[Music]
that the dining table can not
speak neither of politics nor of religion
speaks very badly about our ability to
discuss with those who think differently
that our grandmothers with their wisdom
of course so that we do not fight in the
table come to the conclusion that they are
such difficult issues that my daughter is
better not to talk about that will not be that
soon is that this cousin is a little
scrambled a little bit and then
you know that grandpa is a little
conservative a little fat and then it comes out
suddenly some very atte ay results
that the other side there is a very camandule
was and then this becomes a son and
simply the conversation
even in our families
closes because to talk to those who
they think different
it costs us a lot and we got to the
solution of simply shutting myself
I grew up outside of Bogota in a
semi – rural area that day was
spectacular for any child full
of trees full of dogs but in the
nights was dark and I was lonely and
I have the memory that my main
nightmare for many years was that I
I slept and in the middle of the night
a guerrilla shot and that my parents
they were kidnapped and this looked
nourished of course by the images
typical that all as Colombians
we grew up with them guerrillas
kidnapping drug trafficker recruiting
minors generating processes of violence
sexual even within their own
rows and that nightmare was and full
images nourished others so I went
learning in school that soon
some day they had ideals but that
on the road with drug trafficking the
they sold all and they are a band of
narcos
these and that great nightmare became
suddenly at my job because in January
of 2012
they invited me and I felt very honored to
be part of the delegation of
government
at the bar conversation table
and suddenly they who had been
for so long my nightmare
they were becoming my interlocutors with
whom I had to try to have
a conversation between people very
different to try to look for a
agreement and that experience I allow myself
start to see that there are tools for
to be able to talk between the different ones and
it is possible to reach agreements even
between those who think different and
I would like to show you that those
tools serve not only in a
peace process but at that table of
dining room to be able to talk to the cousin
with aunt with water
the first and most important thing that you have to
stand in the shoes of others there
to hear them
you have to understand what your fears are
what do they think about their
interests
what is the group in which they are
what are the differences there
within your group and of course it ‘s
easy when one can relate to
somehow a mom who knows love
that he feels for a son or some
way a person who has suffered a
loving disappointment and knows what a
tusa and then you can relate to
that other person or a man who has
felt a balonazo we already know where and
can relate to the pain that
it has caused it but it is much more
difficult when we have not been there that
happens for example with a person who
passing immigration by its origin or by
your religion is stopped or what happens
example with a woman who received a
direct sexual assault as per
example that you put your hand under
the false are victims and although we have not
been there somehow we have left
a little bit easier related
but perhaps the most difficult case is
how to put yourself in the shoes of those who
they have been radicals of those who even
they have used violence
of those people that we think that
his ideas are so damning that his
methods are so reprehensible that they never
we could stand in the shoes of
those people and that was a bit the
process that started for me when
I lived a year and a half in Havana
working at this table
conversations in the peace process
I remember when I first started going
I had a little diary I got it
he still keeps well
was going to write what was happening each of
these days of the year and a half that happens
there and I have only written the first
page the first page
It’s the first day I went running around
the mornings we lived in a set in
some houses in which on one side the
laguito was the guerrilla and the other
side were us and I went out to
run in the mornings and in my first
back I met with Ivan Marquez
one of the commanders of this guerrilla
on the bicycle and I arrived at my house
very fast write me out in telling
with Ivan Marquez on the bicycle
panic and then in the afternoon after
that we have finished one of the
internal work meetings
I went to a nearby hotel I was going to buy a
water and I found another of the
comandantes marcos calarcá taking themselves
a beer and get there fast
frames calarcá taking a beer and the
second day was a day of work in
which I had to find some
people who were other human beings
who thought of course so
totally different but where no longer
I wrote nothing more envy because what
there was an interlocutor with whom
I had to try to find a
agreement and it was very interesting to me
when on October 2 after that
many of us that we had
worked on this
we heard the news that he had won
the no to the approval of the final agreement
after a democratic process and
transparent
from the next day the first
what I thought is maybe I have to
approaching this new situation of
the same way I approached
in that moment to try to face
the guerrilla for the first time and it was very
interesting to me because I started to
think and talk to the people who were
so hurt what had happened and I
they said is the last straw is that they are a pure
electoral interest is the people who voted
for him not what happens is that he wants the
war the people who voted for him is not
besides liar is saying things
that are not true all over more
is also that they are bosc they deserve the
country that they have and I the first thing that
I thought was and how about
I try to stop myself also in those other
shoes
what are the fears of those who
they voted for the no
what are the reasons no longer from the
bad faith no longer assuming that guerrillas
and who voted for the no but
any other
Uncle the cousin are talking and bad
faith because I do not try to take a step
back and from that suddenly that
person is speaking in good faith and
try to understand what those are
What are these interests?
then a process of treating
to understand what those will be
interests of not like standing on those
shoes like trying to overcome the
distrust how to overcome those processes
to stop thinking that there is simply
bad faith in the other to try to
rebuild and stand in the shoes of
another is the first strategy that I
leads to the second and is fundamental
one has to be able to approximate these
processes of agreeing between
who are in disagreement
from a win point of view wins if I
I start from the basis that I am going to
win and the other one is going to lose
there is no chance that we
let ‘s agree because we are in
two poles totally opposite and that
it implies recognizing something that is very
basic but it’s very difficult and it’s that
I’m going to have to give a little
there is something of that original position of mine
which is the ideal that is where I believe
which is the one that would defend a layer and
sword that yes I am willing to get
to an agreement with that other with which
I do not agree
I have to start from the basis that I’m going to
have to give in a bit and this is a
very interesting process in which it was
interesting to be able to find a
guerrilla that for years came saying
that they were never going to accept any
type of judicialization that they were
some rebels who were entitled
have rebelled they found was the
bust and that therefore did not accept
no justice but with the passing of
the years of the process
they came to say it ‘s okay
We accept that a court will judge us
but if that court also judged
those others who have committed crimes
in the conflict
then one begins to have a
position the church good me from a
conceptual point of view as a lawyer
I believe that any crime
international committed because there is
committed is equally serious and we can
find a basis of agreement but more
interesting we still had the other side
some victims telling us we do not
we believe in ordinary justice
it is a justice that generates impunity
that for years has resolved our
cases that for years I did not find
missing people
then we started to find a
possible figure of wins wins
how to generate a solution that could
part and part generate a situation
of winning for the guerrilla not to be the
only ones that went to the wall of the
justice but they were also
who have committed crimes
international from others
sectors of society and of
victims saying this is a court
independent independent
different from ordinary justice that does not
has worked for years and I believe that
we are again on a stage
similar in this new scenario after
that the plebiscite in Colombia in
where one can try to look
just alternatives to see how
generates situations wins wins and is at
that is expensive talked to different
friends who gave him the yes they say is that
a peace that is with uribe
that’s the last straw is he does not want the
peace this has to be torpedoed what
wants is an electoral process and I
constantly what I tell you is nothing
would help more to build a
peace agreement that is justly made
a picture in which all fit and that the
Peace be just what I give
political revenues to all sectors
of the society
nothing would be better for Colombia than
different sectors found in the
search for that new agreement
what gives them political revenues
even electoral what brings me
finally to the latest strategy and it’s
that we can build agreements between
those who disagree implies
necessarily have an activity
immense creative of what it is about is
to be able to ensure that one is no longer
seeing simply opposite poles like
if they were the only alternatives
possible but it does not start a process
constructive creative to be able to search
other alternatives and that was what I
more work throughout this time
I was in Havana like trying to
understand the other
I insist but then from there as
look for a different alternative
I give you an example that was very
interesting at the beginning of the
discussion of the point of victims in the
habana the face they said I need that
it is clear that we rebel
against an unjust repressive state
and that therefore the original fault is
the state
of course the government the other side
saying gentlemen us after
that you have been doing for 52 years
war
corresponding trying to protect
the population there we are not going to put
of affection are two visions completely
different from the history of this country
we come to an alternative formula
just creative that allowed that
the advanced dialogue and it was saying ‘good
let’s bring 12 historians and let’s try
to see if those two historians
they agree on a single story
of the Colombian armed conflict but if
do not let them write their reports and
after three months 12 reports arrived
about Colombian history
none gives you the reason or the
state nor the farc
none excuse my fault to the one or the
another but it does a lot analysis
more complex and that allowed us
move forward again I think that what we
we face today in colombia is
just to search for this type
of creative alternatives where by
example one can reconcile between a
vision of those who led the no
for example focused on the prison in the
sanction saying that there has to be
jail or the other side the parties
being we are not going to leave
Weapons after 52 years of war
to go to jail and we have to
to be able to find a solution that
make sure that there is no impunity
that generates a feeling of justice
for all Colombians
but that allows justly to achieve
termination of this war
then that search for ideas
creative of new alternatives is what
that allows us in any context
even in the most situations
everyday to achieve consensus among
who think differently at the end of
this depends if we can achieve that we see
the world not in whites and blacks but rather
if we see a broad shade of gray
we all fit into a solution that is
really consensus among those who
we think different
thank you very much
[Applause]
bush
3
”
Be First to Comment