there lished has a multiplier effect with- were no official channels of dia- in each of the sectors represented The group served as an logue. From this context, useful by group members and can help to informal space where members proposals emerged for champion- sustain the dynamics of binational ing the causes of binational prob- dialogue when the group ceases to could discuss key issues that lems and making progress toward formally exist. affected binational relations, items on the positive agenda, such because there were no official as border development.41 Impact on the Context channels of dialogue . Promoting New Ways of Prior to the disruption of diplo- Thinking in Both Countries matic relations, the Binational Thanks to their personal and Dialogue Group began with the professional relationships in key objective of helping to strengthen relations between fields and their influence on public opinion, group Ecuador and Colombia on different levels. While members promoted new ways of thinking about the the context changed dramatically with the break in relationship between the two countries. They empha- relations, the group stayed the course and remained sized the things that unite the two countries to coun- dedicated to achieving its objectives. This effort con- ter the tendency to focus on what separates them. tributed to a favorable environment in society for A Colombian member of the group, for example, re-establishing diplomatic relations and for preventing the further deterioration of the situation.

Expanding the Debate on Relations Between Ecuador and Colombia 39 For Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, it was “a miracle” that there had been As Adrián Bonilla pointed out, one of the great- two meetings of the Binational Dialogue Group prior to March 1, 2008. est contributions of the first phase of the Binational He felt that so much trust had already been established in those meetings Dialogue Group was to expand the debate on the that the March 1 events could not divide the group. 40 For example, Margarita Carranco relates how she got in touch with state of relations between Ecuador and Colombia. two other members of the group — Antonio Navarro Wolff and Pedro By bringing to the table an agenda with positive Velasco — when she was faced with a case of inhumane treatment of Colombian women. Through these contacts, as well as contacts with themes and calling attention to the effects that the the Colombian Foreign Ministry, she helped organize the return of these disruption of diplomatic relations had on the daily women to Colombia and secure guarantees of their protection. In a similar fashion, Antonio Navarro Wolff contacted Manuel Chiriboga to evaluate lives of the border population, the group helped to the possibility of stimulating the rural economy in the southern part of the “citizen-ify” a bilateral agenda that focused on gov- border department of Nariño with the production of broccoli. ernmental relations between presidents and added 41 See the testimony of Socorro Ramírez.

104 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia executed a major public campaign in the depart- ment of Nariño to reinforce the solidarity that exists between these peoples by distributing stickers and hanging banners that read: “Colombia – Ecuador: A Single Identity.” A banner with a similar message was displayed in the stands during a soccer match between Ecuador and Colombia in June 2008, thanks to the efforts of four group members. In addition, the group members helped to spread information about the reality of the neighboring country. In Ecuador, a fuller understanding of the situation facing the Colombian people, in terms of A street banner in Pasto, Colombia, promotes the “Colombia- armed conflict, was promoted. In Colombia, atten- Ecuador: Building Bridges” initiative. tion was drawn to Ecuadorian efforts to provide assis- tance to Colombian refugees. One initiative that was guided by the same objectives was the production of a binational documentary program on Ecuador and areas (the Pacific, Andean, and Amazonian zones) Colombia. Under the direction of Manuel Chiriboga, attended these forums and shared their daily experi- from the Ecuadorian side, and the Colombian jour- ences with the audience, along with the importance nalist Claudia Gurisatti, this documentary helped of binational relations for increasing development in publicize the positive agenda and stimulate deeper the border region. understanding of the situations in both countries and Bringing Different Spheres and Levels Together in the border zones. Along the same lines, the group The efforts of the Binational Dialogue Group helped members organized two public forums designed to to bring the two countries closer on different spheres build bridges between Colombia and Ecuador: one in and levels: local governments, media outlets, develop- Quito in September 2008 and the other in Pasto in ment projects, etc. The group acted as a facilitator February 2009. Representatives from the three border and catalyst. By having access to the highest levels of decision-making and border realities in each country, the group served as a bridge that brought the reality of life along the border to the decision-makers. In pri- vate meetings with government representatives, mem- bers of the group — especially those from the border zones — provided information on the state of affairs for the people living along the border. Moreover, as previously mentioned, two binational forums were held with government representatives as well as the border populations in attendance. Hundreds of rep- resentatives from both sides of the border attended the binational meeting in Pasto, where they shared A slogan of the “Colombia-Ecuador: Building Bridges” initiative experiences and proposals. That material was later promotes the “same identity” for the two nations. collected in a publication that was distributed to both governments and different sectors of civil society.

105 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Through the different spheres in which the levels of government in both countries, this monitor- members were active, the impact of the Binational ing activity by civil society may have helped keep Dialogue Group was visible in multiple social sectors, the governments aware of their citizens’ demands for including academic institutions, business organiza- improvement in relations between their countries and tions, and women’s organizations. The testimonies the benefits that come from addressing existing prob- collected in this report reveal the ways in which each lems through dialogue rather than confrontation. group member drew on past experiences to influence During the first phase of work, some of the group his or her own context. Some initiatives came about members who were closest to the decision-makers spontaneously, like the development of a binational played a key role in persuading their respective mechanism to address a case of governments to moderate inhumane treatment of some public statements in order to Colombian women in Ecuador. avoid any escalation of the conflict and to make small Permanent Monitoring of Despite the immense challenge gestures that would help to Binational Relations posed by confronting a dynamic of rebuild a sense of mutual trust. Group members served as per- reciprocal criticism at the highest Furthermore, group members manent monitors of the state levels of government in both stressed the importance of dia- of relations between their countries, this monitoring activity by logue and better understanding countries and intervened at between the two countries, opportune moments, often civil society may have helped keep the not just at the highest levels of discretely. As various mem- governments aware of their citizens’ government but also between bers pointed out, it was like demands for improvement in relations the civil society and local “having a warning signal” or a between their countries and the government. Although at the “candle of vigil” for civil soci- benefits that come from addressing time these testimonies were ety to draw the government’s written, governmental rela- attention to the importance of existing problems through dialogue tions had deteriorated and a addressing the problems that rather than confrontation . low level of trust persisted that exist between the two coun- complicated the group’s poten- tries, as those most affected are tial actions, it continued to the people, especially people in make low-profile gestures in an 42 the border region. In this regard, an initiative worth attempt to, if nothing else, at least slow a potentially highlighting was when the group collected more than dangerous spiral. 290 signatures from leaders in Colombia and Ecuador As Luis Carlos Villegas noted in his testimony, urging both presidents to re-establish diplomatic rela- though there were no concrete results in terms of tions between their countries. Furthermore, the group government relations, the group was able to send a met with both presidents and some of their ministers message to the highest levels that there were citizens in order to gain their perspectives on the state of on both sides working together for the good of their binational relations and to share the perspectives of countries. group members, as actors in civil society, along with some proposals to advance positive agenda items. Despite the immense challenge posed by confront- ing a dynamic of reciprocal criticism at the highest 42 See the testimony of Patricia Estupiñán.

106 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

Influence on Public Opinion participated in the organization of events orchestrated During the first phase of work, group members — par- by these other entities. In some cases, the group acted ticularly journalists and editors — influenced public as a catalyst, helping to flesh out initiatives started by opinion by evaluating the situation from different different sectors, principally by the civil society, or to angles and thereby contributed to preventing the facilitate the communication between the actors on repercussions that governmental conflict could have each side. on relationships between societies. For example, they Finally, there exists a general recognition of the sought to counteract statements that could foster fact that the experience of the Binational Dialogue xenophobia toward Colombians living in Ecuador and Group could be useful in similar contexts in other stressed the fact that the require- parts of the world. It could be ment of a criminal background replicated, and other initiatives check (pasado judicial) for crossing could benefit from the group’s reflections as well as the evalua- the border ultimately punishes the Finally, there exists a general neighboring populations. In the tions performed by external actors same fashion, in Colombia they recognition of the fact that the such as the UNDP or The Carter sought to change the stereotype of experience of the Binational Center. Ecuador as the “little brother” and Dialogue Group could be Final Words tried to present the two countries useful in similar contexts in on equal footing. other parts of the world . It The review offered in this chap- From the beginning, the group could be replicated, and other ter allowed an assessment of the understood the role the media can potential of a group similar to play in escalating or reducing the initiatives could benefit from the Binational Dialogue Group. level of governmental conflict. the group’s reflections . Diverse factors came together Although some members believe in such a way that, overall, the that they could have done even group’s contributions surpassed its more in this realm, there was an initial objectives. In the aftermath overall awareness of the importance of working at the of the events of March 1, 2008, there was an expecta- level of public opinion. This consciousness played out tion that, through its leadership, the group could con- in the sense that, in addition to the opinion columns tribute to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations or articles written on Ecuador – Colombia relations by between countries (perhaps not at the ambassadorial group members, there was also a diffusion component level but at least at the level of chargé d’affaires). The wherein the majority of the public initiatives promot- majority of the members agree that the fact that dip- ed by the Binational Dialogue Group were publicized lomatic relations had not been re-established between in the media in order to increase their impact and the two countries at the time when the group ended reach a wider audience. The journalists in the group its activities does not mean that the group had failed. played a key role in this effort. On the contrary, they feel that it played an important Contributions to Initiatives Organized by role in preventing conflict and that it helped to lower Other Actors tensions and avoid escalation by serving as a “perma- nent monitor” of the situation. The Binational Dialogue Group supported initiatives At the same time, there seems to be consensus carried out by other institutions such as The Carter on the fact that the contributions of the group on Center, the United Nations, the OAS, FLACSO, and the individual level exceeded the expectations of its the National University of Colombia. The group also members. They identified catharsis, empowerment, served as a source of inspiration and proposals, and it

107 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia and learning among the elements of personal transfor- messages of the group contributed to broadening the mation from which they benefited. These contribu- debate on relations between Ecuador and Colombia, tions on a personal level, as well as the benefits from both in public opinion as well as between decision- the group dynamic and the creation of networks, makers. Finally, the experience served as an example were valuable beyond this experience. Group mem- of how people can work together for the good of their bers used them to help improve relations between countries. With just its existence and persistence, the the two countries in different spheres, enjoying the group demonstrated an important lesson on the value complementarity of perspectives and knowledge that of dialogue for the situation between Ecuador and a multidisciplinary group can offer. This produced Colombia and, potentially, for other regions of the a multiplier effect in different fields and sectors of world. the population. The dissemination of the ideas and

108 The Carter Center

Appendix A Time Line

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

October 2002 Binational technical commission for glyphosate verification. 2002

Ecuador demands that Colombia • Suspend aerial sprayings until their effects could be investigated • And afterward respect a 10-km-wide zone along the border when fumigating. 2005

January Colombia “temporarily” suspends its fumigations. December Colombia resumes its use of glyphosate. 2006 Ecuador announces that it will file charges against Colombia in The Hague.

January 9 Ecuador presents a complaint about Colombia’s fumigations with herbicides before the OAS. July 24 Colombia increases its use of coca eradication by hand to reduce the use of glyphosate.

August 23 Local residents of Nariño resist fumigations or manual eradication. August 2007 Senator Córdoba and President Chávez, with the support of Uribe, take steps to November 12-14 secure a humanitarian agreement. First binational dialogue November round between Colombia and President Uribe decides that the December Ecuador in Atlanta. mediation efforts of Chávez and José Valencia (member of the Córdoba have run their course. BDG) becomes the foreign December 7 minister of Ecuador. President Uribe authorizes the possibility of a humanitarian agreement with the facilitation of the Catholic Church and the December 18 support of leaders from other countries. The FARC announces the release of some hostages. December 31 After delays and doubts, the mission to rescue hostages is suspended.

109 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

January 10 The FARC releases Clara Rojas and Consuelo González after mediation by the Venezuelan government. 2008 January 15 President Uribe offers peace negotiations with the FARC. January 16 Ecuador urges the use of an international committee to January 2008 negotiate the release of more hostages by the FARC.

february 1-2 february 2 Second binational dialogue The FARC announces that it will turn over round between Colombia and hostages to the Venezuelan president. february Ecuador in Quito. The mediating commission made up by Switzerland, , Spain, and the Church of Colombia is questioned by february 21 the FARC, who want President Galo Mora (member of the Chávez involved, among others. BDG) becomes the minister of february 27 culture of Ecuador. The FARC releases congressional f ebruary 2008 representatives after mediation by the Venezuelan president.

march 1 Colombian troops attack a FARC base camp and cross the border into Ecuador; 26 people are killed, including the guerilla group’s second in command, “Raúl Reyes.“ ecuador response: The president of Ecuador calls the incursion an attack on his territory and orders a military investigation.

march 2 Ecuador demands a “formal apology” from Colombia, compensation for damages, and a promise not to repeat these “unacceptable events.” The ambassadors are withdrawn and expelled. Requests a meeting of the OAS. Mobilizes its troops. colombia response: Bogotá responds that it “did not violate the sovereignty” of Ecuador but was merely acting in its own “legitimate defense.” It announces that it has discovered information that demonstrates the “ties”

between the Ecuadorian government and the FARC. m arch 2008

march 3 Ecuador terminates its diplomatic relations with Colombia. Ecuadorian Coordinating Minister of Security march 4 Gustavo Larrea confirms that he met with Reyes to talk Simultaneous national emergency meetings about the release of hostages held by the FARC. of the BDG take place in Quito and Bogotá.

march 5 Meeting of the OAS Security Council. The decision is that Colombia will not be sanctioned, that it will be recognized in writing that Colombia violated Ecuador’s sovereignty, and that the OAS will form a mission to analyze what happened.

110 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

march 9–12 Meetings between the BDG and 2008 the OAS delegation. march 7 At the summit of the Rio Group, Colombia offers an apology in writing and commits to not violating the sovereignty of other countries again. march 17 Meeting of the Ecuadorian group of the BDG. march 8 and 10 Correa considers the impasse with Colombia resolved, even though he reiterates that he does not forgive the aggression. He announces that he will re-establish relations with Colombia.

march 9–12 OAS mission to both countries.

march 17 m arch 2008 The XXV Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Relations of the OAS. march 18 Colombia urges an investigation into possible ties between Ecuador and the FARC. march 31 Ecuador prosecutes Colombia in The Hague for its aerial fumigations.

April 1–6 April 7 The Carter Center OAS Good Offices Mission in conducts a confidential Colombia and Ecuador. mediation exercise April 13 hoping to achieve the President Correa makes public statements in Mexico re-establishment of in which he condemns the Colombian incursion and diplomatic relations denies that the Colombian government would have between the two countries. known of the FARC’s presence on his territory. The Center asks for the assistance of some April 14 of the BDG members The government of Colombia rejects President Correa’s statements to collaborate on the and states that they have undermined the compromise reached with confidential exercise. The Carter Center. President Correa announces that he will present a complaint against Colombia before the OAS over these statements.

April 17–18 April 22 April 2008 The commanding officer of the Second OAS Good Offices Mission Colombian military forces asks for the in Colombia and Ecuador. renewal of the efforts of the Binational Border Commission with Ecuador. April 26–29 April 29 Third binational dialogue First meeting between the foreign round between Colombia and ministers of Ecuador and Colombia Ecuador in Bogotá. under the auspices of the OAS.

111 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

may 6–7 Ecuador discusses the possibility of summary executions during the Colombian military operation on March 1. Colombia objects. 2008 may 15 Interpol certifies that the three computers confiscated from the FARC base camp had not been tampered with.

may 21 In a meeting organized by the OAS, the military may 23–24 commands from both countries agree to re-establish Fourth binational dialogue

on a temporary basis the Border Security Agreement. m ay 2008 may 27 round in Atlanta. Third meeting of the foreign ministers of Colombia and may 29 Ecuador under the auspices The Ecuadorian foreign minister does not rule of the OAS. out the possibility of re-establishing diplomatic relations at the level of business envoys.

June 1 June–September Ecuador drops the requirement for The Center’s informal evaluation Colombian citizens to present a clear with the BDG and the UNDP criminal background check (pasado June 3 and 4 begins after the meetings with June 6 judicial) to enter the country. The presidents are presented with both presidents. Uribe and Correa, at President the letters from the BDG with 291 Carter’s urging, agree to re- signatures from both countries. establish diplomatic relations June 6 “without preconditions.” Both Meeting of three members of countries and The Carter Center June 9 the BDG with Plan Ecuador to release press statements on the Fourth meeting of the foreign ministers discuss activities. matter. of Colombia and Ecuador under the auspices of the OAS. June 12 Binational forum on trade relations between Ecuador and Colombia, June 13 hosted by the Colombo- Correa pleads with the Ecuadorian Chamber of Industry FARC to disarm. and Commerce. Members of the BDG participate in this forum. June 2008 June 19 Soccer match between Colombia June 20 June 22 and Ecuador. Members of the BDG participate Meeting of the Ecuadorian An interview with Correa appears in the publication “Página 12.” group of the BDG. He confirms the re-establishment of relations at the level of business in this forum. envoys. He adds that “to establish full relations, we will demand a complete explanation of this attack.”

June 23 June 24 June 24 The Colombian government suspends The Ecuadorian foreign ministry Meeting of the Colombian the re-establishment of relations in announces that it will not re- group of the BDG. response to President Correa’s interview establish diplomatic relations in the publication “Página 12.” for an indefinite time.

112 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

June 25 The BDG meets with President June 25 Álvaro Uribe. President Rafael Correa announces that relations with The BDG releases a statement in Colombia are suspended indefinitely. which it relays President Uribe’s support for its work. June–September The Center’s informal evaluation with the BDG June 26 and the UNDP begins The BDG meets with President after the meetings with Rafael Correa. both presidents. It does not release a statement. President Correa reiterates his June 2008 decision not to re-establish June 27 June 27 relations. President Uribe asks A press statement by The Carter Center states that Carter continue his that it “will continue working toward dialogue mediation between the and improving the relations between the two countries. peoples of Colombia and Ecuador.”

July 2 The Colombian army rescues Ingrid Betancourt, 11 soldiers, and three 2008 American hostages held by the FARC.

July 18 Colombian Foreign Minister Fernando Araujo resigns. Jaime Bermúdez takes over his position. July 21 July 2008 Meeting of the Ecuadorian group of the BDG.

August 16 The foreign ministers of Colombia and Ecuador meet in August 20 Paraguay to discuss relations between the two countries, First meeting of Colombo- under the auspices of the OAS. Ecuadorian Business Women, organized by the Women’s Foundation of Colombia. Three women from the BDG participate in the Business August 2008 Women meeting.

September 8 Binational forum on development policies organized by the OAS, September 16 UNDP, and FLACSO. Meeting of the Ecuadorian Two members of the BDG group of the BDG. September 29 organized this forum, and two The new political constitution of Ecuador is approved by referendum. members served as presenters. September 30 Meeting of the Ecuadorian

group of the BDG. September 2008

113 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

October 1 Meeting between the Ecuadorian group of the BDG and the Ecuadorian minister of defense. October 13 Extraordinary summit of the CAN Session in Ecuador without President Uribe, who excuses himself, citing a lack of necessary conditions for the proper circumstances to attend. October 16 Meeting of the Ecuadorian BDG group with the coordinating minister for internal and external security, Gustavo Larrea. October 21 Teleconference of the Colombian members of the BDG.

October 22 October 22 The Ecuadorian president demands that the FARC immediately Meeting of the Colombian BDG October 2008 release one of his citizens being held hostage. group with Chancellor Bermúdez.

October 25–28 Verbal sparring match between the two presidents in their public statements. Ecuador announces that it may file a civil dispute with Colombia over lack of 2008 assistance for the case of an Ecuadorian hostage and may restrict the ability of Colombians to enter the country.

November 6 and 7 November 12 Fifth binational dialogue. A Colombian paramilitary group almost crosses the border into Ecuador and wounds three Ecuadorians. In response, President November 20 Correa threatens to restrict the entry of Colombians into Ecuador. Meeting for the Ecuadorian members of the BDG who did not attend the fifth round. November 23 José Valencia resigns as the

foreign minister of Ecuador. November 2008

December 3 Ecuador reinstates the requirement for Colombian citizens to present a criminal background check (pasado judicial) to be able to enter the country.

December 12–15 Ecuadorian Foreign Minister María Isabel Salvador resigns and is replaced by Fander Falconí. December 2008

114 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

January 6 January 13 Lunch between the Ecuador BDG Galo Mora leaves the Ministry of group and Socorro Ramírez. Culture and assumes a position as the private secretary of President Correa. January 14 Meeting of the Ecuadorian group of the BDG.

January 23 January 23 January 23 Ecuador adopts Through a press statement, Ecuador lays out five Meeting between the Colombian restrictive measures minimum conditions necessary for re-establishing BDG group and the International on imports and diplomatic relations with Colombia, and it says Verification Commission of the avoids a deficit that it will not restore diplomatic relations until OAS. in its balance of Colombia has provided reparations for the damage payments. it caused in its attack on March 1, 2008. January 2009

January 24 Colombia expresses its interest in re-establishing relations and announces that it will be strengthening 2009 its military presence in the border zone.

January 28 Gustavo Larrea resigns as the minister of internal and external security to stand as an assembly member candidate. He later decides not to run.

february 1 The Ecuadorian foreign minister declines to attend the binational forum scheduled in Pasto.

february 4 José Ignacio Chauvín, a former official under former Minister february 9–10 Larrea, turns himself in to the attorney general, who has him Pasto forum on “Colombia- under investigation for drug trafficking. He admits to having met Ecuador: Building Political Bridges with members of the FARC on numerous occasions. for Peace and Development on the Border” is sponsored by the UNDP, the OAS, and the National f ebruary 2009 University of Colombia.

march 11 Meeting of the Ecuadorian group of the BDG. march 16 Meeting between the Ecuadorian BDG group and the International Verification Commission of the OAS.

march 19 m arch 2009 Meeting between the BDG and President Correa.

115 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

April 8 Meeting of the Ecuadorian 2009 group of the BDG.

April 27 April 27 April 28–29 The BDG meets with President Preparatory BDG meeting President Carter meets with President Correa and the Ecuadorian Carter. for the meeting in May. April 2009 foreign minister, who explain that they do not see signals that change the crisis situation between the two countries.

may 12 and 13 may 18 Concluding meeting of the Colombian Minister of Defense Juan Manuel Santos resigns. first phase of the sixth round BDG in Bogotá. may 25 Meeting between Ecuadorian Minister of Health Caroline Chang and Colombian Minister of Social Protection Diego Palacio Betancourt to coordinate joint actions to address the H1N1 flu (promoted by a former member of the BDG, Angelino Garzón). m ay 2009 may 29 The U.S. Embassy in Ecuador denies that its government had anything to do with the events in Angostura.

June 9 Lunch between the Ecuadorian June 11 members of the Binational The national general comptroller (PGE), representing the Ecuadorian Dialogue Group. government, presents an international claim against Colombia in Washington, D.C., before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over the death of Ecuadorian citizen Aisalla during the Angostura bombing.

June 12 The Ecuadorian attorney general announces that the former Colombian minister of defense, Juan Manuel Santos, will be indicted for criminal proceedings in the Sucumbíos province. June 16 Presentation of the book “Ecuador- Colombia: Building Bridges” June 17 (Edited by Grace Jaramillo) June 17 Colombian Minister of Foreign Relations Jaime Bermúdez reiterates that his Meeting between the

government will present to the IACHR evidence of Aisalla’s ties to the FARC. Ecuadorian and Colombian June 2009 Women’s Networks in the city of Pasto. June 22 The Wall Street Journal publishes an opinion article in which it indicates that the Ecuadorian government had supported the FARC, for which Ecuador urges the publication to correct its statements.

June 29 A judge in Sucumbíos orders the arrest of former Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, who is accused of coordinating and ordering the attack on a FARC base camp in Angostura in March 2008.

116 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

The Time liNe iN cONTexT Time liNe Of The biNATiONAl DiAlOgue grOup

July 8 A group of Colombian attorneys presents charges to the Colombian attorney general against Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and former Minister Gustavo Larrea, along with Ignacio Chauvín (recently released from jail), on accusations of maintaining ties with the FARC. 2009

July 13 Ecuador imposes economic safeguarding restrictions on the importation of some Colombian products. July 17 A video is released in which the second-ranking leader of the FARC, Jorge Briceño, alias Mono Jojoy, confirms that the guerilla group had provided financial support to Rafael Correa’s presidential campaign.

July 22 July 22 In light of the Ecuadorian safeguards, Colombia Lunch between the Colombian informally suspends the passage of Ecuadorian members of the Binational goods over their common border. Dialogue Group. July 2009

July 29 President Correa criticizes the possible signing of an agreement between Colombia and the United States to install military bases. President Uribe responds by denying that this initiative in the interest of security is a threat to neighboring countries.

July 31 OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza presents President Correa with the report of the OAS Verification Commission on the border between Ecuador and Colombia, urges Ecuador and Colombia to restore relations, and emphasizes that the problems between the two countries may require a longer amount of time to be resolved. Ecuador’s ministers of government and foreign relations present copies of the presumed diary of Raúl Reyes to the OAS and to the Ecuadorian attorney general, so that they can begin their respective examinations.

August 9 Based on a resolution by the CAN, the Ecuadorian economic August 12 safeguards are to apply to only a little more than 600 Meeting between the Colombian products, in new percentages. Ecuadorian members of the Binational Dialogue Group.

August 14 August 14 Colombian President Álvaro Uribe announces his government’s willingness Meeting of the Colombian to initiate a dialogue to re-establish relations between Ecuador and members of the Binational Colombia and, once again, issues a public apology to the Ecuadorian Dialogue Group. government for the attack on the FARC base camp on Ecuadorian territory.

August 15 President Rafael Correa accepts this and says he is ready to have talks to restore August 2009 diplomatic relations, on the condition August 31 that Colombia is willing to fulfill the Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs commitments that it has not fulfilled. Fander Falconí announces that he will meet with his Colombian counterpart, Jaime Bermúdez, to establish a binational dialogue.

117 The Carter Center

Appendix B Initial Project Framework COLOMBIA–ECUADOR MEETING AT THE CARTER CENTER

he Carter Center is an international non- ments when they speak, but some of them will have governmental organization that specializes easy and direct access to their governments, some will Tin peace building and conflict management be trusted by the acting decision makers, and others following an approach known as Track 1.5 (Track will have the ability to impact public opinion in their 1 refers to governmental diplomacy and Track 2 to country. The groups will be high level and diverse in diplomacy between citizens or NGOs). This implies background, representing the richness of both societ- that the Center conducts its activities in an inde- ies, and the exercise will serve to help establish bonds pendent and autonomous manner, but it does so not only between Ecuadorians and Colombians but while maintaining direct contact with the govern- also within each national group. ments in the countries in which it is active and with The invitation to the participants will be offered the North American government where it is head- directly by former President Carter, and the list of quartered. In this spirit, The Carter Center, along invitees will be circulated to the highest authorities with the National Offices of the United Nations of both countries to solicit their feedback, exchange in Colombia and Ecuador, proposes to conduct an opinions, and keep them informed. The Carter exercise of meetings and dialogue between a small Center and the offices of the United Nations in each group of Colombian citizens and a small group of country will write the lists of potential participants Ecuadorian citizens, that would consist of four rounds and will arrange the necessary meetings for the task of two days, to begin at the headquarters of The until they secure two evenly matched groups between Carter Center in Atlanta on the next November 12 6 and 10 persons from each country. and 13, to be followed by a meeting in Bogotá and The political purpose of the exercise is to help to another in Quito — on dates to be determined by the open up a space that has not existed in bilateral rela- group — and to be concluded with a final meeting in tions, that would be noncommitted and outside the Atlanta on May 19 and 20 of the following year. public eye, but that would be potentially useful for exploring and implementing initiatives that would The general characteristics of the exercise are contribute to mutual understanding, to the produc- described below. tion of mutually positive public images, and to the The objective of the exercise is to help to create a promotion of coordinated joint policies, if appropri- balanced, open, and safe environment for meetings ate. and dialogue between this small group of citizens from The dynamic of the meetings will be highly par- both countries, in order to work together to identify ticipative, with open and confidential conversations and promote new “leverage for positive change” in facilitated by the experts from The Carter Center and bilateral relations, in the form of both influence on the UNDP, beginning with an overview of all of the public perception and possible concrete actions with- different perceptions that currently dominate bilateral in their own spheres of action and influence. relations, identifying the positive elements that can The members of both groups will be citizens with- be expanded and the negative ones to be addressed. out decision-making ability at the government level The definitive agenda of topics to be addressed who will not be in any way committing their govern- by the group and the methodology for approaching

118 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia them will be the central objective of the first meet- The expected product of the four rounds will be ing so that the same group will make those decisions a joint report that describes the unfolding of the together. This agenda will be developed in the follow- process and, if the group so decides, a set of joint ing meetings. In the two meetings in Atlanta, former Recommendations (confidential or public, according President Jimmy Carter will participate, and at the to the group’s decision). meetings in Quito and Bogotá, the group will decide together on each occasion whether or not to open the Francisco Diez meetings to include other local actors. Representative The Carter Center in Latin America

119 The Carter Center

Appendix C Communication Between Diez and Foreign Minister Araujo

March 31, 2008

Considering the pressures facing both governments fidence, along with the essential conditions for re- from the international agenda, including Correa’s establishing diplomatic relations. trip to Mexico, the European Union summit in Lima 3. I will present these ideas to Foreign Minister on April 15, the CAN summit in May which will be Salvador tomorrow and later to President Correa hosted by Colombia, and finally the OAS General and will return by midday on Wednesday to Bogotá Assembly meeting in June in Medellín, we propose to to discuss their suggestions or concerns with you. President Correa: 4. If we make progress and they accept our pro- 1. Agree to a “truce on negative or inflammatory pub- posed steps for proceeding, I would ask that you lic statements about the other country” for 10 days arrange a possible meeting with President Uribe and give a chance to the informal, unofficial, and on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning to discreet efforts of The Carter Center with the sup- match the input from Correa. port of the Binational Dialogue Group. 5. If President Uribe agrees, I will immediately 2. Form a working group with four members from the notify Quito and finally President Carter; between binational group — two Ecuadorians plus Villegas Thursday and Friday I will speak with both presi- and Ocampo from Colombia — so that during dents to solidify the procedural agreement. those 10 days they can work productively with 6. The Carter Center will provide technical support Vice Foreign Minister Valencia and Vice Foreign to the binational working group, and can arrange Minister Reyes in order to identify small steps and for additional support from the OAS or U.N. if possible signs for both governments to build con- both governments consider it necessary.

120 The Carter Center

Appendix D Final Agreement on Small Steps

IDENTIFYING POSITIVE SIGNS THAT CAN BE READ

Considering the pressures facing both governments ments to establish some level of mutual confidence. from the international agenda, including Correa’s 2. The group will draft a single written document that trip to Mexico, the European Union summit in Lima identifies immediate, concrete, and specific signs on April 15, the CAN summit in May which will be that one side can send to the other that could be hosted by Colombia, and finally the OAS General read as gestures of good will. Assembly meeting in June in Medellín, we propose 3. If these signs are sent, the group can make progress that both presidents: on identifying the minimum necessary conditions Agree that “there will not be negative public state- for re-establishing diplomatic relations. ments” made by high-ranking officials in both gov- 4. The government of Ecuador considers this a viable ernments for 10 days (from April 4 to 14) and that initiative, and it has appointed Minister Salvador during this period an informal, unofficial, and discreet to monitor it. In the same way, President Uribe negotiating effort by The Carter Center and the approves of it and has appointed Foreign Minister Binational Dialogue Group will begin. Araujo. 5. Former President Carter spoke with both presidents The initiative consists of: to solidify the procedural agreement and establish 1. Immediately form a working group with four mem- their commitment to avoiding negative statements bers from the binational group, two Ecuadorians about one another. and two Colombians,43 so that, with the Carter 6. The entire exercise will remain confidential. If it Center’s support, they can work productively with makes progress, it could be of additional assistance Vice Foreign Minister Valencia of Ecuador and to the OAS mission or agree upon whatever other Vice Foreign Minister Reyes of Colombia in order format that the governments consider appropriate. to identify possible small steps for both govern-

43 Luis Carlos Villegas and Augusto Ramírez Ocampo will participate from the Colombian group, and for the Ecuadorian group the government suggested Adrián Bonilla and Galo Mora.

121 The Carter Center

Appendix E Final Document on Signals

APPROVED BY QUITO AND BOGOTÁ try with floods. Date: This will be made public in April 7, 2008 Colombia on Tuesday April 8 and in the next hour a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador A. Reciprocal signals for both governments will announce and accept the offer with gratitude. A formal statement by the presidency in honor of Execution is the responsibility of the Foreign the visit by the OAS mission indicating that the Ministry. This signal will be met with a response government ratifies in all its terms its support for the on the same day through the signal from Quito resolution adopted by that organism at the Foreign listed in point C.1. on the process of repatriating Ministers meeting on March 17, ratifying its obser- detained Colombian persons. vance of its content and hoping that it will contribute 3. A Diplomatic Note from the Foreign Ministry to the process of normalizing diplomatic relations that expresses the Colombian government’s between the two countries. The statement will also belief — despite the current state of affairs and the indicate that the President has instructed the officials filing of a claim before The Hague, which should in his administration that only the Head of State and be resolved according to international law — that the Minister of Foreign Relations will make public bilateral relations can be channeled (as shown statements or demonstrations with respect to relations in the recent example between Chile and Peru: with the other country, in order to keep a united see the statement by Chile’s Minister of Foreign front and to avoid creating perceptions that would Relations) along a path of cooperation in the inter- affect the work of the OAS Mission. ests of their respective peoples, emphasizing that, Date: Quito and Bogotá will issue this on Monday the specifically and immediately, Colombia will make 7th when the OAS Mission begins in Ecuador. an effort so that both governments can coordi- Execution is the responsibility of each Foreign nate their cooperation in the diverse multilateral Ministry. environments which they share, because it is very B. Signals from Bogotá to Quito important for its government to work together with the government of Ecuador for the benefit of the 1. A verbal message from the Colombian government region. Specifically it proposes to coordinate the to the Ecuadorian government to be delivered by work of the units from the CAN, UNASUR, and the Carter Center’s representative to President OAS that they are planning for the time being Rafael Correa, conveying his immediate willingness through early June of this year. The Diplomatic to renew diplomatic relations as soon as Ecuador Note will be made public in Colombia as soon as will arrange it. Date: Monday April 7 at a meeting it is sent. Date: Tuesday April 8. Execution is the with President Correa at 12:30 pm. Execution is responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. This sig- the responsibility of Francisco Diez. nal will be met with a response on the same day 2. A Diplomatic Note offering technical assistance through the signal from Quito listed in point C.2. and humanitarian aid from the government of on the claim before The Hague. Colombia and the Agency for Disaster Prevention 4. A Diplomatic Note in response to the note sent to the government and people of Ecuador in light by the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador on April 3, of the emergency situation caused by the intense with respect to sending the information found rainfall that has inundated the neighboring coun-

122 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

on the computers of Raúl Reyes, that expresses Council, confirming the Colombian government’s the Colombian government’s commitment to decision to authorize the purchase of a substantial sharing the information according to the terms amount of tons of rice from Ecuador during the requested by Ecuador (in a digital format, with first quarter and an expected continuation of pur- information on the software and hardware, etc.) chases through the second quarter. An immediate immediately after it is verified by INTERPOL. announcement by the ANDI Chamber of Rice that Likewise, it will indicate that Colombia will invite it will arrange the purchase offer with Ecuador, a team of Ecuadorian technical experts sent by the including an invitation to Ecuador’s Vice Minister Ecuadorian government to visit Bogotá in order of Agriculture to travel to Bogotá to begin talks on to receive all of the necessary information and the subject. Date: Tuesday April 8. Execution is instructions on the technical process that was used, the responsibility of ANDI and its President. and to carry out a physical inspection of the com- Signals from Quito to Bogotá puters. In addition Colombia is open to the partici- pation of police consultants from other countries 1. A Diplomatic Note from the Deputy Secretary during the inspection process as well as the atten- of Consular Services of the Ecuadorian Foreign dance of INTERPOL to provide any information Ministry to the Colombian Consulate in Quito, to facilitate the process. Date: Wednesday April informing them that the competent Ecuadorian 9. Execution is the responsibility of the Foreign authorities have decided to initiate, as soon as Ministry. On the same day this signal will be met possible and for humanitarian reasons, the process with a response in the form of the signal from of repatriation for persons of Colombian nation- Quito listed in point C.3. on the rejection of crimi- ality who are being held in Ecuadorian prisons, nal groups and their tactics. and that it hopes to conclude this process in a 5. A Diplomatic Note from the Foreign Ministry few short weeks. It will also include the plan to formally extending an invitation from the Foreign request that the Ecuadorian Consulate in Bogotá Minister of Colombia to the Minister of Culture arrange for the repatriation of the Ecuadorians of Ecuador to participate in the release ceremony being held in Colombian prisons, in accordance for Professor Socorro Ramírez’s book “Mirada with the binding bilateral agreements between the al Ecuador” (“A Look at Ecuador”), to be held two countries. Date: Monday April 7, 6:00 pm. A on Monday April 21 at 10 am at the Foreign press release by the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador Ministry’s headquarters. The book reflects the on Tuesday the 8th at 11:00 am will announce professor’s work at the Diplomatic Academy the letter. Execution is the responsibility of the (Academia Diplomática) called “Que Colombia Foreign Ministry. On the same day this signal will conozca al Ecuador” (“That Colombia May be met with a response in the form of the signal Know Ecuador”) and includes essays by various from Bogotá listed in point B.2. on assistance for Ecuadorians. Date: The invitation will be made weather-related disaster. public in Bogotá on Friday April 11. Execution is 2. A public statement or comment by a high-ranking the responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. On the official in the Foreign Ministry on the dispute same day this signal will be met with a response in in the Hague, commenting on Colombia’s press the form of the signal from Quito listed in point statement from B.4., indicating that Ecuador will C.4. on the invitation to a Minister from Colombia observe whatever the Court decides in accordance to the joint event to be held by FLACSO and the with international law and explaining that in any Ecuadorian Ministry of Culture. legal process there is always the possibility of an 6. A public announcement by the Colombian extrajudicial arrangement that satisfies the needs Minister of Agriculture at the National Rice of both parties and that it should not be ruled out 123 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

in this case because that is a part of The Hague’s day this signal will be met with a response in the modus operandi. Date: Tuesday April 8. Execution form of the signal from Bogotá listed in point B.5. is the responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. On the on inviting Galo Mora to the release party for same day this signal will be met with a response in Socorro Ramírez’s book on April 21. the form of the signal from Bogotá listed in point 5. The national government of Ecuador will arrange B.3. on cooperation in multilateral environments. a meeting of local authorities from the border 3. A public statement by Foreign Minister María region to carry out a joint public exercise in which Isabel Salvador noting the vicissitudes (the highly the government representatives will emphasize probable failure) of the French mission for Ingrid the importance of cooperation for their respective Betancourt (or in the event of her highly unlikely peoples and will urge the governments to return to release) condemning the use of kidnapping and the path of cooperation outlined by the projects the actions of violent and irregular groups against of the ZIF (Border Integration Zone). Date: the defenseless citizens, both in Colombia and in activity will be planned for the week of April 14 any part of the world and ratifying Ecuador’s firm so that the invitation can be finalized as soon as resolve not to allow the activities of these criminal possible to arrange the exercise during the month groups on Ecuadorian territory. (Reiterating the of April. The initiative and Colombia’s acceptance statements reported in El Expreso in which she of it will be announced during the week of April says that the FARC “are a violent and irregular 14. Execution is the responsibility of the Foreign group whose tactics we categorically reject.”) Date: Ministry. Wednesday April 9, 11:00 am. Execution is the Procedural Disclaimer responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. On the same In the event that one of the small steps for sending day this signal will be met with a response in the the signals listed here is delayed, or its execution form of the signal from Bogotá listed in point B.4. is complicated for any reason, both parties agree on cooperation in multilateral environments. to inform the members of the Binational Dialogue 4. A Diplomatic Note from the Foreign Ministry issu- Group that are supporting this exercise, Dr. Augusto ing an invitation from the Foreign Minister to the Ramírez Ocampo in Colombia and Dr. Adrián Colombian Minister of ………………. to partici- Bonilla in Ecuador, as soon as possible so that they pate in the event jointly organized with FLACSO can facilitate communication between the Vice Ecuador on …………….. to be held in the month Foreign Ministers and agree on whatever changes are of April. Date: the invitation will be made pub- necessary. The Carter Center will also be available at lic in Quito on Friday April 11. Execution is the any time. responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. On the same

124 The Carter Center

Appendix F Declaration on Ecuador – Colombia Relations

April 15 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In light of the press communiqués issued in recent confidential and low-profile messages between the days by the governments of Ecuador and Colombia, two governments. They made some small confidential mentioning The Carter Center, we offer the following agreements, confirmed by both presidents to President clarification: Carter last week. The Carter Center’s role has been Ecuador President Rafael Correa and Colombia to facilitate conversations. As an impartial third President Álvaro Uribe had several phone conversa- party, The Carter Center is not authorized to reveal tions with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter during the content of the conversations that occurred. Both the last week of March. After those conversations, governments have reasserted their desire to continue the Carter Center’s staff facilitated an exchange of receiving the Carter Center’s support.

125 The Carter Center

Appendix G Conclusions from the Third Binational Dialogue Round Ecuador – Colombia

Summary Evaluation of the Dialogue The participants conducted an evaluation of the Letter to the Presidents dialogue up to this point, based on a structured sur- As a concrete final result, the Group agreed to com- vey developed by the PRDD of the UNDP, which mit to collecting signatures from relevant influential revealed a high level of support for the idea of con- people from both countries to support an identi- tinuing the dialogue process over the long term. cal letter to be sent to both President Uribe and They agreed to plan an agenda of concrete issues for President Correa, urging them to re-establish dip- the second phase of dialogue, after the meeting in lomatic relations in the interest of moving forward Atlanta, which will include seminars, meetings, and with the initiatives that they had agreed upon previ- open dialogues. ously. It decided that each member of the Group will Elevation of the Group’s abilities attempt to obtain at least 10 signatures and it agreed on the following text: During this meeting we saw a decisive yet intangible result. The group itself changed in this meeting, as Most excellent Presidents it showed an openness and a level of understand- Of the Republic of Colombia and the Republic of ing of one another’s perspective that are capable of Ecuador stimulating internal changes within each one of the Álvaro Uribe and Rafael Correa participants. Thanks to the clear contributions by the The women and men who have signed below allow us Ecuadorian members, the Colombian members were to respectfully address you to express our concern over able to understand the views and feelings held by the the course taken by the relations between the two govern- Ecuadorian people with respect to territory, sover- ments, which affects the historic brotherhood between our eignty, and national dignity. Similarly, thanks to the two peoples. honesty and transparency of the Colombian members Therefore, and without failing to recognize the legiti- from diverse ideological backgrounds (from Rafael mate differences that exist, we would like to ask that you Nieto, an intellectual who is very close to President make all necessary efforts to restore diplomatic relations Uribe, to Antonio Navarro Wolff, a former guerrilla between both countries as soon as possible. member of M19 who is now the Governor of the Department of Nariño, which borders Ecuador), the Documentaries Ecuadorian members were able to understand the feel- It also plans to create two short documentaries, one ings shared by the Colombian people with respect to from the Colombian point of view using archive the barbarity of violence, the FARC, drug trafficking materials on the sensitivity that surrounds the issue of and the paramilitaries, and the imperative need for the FARC and the other from the Ecuadorian point the people to achieve security and peace. of view on the sensitivity regarding the issue of sov- ereignty, inviting different figures to comment on the issue.

126 The Carter Center

Appendix H Press Release, June 6, 2008

ECUADOR AND COLOMBIA PRESIDENTS ACCEPT PRESIDENT CARTER’S PROPOSAL TO RENEW DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS AT THE LEVEL OF CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES, IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS

June 6, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The founder of The Carter Center and Nobel Peace tions, initially at the level of chargé d’affaires. The Prize winner Jimmy Carter, together with the United re-establishment of diplomatic relations will also con- Nations Development Program (UNDP), have sup- tribute to the confidence-building initiatives led by ported the work of a dialogue group composed of the OAS and the efforts of both countries to renew distinguished citizens from Ecuador and Colombia to cooperative mechanisms to address the common prob- improve relations between the two countries since lems they face. September 2007. Today, both presidents confirmed their willingness In the context of this initiative and taking into to do so immediately through their respective foreign account the events that happened on March 1, 2008, ministries. President Carter has communicated several times with Presidents Rafael Correa Delgado of Ecuador and A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization, The Álvaro Uribe Vélez of Colombia and has coordinated Carter Center has helped to improve life for people in his good offices with the Secretary-General of the more than 70 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing Organization of American States (OAS) José Miguel democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity; pre- Insulza. venting diseases; improving mental health care; and teach- In his most recent telephone conversations, ing farmers in developing nations to increase crop produc- President Carter consulted each president about the tion . The Carter Center was founded in 1982 by former U .S . President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, in possibility of renewing diplomatic relations between partnership with Emory University, to advance peace and the two countries immediately and without precondi- health worldwide .

127 The Carter Center

Appendix I Press Release, June 27, 2008

CARTER CENTER TO CONTINUE ECUADOR–COLOMBIA RECONCILIATION EFFORTS

June 27, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Carter Center will continue working for dialogue and Ecuador. The Center organized, in collabora- and the improvement of the relationship between the tion with the United Nations Development Program, people of Colombia and Ecuador and remains ready a binational dialogue process between interested to collaborate with both governments in the man- citizens of Ecuador and Colombia and promoted a ner the presidents deem to be most appropriate and series of activities and initiatives, many of which do opportune. not depend upon national authorities, to bring the The Carter Center fully respects the sovereign two countries closer together. Former U.S. President decisions of both governments. Its initiatives to pro- Jimmy Carter, together with the Binational Dialogue mote the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, Group, sought to support both governments through including recent meetings of the Binational Dialogue direct communication with their presidents and Group with the presidents of Ecuador and Colombia, foreign ministers in the process to re-establish diplo- were fully consulted and expressly approved by both matic relations. governments. The Center recognizes that conditions are not A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization, The currently conducive to continue offering its good Carter Center has helped to improve life for people in offices to Colombia and Ecuador’s national authori- more than 70 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing ties for the re-establishment of diplomatic relations democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity; pre- but asserts that efforts by citizens and other interested venting diseases; improving mental health care; and teach- actors to bring the two countries and their people ing farmers in developing nations to increase crop produc- together are relevant and needed. tion . The Carter Center was founded in 1982 by former For the past year, The Carter Center has worked to U .S . President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, in partnership with Emory University, to advance peace and improve the bilateral relationship between Colombia health worldwide .

128 The Carter Center

Appendix J Agreements Reached During the Meeting in Quito

BINATIONAL DIALOGUE GROUP COLOMBIA–ECUADOR

November 6 and 7, 2008

The Binational Dialogue Group Colombia–Ecuador Initiatives: It agreed to pursue several concrete evaluated the current internal context in each coun- activities under the leadership of certain members as try as well as the panorama affecting binational rela- described in the table included below. tions and reached consensus on the following deci- sions: Contributions: The members of the BDG expressed their interest in continuing to receive the support Timeframe: They decided to adopt an operating of The Carter Center, the CAF, and the UNDP for strategy lasting from November 2008 through April/ this phase. The UNDP, in an agreement with The May of 2009 (or until after the general elections in Carter Center, will conduct an evaluation process Ecuador, whenever they’re held) and to hold the final of the initiative and will determine the extent of scheduled meeting of this phase of the BDG after its contributions for the future. The CC ratified its that date. The BDG decided to postpone its activities commitment to the initiative and agreed to speak until this next meeting and to then evaluate what the with the CAF about delaying the approved financial next steps should be based on the context. backing. The CAF explicitly offered its support to the Group during the lunch it shared with its Director. Methods of Operation: It was decided that the BDG will operate using an air of discretion, in order to Responsibilities: To complete the agreed upon ensure self-preservation in the event of a possible activities, some of the BDG members decided to take increase in tensions between the governments, but it on specific responsibilities. will move forward with the initiatives defined here and will show its work in pursuit of a middle ground that can make the accomplishments, background, and opinions of its members visible.

129 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

INITIATIVES Academic Forum in Pasto (planning underway for 11/18-19) Private Meeting for Influential Entrepreneurs from both countries (Will replace the ANDI – CORPEI forum scheduled in Guayaquil) A Visit by the Peace Commission of the Chamber of Representatives of Colombia to the Foreign Relations Commission of the Legislation and Oversight Commission of Ecuador Electronic alerts Mini studies with a central question. The first will be on “What are the costs of not having relations?” The studies should be seen as a warning signal. Media 1. The members of the BDG will continue to write documents, articles, commentaries, and documentaries. 2. Possible meeting at “El Tiempo” between journalists from both countries about specific topics (for example the global financial crisis). 3. A media blog (an initiative produced in the last binational meeting). Security 1. Establish academic forums in both countries to address the issue. Explore the discreet initiative by FLACSO Ecuador that brings together military, civil, and police authorities with Colombian counterparts to meet for a day of dialogue about the topic. Explore funding for a project in this area. Raise awareness. 2. A visit by the BDG members to military detachments at the border and dialogue with Ecuadorian military leaders (invitation from Minister Ponce) Exploration of a possible binational meeting between workers’ unions Colombian Academic Department in Ecuador Incorporate prior experience gained through FLACSO. Explore this with the National Institute of Higher Education (Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales, IAEN). Publication of a book with a contribution from each one of the members of the BDG describing the experience of this dialogue.

130 The Carter Center

Appendix K Sixth Meeting of the Binational Dialogue Group

Bogotá, May 12 and 13, 2009

Below is a list of the principal decisions agreed upon meet periodically. The BDG decided “to keep the by the BDG: warning sign lit” to fulfill a preventive role in the event of whatever critical situation may come to pass Timeframe: The BDG decided that the next three for the relations between Ecuador and Colombia. It months would be transitional and that it should also agreed on the need to continue monitoring the focus on defining the second phase of work (as process to identify possible windows of opportunity well as developing a project to obtain the necessary and wield its influence, reframing the bad habit of resources). maintaining the status quo.

The legacy of the first phase of work: During the Profile: The BDG has a public profile. It should try final stages of the first phase of work, the BDG should to influence public opinion more to build awareness share the experiences they had and the lessons they of the consequences of the disruption of diplomatic gained. This devolution could be accomplished relations between Ecuador and Colombia, especially through a publication about the experience they on the border communities. underwent. The publication could be announced through a presentation attended by the media and Initiatives: They agreed to promote several concrete featuring a panel of BDG members who could activities to be led by specific members, organized by elaborate on their experience. different sectors: i) influence on the governments, ii) influence on public opinion, iii) influence on the Vision for the future: It is important not to abandon local level (border zone), and iv) influence on the the initiative underway and to begin a second phase international level. They also suggested reviewing of work. New members should be incorporated in the proposed activities for the first phase of work that this new phase, taking into account the needs of the were not able to be completed up to this point. binational agenda. The BDG should continue to

131 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia

PRESS STATEMENT

COLOMBIA – ECUADOR BINATIONAL DIALOGUE GROUP

Quito and Bogotá, May 15, 2009

The Colombia–Ecuador Binational Dialogue Group, the other’s perspective and identify and find solu- with the support of The Carter Center and the tions to the large and small problems that we face United Nations Development Program (UNDP), in our bilateral relations: border development, the met in the city of Bogotá on May 12 and 13 for the regional and international outlook, questions of sixth time in the year and a half it has been working, security, the state of public opinion in both coun- in order to celebrate the conclusion of its first phase tries and diplomatic relations at the government of work focused on promoting the positive agenda level. between Colombia and Ecuador. 3. In this sense, the Binational Dialogue Group once 1. The Binational Dialogue Group wants to express again calls upon the governments of Colombia and on the record its deep satisfaction over the repeated Ecuador to reinitiate direct contact that will allow gestures of friendship and closeness between the them to process their differences and reestablish peoples of our two nations, especially from those diplomatic relations. We reiterate our commitment situated in the border region. to contributing to this from the respective fields to 2. Based on its own experiences the Group stresses which we pertain, but we understand that it is the the importance of dialogue for overcoming differ- governments that should take steps toward normal- ences and promoting mutual understanding. We izing relations. believe it is urgent that we learn and understand

FROM COLOMBIA FROM ECUADOR Ricardo Ávila Adrián Bonilla Claudia Gurisatti Margarita Carranco Antonio Navarro Wolff Francisco Carrión Rafael Nieto Loaiza Manuel Chiriboga Socorro Ramírez Ricardo Estrada Augusto Ramírez Ocampo Patricia Estupiñán Guillermo Rivera Grace Jaramillo Sandra Suárez Dolores Padilla Luz María Sierra Gonzalo Ruiz Luis Carlos Villegas Pedro Velasco

132 The Carter Center

Appendix L Modificatons to Road Map

Draft 2 — July 23, 2009

This draft document’s sole objective is to serve as territory without being sure of the full a foundation for a direct conversation between the cooperation and approval of the govern- Ministers of Foreign Relations of the two countries ment of Ecuador. scheduled to take place in Lima on July 24. As a ii) Ecuador reiterates that its government will modification of the Road Map proposed on the past not tolerate the presence of armed irregu- June 23, we propose the following to both parties: lar groups seeking refuge on its territory 1. Confirm the validity of all of the points of agree- and that any type of armed incursion will ment reached with the assistance of former be repelled, if necessary by force. President Jimmy Carter in Atlanta and consoli- c) The formation of three Working Commissions dated on the past June 2. that will be charged with fine tuning the agree- 2. Commit to holding a new Foreign Minister’s meet- ments that both parties need to draft with ing in Atlanta, at a date that also works for former respect to: Security and Control of Criminal President Jimmy Carter, within the next 3 – 4 Activity, Border Development and Refugees, weeks. Other Pending Issues (in which we would 3. From this point on through the date of the meet- include any new issues that require agreement). ing in Atlanta, with the assistance of the Carter We should be able to negotiate the integration Center staff, write a Draft text of a Joint Press and the operating methods of these Working Statement to be released at the conclusion of the Commissions so that they can be included in this meeting in Atlanta in a special program on CNN announcement. We should also determine the and the rest of the press featuring both Foreign extent of the assistance from the OAS on some Ministers, announcing: of these Commissions. a) The resumption of direct talks intended to re- 4. In order to address the new issues they want to establish diplomatic relations between the two include in these talks and move forward on the countries. It will include the decision to re-estab- preparations for the Atlanta meeting, The Carter lish relations at the level of charge d’affaires after Center offers the assistance of its team to serve as the date XXXXXX. mediators and participate in joint meetings (for b) The statements that have already been agreed example in Asunción) and/or act as a “go-between” upon in language similar to the following: traveling back and forth between each capital and i) Colombia reiterates its commitment not to working on a single text. conduct future operations on Ecuadorian

133 The Carter Center

Appendix M Joint Communiqué Ecuador – Colombia

New York, September 24

1. The Governments of Ecuador and Colombia have the two parties agree upon its discussion. begun a process of direct negotiations with the 8. Colombia manifests that it does not recognize intention to re-establish normal diplomatic rela- Ecuador’s judicial extraterritorial jurisdiction to tions. investigate and to try Colombian government 2. In this sense, the Presidents have given instructions officials or Colombian ex-government officials. to their respective Foreign Ministers, so that in the The Government of Ecuador manifests its recogni- month of October of the present year, the desig- tion of the independence of State Functions, and nation of the charges d’affaires will be set at first respects and complies with the rules and processes instance. that take place under the Judicial Function within 3. The Government of Colombia reiterates its com- the national territory and among the international promise that there will be no military or defense rules of jurisdiction and authority. operations on Ecuadorian territory. 9. Both Governments have agreed to request 4. The Government of Ecuador reiterates that its the assistance of The Carter Center and the government will not tolerate the presence of Organization of American States in order to tackle Colombian irregular or illegal armed groups in the public demands of Ecuador and Colombia. its territory and that any such incursion will be For this, a deadline of fifteen days was set for the repelled, by force if necessary. creation of special working commissions dedicated 5. The two governments will propose the mechanisms to develop, and if possible, to solve the issues pre- in order to better the humanitarian situation of sented by the two countries, in reference to: Colombian citizens living in Ecuador as refugees. a) Security and Control of Crime: so that within Colombia, and other nations, will provide appro- the capacity of both nations, it may be possible priate support, in funds and services, for the refu- to better security, and combat the trafficking of gees from Colombia now living in Ecuador. drugs, violence, and criminal acts committed 6. The Governments of Ecuador and Colombia have along the common border. committed to reactivating the Bi-national Border b) Border Development: so that plans and projects Commission and to broadening coordination and of development for the common border can be communication mechanisms between civil authori- organized jointly. ties, military, and police. The Government of c) Sensitive Issues: so that both sides’ demands may Colombia will continue to carry out all its neces- be discussed in order to normalize diplomatic sary efforts to maintain its effective presence along relations. the common border zone. 10. The Governments of Colombia and Ecuador 7. The legal issues submitted to the competent inter- recognize the importance of advancing a posi- national organizations will not be an item of dis- tive agenda and have agreed to reactivate the cussion during this process of negotiations, unless Neighborhood Commissions. Both sides value

134 The Carter Center Binational Dialogue: Ecuador – Colombia their ties of brotherhood in manifesting their will 11. A special thanks to The Carter Center and the to construct a new bilateral relation, based on Organization of American States for their efforts mutual respect and effective collaboration for the and collaboration during the process of rapproche- development of their respective potential, the ment to normalizing relations between the two fight against common threats, and the consolida- countries. tion of peace.

135 One Copenhill 453 Freedom Parkway Atlanta, GA 30307 (404) 420-5100 u Fax (404) 420-5145 www.cartercenter.org